Chapter V (1)

Ch. 5:1-47. HEALING OF IMPOTENT MAN AND DISCOURSE THEREON.--A PARABLE OF REDEMPTION; THE NATURE AND THE CONDITION OF SPIRITUAL CURE ILLUSTRATED.--THE CHRISTIAN LAW OF THE SABBATH ILLUSTRATED.--THE AUTHORITY OF THE SON OF GOD: HE IS WITH THE FATHER; COMES FROM THE FATHER; IS TO BE HONORED AND TRUSTED AS THE FATHER; HE RAISES THE DEAD AND JUDGES THE LIVING.--THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY; THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN; OF CHRIST’S LIFE AND WORKS; OF THE SCRIPTURE.--THE CAUSE OF UNBELIEF.

1 After this there was a feast[159] of the Jews; and Jesus
went up to Jerusalem.

[159] ch. 2:13; Lev. 23:2, etc.; Deut. 16:16.

2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep _market_, a pool,
which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five
porches.

3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of
blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool,
and troubled the water: whosoever then first[160] after the
troubling of the water stepped in, was made whole[161] of
whatsoever disease he had.

[160] Prov. 8:17; Eccles. 9:10; Matt. 11:12.

[161] Ezek. 47:8, 9; Zech. 13:1.

=1-4. After this was a feast of the Jews.= There were three great feasts of the Jewish nation, the Passover in the spring, usually March; the Pentecost, fifty days after, coming therefore usually early in June; and the Tabernacles, a feast in the Fall, usually October, analogous to our Thanksgiving. To these must be added the feast of Purim, which was kept in celebration of the deliverance of Israel, in the time of Esther, from massacre (Esther 9:17-19), and the feast of Dedication, instituted subsequent to the close of the O. T. canon, to commemorate the purging of the temple and the rebuilding of the altar, after Judas Maccabeus had driven out the Syrians, B. C. 164. There is nothing in the language of John to indicate which of these various feasts is the one here intended. Some manuscripts have indeed the words, _the_ feast of the Jews, and if this reading were correct it would unquestionably designate the Passover; but the weight of authority is against it. The question is one which has provoked a vast deal of discussion, but no general agreement. It is important only in determining the chronology of the life of Christ, and is itself so far undetermined that it cannot be of great value even for that purpose. I think it clear (_a_) that it could not be the feast of Dedication, which took place in the winter, when it is not probable that the sick would be lying in the porches of Bethesda; (_b_) nor the feast of Purim, though this has been maintained by some eminent modern scholars, as Wieseler, Godet, Olshausen, Ellicott, and Meyer; for there is no evidence that the Jews generally went up to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Purim, and no reason to believe that our Lord would have gone there in honor of a festival which was purely national, not directed by the O. T., observed not in connection with the temple service, but privately at home, and often, if not generally, with rioting and excess, rather than with religious services. I agree therefore with Alford and Tholuck that we cannot gather with any probability what feast it was.--=And Jesus went up to Jerusalem.= Presumptively to attend the feast.--=By the sheep-market.= Rather _sheep-gate_. See Neh. 3:1, 32; 12:39. The site is unknown. The traditional site, identical with the gate now known as St. Stephen’s, is pretty effectually disproved by Robinson, who shows that no wall was existing there at the time of Christ.--=A pool.= Properly _a swimming-place_. Pools for purposes of bathing were in use in the great cities of the old world; and recent excavations have brought to light the fact that ancient Jerusalem was in a remarkable degree supplied with water. See below.--=Called Bethesda.= The word means _House of mercy_. The location is entirely uncertain. Tradition places it near the modern St. Stephen’s gate; but this tradition dates back only to the 12th century.--=Having five porches.= Opening upon the bath or tank. In these the sick could lie and be partially protected from the weather.--=In these lay a great multitude of impotent, blind, halt, withered.= Four classes intended to embrace all forms of purely bodily disorder of a chronic character, but not including those possessed of evil spirits. The _impotent_ are those simply suffering from special weakness and infirmity or from general debility; the _halt_ are those deprived from any reason of the full and free use of their limbs; the _withered_ are those affected by paralysis or kindred disorders.--=Waiting for the moving of the water * * * * was made whole of whatever disease he had.= Whether this explanation, _i. e._, the last clause of ver. 3 and the whole of ver. 4, is genuine or a later interpolation, is a question of dispute among the critics; the weight of authority is, on the whole, in favor of its omission; the weight of reason is wholly so. (_a_) The external evidence is, on the whole, against its retention. It is wanting in the Vatican, Cambridge, and Sinaitic manuscripts; in those manuscripts in which it occurs, the verbal variations are considerable. Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, and Tregelles all declare against it. (_b_) The internal evidence is conclusive. If it had been in the original, the early copyists would not have omitted it; for in the first centuries there was no such reluctance to accept the supernatural, and no such discrimination between wonders that are and wonders that are not miracles, as would have induced its omission. On the other hand, if no explanation of the reason why the sick were gathered in the porches of Bethesda were given in the original account, it would have been very natural for copyists to have supplied the omission by inserting one. (_c_) The explanation offered by the doubtful passage is itself incredible. It is a marvel, but it is in no sense a miracle. The irregular and fitful appearance of help by such an angelic visitor, would have witnessed to no truth, would have had no tendency to confer faith in God or his grace. “That God would thus miraculously interpose to throw down from time to time a boon among a company of cripples, to be seized by the most forward, selfish, and eager, leaving the most helpless and miserable to be overwhelmed again and again with bitter disappointment, is a supposition not admissible.”--(_Jacob Abbott’s Notes on the N. T._) (_d_) These considerations have led the latest and best scholars, with substantial unanimity, to omit the explanatory words of ver. 4, and latter clause of ver. 3. So Alford, Tholuck, Ebrard, Trench, Olshausen, Meyer, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. But though it is no part of the sacred record, it probably correctly states what was the popular belief among the Jews, or at least among such as resorted to this spring for cure. The real basis of this belief is indicated by recent researches. These have made it evident that the pools in and about Jerusalem were connected with each other by underground aqueducts. Dr. Robinson gives an account of his exploration of such an aqueduct connecting two pools, the Fountain of the Virgin and the Pool of Siloam. He satisfied himself that water flowed from the one to the other reservoir, and he witnessed the “troubling of the water” in the Fountain of the Virgin. “We perceived the water rapidly bubbling up from under the lower step. In less than five minutes it had risen in the basin nearly or quite a foot; and we could hear it gurgling off through the interior passage. In ten minutes more it had ceased to flow; and the water in the basin was again reduced to its former level.” His observation has been since confirmed by others. It is now difficult to see how the Fountain of the Virgin could ever have been surrounded by porches or made a resting-place for the sick; and it is quite certain that the Fountain of the Virgin cannot be asserted with any positiveness to have been the Pool of Bethesda. But these discoveries indicate the probably true explanation of the troubling of the water mentioned, not by John it will be remembered, but by some subsequent copyist, in the text. The Pool of Bethesda, probably, was connected by an underground passage with some intermittent spring, possibly possessing healing virtues, and the bubbling of the water from time to time gave rise to the legend of an angelic visitant, which certain of the Jews accepted, but which the Evangelist does not confirm, and to which there is no reference in other literature.

