3.Witness to the Son (5:30-47)

3.Witness to the Son (5:30-47)

JOHN 5

THE ORDER OF CHAPTERS 5 AND 6

Of the various suggested rearrangements of the text of this Gospel none has more probability than the transposition of chapters 5 and 6. The opening words of chapter 6 ("Sometime after this, Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee") read strangely after a chapter set in Judea, but naturally after chapter 4 (which ends with Jesus in Cana). The Passover is near in 6:4, and may be present in 5:1. The reference in 7:1 to Jesus' walking in Galilee because the Jews sought to kill him is not what we expect after a narrative set in Galilee, but would be in place after chapter 5. Such a transposition has seemed to many to be possible.

Against it is the point made by MacGregor (who nevertheless accepts the transposition): "the crisis of the Galilean ministry described at the end of chapter 6 comes too early if placed before chapter 5, its appropriate setting being immediately before Jesus' final departure from Galilee at 7:10, in which position it provides a fitting conclusion to the first Section of the Gospel." Moreover, it must be borne in mind that John is not giving a complete history.

We ought not to expect everything to fit into a neat geographical or chronological picture. John draws his incidents from where he chooses. It may not be without relevance that in 21:1 there is an abrupt and unexplained transition from Judea to Galilee, so that the phenomenon is found elsewhere. We have no manuscript evidence for any order other than the traditional one. Nor is it easy to see how such a transposition could have taken place, despite the claims of those who advocate displacement so strenuously. There is also the point made by Godet (on ch. 6) that a removal to Galilee would follow naturally on the conflict mentioned in chapter 5. Finally, there is the theological point that in chapter 6 Jesus speaks of himself as the bread of life, the bread that came down from heaven, the living bread, and makes it clear that people have eternal life only through him. The establishment of Jesus' position as the divine Son in 5:19-47 seems to be required as the basis for the claims made in chapter 6.¹ Certainty in such a matter is not possible, but the case for reversal of order has not been made out and until it is, it is best to try to understand the Gospel in the traditional order. See further Introduction, 6.²

H. THE THIRD SIGN — THE HEALING

OF THE LAME MAN (5:1-18)

I. The Healing (5:l-9a)

1Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. 2Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda^a and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. 3Here a great number of disabled people used to lie — the blind, the lame, the paralyzed.^b 5One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, "Do you want to get well?" 7"Sir," the invalid replied, "I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me. 8Then Jesus said to him, "Get up! Pick up your mat and walk." 9At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.

a. 2 Some manuscripts Bethzatha; other manuscripts Bethsaida

b. 3 Some manuscripts paralyzed — and they waited for the moving of the waters; some less important manuscripts continue 4 From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease he had.

Until this point John has been almost exclusively concerned with Jesus' dealings with individuals. There is still individual contact, but the healing of the lame man leads to a conflict with the Pharisees, the religious leaders. We are thus introduced to a theme that is important in the rest of this Gospel. Jesus does his mighty works, his "signs." But, instead of faith, strenuous opposition is aroused among the national religious leaders. The conflict grows and intensifies. Eventually, as a result of it, Jesus will meet his death.³ Here we see the first example of this motif, the emergence of an implacable hostility. This has, of course, been foreshadowed in the Prologue ("He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him" [1:11]), and it will be developed in chapters 8, 12, and 13 especially.⁴

1  Some time later⁵ came a feast that is not further defined. If this chapter be held to follow chapter 6 it will most certainly refer to the Passover mentioned in 6:4. If not, there seems no way of identifying it with certainty.⁶ "Of the Jews" is an explanation John commonly adds for the benefit of his Gentile readers. Jesus followed the practice of the pious men of his day by going up to Jerusalem to observe festivals. Indeed, John's indefinite reference to "a feast" may be intended to convey as much (it may imply that it was not only for specific, outstanding feasts that Jesus went up).

2  If the present tense "is" is significant it points us to a time before the destruction of Jerusalem.⁷ This cannot be pressed, but neither should it be overlooked. "Sheep" is an adjective, which we should probably take with "pool" to give the meaning "There is by the sheep-pool, (the pool) which is called. . . ." The alternative is to supply "gate" (as NIV; cf. Neh. 3:1; 12:39),⁸ or perhaps "market" (KJV). The name of the pool is likewise beset with difficulty. This may be due in part to the fact that the name is given "in Hebrew," which would have been unfamiliar to the Greek scribes who copied the Gospel; it would be easy for them to make mistakes in a strange language. "In Hebrew" is usually understood to mean, "in the language spoken by the Jews," that is "in Aramaic" (so NIV). This is probably the way to understand it, but the matter is not simple.⁹ "Bethsaida," "Bethzatha," and "Bethesda" are all well attested, and "Belzetha" is also found.¹⁰ The textual problem is a complicated one, and none of these variants can be ruled out as impossible. However, the copper scroll found at Qumran reads "Beth Eshdatain," which makes "Bethesda" almost certainly correct.¹¹ The clue that the pool had five "porches"¹² (better "colonnades") makes it probable that it is correctly identified as the double pool now known by the name of St. Anne.¹³

3   Many sick people were gathered there. The true text says nothing about why they came, but a very ancient explanation has somehow crept into the text (vv. 3b-4). The manuscript evidence makes it certain that this is no part of the original Gospel.¹⁴ But there is no reason for doubting that it explains the presence of the people (cf. v. 7). They thought that a periodic disturbance of the waters was due to an angel and that the first to enter the pool after such a disturbance would be healed. Accordingly they lay there, each hoping to be the speedy one and thus to receive healing. The disturbance may have been caused by the intermittent bubbling up of a natural spring.¹⁵

5  John speaks of a certain man among the unwell. He does not tell us what his trouble was, but from verse 8 it would appear to have been some form of paralysis or lameness.¹⁶ It was a complaint of long standing, thirty-eight years, no less.¹⁷ The supposedly healing water had effected no cure in all those years. It is against this background that John sets Jesus' healing word of power.

6  John does not say how Jesus knew of the length of time the man had suffered. He may wish us to understand it as another example of Jesus' supernatural knowledge (see on 4:17).¹⁸ But it would have been quite possible for Jesus to have asked the man or someone else. John simply takes up the story at the point where the Lord asks the question, "Do you want to get well?" It is noteworthy that Jesus takes the initiative (as in the case of all the "signs" in this Gospel except the healing of the nobleman's son). He does not wait for this man to approach him. He begins by inquiring as to his willingness to be cured.¹⁹

7  The man does not regard Jesus as a possible healer.²⁰ This is not surprising, for he did not even know who he was (v. 13). His thoughts were all on the curative properties of the pool. He explains that his failure to be cured during the long years of illness arises from his inability to get into the pool quickly enough when the waters are disturbed. He really needs someone to help him down. Because he lacks such assistance he is always beaten by someone else.

8-9a   Jesus immediately commands the man to rise, take up his pallet,²¹ and walk.²² Immediately²³ he does so. The cure is instantaneous and complete. This healing differs from many others in that, not only is there no mention of faith on the part of the man, but there seems to be no room for it. He did not even know Jesus' name (v. 13). Moreover, until Jesus uttered the critical words his thoughts were centered on healing through getting into the pool (v. 7). We must feel that, while faith was commonly the prerequisite of healing, it was not absolutely necessary. Jesus is not limited by human frailty as he works the works of God.

2. Dispute over the Sabbath (5:9b-18)

The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, 10and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, "It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat." 11But he replied, "The man who made me well said to me, 'Pick up your mat and walk.' " 12So they asked him, "Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk?" 13The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there. 14Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, "See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." 15The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

This is the first open hostility to Jesus recorded in this Gospel. As in the Synoptists the cause is Jesus' attitude to the Sabbath. Those Gospels have several references to disputes between Jesus and his Jewish opponents on the question of Sabbath keeping. It is a little curious that the issue should loom so large in Galilee, where, on the whole, Jews were not as strict as those in Jerusalem. But sometimes we read of religious men from Jerusalem appearing in Galilee (Matt. 15:1; Mark 3:22; 7:1), and this may be the explanation. Some such incident as the one John relates here aroused the vehement opposition of the religious leaders, and they sent their emissaries into Galilee seeking evidence of similar breaches of the law. The Jews regarded the Sabbath as a joyful day,²⁴ but nevertheless they hedged it about with a multitude of restrictions, which cannot but have been burdensome. Work of all kinds was prohibited, and the attempt to define work with precision, so as to be certain what was disallowed, was sometimes fantastic.²⁵ Jesus persistently maintained that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. He ignored the mass of scribal regulations, and thus inevitably came into conflict with the authorities.

9b-l0   John draws attention to the fact that the day of this cure was the Sabbath.²⁶ Jesus' act of compassion had not been inhibited because there were scribal regulations forbidding works of healing on that day. Perhaps he even chose the day for his deed in order that the issues might be made clear. At any rate, the reaction was not long in coming. The leaders of the opposition are called, as is John's custom, simply "the Jews" (see on 1:19). Since the healed man was a Jew, clearly the term is used in a sense other than ethnic. The Jews in question will probably have been mostly Pharisees. But we should bear in mind Newbigin's point: " 'the Jews,' as they are portrayed in the Gospel, are not uniquely blind or stubborn people. They represent established religion. They represent us" (on v. 4). These Jews reminded the man who had been cured²⁷ that it was the Sabbath (their word order stresses this word), and that therefore it was not lawful for him to lift up his pallet, let alone carry it. They probably had in mind such passages as Jeremiah 17:21ff. and Nehemiah 13:15.²⁸ These were in origin protests against the tendency to secularize the Sabbath. It is not just another day of business. It is God's day. It must be kept free from worldly pursuits.²⁹ So the regulations began in the laudable attempt to safeguard the holiness of the day. But in time they became so many, and drew so many absurd distinctions, that the true character of the day was lost in the manner of its observance. Jesus' attitude recalled people to the real meaning of the Sabbath.

11-13   The man was not of the stuff of which heroes are made. He put the whole blame on the shoulders of him who had healed him.³⁰ He did not know his name (v. 13), but he managed to put a certain emphasis on the fact that it was the one who had spoken the healing word and not himself who was to blame. Not unnaturally the authorities immediately sought to know who this was.³¹ Their reference to "this fellow" (the Greek means "the man") is significant. It implies "a contemptuous contrast with the law of God" (Plummer). But their informant could not oblige them. He did not know the name.³² Nor could he point Jesus out, for he had "slipped away."³³ The crowd in the place would certainly have thronged around the healed man and made concealment easy.³⁴

14   "Later" is an indefinite term.³⁵ It does not mean immediately afterward, but leaves the time uncertain. Jesus sought the man out and found him in the Temple. We may not unfairly conjecture that the man had gone there to offer thanks to God (cf. Mark l:44; Luke 17:14). Jesus first drew attention to the cure. "You are well again" employs the perfect of the verb, indicating that the cure was permanent. No doubt some of the "cures" that were reported from the pool did not last very long. Jesus' healing of the man was not in such a category. "Stop sinning" implies that the man has sinned and continues in his sin.³⁶ Jesus enjoins him to break with it and be reconciled to God. In a later passage (9:1ff.) Jesus repudiates the idea that disasters like blindness are inevitably caused by sin. But he does not say that they are never caused by sin. In this present verse he seems to imply that the man's sin had brought about his infirmity. Sinning again may bring a worse fate. Jesus may mean a worse physical fate, but it is more likely that he is referring to the eternal consequences of sin. They are indeed "something worse" than any physical handicap.

15   The man who had been healed seems to have been an unpleasant creature. It is obvious from the attitude of "the Jews" (v. 10) that they were incensed at the breach of the Sabbath. Yet as soon as he found out the identity of his Benefactor he betrayed him to the hostile authorities.³⁷ There is an interesting difference between question and answer. The Jews asked the man who it was who told him to take up his mat (v. 12). He answers that it was Jesus who made him well. They emphasize the offense, he the healing.

