Chapter VIII.

Chapter VIII.1-2.Christ having spent the night on the Mount of Olives, returns in the morning to the temple and teaches.3-11.The story of the woman taken in adultery.12-20.Discourse of Christ with the Pharisees in the treasury.21-29.He upbraids them for their incredulity, and foretells His own crucifixion.30-50.Many believed in Him, but others remained incredulous (33), and to these He says that they are not the children of Abraham, but of the devil.51-59.Challenged by the Jews, He declares Himself greater than Abraham; and when they were about to stone Him for this declaration, He hides Himself.Authenticity of John vii. 53-viii. 11.This is the second of the three passages in our Gospel, whose authenticity has been seriously questioned. SeeIntrod. VI. We shall sum up the evidence by which the critical question must be decided, and then say what we think as to the genuineness of the passage.Evidence against Authenticity.1.Manuscripts.—The passage is wanting in the four oldest Greek MSS. that we possess, viz., in B, א, A, C; the two former of which are thought by critics to belong to the fourth, and the two latter, to the fifth century; also in four otheruncialMSS., in more than sixtycursives, and in thirty-three Evangelistaries.63In about fifty other MSS., though read, it is marked as doubtful.2.Versions.—It is wanting in the best MSS. of the“Vetus Itala;”in the“Simple”and“Figured”Syriac; in most MSS. of the Coptic; in all of Gothic, and in some of the Armenian.3.Fathers.—The passage is[pg 148]not commented upon by any of the Greek fathers that wrote upon this Gospel.4.Internal evidenceis said to prove the passage spurious, because of the use of many words and phrases not elsewhere used by St. John.64Evidence in favour of Authenticity.1.Manuscripts.—The passage is found in sevenuncialMSS. (one of which, D, though itself only of the sixth century, is thought to represent the text of the Gospels as it stood in the second century); in more than three hundred cursives, and in six Evangelistaries.2.Versions.—The passage is found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, Syriac of Jerusalem, Slavic, and Anglo-Saxon.3.Fathers.—The passageis read by nearly all the Latin fathers—Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo the Great, Chrysologus, Sedulius, Cassiodorus, &c.; and in theApostolic Constitutions, a work of the third, or, at the latest, the fourth century.4.Internal Evidence—(a) Christ's merciful treatment of the adulteress harmonizes beautifully with His declaration immediately after (viii. 15), that at His first coming He condemned no man. (b) It is inconceivable how a passageof this naturecould ever have found its way into so many MSS., unless it was written by St. John. On the other hand, it is easy to see how, though genuine, it came to be omitted in many MSS., through the fear that Christ's merciful treatment of the adulteress might encourage sinners. This is exactly what St. Augustine says:—“Nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei, credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, abstulerunt de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit:‘Jam deinceps noli peccare’”(St. Aug.,De Conj. Adult., 2, 7).As regards the argumentsagainstthe passage, we believe that the reason given by St. Augustine in the words just quoted, explains the absence of the passage in so many MSS., versions, and fathers. As to the internal arguments against the passage, it must be admitted that a number of words are used here which are not met with elsewhere in the writings of St. John; but then the subject is peculiar, and besides in many other passages which[pg 149]are unquestioned, we meet with several words not used elsewhere by the Evangelist.65Even Renan admits that there is nothing in the passage that is at variance with the style of the fourth Gospel.66Conclusion.From the evidence, which has been impartially laid before the reader, we hold we are justified in concluding that even on mere critical grounds the passage is more probably genuine. Some, as Franzelin (De Sacra. Script., Thes. xix., pp. 466, 467), go farther, and hold, that since the decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. iv.), which defined all the sacred books of the Bible, andall their parts, as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be canonical, it is not lawful for any Catholic to question the authenticity of this passage. They argue that this passage constitutes apart(not merely a“particula”) of the Gospel of St. John, and is, therefore, covered by the decree of Trent. Nor can it be said in reply that the Council, in the words“cum omnibus suis partibus,”meant to define the authenticity of the Deuterocanonical fragments of theOldTestament only, for the Acts67of the Council show that these words were intended to refer especially to the fragments of the Gospels.To conclude, then, we hold that we are not only critically justified in accepting John vii. 53-viii. 11, as authentic, but that it is extremely probable that as Catholics we areboundto accept it.Text.1. Iesus autem perrexit in montem Oliveti:1. And Jesus went unto mount Olivet.1. In contrast to those who retired to their homes (vii. 53), Jesus retired to Mount Olivet, where He often spent the night in prayer (Luke xxi. 37; vi. 12). Mount Olivet, separated from Jerusalem by the brook of Cedron, was a Sabbath day's journey from the City (Acts i. 12); that is to say, about seven and a-half stadia, and therefore less than an English mile.2. Et diluculo iterum venit in templum, et omnis populus venit ad eum, et sedens docebat eos.2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them.2. Early on the morning that followed the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles (seevii. 37), He came again to the temple, and all the[pg 150]people who were assembled in the City from the various parts of Palestine, came to Him, and He was teaching them.3. Adducunt autem scribae et pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam: et statuerunt eam in medio.3. And the scribes and Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery; and they set her in the midst,3. While Jesus was engaged in teaching the people, the Pharisees bring to him a woman who had been caught in adultery,in the very act, as we learn from the Greek of verse 4.4. Et dixerunt ei: Magister, haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio.4. And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery.5. In lege autem Moyses mandavit nobis huiusmodi lapidare. Tu ergo quid dicis?5. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?5. It is not stated anywhere in the Pentateuch that the adulterer and adulteress should bestoned, but it is, that they should be put to death (Lev. xx. 10). Doubtless the death was by stoning, as is indicated in Ezech. xvi. 38-40.6. Hoc autem dicebant tentantes eum, ut possent accusare eum. Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum, digito scribebat in terra.6. And this they said, tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground.6. They hoped to entrap our Lord; for if he acquitted the woman they could charge him with being an adversary of the Mosaic Law (Lev. xx. 10); while if He condemned her to death, they could charge Him with defying the Roman Law, which at this time denied to the Jews the right of inflicting capital punishment (John xviii. 31). What Jesus wrote it is impossible to say. Probably it was His intention to signify by this turning away to something else that He wished not to have anything to do with the matter in question.7. Cum ergo perseverarent interrogantes eum, erexit se, et dixit eis: Qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem mittat.7. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.7.Let him first cast a stone at her.The deep wisdom of this answer gave them no ground for charging[pg 151]Him with opposition to any law, and at the same time referred them to their own guilty consciences. He does not say that sinners may not be punished by sinners, but implies that it was not seemly that they who were guilty of the same or greater sins should be the accusers of the poor wretch who stood before them.8. Et iterum se inclinans, scribebat in terra.8. And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground.8. Having shamed them by this appeal to the tribunal of their conscience, He again stooped down to write, probably to afford them an opportunity to depart.9. Audientes autem unus post unum exibant, incipientes a senioribus: et remansit solus Iesus, et mulier in medio stans.9. But they hearingthiswent out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst.10. Erigens autem se Iesus, dixit ei: Mulier, ubi sunt qui te accusabant? nemo te condemnavit?10. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?11. Quae dixit: Nemo, Domine. Dixit autem Iesus: Nec ego te condemnabo: vade, et iam amplius noli peccare.11. Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.11.Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.Doubtless the treatment of her accusers by Christ, and abundant grace poured into her soul, had already moved the woman's heart to repentance, and Christ, exercising His Divine power, absolved her from her sin. He did not condemn her, but, in telling her to sin no more, He showed that she had done what was wrong, and warned her as to the future. Thus the incident shows the boundless mercy of Christ for sinners, His hatred of sin, and, what St. John probably had chiefly before his mind in recording[pg 152]it, Christ's Divine power to forgive sin.12. Iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus, dicens. Ego sum lux mundi: qui sequitur me non ambulat in tenebris, sed habebit lumen vitae.12. Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.12. We do not know whether this is a new discourse, or only a continuation of that referred to above in verse 2. On Christ's words here recorded, see above oni. 5. They follow Christ, who believe in Him, and obey Him.13. Dixerunt ergo ei pharisaei: Tu de teipso testimonium perhibes: testimonium tuum non est verum.13. The Pharisees therefore said to him: Thou givest testimony of thyself: thy testimony is not true.13.Thy testimony is not true; that is to say, is not juridical, such as ought to be accepted.14. Respondit Iesus, et dixit eis: Et si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, verum est testimonium meum: quia scio unde veni, et quo vado: vos autem nescitis unde venio, aut quo vado.14. Jesus answered, and said to them: Although I give testimony of myself, my testimony is true: For I know whence I came, and whither I go: but you know not whence I come, or whither I go.14. Christ's answer is: though I bear testimony of Myself, My testimony should be accepted, because I am God (I know whence I came, and whither I go); self-interest and self-love can have no influence on Me, so as to warp My judgment or weaken My testimony.15. Vos secundum carnem iudicatis: ego non iudico quemquam:15. You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man.15.You judge according to the flesh;i.e., according to appearances, as though I were a mere man; or, more probably, according to your carnal ideas (Rom. viii. 4-6); thinking Me an impostor, you condemn Me.I judge not any man.The sense is that Christ at His first coming, condemned no one, for it is of the judgment of condemnation there is question, according to what seems the most probable view. Compare iii. 17; xii. 47.[pg 153]16. Et si iudico ego, iudicium meum verum est, quia solus non sum: sed ego, et qui misit me, Pater.16. And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.16. The meaning is: if I did judge, My judgment would be just, because not the judgment of a mere man, but identical with the judgment of My Father. Seex. 30;xiv. 10.17. Et in lege vestra scriptum est, quia duorum hominum testimonium verum est.17. And in your law it is written, that the testimony of two men is true.17. Καὶ ... δὲ, indicate the transition in which He passes from speaking of condemnation to speak of His testimony. Your law, He says, requires and is satisfied with two Witnesses (Deut. xvii. 6).18. Ego sum qui testimonium perhibeo de meipso: et testimonium perhibet de me, qui misit me, Pater.18. I am one that give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me, giveth testimony of me.18. Now, two bear testimony to Me. TwoPersonsbore testimony that the man Christ, who spoke to the Jews, was God. The Son Himself, as God bore this testimony by word and work, and the Father by the miracles that He gave the Son to perform (v. 36).19. Dicebant ergo ei: Ubi est Pater tuus? Respondit Iesus: Neque me scitis, neque Patrem meum: si me sciretis forsitan et Patrem meum sciretis.19. They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also.19. To their question Jesus answers:Neither me do you know, nor my Father. The sense is: You know not who I am,that I am God; if you knew and recognised Me to be God, you would also know who My Father is, that He must be God; and thus you would know the answer to your question, since God dwells in heaven. On the use of“forsitan,”see above oniv. 10.20. Haec verba locutus est Iesus in gazophylacio, docens in templo: et nemo apprehendit eum, quia necdum venerat hora eius.20. These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple: and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.20. The Greek word translated by“treasury”is γαζοφυλακίῳ, derived from the Persiangaza(money), and φυλάσσω (to guard). This treasury was a chest or safe for holding[pg 154]money (see Luke xxi. 1), but by metonymy the name was given to the cloister in which it stood. This cloister was in the court of the women. See above onii. 14.21. Dixit ergo iterum eis Iesus: Ego vado, et quaeretis me, et in peccato vestro moriemini. Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire?21. Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go, and you shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither I go, you cannot come.21. It is doubtful whether this is a continuation of the preceding, or a new discourse. For the meaning of the verse, see above onvii. 34. The particularsinreferred to here is infidelity; but dying in infidelity, meant dying in many sins besides; and hence the pluralsins, is used in verse 24.22. Dicebant ergo Iudaei: Numquid interficiet semetipsum, quia dixit: Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire?22. The Jews therefore said: Will he kill himself, because he said: Whither I go, you cannot come?22. Josephus (De Bello Jud., iii. 8, 5) tells us that the Pharisees believed that the lowest depths of hell are reserved for suicides. The words of this verse may refer to that superstition; as if they said: does He mean to go into the depths of hell, where we the children of Abraham cannot, of course, follow Him? But the more simple explanation is: He cannot escape from us wherever He may go on this earth. Does He then mean to take His own life, that so He may be out of our reach?23. Et dicebat eis: Vos de deorsum estis, ego de supernis sum. Vos de mundo hoc estis, ego non sum de hoc mundo.23. And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world.23. Taking no notice of what had just been said, Jesus proceeds in His discourse.You, He says,are from beneath, I am from above(seeiii. 31);i.e., you are earthly in origin and nature, I am of heaven; moreover, you are earthly in sentiment, you belong to thewickedworld (seexv. 19), I do not belong to it. Thus He shows them there is a twofold difference between Him and them; and unless by the supernatural principle of faith they are lifted above their nature, and[pg 155]taken out of the wicked world, they shall die in their sins, and shall never here or hereafter be able to follow whither He goeth. Instead ofpeccato(Vulg.) in the end of verse 24, readpeccatis.For if you believe not that I am he.“He”is not represented in the Greek or Latin text, and ought not to stand in the English. The predicate may be purposely suppressed in order to leave the meaning, which was still sufficiently intelligible, obscure, and thus afford no opportunity to His enemies of charging Him with blasphemy.24. Dixi ergo vobis quia moriemini in peccatis vestris: si enim non credideritis quia ego sum, moriemini in peccato vestro.24. Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.25. Dicebant ergo ei: Tu quis es? Dixit eis Iesus: Principium, qui et loquor vobis.25. They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you.25. This is a very obscure verse. Christ had just spoken of faith in Himself; but in Himselfunder what aspectHe had not defined; and now in the hope of evoking an answer for which they could punish Him, they ask:Who art thou?His answer is purposely obscure. It is according to the Greek text, τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι (or ὅ τι) καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; which is rendered in the Vulgate:Principium qui et loquor vobis, and in our Rheims version:The beginning, who also speak unto you.About the meaning of this answer there is a great diversity opinion. Some take the words affirmatively, others interrogatively; some understand τὴν ἀρχήν as a substantive, others as an adverb; some regard ὅ τι as a relative (that which), others as an interrogative = τί (how or why?) and others again as a conjunction, ὅτι (for, or, because). The Vulgate translator may have read ὅστις (who) instead of ὅ τι, or ὅτι; or possibly“Qui et”of our Vulgate is a corruption of“quia,”which is found in the oldest Vulgate MSS. The objection against the Vulgate and English translations is that while τῆν ἀρχήν is an accusative, theyseemto understand it as a nominative. Nor can it be replied, that it is attracted into the accusative case of the relative which follows; for, apart from the fact that there is no other instance of such attraction in St. John, the explanation is inadmissible here, inasmuch as these translations understand the relative not as an accusative, but as a nominative. A better defence is that of St. Augustine, who would supply some such words as:“Believe Me to be,”before the sentence, thus makingprincipiumthe accusative after[pg 156]esse: Believe Me to be the beginning, &c.