5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity[162]
thirty and eight years.

6 When Jesus saw him lie, and[163] knew that he had been
now a long time _in that case_, he saith unto him, Wilt
thou be made whole?

7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have[164] no man,
when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but
while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise,[165] take up thy bed, and
walk.

9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his
bed, and walked: and on[166] the same day was the sabbath.

[162] Luke 8:43; 13:16.

[163] Ps. 142:3.

[164] Deut. 32:36; Ps. 72:12; 142:4; Rom. 5:6; 2 Cor.
1:9, 10.

[165] Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:11; Luke 5:24.

[166] ch. 9:14.

=5-9. Which had an infirmity.= The original implies rather a loss of power than a positive disease; probably it was a nervous disease of the paralytic type.--=Thirty and eight years.= The words “in that case,” are added by the translator, but they correctly convey the meaning, which is not that he had been at the Pool of Bethesda, but that he had been diseased that length of time.--=Wilt thou be made whole?= Why this question? Not necessarily because there was any reasonable doubt whether the man desired healing; nor because Christ required, as a conditional preliminary, the man’s assent to healing on the Sabbath; nor because he would imply blame, as though the man’s long infirmity were the result of his own weakness of will; nor, surely, because he would indicate that he was an impostor and desired to use his apparent but exaggerated infirmity to appeal to the compassion of others. All these hypotheses have been suggested. But Christ almost, if not quite, always requires on the part of the healed some act of the will precedent to and concurrent with his act of grace; the cured are never merely receptive and quiescent. I believe there is a deep religious meaning in this, for every miracle is a parable of redemption, and that our Lord would teach us that it is only as we will to be made whole that any wholeness is possible for us, even through omnipotent divine grace. In this particular case it is certainly true that the man might have traded on his infirmity and not really desired to be cured; and though Christ’s knowledge of character would have rendered the question unnecessary for his own information, it was not unnecessary to make it clear to others that he was acting in sympathy with the man, nor was it unimportant as a disclosure to the man himself that he must rouse himself from the lethargy of despair, and lay hold, by hope, on the salvation brought to him.--=I have no man.= It is the friendless who appeals peculiarly to the Friend of the sinful and the suffering.--=Rise, take up thy bed and walk.= The original (κράββατόν) implies a small, low bedstead. See for illustration Mark 2:4, note. Here, however, the term may be used in a more general way, and may imply simply a mattress which served as a couch by day and a bed by night. Observe the command to _take up the bed_. This apparently was not necessary; I can conceive but two reasons for it; one to emphasize the perfection of the cure, the other to provoke the controversy with the Pharisees respecting the Sabbath, and thus make it the occasion for the discourse which follows.--=Immediately.= The instantaneousness of the cure indicates its miraculous character; so does its permanence. He was cured instantly; he was cured so thoroughly that he could not only walk, but could carry his bed; and he remained cured.

