Chapter V (2)

=32, 33. There is another that beareth witness of me.= Most of the modern commentators consider this _another_ to be the Father. So Alford, Meyer, Bengel, Tholuck, and others. They understand the connection to be this: The Father testifies to me; John’s testimony I do not receive, because it is human and fallible, but in passing I refer to it, for your salvation. Thus verses 33-35 are parenthetical. The other interpretation seems to me the more natural and preferable. Christ gives, in an ascending climax, a threefold testimony to himself: first the testimony of John, a prophet, rather the prophet and forerunner of the Messiah; then his own works; finally the testimony of the Father, in the heart and through the written word.--=And I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.= Such language confirming the testimony of John the Baptist is natural; such language in confirmation of the testimony of the Father seems to me strained and unnatural. What significance can be given to the statement, The Everlasting Father testifies of me, and I know that his testimony of me is true? It is apt if applied to John the Baptist, a human and fallible witness, whose language might be attributed by the Jews to extraordinary and mistaken admiration.--=Ye sent unto John.= The reference is probably to the delegation which came out from Jerusalem to inquire into John’s character and work (ch. 1:19).--=He bare witness unto the truth.= That is, To the truth concerning Jesus Christ. By this declaration Christ makes the christology of John the Baptist his own, and declares of himself that he is the Son of God and the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. See ch. 1:29, 34.

34 But I receive not testimony from man: but[190] these
things I say, that ye might be saved.

[190] ch. 20:31; Rom. 3:3.

35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were
willing[191] for a season to rejoice in his light.

[191] Matt. 21:26; Mark 6:20.

=34, 35. But I receive not testimony from man.= This is not equivalent to, I will not avail myself of human witness in this matter (_Meyer_); he does in fact avail himself of human witness, cites it, and declares the reason why he does so, that his auditors may by it be saved from fatal error; nor does it merely mean, as Calvin, that he cites this testimony out of regard to them rather than to himself, though this is true, and equally true of all his ministry, and of all the testimony which he cites in support of his divine claims. Here, as in so many other places in the N. T., especially in the reports of Christ’s words, the careful study of the original clears up obscurity which is felt in the translation, and sometimes which any mere translation fails to clear away. _From_ (παρά), when joined to verbs of inquiring, asking, and learning, indicates that the matter to be learned is viewed as in the mental possession of the person cited (see _Winer_, § 47, p. 365), that is, as derived from him and dependent on his testimony. So in common language with us, “I know such a fact to be true, for I learned it _from_ Mr. A.,” indicates Mr. A. as the _authority_ for the statement. Christ’s declaration here then is, not that he will not use human testimony, but that his claims do not depend upon it. Compare Matt. 11:27, “No man knoweth the Son but the Father,” and Matt. 16:17, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it (the truth respecting Jesus) unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” The testimony of John the Baptist, like that of all the prophets, is not in truth testimony of or from man, but testimony _from_ God, _through_ man, the man speaking as he is moved by the Holy Ghost. And the moral for us is that all mere human argument for and witness to the character of Christ breaks down; it is only as the divine character has been divinely revealed to us, by the Spirit of God, that we can hope to persuade others of the truth, a lesson abundantly confirmed in the history of the church by its dealings with infidelity. Unbelief is to be vanquished by spiritual, not by mere intellectual power. Alford represents the idea well by a free translation, “I take not my testimony from man.”--=These things I say that ye might be saved.= Blind to the testimony of the O. T. (2 Cor. 3:14), unspiritual, and therefore deaf to the inner voice of God (1 Cor. 2:14), there is hope that they may heed the recent testimony of John, whom all men counted for a prophet (Matt. 21:26), and whose baptism even the Pharisees and the Sadducees had attended (Matt. 3:7). Therefore he cites it to them, that he may by any means save some. He seeks to outflank their prejudice.--=He was the lamp, kindled and shining.= Observe the difference between this translation and that of our English version. He was not _a light_, but _the lamp_; not _burning_, but _kindled_. A common title given to famous Rabbis was The candle of the law; Christ borrows it, applies it to John, and declares him to have been _the_ lamp, lighting not the law, but the way to Christ. _The_ lamp, because the one foretold in the prophets to light the way of the Lord and prepare for his coming. The _lamp_, not _light_. Two different Greek words (λύχνος and φῶς) are erroneously rendered by the same English word, _light_. Man is but a _lamp_; Christ is _the light_ which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (ch. 1:9); and man (the lamp) can give light to others only as he is himself filled with Christ (the true and only light). This lamp is _kindled_ (καιόμενος, passive), _i. e._, by the touch of God, as a lamp unable to give light until it is filled and lighted by the owner’s hand; and _shining_, as one of the lights of the world (Matt. 5:14), shining with divine light because kindled by a divine hand and partaking of the divine nature (_lumen illuminatum_, not _lumen illuminans_).--=And ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.= The two marks of a spurious religious enthusiasm. They were willing to _rejoice_, but not to _repent_; they were ready to “enjoy religion,” but not to “bring forth fruit meet for repentance;” they flocked in great crowds to John’s Baptism (Matt. 3:5), much as men now flock to camp and tabernacle meetings; but they were not ready to “do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly before God.” And their enthusiasm was but “for a season,” as all merely emotional enthusiasm is. It made no practical and lifelong change in their character or conduct.