(2) Others, understanding τὴν ἀρχήν in the same way as the preceding opinion, take ὁ τι as a relative, and render: I am the beginning, that which I also declare unto you. Here there is room for attraction, since the relative is now taken as an accusative; but against such attraction is the usage of St. John, as already stated.(3) Others, taking τὴν ἀρχήν as an adverb (from the beginning), render: I am from the beginning, from eternity, what I even declare unto you. But it is objected to this view that τὴν ἀρχήν is not found elsewhere in Sacred Scripture in this sense, and moreover that the verb λαλῶ (to discuss with, to converse) is wrongly taken to be equivalent to λέγω (to declare). To this latter point, however, it is replied that the two verbs are frequently interchanged in later Greek.(4) Others thus: Even that which I have also spoken to you from the beginning.68But this view is open to the same objections as the preceding.(5) Others again: Essentially (or, in very deed) that which I speak unto you. So Alford.(6) Others: On the whole, why do I even speak with you? So St. Chrys., Corluy, &c.(7) Others: Absolutely, or most certainly, that which I also tell you. So Beel., Kuin, &c. Τὴν ἀρχήν is thus taken as equivalent toomnino, for which sense Beelen quotes several classical writers.We prefer the sixth and seventh opinions; but rather the seventh, since it supposes Christ to answer their question, though in language purposely obscure. In the sixth opinion, Christ vouchsafes no answer to their question, and we should naturally expect an impatient interruption from them immediately after, were that opinion correct.26. Multa habeo de vobis loqui, et iudicare: sed qui me misit, verax est: et ego quae audivi ab eo, haec loquor in mundo.26. Many things I have to speak and to judge of you. But he that sent me is true; and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world.26. Some explain thus: I have many things to say of you, and to condemn in you,[pg 157]but with this only will I charge you now, namely, that you are guilty of incredulity, since He who sent Me is true (truthful), and I speak His words, and yet you refuse to believe in Me. But the ellipsis here is not sufficiently obvious; and, hence, we prefer to understand thus: I have many things, &c., but My judgments will be just, and such as cannot be gainsaid.27. Et non cognoverunt quia Patrem eius dicebat Deum.27. And they understood not that he called God his father.27. The Greek is:They knew not that He spoke to them of the Father.28. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Cum exaltaveritis Filium hominis, tunc cognoscetis quia ego sum, et a meipso facio nihil, sed sicut docuit me Pater, haec loquor:28. Jesus therefore said to them: When you shall have lifted up the son of man, then shall you know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath taught me, these things I speak.28.Lifted up.The reference is to Christ's crucifixion as is clear from xii. 32, 33. The substance of Christ's prediction is, that after His death they will come to recognise Him as God. We know how truly this prediction was fulfilled, not merely in the centurion and his soldiers (Matt. xxvii. 54), and in the crowd that returned from Calvary, striking their breasts (Luke xxiii. 48), but all along from that time through the preaching of the Apostles. On the Father's teaching the Son, see above on v.19,20.29. Et qui me misit, mecum est et non reliquit me solum, quia ego quae placita sunt ei, facio semper.29. And he that sent me is with me, and he hath not left me alone: for I do always the things that please him.29.For.“The word seems to be used as in Luke vii. 47, to indicate the sign of the truth of the statement made, and not to give the ground of the fact stated”(Westc.).30. Haec illo loquente, multi crediderunt in eum.30. When he spoke these things, many believed in him.31. Dicebat ergo Iesus ad eos, qui crediderunt ei Iudaeos: Si vos manseritis in sermone meo, vere discipuli mei eritis:31. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed.31. Christ here lays down the test by which His disciples are to be known. It is only when we accept His words,[pg 158]and conform our works thereto, that we can be truly said to be His disciples.32. Et cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos.32. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.32.The truth;i.e., the whole body of revelation.33. Responderunt ei: Semen Abrahae sumus, et nemini servivimus unquam: quomodo tu dicis: Liberi eritis?33. They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any man: how sayest thou: You shall be free?34. Respondit eis Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis: quia omnis qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati:34. Jesus answered them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin.35. Servus autem non manet in domo in aeternum: filius autem manet in aeternum:35. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth for ever:36. Si ergo vos filius liberaverit, vere liberi eritis.36. If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.33-36. To Christ's promise that the truth should make them free, some of the crowd who remained incredulous, replied that they were never slaves, to which Christ makes answer that they are the slaves of sin: and only when the Son of God shall free them, shall they be truly free. Verse 35 is an illustration drawn from ordinary life. As slaves who displease their masters may be sold, or expelled from the household, so you who, instead of serving God, are the slaves of sin, are, and shall remain, excluded from the household of God here and hereafter.37. Scio quia filii Abrahae estis: sed quaeritis me interficere, quia sermo meus non capit in vobis.37. I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.38. Ego quod vidi apud Patrem meum loquor, et vos quae vidistis apud patrem vestrum, facitis.38. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father.38.Your father;i.e., the devil (see verse44). Others understand ποιεῖτε as an imperative; do then the works which[pg 159]you have seen with your father (Abraham). But since the following verse proves that the Jews understood Christ to speak of another father than Abraham, for this reason, and because of verse 44, the first interpretation is preferable. The sense then is: You do the works that you have learned from your father the devil.39. Responderunt, et dixerunt ei: Pater noster Abraham est. Dicit eis Iesus: Si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite.39. They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.39.If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.The Greek is: If youwerethe (true) children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham.40. Nunc autem quaeritis me interficere, hominem qui veritatem vobis locutus sum, quam audivi a Deo: hoc Abraham non fecit.40. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.41. Vos facitis opera patris vestri. Dixerunt itaque ei: Nos ex fornicatione non sumus nati: unum patrem habemus Deum.41. You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one FatherevenGod.42. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Si Deus pater vester esset, diligeretis utique me: ego enim ex Deo processi, et veni: neque enim a me ipso veni, sed ille me misit.42. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came: for I came not of myself, but he sent me.41, 42. Understanding Christ to mean that they were not true Jews, but idolaters (πορνέια being frequently used of idolatry in the Bible;e.g., Ezech. xvi. 15, foll.; see ii.4,5,), they protest that they are not idolaters, and that they worship but one God. To this Christ replies, that if they were true children of God, they would love Himself.I proceeded and came, denote respectively the eternal generation, and mission in time.43. Quare loquelam meam non cognoscitis? Quia non potestis audire sermonem meum.43. Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word.43. The sense is: why do[pg 160]you not understand My discourses (λαλιάν) on this and on other occasions? The reason is, because you cannot, youwill not, receive My doctrine (λόγος). What we do not desire to hear, we are slow to understand. Christ's teaching, so opposed to flesh and blood, so much at variance with all that the Jews had hoped for from their Messias, they were very unwilling to accept.“Ideo audire non poterant, quia corrigi credendo nolebant”(St. August.).44. Vos ex patre diabolo estis: et desideria patris vestri vultis facere. Ille homicida erat ab initio, et in veritate non stetit: quia non est veritas in eo: cum loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur, quia mendax est, et pater eius.44. You are ofyourfather the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.44. At last He plainly tells them who their father is.He was a murderer from the beginning, for he tempted Eve, and thus brought death upon the human race, and he prompted Cain to slay Abel.And he stood not in the truth; or rather, hestandethnot in the truth (the perfect of this verb having a present signification. See Winer,Gr. Gram. N. T., p. 34269), because there is no truth in his nature. St. Augustine argued from this verse to prove the fall of the rebel angels:“Ergo in veritate fuit, sed non stando cecidit, et de veritate lapsus est.”But the conclusion is not warranted by this verse, for the true meaning of ἕστηκεν, and the reason given by our Lord for the devil's not standing in the truth—namely,because truth is not in him, show that there is no reference to the devil as he was before the fall, but only to his nature and methods since.Of his own,i.e., in accordance with his nature.The father thereof, namely, oflying. We thus, with Beelen, refer αὐτοῦ (ejus) to ψεύδους[pg 161](understood).“Αὐτοῦ, scil. ψεύδους quae vox sumi debet ex antegressa ψεύστης in qua veluti continetur”(Gr. Gram. N. T., page 104).45. Ego autem si veritatem dico, non creditis mihi.45. But if I say the truth, you believe me not.45. Instead of“si”(Vulg.) the Greek has ὅτι (quia): because I speak the truth.46. Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? Si veritatem dico vobis, quare non creditis mihi?46. Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me?46. Christ appeals to His integrity of character and innocence of life; as if He said: it cannot be My life that prevents you from believing: so that if My doctrine is true, you have no excuse.47. Qui ex Deo est, verba Dei audit. Propterea vos non auditis, quia ex Deo non estis.47. He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.47.“He assigns the cause of their not believing or obeying His words, viz., because they are not of God. They are not children of God, sharers in His spirit; but rather children of the devil, filled with his spirit”(M'Evilly).48. Responderunt ergo Iudaei, et dixerunt ei: Nonne bene dicimus nos quia Samaritanus es tu, et daemonium habes?48. The Jews therefore answered and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?49. Respondit Iesus: Ego daemonium non habeo: sed honorifico Patrem meum, et vos inhonorastis me.49. Jesus answered: I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me.48, 49. They say to Him that He is a Samaritan, and has a devil. The first charge He passes over as unworthy of notice; to the second He replies that, so far from having a devil, He honours His Father, while they dishonour Himself. On account of His language, strange to them, and His earnest fervour, they say that He is possessed; and He replies that His words and manner are due to the fact that He is seeking the glory of His Father.50. Ego autem non quaero gloriam meam: est qui quaerat, et iudicet.50. But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.50. But thoughyou dishonour(the Greek has the present in end of 49)Me, I[pg 162]will not seek to avenge the dishonour; the Father will avenge it. See Deut. xviii. 19.51. Amen, amen dico vobis: si quis sermonem meum servaverit, mortem non videbit in aeternum.51. Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.51. In verse 32, He promised freedom, now He promises immortality, to those that hearken to His words.52. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: Nunc cognovimus quia daemonium habes. Abraham mortuus est, et prophetae: et tu dicis: Si quis sermonem meum servaverit, non gustabit mortem in aeternum.52. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets: and thou sayest: If any man keep my word he shall not taste death for ever.53. Numquid tu maior es patre nostro Abraham, qui mortuus est? et prophetae mortui sunt. Quem teipsum facis?53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself?52, 53. The Jews accuse Him of preferring Himself to Abraham and the prophets, to which He replies—54. Respondit Iesus: Si ego glorifico, meipsum, gloria mea nihil est: est Pater meus, qui glorificat me, quem vos dicitis quia Deus vester est.54. Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God.54. If I glorify Myself,let it go for nought; it is My Father, &c.55. Et non cognovistis eum. Ego autem novi eum: et si dixero quia non scio eum, ero similis vobis, mendax. Sed scio eum, et sermonem eius servo.55. And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word.55. The Jews knew not the Father as the Father of Christ; moreover, they knew Him not at all with a practical knowledge so as to serve Him.[pg 163]56. Abraham pater vester exultavit ut videret diem meum: vidit, et gavisus est.56. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.56.Abraham your father rejoiced, &c. He leaves it to be inferred that He, being the object of Abraham's hope and joy, is greater than Abraham, and still not opposed to him. Our Lord'sdayhere is not the eternal existence of the Son, nor the day of His death, nor Himself, the day-star of justice, but the day for which all the ancient just had so long prayed and sighed:“drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just”(Is. xlv. 8), the day or time of Christ's mortal life on earth.Rejoiced that he might see(ἵνα ἴδη). Most probably the meaning is, that Abraham, after God had revealed to him that the Messias was to be born of his seed, hoped and yearned in joyful confidence that he might see Christ on earth.He saw it, and was glad.It would seem from these words that Abraham saw in the way in which he had yearned to see. And since he cannot have yearned to see Christ's day merely by faith, for he already saw it by faith; hence there must be question here of some other vision. Mald., A Lap., and most commentators hold that Abraham's mental vision was elevated by God, so that from limbo he saw and knew that Christ was on earth just as the angels and saints in heaven know what happens on earth and in hell. The aorist tenses in the Greek (εἶδεν καὶ ἐχάρη), with their past definite signification, are not easily reconciled with this view, and hence others prefer to suppose that there is reference to some very special revelation made to Abraham during his life on earth, in which he saw with something more than the vision of ordinary faith the time and various circumstances of Christ's mortal life (compare Heb. xi. 13).57. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad eum: Quinquaginta annos nondum habes, et Abraham vidisti?57. The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?57. In saying Christ was not yet fifty years of age, they take an age about which there could be no dispute, as if they said: at the very outside Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? The common opinion is that Christ died in his thirty-fourth year, though, strange to say, St. Irenæus held the singular view that he lived to be fifty. (Iren.,Adv. Haer., ii. 39, 40.)58. Dixit eis Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis, antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum.58. Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.58. In verse 56, He spoke of the day of His mortal life,[pg 164]now He declares His eternity.Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made(γενέσθαι, came into being),I am(ἐγώ εἴμι).59. Tulerunt ergo lapides, ut iacerent in eum. Iesus autem abscondit se, et exivit de templo.59. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.59. Understanding Him to claim to be eternal, as He really did, they took up stones to stone Him, the Law commanding that a blasphemer, as they accounted Him, should be stoned (Lev. xxiv. 16). But Jesus hid Himself, most probably rendered Himself invisible, and thus passed out of the temple, showing us that it is sometimes advisable, and conducive to the greater glory of God, that we should flee from danger, even when we are persecuted for God's sake. Many ancient authorities add at the end of this verse:“And going through the midst of them went His way, and so passed by;”but more probably the words are a gloss.[pg 165]

