Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 5:1 - 5:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jesus Goes Up to Jerusalem for the Passover (5:1)
5:1. The conclusion of Part I.1 tells of the continued faithfulness of the Twelve (6:67, 68); and it can hardly be doubted that they went up to Jerusalem for the Passover as well as Jesus on this occasion. Hence, behind the story of the cure of the impotent man (5:2-9) there may have been the original testimony of some who were present. And inasmuch as in the Fourth Gospel μτ τῦαis the phrase which seems to mark the beginning of a new set of reminiscences dictated by John the son of Zebedee to the future evangelist,2 it is quite possible that the witness of John is behind Son_5 and 7:15-24, allowing for evangelical commentary and expansion in 5:20-30.3
ἑρὴτνἸυαω, i.e. the Passover, which has already been mentioned in 6:4 as near at hand. This was probably the Passover of the year 28.4
א read ἡἑρή but the article is rightly omitted by ABDNWΘ Its insertion is readily explained by the preceding ἦ. If ἡἑρήwere the true reading, the reference ought to be to the Feast of Tabernacles, which was pre-eminently the feast of the Jews. One minor uncial (Λ for τνἸυαω reads τνἀύω, rightly identifying the feast as that of “unleavened bread,” i.e. the Passover.
For the expression “a feast of the Jews,” see on 2:13.
κὶἀέηὁἸσῦ εςἸρσλμ. The Passover was a feast of obligation, and so Jesus went up (ἀέη the regular word for going up to the metropolis; cf. 2:13); but, as it seems, He went up privately and unaccompanied by His disciples. There had been danger of popular enthusiasm (6:15), which, if exhibited at Jerusalem, would have caused trouble. So it appears that He went up without making it known who He was; even the man whom He healed did not know His name (v. 13). His disciples, i.e. the Twelve, may have gone up to the feast, as would become pious men, but they do not seem to have been in attendance upon Jesus.
ὁἸσῦ. So אΔW, but ABDLΓom. ὁ See on 1:29.
For the form Ἰρσλμ, see on 1:19.
Healing of the Impotent Man at the Pool of Bethesda (Vv. 2-9)
2. ἔτνδ ἐ τῖ Ἰρσλμι. The present tense (instead of ἦ, as at 4:6) has been taken, e.g. by Bengel,1 as proof that the Fourth Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem; but this would be a precarious inference, even if it were not ruled out on other grounds. An old man looking back on the city as he knew it, might naturally say “is,” especially if he had in mind a pool or spring. The Sinai Syriac changes “is” to “was,” and so does Nonnus.
κλμήρ (from κλμά, I dive) is a pool deep enough to swim in; It occurs again in N.T. only at 9:7 of the Pool of Siloam, but is a LXX word.
The text of this verse is uncertain. Βθσά(which may mean “house of mercy”) is the rec. reading, following “Syrian” authorities (e.g. ACDΘ Βθαδ is read by BW and also by Tertullian, an unusual and strong combination, but this spelling may be due to some confusion with Bethsaida of Galilee; Βθαάhas the support of א and is probably original. Bethzatha was the name of part of the city, north of the Temple.
ἐὶτ ποαιῇis the best attested reading (BCΔ and it would mean that the pool was “by the sheep gate” or “by the sheep market,” the adj. ποαιῇrequiring a substantive to be supplied. In Neh_3:1, Neh_12:39 mention is made of the building of ἡπλ ἡποαιή which is believed to have been north-east of the Temple, and close to the present St. Stephen’s Gate, by which flocks from the country enter Jerusalem.
אΘhave the aberrant reading ἐ τ ποαιῇwhich some Latin vss. perversely render in inferiorem partem. The Western reading ποαιὴκλμήρ, “a sheep pool,” is supported by א 61, Eusebius, and others.
It appears, then, that ἐὶτ ποαιῇκλμήρ must be adopted. But it has been suggested1 that behind ποαιήlies the Aramaic פְובטיא which means a bath; and then the original text would have been, “There is a pool at the Bath, which is called in Hebrew Bethzatha (House of the Olive?).”