I have already said that the miracles are parables of redemption. Of no one of the miracles is this more strikingly true than of the present one. The diseased man has been a long time sick. He is helpless, friendless, in despair. He waits for an imagined moving of the water, an expected divine cure that is to come without act or interposition on his part; and it never comes. Christ calls first his will into exercise: Wilt thou be made whole? then bids him do: “Rise, take up thy bed;” and in the choice and the _obedience_, by faith indeed, but by the faith which chooses and obeys, he is made instantly and permanently well.

10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It
is the sabbath day:[167] it is not lawful for thee to carry
_thy_ bed.

[167] Jer. 17:21, etc.; Matt. 12:2, etc.

11 He answered them. He that made me whole, the same said
unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.

12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto
thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?

13 And he that was healed wist[168] not who it was: for
Jesus had conveyed[169] himself away, a multitude being in
_that_ place.

[168] ch. 14:9.

[169] Luke 4:30.

=10-13. It is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.= The general Sabbath command was, Thou shalt do no work. Nehemiah, enforcing this command, forbade the carriage of commercial burdens (Neh. 13:19). From this the Pharisees, with their accustomed literalism, had deduced the doctrine that nothing must be carried on the Sabbath. To forbid this man from carrying his bed was like forbidding a modern, man to move a chair or a campstool. Either he must have left his bed at the pool, to be stolen, or he must have stayed there to watch it, or he must have been allowed to take it home with him. For the Pharisaic regulations respecting the Sabbath, see Matt. 12:2, note.--=He that made me whole said unto me.= The man knew nothing about Christ or his authority. His idea appears to have been that Christ proved his right to give the command, Take up thy bed and walk, by his miracle of healing.--=What man is it that said unto thee, Take up thy bed.= Observe the spirit of the Pharisees. Their question is not, Who healed thee? but, Who said unto thee, Take up thy bed and walk? They are blind to the miracle; they can see only the Sabbath violation, as they regard it.--=A multitude being in that place.= Christ had stopped a moment, spoken the word of healing, and passed on into the crowd. All was over in an instant, and because of the crowd Christ escaped the man’s identification. This was early in his ministry; he was not yet widely known and thronged, as later in life. Observe the indications of the nature of belief, an obedient trust, not a correct intellectual apprehension. This man had faith enough to be healed because faith to obey Christ’s directions despite Pharisaic criticism; yet he knew nothing of Christ’s person, character, or work; did not even know who he was. It is possible to have faith in even an unknown Christ.

14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto
him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin[170] no more, lest a
worse thing come unto thee.

[170] ch. 8:11.

15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus,
which had made him whole.

16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought
to slay him, because he had done these things on the
sabbath day.

=14-16. In the temple.= Possibly an indication that the divine grace of healing had already acted as a means of spiritual quickening.--=Sin no more, lest=, etc. A plain indication that the man’s disease, probably some form of paralysis, was an effect of sin. See note on ch. 9:1. Here, as almost everywhere, Christ makes the physical healing minister to a spiritual cure.--=And reported to the Judeans that it was Jesus which had made him whole.= They asked who bade him carry his bed; he replied that it was Jesus who healed him. They asked to condemn, he answered so as to honor Christ.--=And therefore did the Judeans come in pursuit of Jesus.= Here, as very generally throughout his gospel, John uses the word Jews (Ἰουδαῖος) to signify not generally the members of the Hebrew race, but distinctly the inhabitants of the province of Judea. I therefore render it here and elsewhere by the more distinctive word Judeans. His language indicates not a legal persecution, but a malicious pursuit. Norton translates as I have, Came in pursuit of Jesus. This is the literal rendering of the original verb (διώκω), which however generally, though not always, indicates a pursuit with an evil intent. Here the meaning is not that the general cause of the persecution which Christ suffered in Judea was his supposed Sabbath violation, but that in this particular instance they pursued him to call him to account for this particular act of Sabbath breaking. It is always the nature of the ceremonialist to care more for the ceremony than for man.--=And sought to slay him.= These words do not belong here. They have been added to explain and correspond with the expression in verse 18, Sought the more to kill him. They are omitted by Alford, Meyer, Norton, and all the best critical authorities.