Chapter VIII.1-2.Christ having spent the night on the Mount of Olives, returns in the morning to the temple and teaches.3-11.The story of the woman taken in adultery.12-20.Discourse of Christ with the Pharisees in the treasury.21-29.He upbraids them for their incredulity, and foretells His own crucifixion.30-50.Many believed in Him, but others remained incredulous (33), and to these He says that they are not the children of Abraham, but of the devil.51-59.Challenged by the Jews, He declares Himself greater than Abraham; and when they were about to stone Him for this declaration, He hides Himself.Authenticity of John vii. 53-viii. 11.This is the second of the three passages in our Gospel, whose authenticity has been seriously questioned. SeeIntrod. VI. We shall sum up the evidence by which the critical question must be decided, and then say what we think as to the genuineness of the passage.Evidence against Authenticity.1.Manuscripts.—The passage is wanting in the four oldest Greek MSS. that we possess, viz., in B, א, A, C; the two former of which are thought by critics to belong to the fourth, and the two latter, to the fifth century; also in four otheruncialMSS., in more than sixtycursives, and in thirty-three Evangelistaries.63In about fifty other MSS., though read, it is marked as doubtful.2.Versions.—It is wanting in the best MSS. of the“Vetus Itala;”in the“Simple”and“Figured”Syriac; in most MSS. of the Coptic; in all of Gothic, and in some of the Armenian.3.Fathers.—The passage is[pg 148]not commented upon by any of the Greek fathers that wrote upon this Gospel.4.Internal evidenceis said to prove the passage spurious, because of the use of many words and phrases not elsewhere used by St. John.64Evidence in favour of Authenticity.1.Manuscripts.—The passage is found in sevenuncialMSS. (one of which, D, though itself only of the sixth century, is thought to represent the text of the Gospels as it stood in the second century); in more than three hundred cursives, and in six Evangelistaries.2.Versions.—The passage is found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, Syriac of Jerusalem, Slavic, and Anglo-Saxon.3.Fathers.—The passageis read by nearly all the Latin fathers—Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo the Great, Chrysologus, Sedulius, Cassiodorus, &c.; and in theApostolic Constitutions, a work of the third, or, at the latest, the fourth century.4.Internal Evidence—(a) Christ's merciful treatment of the adulteress harmonizes beautifully with His declaration immediately after (viii. 15), that at His first coming He condemned no man. (b) It is inconceivable how a passageof this naturecould ever have found its way into so many MSS., unless it was written by St. John. On the other hand, it is easy to see how, though genuine, it came to be omitted in many MSS., through the fear that Christ's merciful treatment of the adulteress might encourage sinners. This is exactly what St. Augustine says:—“Nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei, credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, abstulerunt de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit:‘Jam deinceps noli peccare’”(St. Aug.,De Conj. Adult., 2, 7).As regards the argumentsagainstthe passage, we believe that the reason given by St. Augustine in the words just quoted, explains the absence of the passage in so many MSS., versions, and fathers. As to the internal arguments against the passage, it must be admitted that a number of words are used here which are not met with elsewhere in the writings of St. John; but then the subject is peculiar, and besides in many other passages which[pg 149]are unquestioned, we meet with several words not used elsewhere by the Evangelist.65Even Renan admits that there is nothing in the passage that is at variance with the style of the fourth Gospel.66Conclusion.From the evidence, which has been impartially laid before the reader, we hold we are justified in concluding that even on mere critical grounds the passage is more probably genuine. Some, as Franzelin (De Sacra. Script., Thes. xix., pp. 466, 467), go farther, and hold, that since the decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. iv.), which defined all the sacred books of the Bible, andall their parts, as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be canonical, it is not lawful for any Catholic to question the authenticity of this passage. They argue that this passage constitutes apart(not merely a“particula”) of the Gospel of St. John, and is, therefore, covered by the decree of Trent. Nor can it be said in reply that the Council, in the words“cum omnibus suis partibus,”meant to define the authenticity of the Deuterocanonical fragments of theOldTestament only, for the Acts67of the Council show that these words were intended to refer especially to the fragments of the Gospels.To conclude, then, we hold that we are not only critically justified in accepting John vii. 53-viii. 11, as authentic, but that it is extremely probable that as Catholics we areboundto accept it.Text.1. Iesus autem perrexit in montem Oliveti:1. And Jesus went unto mount Olivet.1. In contrast to those who retired to their homes (vii. 53), Jesus retired to Mount Olivet, where He often spent the night in prayer (Luke xxi. 37; vi. 12). Mount Olivet, separated from Jerusalem by the brook of Cedron, was a Sabbath day's journey from the City (Acts i. 12); that is to say, about seven and a-half stadia, and therefore less than an English mile.2. Et diluculo iterum venit in templum, et omnis populus venit ad eum, et sedens docebat eos.2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them.2. Early on the morning that followed the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles (seevii. 37), He came again to the temple, and all the[pg 150]people who were assembled in the City from the various parts of Palestine, came to Him, and He was teaching them.3. Adducunt autem scribae et pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam: et statuerunt eam in medio.3. And the scribes and Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery; and they set her in the midst,3. While Jesus was engaged in teaching the people, the Pharisees bring to him a woman who had been caught in adultery,in the very act, as we learn from the Greek of verse 4.4. Et dixerunt ei: Magister, haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio.4. And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery.5. In lege autem Moyses mandavit nobis huiusmodi lapidare. Tu ergo quid dicis?5. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?5. It is not stated anywhere in the Pentateuch that the adulterer and adulteress should bestoned, but it is, that they should be put to death (Lev. xx. 10). Doubtless the death was by stoning, as is indicated in Ezech. xvi. 38-40.6. Hoc autem dicebant tentantes eum, ut possent accusare eum. Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum, digito scribebat in terra.6. And this they said, tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground.6. They hoped to entrap our Lord; for if he acquitted the woman they could charge him with being an adversary of the Mosaic Law (Lev. xx. 10); while if He condemned her to death, they could charge Him with defying the Roman Law, which at this time denied to the Jews the right of inflicting capital punishment (John xviii. 31). What Jesus wrote it is impossible to say. Probably it was His intention to signify by this turning away to something else that He wished not to have anything to do with the matter in question.7. Cum ergo perseverarent interrogantes eum, erexit se, et dixit eis: Qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem mittat.7. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.7.Let him first cast a stone at her.The deep wisdom of this answer gave them no ground for charging[pg 151]Him with opposition to any law, and at the same time referred them to their own guilty consciences. He does not say that sinners may not be punished by sinners, but implies that it was not seemly that they who were guilty of the same or greater sins should be the accusers of the poor wretch who stood before them.8. Et iterum se inclinans, scribebat in terra.8. And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground.8. Having shamed them by this appeal to the tribunal of their conscience, He again stooped down to write, probably to afford them an opportunity to depart.9. Audientes autem unus post unum exibant, incipientes a senioribus: et remansit solus Iesus, et mulier in medio stans.9. But they hearingthiswent out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst.10. Erigens autem se Iesus, dixit ei: Mulier, ubi sunt qui te accusabant? nemo te condemnavit?10. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?11. Quae dixit: Nemo, Domine. Dixit autem Iesus: Nec ego te condemnabo: vade, et iam amplius noli peccare.11. Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.11.Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.Doubtless the treatment of her accusers by Christ, and abundant grace poured into her soul, had already moved the woman's heart to repentance, and Christ, exercising His Divine power, absolved her from her sin. He did not condemn her, but, in telling her to sin no more, He showed that she had done what was wrong, and warned her as to the future. Thus the incident shows the boundless mercy of Christ for sinners, His hatred of sin, and, what St. John probably had chiefly before his mind in recording[pg 152]it, Christ's Divine power to forgive sin.12. Iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus, dicens. Ego sum lux mundi: qui sequitur me non ambulat in tenebris, sed habebit lumen vitae.12. Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.12. We do not know whether this is a new discourse, or only a continuation of that referred to above in verse 2. On Christ's words here recorded, see above oni. 5. They follow Christ, who believe in Him, and obey Him.13. Dixerunt ergo ei pharisaei: Tu de teipso testimonium perhibes: testimonium tuum non est verum.13. The Pharisees therefore said to him: Thou givest testimony of thyself: thy testimony is not true.13.Thy testimony is not true; that is to say, is not juridical, such as ought to be accepted.14. Respondit Iesus, et dixit eis: Et si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, verum est testimonium meum: quia scio unde veni, et quo vado: vos autem nescitis unde venio, aut quo vado.14. Jesus answered, and said to them: Although I give testimony of myself, my testimony is true: For I know whence I came, and whither I go: but you know not whence I come, or whither I go.14. Christ's answer is: though I bear testimony of Myself, My testimony should be accepted, because I am God (I know whence I came, and whither I go); self-interest and self-love can have no influence on Me, so as to warp My judgment or weaken My testimony.15. Vos secundum carnem iudicatis: ego non iudico quemquam:15. You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man.15.You judge according to the flesh;i.e., according to appearances, as though I were a mere man; or, more probably, according to your carnal ideas (Rom. viii. 4-6); thinking Me an impostor, you condemn Me.I judge not any man.The sense is that Christ at His first coming, condemned no one, for it is of the judgment of condemnation there is question, according to what seems the most probable view. Compare iii. 17; xii. 47.[pg 153]16. Et si iudico ego, iudicium meum verum est, quia solus non sum: sed ego, et qui misit me, Pater.16. And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.16. The meaning is: if I did judge, My judgment would be just, because not the judgment of a mere man, but identical with the judgment of My Father. Seex. 30;xiv. 10.17. Et in lege vestra scriptum est, quia duorum hominum testimonium verum est.17. And in your law it is written, that the testimony of two men is true.17. Καὶ ... δὲ, indicate the transition in which He passes from speaking of condemnation to speak of His testimony. Your law, He says, requires and is satisfied with two Witnesses (Deut. xvii. 6).18. Ego sum qui testimonium perhibeo de meipso: et testimonium perhibet de me, qui misit me, Pater.18. I am one that give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me, giveth testimony of me.18. Now, two bear testimony to Me. TwoPersonsbore testimony that the man Christ, who spoke to the Jews, was God. The Son Himself, as God bore this testimony by word and work, and the Father by the miracles that He gave the Son to perform (v. 36).19. Dicebant ergo ei: Ubi est Pater tuus? Respondit Iesus: Neque me scitis, neque Patrem meum: si me sciretis forsitan et Patrem meum sciretis.19. They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also.19. To their question Jesus answers:Neither me do you know, nor my Father. The sense is: You know not who I am,that I am God; if you knew and recognised Me to be God, you would also know who My Father is, that He must be God; and thus you would know the answer to your question, since God dwells in heaven. On the use of“forsitan,”see above oniv. 10.20. Haec verba locutus est Iesus in gazophylacio, docens in templo: et nemo apprehendit eum, quia necdum venerat hora eius.20. These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple: and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.20. The Greek word translated by“treasury”is γαζοφυλακίῳ, derived from the Persiangaza(money), and φυλάσσω (to guard). This treasury was a chest or safe for holding[pg 154]money (see Luke xxi. 1), but by metonymy the name was given to the cloister in which it stood. This cloister was in the court of the women. See above onii. 14.21. Dixit ergo iterum eis Iesus: Ego vado, et quaeretis me, et in peccato vestro moriemini. Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire?21. Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go, and you shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither I go, you cannot come.21. It is doubtful whether this is a continuation of the preceding, or a new discourse. For the meaning of the verse, see above onvii. 34. The particularsinreferred to here is infidelity; but dying in infidelity, meant dying in many sins besides; and hence the pluralsins, is used in verse 24.22. Dicebant ergo Iudaei: Numquid interficiet semetipsum, quia dixit: Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire?22. The Jews therefore said: Will he kill himself, because he said: Whither I go, you cannot come?22. Josephus (De Bello Jud., iii. 8, 5) tells us that the Pharisees believed that the lowest depths of hell are reserved for suicides. The words of this verse may refer to that superstition; as if they said: does He mean to go into the depths of hell, where we the children of Abraham cannot, of course, follow Him? But the more simple explanation is: He cannot escape from us wherever He may go on this earth. Does He then mean to take His own life, that so He may be out of our reach?23. Et dicebat eis: Vos de deorsum estis, ego de supernis sum. Vos de mundo hoc estis, ego non sum de hoc mundo.23. And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world.23. Taking no notice of what had just been said, Jesus proceeds in His discourse.You, He says,are from beneath, I am from above(seeiii. 31);i.e., you are earthly in origin and nature, I am of heaven; moreover, you are earthly in sentiment, you belong to thewickedworld (seexv. 19), I do not belong to it. Thus He shows them there is a twofold difference between Him and them; and unless by the supernatural principle of faith they are lifted above their nature, and[pg 155]taken out of the wicked world, they shall die in their sins, and shall never here or hereafter be able to follow whither He goeth. Instead ofpeccato(Vulg.) in the end of verse 24, readpeccatis.For if you believe not that I am he.“He”is not represented in the Greek or Latin text, and ought not to stand in the English. The predicate may be purposely suppressed in order to leave the meaning, which was still sufficiently intelligible, obscure, and thus afford no opportunity to His enemies of charging Him with blasphemy.24. Dixi ergo vobis quia moriemini in peccatis vestris: si enim non credideritis quia ego sum, moriemini in peccato vestro.24. Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.25. Dicebant ergo ei: Tu quis es? Dixit eis Iesus: Principium, qui et loquor vobis.25. They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you.25. This is a very obscure verse. Christ had just spoken of faith in Himself; but in Himselfunder what aspectHe had not defined; and now in the hope of evoking an answer for which they could punish Him, they ask:Who art thou?His answer is purposely obscure. It is according to the Greek text, τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι (or ὅ τι) καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; which is rendered in the Vulgate:Principium qui et loquor vobis, and in our Rheims version:The beginning, who also speak unto you.About the meaning of this answer there is a great diversity opinion. Some take the words affirmatively, others interrogatively; some understand τὴν ἀρχήν as a substantive, others as an adverb; some regard ὅ τι as a relative (that which), others as an interrogative = τί (how or why?) and others again as a conjunction, ὅτι (for, or, because). The Vulgate translator may have read ὅστις (who) instead of ὅ τι, or ὅτι; or possibly“Qui et”of our Vulgate is a corruption of“quia,”which is found in the oldest Vulgate MSS. The objection against the Vulgate and English translations is that while τῆν ἀρχήν is an accusative, theyseemto understand it as a nominative. Nor can it be replied, that it is attracted into the accusative case of the relative which follows; for, apart from the fact that there is no other instance of such attraction in St. John, the explanation is inadmissible here, inasmuch as these translations understand the relative not as an accusative, but as a nominative. A better defence is that of St. Augustine, who would supply some such words as:“Believe Me to be,”before the sentence, thus makingprincipiumthe accusative after[pg 156]esse: Believe Me to be the beginning, &c.