The situation of this pool is as uncertain as its exact name. There are twin pools north of the Temple area, near the fortress of Antonia, which Schick identified with the κλμήρ of the text, but it is doubtful if these existed before the destruction of the Temple. Others have identified the “Pool of Bethzatha” with the “Pool of Siloam” (9:7); but they seem to be specially distinguished by the evangelist. Many writers are inclined to find the Pool of Bethzatha in the Virgin’s Well, anciently called Gihon, i.e. “the Gusher,” which is periodically subject to a bubbling of its waters caused by a natural spring. This is south of the Temple, in the Valley of Kidron, and we believe it to be the most probable site of “Bethzatha.”
ἡἐιεοέηἙρϊτ Βθαά Ἑρϊτ occurs only in Joh_5:2, Joh_5:19:13, Joh_5:17, Joh_5:20, Joh_5:20:16 and Rev_9:11, Rev_9:16:16; it signifies not the classical Hebrew of the O.T., but the Aramaic in common use. See on 1:38 for instances of Jn.’s habit of giving the Hebrew name of a person or place, along with a Greek equivalent. Here and at 19:13, 17 he describes the place first in Greek, and then adds its Aramaic designation: he is not interpreting the Aramaic name (see on 4:25).
For ἡἐιεοέη א fam. 1 have τ λγμνν
πνεσοςἔοσ. These would have been cloisters or arched spaces round the pool similar to those which are found in India near tanks. Schick claimed that such were to be seen at the twin pools which he discovered; but this has not been generally admitted.1 Those who interpret the narrative symbolically, find the Five Books of Moses in the “five porches.” We have already considered this method of interpreting Joh_2 While symbolic meanings may easily be read into the narrative once written, there is no probability that it was originally constructed in so artificial a fashion.
3. The picture of the sick people lying under the covered arcades (it would have been too cold at the Passover season to lie out in the open air) waiting for the bubbling up of the intermittent spring, which was supposed to have healing properties, is most natural and vivid.
ἐ τύας sc. in the σοίor arches.
κτκιο The verb does not appear again in Jn. The rec. text inserts πλ after πῆο,, but om. א
τφῶ, χλν ξρν “blind, halt, withered.” ξρίwere those who had atrophied limbs (cf. Mat_12:10, Luk_6:8). The Western text (D a b) adds πρλτκν but this is only a gloss explanatory of ξρν om. אΘ
After ξρν πρλτκν the rec. adds ἐδχμνντντῦὓαο κνσν This, again, is a Western (and Syrian) amplification; it is omitted by א although supported by DWΓΘsyrr. It was suggested by the mention in v. 7 of the disturbance of the healing waters.
4. Verse 4, like the words ἐδχμνν…κνσν is no part of the original text of Jn., but is a later gloss. The best attested text of the gloss is thus given by Hort: ἄγλςδ (v. γρ κρο (κτ κιὸ) κτβιε (v. ἐοεο ἐ τ κλμήρ κὶἐαάστ (v. ἐάασ) τ ὕω·ὁονπῶο ἐβς[μτ τντρχντῦὕαο] ὑιςἐίεοοῳ(v. ᾧ δπτ ον(v. δπτ) κτίεονσμτ.
The verse is wholly omitted by א 33, the Old Syriac, the early Coptic versions (including Q), and the true text of the Latin Vulgate. In the Latin MSS. in which it is found, it appears in three distinct forms, the diversity of which provides an additional argument against its genuineness. The earliest patristic authority for it is Tertullian (de bapt. 5), the earliest Greek writer who shows knowledge of it being Chrysostom; his comment on the passage is: “An angel came down and troubled the water, and endued it with healing power, that the Jews might learn that much more could the Lord of angels heal the diseases of the soul.” It is a marginal gloss which crept into some Western and Syrian texts, the chief uncials which contain it being ALΓΘ
Linguistic evidence also marks the verse as not original. Thus the words ἐδχμι κνσς(here only in N.T.), κτ κιό (cf. Rom_5:6, Num_9:13), ἐβίω(of going into the water; cf. 6:17), τρχ (here only in the N.T.), κτχμι and νσμ (here only in N.T.) are non-Johannine.