36 But I have greater witness than _that_ of John; for the
works[192] which the Father hath given me to finish,[193]
the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the
Father hath sent me.

[192] ch. 10:25; 15:24; Acts 2:22.

[193] ch. 17:4.

=36. But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish.= From the testimony of John the Baptist, Jesus passes to the second authentication of his mission, the works which he is doing. These _works_ are not merely nor primarily his miracles. Against this narrow and unspiritual interpretation the church should have been saved by even a careful study of the words. For (_a_) the word here rendered _works_ (ἔργον) is never used by John as equivalent to a miracle, but always, when in connection with Christ, as significant of his whole course of beneficent and redeeming activity; (_b_) in this very discourse Christ uses it in connection with and in reference to his work of spiritual life-giving to the dead in trespasses and sins (vers. 20, 21); (_c_) the phrase “hath given me to finish” points forward to the time when he should be able to say in prayer to his Father, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (ch. 17:5; comp. 4:34), and in his last triumphant cry upon the cross, “It is finished” (ch. 19:30). The matter is important because the church needs to recognize that the evidences of Christianity on which Christ relied are not the miracles, which are purely historical acts, the historic veracity of which must be proved like that of any other past events, but the whole work of redeeming love, the visible and indubitable fruits of which are to be unceasingly seen in the victories of Christianity over the individual and over communities.--=The same works that I am doing.= Not _have done_, which might have been said of miracles already wrought, but _am now engaged in doing_, which alone could be said of the unceasing work of him who ever went about doing good. Observe that the works which he is doing are those which the Father _hath given him to do_ (vers. 19, 20, notes), and that whatever the Father hath given him, that he does (ch. 18:11).--=Bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.= Because they are manifestations of the Father’s love. The message which the Son has come to bring is the message of the Father’s grace (ch. 1:14).

37 And the Father[194] himself, which hath sent me, hath
borne witness of me. Ye[195] have neither heard his voice
at any time, nor seen his shape.

[194] Matt. 3:17; 17:5.

[195] Deut. 4:12; 1 Tim. 6:16.

38 And ye have not his word[196] abiding in you: for whom
he hath sent, him ye believe not.

[196] 1 John 2:14.

=37, 38. And he which hath sent me, the Father himself, hath borne witness of me.= The past tense of the verb indicates a completed testimony, borne in past time, but accessible to present hearers. The meaning therefore cannot be the witness of the Spirit to Christ’s character and mission, a continuously fresh testimony, which is however borne only to those that are already the sons of God, through a measurable faith in Jesus as Saviour and Messiah. The reference is possibly in part to the testimony which the Father had borne at the baptism to Christ as his well-beloved Son (Matt. 3:17), a testimony repeated on other occasions (Matt. 17:5; John 12:28); but the primary reference is to the testimony borne to God in the O. T. Scriptures, which were to the Jewish nation witnesses to the Messiah, whose coming they heralded, and whose work they described (Luke 24:27-44; Acts 13:27).--=No voice of his have ye ever heard, no appearance of his have ye ever seen, and his word ye have not abiding in you.= This gives as nearly literally as is possible the meaning of the original. Two interpretations are possible. One is that indicated by our English version. According to this interpretation Christ declares the general philosophic truth, that the Father is a Spirit, and therefore invisible and inaudible, to be spiritually discerned; and since the Jews have not spiritual discernment, since they have not God’s word abiding in them, they are without any knowledge of God or understanding of his witness. The other interpretation is that indicated by the more literal translation given above. According to this translation it is the language of “reproach for want of susceptibility to this (divine) testimony” (_Meyer_). This was the view of Calvin, who here, as in the interpretation of so many other passages, anticipated the results of later criticism. “When he says that they had never heard the voice of God or seen his shape, these are metaphorical expressions, by which he intends to state generally that they are utterly estranged from the knowledge of God.” This last I believe to be the correct interpretation, both because it more nearly accords with the literal rendering of the original, and because, according to the other interpretation, Christ inserts in the midst of his discourse an abstract statement of philosophic truth, in a manner which, if not absolutely artificial, is at least quite unlike his usual method. _His word abiding in you_ is the word of the O. T. This they had; but it was external to them. They did not believe it “with the heart unto righteousness” (Rom. 10:10). It was not an abiding force in the shaping of their conduct or the formation of their character. He only can truly comprehend what the Scriptures teach concerning God, who yields obedience to whatever they teach concerning duty; for it is only as the divine attributes are reproduced in us that we can approximate an understanding of them in God.--=For whom he hath sent, in him ye have not faith.= This may be regarded either as the reason why they have not seen God nor heard his voice, because they have not faith in his Son; or as the evidence that they have not seen God, etc., since if they had they would have faith in his Son. The latter is the preferable interpretation, He that is truly and spiritually familiar with the Father will discern the Father’s lineaments in the Son; he that does not recognize the divinity in the Son bears thereby witness that he does not truly know in what divinity consists.