(2) Others, understanding τὴν ἀρχήν in the same way as the preceding opinion, take ὁ τι as a relative, and render: I am the beginning, that which I also declare unto you. Here there is room for attraction, since the relative is now taken as an accusative; but against such attraction is the usage of St. John, as already stated.(3) Others, taking τὴν ἀρχήν as an adverb (from the beginning), render: I am from the beginning, from eternity, what I even declare unto you. But it is objected to this view that τὴν ἀρχήν is not found elsewhere in Sacred Scripture in this sense, and moreover that the verb λαλῶ (to discuss with, to converse) is wrongly taken to be equivalent to λέγω (to declare). To this latter point, however, it is replied that the two verbs are frequently interchanged in later Greek.(4) Others thus: Even that which I have also spoken to you from the beginning.68But this view is open to the same objections as the preceding.(5) Others again: Essentially (or, in very deed) that which I speak unto you. So Alford.(6) Others: On the whole, why do I even speak with you? So St. Chrys., Corluy, &c.(7) Others: Absolutely, or most certainly, that which I also tell you. So Beel., Kuin, &c. Τὴν ἀρχήν is thus taken as equivalent toomnino, for which sense Beelen quotes several classical writers.We prefer the sixth and seventh opinions; but rather the seventh, since it supposes Christ to answer their question, though in language purposely obscure. In the sixth opinion, Christ vouchsafes no answer to their question, and we should naturally expect an impatient interruption from them immediately after, were that opinion correct.26. Multa habeo de vobis loqui, et iudicare: sed qui me misit, verax est: et ego quae audivi ab eo, haec loquor in mundo.26. Many things I have to speak and to judge of you. But he that sent me is true; and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world.26. Some explain thus: I have many things to say of you, and to condemn in you,[pg 157]but with this only will I charge you now, namely, that you are guilty of incredulity, since He who sent Me is true (truthful), and I speak His words, and yet you refuse to believe in Me. But the ellipsis here is not sufficiently obvious; and, hence, we prefer to understand thus: I have many things, &c., but My judgments will be just, and such as cannot be gainsaid.27. Et non cognoverunt quia Patrem eius dicebat Deum.27. And they understood not that he called God his father.27. The Greek is:They knew not that He spoke to them of the Father.28. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Cum exaltaveritis Filium hominis, tunc cognoscetis quia ego sum, et a meipso facio nihil, sed sicut docuit me Pater, haec loquor:28. Jesus therefore said to them: When you shall have lifted up the son of man, then shall you know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath taught me, these things I speak.28.Lifted up.The reference is to Christ's crucifixion as is clear from xii. 32, 33. The substance of Christ's prediction is, that after His death they will come to recognise Him as God. We know how truly this prediction was fulfilled, not merely in the centurion and his soldiers (Matt. xxvii. 54), and in the crowd that returned from Calvary, striking their breasts (Luke xxiii. 48), but all along from that time through the preaching of the Apostles. On the Father's teaching the Son, see above on v.19,20.29. Et qui me misit, mecum est et non reliquit me solum, quia ego quae placita sunt ei, facio semper.29. And he that sent me is with me, and he hath not left me alone: for I do always the things that please him.29.For.“The word seems to be used as in Luke vii. 47, to indicate the sign of the truth of the statement made, and not to give the ground of the fact stated”(Westc.).30. Haec illo loquente, multi crediderunt in eum.30. When he spoke these things, many believed in him.31. Dicebat ergo Iesus ad eos, qui crediderunt ei Iudaeos: Si vos manseritis in sermone meo, vere discipuli mei eritis:31. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed.31. Christ here lays down the test by which His disciples are to be known. It is only when we accept His words,[pg 158]and conform our works thereto, that we can be truly said to be His disciples.32. Et cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos.32. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.32.The truth;i.e., the whole body of revelation.33. Responderunt ei: Semen Abrahae sumus, et nemini servivimus unquam: quomodo tu dicis: Liberi eritis?33. They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any man: how sayest thou: You shall be free?34. Respondit eis Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis: quia omnis qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati:34. Jesus answered them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin.35. Servus autem non manet in domo in aeternum: filius autem manet in aeternum:35. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth for ever:36. Si ergo vos filius liberaverit, vere liberi eritis.36. If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.33-36. To Christ's promise that the truth should make them free, some of the crowd who remained incredulous, replied that they were never slaves, to which Christ makes answer that they are the slaves of sin: and only when the Son of God shall free them, shall they be truly free. Verse 35 is an illustration drawn from ordinary life. As slaves who displease their masters may be sold, or expelled from the household, so you who, instead of serving God, are the slaves of sin, are, and shall remain, excluded from the household of God here and hereafter.37. Scio quia filii Abrahae estis: sed quaeritis me interficere, quia sermo meus non capit in vobis.37. I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.38. Ego quod vidi apud Patrem meum loquor, et vos quae vidistis apud patrem vestrum, facitis.38. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father.38.Your father;i.e., the devil (see verse44). Others understand ποιεῖτε as an imperative; do then the works which[pg 159]you have seen with your father (Abraham). But since the following verse proves that the Jews understood Christ to speak of another father than Abraham, for this reason, and because of verse 44, the first interpretation is preferable. The sense then is: You do the works that you have learned from your father the devil.39. Responderunt, et dixerunt ei: Pater noster Abraham est. Dicit eis Iesus: Si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite.39. They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.39.If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.The Greek is: If youwerethe (true) children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham.40. Nunc autem quaeritis me interficere, hominem qui veritatem vobis locutus sum, quam audivi a Deo: hoc Abraham non fecit.40. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.41. Vos facitis opera patris vestri. Dixerunt itaque ei: Nos ex fornicatione non sumus nati: unum patrem habemus Deum.41. You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one FatherevenGod.42. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Si Deus pater vester esset, diligeretis utique me: ego enim ex Deo processi, et veni: neque enim a me ipso veni, sed ille me misit.42. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came: for I came not of myself, but he sent me.41, 42. Understanding Christ to mean that they were not true Jews, but idolaters (πορνέια being frequently used of idolatry in the Bible;e.g., Ezech. xvi. 15, foll.; see ii.4,5,), they protest that they are not idolaters, and that they worship but one God. To this Christ replies, that if they were true children of God, they would love Himself.I proceeded and came, denote respectively the eternal generation, and mission in time.43. Quare loquelam meam non cognoscitis? Quia non potestis audire sermonem meum.43. Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word.43. The sense is: why do[pg 160]you not understand My discourses (λαλιάν) on this and on other occasions? The reason is, because you cannot, youwill not, receive My doctrine (λόγος). What we do not desire to hear, we are slow to understand. Christ's teaching, so opposed to flesh and blood, so much at variance with all that the Jews had hoped for from their Messias, they were very unwilling to accept.“Ideo audire non poterant, quia corrigi credendo nolebant”(St. August.).44. Vos ex patre diabolo estis: et desideria patris vestri vultis facere. Ille homicida erat ab initio, et in veritate non stetit: quia non est veritas in eo: cum loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur, quia mendax est, et pater eius.44. You are ofyourfather the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.44. At last He plainly tells them who their father is.He was a murderer from the beginning, for he tempted Eve, and thus brought death upon the human race, and he prompted Cain to slay Abel.And he stood not in the truth; or rather, hestandethnot in the truth (the perfect of this verb having a present signification. See Winer,Gr. Gram. N. T., p. 34269), because there is no truth in his nature. St. Augustine argued from this verse to prove the fall of the rebel angels:“Ergo in veritate fuit, sed non stando cecidit, et de veritate lapsus est.”But the conclusion is not warranted by this verse, for the true meaning of ἕστηκεν, and the reason given by our Lord for the devil's not standing in the truth—namely,because truth is not in him, show that there is no reference to the devil as he was before the fall, but only to his nature and methods since.Of his own,i.e., in accordance with his nature.The father thereof, namely, oflying. We thus, with Beelen, refer αὐτοῦ (ejus) to ψεύδους[pg 161](understood).“Αὐτοῦ, scil. ψεύδους quae vox sumi debet ex antegressa ψεύστης in qua veluti continetur”(Gr. Gram. N. T., page 104).45. Ego autem si veritatem dico, non creditis mihi.45. But if I say the truth, you believe me not.45. Instead of“si”(Vulg.) the Greek has ὅτι (quia): because I speak the truth.46. Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? Si veritatem dico vobis, quare non creditis mihi?46. Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me?46. Christ appeals to His integrity of character and innocence of life; as if He said: it cannot be My life that prevents you from believing: so that if My doctrine is true, you have no excuse.47. Qui ex Deo est, verba Dei audit. Propterea vos non auditis, quia ex Deo non estis.47. He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.47.“He assigns the cause of their not believing or obeying His words, viz., because they are not of God. They are not children of God, sharers in His spirit; but rather children of the devil, filled with his spirit”(M'Evilly).48. Responderunt ergo Iudaei, et dixerunt ei: Nonne bene dicimus nos quia Samaritanus es tu, et daemonium habes?48. The Jews therefore answered and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?49. Respondit Iesus: Ego daemonium non habeo: sed honorifico Patrem meum, et vos inhonorastis me.49. Jesus answered: I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me.48, 49. They say to Him that He is a Samaritan, and has a devil. The first charge He passes over as unworthy of notice; to the second He replies that, so far from having a devil, He honours His Father, while they dishonour Himself. On account of His language, strange to them, and His earnest fervour, they say that He is possessed; and He replies that His words and manner are due to the fact that He is seeking the glory of His Father.50. Ego autem non quaero gloriam meam: est qui quaerat, et iudicet.50. But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.50. But thoughyou dishonour(the Greek has the present in end of 49)Me, I[pg 162]will not seek to avenge the dishonour; the Father will avenge it. See Deut. xviii. 19.51. Amen, amen dico vobis: si quis sermonem meum servaverit, mortem non videbit in aeternum.51. Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.51. In verse 32, He promised freedom, now He promises immortality, to those that hearken to His words.52. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: Nunc cognovimus quia daemonium habes. Abraham mortuus est, et prophetae: et tu dicis: Si quis sermonem meum servaverit, non gustabit mortem in aeternum.52. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets: and thou sayest: If any man keep my word he shall not taste death for ever.53. Numquid tu maior es patre nostro Abraham, qui mortuus est? et prophetae mortui sunt. Quem teipsum facis?53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself?52, 53. The Jews accuse Him of preferring Himself to Abraham and the prophets, to which He replies—54. Respondit Iesus: Si ego glorifico, meipsum, gloria mea nihil est: est Pater meus, qui glorificat me, quem vos dicitis quia Deus vester est.54. Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God.54. If I glorify Myself,let it go for nought; it is My Father, &c.55. Et non cognovistis eum. Ego autem novi eum: et si dixero quia non scio eum, ero similis vobis, mendax. Sed scio eum, et sermonem eius servo.55. And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word.55. The Jews knew not the Father as the Father of Christ; moreover, they knew Him not at all with a practical knowledge so as to serve Him.[pg 163]56. Abraham pater vester exultavit ut videret diem meum: vidit, et gavisus est.56. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.56.Abraham your father rejoiced, &c. He leaves it to be inferred that He, being the object of Abraham's hope and joy, is greater than Abraham, and still not opposed to him. Our Lord'sdayhere is not the eternal existence of the Son, nor the day of His death, nor Himself, the day-star of justice, but the day for which all the ancient just had so long prayed and sighed:“drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just”(Is. xlv. 8), the day or time of Christ's mortal life on earth.Rejoiced that he might see(ἵνα ἴδη). Most probably the meaning is, that Abraham, after God had revealed to him that the Messias was to be born of his seed, hoped and yearned in joyful confidence that he might see Christ on earth.He saw it, and was glad.It would seem from these words that Abraham saw in the way in which he had yearned to see. And since he cannot have yearned to see Christ's day merely by faith, for he already saw it by faith; hence there must be question here of some other vision. Mald., A Lap., and most commentators hold that Abraham's mental vision was elevated by God, so that from limbo he saw and knew that Christ was on earth just as the angels and saints in heaven know what happens on earth and in hell. The aorist tenses in the Greek (εἶδεν καὶ ἐχάρη), with their past definite signification, are not easily reconciled with this view, and hence others prefer to suppose that there is reference to some very special revelation made to Abraham during his life on earth, in which he saw with something more than the vision of ordinary faith the time and various circumstances of Christ's mortal life (compare Heb. xi. 13).57. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad eum: Quinquaginta annos nondum habes, et Abraham vidisti?57. The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?57. In saying Christ was not yet fifty years of age, they take an age about which there could be no dispute, as if they said: at the very outside Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? The common opinion is that Christ died in his thirty-fourth year, though, strange to say, St. Irenæus held the singular view that he lived to be fifty. (Iren.,Adv. Haer., ii. 39, 40.)58. Dixit eis Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis, antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum.58. Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.58. In verse 56, He spoke of the day of His mortal life,[pg 164]now He declares His eternity.Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made(γενέσθαι, came into being),I am(ἐγώ εἴμι).59. Tulerunt ergo lapides, ut iacerent in eum. Iesus autem abscondit se, et exivit de templo.59. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.59. Understanding Him to claim to be eternal, as He really did, they took up stones to stone Him, the Law commanding that a blasphemer, as they accounted Him, should be stoned (Lev. xxiv. 16). But Jesus hid Himself, most probably rendered Himself invisible, and thus passed out of the temple, showing us that it is sometimes advisable, and conducive to the greater glory of God, that we should flee from danger, even when we are persecuted for God's sake. Many ancient authorities add at the end of this verse:“And going through the midst of them went His way, and so passed by;”but more probably the words are a gloss.[pg 165]