The healing virtues of the intermittent spring were explained by the Jewish doctrine of the ministry of angels, and the explanation first found a place in the margin and, later, in the text. Cf. Rev_16:5 for “the angel of the waters,” i.e. the angel who was believed to preside over the mysterious powers of water.
5. The constr. τικνακὶὀτ ἔηἔω appears again in v. 6 πλνχόο ἔε. Cf. also 8:57, 9:21, 11:17 for an acc. of the length of time, governed by ἔεν
κίbefore ὀτ is om. by BΓΘ but ins. א ατῦafter ἀθνί is om. by AΓ, but ins. אΘ
The man had been infirm for thirty-eight years; it is not said that he had been waiting all that time by the pool. That his paralysis had lasted thirty-eight years is mentioned to show that it was no temporary ailment from which he was suffering, just as it is told of the woman in Luk_13:11 that she had been infirm eighteen years, or of the lame man whom Peter cured that “he was more than forty years old” (Act_4:22). There is no more reason for finding an esoteric significance in the number 38 than in the Num_18 or 40. Or, again, in Act_9:33, Æ whom Peter cured of paralysis, is described as ἐ ἐῶ ὀτ κτκίεο ἐὶκαάτυ These eight years are not supposed to be significant as regards their number; and there is no more reason for supposing the thirty-eight years of the text to symbolise anything.
Those who seek for hidden meanings in the Johannine numbers point here to the thirty-eight years of wandering mentioned in Deu_2:14. But if Jn. had wished to indicate that the years of the paralytic’s infirmity were like the years of Israel in the wilderness, it would have been more natural for him to have said forty, not thirty-eight; for it was forty years before the Promised Land was reached. Cf. 2:20, 21:11; and see Introd., p. lxxxvii.
6. Jesus came, unknown by sight to the sick who were assembled at the pool. κὶγοςὅιπλνἤηχόο ἔε, “and when He knew that the man had been infirm for a long time,” He addressed him. It is neither stated nor implied that this knowledge of the man’s sad condition was supernatural. It may have been the common talk of the crowd at the Pool. See on 2:24 for the insight of Jesus into the character of men, and cf. 4:18.
Θλι ὑιςγνσα; sc., as we would say, “Would you like to be well?” There is no need to press the force of θλι, as if Jesus meant that the man’s own conscious effort of will must co-operate in the work of healing. That may be true in such cases, but θλι here only conveys the simple question, “Would you like to be healed?”
We do not know why Jesus chose this man out from the crowd of sufferers at the pool. Perhaps attention was specially directed to his pathetic case by the onlookers. There is no suggestion that the man had any faith, nor did he display gratitude for his healing. He must have known that to point out Jesus as the agent of his cure (v. 15) would bring his benefactor into danger.
Abbott (Diat. x. iii. 268 f.) suggests that we must take the act of Jesus in connexion with His own comment. He did not select the object of His pity by arbitrary caprice, but “the Son can do nothing Himself, except what He sees the Father doing” (see on v. 19 below). He “saw” this particular act of healing performed by the Father in heaven, and therefore appointed to be performed by the Son on earth. But not only is such an explanation too subtle; it really explains nothing, for why should this particular sick man have been selected by the Father any more than by the Son?
The healing is perhaps, but not certainly, regarded by Jn. as supernatural (see 7:21), although he does not call it a “sign.” But it is not represented as having any relation to the faith of the man that was cured. In this it is like the Synoptic story of the healing of a paralytic (Mar_2, Mat_9, Luk_5), where it is the faith of those who brought the man to Jesus rather than the faith of the man himself that is commended. It is unlike the Synoptic story, in that the cure in the Johannine narrative does not seem to have impressed the onlookers at all. There is nothing here corresponding to “they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion” (Mar_2:12). In Jn.’s story, everything turns on the fact that it was on the Sabbath that the man was cured, and it was this, and not the wonder of the healing, that attracted attention. See Introd., p. clxxviii.