16   The result was inevitable. The Jews took action against Jesus,³⁸ though we are not told exactly what form their "persecution" took. Earlier there was an emphasis on Jesus as the one who had caused the action (v. 11); now there is stress on the fact that it was the Sabbath on which the deed was done. It was this that aroused the opposition. "Was doing" is a continuous tense, and John may imply that there were other Sabbath incidents that he had not recorded, or that the Jews discerned what Jesus' habitual attitude was (cf. REB, "It was for doing such things on the sabbath that the Jews began to take action against Jesus").³⁹

17   There are no words that Jesus is said to "answer" (NIV changes the sense a little with "said");⁴⁰ he answered their deed of persecution. In the Synoptic tradition in such a situation Jesus defended his action by saying, "the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28). This is often taken as indicating that anyone is entitled to do as he wishes on the Sabbath, but this is almost certainly a misunderstanding. Jesus is there laying it down that he, the Son of man, is lord over even the divinely instituted Sabbath.⁴¹ Here his defense rests on his intimate relationship to the Father.⁴² In the end both defenses amount to much the same. But it is interesting to observe that Mark reports the saying with the emphasis on the position of authority that belongs to the heavenly Son of man, and John that which brings out the close personal relationship between Jesus and his Father. The expression "My Father" is noteworthy. It was not the way Jews usually referred to God. Mostly they spoke of "our Father," and while they might use "My Father" in prayer, they would qualify it with "in heaven" or some other expression to remove the suggestion of familiarity. Jesus did no such thing, here or elsewhere. He habitually thought of God as in the closest relationship to himself. The expression implies a claim that the Jews did not miss.⁴³ Jesus points to the unceasing activity of the Father.⁴⁴ Without him this whole created universe would cease.⁴⁵ Unless he works continually no one could survive. And because of his close relationship with the Father Jesus works in the same way. The Sabbath cannot interfere with the work of such a one. This has its implications for Christian service. The basic reason given in the Fourth Commandment for keeping the Sabbath is that on that day God rested. God's people must rest as he rests. But Jesus "repudiates the thought that the divine rest from Creation took the form of idleness" (Temple). The compassion of God must be reflected in compassion in God's people.⁴⁶

18  The Jews did not miss the significance of Jesus' words. He had called God "his own Father,"⁴⁷ and this meant that he was "making himself equal with God" (cf. 10:33)⁴⁸. "His own" interprets what was said in the previous verse. Jesus was not teaching that God is the Father of all. The Jews would have accepted that. His claim meant that God was his Father in a special sense. He was claiming that he partook of the same nature as his Father. This involved equality. So the Jews held that he was guilty of blasphemy as well as of Sabbath breaking.⁴⁹ They discerned that the Sabbath breaking was no isolated, rootless phenomenon. It proceeded from Jesus' view of his person and was consistent with it.⁵⁰ But to them this was nothing less than blasphemy. It led them to unremitting efforts ("tried"⁵¹ is in a continuous tense) to secure his death.⁵² For other references to attempts to kill Jesus cf. 7:19, 25; 8:37, 59. "Breaking" and "calling" are both in continuous tenses. The Jews looked to the habitual attitude, not one isolated act and word.

I. THE THIRD DISCOURSE — THE DIVINE SON (5:19-47)

1. The Father and the Son (5:19-24)

19Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

The third discourse turns attention explicitly to the person of Christ. This is a passage of critical importance, the significance of which is not always realized. It perhaps lacks striking expressions like "the bread of life" or the "I am" sayings. But its central theme is crucial. "Nowhere else in the Gospels do we find our Lord making such a formal, systematic, orderly, regular statement of His own unity with the Father, His divine commission and authority, and the proofs of His Messiahship, as we find in this discourse" (Ryle).⁵³ In the end it was this kind of claim that aroused the implacable hostility of the Jewish hierarchy and brought about Jesus' death.⁵⁴ And it is only because his relationship to the Father is what he said it was, only because he is what he claimed to be, that he is able to bring the new birth and the water of life that were the subjects of the preceding discourses. Similarly his claims to be the living bread, the Good Shepherd, and much beside depend on the truth here set forth. All this gives peculiar interest to this discourse.

We may divide it into three sections (though these divisions are not hard-and-fast): in the first Jesus speaks of his relationship to the Father, in the second of his function as Judge of all people, and in the third of the witness borne to him that establishes his claims.

19  The introduction to the discourse underlines its importance. There is the "gave them this answer"⁵⁵ and the solemn "I tell you the truth" (see on 1:51, and notice its recurrence in vv. 24 and 25). The language Jesus uses is thoroughly rabbinic.⁵⁶ He begins with a very strong affirmation of community of action with the Father. It is not simply that he does not act in independence of the Father; he cannot act in independence of the Father. He can do only the things he sees the Father doing.⁵⁷ There is a continual contemplation of the Father by the Son,⁵⁸ an uninterrupted communion. The result of this is that it is the things the Father⁵⁹ does that the Son does, too,⁶⁰ "not in imitation, but in virtue of His sameness of nature" (Westcott).⁶¹ The verse contains the thought of subordination, for the Son is pictured as completely obedient to the Father. But there is also a mighty claim, for the Son does "whatever the Father does."⁶² Neither the lowly obedience nor the implication of deity should be overlooked. John often reverts to the thought of Jesus' close relationship to the Father (6:57; 7:16; 8:26, 38; 10:30; 14:9-10, etc.). The implication is that the authority with which he teaches and acts is nothing less than the authority of God.

20  The disclosure of the relationship between the Father and the Son is taken a step farther. The Father loves⁶³ the Son (the tense denotes a continuing, habitual love; the Father never ceases to love the Son). Now love always gives. Love does not withhold. Thus the Father shows (again the tense is present, denoting continuous action) the Son all the things he does. This carries the implication that the Son does the things he is shown. Jesus' actions do not proceed from merely human motivation. He acts only in acordance with the divine revelation.⁶⁴ Thus he looks forward to doing greater works, for he will be shown greater works. The result will be that his hearers⁶⁵ will be astonished.⁶⁶ The following verses show that these "greater things" are the Son's activities in giving life and in judging.

21  The thought moves on to judgment. The Father (he and no other) raises people from the dead and gives them life.⁶⁷ This is the teaching of the Old Testament (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6; 2 Kings 5:7). It would have been accepted without question by Jesus' hearers. There was no matter for marvel in this. What is marvelous is the next assertion, that the Son also⁶⁸ gives life. This should be understood in the first place of the present gift of life that is the result of Jesus' activity. He is to go on and speak of himself as the Judge of people at the last day (vv. 28-29), and that is not out of mind in the present verse also. He will raise people up. But in this Gospel the thought recurs that there is a sense in which judgment takes place even now. The condemnation of the lost lies in the fact that they love darkness rather than light (3:19). He that believes on the Son has (present tense) life (3:36). Just as the Father takes dead bodies and raises them to new life, so the Son takes people who, though their bodies are alive, are yet in a state of death, and raises them to spiritual life. Notice the significance of "to whom he is pleased to give it." People may not command the miracle. The Son gives life where he chooses, not where people choose.

22-23  The thought moves on to that of judgment. Arising out of the life-giving activities of the Son comes the thought that the Father does not judge people.⁶⁹ This was something new to Jews. They held that the Father was the Judge of all people,⁷⁰ and they expected to stand before him at the last day. Jesus tells them now that the Father will exercise his prerogative of judging for the express purpose of ensuring that people give the Son the same honor as they do to himself (see on 3:35 for the things the Father gives the Son). This is very close to an assertion of deity. Those who fail to honor him fail to honor the Father who sent him (for the "sending" of the Son see on 3:17). This probably means more than that the Sender is dishonored if his messenger is dishonored. The whole stress of this present passage is on the unity of the Father and the Son. What is done to one is done also to the other. The inherent dignity of the Son and his intimate relationship to the Father make the dishonoring of him a very serious matter indeed.

24   The unity of the Father and the Son is seen also in the way people are saved. This very important saying is introduced with the emphatic "I tell you the truth" (see on 1:51). The person who receives the blessing is the one who hears Christ and believes the Father, in itself a striking way of affirming the unity between the two. "Word," as often in the New Testament, stands for the whole message of Jesus. "Believes him who sent me" is unusual. It is more common to have a reference to believing "in"⁷¹ than simply to believing, in the sense of giving credence to, accepting as true. And it is more usual to have Christ as the object of faith than the Father. Yet the form of the expression here is important. All those who believe the Father, who really believe the Father, accept Christ. It is not possible to believe what the Father says and to turn away from the Son. The theme of this whole passage is the unity of the Father and the Son. Consequently it is natural to refer faith to the Father, the ultimate Object, with whom the Son is one (see further Additional Note E, pp. 296-98). Anyone who gives heed to the Son and the Father in this way "has" eternal life. The life is that person's present possession. For "eternal life" see on 1:4; 3:15. The implications of the present possession of eternal life are brought out in the assurance that its possessor "will not be condemned" or, more accurately, "does not come into judgment." This is the usual Johannine thought that judgment takes place here and now. People who accept the way of darkness and evil have already been judged. Their judgment lies in that very fact.⁷² So with those who have eternal life. Their vindication is present in the here and now. They have already passed right out of the state of death, and have come into life. Though this is a present state it has future implications. Those who do not come into judgment will not come into judgment on the last great day either (Moffatt translates with a future: "he will incur no sentence of judgment"). The saying points to their permanent safety. To have eternal life now is to be secure throughout eternity.

The words of this verse should not be taken simply as a statement of fact. They are that. Anyone who hears and believes has eternal life. But the words also constitute an invitation, a challenge. They are a call to hear Christ and to take the step of faith.⁷³

2. The Son and Judgment (5:25-29)

25"I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. 28Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and will come out — those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned."

It is not possible to insist on a hard-and-fast division here, and some would take verse 25 closely with verse 24. It certainly repeats much the same thought, but "I tell you the truth" seems to indicate a new start. Some scholars hold that this whole section is no more than a repetition of the thought of the preceding one, arguing that the raising of the dead means the raising of the spiritually dead.⁷⁴ But the language of verses 28-29 seems too strong for this. Jesus has been thinking of his close relationship to the Father, culminating in the statement that whoever heeds his word and believes the Father has everlasting life. From that he proceeds to the thought foreshadowed in verse 22, that the Father has given him the prerogative of judgment.⁷⁵ The plain meaning of his words is that he will be our Judge on the great Day of Judgment.

25  For "I tell you the truth" see on 1:51. It marks the statement following as emphatic and important. We might understand it of the raising of the dead at the last day were it not for "has now come."⁷⁶ This shows that what is primarily in mind is the present giving of life that characterizes the ministry of the Son. In him the last age is vividly present. Our eternal destiny is determined by our attitude to him. Those who are spiritually dead hear his voice, and those who have heard it live. "Hear," of course, means "hear with appreciation," "take heed."⁷⁷ Notice that Jesus refers to himself here as "the Son of God," this being one of only three places in this Gospel where he uses this title (the others are 10:36; 11:4; cf. also 19:7). Apart from this chapter, where "the Son" is so common (v. 19 bis, 20, 21, 22, 23 bis, 26; elsewhere 6:40; 8:35, 36; 14:13: 19:1), Jesus' favorite way of referring to himself is as "the Son of Man" (1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31; see Additional Note C, pp. 150-52). In view of John's declared aim in writing "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (20:31), the sparing use of "the Son of God" by Jesus is noteworthy. John prefers to make his point by the events that occurred rather than by Jesus' express claim.