Chapter VIII.1-2.Christ having spent the night on the Mount of Olives, returns in the morning to the temple and teaches.3-11.The story of the woman taken in adultery.12-20.Discourse of Christ with the Pharisees in the treasury.21-29.He upbraids them for their incredulity, and foretells His own crucifixion.30-50.Many believed in Him, but others remained incredulous (33), and to these He says that they are not the children of Abraham, but of the devil.51-59.Challenged by the Jews, He declares Himself greater than Abraham; and when they were about to stone Him for this declaration, He hides Himself.Authenticity of John vii. 53-viii. 11.This is the second of the three passages in our Gospel, whose authenticity has been seriously questioned. SeeIntrod. VI. We shall sum up the evidence by which the critical question must be decided, and then say what we think as to the genuineness of the passage.Evidence against Authenticity.1.Manuscripts.—The passage is wanting in the four oldest Greek MSS. that we possess, viz., in B, א, A, C; the two former of which are thought by critics to belong to the fourth, and the two latter, to the fifth century; also in four otheruncialMSS., in more than sixtycursives, and in thirty-three Evangelistaries.63In about fifty other MSS., though read, it is marked as doubtful.2.Versions.—It is wanting in the best MSS. of the“Vetus Itala;”in the“Simple”and“Figured”Syriac; in most MSS. of the Coptic; in all of Gothic, and in some of the Armenian.3.Fathers.—The passage is[pg 148]not commented upon by any of the Greek fathers that wrote upon this Gospel.4.Internal evidenceis said to prove the passage spurious, because of the use of many words and phrases not elsewhere used by St. John.64Evidence in favour of Authenticity.1.Manuscripts.—The passage is found in sevenuncialMSS. (one of which, D, though itself only of the sixth century, is thought to represent the text of the Gospels as it stood in the second century); in more than three hundred cursives, and in six Evangelistaries.2.Versions.—The passage is found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, Syriac of Jerusalem, Slavic, and Anglo-Saxon.3.Fathers.—The passageis read by nearly all the Latin fathers—Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo the Great, Chrysologus, Sedulius, Cassiodorus, &c.; and in theApostolic Constitutions, a work of the third, or, at the latest, the fourth century.4.Internal Evidence—(a) Christ's merciful treatment of the adulteress harmonizes beautifully with His declaration immediately after (viii. 15), that at His first coming He condemned no man. (b) It is inconceivable how a passageof this naturecould ever have found its way into so many MSS., unless it was written by St. John. On the other hand, it is easy to see how, though genuine, it came to be omitted in many MSS., through the fear that Christ's merciful treatment of the adulteress might encourage sinners. This is exactly what St. Augustine says:—“Nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei, credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, abstulerunt de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit:‘Jam deinceps noli peccare’”(St. Aug.,De Conj. Adult., 2, 7).As regards the argumentsagainstthe passage, we believe that the reason given by St. Augustine in the words just quoted, explains the absence of the passage in so many MSS., versions, and fathers. As to the internal arguments against the passage, it must be admitted that a number of words are used here which are not met with elsewhere in the writings of St. John; but then the subject is peculiar, and besides in many other passages which[pg 149]are unquestioned, we meet with several words not used elsewhere by the Evangelist.65Even Renan admits that there is nothing in the passage that is at variance with the style of the fourth Gospel.66Conclusion.From the evidence, which has been impartially laid before the reader, we hold we are justified in concluding that even on mere critical grounds the passage is more probably genuine. Some, as Franzelin (De Sacra. Script., Thes. xix., pp. 466, 467), go farther, and hold, that since the decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. iv.), which defined all the sacred books of the Bible, andall their parts, as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be canonical, it is not lawful for any Catholic to question the authenticity of this passage. They argue that this passage constitutes apart(not merely a“particula”) of the Gospel of St. John, and is, therefore, covered by the decree of Trent. Nor can it be said in reply that the Council, in the words“cum omnibus suis partibus,”meant to define the authenticity of the Deuterocanonical fragments of theOldTestament only, for the Acts67of the Council show that these words were intended to refer especially to the fragments of the Gospels.To conclude, then, we hold that we are not only critically justified in accepting John vii. 53-viii. 11, as authentic, but that it is extremely probable that as Catholics we areboundto accept it.Text.1. Iesus autem perrexit in montem Oliveti:1. And Jesus went unto mount Olivet.1. In contrast to those who retired to their homes (vii. 53), Jesus retired to Mount Olivet, where He often spent the night in prayer (Luke xxi. 37; vi. 12). Mount Olivet, separated from Jerusalem by the brook of Cedron, was a Sabbath day's journey from the City (Acts i. 12); that is to say, about seven and a-half stadia, and therefore less than an English mile.2. Et diluculo iterum venit in templum, et omnis populus venit ad eum, et sedens docebat eos.2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them.2. Early on the morning that followed the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles (seevii. 37), He came again to the temple, and all the[pg 150]people who were assembled in the City from the various parts of Palestine, came to Him, and He was teaching them.3. Adducunt autem scribae et pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam: et statuerunt eam in medio.3. And the scribes and Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery; and they set her in the midst,3. While Jesus was engaged in teaching the people, the Pharisees bring to him a woman who had been caught in adultery,in the very act, as we learn from the Greek of verse 4.4. Et dixerunt ei: Magister, haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio.4. And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery.5. In lege autem Moyses mandavit nobis huiusmodi lapidare. Tu ergo quid dicis?5. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?5. It is not stated anywhere in the Pentateuch that the adulterer and adulteress should bestoned, but it is, that they should be put to death (Lev. xx. 10). Doubtless the death was by stoning, as is indicated in Ezech. xvi. 38-40.6. Hoc autem dicebant tentantes eum, ut possent accusare eum. Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum, digito scribebat in terra.6. And this they said, tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground.6. They hoped to entrap our Lord; for if he acquitted the woman they could charge him with being an adversary of the Mosaic Law (Lev. xx. 10); while if He condemned her to death, they could charge Him with defying the Roman Law, which at this time denied to the Jews the right of inflicting capital punishment (John xviii. 31). What Jesus wrote it is impossible to say. Probably it was His intention to signify by this turning away to something else that He wished not to have anything to do with the matter in question.7. Cum ergo perseverarent interrogantes eum, erexit se, et dixit eis: Qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem mittat.7. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.7.Let him first cast a stone at her.The deep wisdom of this answer gave them no ground for charging[pg 151]Him with opposition to any law, and at the same time referred them to their own guilty consciences. He does not say that sinners may not be punished by sinners, but implies that it was not seemly that they who were guilty of the same or greater sins should be the accusers of the poor wretch who stood before them.8. Et iterum se inclinans, scribebat in terra.8. And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground.8. Having shamed them by this appeal to the tribunal of their conscience, He again stooped down to write, probably to afford them an opportunity to depart.9. Audientes autem unus post unum exibant, incipientes a senioribus: et remansit solus Iesus, et mulier in medio stans.9. But they hearingthiswent out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst.10. Erigens autem se Iesus, dixit ei: Mulier, ubi sunt qui te accusabant? nemo te condemnavit?10. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?11. Quae dixit: Nemo, Domine. Dixit autem Iesus: Nec ego te condemnabo: vade, et iam amplius noli peccare.11. Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.11.Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.Doubtless the treatment of her accusers by Christ, and abundant grace poured into her soul, had already moved the woman's heart to repentance, and Christ, exercising His Divine power, absolved her from her sin. He did not condemn her, but, in telling her to sin no more, He showed that she had done what was wrong, and warned her as to the future. Thus the incident shows the boundless mercy of Christ for sinners, His hatred of sin, and, what St. John probably had chiefly before his mind in recording[pg 152]it, Christ's Divine power to forgive sin.12. Iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus, dicens. Ego sum lux mundi: qui sequitur me non ambulat in tenebris, sed habebit lumen vitae.12. Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.12. We do not know whether this is a new discourse, or only a continuation of that referred to above in verse 2. On Christ's words here recorded, see above oni. 5. They follow Christ, who believe in Him, and obey Him.13. Dixerunt ergo ei pharisaei: Tu de teipso testimonium perhibes: testimonium tuum non est verum.13. The Pharisees therefore said to him: Thou givest testimony of thyself: thy testimony is not true.13.Thy testimony is not true; that is to say, is not juridical, such as ought to be accepted.14. Respondit Iesus, et dixit eis: Et si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, verum est testimonium meum: quia scio unde veni, et quo vado: vos autem nescitis unde venio, aut quo vado.14. Jesus answered, and said to them: Although I give testimony of myself, my testimony is true: For I know whence I came, and whither I go: but you know not whence I come, or whither I go.14. Christ's answer is: though I bear testimony of Myself, My testimony should be accepted, because I am God (I know whence I came, and whither I go); self-interest and self-love can have no influence on Me, so as to warp My judgment or weaken My testimony.15. Vos secundum carnem iudicatis: ego non iudico quemquam:15. You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man.15.You judge according to the flesh;i.e., according to appearances, as though I were a mere man; or, more probably, according to your carnal ideas (Rom. viii. 4-6); thinking Me an impostor, you condemn Me.I judge not any man.The sense is that Christ at His first coming, condemned no one, for it is of the judgment of condemnation there is question, according to what seems the most probable view. Compare iii. 17; xii. 47.[pg 153]16. Et si iudico ego, iudicium meum verum est, quia solus non sum: sed ego, et qui misit me, Pater.16. And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.16. The meaning is: if I did judge, My judgment would be just, because not the judgment of a mere man, but identical with the judgment of My Father. Seex. 30;xiv. 10.17. Et in lege vestra scriptum est, quia duorum hominum testimonium verum est.17. And in your law it is written, that the testimony of two men is true.17. Καὶ ... δὲ, indicate the transition in which He passes from speaking of condemnation to speak of His testimony. Your law, He says, requires and is satisfied with two Witnesses (Deut. xvii. 6).18. Ego sum qui testimonium perhibeo de meipso: et testimonium perhibet de me, qui misit me, Pater.18. I am one that give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me, giveth testimony of me.18. Now, two bear testimony to Me. TwoPersonsbore testimony that the man Christ, who spoke to the Jews, was God. The Son Himself, as God bore this testimony by word and work, and the Father by the miracles that He gave the Son to perform (v. 36).19. Dicebant ergo ei: Ubi est Pater tuus? Respondit Iesus: Neque me scitis, neque Patrem meum: si me sciretis forsitan et Patrem meum sciretis.19. They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also.19. To their question Jesus answers:Neither me do you know, nor my Father. The sense is: You know not who I am,that I am God; if you knew and recognised Me to be God, you would also know who My Father is, that He must be God; and thus you would know the answer to your question, since God dwells in heaven. On the use of“forsitan,”see above oniv. 10.20. Haec verba locutus est Iesus in gazophylacio, docens in templo: et nemo apprehendit eum, quia necdum venerat hora eius.20. These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple: and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.20. The Greek word translated by“treasury”is γαζοφυλακίῳ, derived from the Persiangaza(money), and φυλάσσω (to guard). This treasury was a chest or safe for holding[pg 154]money (see Luke xxi. 1), but by metonymy the name was given to the cloister in which it stood. This cloister was in the court of the women. See above onii. 14.21. Dixit ergo iterum eis Iesus: Ego vado, et quaeretis me, et in peccato vestro moriemini. Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire?21. Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go, and you shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither I go, you cannot come.21. It is doubtful whether this is a continuation of the preceding, or a new discourse. For the meaning of the verse, see above onvii. 34. The particularsinreferred to here is infidelity; but dying in infidelity, meant dying in many sins besides; and hence the pluralsins, is used in verse 24.22. Dicebant ergo Iudaei: Numquid interficiet semetipsum, quia dixit: Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire?22. The Jews therefore said: Will he kill himself, because he said: Whither I go, you cannot come?22. Josephus (De Bello Jud., iii. 8, 5) tells us that the Pharisees believed that the lowest depths of hell are reserved for suicides. The words of this verse may refer to that superstition; as if they said: does He mean to go into the depths of hell, where we the children of Abraham cannot, of course, follow Him? But the more simple explanation is: He cannot escape from us wherever He may go on this earth. Does He then mean to take His own life, that so He may be out of our reach?23. Et dicebat eis: Vos de deorsum estis, ego de supernis sum. Vos de mundo hoc estis, ego non sum de hoc mundo.23. And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world.23. Taking no notice of what had just been said, Jesus proceeds in His discourse.You, He says,are from beneath, I am from above(seeiii. 31);i.e., you are earthly in origin and nature, I am of heaven; moreover, you are earthly in sentiment, you belong to thewickedworld (seexv. 19), I do not belong to it. Thus He shows them there is a twofold difference between Him and them; and unless by the supernatural principle of faith they are lifted above their nature, and[pg 155]taken out of the wicked world, they shall die in their sins, and shall never here or hereafter be able to follow whither He goeth. Instead ofpeccato(Vulg.) in the end of verse 24, readpeccatis.For if you believe not that I am he.“He”is not represented in the Greek or Latin text, and ought not to stand in the English. The predicate may be purposely suppressed in order to leave the meaning, which was still sufficiently intelligible, obscure, and thus afford no opportunity to His enemies of charging Him with blasphemy.24. Dixi ergo vobis quia moriemini in peccatis vestris: si enim non credideritis quia ego sum, moriemini in peccato vestro.24. Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.25. Dicebant ergo ei: Tu quis es? Dixit eis Iesus: Principium, qui et loquor vobis.25. They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you.25. This is a very obscure verse. Christ had just spoken of faith in Himself; but in Himselfunder what aspectHe had not defined; and now in the hope of evoking an answer for which they could punish Him, they ask:Who art thou?His answer is purposely obscure. It is according to the Greek text, τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι (or ὅ τι) καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; which is rendered in the Vulgate:Principium qui et loquor vobis, and in our Rheims version:The beginning, who also speak unto you.About the meaning of this answer there is a great diversity opinion. Some take the words affirmatively, others interrogatively; some understand τὴν ἀρχήν as a substantive, others as an adverb; some regard ὅ τι as a relative (that which), others as an interrogative = τί (how or why?) and others again as a conjunction, ὅτι (for, or, because). The Vulgate translator may have read ὅστις (who) instead of ὅ τι, or ὅτι; or possibly“Qui et”of our Vulgate is a corruption of“quia,”which is found in the oldest Vulgate MSS. The objection against the Vulgate and English translations is that while τῆν ἀρχήν is an accusative, theyseemto understand it as a nominative. Nor can it be replied, that it is attracted into the accusative case of the relative which follows; for, apart from the fact that there is no other instance of such attraction in St. John, the explanation is inadmissible here, inasmuch as these translations understand the relative not as an accusative, but as a nominative. A better defence is that of St. Augustine, who would supply some such words as:“Believe Me to be,”before the sentence, thus makingprincipiumthe accusative after[pg 156]esse: Believe Me to be the beginning, &c.(2) Others, understanding τὴν ἀρχήν in the same way as the preceding opinion, take ὁ τι as a relative, and render: I am the beginning, that which I also declare unto you. Here there is room for attraction, since the relative is now taken as an accusative; but against such attraction is the usage of St. John, as already stated.(3) Others, taking τὴν ἀρχήν as an adverb (from the beginning), render: I am from the beginning, from eternity, what I even declare unto you. But it is objected to this view that τὴν ἀρχήν is not found elsewhere in Sacred Scripture in this sense, and moreover that the verb λαλῶ (to discuss with, to converse) is wrongly taken to be equivalent to λέγω (to declare). To this latter point, however, it is replied that the two verbs are frequently interchanged in later Greek.(4) Others thus: Even that which I have also spoken to you from the beginning.68But this view is open to the same objections as the preceding.(5) Others again: Essentially (or, in very deed) that which I speak unto you. So Alford.(6) Others: On the whole, why do I even speak with you? So St. Chrys., Corluy, &c.(7) Others: Absolutely, or most certainly, that which I also tell you. So Beel., Kuin, &c. Τὴν ἀρχήν is thus taken as equivalent toomnino, for which sense Beelen quotes several classical writers.We prefer the sixth and seventh opinions; but rather the seventh, since it supposes Christ to answer their question, though in language purposely obscure. In the sixth opinion, Christ vouchsafes no answer to their question, and we should naturally expect an impatient interruption from them immediately after, were that opinion correct.26. Multa habeo de vobis loqui, et iudicare: sed qui me misit, verax est: et ego quae audivi ab eo, haec loquor in mundo.26. Many things I have to speak and to judge of you. But he that sent me is true; and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world.26. Some explain thus: I have many things to say of you, and to condemn in you,[pg 157]but with this only will I charge you now, namely, that you are guilty of incredulity, since He who sent Me is true (truthful), and I speak His words, and yet you refuse to believe in Me. But the ellipsis here is not sufficiently obvious; and, hence, we prefer to understand thus: I have many things, &c., but My judgments will be just, and such as cannot be gainsaid.27. Et non cognoverunt quia Patrem eius dicebat Deum.27. And they understood not that he called God his father.27. The Greek is:They knew not that He spoke to them of the Father.28. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Cum exaltaveritis Filium hominis, tunc cognoscetis quia ego sum, et a meipso facio nihil, sed sicut docuit me Pater, haec loquor:28. Jesus therefore said to them: When you shall have lifted up the son of man, then shall you know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath taught me, these things I speak.28.Lifted up.The reference is to Christ's crucifixion as is clear from xii. 32, 33. The substance of Christ's prediction is, that after His death they will come to recognise Him as God. We know how truly this prediction was fulfilled, not merely in the centurion and his soldiers (Matt. xxvii. 54), and in the crowd that returned from Calvary, striking their breasts (Luke xxiii. 48), but all along from that time through the preaching of the Apostles. On the Father's teaching the Son, see above on v.19,20.29. Et qui me misit, mecum est et non reliquit me solum, quia ego quae placita sunt ei, facio semper.29. And he that sent me is with me, and he hath not left me alone: for I do always the things that please him.29.For.“The word seems to be used as in Luke vii. 47, to indicate the sign of the truth of the statement made, and not to give the ground of the fact stated”(Westc.).30. Haec illo loquente, multi crediderunt in eum.30. When he spoke these things, many believed in him.31. Dicebat ergo Iesus ad eos, qui crediderunt ei Iudaeos: Si vos manseritis in sermone meo, vere discipuli mei eritis:31. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed.31. Christ here lays down the test by which His disciples are to be known. It is only when we accept His words,[pg 158]and conform our works thereto, that we can be truly said to be His disciples.32. Et cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos.32. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.32.The truth;i.e., the whole body of revelation.33. Responderunt ei: Semen Abrahae sumus, et nemini servivimus unquam: quomodo tu dicis: Liberi eritis?33. They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any man: how sayest thou: You shall be free?34. Respondit eis Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis: quia omnis qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati:34. Jesus answered them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin.35. Servus autem non manet in domo in aeternum: filius autem manet in aeternum:35. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth for ever:36. Si ergo vos filius liberaverit, vere liberi eritis.36. If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.33-36. To Christ's promise that the truth should make them free, some of the crowd who remained incredulous, replied that they were never slaves, to which Christ makes answer that they are the slaves of sin: and only when the Son of God shall free them, shall they be truly free. Verse 35 is an illustration drawn from ordinary life. As slaves who displease their masters may be sold, or expelled from the household, so you who, instead of serving God, are the slaves of sin, are, and shall remain, excluded from the household of God here and hereafter.37. Scio quia filii Abrahae estis: sed quaeritis me interficere, quia sermo meus non capit in vobis.37. I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.38. Ego quod vidi apud Patrem meum loquor, et vos quae vidistis apud patrem vestrum, facitis.38. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father.38.Your father;i.e., the devil (see verse44). Others understand ποιεῖτε as an imperative; do then the works which[pg 159]you have seen with your father (Abraham). But since the following verse proves that the Jews understood Christ to speak of another father than Abraham, for this reason, and because of verse 44, the first interpretation is preferable. The sense then is: You do the works that you have learned from your father the devil.39. Responderunt, et dixerunt ei: Pater noster Abraham est. Dicit eis Iesus: Si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite.39. They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.39.If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.The Greek is: If youwerethe (true) children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham.40. Nunc autem quaeritis me interficere, hominem qui veritatem vobis locutus sum, quam audivi a Deo: hoc Abraham non fecit.40. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.41. Vos facitis opera patris vestri. Dixerunt itaque ei: Nos ex fornicatione non sumus nati: unum patrem habemus Deum.41. You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one FatherevenGod.42. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Si Deus pater vester esset, diligeretis utique me: ego enim ex Deo processi, et veni: neque enim a me ipso veni, sed ille me misit.42. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came: for I came not of myself, but he sent me.41, 42. Understanding Christ to mean that they were not true Jews, but idolaters (πορνέια being frequently used of idolatry in the Bible;e.g., Ezech. xvi. 15, foll.; see ii.4,5,), they protest that they are not idolaters, and that they worship but one God. To this Christ replies, that if they were true children of God, they would love Himself.I proceeded and came, denote respectively the eternal generation, and mission in time.43. Quare loquelam meam non cognoscitis? Quia non potestis audire sermonem meum.43. Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word.43. The sense is: why do[pg 160]you not understand My discourses (λαλιάν) on this and on other occasions? The reason is, because you cannot, youwill not, receive My doctrine (λόγος). What we do not desire to hear, we are slow to understand. Christ's teaching, so opposed to flesh and blood, so much at variance with all that the Jews had hoped for from their Messias, they were very unwilling to accept.“Ideo audire non poterant, quia corrigi credendo nolebant”(St. August.).44. Vos ex patre diabolo estis: et desideria patris vestri vultis facere. Ille homicida erat ab initio, et in veritate non stetit: quia non est veritas in eo: cum loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur, quia mendax est, et pater eius.44. You are ofyourfather the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.44. At last He plainly tells them who their father is.He was a murderer from the beginning, for he tempted Eve, and thus brought death upon the human race, and he prompted Cain to slay Abel.And he stood not in the truth; or rather, hestandethnot in the truth (the perfect of this verb having a present signification. See Winer,Gr. Gram. N. T., p. 34269), because there is no truth in his nature. St. Augustine argued from this verse to prove the fall of the rebel angels:“Ergo in veritate fuit, sed non stando cecidit, et de veritate lapsus est.”But the conclusion is not warranted by this verse, for the true meaning of ἕστηκεν, and the reason given by our Lord for the devil's not standing in the truth—namely,because truth is not in him, show that there is no reference to the devil as he was before the fall, but only to his nature and methods since.Of his own,i.e., in accordance with his nature.The father thereof, namely, oflying. We thus, with Beelen, refer αὐτοῦ (ejus) to ψεύδους[pg 161](understood).“Αὐτοῦ, scil. ψεύδους quae vox sumi debet ex antegressa ψεύστης in qua veluti continetur”(Gr. Gram. N. T., page 104).45. Ego autem si veritatem dico, non creditis mihi.45. But if I say the truth, you believe me not.45. Instead of“si”(Vulg.) the Greek has ὅτι (quia): because I speak the truth.46. Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? Si veritatem dico vobis, quare non creditis mihi?46. Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me?46. Christ appeals to His integrity of character and innocence of life; as if He said: it cannot be My life that prevents you from believing: so that if My doctrine is true, you have no excuse.47. Qui ex Deo est, verba Dei audit. Propterea vos non auditis, quia ex Deo non estis.47. He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.47.“He assigns the cause of their not believing or obeying His words, viz., because they are not of God. They are not children of God, sharers in His spirit; but rather children of the devil, filled with his spirit”(M'Evilly).48. Responderunt ergo Iudaei, et dixerunt ei: Nonne bene dicimus nos quia Samaritanus es tu, et daemonium habes?48. The Jews therefore answered and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?49. Respondit Iesus: Ego daemonium non habeo: sed honorifico Patrem meum, et vos inhonorastis me.49. Jesus answered: I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me.48, 49. They say to Him that He is a Samaritan, and has a devil. The first charge He passes over as unworthy of notice; to the second He replies that, so far from having a devil, He honours His Father, while they dishonour Himself. On account of His language, strange to them, and His earnest fervour, they say that He is possessed; and He replies that His words and manner are due to the fact that He is seeking the glory of His Father.50. Ego autem non quaero gloriam meam: est qui quaerat, et iudicet.50. But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.50. But thoughyou dishonour(the Greek has the present in end of 49)Me, I[pg 162]will not seek to avenge the dishonour; the Father will avenge it. See Deut. xviii. 19.51. Amen, amen dico vobis: si quis sermonem meum servaverit, mortem non videbit in aeternum.51. Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.51. In verse 32, He promised freedom, now He promises immortality, to those that hearken to His words.52. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: Nunc cognovimus quia daemonium habes. Abraham mortuus est, et prophetae: et tu dicis: Si quis sermonem meum servaverit, non gustabit mortem in aeternum.52. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets: and thou sayest: If any man keep my word he shall not taste death for ever.53. Numquid tu maior es patre nostro Abraham, qui mortuus est? et prophetae mortui sunt. Quem teipsum facis?53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself?52, 53. The Jews accuse Him of preferring Himself to Abraham and the prophets, to which He replies—54. Respondit Iesus: Si ego glorifico, meipsum, gloria mea nihil est: est Pater meus, qui glorificat me, quem vos dicitis quia Deus vester est.54. Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God.54. If I glorify Myself,let it go for nought; it is My Father, &c.55. Et non cognovistis eum. Ego autem novi eum: et si dixero quia non scio eum, ero similis vobis, mendax. Sed scio eum, et sermonem eius servo.55. And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word.55. The Jews knew not the Father as the Father of Christ; moreover, they knew Him not at all with a practical knowledge so as to serve Him.[pg 163]56. Abraham pater vester exultavit ut videret diem meum: vidit, et gavisus est.56. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.56.Abraham your father rejoiced, &c. He leaves it to be inferred that He, being the object of Abraham's hope and joy, is greater than Abraham, and still not opposed to him. Our Lord'sdayhere is not the eternal existence of the Son, nor the day of His death, nor Himself, the day-star of justice, but the day for which all the ancient just had so long prayed and sighed:“drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just”(Is. xlv. 8), the day or time of Christ's mortal life on earth.Rejoiced that he might see(ἵνα ἴδη). Most probably the meaning is, that Abraham, after God had revealed to him that the Messias was to be born of his seed, hoped and yearned in joyful confidence that he might see Christ on earth.He saw it, and was glad.It would seem from these words that Abraham saw in the way in which he had yearned to see. And since he cannot have yearned to see Christ's day merely by faith, for he already saw it by faith; hence there must be question here of some other vision. Mald., A Lap., and most commentators hold that Abraham's mental vision was elevated by God, so that from limbo he saw and knew that Christ was on earth just as the angels and saints in heaven know what happens on earth and in hell. The aorist tenses in the Greek (εἶδεν καὶ ἐχάρη), with their past definite signification, are not easily reconciled with this view, and hence others prefer to suppose that there is reference to some very special revelation made to Abraham during his life on earth, in which he saw with something more than the vision of ordinary faith the time and various circumstances of Christ's mortal life (compare Heb. xi. 13).57. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad eum: Quinquaginta annos nondum habes, et Abraham vidisti?57. The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?57. In saying Christ was not yet fifty years of age, they take an age about which there could be no dispute, as if they said: at the very outside Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? The common opinion is that Christ died in his thirty-fourth year, though, strange to say, St. Irenæus held the singular view that he lived to be fifty. (Iren.,Adv. Haer., ii. 39, 40.)58. Dixit eis Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis, antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum.58. Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.58. In verse 56, He spoke of the day of His mortal life,[pg 164]now He declares His eternity.Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made(γενέσθαι, came into being),I am(ἐγώ εἴμι).59. Tulerunt ergo lapides, ut iacerent in eum. Iesus autem abscondit se, et exivit de templo.59. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.59. Understanding Him to claim to be eternal, as He really did, they took up stones to stone Him, the Law commanding that a blasphemer, as they accounted Him, should be stoned (Lev. xxiv. 16). But Jesus hid Himself, most probably rendered Himself invisible, and thus passed out of the temple, showing us that it is sometimes advisable, and conducive to the greater glory of God, that we should flee from danger, even when we are persecuted for God's sake. Many ancient authorities add at the end of this verse:“And going through the midst of them went His way, and so passed by;”but more probably the words are a gloss.