7. κρε ἄθωο οκἔωκλ The sick man explains that it is not his will that is deficient, but that he is unable, because of his infirmity, to get quickly enough down to the water when it becomes “troubled,” because he has no one to assist him. (The paralytic of Mar_2:3 was helped by four friends to get access to Jesus.)
ὅα τρχῇτ ὕω κλ Apparently the popular belief was that, when the water began to bubble at a particular spot, the person who first bathed at that point received relief, but that the spring did not benefit more than one. He who came second had to wait for cure until another overflow.
ἴα…βλ μ εςτνκλμήρν βλεν “to cast,” implies rapidity of movement, which would be impossible for an invalid without assistance.
βλ. So אΘ the rec. has βλῃ
ἐ ᾧδ ἔχμιἐώκλ “But while I (ἐώbeing emphatic) am coming, another steps down before me.”
8. ἔερ ἆο κλ Jesus ignores the belief of the sick man about the healing waters of the pool, to which He makes no reference. Nor does He, as in the case of the Synoptic paralytic, give him a word of spiritual consolation (Mar_2:5) before He heals him. Nothing is said to the man, except the sharp command, ἔερ ἆο τνκάατνσυκὶπρπτι “Get up, take your pallet and walk.” The words are almost, identical with those of Mar_2:11, but there the evangelistic comment is that they were effectively spoken in order to show the wondering bystanders that He who spoke them had really the spiritual authority to forgive sins. Here is nothing similar. As has been said (v. 6), there is no clear proof that Jn. regarded the healing of the man at Bethesda as miraculous, nor need we do so. The patient obeyed a sudden, authoritative order to stand up and walk, and when he tried he found that he could do it. That may be the whole of the matter. However, no disciple is expressly said to have been present on the occasion; and the story, which may have come to the evangelist at second or third hand, is told in barest outline.
ἔερ (אΘ is to be preferred to the rec. ἔερι
κάατς(grabatus), a pallet or mattress, such as was used by the poor, is said to be a late word of Macedonian origin, and is not approved by Phrynichus. It occurs in the N.T. again only in Mar_2:2-12, Mar_6:55, Act_5:15, Act_9:33, and always stands for the bed of a sick person.
πρπτιSo in Luk_5:23; but at Mar_2:11, Mat_9:6, we have ὕαεεςτνοκνσυ
9. κὶεθω ἐέεοὑιςὁἄθωο, κὶἦε τνκάατνατῦκὶπρεάε. In the parallel, Mar_2:12, we have ἠέθ κὶεθςἄα τνκάατνἐῆθνἔποθνπνω. In both cases εθω or εθςcarries the sense of immediate consecutiveness (Luk_5:25 has πρχῆα The word is not common in Jn. (6:21, 13:30, 32, 18:27, 19:34), and he always uses it thus, whereas it is often used in Mk. only as a conjunctive (see on 1:22).
That the cure was not merely for the moment is shown by the man’s walking away, as is also indicated in the Synoptic story.
The language of Joh_5:8, Joh_5:9 closely resembles that of Mar_2:11, Mar_2:12, although the stories are quite distinct. Jn. may have availed himself of the words of the earlier evangelist to describe a somewhat similar scene at which he was not present, and of which he could not give the exact report of an eye-witness. See Introd., p. xcvii.
ἦ δ σβαο ἐ ἐεν τ ἡέᾳ This is the point of the story for Jn., as also at 9:14 where Jesus healed the blind man. The healing on the Sabbath was the beginning of His controversies at Jerusalem; this was the first occasion on which He had openly violated the law at the metropolis; but cf. Mar_2:23-6 for His earlier claim in Galilee to be Lord of the Sabbath, which had already attracted the attention of the Pharisees.
The Jews Object to Sabbath Healings, and Jesus Replies by the Analogy of God’s Working (Vv. 10-19)
10. For ο Ἰυαο, see on 1:19. This is the designation throughout the Gospel of the leading opponents of Jesus, i.e. the strict Pharisees, as distinct from the simple folk whether in town or country (ὄλς Cf. vv. 13, 15, 16.
τ τθρπυέῳ θρπύι is found only here in Jn., while it is common in the Synoptists. Cf. v. 13 below.