26   The Old Testament makes it clear that life derives from the Father. It is he who breathes life into people (Gen. 2:7), and life is always thought of as his gift (Job 10:12; 33:4). With him is "the fountain of life" (Ps. 36:9). It is he who shows people "the path of life" (Ps. 16:11) and who "has preserved our lives" (Ps. 66:9). Moses can go so far as to say, "the Lord is your life" (Deut. 30:20), and similarly the Psalmist says, "The Lord is the stronghold of my life" (Ps. 27:1), and he makes his prayer "to the God of my life" (Ps. 42:8). Jesus' words must be understood against this background. The Jews accepted unhesitatingly the truth that all life takes its origin from the Father, all life except his own. His own life is inherent in his being. Goodspeed translates, "the Father is self-existent."⁷⁸ But it is characteristic of this Gospel to bring out the thought that the Son has been given (see on 3:35) a share in this life. To him it is given to have the same kind of life within himself as that which the Father has within himself.⁷⁹ John's interest is in that life which is associated with the Son. Again and again he records sayings and incidents that bring this home (see on 1:4). Cf. 1 John 5:11, "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son."

27   In the Old Testament judgment is so typical of God that he can be spoken of as "the Judge of all the earth" (Gen. 18:25), and "the LORD [i.e., Yahweh], the Judge" (Judg. 11:27). While he commits present aspects of judging to people so that they are frequently exhorted to do just judgment and the like, yet the final verdict on the entire race is in the hands of one Judge alone. It is this that makes the present passage startling. It is like the earlier expression that spoke of the Father as granting to the Son that he might have life within himself. Both point to divine prerogatives in the Son. For the giving of judgment to the Son cf. verse 22, and for authority cf. 17:2. Judgment is committed to him "because⁸⁰ he is the Son of Man." There is uncertainty about this last expression as nothing in the Greek corresponds to "the"; usually in this expression both "Son" and "man" have the definite article; here neither has it. It is possible accordingly to take the expression to mean that Jesus will be the final judge of us all because he, too, is man.⁸¹ He shares our nature. This is not an impossible understanding of the text, but one would have expected more than this as a qualification of our final Judge. On the whole it seems likely that we should understand the expression (with NIV) as equivalent to the frequently occurring "the Son of Man" (see Additional Note C, pp. 150-52). This is Jesus' favorite self-designation and, moreover, it gives an excellent reason for judgment being committed to him. He is the heavenly figure to whom is given "authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed" (Dan. 7:14).⁸²

28-29  The climax to this section is reached with the explicit declaration that it is the voice of the Son that will call the dead from their graves.⁸³ The Johannine emphasis is on the present aspect of judgment. Here and now those who love darkness receive their condemnation. Here and now those who believe on Christ enter into eternal life. But this does not mean that the concepts of a future resurrection of the dead and of a judgment day are done away. John may perhaps not emphasize that future day, but he recognizes that it will come.⁸⁴ This passage is most explicit. At the consummation of the age the voice of the Son will usher in the resurrection.⁸⁵ All the dead will rise. Judgment, as always in Scripture, is on the basis of works. It is "those who have done good" who will "rise to live" (cf. 6:39-40), while "those who have done evil"⁸⁶ rise only "to be condemned" (see on 3:17-18). This does not mean that salvation is on the basis of good works, for this very Gospel makes it plain over and over again that people enter eternal life when they believe in Jesus Christ. But the lives they live form the test of the faith they profess.⁸⁷

3. Witness to the Son (5:30-47)

30"By myself I can do nothing; 1 judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. 31If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. 32There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid. 33You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. 35John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light. 36I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study^a the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life. 41I do not accept praise from men, 42but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God.^b 45But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46Ifyou believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say ?"

a. 39 Or Study diligently (the imperative)

b. 44 Some early manuscripts the Only One

The thought of witness is prominent in this Gospel (see on 1:7). John insists that what he writes is well attested. Here he records some words of Jesus that stress the witness borne to him. Jesus speaks of a fivefold witness. Witness is borne to him by (i) the Father (vv. 32, 37); (ii) the Baptist (v. 33); (iii) his works (v. 36); (iv) Scripture (v. 39); and (v) Moses (v. 46). The Evangelist has earlier put some emphasis on the witness borne by John the Baptist. Here Jesus mentions this witness, but puts little stress on it. He is not interested in human witness of any kind (v. 34). He refers his hearers rather to the witness of his own works, and most of all, to that of the Father. He does not expect them to respond to this witness, for, although they profess a profound reverence for the Scriptures, they do not in their heart of hearts believe them. For this reason they do not accept the testimony that they afford to Jesus.

This stress on the witness borne by God has implications that should not be overlooked. Witness commits. As we pointed out in the note on 1:7, when people get into a witness box and bear witness they are committed and no longer have freedom to come down on either side of the question at issue. They have burned their boats. They have destroyed their freedom. Now it is something like that that God has done in Christ. Jesus is the surpreme revelation of God. If we want to know what God is like, we must look to Jesus. God, so to speak, has gone on record that this is what he is like. He has committed himself in Jesus.

30   Up to this point Jesus has mostly spoken of himself in the third person as "the Son" or "the Son of Man," but from this point on he uses the first person, a number of times with the emphatic "I" (vv. 30, 31, 34, 36, 43, and 45). Once again Jesus stresses his dependence on the Father. As in verse 19, he confesses his inability to do anything completely of his own volition.⁸⁸ There he spoke of "seeing" the Father, here of hearing him. There is no essential difference between these.⁸⁹ In both places the language is metaphorical and points us to the Son's complete dependence on the Father. In the present context the activity being discussed is judging. So Jesus says that his judgment is "just" (or "righteous"; the same Greek word does duty for both meanings). He is always in touch with the Father. His perfect obedience means that his judgment is divine.⁹⁰ As in the earlier section, there is the combination of a great claim and the taking of a lowly place. Nothing more could be said for his judgment. But the reason that he exercises this "just judgment" is that he does not seek his own will but that of the Father (the Father being characterized in typical fashion as "him who sent me").⁹¹

31-32  Jesus points to the impossibility of anyone's being accepted on the basis of his own word. Witness to anyone must always be borne by someone else; the law demands two or three witnesses (Deut. 19:15).⁹² So in his own case he agrees that if he⁹³ bears witness to himself, that witness is not to be accepted. By saying "my testimony is not valid" he does not mean that it is, in fact, false. It is, in fact, true, but it is true because it is witness borne in conjunction with the Father. NIV and others translate "valid." but this seems to miss some, at any rate, of Jesus' point. He is not discussing the terms on which witness may be held to be legally valid. He is asserting that if of himself he were to bear witness to himself, that would make it untrue.⁹⁴ The kind of witness he is bearing is true only if it is supported by the Father. In 8:13-14 the Jews maintain that his witness is in fact false. This he denies. His witness is indeed true. But here the point is rather that in view of the kind of witness he is bearing with its stress on oneness with the Father (cf. vv. 19ff., 30), the witness cannot possibly be true if it is unsupported. Independent confirmation is required.⁹⁵ And that independent confirmation is available. Jesus does not name that Other⁹⁶ who bears witness,⁹⁷ but it is plain enough that he is referring to the Father; the suggestion that John the Baptist is in mind (accepted, i.e., by Marsh [p. 268]) is negated by v. 34. Jesus' consciousness of mission and of his relationship to the Father does not rest simply on his own convictions. The Father bears witness to him. The witness of the Father may not be acceptable to the Jews; it may not even be recognized by them. But it is enough for Jesus. He knows that this witness is "true." His word order puts emphasis on "true." For him it is important that there is a witness apart from himself. His ministry does not arise from any human volition. And the witness is such that he can rely on it. "I know that his testimony... is true." It is the witness of the Father and nothing else that brings conviction to him.

33-35  The Jews did not receive this witness that meant so much to Jesus. But he goes on to make it plain that they could have done so. They had not been overlooked. A witness had been given to them that they could understand and appreciate. They had even regarded him highly. But they had not in the end accepted his witness to Jesus. "You" is emphatic, as though to say, "You yourselves had a witness. My position is not so strange after all." "Have sent" (rather than simply "sent") is somewhat unusual. The Greek perfect puts the stress not so much on their act of sending as on its continuing result. Not only did they send to John, but the result of their embassy remained permanently with them. Yet they did nothing with it. Similarly when it is said of John "he has testified," the thought is that of a continuing message (Weymouth, "and he both was and still is a witness to the truth"). John's words were not spoken into empty air and forgotten. He bore his witness and it continued (cf. 1:15 and note). There is a note of permanence about it. John's witness was "to the truth."⁹⁸ This will have its full meaning here and point to Christ as the very embodiment of truth (cf. 14:6).

Now comes a little aside in which Jesus explains his reason for referring to John's witness. It is not because he himself bases his position on it. His "I" is emphatic. It sets him in contrast to them. The⁹⁹ witness he receives is not "human testimony" (cf. 2:24-25). The whole emphasis of this passage is on the divine attestation of Jesus. His purpose in referring to John, then, is not to adduce further confirmation of what he already knows from God. It is to direct the attention of his hearers to that which might put them on the right way. John's witness, if heeded, could start them out on the path that leads to salvation. This had, in fact, happened to some of the Twelve. They had been numbered among John's followers, but had left him to follow Jesus, in accordance with John's own witness (cf. 1:35-37).

Jesus, in his turn, bears witness to John. The past tense, "was," may indicate that John was now dead, or at the least that he was in prison. His work was past. Jesus likens him to a lamp¹⁰⁰ "that burned." There is a hint here at "burning up." John's witness was costly to himself.¹⁰¹ But the verb is used also in the sense of "kindle."¹⁰² John's lamp was not self-sufficient (as was Jesus; cf. 1:4; 8:12). It was kindled from on high. "Gave light" points to John's unwavering testimony. A lamp shows people the way. John bore clear and consistent witness to Jesus. And Jesus recalls them to their reaction to John ("you" is emphatic — this was what you did). "Enjoy" is a word denoting an overflowing, enthusiastic happiness, not simply "joy." They had exulted for a time in his light.¹⁰³ It may be that there is an idea of lighthearted merrymaking¹⁰⁴ where there should have been serious purpose. The Jews never did take John seriously. They never came to grips with his message. John was steadily, unflickeringly, pointing the way in his stern call to seriousness of purpose. And these Jews, who professed to be the people of God and to be seeking the way of God, just as steadily ignored his essential message. Instead they took him to be part of the ecclesiastical furniture, so to speak. They exulted in God's gift of a prophet to their generation. As a result they promptly turned their backs on him.

36  Jesus' emphatic "I" (the Greek reads "But I") stresses his separation from people. There is all the majesty of his Person in the expression. Great though John undoubtedly was, gladly though Jesus attested his worth, his witness could not establish the position of such a one as the Son.¹⁰⁵ He says, "I have testimony weightier than that of John."¹⁰⁶ In fact he has a twofold witness. Jesus begins with his "works" (see on v. 20, and Additional Note G, pp. 607-13; NIV has "work," but the word is plural). He did this previously when John sent messengers to ask whether he were the Messiah (Matt. 11:4; Luke 7:22). These works are not simply the product of his own assessment of what is required. They are "given" him by the Father (see on 3:35). And they are tremendously important. Jesus repeats the word to fasten attention on it (NIV omits the second occurrence of "works"). The works that he does are not ordinary works. They are "what no one else did" (15:24). They are the Father's works, and, indeed, it is the Father abiding in him who does them (14:10). These works bear upon them the hallmark of their divine origin. They show that Jesus is not of human origin, but that the Father has sent him (for "sent" see on 3:17). Jesus' words have particular force, set as they are in the context of the healing of the lame man. Before the very eyes of the Jews there was evidence of divine power. And they rejected it!