* * * * *

=17-47.= In the study of the discourse which follows, beware of considering it simply verse by verse. It is not a collection of incidental aphorisms, but a connected address, the theme being the character, mission, authority, and credentials of the Son of God. The Pharisees call Christ to account for healing on the Sabbath; he cites in his defence the example of his heavenly Father. They seize upon his language, deduce from it the conclusion that he makes himself equal with God, and charge him with blasphemy. This serves as the text of the discourse which follows. He declares that he comes not to draw allegiance from, but to, the Father; that he acts under the Father’s will; that to him the Father has committed the whole work of grace on the earth; that he is even now raising the spiritually dead to life; that he is to raise the physically dead to a new life; and that he will finally complete this work entrusted to him, by declaring and executing the divine judgment. The evidence of his mission and authority is not in his own words; he is testified to by John the Baptist; by his own life and work; and by the Scriptures of the O. T. He closes by pointing out the secret cause of the Jews’ rejection of him, viz., their personal ambition. Beware, too, of imputing to the words a dogmatic meaning borrowed from later ecclesiastical controversies, which they did not bear in the minds of his hearers at the time. There is little or nothing here respecting the relations of the Son to the Father, except as the language throughout implies that the Son is subordinate to and dependent upon the Father; but the relation of the Son to the human race is clearly revealed, the relation of life-giver and judge, and is certainly not that of any man, however endowed, to his fellow-men. Nevertheless this address contains the christology of Jesus Christ, his own teaching concerning his own character and work; and it clearly implies, on the one hand, that he not only represents the Father, as an ambassador might represent a king, that he is not only clothed with divine authority, as Moses was clothed, in the administration of the theocracy, with the authority of God, but that he is a partaker of the divine nature; nor less clearly, on the other hand, does it imply that his authority is derived from the Father, that his power is conferred on him by the Father, that he executes in all things the will of the Father, that he is to be conceived of not as distinct from, but as one with the Father, and that his object is in all things to be a way unto the Father. Against every form of tri-theism, against all substitution of the Son in the place of the Father, this discourse is a solemn and earnest admonition, no less than against all belittling of either his character to that of man or angel, or his mission to that of mere messenger or teacher.

17 But Jesus answered them, My[171] Father worketh
hitherto, and I work.

[171] chaps. 9:4, 14:10.

=17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.= The argument is very brief; it is based on the premises that we are to be followers of God as dear children (Ephes. 5:1), that the Father’s work is a pattern for our own working. It gives color to the opinion that the days of creation are long eons or periods; that the seventh day, which God blessed and on which he rested, is the present period in which the mere physical work of creation has given place to the higher work of redemption; thus the Sabbath of God becomes both interpreted and an interpreter to us of what our Sabbath should be. The divine work does not cease; the grass grows, the buds swell, the flowers bloom, the fruits ripen, the rains fall, the winds blow,--but all this is the work of love; over all this work God’s tender mercies brood (Psalm 145:9). The lesson of nature interpreted here by Christ is that the work of love is never a violation of the true Sabbath law. This verse, with Matt. 12:8 and Mark 2:27, give the three canons for the Christian observance of the Sabbath. (1) The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. It is then a Christian day, belongs to the Christian dispensation, is under the Lordship of Christ and in his kingdom, and is to be kept in that spirit of joyous freedom with which Christ makes free. (2) The Sabbath is made for man. It is therefore man’s day; belongs to all men, Gentile and Jew, poor and rich; a day to be used _for_ man; so that whatever work is necessary to the real abiding welfare of the human race, is not foreign to this day. (3) My Father worketh hitherto. The Father’s work is the example and the law for his children; the work of love, the work for others, the work that has tender mercy for its inspiration and its overseer, is Sabbath work. It is to be our rest-day as it is our heavenly Father’s rest-day, and only so; a prophecy of that eternal rest which will be one of glorious activity: a rest from care, from worldliness, from the common temptations of life, but not a day of mere dull cessation of labor.

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill[172] him,
because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also
that God was his Father, making[173] himself equal with God.

[172] ch. 7:19.

[173] ch. 10:30, 33; Zech. 13:7; Phil. 2:6.