39 Search[197] the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have
eternal life: and they are[198] they which testify of me.

[197] Isa. 8:20; 34:16.

[198] Luke 24:27; 1 Pet. 1:10, 11.

40 And ye will not come[199] to me, that ye might have life.

[199] ch. 3:19.

=39, 40. Ye search the Scriptures because in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify concerning me; and still ye will not come unto me that ye might have life.= The verb _search_ (ερευνᾶτε) may be rendered either as imperative or as indicative. Alford and Tholuck make it, as does the English version, imperative, thus interpreting it as a direction to search the Scriptures; Meyer, Bengel, Olshausen, and Godet make it indicative, thus interpreting it as a statement of a fact and a basis for the condemnation which follows. Which interpretation is correct is to be determined wholly by the context and the circumstances; either is grammatically correct. It appears to me clear, both from the context and the audience, that Christ does not give here a command or an exhortation, but simply states a fact. For (1) he is addressing men who did not need a direction to Scriptural study; the great, almost the exclusive, study of the Jewish Rabbis was either the Scriptures or the commentaries thereon. It is true that their search was not spiritual; they stopped with the letter which killeth, and disregarded the spirit which giveth life; but this was a reason, not for an exhortation to more searching, but to a different spirit in the searching. (2) The theme of Christ’s discourse here would not naturally lead to an exhortation to Bible study. He is pointing them to himself; and their failure to find him was not because they were not familiar with the Scriptures, but because a veil was over their hearts when they read it (2 Cor. 3:15). I understand then that Christ in this verse notes a contrast between the Scriptures and himself; the Jews search the Scriptures because _in them_ they think to find eternal life. But eternal life is not in the _Book_; it is in the _person_ to whom the Book bears witness. And they search in vain who do not find in it the Christ to whom the Book bears testimony. In contrast with their searching, note the spirit and method of the Bereans, who searched to see _if these things were so_ (Acts 17:10, 11), that is, with a docile and inquiring, not a predetermined mind.--=Ye will not come unto me.= Though the Scriptures which they searched so diligently contained testimony to a suffering and saving Messiah, they would not come to him. They were as one who reads a guide-board, but goes not whither it points.--=That ye might have life.= The object of Christ’s coming was to give life; the object of coming to Christ is to receive life (ch. 10:10). The kind of life imparted by him and to be received by us is indicated in Ephes. 2:10; Gal. 5:22, 23.

41 I receive not honour from[200] men.

[200] verse 34; 1 Thess. 2:6.

42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

=41, 42. I receive not honor from men.= It is true that at his name every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess him to be Lord, but _to the glory of God the Father_ (Phil. 2:10, 11). As the Christian lets his light shine that men may glorify Christ, so Christ’s light glorifies the Father. Moreover, this honor is not derived from men. What was said on the meaning of the original on ver. 34 (see note there) is equally applicable here. From men (παρά) indicates the original source. Christ’s glory comes _from_ the Father (Phil. 2:9); human voices do but echo the divine voice.--=I know you.= As no man ever knows his fellow-men. For illustration of Christ’s divine insight into the hearts of men, see Matt. 9:4; John 2:24; Heb. 4:13.--=That ye have not the love of God in you.= They who were condemning Christ for a violation of the ceremonial law of the Sabbath were themselves guilty of violating the first and great commandment Of the law (Deut. 6:5).