37-38  From the works, the product of the Father, Jesus turns to the Father himself, who is described in terms of his sending of the Son. He has borne his witness to the Son (cf. 1 John 5:9). The past tense shows that this witness is no new thing.¹⁰⁷ The entire revelation of the Father from the very beginning has prepared the way for the coming of the Son. Rightly understood it bears witness to him. This is the witness that means so much to Jesus. Because he has the witness of God he is not troubled by the opposition of people. But though this witness is so clear and so valuable to him, he does not anticipate that the Jews will respond to it. Their ignorance is threefold, (i) They have never heard God's voice. Moses heard that voice (Exod. 33:11), but they are no true followers of Moses, otherwise they would have heard God's voice in Jesus (3:34; 17:8). (ii) They have never seen God's form.¹⁰⁸ Israel saw that form (Gen. 32:30-31),¹⁰⁹ but they are no true Israelites. Were they, they would have seen God in Jesus (14:9). (iii) They do not have God's word abiding in them.¹¹⁰ The Psalmist laid up God's word in his heart (Ps. 119:11), but they do not share his religious experience. Had they done so they would have received that word from Jesus (17:14). "For" may give the evidence or the cause of the preceding. The evidence is plain and simple. They do not believe him whom the Father sent. Their unbelief excludes the possibility of intercourse with God. But their unbelief is also the reason why they do not have the word abiding in them. Both senses are true and probably both are meant. There is a contrast between emphatic pronouns: He¹¹¹ sent the Son, but you do not believe (for "believe" see Additional Note E, pp. 296-98). From all this we see that the Father's witness is accessible only to those who believe on the Son. As Barrett says, "the observer cannot sit in judgement upon it and then decide whether or not he will believe in Jesus. He must believe in Jesus first and then he will receive the direct testimony from God. .. . What John means is that the truth of God in Jesus is self-authenticating in the experience of the believer; but no such convenient phrase lay to his hand."¹¹²

39-40  The Greek here is ambiguous. It could mean "You study the Scriptures" or "Study the Scriptures."¹¹³ We should almost certainly take it as indicative.¹¹⁴ Throughout this section Jesus is taken up with the Jews and their attitude. Here he points out that they search the Scriptures constantly (which we know from other sources they did most diligently), thinking¹¹⁵ in this way to find eternal life.¹¹⁶ And, indeed, they might have found it thus, for the Scriptures, like the "works" (v. 36) and the Father (v. 37), bear witness to him. Had they rightly read the Scriptures they would no doubt have come to recognize the truth of his claims.¹¹⁷ But they read them with a wooden and superstitious reverence for the letter,¹¹⁸ and they never penetrated to the great truths to which they pointed. The result is that in the presence of him to whom the Scriptures bear witness,¹¹⁹ in the presence of him who could have given them life, they are antagonistic. The words convey a rebuke for the wrong attitude of the Jews to scripture, coupled with a profound respect for the sacred writings. Cf. Moffatt: "You search the scriptures, imagining you possess eternal life in their pages — and they do testify to me — but¹²⁰ you refuse to come to me for life." "You refuse to come to me" stresses the activity of the will; the Jews set themselves against Jesus. It is not unlike Luke 13:34: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" There is the same thought of a tender eagerness to save, met by a stubborn refusal to be saved.

41  In verse 34 Jesus disclaimed receiving witness from people. In the same spirit he now disclaims receiving "praise" (or "glory") from them. The word "glory" is patient of several meanings. Here Jesus means something like "esteem" or "praise." He does not set before himself the idea of pleasing people, but that of pleasing the Father. Therefore it is nothing to him whether people praise him or not. He does not receive the glory that they might wish to bestow on him.

42  This verse is connected closely with the preceding; indeed, some editors make it part of the same sentence. Be that as it may, Jesus' refusal to accept glory from the Jews is bound up with his intimate knowledge of them (see on 2:24). This intimate knowledge enables him to say that they do not really love God.¹²¹ They make a profession of loving him, but in fact there is no real love. This is always the case where religion is basically self-willed. The Jews worked out their pattern of religion and tried to fit God into it. They did not seek first the way of God and then try to model their religious practices on it.¹²² They succumbed to the perennial temptation of religious people.

43-44  Jesus returns to the thought of his rejection by the Jews, though in a form that connects it closely with the preceding sentence dealing with the Jewish love for the glory of people. It arises from this that they would receive one who came in his own name.¹²³ Such a one they would understand and appreciate. He came from their world and spoke of their world. But Jesus is not of this type. Again his "I" is emphatic. It differentiates him from his hearers and all their ilk. He takes his origin from the Father. He comes "in the name" of his Father (for "the name" see on 1:12). This means that he is intimately connected with the Father, that in some way he expresses what the Father stands for. It is an affirmation of community of purpose, and it roots his mission squarely in the will of God. But despite all this he knows that he will not be acceptable to the people of his generation. "How can you (the pronoun is emphatic) believe?"¹²⁴ he asks. The thing is impossible with people whose habit it is to receive glory from each other,¹²⁵ and who do not make a practice of seeking the glory of the one God.¹²⁶ The issue is the glory of self or the glory of God. It is an issue that divides people still.

45-47  The discourse closes with an unexpected twist. The Jews prided themselves on their knowledge of Scripture, and Jesus had dealt with that (v. 39). Now he turns to their pride in Moses. They were proud of their connection with the great lawgiver. But Moses, not Jesus, is their accuser before God. The present tense signifies that Moses is a standing witness against them, a present accuser. They thought that they followed Moses, and could even make this their point of departure when disputing with the man born blind (9:28). They had "set (their) hope" on him.¹²⁷ But just as they misunderstood the Scriptures in general, so they perverted the writings of Moses in particular. "The law of Moses is not a religion of salvation, it is the categorical imperative of God by which men are accused and exposed as sinners" (Hoskyns). Had they really paid heed to Moses they would have been convicted of their sin and eager to recognize the Savior. If they had really believed (notice the change from "set your hope" of the previous verse) what Moses said they would have believed what Jesus said, too. Moses' writings were prophetic. They pointed forward to Christ (cf. 1:45). Therefore those who rejected the Christ did not really believe what Moses had written.¹²⁸ And if these people who professed to be Moses' disciples, who honored Moses' writings as sacred Scripture, who gave an almost superstitious reverence to the letter of the law, if these people did not really believe the things that Moses had written and which were the constant objects of their study, then how could they possibly believe the words,¹²⁹ the spoken words of Jesus?¹³⁰

ADDITIONAL NOTE Ε: BELIEVING¹³¹

One of the mysteries of the Fourth Gospel is that while the verb πιστεύω is found 98 times, the corresponding noun πίστις is completely absent. The reason for this is not known. It is usually held that the use of the noun in some of the pre-Gnostic systems of the day gave it unhealthy associations and rendered it suspect with John. This may be so, but if it is the case it still remains curious that he made such a large use of the verb. Matthew uses it but 11 times, Mark 10 (plus 4 more in the ending of ch. 16), and Luke 9 times, so that John's use is remarkable.

Broadly we may say that he uses the word in four ways.¹³² He uses it of believing facts and the like 12 times, of believing people (or Scripture, etc.) 19 times, of believing "in" Christ 36 times, while 30 times he uses it absolutely (the remaining passage is that wherein Jesus refused to "trust" himself to people, 2:24). There is nothing unusual about believing "that" such and such things happened, nor in believing people (dative). More significant is the use of the verb with the preposition είς, to believe "into."¹³³ While it may be overpressing the use of the preposition to insist on its literal meaning, yet John's idea is not unlike that of Paul when he speaks of people as being "in" Christ.¹³⁴ Faith, for John, is an activity¹³⁵ that takes people right out of themselves and makes them one with Christ. It is important to notice that the construction is a literal translation of the Hebrew . This strengthens the hand of those who see a Semitic original behind this Gospel. But it also points us to an important aspect of the subject on which Dodd has well commented, "It would seem that πιστεύειν with the dative so inevitably connoted simple credence, in the sense of an intellectual judgment, that the moral element of personal trust or reliance inherent in the Hebrew and Aramaic phrase — an element integral to the primitive Christian conception of faith in Christ — needed to be otherwise expressed."¹³⁶ This "moral element of personal trust" is of the first importance for any understanding of Christianity, and there had to be some way of bringing it out. πιστεύειν είς is the construction that does this.

It may be no coincidence that it is this Gospel that speaks so much of believing that also speaks often of "abiding" in God or in Christ. While believing and abiding are not connected in so many words (though cf. 12:46), they clearly mean much the same. In fact it might be held that the abiding in Christ that is stressed in the opening verses of chapter 15 is practically equivalent to believing, and that it is this fact that explains the otherwise strange absence of the verb "believe" from that passage.

So important is this conception of believing "in" Christ that the verb can be used absolutely, with no object expressed. There is no need in this Gospel to say who is in mind when "believing" is spoken of. Believing and Christ are so much part of one another that the former inevitably implies the latter. This is well illustrated in Jesus' conversation with the man born blind. To Jesus' question "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" the man replies, "Who is he, sir? Tell me so that I may believe in him." But when he finds the answer to his question he says not, "I believe in him," but simply, "I believe" (9:35-38).¹³⁷ Again, there is not really a great deal of difference between believing the facts about Christ (really believing them) and believing, as we see from John's reason for writing his Gospel, "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (20:31). In the same way simple credence of the Father is connected with the gift of eternal life (5:24).

The conclusion to which we come is that, while each of the various constructions employed has its own proper sense, they must not be too sharply separated from one another. Basic is the idea of that activity of believing which takes the believer out of himself and makes him one with Christ. But really to believe the Father or really to believe the facts about Christ inevitably involves this activity. Whichever way the terminology is employed it stresses the attitude of trustful reliance on God that is basic for the Christian.¹³⁸

———————————————————

1. Cf. Dodd: "It is God alone of whom it can properly be said that through union with Him (mutual indwelling) man enjoys eternal life (vi.53, 56). Here therefore, as unequivocally as in v. 17 sqq., specifically divine functions and prerogatives are ascribed to Christ. We see therefore how important it is for our author's argument that the discourse in ch. ν should precede the present discourse" (IFG, p. 340). D. M. Smith, Jr., argues that Bultmann has not made out his case for reversing the order of the two chapters (The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel [New Haven, 1965], pp. 128ff.).

2. Wright is impressed by the absence of external evidence and thinks a verdict must be "not proven." He also says, "The conjecture is interesting, but it may well be dictated by a desire to confer a chronological accuracy and concern to the Evangelist of which there are few signs in the Gospel."

3. Cf. Morgan, "On the human level, what Jesus did that day, and what He said that day, cost Him His life. They never forgave Him,"

4. Cullmann sees in the incident a reference to baptism (Early Christian Worship [London, 1954], pp. 84ff.), But he admits that "It may seem at first sight that we are forcing a system" (p. 84). It does so seem, all the more so in that the only evidence he offers is: "After the previous chapters which refer explicitly or implicitly to Baptism in the Christian community, the connexion with Baptism here too is quite compelling" (p. 86). But if we do not see baptism in the previous chapters we will scarcely find it here.

5. For μετά ταυτα see on 2:12.

6. For a discussion of the whole question see Westcott's Additional Note (pp. 204-7). He favors the Feast of Trumpets, but few have been found to support him. Most commentators favor Purim or Passover. The theological context of John's treatment of the theme does not help us for the thought of judgment, which is prominent in this chapter, is associated with no less than four of the feasts. Thus we read: "At four times in the year is the world judged: at Passover, through grain; at Pentecost, through the fruits of the tree; on New Year's Day all that come into the world pass before him like legions of soldiers, for it is written, He that fashioneth the hearts of them all, that considereth all their works; and at the Feast (of Tabernacles) they are judged through water" (Mishnah Rosh. Hash, 1:2). Some manuscripts have the article, "the" feast, notably Κ C L fl co. If it be accepted, the feast will probably be Tabernacles; cf. 7:2 (though some scholars think of the Passover). The article is, however, omitted by p⁶⁶ p⁷⁵ A Β D W Θ fl 3 etc. There seems little doubt that we should read "a feast." But it does not seem possible to identify the feast with any certainty.