=18. Because he had not only broken the Sabbath.= Literally _relaxed_ (λύω) the Sabbath. See note on Matt. 5:19 for meaning of the word. The Pharisees then, as the literalists now, believe that the sanctity of the Sabbath could only be preserved by putting the soul under bonds to a literal compliance with specific regulations. Christ broke these bonds asunder, gave the soul liberty, and preserved the Sabbath by inspiring the souls of his disciples with allegiance to himself, love for humanity, and sympathy with the redeeming work of the Father. He did relax what they supposed to be essential to the preservation of the day, but what was really destroying it. To keep this poor man on his bed, or watching it to prevent it from being stolen, would have destroyed for him the rest of the day, in order that he might comply with the letter of the Pharisaic regulations. So he who rides in a horse-car rather than remain away from church, or travels late Saturday night or early Sunday morning rather than destroy his Sabbath by spending it with strangers, seems to the Sabbatarian of to-day to be relaxing the Sabbath, while he may be in truth preserving it.--=But said also that God was his own Father.= (πατέρα ἴδιον.) Norton renders the sense accurately though freely, _Had spoken of God as particularly his Father_. The meaning of the original will be indicated to the English reader by Rom. 8:32, “Spared not _his own_ Son;” 1 Cor. 6:18, “Sinneth against _his own_ body;” 1 Cor. 7:2, “Have _her own_ husband.” It is clear that the Jews either did understand Christ by his language to claim peculiar relations with God, or pretended so to do. In his mere reference to God as Father there was no such claim, for he bids us all call him our Father (Matt. 6:6, 7). True, in the language “_my_ Father,” most commentators see a ground for the interpretation put upon his language by the Judeans:--thus Meyer: “They rightly interpreted ‘my Father’ as signifying peculiar and personal fatherhood;” Bengel: “The Only-begotten alone can say, ‘my Father’;” similarly Alford, Tholuck, and others. There is perhaps some ground for this view. Yet I can hardly think that Christ’s mere designation of God as “_my_ Father” implies more than Paul’s “Abba Father” (Rom. 8:15), which Luther renders “dear Father,” or the frequent designation of God as _my_ God by the patriarchs, and especially by David. See for example, Exod. 15:2; 1 Chron. 28:20; 2 Chron. 18:13; Ps. 22:1, 10; 38:21; 71:12; 2 Cor. 12:21; Phil. 4:19. And in Psalm 89:26; Jer. 3:4, man is directed by God to apply this very phrase “my Father” in his address to God. I believe then that the statement that Jesus said that God was _in a peculiar sense_ his Father, and the deduction that he thus made himself equal to God, are the malicious wresting of his words by the Judeans, for the very purpose of finding an occasion of offence. They manifested the same spirit in John 10:31, etc., though there they have better ground for the interpretation which they put upon his words. In the discourse which follows, Christ does not hold them to their original charge respecting the Sabbath. He follows them into the new ground which they have entered on, and expounds his true nature and mission.--=Making himself equal with God.= “On the same level with God” (_Meyer_); “On an equality with God” (_Norton_); “Of the same nature and condition” (_Robinson_). The language of Jesus, his claim of the right to work because the Father works, and his language _My Father_, the Judeans regard as embodying an assumption that he is of the divine nature and possesses the divine prerogatives. That they so interpreted his language does not prove that it is to be so interpreted. The Pharisees are not authorized interpreters of the words of Christ. His claim we must interpret for ourselves from the discourse which follows. How far does he correct and how far confirm their interpretation? It seems to me clear that at the very outset he materially modifies it, in his declaration of his obedience to and dependence upon and work under the Father (ver. 19), while he confirms the substantial idea that he possesses the same nature as the Father, is, so to speak, of kin to Him, by his declaration that he does what the Father does (ver. 19), shares in all the counsels of the Father (ver. 20), gives life to the dead as the Father (ver. 21), judges all men for the Father (ver. 22), is to be honored as the representative of the Father (ver. 23), is the door through which all must enter into eternal life in the Father (ver. 24), and is the final Resurrection and Judge for the Father (ver. 25-29); yet at the close he again emphasizes the truth that in all this he is not a second or even subordinate God, but the One through whom the Father does all (ver. 30), the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily,
I say unto you,[174] The Son can do nothing of himself,
but what he seeth the Father do: for what things
soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

[174] verse 30.

20 For[175] the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all
things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater
works than these, that ye may marvel.

[175] chaps. 3:35; 17:26; Matt. 3:17.

=19, 20. Verily, verily.= A formula used by Christ in cases of important and emphatic affirmation.--=The Son can do nothing of himself=, _i. e._, of his own will or authority. “Of myself (ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ), _i. e._, of one’s own will or accord, without authority or command from another.”--(_Rob._ 24, art. ἀπό.) This declaration cannot be limited, as by Calvin, to the power of Christ in his human nature, without, adding to the verse what is not in it, nor in its necessary connection; nor can we read it, as Chrysostom does, that Christ can do nothing contrary to his Father’s will, because of the perfect union between them, for this is clearly not the meaning of the original. Christ says not, I can do nothing contrary to my Father, but, I can do nothing _of myself_ by my own independent and original power. The meaning of the original is transparent, though the truth is transcendent. This is that _the power of Christ is not an original but a derived power_; that it comes from the Father and is a power only to do those things which carry out the Father’s will. As the Christian can do nothing without Christ (ch. 15:5), yet can do all things through Christ strengthening him (Phil. 4:13), so Christ can do nothing without the Father, but does all things by virtue of a divine power imparted to him by the Father, and as a manifestation of the Father. This is a partial answer to the charge that Christ makes himself equal to the Father. He show’s that so far from doing anything calculated to draw away allegiance from the Father, he draws allegiance to the Father, since in all that he does he acts out only the Father’s will. He is divine because of the divinity with which he has, so to speak, been clothed by the Father’s love.--=But what he seeth the Father do.= “A familiar description, borrowed from the attention which children give to their father--of the inner and immediate intention which the Son perpetually has of the Father’s will, in the perfect consciousness of fellowship of life with Him.”--(_Meyer._)--=Whatsoever things he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.= _In like manner_ (ὁμοίως), that is, with like power and authority. This surely could be said of no man, no angel. It indicates not only a superhuman but also a super-angelic character. Thus this verse puts in a very compact form the paradox of Christ’s character--a paradox not to be explained away by either modifications of the first clause or denials of the second. The first clause asserts that Christ’s power comes from the Father, and thus, in a sense, is not equal to that of the Father, which is uncreated and underived. And with this declaration agree many other passages of Scripture. See for example, ch. 7:17, 18; 8:42; 14:10; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9; 3:2. The second clause asserts that this power, conferred upon the Son, is that of the Father, who has put all things into the hands of the Son that he may be Lord of all. Acts 10:36; James 5:9; Col. 1:16, 17; 3:11. It is noticeable that John, who of all Evangelists makes most clear the divine nature of Christ, as well as his divine mission, is the one who more clearly than any other of the evangelists asserts his dependence on the Father.--=For the Father loveth the Son=, etc. This is stated as the reason why the Son is able to do all things that the Father doeth. His power is derived from the Father through the Father’s love for him. Comp. Heb. 1:9.--=And showeth him all things.= “He who loves hides nothing.”--(_Bengel._)--=He will show him greater works than these.= Greater miracles than the healing of the impotent man. Far greater works were done later in Christ’s ministry in Jerusalem and vicinity, the consummation being the raising of Lazarus from the dead.--=That ye may marvel.= Here the verb _marvel_ (θαυμάζω) is used with the idea of praise as well as wonder. The object of the wonderful works of God is not merely to awaken the wonder of mankind, but, through the wonder, the reverence and so the allegiance of mankind to the Father through Christ his Son.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth
_them_; even[176] so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