43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if
another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, which[201] receive honour one of
another, and seek[202] not the honour that _cometh_ from
God only?

[201] ch. 12:43.

[202] Rom. 2:10.

=43, 44. In my Father’s name.= “The name of God, of Christ, is a paraphrase for God himself, Christ himself, in all their being, attributes, relations, manifestations.”--(_Rob. Lex._, art. ὄνομα.) See Matt. 28:19, note. Here, therefore, Christ’s declaration is primarily, I have come in the power of the Father, not in my own power, or with my own authority; and secondarily, I have come to manifest and glorify not myself, but Him.--=If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.= The reference is primarily to the false Christs, of whom many have been at different times received by Jews. See Matt. 24:5, note. But the declaration has a wider application to all times and nations. Wherever the minister is received, not as a guide to God, but as an independent object of hero-worship, he is received _in his own name_.--=How can ye have faith which receive honor derived from= (παρά) =one another?= Earthly ambition is inconsistent with spiritual growth. He that seeks the perishable cannot at the same time seek the imperishable crown.--=And seek not the honor which cometh from the only God.= Not, as in our English version, from God only. The structure of the sentence forbids that interpretation. The reference is to such passages as Exod. 8:10; 9:14; 20:3; Deut. 4:35, 39; 2 Sam. 7:22; Isa. 45:5, 6, etc. To those who seek from the one and only true God glory and honor and immortality, by patient continuance in well-doing, and to them alone, is the gift of eternal life promised (Rom. 2:6, 7).

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there
is[203] _one_ that accuseth you, _even_ Moses, in whom ye
trust.

[203] Rom. 2:12.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me:
for he[204] wrote of me.

[204] Gen. 3:15; 22:18; Deut. 18:15, 18; Acts 26:22.

47 But if ye[205] believe not his writings, how shall ye
believe my words?

[205] Luke 16:31.

=45-47. Do not think that I will be your accuser before the Father.= The imagery is borrowed from the course of judicial proceedings. In the last judgment Christ will be judge (ver. 37), not public prosecutor.--=There is one that accuseth you.= Observe the present tense, _who is accusing you_. The law is a perpetual accusation against the sinner (Rom. 2:15; 3:19, 20), from whose indictments there is no escape except in the pardon offered by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. For prophetic and specific accusations of the Jewish nation in the Mosaic writings, see Deut. 31:21, 26.--=Even Moses.= The law-giver is put for the law.--=In whom ye have put your hopes.= (εἰς ὃν) For the meaning of _in whom_ (εἰς ὅν), see 2 Cor. 1:10. _In_ (εἰς) signifies the end toward which any action tends; with verbs indicating a mental action, the object of that action. The hopes of the Jews looked toward Moses, _i. e._, toward an exact obedience of the letter of the law given by Moses, not toward a spiritual communion with the Father whose children they were called to be. For a portrayal, autobiographically, of this legal and self-righteous hope, see Phil. 3:4-6.--=Had ye believed Moses.= Not believed _in_ or _on_ him; the child of God believes the prophets, he believes _in_ or _on_ Christ only. If the Jews had really believed Moses, even as a teacher, they would have believed _on_ Christ; for Moses testified of Christ.--=For he wrote of me.= An incidental testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the books usually attributed by the Jews to Moses, viz., the first five books of the O. T.; also an indication of the prophetic and typical character of the ceremonial law. Moses was a prophet because the entire O. T. ceremonial and service--temple sacrifices, ablutions, etc.--were prophecies, fulfilled in and by Christ. Thus Christ himself incidentally confirms that view of the O. T. ceremonial which underlies and is most fully expounded by the Epistle to the Hebrews.--=But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?= “The meaning is, Men give greater weight to what is written and published, the letter of a book, than to mere word of mouth; and ye in particular give greater honor to Moses than to Me: if then ye believe not what _he_ has written, which comes down to you hallowed by the reverence of ages, how can you believe the words which are uttered by _Me_, to whom ye are hostile? This however is not all; Moses leads to Christ; is one of the witnesses by which the Father hath testified of Him; ‘if then ye have rejected the _means_, how shall ye reach the _end_?’ If your unbelief has stopped the path, how shall ye arrive at Him to whom it leads?”--(_Alford._)