7. For the article with Ίεροσολύμοις see on 2:23.

8. The problem is complicated by the fact that κολυμβήθρα might be either nominative or dative; the most ancient manuscripts do not differentiate. Some manuscripts read "in the sheep — " (έν τñ προβατικñ), but most have "by the sheep — ," a reading attested by p⁶⁶ p⁷⁵ Β C K W ^supp f1 f1 3 28 33 565 700 sa bo, and some omit it. But the attestation is strong and "by the sheep — ' should be accepted. Both nominative and dative are difficult, and in either case a noun must be supplied. If we take it as nominative we must supply a noun to go with προβατικη ("gate" is supplied by NIV, NRSV, GNB, REB, etc., but other suggestions have been made). If we view the term as dative it must be taken with προβατικη, but then we must supply a subject for the verb, e.g. "Now at the Sheep-Pool in Jerusalem there is a place with five colonnades" (NEB); "Now at the Sheep Pool in Jerusalem there is a building" (JB). On the whole it seems as if we should take the word as dative and see the modern widespread acceptance of "gate" with "sheep" as mistaken, Barrett may well be right in regarding as perhaps decisive the fact that "the whole ancient tradition takes together προβατικη κολυμ-βήθρα, and that no ancient writer (none in fact before A.D. 1283) supplies πύλη with προβατικη." Abbott finds no evidence anywhere for the ellipsis of "gate" (2216). He points out that in Nehemiah, for example, where the sheep gate is referred to, the word "gate" is explicit. Moulton and Howard cite a Christian amulet, possibly of the fifth century, which appeals to "the God of the sheep pool" ό θς της προβατικñς κολυμβήθρας (Μ, II, ρ. 85n.). Α κολυμβήθρα would be quite a large pool. The word is cognate with κολυμβάω "to swim" (used in Acts 27:43), and is defined in AS as "a swimming-pool."

9. See J. N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? (Leiden, 1968) and articles such as "Did Jesus speak Hebrew?," by J. A. Emerton (JThS, n.s. XII [1961], pp. 189-202); "The Words of Jesus according to St. John," by A. J. B, Higgins (BJRL, XLIX [1966-67], pp. 363-86); "Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple," by Jehoshua M. Grintz (JBL, LXXX [1961], pp. 32-47). These writers show that there is no certainty in the matter. Some hold that a variety of Hebrew was spoken in first-century Palestine, and this may well have been the case. Scripture was read in Hebrew, and the learned at any rate understood it. We cannot rule out Hebrew as impossible here, but Aramaic seems, on the evidence, to have been in all probability the language in common use, and thus the language John meant.

10. Probably the last mentioned is a variant of "Bethzatha." The strongest attestation seems to be that of "Bethsaida" pP⁶⁶ p⁷⁵ BW pc c ff² z vg co Tert), but it is not strong enough to be decisive. "Bethesda" appears to be a Greek form of meaning "House of Mercy." "Bethzatha" may be a corruption of "Bezetha," which Josephus tells us was the name of the quarter of the city in which the pool lay, or it may come from "House of Olives." Schonfield thinks it probably means "Place of Alkaline Salt." Since, however, John gives no indication of attaching significance to the meaning of the name this does not help us in our quest for the original reading. David J. Wieand points out that Bethsaida, the best-attested reading, probably means "House of Fish" or "House of the Fisher," and that there was a good deal of fish symbolism in the early church ("John v.2 and the Pool of Bethesda," NTS, ΧII [1965-66], pp. 392-404). This would favor the acceptance of this reading once it was introduced. He thinks Bethesda is likely to have been the original reading, that this was corrupted into Bethsaida, and that the fish symbolism assisted the acceptance of the reading once established.

11. 3Q15, col. 11,1. 12. J. M. Allegro, The Treasure of the Copper Scroll (London, 1960), pp. 165-66; M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. De Vaux, Us "Petites Grottes" de Qumran (Oxford, 1962), p. 297; J. Jeremias, ExT, LXXI (1959-60), p. 228. Interestingly Calvin favored this etymology, "a place of pouring out."

12. Augustine interprets the passage allegorically. He sees in the five porches a reference to the five books of Moses, utterly unable to bring healing (17.2; p. 111).

13. This identification is accepted by The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible (see p. 99 and plate XVII:B), the Rand McNally Bible Atlas (pp. 392-93), et at. See especially the discussion by E. J. Vardaman (BT, 14 [1963], pp. 27-29). He points out the importance of the discovery of a reference to this pool in the copper scroll at Qumran. Not only does the discovery point to the true name as Bethesda, but the fact that the form is dual points to twin pools. Wieand discusses six suggested sites and agrees that the identification of the twin pools of St. Anne with Bethesda is "virtually established" (p. 397). This site is now several feet below ground level, the natural result of the rebuilding that has taken place through the centuries. Many commentators point out that the identification is apparently ancient, for a Crusader church built over the pool has a mural depicting an angel arising out of the pool. G. Adam Smith is rather doubtful of the identification and inclines to the Virgin's spring (Jerusalem, II [London, 1908], pp. 564-67). St. Anne's twin pools, however, seem more likely. J. Α. Τ. Robinson agrees that the twin pools give us the location of Bethesda, but argues that the pools there are unlikely to be those of which John writes. They were rather reservoirs supplying water to the Temple but unsuitable for healing activities. Instead he refers to a number of small grottoes, immediately to the east of the pools, with steps leading down to them, stone basins apparently used for washing, and evidence of a healing sanctuary (Priority, pp. 54-59). It may well be that the twin pools are not the place where the man was trying to get down to the water, but it would seem that they show us the general locality where people thought healing could be obtained.

14. It is not found in p⁶⁶ p⁷⁵ Β C*D W 33 157 f l q syr^c co etc. The authorities that include it (the more important being A C³ Κ L Θ f1 f13 Tert) differ among themselves.

15. R. D. Potter says that there is no spring there now. He argues from fragments of stone piping that water was piped in from the Temple area or elsewhere. "Then the 'moving of the water' would be the necessary renewals" (SE, I, p. 336). But if Robinson is correct (n. 13 above) the "moving of the water" would have taken place in an adjacent grotto, not the pool of which Potter writes.

16. It may not be without significance that in the Old Testament the leaping of lame men is sometimes associated with the end time when the Messiah would come (e.g. Isa. 35:6). John may have selected this miracle to bring out something of the messiahship of Jesus.

17. Those who delight in allegories have not failed to point out that this is the number of the years wherein Israel wandered in the wilderness (Deut. 2:14). They see in the man a symbol of the Jews at the time of Jesus, paralysed in their lack of faith. Or, with Wright they ask, "Is it not that the author inserts this period of time because it symbolises to him a period of spiritual impotency prior to the full enrichment of life which Jesus is now bringing to those who have faith in Him: a period of 'homelessness' prior to the unveiling of the Father's heart which constitutes the Mission of Jesus?" But while John may not have been unmindful of symbolic meanings, his mention of the thirty-eight years seems primarily to be a way of emphasizing the intractability of the complaint. Perhaps also he means us to infer that it was the years of suffering that aroused Jesus' compassion. Chrysostom uses the persistence of the man in seeking a cure through all those years to point a moral: "while we if we have persisted for ten days to pray for anything and have not obtained it, are too slothful afterwards to employ the same zeal" (XXXV.2; p. 126). For the use of an accusative after έχω to denote the length of time cf. v. 6; 8:57; 9:21; 11:17.

18. The aorist, γνούς, is rather against this. It is better understood as "having come to know," "having found out."

19. Barclay has a helpful comment: "The first essential towards receiving the power of Jesus is the intense desire for it. Jesus comes to us and says: 'Do you really want to be changed?' If in our inmost hearts we are well content to stay as we are there can be no change for us. The desire for the better things must be surging in our hearts." Findlay reminds us that "an eastern beggar often loses a good living by being cured of his disease."

20. Cf. Calvin: "This sick man does what we nearly all do. He limits God's help to his own ideas and does not dare promise himself more than he conceives in his mind."

21. The word is κράβαττος (also spelled κράββατος; in it is usually κράβακτος). It is apparently Macedonian in origin and denotes a campbed, a pallet (cf. Latin grabatus). Moffatt and NIV translate it "mat." MM speaks of it as "the poor man's bed or mattress." It is a late word. Dods comments, "He was commanded to take up his bed that he might recognise that the cure was permanent."

22. Notice the significance of the tenses, άρον, ήρεν, of the single action of rising, περιπάτει, περιεπάτει, of his continuing to walk.

23. The immediacy of the cure is stressed by the use of εύθέως. This word is common in Matthew and the very similar εύθύς is frequent in Mark. But both are rare in this Gospel (three times each), and the rarity puts all the greater emphasis on the use in the present passage.

24. Cf. C. G. Montefiore, "in spite of the many restrictions and regulations, the Sabbath was upon the whole a joy and a blessing to the immense majority of Jews throughout the Rabbinic period" (The Synoptic Gospels, I [London, 1909], p. 93).

25. Some of the detailed regulations are passing wonderful. For example "(On the Sabbath) a man may borrow of his fellow jars of wine or jars of oil, provided that he does not say to him, 'Lend me them' " (Shab. 23:1). This would imply a transaction, and a transaction might involve writing, and writing was work and therefore forbidden. Or again, " I f a man put out the lamp (on the night of the Sabbath) from fear of the gentiles or of thieves or of an evil spirit, or to suffer one that was sick to sleep, he is not culpable; (but if he did it with a mind) to spare the lamp or to spare the oil or to spare the wick, he is culpable" (Shab. 2:5). The attitude to healing on the Sabbath is illustrated by a curious provision that a man may not put vinegar on his teeth to alleviate toothache. But he may take vinegar in the ordinary course of a meal, and the rabbis philosophically concluded, " if he is healed he is healed" (Shab. 14:4)!

26. There is no article with σάββατον (nor is there one in vv. 10 and 16, though one appears in v. 18). John does not so much draw attention here to the Sabbath as to the fact that it was a sabbath kind of day, a day when certain regulations applied, έν έκείνη τñ ήμέρα is also hardly what we would have expected, Westcott finds the whole expression "very remarkable." It "suggests the idea that the sabbath was a day of rest other than the weekly sabbath."

27. The perfect τῲ τεθεραπευμένφ puts some stress on the permanence of the cure. By contrast in v. 13ό ίαθείς points to the single act of healing.

28. Mishnah, Shab. 7:2 lists thirty-nine classes of work forbidden on a Sabbath, the last being "taking aught from one domain into another." An interesting regulation provides that if a man took out "a living man on a couch he is not culpable by reason of the couch, since the couch is secondary" (Shab. 10:5). This clearly implies that the carrying of the "couch" by itself is culpable. And, of course, it would have been in order to carry the man on his couch; it was the man's carrying of the couch that was blameworthy!

29. Cf. Strachan, "The rabbinic legal regulations were dealing with what is also a modern social problem. The religious authorities were aware that destruction of the Sabbath rest-day created a real danger to the higher values of human life. It is as well that we should remember this when we criticize their methods."

30. "Well" is the translation of ύγιής, an adjective meaning "healthy." It is curious that John uses the word five times in this chapter and once only in the rest of his Gospel. It is not a very common word, being found five times in the rest of the New Testament.

31. McClymont comments: "The very form of the question showed how entirely their thoughts were occupied with the infringement of their rule to the exclusion of the miracle of healing. They put the question for the purpose of dealing with the offender."

32. Cf. Temple: "Christianity founds hospitals, and atheists are cured in them, never knowing that they owe their cure to Christ. Prisons are reformed under the influence which flows from the Gospel; and the prisoners never know — sometimes the reformers themselves do not know — that Christ is the Author of the reform."