[176] ch. 11:25; 17:2; Luke 8:54.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed[177]
all judgment unto the Son;

[177] Matt. 11:27; Acts 17:31; 2 Cor. 5:10.

23 That all _men_ should honour the Son, even as they
honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth
not the Father which hath sent him.

=21-23. For as the Father raiseth up the dead and maketh them to live, even so the Son, whom he will, makes to live.= Observe, (1) that the verbs in this sentence are in the present tense; Christ is therefore speaking of a _present_ resurrection, one now taking place. (2) That this resurrection is one recognized among men, not one taking place in the invisible world (ver. 23). (3) That as the result of this resurrection, the raised pass from death unto life (ver. 24). (4) That a universal resurrection is not indicated, but only of those whom _he wills_ to raise (ver. 21). It is then not of a future resurrection of all men at the last day, nor of a present resurrection of the literally dead taking place as they die, that Christ here speaks, but of a spiritual resurrection, taking place on the earth, confined to those whom the Saviour calls and who hear and answer his call, and so manifest to men that it is recognized as a sign of the Saviour’s power. As Christ has power on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), so also he has power to raise the dead in trespasses and sins. Thus he is now, as he will be in another sense in the last day, the resurrection and the life (John 11:25). This theme of a spiritual resurrection and life-giving occupies verses 21-27; then by a natural transition Christ passes to the future resurrection of the physical dead. Be not surprised, he says in substance, at my declarations respecting the spiritual resurrection; for the final resurrection shall also be at my voice. Be not surprised at my claim to be now a judge, for the great day of judgment the Father has also committed into my hands.--=Whom he will.= This phrase does not indicate “that he specially confers this grace on none but certain men, that is, on the elect” (_Calvin_); nor can we say that “He will not quicken others because they believe not” (_Meyer_), for though this is true, it is neither asserted, nor even hinted at here; nor is the meaning merely that “in every instance where his will is to vivify, the result invariably follows” (_Alford_). Clearly the indication of the passage is that spiritual life has its source, not in the will of the sinner but in that of the Saviour (comp. ch. 1:13; Rom. 9:16); but the reason why the divine will apparently chooses some and not others, whether for reasons in human character and choice, or for inscrutable reasons, not explained nor indeed explicable, is not here hinted at.--=For the Father judgeth no man.= The whole work of judgment, the whole moral government of the world, the whole course of divine Providence, as regards the nation, the church, and the individual, is entrusted to the Son. See Psalm 2; Rev. 1:5.--=That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father.= There is some reasonable ground for a difference of opinion as to the proper interpretation of the preceding verses, which treat of the relations of the Father to the Son; and Christian critics are not wholly agreed respecting their meaning. But there can be no room for difference of opinion as to the meaning of this verse, which gives the practical outcome of those which precede. Whatever opinion the theologian may entertain concerning the mystery of Christ’s nature, the Christian can hardly doubt the plain teaching of Scripture that the highest allegiance that the soul can pay to its God, the highest love it can offer, the highest reverence it can experience, are all due to the Son. _Even as_ signifies the manner and the degree. So in heaven the highest praises are paid to the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 5:12; 7:10).--=He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.= Not because the failure to honor an ambassador is a failure to honor the king whom he represents, but because the honor paid to God belongs to his character, and of that character the Son is the manifestation; so that the soul that does not honor the Son, who is the brightness of the Father’s image, and who doeth all things which the Father does, and as the Father does them, does not really honor the Father. In truth, he who does not recognize in Christ the Son of the Father, the true image of the divine glory, has either no true conception of the Son or none of the Father; for the only way to the Father is the Son. And in fact, those forms of theological doctrine which have tended to belittle Christ have also tended, in the history of the church, to dwarf worship.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He[178] that heareth my
word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is
passed[179] from death unto life.

[178] ch. 6:40, 47.

[179] 1 John 3:14.