1-2.Christ having spent the night on the Mount of Olives, returns in the morning to the temple and teaches.3-11.The story of the woman taken in adultery.12-20.Discourse of Christ with the Pharisees in the treasury.21-29.He upbraids them for their incredulity, and foretells His own crucifixion.30-50.Many believed in Him, but others remained incredulous (33), and to these He says that they are not the children of Abraham, but of the devil.51-59.Challenged by the Jews, He declares Himself greater than Abraham; and when they were about to stone Him for this declaration, He hides Himself.

1-2.Christ having spent the night on the Mount of Olives, returns in the morning to the temple and teaches.

3-11.The story of the woman taken in adultery.

12-20.Discourse of Christ with the Pharisees in the treasury.

21-29.He upbraids them for their incredulity, and foretells His own crucifixion.

30-50.Many believed in Him, but others remained incredulous (33), and to these He says that they are not the children of Abraham, but of the devil.

51-59.Challenged by the Jews, He declares Himself greater than Abraham; and when they were about to stone Him for this declaration, He hides Himself.

Authenticity of John vii. 53-viii. 11.This is the second of the three passages in our Gospel, whose authenticity has been seriously questioned. SeeIntrod. VI. We shall sum up the evidence by which the critical question must be decided, and then say what we think as to the genuineness of the passage.Evidence against Authenticity.1.Manuscripts.—The passage is wanting in the four oldest Greek MSS. that we possess, viz., in B, א, A, C; the two former of which are thought by critics to belong to the fourth, and the two latter, to the fifth century; also in four otheruncialMSS., in more than sixtycursives, and in thirty-three Evangelistaries.63In about fifty other MSS., though read, it is marked as doubtful.2.Versions.—It is wanting in the best MSS. of the“Vetus Itala;”in the“Simple”and“Figured”Syriac; in most MSS. of the Coptic; in all of Gothic, and in some of the Armenian.3.Fathers.—The passage is[pg 148]not commented upon by any of the Greek fathers that wrote upon this Gospel.4.Internal evidenceis said to prove the passage spurious, because of the use of many words and phrases not elsewhere used by St. John.64Evidence in favour of Authenticity.1.Manuscripts.—The passage is found in sevenuncialMSS. (one of which, D, though itself only of the sixth century, is thought to represent the text of the Gospels as it stood in the second century); in more than three hundred cursives, and in six Evangelistaries.2.Versions.—The passage is found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, Syriac of Jerusalem, Slavic, and Anglo-Saxon.3.Fathers.—The passageis read by nearly all the Latin fathers—Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo the Great, Chrysologus, Sedulius, Cassiodorus, &c.; and in theApostolic Constitutions, a work of the third, or, at the latest, the fourth century.4.Internal Evidence—(a) Christ's merciful treatment of the adulteress harmonizes beautifully with His declaration immediately after (viii. 15), that at His first coming He condemned no man. (b) It is inconceivable how a passageof this naturecould ever have found its way into so many MSS., unless it was written by St. John. On the other hand, it is easy to see how, though genuine, it came to be omitted in many MSS., through the fear that Christ's merciful treatment of the adulteress might encourage sinners. This is exactly what St. Augustine says:—“Nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei, credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, abstulerunt de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit:‘Jam deinceps noli peccare’”(St. Aug.,De Conj. Adult., 2, 7).As regards the argumentsagainstthe passage, we believe that the reason given by St. Augustine in the words just quoted, explains the absence of the passage in so many MSS., versions, and fathers. As to the internal arguments against the passage, it must be admitted that a number of words are used here which are not met with elsewhere in the writings of St. John; but then the subject is peculiar, and besides in many other passages which[pg 149]are unquestioned, we meet with several words not used elsewhere by the Evangelist.65Even Renan admits that there is nothing in the passage that is at variance with the style of the fourth Gospel.66Conclusion.From the evidence, which has been impartially laid before the reader, we hold we are justified in concluding that even on mere critical grounds the passage is more probably genuine. Some, as Franzelin (De Sacra. Script., Thes. xix., pp. 466, 467), go farther, and hold, that since the decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. iv.), which defined all the sacred books of the Bible, andall their parts, as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be canonical, it is not lawful for any Catholic to question the authenticity of this passage. They argue that this passage constitutes apart(not merely a“particula”) of the Gospel of St. John, and is, therefore, covered by the decree of Trent. Nor can it be said in reply that the Council, in the words“cum omnibus suis partibus,”meant to define the authenticity of the Deuterocanonical fragments of theOldTestament only, for the Acts67of the Council show that these words were intended to refer especially to the fragments of the Gospels.To conclude, then, we hold that we are not only critically justified in accepting John vii. 53-viii. 11, as authentic, but that it is extremely probable that as Catholics we areboundto accept it.

This is the second of the three passages in our Gospel, whose authenticity has been seriously questioned. SeeIntrod. VI. We shall sum up the evidence by which the critical question must be decided, and then say what we think as to the genuineness of the passage.

Evidence against Authenticity.1.Manuscripts.—The passage is wanting in the four oldest Greek MSS. that we possess, viz., in B, א, A, C; the two former of which are thought by critics to belong to the fourth, and the two latter, to the fifth century; also in four otheruncialMSS., in more than sixtycursives, and in thirty-three Evangelistaries.63In about fifty other MSS., though read, it is marked as doubtful.2.Versions.—It is wanting in the best MSS. of the“Vetus Itala;”in the“Simple”and“Figured”Syriac; in most MSS. of the Coptic; in all of Gothic, and in some of the Armenian.3.Fathers.—The passage is[pg 148]not commented upon by any of the Greek fathers that wrote upon this Gospel.4.Internal evidenceis said to prove the passage spurious, because of the use of many words and phrases not elsewhere used by St. John.64

1.Manuscripts.—The passage is wanting in the four oldest Greek MSS. that we possess, viz., in B, א, A, C; the two former of which are thought by critics to belong to the fourth, and the two latter, to the fifth century; also in four otheruncialMSS., in more than sixtycursives, and in thirty-three Evangelistaries.63In about fifty other MSS., though read, it is marked as doubtful.

2.Versions.—It is wanting in the best MSS. of the“Vetus Itala;”in the“Simple”and“Figured”Syriac; in most MSS. of the Coptic; in all of Gothic, and in some of the Armenian.

3.Fathers.—The passage is[pg 148]not commented upon by any of the Greek fathers that wrote upon this Gospel.

4.Internal evidenceis said to prove the passage spurious, because of the use of many words and phrases not elsewhere used by St. John.64

Evidence in favour of Authenticity.1.Manuscripts.—The passage is found in sevenuncialMSS. (one of which, D, though itself only of the sixth century, is thought to represent the text of the Gospels as it stood in the second century); in more than three hundred cursives, and in six Evangelistaries.2.Versions.—The passage is found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, Syriac of Jerusalem, Slavic, and Anglo-Saxon.3.Fathers.—The passageis read by nearly all the Latin fathers—Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo the Great, Chrysologus, Sedulius, Cassiodorus, &c.; and in theApostolic Constitutions, a work of the third, or, at the latest, the fourth century.4.Internal Evidence—(a) Christ's merciful treatment of the adulteress harmonizes beautifully with His declaration immediately after (viii. 15), that at His first coming He condemned no man. (b) It is inconceivable how a passageof this naturecould ever have found its way into so many MSS., unless it was written by St. John. On the other hand, it is easy to see how, though genuine, it came to be omitted in many MSS., through the fear that Christ's merciful treatment of the adulteress might encourage sinners. This is exactly what St. Augustine says:—“Nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei, credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, abstulerunt de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit:‘Jam deinceps noli peccare’”(St. Aug.,De Conj. Adult., 2, 7).As regards the argumentsagainstthe passage, we believe that the reason given by St. Augustine in the words just quoted, explains the absence of the passage in so many MSS., versions, and fathers. As to the internal arguments against the passage, it must be admitted that a number of words are used here which are not met with elsewhere in the writings of St. John; but then the subject is peculiar, and besides in many other passages which[pg 149]are unquestioned, we meet with several words not used elsewhere by the Evangelist.65Even Renan admits that there is nothing in the passage that is at variance with the style of the fourth Gospel.66

1.Manuscripts.—The passage is found in sevenuncialMSS. (one of which, D, though itself only of the sixth century, is thought to represent the text of the Gospels as it stood in the second century); in more than three hundred cursives, and in six Evangelistaries.

2.Versions.—The passage is found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, Syriac of Jerusalem, Slavic, and Anglo-Saxon.

3.Fathers.—The passageis read by nearly all the Latin fathers—Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo the Great, Chrysologus, Sedulius, Cassiodorus, &c.; and in theApostolic Constitutions, a work of the third, or, at the latest, the fourth century.

4.Internal Evidence—(a) Christ's merciful treatment of the adulteress harmonizes beautifully with His declaration immediately after (viii. 15), that at His first coming He condemned no man. (b) It is inconceivable how a passageof this naturecould ever have found its way into so many MSS., unless it was written by St. John. On the other hand, it is easy to see how, though genuine, it came to be omitted in many MSS., through the fear that Christ's merciful treatment of the adulteress might encourage sinners. This is exactly what St. Augustine says:—“Nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei, credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, abstulerunt de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit:‘Jam deinceps noli peccare’”(St. Aug.,De Conj. Adult., 2, 7).

As regards the argumentsagainstthe passage, we believe that the reason given by St. Augustine in the words just quoted, explains the absence of the passage in so many MSS., versions, and fathers. As to the internal arguments against the passage, it must be admitted that a number of words are used here which are not met with elsewhere in the writings of St. John; but then the subject is peculiar, and besides in many other passages which[pg 149]are unquestioned, we meet with several words not used elsewhere by the Evangelist.65Even Renan admits that there is nothing in the passage that is at variance with the style of the fourth Gospel.66

Conclusion.From the evidence, which has been impartially laid before the reader, we hold we are justified in concluding that even on mere critical grounds the passage is more probably genuine. Some, as Franzelin (De Sacra. Script., Thes. xix., pp. 466, 467), go farther, and hold, that since the decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. iv.), which defined all the sacred books of the Bible, andall their parts, as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be canonical, it is not lawful for any Catholic to question the authenticity of this passage. They argue that this passage constitutes apart(not merely a“particula”) of the Gospel of St. John, and is, therefore, covered by the decree of Trent. Nor can it be said in reply that the Council, in the words“cum omnibus suis partibus,”meant to define the authenticity of the Deuterocanonical fragments of theOldTestament only, for the Acts67of the Council show that these words were intended to refer especially to the fragments of the Gospels.To conclude, then, we hold that we are not only critically justified in accepting John vii. 53-viii. 11, as authentic, but that it is extremely probable that as Catholics we areboundto accept it.

From the evidence, which has been impartially laid before the reader, we hold we are justified in concluding that even on mere critical grounds the passage is more probably genuine. Some, as Franzelin (De Sacra. Script., Thes. xix., pp. 466, 467), go farther, and hold, that since the decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. iv.), which defined all the sacred books of the Bible, andall their parts, as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be canonical, it is not lawful for any Catholic to question the authenticity of this passage. They argue that this passage constitutes apart(not merely a“particula”) of the Gospel of St. John, and is, therefore, covered by the decree of Trent. Nor can it be said in reply that the Council, in the words“cum omnibus suis partibus,”meant to define the authenticity of the Deuterocanonical fragments of theOldTestament only, for the Acts67of the Council show that these words were intended to refer especially to the fragments of the Gospels.

To conclude, then, we hold that we are not only critically justified in accepting John vii. 53-viii. 11, as authentic, but that it is extremely probable that as Catholics we areboundto accept it.