33. The verb is έκνεύω (here only in the New Testament); it means "to bend the head aside" (AS), and so "to dodge."

34. The genitive absolute, õχλου õντος is ambiguous. It may give the reason for the withdrawal, or the means of the withdrawal. Augustine has an interesting comment on this verse: "It is difficult in a crowd to see Christ: a certain solitude is necessary for our mind; it is by a certain solitude of contemplation that God is seen" (17.11; p. 115). Of the man he says, "He did not see Jesus in the crowd, he saw Him in the temple" (ibid.).

35. For μετά ταϋτα see on 2:12.

36. For this use of the present tense see on 2:16.

37. Yet we should not overlook the fact that there was a certain amount of danger for the man. He was still under the accusation of Sabbath breaking, an offense for which the death penalty was possible. His defense was that his healer had told him to carry his pallet. By producing the name he made his case.

38. Cf. Augustine, "They sought darkness from the Sabbath more than light from the miracle" (21.6; p. 140).

39. Similarly C. B. Williams renders: "because He persisted in doing such things. . . ." The imperfect, έποίει, may of course signify "began to do," but even so it implies continuity. However we understand it, the verb indicates more than a single action.

40. Here and in v. 19 the verb is in the aorist middle, the only examples in 78 occurrences of àποκρίνομαι in this Gospel (there are a few places where the present might be either middle or passive). Abbott suggests that the middle here has something of a legal force, "made answer to the charge," "made his defence" (2537). So Marsh, "the word means to make a public and formal defence" (p. 256). MM says that examples of the aorist middle are frequent in the papyri, "but they are without exception legal reports."

41. In Mark 2:27-28 the word "man" occurs both simply and in the expression "Son of Man." On this Moffatt comments, "Had the original Aramaic simply meant 'man' in both sentences of Mark, it would have been translated as such uniformly, and, besides, Jesus would not have claimed that man was master of the sabbath which God had instituted'' (The Theology of the Gospels [London, 1928], p. 152). Cullmann agrees that an Aramaic bamasha, meaning "man," might be mistranslated υίός τοΰ άνθρωπου, "son of man," but he points out that Mark cannot have given the expression a meaning different from that which he employs elsewhere. "He himself has thought, in any case, of Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath" (pp. 88-89).

42. There is an account of a visit to Rome by four eminent rabbis who on being asked why God does not keep the Sabbath retorted that it is lawful to carry things within one's own courtyard and this whole universe is God's courtyard (Midrash Rabba: Exodus, 30.9). That the Father works on the Sabbath was accepted.

43.I have dealt with this more fully in The Lord from Heaven² (London and Downers Grove, 1974), pp. 31-35.

44. It is somewhat curious that he says, "to this very day" (really "until now," έος άρτι) rather than "continually" or the like. Godet gives the force of it by supposing Jesus at work in the carpenter's shop at Nazareth. Should some suggest that he cease he might well reply: "My Father works until now, and I also (consequently) cannot cease to work."

45. Dodd cites a Hermetic saying, "God is not idle, else all things would be idle, for all things are full of God" (IFG, p. 20).

46. Cf. Plummer, "to cease to do good is not to keep the Sabbath but to sin."

47. Πατέρα ίδιον.

48. Cf. Stauffer: "Jesus does not displace God, he represents him, he can make himself equal, indeed identical, with God (John 5.18; 10.30). The incarnate Word is the completely valid bearer of divine revelation in the form of this world" (NTT, p. 122). Odeberg sees the words as corresponding to a rabbinic expression "which to a Rabbinicear is equivalent to 'makes himself independent of God', i.e. by usurping for himself the Divine power and authority. . . . From the Rabbinic point of view the profanation of the Holy One . . . consisted not in his calling the Holy One his Father, but in his presuming upon a peculiar relationship in virtue of which he had the right of performing the same 'continual work' as his Father" (FG, p. 203).

49. "Was ... breaking" translates έλυεν, a verb that has a meaning like "destroy," so that ΒAGD can say, "Jesus is accused not of breaking the Sabbath, but of doing away w. it" (4). In their view his attitude meant the abolition of the Sabbath.

50. Hoskyns comments on the importance of the Jews' accusation: "The Evangelist recognizes that the accusation of the Jews is a thrust at the very heart of the mission of the Church; for their accusation overthrows the work of Jesus by making of it a thing to be set beside, and compared with, the work of God."

51. έζήτουν. The verb is a favorite one with John, who uses it 34 times (Matthew 14 times, Mark 10 times, Luke 25 times). He uses it, as here, of seeking to kill Jesus 8 times and of seeking to arrest him twice more.

52.  μάλλον is usually rendered "the more" (NIV, "all the harder"), which is a little strange since there has been no suggestion of killing Jesus up to this point. We should probably take it in the sense "rather." Until now they had been "persecuting" him in a fairly mild way. Now that they realized what his claims were, they tried rather to kill him.

53. Ryle adds, "To me it seems one of the deepest things in the Bible." Similarly Phillips in his translation inserts a subheading: "Jesus makes His tremendous claim."

54.  It is, as Barclay says, "an act of the most extraordinary and unique courage.... He must have known that to speak like this was to court death. It is His claim to be King; and He knew well that the man who listened to words like this had only two alternatives — the listener must either accept Jesus as the Son of God, or he must hate Him as a blasphemer and seek to destroy Him. There is hardly any passage where Jesus appeals for men's love and defies men's hatred as He does here."

55. For άπεκρίνατο see n. 40 above.

56. Cf. Odeberg, "This is exactly how one versed in Rabbinic thought would try to make his compeers understand the relation between the Father and the Son. The expressions reflect, as has been pointed out already by Schlatter, characteristic Rabbinic thought and language" (FG, p. 203).

57. Dodd sees here a genuine parable: "In John v. 19-20a (down to . . . αύτός ποιεῑ) we have a perfectly realistic description of a son apprenticed to his father's trade. He does not act on his own initiative; he watches his father at work, and performs each operation as his father performs it. The affectionate father shows the boy all the secrets of his craft" (HTFG, p. 386, n. 2). It is possible that the words have their origin in such a situation, but if so the meaning has been transformed and deepened.

58. Of the absolute use of ό υιός Westcott says: "The idea is simply that of the absolute relation of the Divine Persons, of the Son to the Father, and consequently this term is used (19-23), and not (as below vv. 30ff.) 'I' — the Christ whom you reject — or 'the Son of God' (v. 25), or 'Son of man (v. 27), which emphasise the divine or human nature of the Lord relatively to man." Murray points out that the Jews recognized the divine sonship of the Messiah, "But, somehow, they had never regarded it as more than an honorific title, familiar enough on the lips of the courtiers of an oriental despot, but never meant to be taken literally. They were, therefore, not a little startled when Jesus refused to regard it as a mere metaphor, and declared that His divine Sonship, so far from being a mere adjunct of His earthly sovereignty, was in fact the living root and ground of it." It is notewothy that Jesus uses ό υιός absolutely eight times in vv. 19-26 and only five times in all the rest of this Gospel. His usual self-designation is "the Son of Man." But here he is giving strong emphasis to his divine sonship. See further on v. 25.

59. For the emphatic έχεῑνος see on 1:8.

60. Abbott finds significance in the use of χαί here. John "dwells on the principle of correspondence between the visible and the invisible, between the incarnate Son below and the Father above" (2148).

61. Schonfield misses the point with his translation, "What he does the Son copies." It is not a question of copying: the Son does the same deeds as the Father does. Cf. Barclay: "The things that God does are the things that Jesus does; and the things that Jesus does are the things that God does. The great, salient truth about Jesus is that in Jesus we see God." R. H. Lightfoot comments: "The union, therefore, is absolute. It is not, for instance, as though the Son reveals the Father in certain particular ways or in certain remarkable actions; no moment of His life, and no action of His, but is the expression of the life and action of the Father."

62. Chrysostom points out that " 'cannot do anything of Himself' is the expression of One not taking away His (own) authority, but declaring the unvarying resemblance of His Power and Will (to those of the Father)" (38.4; p. 136). Augustine goes from the thought that the Father and the Son are inseparable to the thought of the eternal generation of the Son. "The generating flame is coeval with the light which it generates: the generating flame does not precede in time the generated light; but from the moment the flame begins, from that moment the light begins. Show me the flame without light, and I show thee God the Father without Son. Accordingly, 'the Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He seeth the Father doing,' implies, that for the Son to see and to be begotten of the Father,

is the same thing" (20.8; p. 135).

63. For φιλέω see on 3:16. This is the only place where John uses it for the love of the Father for the Son.

64. In 14:10 the works Jesus does can even be said to be done by the Father. Notice that John often uses the term "works," έργα, to denote the miracles (cf. 5:36; 7:3, 21; 10:25, 32, 37-38; 14:10-11; 15:24). The word does not denote something spectacular, but normal daily work; what passes with us as miracle is to Christ no more than a "work." The term is wider than the miracles, and includes all that Jesus does. But its application to the miracles is the important thing. See Additional Note G, pp. 607-13.

65. ύμεΐς is emphatic. There will be nothing astonishing to Jesus in all this, but his attitude is in sharp contrast to that of his unbelieving hearers.

66. Jesus does not often speak of arousing wonder. But wonder may lead to faith (14:11), and thus be commended. Clement of Alexandria has recorded a statement attributed to Jesus: "he that wondereth shall reign, and he that reigneth shall rest" (Strom. 1.9.45; cited from M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament [Oxford, 1926], p. 2). James also cites an amplified version of the saying from Clement himself, and from the Oxyrhynchus Sayings; it occurs also in the Gospel of Thomas, 1.

67. The idea was accepted throughout Judaism. SBk cites a rabbinic saying: "Three keys are in the hand of God and they are not given into the hand of any agent, namely that of the rain (Deut. 28:12), that of the womb (Gen. 30:22), and that of the raising of the dead (Ezek. 37:13)" (I, p. 523). Cf. also the Shemoneh Esreh (one of the most ancient Jewish forms of prayer: "Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, the shield of Abraham. Thou art mighty for ever, Ο Lord; Thou restorest life to the dead . . . who sustainest the living with beneficence, quickenest the dead . . . who can be compared unto Thee, Ο King, who killest and makest alive again . . . ? And faithful art Thou to quicken the dead. Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, who restorest the dead" (E. Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, Π, ii [Edinburgh, 1885], pp. 85-86).

68. For this use of χaí see n. 60 above.

69. There is a double negative ούδέ . . . χρίνει ούδένα to emphasize the point. Similarly there is an air of finality about the perfect δέδωχεν.

70.Cf. SBk: "According to the Rabbinic view it is exclusively God who will judge the world.... In Rabbinic literature there is no passage which unambiguously places the judgment of the world in the hand of the Messiah" (II, p. 465). S. Mowinckel stresses the point (He That Cometh [Oxford, 1959], pp. 313, 319, 336, etc.).

71. Phillips actually translates "believes in...." But this obscures the construction used.

72. Wright brings out the force of this. "To stop the ears is one way of listening: it is to pass a sentence of judgement upon oneself.

Still, as of old,

Man by himself is priced.

For thirty pieces Judas sold

Himself, not Christ."

73. Bultmann points out that "Jesus' words are not didactic propositions but an invitation and a call to decision" (Theology of the New Testament, II [London, 1953], p. 21). He sees this not only in constructions like the present one with a participle stating the condition (see also 6:35; 8:12, etc.), but also in sayings where an if-clause precedes (e.g., 6:51; 7:16-17; 8:51, etc.).