=24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth me and hath faith on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and comes not into judgment, but has passed out of the death into the life.= The meaning of this declaration is not obscure, though it has been sometimes obscured by unbelief. To _hear the word of Christ_ is to hear it with the spiritual ear, not merely with the physical ear. Thus those may be included who have never heard of the historic Christ; for as he is the Light of the world, who lighteth _every man_ who cometh into the world (ch. 1:9, note), so those who, without the literal hearing of his words, do hear and attend to the message which he speaks to the soul, in the inner experience, are to be included among those who hear his words. To _have faith on him that sent me_, is not merely to believe his written word, nor to believe that he has sent Christ into the world, nor to believe any specific dogma respecting Christ, however important, but to have faith in an unseen divinity, in contrast to faith in either one’s self or in any human helper. It is to direct faith toward this unseen God that Christ came into the world; and to have faith in Christ is to have faith in the Father who sent him, in order that he might bring all unto the Father, and present all to him (ch. 17:8, 21, 24). _Cometh not into judgment_ is mistranslated in our English version, _Shall not come into condemnation_. The verb is not future, and the noun is judgment, not condemnation. “There can be no good reason why the word (κρίσις, _krisis_) should be rendered _judgment_ in the 22d verse, and _condemnation_ in the 24th. But from a fear, I suppose, lest the one should seem to contradict the other--lest the Son should be thought not to execute the judgment that had been committed to him--they (the translators) were unfaithful to the letter, perhaps even more unfaithful to the spirit, of the passage.”--(_Maurice._) The promise is one fulfilled in this life, a promise of present not merely future deliverance, and of a deliverance not merely from condemnation, but from judgment. If the Christian comes into judgment, he would also inevitably come into condemnation (1 John 1:8, 10). The meaning of this verse then is, that when the soul has accepted Christ as its Master, hearing his words, and following him, for spiritual hearing involves following (ch. 10:3, 4) so as to live by faith in God (Gal. 2:20), he is no longer subject to divine judgment; there is no more condemnation to them who are thus in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). With this is involved the further truth that there will be no true judgment for them in the last day. “The reckoning which ends with ‘Well done, good and faithful servant,’ is not judgment; the reward is of free grace. In this sense the believers in Christ will not be judged according to their works; they are justified before God by faith, and by God.”--(_Alford._) Finally, the last clause of the verse, _but hath passed out of death into life_, indicates the true condition of both the impenitent and the believer; the one is already in death, from which he can only be delivered by the Life-giver; the other has already entered into eternal life. This is not a future reward reserved for him; it begins here and now, though it is to be consummated hereafter. _The_ life is spiritual life, _the_ death spiritual death. Of these great realities physical life and death are but tropes and symbols.

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you. The hour is coming, and
now is, when the dead[180] shall hear the voice of the Son
of God; and they that hear shall live.

[180] verse 28; Ephes. 2:1.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given
to the Son to have life[181] in himself;

[181] 1 Cor. 15:45.

27 And hath given him authority[182] to execute judgment
also, because he is the Son of man.

[182] verse 22.

=25-27. The hour is coming, and now is, when=, etc. The resurrection here spoken of is then one already taking place. In order to meet this evident requirement of the verse, those commentators who regard Christ as throughout this passage speaking of the final resurrection suppose here a reference to the cases of resurrection which took place in connection with his ministry. But none such had as yet taken place; moreover, this construction requires us to suppose that Christ used the word _life_ in one sense in the preceding verse and in another sense here, without giving any indication of the change of meaning. His reference then I believe to be here, as throughout this passage up to verse 28, to spiritual death and spiritual resurrection.--=For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself.= Norton renders this somewhat enigmatical verse liberally, thus: “For as the Father is the fountain of life, so hath he given to the Son to be the fountain of life.” This must be regarded rather as a paraphrase than as a translation; but it embodies well the meaning of the verse, as indicated by the context. No man is a fountain of life to any other man. He may be a conduit, but not a source. It is given to Christ to be a source of life himself to others. We live only as we draw continuously our life from God; to the Son the Father has given life in such a sense that he becomes himself the life of the world, and thus the life-giver to the dead.--=Because he is a Son of man.= Not, as in the English version, _the_ Son of man. The omission of the article is significant, for without the article the phrase son of man means simply one of the human race; with the article it always means the Messiah. Here then the meaning is that Christ is to be the judge of all the earth, because he has taken on himself human nature. Why is this any reason that he should be the judge of the world? The answer is, I think, indicated by Heb. 5:15: “We have not an high-priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.” Our judge is chosen, because he knows our frame, he understands sympathetically our temptations, is able to make allowances for all infirmities and weaknesses of humanity, and for all trials of life, and able, also, to measure at their true worth the false excuses with which we endeavor to excuse ourselves to ourselves and to our fellows. Other explanations, for which in detail see Meyer, as that judgment is a necessary part of redemption, or that it belongs to Christ as the Messiah, or that it is given to him as a reward for accepting the humility of human nature, seem to me to be inadmissible. Judgment is not a part of redemption; it is in no true sense redemptive; the phrase _a_ son of man never means the Messiah; and it would be no reward to a tender and loving nature to exercise judgment, except as it afforded an opportunity for the exercise of mercy in judgment.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they[183] that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
damnation.[184]

[183] Dan. 12:2.