Text.1. Iesus autem perrexit in montem Oliveti:1. And Jesus went unto mount Olivet.1. In contrast to those who retired to their homes (vii. 53), Jesus retired to Mount Olivet, where He often spent the night in prayer (Luke xxi. 37; vi. 12). Mount Olivet, separated from Jerusalem by the brook of Cedron, was a Sabbath day's journey from the City (Acts i. 12); that is to say, about seven and a-half stadia, and therefore less than an English mile.2. Et diluculo iterum venit in templum, et omnis populus venit ad eum, et sedens docebat eos.2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them.2. Early on the morning that followed the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles (seevii. 37), He came again to the temple, and all the[pg 150]people who were assembled in the City from the various parts of Palestine, came to Him, and He was teaching them.3. Adducunt autem scribae et pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam: et statuerunt eam in medio.3. And the scribes and Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery; and they set her in the midst,3. While Jesus was engaged in teaching the people, the Pharisees bring to him a woman who had been caught in adultery,in the very act, as we learn from the Greek of verse 4.4. Et dixerunt ei: Magister, haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio.4. And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery.5. In lege autem Moyses mandavit nobis huiusmodi lapidare. Tu ergo quid dicis?5. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?5. It is not stated anywhere in the Pentateuch that the adulterer and adulteress should bestoned, but it is, that they should be put to death (Lev. xx. 10). Doubtless the death was by stoning, as is indicated in Ezech. xvi. 38-40.6. Hoc autem dicebant tentantes eum, ut possent accusare eum. Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum, digito scribebat in terra.6. And this they said, tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground.6. They hoped to entrap our Lord; for if he acquitted the woman they could charge him with being an adversary of the Mosaic Law (Lev. xx. 10); while if He condemned her to death, they could charge Him with defying the Roman Law, which at this time denied to the Jews the right of inflicting capital punishment (John xviii. 31). What Jesus wrote it is impossible to say. Probably it was His intention to signify by this turning away to something else that He wished not to have anything to do with the matter in question.7. Cum ergo perseverarent interrogantes eum, erexit se, et dixit eis: Qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem mittat.7. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.7.Let him first cast a stone at her.The deep wisdom of this answer gave them no ground for charging[pg 151]Him with opposition to any law, and at the same time referred them to their own guilty consciences. He does not say that sinners may not be punished by sinners, but implies that it was not seemly that they who were guilty of the same or greater sins should be the accusers of the poor wretch who stood before them.8. Et iterum se inclinans, scribebat in terra.8. And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground.8. Having shamed them by this appeal to the tribunal of their conscience, He again stooped down to write, probably to afford them an opportunity to depart.9. Audientes autem unus post unum exibant, incipientes a senioribus: et remansit solus Iesus, et mulier in medio stans.9. But they hearingthiswent out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst.10. Erigens autem se Iesus, dixit ei: Mulier, ubi sunt qui te accusabant? nemo te condemnavit?10. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?11. Quae dixit: Nemo, Domine. Dixit autem Iesus: Nec ego te condemnabo: vade, et iam amplius noli peccare.11. Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.11.Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.Doubtless the treatment of her accusers by Christ, and abundant grace poured into her soul, had already moved the woman's heart to repentance, and Christ, exercising His Divine power, absolved her from her sin. He did not condemn her, but, in telling her to sin no more, He showed that she had done what was wrong, and warned her as to the future. Thus the incident shows the boundless mercy of Christ for sinners, His hatred of sin, and, what St. John probably had chiefly before his mind in recording[pg 152]it, Christ's Divine power to forgive sin.12. Iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus, dicens. Ego sum lux mundi: qui sequitur me non ambulat in tenebris, sed habebit lumen vitae.12. Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.12. We do not know whether this is a new discourse, or only a continuation of that referred to above in verse 2. On Christ's words here recorded, see above oni. 5. They follow Christ, who believe in Him, and obey Him.13. Dixerunt ergo ei pharisaei: Tu de teipso testimonium perhibes: testimonium tuum non est verum.13. The Pharisees therefore said to him: Thou givest testimony of thyself: thy testimony is not true.13.Thy testimony is not true; that is to say, is not juridical, such as ought to be accepted.14. Respondit Iesus, et dixit eis: Et si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, verum est testimonium meum: quia scio unde veni, et quo vado: vos autem nescitis unde venio, aut quo vado.14. Jesus answered, and said to them: Although I give testimony of myself, my testimony is true: For I know whence I came, and whither I go: but you know not whence I come, or whither I go.14. Christ's answer is: though I bear testimony of Myself, My testimony should be accepted, because I am God (I know whence I came, and whither I go); self-interest and self-love can have no influence on Me, so as to warp My judgment or weaken My testimony.15. Vos secundum carnem iudicatis: ego non iudico quemquam:15. You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man.15.You judge according to the flesh;i.e., according to appearances, as though I were a mere man; or, more probably, according to your carnal ideas (Rom. viii. 4-6); thinking Me an impostor, you condemn Me.I judge not any man.The sense is that Christ at His first coming, condemned no one, for it is of the judgment of condemnation there is question, according to what seems the most probable view. Compare iii. 17; xii. 47.[pg 153]16. Et si iudico ego, iudicium meum verum est, quia solus non sum: sed ego, et qui misit me, Pater.16. And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.16. The meaning is: if I did judge, My judgment would be just, because not the judgment of a mere man, but identical with the judgment of My Father. Seex. 30;xiv. 10.17. Et in lege vestra scriptum est, quia duorum hominum testimonium verum est.17. And in your law it is written, that the testimony of two men is true.17. Καὶ ... δὲ, indicate the transition in which He passes from speaking of condemnation to speak of His testimony. Your law, He says, requires and is satisfied with two Witnesses (Deut. xvii. 6).18. Ego sum qui testimonium perhibeo de meipso: et testimonium perhibet de me, qui misit me, Pater.18. I am one that give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me, giveth testimony of me.18. Now, two bear testimony to Me. TwoPersonsbore testimony that the man Christ, who spoke to the Jews, was God. The Son Himself, as God bore this testimony by word and work, and the Father by the miracles that He gave the Son to perform (v. 36).19. Dicebant ergo ei: Ubi est Pater tuus? Respondit Iesus: Neque me scitis, neque Patrem meum: si me sciretis forsitan et Patrem meum sciretis.19. They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also.19. To their question Jesus answers:Neither me do you know, nor my Father. The sense is: You know not who I am,that I am God; if you knew and recognised Me to be God, you would also know who My Father is, that He must be God; and thus you would know the answer to your question, since God dwells in heaven. On the use of“forsitan,”see above oniv. 10.20. Haec verba locutus est Iesus in gazophylacio, docens in templo: et nemo apprehendit eum, quia necdum venerat hora eius.20. These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple: and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.20. The Greek word translated by“treasury”is γαζοφυλακίῳ, derived from the Persiangaza(money), and φυλάσσω (to guard). This treasury was a chest or safe for holding[pg 154]money (see Luke xxi. 1), but by metonymy the name was given to the cloister in which it stood. This cloister was in the court of the women. See above onii. 14.21. Dixit ergo iterum eis Iesus: Ego vado, et quaeretis me, et in peccato vestro moriemini. Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire?21. Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go, and you shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither I go, you cannot come.21. It is doubtful whether this is a continuation of the preceding, or a new discourse. For the meaning of the verse, see above onvii. 34. The particularsinreferred to here is infidelity; but dying in infidelity, meant dying in many sins besides; and hence the pluralsins, is used in verse 24.22. Dicebant ergo Iudaei: Numquid interficiet semetipsum, quia dixit: Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire?22. The Jews therefore said: Will he kill himself, because he said: Whither I go, you cannot come?22. Josephus (De Bello Jud., iii. 8, 5) tells us that the Pharisees believed that the lowest depths of hell are reserved for suicides. The words of this verse may refer to that superstition; as if they said: does He mean to go into the depths of hell, where we the children of Abraham cannot, of course, follow Him? But the more simple explanation is: He cannot escape from us wherever He may go on this earth. Does He then mean to take His own life, that so He may be out of our reach?23. Et dicebat eis: Vos de deorsum estis, ego de supernis sum. Vos de mundo hoc estis, ego non sum de hoc mundo.23. And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world.23. Taking no notice of what had just been said, Jesus proceeds in His discourse.You, He says,are from beneath, I am from above(seeiii. 31);i.e., you are earthly in origin and nature, I am of heaven; moreover, you are earthly in sentiment, you belong to thewickedworld (seexv. 19), I do not belong to it. Thus He shows them there is a twofold difference between Him and them; and unless by the supernatural principle of faith they are lifted above their nature, and[pg 155]taken out of the wicked world, they shall die in their sins, and shall never here or hereafter be able to follow whither He goeth. Instead ofpeccato(Vulg.) in the end of verse 24, readpeccatis.For if you believe not that I am he.“He”is not represented in the Greek or Latin text, and ought not to stand in the English. The predicate may be purposely suppressed in order to leave the meaning, which was still sufficiently intelligible, obscure, and thus afford no opportunity to His enemies of charging Him with blasphemy.24. Dixi ergo vobis quia moriemini in peccatis vestris: si enim non credideritis quia ego sum, moriemini in peccato vestro.24. Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.25. Dicebant ergo ei: Tu quis es? Dixit eis Iesus: Principium, qui et loquor vobis.25. They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you.25. This is a very obscure verse. Christ had just spoken of faith in Himself; but in Himselfunder what aspectHe had not defined; and now in the hope of evoking an answer for which they could punish Him, they ask:Who art thou?His answer is purposely obscure. It is according to the Greek text, τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι (or ὅ τι) καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; which is rendered in the Vulgate:Principium qui et loquor vobis, and in our Rheims version:The beginning, who also speak unto you.About the meaning of this answer there is a great diversity opinion. Some take the words affirmatively, others interrogatively; some understand τὴν ἀρχήν as a substantive, others as an adverb; some regard ὅ τι as a relative (that which), others as an interrogative = τί (how or why?) and others again as a conjunction, ὅτι (for, or, because). The Vulgate translator may have read ὅστις (who) instead of ὅ τι, or ὅτι; or possibly“Qui et”of our Vulgate is a corruption of“quia,”which is found in the oldest Vulgate MSS. The objection against the Vulgate and English translations is that while τῆν ἀρχήν is an accusative, theyseemto understand it as a nominative. Nor can it be replied, that it is attracted into the accusative case of the relative which follows; for, apart from the fact that there is no other instance of such attraction in St. John, the explanation is inadmissible here, inasmuch as these translations understand the relative not as an accusative, but as a nominative. A better defence is that of St. Augustine, who would supply some such words as:“Believe Me to be,”before the sentence, thus makingprincipiumthe accusative after[pg 156]esse: Believe Me to be the beginning, &c.(2) Others, understanding τὴν ἀρχήν in the same way as the preceding opinion, take ὁ τι as a relative, and render: I am the beginning, that which I also declare unto you. Here there is room for attraction, since the relative is now taken as an accusative; but against such attraction is the usage of St. John, as already stated.(3) Others, taking τὴν ἀρχήν as an adverb (from the beginning), render: I am from the beginning, from eternity, what I even declare unto you. But it is objected to this view that τὴν ἀρχήν is not found elsewhere in Sacred Scripture in this sense, and moreover that the verb λαλῶ (to discuss with, to converse) is wrongly taken to be equivalent to λέγω (to declare). To this latter point, however, it is replied that the two verbs are frequently interchanged in later Greek.(4) Others thus: Even that which I have also spoken to you from the beginning.68But this view is open to the same objections as the preceding.(5) Others again: Essentially (or, in very deed) that which I speak unto you. So Alford.(6) Others: On the whole, why do I even speak with you? So St. Chrys., Corluy, &c.(7) Others: Absolutely, or most certainly, that which I also tell you. So Beel., Kuin, &c. Τὴν ἀρχήν is thus taken as equivalent toomnino, for which sense Beelen quotes several classical writers.We prefer the sixth and seventh opinions; but rather the seventh, since it supposes Christ to answer their question, though in language purposely obscure. In the sixth opinion, Christ vouchsafes no answer to their question, and we should naturally expect an impatient interruption from them immediately after, were that opinion correct.26. Multa habeo de vobis loqui, et iudicare: sed qui me misit, verax est: et ego quae audivi ab eo, haec loquor in mundo.26. Many things I have to speak and to judge of you. But he that sent me is true; and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world.26. Some explain thus: I have many things to say of you, and to condemn in you,[pg 157]but with this only will I charge you now, namely, that you are guilty of incredulity, since He who sent Me is true (truthful), and I speak His words, and yet you refuse to believe in Me. But the ellipsis here is not sufficiently obvious; and, hence, we prefer to understand thus: I have many things, &c., but My judgments will be just, and such as cannot be gainsaid.27. Et non cognoverunt quia Patrem eius dicebat Deum.27. And they understood not that he called God his father.27. The Greek is:They knew not that He spoke to them of the Father.28. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Cum exaltaveritis Filium hominis, tunc cognoscetis quia ego sum, et a meipso facio nihil, sed sicut docuit me Pater, haec loquor:28. Jesus therefore said to them: When you shall have lifted up the son of man, then shall you know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath taught me, these things I speak.28.Lifted up.The reference is to Christ's crucifixion as is clear from xii. 32, 33. The substance of Christ's prediction is, that after His death they will come to recognise Him as God. We know how truly this prediction was fulfilled, not merely in the centurion and his soldiers (Matt. xxvii. 54), and in the crowd that returned from Calvary, striking their breasts (Luke xxiii. 48), but all along from that time through the preaching of the Apostles. On the Father's teaching the Son, see above on v.19,20.29. Et qui me misit, mecum est et non reliquit me solum, quia ego quae placita sunt ei, facio semper.29. And he that sent me is with me, and he hath not left me alone: for I do always the things that please him.29.For.“The word seems to be used as in Luke vii. 47, to indicate the sign of the truth of the statement made, and not to give the ground of the fact stated”(Westc.).30. Haec illo loquente, multi crediderunt in eum.30. When he spoke these things, many believed in him.31. Dicebat ergo Iesus ad eos, qui crediderunt ei Iudaeos: Si vos manseritis in sermone meo, vere discipuli mei eritis:31. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed.31. Christ here lays down the test by which His disciples are to be known. It is only when we accept His words,[pg 158]and conform our works thereto, that we can be truly said to be His disciples.32. Et cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos.32. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.32.The truth;i.e., the whole body of revelation.33. Responderunt ei: Semen Abrahae sumus, et nemini servivimus unquam: quomodo tu dicis: Liberi eritis?33. They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any man: how sayest thou: You shall be free?34. Respondit eis Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis: quia omnis qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati:34. Jesus answered them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin.35. Servus autem non manet in domo in aeternum: filius autem manet in aeternum:35. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth for ever:36. Si ergo vos filius liberaverit, vere liberi eritis.36. If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.33-36. To Christ's promise that the truth should make them free, some of the crowd who remained incredulous, replied that they were never slaves, to which Christ makes answer that they are the slaves of sin: and only when the Son of God shall free them, shall they be truly free. Verse 35 is an illustration drawn from ordinary life. As slaves who displease their masters may be sold, or expelled from the household, so you who, instead of serving God, are the slaves of sin, are, and shall remain, excluded from the household of God here and hereafter.37. Scio quia filii Abrahae estis: sed quaeritis me interficere, quia sermo meus non capit in vobis.37. I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.38. Ego quod vidi apud Patrem meum loquor, et vos quae vidistis apud patrem vestrum, facitis.38. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father.38.Your father;i.e., the devil (see verse44). Others understand ποιεῖτε as an imperative; do then the works which[pg 159]you have seen with your father (Abraham). But since the following verse proves that the Jews understood Christ to speak of another father than Abraham, for this reason, and because of verse 44, the first interpretation is preferable. The sense then is: You do the works that you have learned from your father the devil.39. Responderunt, et dixerunt ei: Pater noster Abraham est. Dicit eis Iesus: Si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite.39. They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.39.If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.The Greek is: If youwerethe (true) children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham.40. Nunc autem quaeritis me interficere, hominem qui veritatem vobis locutus sum, quam audivi a Deo: hoc Abraham non fecit.40. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.41. Vos facitis opera patris vestri. Dixerunt itaque ei: Nos ex fornicatione non sumus nati: unum patrem habemus Deum.41. You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one FatherevenGod.42. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Si Deus pater vester esset, diligeretis utique me: ego enim ex Deo processi, et veni: neque enim a me ipso veni, sed ille me misit.42. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came: for I came not of myself, but he sent me.41, 42. Understanding Christ to mean that they were not true Jews, but idolaters (πορνέια being frequently used of idolatry in the Bible;e.g., Ezech. xvi. 15, foll.; see ii.4,5,), they protest that they are not idolaters, and that they worship but one God. To this Christ replies, that if they were true children of God, they would love Himself.I proceeded and came, denote respectively the eternal generation, and mission in time.43. Quare loquelam meam non cognoscitis? Quia non potestis audire sermonem meum.43. Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word.43. The sense is: why do[pg 160]you not understand My discourses (λαλιάν) on this and on other occasions? The reason is, because you cannot, youwill not, receive My doctrine (λόγος). What we do not desire to hear, we are slow to understand. Christ's teaching, so opposed to flesh and blood, so much at variance with all that the Jews had hoped for from their Messias, they were very unwilling to accept.“Ideo audire non poterant, quia corrigi credendo nolebant”(St. August.).44. Vos ex patre diabolo estis: et desideria patris vestri vultis facere. Ille homicida erat ab initio, et in veritate non stetit: quia non est veritas in eo: cum loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur, quia mendax est, et pater eius.44. You are ofyourfather the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.44. At last He plainly tells them who their father is.He was a murderer from the beginning, for he tempted Eve, and thus brought death upon the human race, and he prompted Cain to slay Abel.And he stood not in the truth; or rather, hestandethnot in the truth (the perfect of this verb having a present signification. See Winer,Gr. Gram. N. T., p. 34269), because there is no truth in his nature. St. Augustine argued from this verse to prove the fall of the rebel angels:“Ergo in veritate fuit, sed non stando cecidit, et de veritate lapsus est.”But the conclusion is not warranted by this verse, for the true meaning of ἕστηκεν, and the reason given by our Lord for the devil's not standing in the truth—namely,because truth is not in him, show that there is no reference to the devil as he was before the fall, but only to his nature and methods since.Of his own,i.e., in accordance with his nature.The father thereof, namely, oflying. We thus, with Beelen, refer αὐτοῦ (ejus) to ψεύδους[pg 161](understood).“Αὐτοῦ, scil. ψεύδους quae vox sumi debet ex antegressa ψεύστης in qua veluti continetur”(Gr. Gram. N. T., page 104).45. Ego autem si veritatem dico, non creditis mihi.45. But if I say the truth, you believe me not.45. Instead of“si”(Vulg.) the Greek has ὅτι (quia): because I speak the truth.46. Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? Si veritatem dico vobis, quare non creditis mihi?46. Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me?46. Christ appeals to His integrity of character and innocence of life; as if He said: it cannot be My life that prevents you from believing: so that if My doctrine is true, you have no excuse.47. Qui ex Deo est, verba Dei audit. Propterea vos non auditis, quia ex Deo non estis.47. He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.47.“He assigns the cause of their not believing or obeying His words, viz., because they are not of God. They are not children of God, sharers in His spirit; but rather children of the devil, filled with his spirit”(M'Evilly).48. Responderunt ergo Iudaei, et dixerunt ei: Nonne bene dicimus nos quia Samaritanus es tu, et daemonium habes?48. The Jews therefore answered and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?49. Respondit Iesus: Ego daemonium non habeo: sed honorifico Patrem meum, et vos inhonorastis me.49. Jesus answered: I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me.48, 49. They say to Him that He is a Samaritan, and has a devil. The first charge He passes over as unworthy of notice; to the second He replies that, so far from having a devil, He honours His Father, while they dishonour Himself. On account of His language, strange to them, and His earnest fervour, they say that He is possessed; and He replies that His words and manner are due to the fact that He is seeking the glory of His Father.50. Ego autem non quaero gloriam meam: est qui quaerat, et iudicet.50. But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.50. But thoughyou dishonour(the Greek has the present in end of 49)Me, I[pg 162]will not seek to avenge the dishonour; the Father will avenge it. See Deut. xviii. 19.51. Amen, amen dico vobis: si quis sermonem meum servaverit, mortem non videbit in aeternum.51. Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.51. In verse 32, He promised freedom, now He promises immortality, to those that hearken to His words.52. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: Nunc cognovimus quia daemonium habes. Abraham mortuus est, et prophetae: et tu dicis: Si quis sermonem meum servaverit, non gustabit mortem in aeternum.52. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets: and thou sayest: If any man keep my word he shall not taste death for ever.53. Numquid tu maior es patre nostro Abraham, qui mortuus est? et prophetae mortui sunt. Quem teipsum facis?53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself?52, 53. The Jews accuse Him of preferring Himself to Abraham and the prophets, to which He replies—54. Respondit Iesus: Si ego glorifico, meipsum, gloria mea nihil est: est Pater meus, qui glorificat me, quem vos dicitis quia Deus vester est.54. Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God.54. If I glorify Myself,let it go for nought; it is My Father, &c.55. Et non cognovistis eum. Ego autem novi eum: et si dixero quia non scio eum, ero similis vobis, mendax. Sed scio eum, et sermonem eius servo.55. And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word.55. The Jews knew not the Father as the Father of Christ; moreover, they knew Him not at all with a practical knowledge so as to serve Him.[pg 163]56. Abraham pater vester exultavit ut videret diem meum: vidit, et gavisus est.56. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.56.Abraham your father rejoiced, &c. He leaves it to be inferred that He, being the object of Abraham's hope and joy, is greater than Abraham, and still not opposed to him. Our Lord'sdayhere is not the eternal existence of the Son, nor the day of His death, nor Himself, the day-star of justice, but the day for which all the ancient just had so long prayed and sighed:“drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just”(Is. xlv. 8), the day or time of Christ's mortal life on earth.Rejoiced that he might see(ἵνα ἴδη). Most probably the meaning is, that Abraham, after God had revealed to him that the Messias was to be born of his seed, hoped and yearned in joyful confidence that he might see Christ on earth.He saw it, and was glad.It would seem from these words that Abraham saw in the way in which he had yearned to see. And since he cannot have yearned to see Christ's day merely by faith, for he already saw it by faith; hence there must be question here of some other vision. Mald., A Lap., and most commentators hold that Abraham's mental vision was elevated by God, so that from limbo he saw and knew that Christ was on earth just as the angels and saints in heaven know what happens on earth and in hell. The aorist tenses in the Greek (εἶδεν καὶ ἐχάρη), with their past definite signification, are not easily reconciled with this view, and hence others prefer to suppose that there is reference to some very special revelation made to Abraham during his life on earth, in which he saw with something more than the vision of ordinary faith the time and various circumstances of Christ's mortal life (compare Heb. xi. 13).57. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad eum: Quinquaginta annos nondum habes, et Abraham vidisti?57. The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?57. In saying Christ was not yet fifty years of age, they take an age about which there could be no dispute, as if they said: at the very outside Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? The common opinion is that Christ died in his thirty-fourth year, though, strange to say, St. Irenæus held the singular view that he lived to be fifty. (Iren.,Adv. Haer., ii. 39, 40.)58. Dixit eis Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis, antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum.58. Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.58. In verse 56, He spoke of the day of His mortal life,[pg 164]now He declares His eternity.Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made(γενέσθαι, came into being),I am(ἐγώ εἴμι).59. Tulerunt ergo lapides, ut iacerent in eum. Iesus autem abscondit se, et exivit de templo.59. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.59. Understanding Him to claim to be eternal, as He really did, they took up stones to stone Him, the Law commanding that a blasphemer, as they accounted Him, should be stoned (Lev. xxiv. 16). But Jesus hid Himself, most probably rendered Himself invisible, and thus passed out of the temple, showing us that it is sometimes advisable, and conducive to the greater glory of God, that we should flee from danger, even when we are persecuted for God's sake. Many ancient authorities add at the end of this verse:“And going through the midst of them went His way, and so passed by;”but more probably the words are a gloss.