74. Wright, for example, says forthrightly, "It should be manifest to every reader, not wholly devoid of the historical imagination, that by the 'dead' the Evangelist neither means those who are physically dead nor the completely annihilated. . . . The Evangelist — true to his Hebrew mentality — is giving expression to the fact of the life-giving mission of Jesus; he is not indulging in speculations about a problematical future. . . . Those who are 'in the tombs' are those who are in need of spiritual quickening." But this ignores the language used. As Plummer points out (on v. 29), "A passing from spiritual death to judgment is not spiritual resurrection."

75. Hoskyns emphasizes the eschatological significance of all this: "In the Fourth Gospel the history of Jesus possesses its proper, final, eschatological form — son of man, good and evil, death and life, judgement and salvation. But this form has not been imposed upon Jesus or upon the earlier tradition by the Evangelist: it is the meaning which the Father has impressed upon His Son and which Jesus, the son of man, understood, accepted, obeyed, and made known."

76. When the reference is to the future judgment in verse 28 the expression is έρχεται ώρα, but here there is added χαι νϋν έστιν. A similar expression is found in 4:23 where the reference is clearly to the present, while in 4:21 έρχεται ώρα applies to the future.

77. John to a large extent follows the usual custom of employing an accusative after άκούω where a thing is heard, and a genitive when a person is heard. But ten times he uses the genitive of the thing (here; 5:28; 6:60; 7:40; 10:3, 16, 27; 12:47; 18:37; 19:13). It is likely that this construction means "to hear with appreciation." Bernard (on 3:8) accepts this use wherever the genitive is found, but he does not notice that John always uses the genitive with persons.

78. This seems to reflect the meaning of the Greek better than such translations as those of Knox, "The Father has within him the gift of life," or Rieu, "the Father, being as He is the source of Life."

79. Augustine says that God "does not, as it were, borrow life, nor, as it were, become a partaker of life, of a life which is not what Himself is; but 'hath life in Himself,' so that the very life is to Him His very self. . . . God lives, and the soul also lives; but the life of God is unchangeable, the life of the soul is changeable" (19.11; p. 126). He illustrates from light. People require an external source of light, "but since you remain in darkness when the candle is withdrawn, you have not light in yourselves" (ibid.). He concludes his discussion with the point that there is equality between the Son and the Father, with only this difference, "that the Father hath lite in Himself, which none gave Him, whilst the Son hath life in Himself which the Father gave" (ibid.).

80. Chrysostom refuses to take ὄτι as meaning "because" ("since then what hindered all men from being judges?"). He understands it to mean "that," giving the sense, "That He is the Son of Man, marvel not at this" (39.3; p. 140). He has not convinced very many, however, either in the meaning he assigns to δτι or in his sentence division.

81. Dods accepts this meaning. He lists several ways in which the passage has been interpreted: the judgment is to take place with human publicity, Christ redeems men as man, people should be judged by the lowliest and most loving, the Judge must share the nature of the judged, only a man could enter the sphere of judicial office and have the compassion a judge of men ought to have, and the judgment is an act of homage to God and must proceed from within humanity. He finally accepts the view of Beyschlag that men judge themselves by their attitude to the man, Jesus.

82. Bernard thinks that the reason for the omission of the definite article is that "Official titles have a tendency to become anarthrous." But this tendency is not marked in connection with this title. It may be better to see in it an emphasis on the nature rather than the personality of the Son of man. The expression is anarthrous also in Heb. 2:6; Rev. 1:13; 14:14, but these all seem to be quotations from or, at least, references to LXX. But almost certainly we should see the real reason in the rule formulated by E. C. Colwell that if a predicate noun precedes the verb (as it does in the case of the present passage) it usually does not take the article even though it is definite (see on 1:1). This supports the view that we should understand the expression here as meaning "the Son of Man." It is also worth noting that the expression is anarthrous in LXX of Dan. 7:13 (which is usually taken as the origin of the expression "Son of Man)", and in the original .

83. There is an ambiguity about δτι. If we take it to mean "that," τοϋτο will refer to the following and the passage will mean, "Do not be amazed at this, that a time is coming . . ."; if we understand it as "because," then τοϋτο will refer to the preceding: "Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming. . . ." The second alternative is preferable.

84. Cf. Bernard: "Such a doctrine, no doubt, has its roots in Jewish eschatology, but the Fourth Gospel cannot be understood unless it be realised that Jn. has not abandoned this, while he lays his emphasis on the spiritual conceptions of eternal life and judgment in the present." Similarly Barrett: "There is no reason whatever for regarding vv. 28f. as a supplement to the original Johannine discourse unless it is held incredible that John should have thought of resurrection and judgement under both present and future aspects." S. D. F. Salmond discusses John's teaching on life and judgment (The Christian Doctrine of Immortality [Edinburgh, 1907], pp. 387-95). He concludes that, "Though they occupy a smaller place in John's writings, and are subordinate to other truths, the Second Coming, the Resurrection, the Judgment, the Life Eternal appear in John's teaching as they do in that of the New Testament generally" (p. 395).

85. Mowinckel points out that there is not much evidence in Jewish writings to link the Messiah with the raising of the dead: "the thought that the Son of Man will raise the dead is overshadowed by the more theocentric view, that God himself will work the miracle; and we never find a clear and emphatic statement that the Son of Man will raise the dead" (He That Cometh, pp. 400-401). It is distinctively Christian doctrine that is set forth here.

86. For οί τà φαύλα πράξαντες see on 3:20.

87. Cf. Calvin, "He marks out believers by their good works, just as elsewhere He says that a tree is known by its fruit. . . . The Papists' inference from these passages, that eternal life repays the merits of works, may be refuted without any difficulty. For Christ is not here treating of the cause of salvation, but only distinguishing the elect from the reprobate by their own mark."

88. Both here and in verse 19 "the order of words lays great stress on ούδέν. If he were to act independently of God (supposing such a thing to be possible), Jesus would be completely powerless. The whole meaning and energy of his work lie in the fact that it is not his work but God's" (Barrett).

89. Cf. Bultmann: "All these different phrases, that the Son does or says what he has seen or heard with the Father, give expression to the same idea, namely, that he is the Revealer in whom we encounter God himself speaking and acting" (p. 253; on v. 20).

90. Chrysostom gives Christ's meaning thus: "As therefore none could object to the Father judging, so neither may any to Me, for the sentence of Each is given from the same Mind" (39.4; p. 141).

91. There is a noble saying attributed to Rabban Gamaliel: "Do his will as if it was thy will that he may do thy will as if it was his will. Make thy will of none effect before his will that he may make the will of others of none effect before thy will" ('Ab. 2:4). Yet there is a suspicion of using God to secure one's ends in the rabbinic saying that is quite absent from the Gospel saying. For Jesus' concern to do God's will see on 4:34.

92. Cf. the rabbinic sayings in Ket. 2:9, "none may be believed when he testifies of himself. . . . None may testify of himself."

93. έγώ is emphatic. This is the case also in the preceding verse: "By myself I can do nothing" and in verse 34, "Not that I accept human testimony." In the present verse the force of the emphasis is, "If I alone and in fellowship with no other" (Westcott). To attempt to assert himself (were that conceivable) would be to break the harmony between himself and the Fattier.

94. Cf. Odeberg, "self-testimony is not only not valid, but it is eo ipso not true ... the very existence of J's (i.e. Jesus's) μαρτυρία is conditioned by his absolute unity with and dependence on his Father. Thus self-testimony, in the sense in which it is spoken of in 5³¹, means not merely testimony concerning oneself but an act of severance from the centre and fountain-head of the spiritual world, the establishment of oneself as an independent or self-dependent being; such an act of self-assertion in the spiritual realm at once relegates the subject of that act to the class of beings 'who are of the lie', 'who hate the light' or, to use another technical expression of Jn for this category, 'who seek their own glory' (8⁵⁰), or who 'come in their own name' (5⁴³ ctr 5³⁰)" (FG, p. 219).

95. Cf. Temple: " if His word stood alone, it would not be true at all. For divine revelation did not begin and end in Him, though it reached its crown and finds its criterion in Him. There must be other evidence, not only to support His own, but because the nature of His claim is such that it can only be true if all the work of God — the entire universe so far as it is not vitiated by sin — attests it" ; cf. Carson, "if the burden of evidence to support the tremendous claims he has been making exclusively depends on his own self-attestation, his witness must be false."

96. It is uncertain whether we should regard the use of άλλος rather than έτερος as significant. Many commentators maintain that the former denotes "another of the same kind," the latter "another of a different kind" (see on 14:16). If this distinction holds the meaning, here will be " 'another of the same kind as myself'. . . by which the evangelist suggests Christ's unique unity with the Father" (Abbott, 2730). But many writers do not observe the distinction, and, as John employs έτερος once only (in 19:37), we do not have enough information to be sure that he did. See further on v. 43. Chrysostom understands άλλος to refer to John the Baptist (40.1; p. 144), but there is little to be said for this view.

97. ό μαρτύρων and μαρτυρεī indicate that the witness is a present fact, and that it continues. The word is cited from a papyrus (New Documents, 3, p. 15).

98. The Qumran sect regarded themselves as "witnesses of truth" (1QS 8:6). Since the idea of bearing witness to the truth occurs in the New Testament only in this Gospel (here and 18:37; though cf. 3 John 3, 12) this is a further example of the kinship between John and Qumran.

99. Godet explains the article thus: " 'the testimony,' means here: 'that of which I have need, the only one which I would allege as confirmation of my own.' "

100. The article ό λύχνος may point to a definite, well-known lamp. If so, it will probably be the lamp prepared by the Lord for his anointed (or, "Christ," Ps. 132:17).

101. "The lamp is exhausted by shining; its illuminating power is temporary, and sensibly consumed" (Westcott). There may possibly be a reference to Elijah, whose word ώς λαμπάς έκαίετο (Sir. 48:1). We should also refer to our Lord's words, "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and praise your Father in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). There is also a Talmudic injunction, "Let thy light shine forth like a lamp" (Shab. 116b), though this may conceivably depend on the Matthean passage.

102. The verb is χαίω. The meaning "kindle" is plain in Matt. 5:15, "Neither do people light a lamp. . . ." Knox translates here, "He . . . was the lamp lit. . . ."

103. Josephus tells us that the people "were aroused (a variant reads 'overjoyed') to the highest degree" by John's sermons (Ant. 18.118).

104. "Like children, they were glad to disport themselves in the blaze, instead of seriously considering its meaning. And even that only for a season: their pilgrimages to the banks of the Jordan had soon ended" (Plummer). Dods comments: "the expression seems intended to suggest the thoughtless and brief play of insects in the sunshine or round a lamp." He cites Hausrath, "As gnats play in the sunshine," and concludes "the type of sentimental religionists revelling in their own emotions."

105. This seems better than understanding it in the sense "I have witness (pointing to me) greater than that which John had (pointing to him)," though this is grammatically possible.

106. There is no "that of" in the Greek, which reads simply "greater than John." The meaning is certainly as NIV, but Black discerns a Semitic idiom (AA, p. 87). Once again Jesus' words reflect the Aramaic.

107. Cf. R. H. Lightfoot: "all life, in and from the beginning onwards, when rightly understood, has borne witness, as the activity of the Father, to the Lord. . . . But the Jews throughout have proved deaf and blind to the Father's revelation of Himself."

108. Knox renders, "You have always been . . . blind to the vision of him."

109. LXX translates both and as Είδος Θεοϋ (Gen. 32:30, 31; in the latter case both nouns have the article; in both Hebrew and LXX the verses are 31 and 32), "the form of God." Both Hebrew words mean "the face of God," the second form apparently representing the survival of the old nominative ending 1 (see Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, rev. A. E. Cowley [Oxford, 1946], pp. 251-52).