[184] Matt. 25:46.

=28, 29. Marvel not at this.= Not only because the greater wonder absorbs the less (_Meyer_), but also because there is nothing strange in the declaration that he who is to be the final judge of all flesh should exercise judgment now on men, and he who is to be the final resurrection and the life should be the resurrection and the life in the spiritual realm now.--=For the hour is coming.= He does not add _and now is_, for now he is speaking not of a present resurrection, but of one to take place only in the future.--=All that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.= A voice like the sound of a trumpet (Rev. 1:10), and like the sound of many waters (Rev. 1:15), that is, like the roar of the ocean for fullness and power. Comp. 1 Thess. 4:16. The entire language is highly figurative. If literally interpreted it would seem to imply a bodily resurrection, and it is apparently so understood by some of the commentators, _e. g._, Alford and Olshausen; but it is evident that it cannot be literally interpreted. Thus the dead do not in a literal sense hear his voice; their arousing is not that of literal sleepers who have been awakened by a voice. The doctrine that death is a sleep, that the soul remains in an unconscious state till the resurrection, and that the life is then anew given to the soul simultaneously with the re-creation of the body from the dust, is so inconsistent with the plain teaching of Scripture in many passages (see 1 Cor. 15:36-38, 50, 51), that it cannot be sustained by doubtful interpretations of pictorial passages like the present one. How little ground there is for the opinion that the Bible supports a doctrine of a literal and universal bodily resurrection, will be evident to the student who considers the force of the following passages, which are said by Olshausen, and quoted with apparent approval by Alford, both of whom seem to believe in a literal resurrection of the body, to be the only passages in Scripture which imply a resurrection of the bodies of the impenitent: Acts 24:15; Matt. 10:28; Matt. 25:34, etc.; Rev. 20:5, 12; Dan. 12:2. No one of these directly asserts the resurrection of the body, and some of them can hardly be said even remotely to imply it. The doctrine is directly inconsistent with the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor., ch. 15. See notes there.--=They that have done good unto the resurrection of life.= That is, unto a resurrection the necessary result of which is life, life in the Messiah’s kingdom.--(_Meyer._) --=And they that have practised evil.= The righteous have _done_ good--their fruit remains; the wicked have only _practised_ evil--their works do not follow them. The wheat is garnered into the storehouses; the chaff is destroyed. See ch. 3:20, 21.--=Unto the resurrection of judgment.= Observe again that only they that have done evil come into judgment (verse 24, note). Observe too that it is they that have done good to whom is given the gift of eternal life, and they that have practised evil that enter into judgment. The test, and the only test of character which the New Testament recognizes, is that of fruit in the actual life (Matt.7:20; 12:33; 25:31-46; Ephes. 5:6; 1 John 3:7, 8). The works of righteousness are the fruits of the Spirit; his gracious influences are received into the soul by faith, but the evidence of the abiding of that Spirit consists in the manifestation of these fruits in a righteous life (John 15:1, 2, 6; Gal. 5:22-24; James 2:14-26). Living a Christ-like life is the only evidence of possessing a Christ-like spirit.

30 I[185] can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I
judge: and my judgment is just: because I seek not mine own
will, but the will[186] of the Father which hath sent me.

[185] verse 19.

[186] ch. 4:34; 6:38; Ps. 40:7, 8; Matt. 26:39.

=30.= In this verse Christ returns to the statement made in the beginning of the discourse, ver. 19 (see note there); he does all things as the representative of the Father and the expression of the Father’s will.--=As I hear I judge.= As Christ is the image of the Father, so his voice is the echo of the Father’s voice.--=My judgment is just, because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father.= To the Father there is no law superior to his own will; to the Son the will of the Father is the law. In this declaration our Lord gives us an example of the way in which we may secure just judgments in ourselves. It is self-seeking which obscures the judgment. Unselfish seeking of the Father’s will is the great clarifier of the moral judgments of the disciple.

31 If I bear witness[187] of myself, my witness is not true.

[187] ch. 8:14; Prov. 27:2; Rev. 3:14.

=31.= This verse makes a transition from the subject-matter of the discourse thus far to a new subject. Christ has been speaking of his own character and authority; he now passes to speak of the evidences which attest it. The verse is to be read not affirmatively, but interrogatively. Do you say, if I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true? I will then point you to other testimony. That this is the true reading of the verse is evident from ch. 8:14, where Christ declares that though he bears witness of himself, his witness is true. He here anticipates the objection there made by the Pharisees (ch. 8:13), and replies to it. In his reply, which extends to verse 39, he cites in attestation of his mission three witnesses: (1) the testimony of John the Baptist (vers. 32-35); (2) his own works, including, but only incidentally, his miracles (ver. 36); (3) the personal testimony of the Father, speaking chiefly through the O. T. Scripture (vers. 37-39).

32 There is another[188] that beareth witness of me; and I
know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

[188] ch. 8:18; Acts 10:43; 1 John 5:7-9.

33 Ye sent unto John, and[189] he bare witness unto the
truth.

[189] ch. 1:7, 32.