1. In contrast to those who retired to their homes (vii. 53), Jesus retired to Mount Olivet, where He often spent the night in prayer (Luke xxi. 37; vi. 12). Mount Olivet, separated from Jerusalem by the brook of Cedron, was a Sabbath day's journey from the City (Acts i. 12); that is to say, about seven and a-half stadia, and therefore less than an English mile.

2. Early on the morning that followed the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles (seevii. 37), He came again to the temple, and all the[pg 150]people who were assembled in the City from the various parts of Palestine, came to Him, and He was teaching them.

3. While Jesus was engaged in teaching the people, the Pharisees bring to him a woman who had been caught in adultery,in the very act, as we learn from the Greek of verse 4.

5. It is not stated anywhere in the Pentateuch that the adulterer and adulteress should bestoned, but it is, that they should be put to death (Lev. xx. 10). Doubtless the death was by stoning, as is indicated in Ezech. xvi. 38-40.

6. They hoped to entrap our Lord; for if he acquitted the woman they could charge him with being an adversary of the Mosaic Law (Lev. xx. 10); while if He condemned her to death, they could charge Him with defying the Roman Law, which at this time denied to the Jews the right of inflicting capital punishment (John xviii. 31). What Jesus wrote it is impossible to say. Probably it was His intention to signify by this turning away to something else that He wished not to have anything to do with the matter in question.

7.Let him first cast a stone at her.The deep wisdom of this answer gave them no ground for charging[pg 151]Him with opposition to any law, and at the same time referred them to their own guilty consciences. He does not say that sinners may not be punished by sinners, but implies that it was not seemly that they who were guilty of the same or greater sins should be the accusers of the poor wretch who stood before them.

8. Having shamed them by this appeal to the tribunal of their conscience, He again stooped down to write, probably to afford them an opportunity to depart.

11.Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.Doubtless the treatment of her accusers by Christ, and abundant grace poured into her soul, had already moved the woman's heart to repentance, and Christ, exercising His Divine power, absolved her from her sin. He did not condemn her, but, in telling her to sin no more, He showed that she had done what was wrong, and warned her as to the future. Thus the incident shows the boundless mercy of Christ for sinners, His hatred of sin, and, what St. John probably had chiefly before his mind in recording[pg 152]it, Christ's Divine power to forgive sin.

12. We do not know whether this is a new discourse, or only a continuation of that referred to above in verse 2. On Christ's words here recorded, see above oni. 5. They follow Christ, who believe in Him, and obey Him.

13.Thy testimony is not true; that is to say, is not juridical, such as ought to be accepted.

14. Christ's answer is: though I bear testimony of Myself, My testimony should be accepted, because I am God (I know whence I came, and whither I go); self-interest and self-love can have no influence on Me, so as to warp My judgment or weaken My testimony.

15.You judge according to the flesh;i.e., according to appearances, as though I were a mere man; or, more probably, according to your carnal ideas (Rom. viii. 4-6); thinking Me an impostor, you condemn Me.I judge not any man.The sense is that Christ at His first coming, condemned no one, for it is of the judgment of condemnation there is question, according to what seems the most probable view. Compare iii. 17; xii. 47.

16. The meaning is: if I did judge, My judgment would be just, because not the judgment of a mere man, but identical with the judgment of My Father. Seex. 30;xiv. 10.

17. Καὶ ... δὲ, indicate the transition in which He passes from speaking of condemnation to speak of His testimony. Your law, He says, requires and is satisfied with two Witnesses (Deut. xvii. 6).

18. Now, two bear testimony to Me. TwoPersonsbore testimony that the man Christ, who spoke to the Jews, was God. The Son Himself, as God bore this testimony by word and work, and the Father by the miracles that He gave the Son to perform (v. 36).

19. To their question Jesus answers:Neither me do you know, nor my Father. The sense is: You know not who I am,that I am God; if you knew and recognised Me to be God, you would also know who My Father is, that He must be God; and thus you would know the answer to your question, since God dwells in heaven. On the use of“forsitan,”see above oniv. 10.

20. The Greek word translated by“treasury”is γαζοφυλακίῳ, derived from the Persiangaza(money), and φυλάσσω (to guard). This treasury was a chest or safe for holding[pg 154]money (see Luke xxi. 1), but by metonymy the name was given to the cloister in which it stood. This cloister was in the court of the women. See above onii. 14.

21. It is doubtful whether this is a continuation of the preceding, or a new discourse. For the meaning of the verse, see above onvii. 34. The particularsinreferred to here is infidelity; but dying in infidelity, meant dying in many sins besides; and hence the pluralsins, is used in verse 24.

22. Josephus (De Bello Jud., iii. 8, 5) tells us that the Pharisees believed that the lowest depths of hell are reserved for suicides. The words of this verse may refer to that superstition; as if they said: does He mean to go into the depths of hell, where we the children of Abraham cannot, of course, follow Him? But the more simple explanation is: He cannot escape from us wherever He may go on this earth. Does He then mean to take His own life, that so He may be out of our reach?

23. Taking no notice of what had just been said, Jesus proceeds in His discourse.You, He says,are from beneath, I am from above(seeiii. 31);i.e., you are earthly in origin and nature, I am of heaven; moreover, you are earthly in sentiment, you belong to thewickedworld (seexv. 19), I do not belong to it. Thus He shows them there is a twofold difference between Him and them; and unless by the supernatural principle of faith they are lifted above their nature, and[pg 155]taken out of the wicked world, they shall die in their sins, and shall never here or hereafter be able to follow whither He goeth. Instead ofpeccato(Vulg.) in the end of verse 24, readpeccatis.For if you believe not that I am he.“He”is not represented in the Greek or Latin text, and ought not to stand in the English. The predicate may be purposely suppressed in order to leave the meaning, which was still sufficiently intelligible, obscure, and thus afford no opportunity to His enemies of charging Him with blasphemy.

25. This is a very obscure verse. Christ had just spoken of faith in Himself; but in Himselfunder what aspectHe had not defined; and now in the hope of evoking an answer for which they could punish Him, they ask:Who art thou?His answer is purposely obscure. It is according to the Greek text, τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι (or ὅ τι) καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; which is rendered in the Vulgate:Principium qui et loquor vobis, and in our Rheims version:The beginning, who also speak unto you.

About the meaning of this answer there is a great diversity opinion. Some take the words affirmatively, others interrogatively; some understand τὴν ἀρχήν as a substantive, others as an adverb; some regard ὅ τι as a relative (that which), others as an interrogative = τί (how or why?) and others again as a conjunction, ὅτι (for, or, because). The Vulgate translator may have read ὅστις (who) instead of ὅ τι, or ὅτι; or possibly“Qui et”of our Vulgate is a corruption of“quia,”which is found in the oldest Vulgate MSS. The objection against the Vulgate and English translations is that while τῆν ἀρχήν is an accusative, theyseemto understand it as a nominative. Nor can it be replied, that it is attracted into the accusative case of the relative which follows; for, apart from the fact that there is no other instance of such attraction in St. John, the explanation is inadmissible here, inasmuch as these translations understand the relative not as an accusative, but as a nominative. A better defence is that of St. Augustine, who would supply some such words as:“Believe Me to be,”before the sentence, thus makingprincipiumthe accusative after[pg 156]esse: Believe Me to be the beginning, &c.

(2) Others, understanding τὴν ἀρχήν in the same way as the preceding opinion, take ὁ τι as a relative, and render: I am the beginning, that which I also declare unto you. Here there is room for attraction, since the relative is now taken as an accusative; but against such attraction is the usage of St. John, as already stated.

(3) Others, taking τὴν ἀρχήν as an adverb (from the beginning), render: I am from the beginning, from eternity, what I even declare unto you. But it is objected to this view that τὴν ἀρχήν is not found elsewhere in Sacred Scripture in this sense, and moreover that the verb λαλῶ (to discuss with, to converse) is wrongly taken to be equivalent to λέγω (to declare). To this latter point, however, it is replied that the two verbs are frequently interchanged in later Greek.

(4) Others thus: Even that which I have also spoken to you from the beginning.68But this view is open to the same objections as the preceding.

(5) Others again: Essentially (or, in very deed) that which I speak unto you. So Alford.

(6) Others: On the whole, why do I even speak with you? So St. Chrys., Corluy, &c.

(7) Others: Absolutely, or most certainly, that which I also tell you. So Beel., Kuin, &c. Τὴν ἀρχήν is thus taken as equivalent toomnino, for which sense Beelen quotes several classical writers.

We prefer the sixth and seventh opinions; but rather the seventh, since it supposes Christ to answer their question, though in language purposely obscure. In the sixth opinion, Christ vouchsafes no answer to their question, and we should naturally expect an impatient interruption from them immediately after, were that opinion correct.

26. Some explain thus: I have many things to say of you, and to condemn in you,[pg 157]but with this only will I charge you now, namely, that you are guilty of incredulity, since He who sent Me is true (truthful), and I speak His words, and yet you refuse to believe in Me. But the ellipsis here is not sufficiently obvious; and, hence, we prefer to understand thus: I have many things, &c., but My judgments will be just, and such as cannot be gainsaid.

27. The Greek is:They knew not that He spoke to them of the Father.

28.Lifted up.The reference is to Christ's crucifixion as is clear from xii. 32, 33. The substance of Christ's prediction is, that after His death they will come to recognise Him as God. We know how truly this prediction was fulfilled, not merely in the centurion and his soldiers (Matt. xxvii. 54), and in the crowd that returned from Calvary, striking their breasts (Luke xxiii. 48), but all along from that time through the preaching of the Apostles. On the Father's teaching the Son, see above on v.19,20.

29.For.“The word seems to be used as in Luke vii. 47, to indicate the sign of the truth of the statement made, and not to give the ground of the fact stated”(Westc.).

31. Christ here lays down the test by which His disciples are to be known. It is only when we accept His words,[pg 158]and conform our works thereto, that we can be truly said to be His disciples.

32.The truth;i.e., the whole body of revelation.

33-36. To Christ's promise that the truth should make them free, some of the crowd who remained incredulous, replied that they were never slaves, to which Christ makes answer that they are the slaves of sin: and only when the Son of God shall free them, shall they be truly free. Verse 35 is an illustration drawn from ordinary life. As slaves who displease their masters may be sold, or expelled from the household, so you who, instead of serving God, are the slaves of sin, are, and shall remain, excluded from the household of God here and hereafter.

38.Your father;i.e., the devil (see verse44). Others understand ποιεῖτε as an imperative; do then the works which[pg 159]you have seen with your father (Abraham). But since the following verse proves that the Jews understood Christ to speak of another father than Abraham, for this reason, and because of verse 44, the first interpretation is preferable. The sense then is: You do the works that you have learned from your father the devil.

39.If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.The Greek is: If youwerethe (true) children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham.

41, 42. Understanding Christ to mean that they were not true Jews, but idolaters (πορνέια being frequently used of idolatry in the Bible;e.g., Ezech. xvi. 15, foll.; see ii.4,5,), they protest that they are not idolaters, and that they worship but one God. To this Christ replies, that if they were true children of God, they would love Himself.I proceeded and came, denote respectively the eternal generation, and mission in time.

43. The sense is: why do[pg 160]you not understand My discourses (λαλιάν) on this and on other occasions? The reason is, because you cannot, youwill not, receive My doctrine (λόγος). What we do not desire to hear, we are slow to understand. Christ's teaching, so opposed to flesh and blood, so much at variance with all that the Jews had hoped for from their Messias, they were very unwilling to accept.“Ideo audire non poterant, quia corrigi credendo nolebant”(St. August.).

44. At last He plainly tells them who their father is.He was a murderer from the beginning, for he tempted Eve, and thus brought death upon the human race, and he prompted Cain to slay Abel.

And he stood not in the truth; or rather, hestandethnot in the truth (the perfect of this verb having a present signification. See Winer,Gr. Gram. N. T., p. 34269), because there is no truth in his nature. St. Augustine argued from this verse to prove the fall of the rebel angels:“Ergo in veritate fuit, sed non stando cecidit, et de veritate lapsus est.”But the conclusion is not warranted by this verse, for the true meaning of ἕστηκεν, and the reason given by our Lord for the devil's not standing in the truth—namely,because truth is not in him, show that there is no reference to the devil as he was before the fall, but only to his nature and methods since.Of his own,i.e., in accordance with his nature.The father thereof, namely, oflying. We thus, with Beelen, refer αὐτοῦ (ejus) to ψεύδους[pg 161](understood).“Αὐτοῦ, scil. ψεύδους quae vox sumi debet ex antegressa ψεύστης in qua veluti continetur”(Gr. Gram. N. T., page 104).

45. Instead of“si”(Vulg.) the Greek has ὅτι (quia): because I speak the truth.

46. Christ appeals to His integrity of character and innocence of life; as if He said: it cannot be My life that prevents you from believing: so that if My doctrine is true, you have no excuse.

47.“He assigns the cause of their not believing or obeying His words, viz., because they are not of God. They are not children of God, sharers in His spirit; but rather children of the devil, filled with his spirit”(M'Evilly).

48, 49. They say to Him that He is a Samaritan, and has a devil. The first charge He passes over as unworthy of notice; to the second He replies that, so far from having a devil, He honours His Father, while they dishonour Himself. On account of His language, strange to them, and His earnest fervour, they say that He is possessed; and He replies that His words and manner are due to the fact that He is seeking the glory of His Father.

50. But thoughyou dishonour(the Greek has the present in end of 49)Me, I[pg 162]will not seek to avenge the dishonour; the Father will avenge it. See Deut. xviii. 19.

51. In verse 32, He promised freedom, now He promises immortality, to those that hearken to His words.

52, 53. The Jews accuse Him of preferring Himself to Abraham and the prophets, to which He replies—

54. If I glorify Myself,let it go for nought; it is My Father, &c.

55. The Jews knew not the Father as the Father of Christ; moreover, they knew Him not at all with a practical knowledge so as to serve Him.

56.Abraham your father rejoiced, &c. He leaves it to be inferred that He, being the object of Abraham's hope and joy, is greater than Abraham, and still not opposed to him. Our Lord'sdayhere is not the eternal existence of the Son, nor the day of His death, nor Himself, the day-star of justice, but the day for which all the ancient just had so long prayed and sighed:“drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just”(Is. xlv. 8), the day or time of Christ's mortal life on earth.Rejoiced that he might see(ἵνα ἴδη). Most probably the meaning is, that Abraham, after God had revealed to him that the Messias was to be born of his seed, hoped and yearned in joyful confidence that he might see Christ on earth.He saw it, and was glad.It would seem from these words that Abraham saw in the way in which he had yearned to see. And since he cannot have yearned to see Christ's day merely by faith, for he already saw it by faith; hence there must be question here of some other vision. Mald., A Lap., and most commentators hold that Abraham's mental vision was elevated by God, so that from limbo he saw and knew that Christ was on earth just as the angels and saints in heaven know what happens on earth and in hell. The aorist tenses in the Greek (εἶδεν καὶ ἐχάρη), with their past definite signification, are not easily reconciled with this view, and hence others prefer to suppose that there is reference to some very special revelation made to Abraham during his life on earth, in which he saw with something more than the vision of ordinary faith the time and various circumstances of Christ's mortal life (compare Heb. xi. 13).

57. In saying Christ was not yet fifty years of age, they take an age about which there could be no dispute, as if they said: at the very outside Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? The common opinion is that Christ died in his thirty-fourth year, though, strange to say, St. Irenæus held the singular view that he lived to be fifty. (Iren.,Adv. Haer., ii. 39, 40.)

58. In verse 56, He spoke of the day of His mortal life,[pg 164]now He declares His eternity.Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made(γενέσθαι, came into being),I am(ἐγώ εἴμι).

59. Understanding Him to claim to be eternal, as He really did, they took up stones to stone Him, the Law commanding that a blasphemer, as they accounted Him, should be stoned (Lev. xxiv. 16). But Jesus hid Himself, most probably rendered Himself invisible, and thus passed out of the temple, showing us that it is sometimes advisable, and conducive to the greater glory of God, that we should flee from danger, even when we are persecuted for God's sake. Many ancient authorities add at the end of this verse:“And going through the midst of them went His way, and so passed by;”but more probably the words are a gloss.

Back to IndexNext