110. Elsewhere Jesus speaks of his own word abiding in people (though with the use of τά ṕήματά μου, not τόν λόγον αύτοϋ as here): "If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish" (15:7). Closely allied is the saying in 8:31: "If you hold to my teaching (έν τω λόγω τω έμφ), you are really my disciples." In such passages the word stands for the whole message. Whether the word abides in the person or the person in the word, either way there is the thought of a continuing commitment to the totality of the message. In the present passage there is probably also a glance at the thought that Jesus is the true Word. Cf. Dodd, "λόγος is never merely a 'word'. It is in the widest sense God's self-disclosure, in word or deed, or in silent operations within the mind of man" (IFG, p. 330).

111. For the emphatic έκεΐνος see on 1:8.

112. Cf. Bernard: "The believer has an internal witness, which is in reality the witness of God. We are not to think of voices from heaven or visible epiphanies. ... It is the confident assurance of the believer which is here in question."

113. Goodspeed, Phillips, and other modern translations bring out the idea of diligent search implied in έραυνάω with "You pore over the Scriptures.. . ." Chrysostom points out that it is not "read" but "search," and he thinks the word means "dig down with care that they might be able to discover what lay in the depth below" (41.1; p. 147). This is the only place in this Gospel where the plural γραφαί is found.

114. "And yet, when this is said, an imperative lurks behind the indicative, for the Saying encourages the steady investigation of the Scriptures" (Hoskyns). For a discussion of the textual evidence see Dodd, IFG, p. 329, n. 1, and for a cogent argument for the imperative see Field, pp. 89-90.

115. The subordinate clause is cited as an evidence of an underlying Aramaic. The Aramaic could be translated into Greek by ότι, as in most texts here, or by a relative as in some Old Latin texts, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Armenian. The relative is also found in the apocryphal Gospel in the Egerton Papyrus, which is generally held to depend on John at this point. All this strengthens the evidence for an Aramaic source behind the sayings in this Gospel.

116. Cf. the saying attributed to Hillel: "the more study of the Law the more life ... if he has gained for himself words of the Law he has gained for himself life in the world to come" ('Ab. 2:7). There are several sayings like Baruch 4:1-2, "This is the book of the commandments of God, and the law endureth for ever: all they that hold it fast are appointed to life."

117. Cf. Morgan, "There is no life in the Scriptures themselves, but if we will follow where they lead, they will bring us to Him, and so we find life, not in the Scriptures, but in Him through them."

118. In the early centuries of our era this reverence for the letter of Scripture was taken to extreme lengths. Sir Frederic Kenyon says that scribes "numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each. They enumerated verses which contained all the letters of the alphabet, or a certain number of them" (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts [London, 1939], p. 38). In copying out the Scriptures the scribe was not to write more than one letter before looking at his exemplar again (Meg. 18b). This kind of thing cannot be attested for the New Testament period, but it undoubtedly had its roots there. It leads to a profound reverence for the letter of Scripture, coupled with a failure to grapple with its thought.

119. The present αί μαρτυροϋσαι, carries a double meaning. The Scriptures now bear witness of me. The Scriptures always bear witness of me.

120. Moffatt here renders καί as "but." John often uses this coordinating conjunction in an adversative sense, yielding the meaning "and yet." See, for example, vv. 43, 44; 6:36; 7:36.

121. τῂν ὰγάπην του θεοϋ might denote love from God or love for God. In this passage it seems likely to be the latter, but we should not forget that "God is at once the Author and the Object of this love" (Westcott). Abbott argues at length for the meaning "the love that proceeds from God" (2032-40). It may incidentally be worth pointing out that John uses αγάπη seven times (here; 13:35; 15:9, 10 bis, 13; 17:26). A. Nygren in his classic Agape and Eros (trans. P. S. Watson [London, 1953]) has shown that the basic idea of ὰγάπη is that of self-giving love for the unworthy. His linguistics have been assailed, and it may be that he has drawn the distinction between two types of love too finely and equated it too narrowly with the use of particular Greek words. But that there is such a love as he describes as Agape and that it is the Christian understanding of love seems clear. God's love for us is evoked by God's own inner nature, not by anything worthy in us. God loves us despite our unworthiness, and we see the cost of his love in the cross. Moreover, this love of God is creative. It evokes a corresponding love within people. C. S. Lewis has a very important book, The Four Loves (London, 1960). Perhaps I may be permitted to 121. τήν άγάπην του θεοϋ might denote love from God or love for God. In this passage it seems likely to be the latter, but we should not forget that "God is at once the Author and the Object of this love" (Westcott). Abbott argues at length for the meaning "the love that proceeds from God" (2032-40). It may incidentally be worth pointing out that John uses αγάπη seven times (here; 13:35; 15:9, 10 bis, 13; 17:26). A. Nygren in his classic Agape and Eros (trans. P. S. Watson [London, 1953]) has shown that the basic idea of άγάπη is that of self-giving love for the unworthy. His linguistics have been assailed, and it may be that he has drawn the distinction between two types of love too finely and equated it too narrowly with the use of particular Greek words. But that there is such a love as he describes as Agape and that it is the Christian understanding of love seems clear. God's love for us is evoked by God's own inner nature, not by anything worthy in us. God loves us despite our unworthiness, and we see the cost of his love in the cross. Moreover, this love of God is creative. It evokes a corresponding love within people. C. S. Lewis has a very important book, The Four Loves (London, 1960). Perhaps I may be permitted to 121. τήν άγάπην του θεοϋ might denote love from God or love for God. In this passage it seems likely to be the latter, but we should not forget that "God is at once the Author and the Object of this love" (Westcott). Abbott argues at length for the meaning "the love that proceeds from God" (2032-40). It may incidentally be worth pointing out that John uses αγάπη seven times (here; 13:35; 15:9, 10 bis, 13; 17:26). A. Nygren in his classic Agape and Eros (trans. P. S. Watson [London, 1953]) has shown that the basic idea of άγάπη is that of self-giving love for the unworthy. His linguistics have been assailed, and it may be that he has drawn the distinction between two types of love too finely and equated it too narrowly with the use of particular Greek words. But that there is such a love as he describes as Agape and that it is the Christian understanding of love seems clear. God's love for us is evoked by God's own inner nature, not by anything worthy in us. God loves us despite our unworthiness, and we see the cost of his love in the cross. Moreover, this love of God is creative. It evokes a corresponding love within people. C. S. Lewis has a very important book, The Four Loves (London, 1960). Perhaps I may be permitted to refer to my own Testaments of Love (Grand Rapids, 1981). But, despite the wonder of God's love, the Jews were so engrossed in their own self-love, their own darling ideas about religion, that they did not react to God's love.

122. "They did not really love God; they loved their own ideas about God" (Barclay); "They valued themselves on what they presented to Him, and yet they presented not that which most of all He sought, — the love in which self is lost" (MiM).

123. Attempts to identify this "other" seem futile. Some students have seen a reference to Bar-Koseba (c. A.D. 132), and find this evidence, accordingly, for a late date for the Gospel. This allusion, however, is rightly rejected by nearly all commentators. Jesus' words are very general, and are probably meant so. McClymont and others say that Jewish historians enumerate no less than sixty-four messianic claimants. There was a tendency for Jews to accept such men, and it is to this tendency that the words apply. If one figure is especially in mind it is the Anti-Christ. If we are to attach significance to the use of άλλος (we might have expected έτερος) the meaning will be, as Abbott, " 'If another come (professing to he of the same kind as myself),' like the Pauline (2 Cor. xi.4) ᾰλλον Ίησοϋν" (2677). Odeberg thinks the reference is to the devil (FG, p. 226).

124. The aorist πιστεϋσαι points to the act of putting one's trust in, rather than the continuing belief (which we see in the present, πιστεύειν, in 12:39).

125. Strachan understands this of the rabbinical schools: "Scripture study had become a world in which men sought fame by showing their intellectual prowess. One big authority was set over against another, and the result was barren logomachy where men sought honour one of another." We might cite Masefield (as Strachan does in another connection): "The trained mind outs the upright soul, As Jesus said the trained mind might, Being wiser than the sons of light, But trained men's minds are spread so thin They let all sorts of darkness in; Whatever light man finds they doubt it, They love not light, but talk about it." (The Everlasting Mercy [1936 edn.], p. 47).

126. Cf. Calvin: "the door of faith is shut against all whose minds are filled with a vain desire for earthly glory." So also Ryle: " I f a man is not thoroughly honest in his professed desire to find out the truth in religion, — if he secretly cherishes any idol which he is resolved not to give up, — if he privately cares for anything more than God's praise, — he will go on to the end of his days doubting, perplexed, dissatisfied, and restless, and will never find the way to peace. His insincerity of heart is an insuperable barrier in the way of his believing."

127. The perfect ήλπίκατε points to a continuing state. Their hope is a present hope, and not simply a past state.

128. "Every true disciple of Moses is on the way to becoming a Christian; every bad Jew is on that towards rejecting the Gospel" (Godet).

129. έμοΐς is emphatic (see on 4:42). Jesus' words are set in strong contrast with Moses' writings.

130. Loyd reminds us that the fault of not discerning the drift of Bible teaching is not confined to the Jews: "When we read the Bible, how little compunction and honest heart-searching it often arouses in us! When we hear sermons, how much more apt we are to apply their rebukes and warnings to our neighbours than to ourselves! And therefore the sermon is only just one more sermon, and not Jesus Himself speaking in our heart."

131. See the important discussion in Dodd, IFG, pp. 179-86.

132. L. Doohan finds seven attitudes toward faith in this Gospel: faith based on signs, the faith of secret disciples like Nicodemus, faith in Jesus as a wonder-worker, faith based on signs as a preparation for faith (e.g. the blind man, 9:35-38), mature faith as of the royal official (4:50), faith seeking greater clarification (the disciples at the Last Supper), and the faith that does not need signs (John: Gospel for a New Age [Santa Fe, 1988], pp. 146-47).

133. Dodd finds no parallel to this construction either in profane Greek or in the LXX (IFG, p. 183).

134. Cf. Moulton: "είς recalls at once the bringing of the soul into that mystical union which Paul loved to express by έν Χριστῴ" (Μ, I, p. 68). He does not see a great deal of difference between πιστεύειν είς and πιστεύειν έπί, but insists on the important difference between both of these on the one hand and πιστεύειν with the dative on the other. Bultmann thinks that πιστεύειν είς ΧριστÒν Ίησοΰν and similar expressions mean nothing else than πιστεύειν δτι Ίησοϋς άπέθανεν χαι ανέστη (1 Thess. 4:14). He takes πιστεύειν εις to be an abbreviation, taken from the vocabulary of missionary preaching, for "to be converted from (Jewish or) heathen faith to Christian faith" (TDNT, VI, p. 204). Later he says that this expression it is understood as "the reception of the Christian kerygma, and thereby as the saving faith which recognizes God's saving work effected in Christ, and makes it its own. Naturally πίστις here too contains the sense of to give credence to; and the concepts of obedience, trust, hope and loyalty can also be conveyed with it " (p. 209). Burney, of course, is greatly attracted by Moulton's suggestion that this Greek idiom reflects the Hebrew Aramaic and that it thus signifies personal trust (AO, p. 34).

135. Cf. R. Kysar, In John, "Faith is not something one has. Faith is something one does. Faith is not a static being but a dynamic becoming" (John, the Maverick Gospel [Atlanta, 1976], p. 81).

136. IFG, p. 183.

137. In view of the warm tone of this passage and the fact that believing here cannot be separated from personal trust we must reject the contentions of those who maintain that for John believing means "intellectual assent" or the like (cf. E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel [Edinburgh, 1906], pp. 52, 267).

138. Cf. Dodd, commenting on πίστις in 1 John 5:4: "The way to victory is not a confident assertion of our own better selves, but faith, and faith necessarily refers us to something beyond ourselves. The victorious faith of the Christian is trust in God as He is revealed in Jesus Christ His Son. It means committing ourselves to the love of God as it is expressed in all that Jesus Christ was and all that He did."

↑ Back to top