σβαό ἐτν κὶοκἔετνσιἆα τνκάατν The bearing of burdens on the Sabbath was forbidden (Neh_13:19, Jer_17:21). The Rabbinical law was, “If any one carries anything from a public place to a private house on the Sabbath …intentionally, he is punished by cutting off (i.e. death) and stoning” (Shabb. 6a, quoted by Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr.).
After κάατν אΘadd συ(as at vv. 8, 9), but om. ABC3Γ.
11. The rec. text omits ὃ δ before ἀερθ with D; but AB ins. the words, אΘgiving ὁδ.
For ἀερθ, א have ἀερντ; but see on v. 17.
ὁπισςμ ὑι, ἐενςμιεπνκλ For this emphatic use of ἐενς in Jn., see on 1:8. The man’s excuse was reasonable. He who had cured him, by giving him power to get up and walk, had bidden him carry away his bed; surely it was pardonable to obey His command? The excuse was accepted, and the man was not blamed by the Jews: they go on to ask who it was that dared to give such an order.
12. After ἠώσν the rec., with ACLWΓΘ ins. ον om. א
τςἐτνὁἄθωο ὁεπνσι “Who is the fellow that said this to you?” ἄθωο is used contemptuously. The Jews do not take any notice of the fact that the man said he had been healed; they complain only of the breach of the Sabbath law involved, not in the healing but in the order to carry the bed. As Grotius says: “Quaerunt non quod mirentur, sed quod calumnietur.” But from 7:23 it is apparent that the real gravamen of the charge made in this case by the Jews was that a work of healing had been done on the Sabbath, although they prefer here to put forward the technical point about carrying the bed home.
See on 9:16, where the Sabbath was broken in a different way.
The rec. text has τνκάατνσυafter ἆο, but om. א The words have come in from v. 11.
13. The man that had been healed did not know who his benefactor was. Jesus was not yet a familiar figure to all and sundry at Jerusalem. He had gone up to the Passover, privately, unaccompanied by His band of disciples (see on v. 2) which would have marked Him out as a Rabbi. This must also have made it easier for Him to slip away unnoticed in the crowd.
For ἰθί, see on 4:47. D has ἀθνν
ἐέεσνὄλυὄτςἐ τ τπ, “He (had) turned aside (cf. 4:44 for this use of the aor.), a crowd being in the place.”ἐνύι (א have the simple ἔεσν does not appear again in the N.T., but it is found in the LXX (Jdg_18:26, 2Ki_2:24, 2Ki_2:23:16, 2Ki_2:3 Macc. 3:22), being a variant for ἐκίενat Jdg_4:18. ἐέεσνhere expresses that Jesus had quietly moved away; cf. 8:59, 10:39, 12:36.
For τπ, א has the variant μσ.
14. μτ τῦα i.e. subsequently, not immediately afterwards. See Introd., p. cviii.
ερσε ατνὁἸσῦ ἐ τ ἱρ. Apparently, Jesus sought out the man, as He sought for the blind man whom He cured on a later occasion (9:35; cf. 1:43). It has been conjectured that the man had gone to the Temple to offer thanks for his recovery, but there is no evidence for this. The ἱρν or sacred precinct, was a common place of resort; and Jesus, finding him there, gave him a word of grave counsel.
ἴε(a favourite word with Jn.; see on 1:29) ὑιςγγνς μκτ ἁάτν κλ For μκτ ἀάτν, see [8:11]. We cannot tell what the man’s sin had been, but quite possibly it had been the immediate occasion of his loss of health; if so, it had been terribly punished by an infirmity continuing for thirty-eight years. There was a prevalent belief that sickness was always due to sin (cf. Psa_38:5, 107:17, 1Co_11:30), and a Talmudic saying asserts that “the sick ariseth not from his sickness until his sins be forgiven.” But the moral of the Book of Job is that sickness is not always to be regarded as punishment for sin, and this seems to have been suggested by Jesus, when the case of the man born blind was put to Him (see on 9:3). In the absence of knowledge as to the antecedents of the impotent man of the text, “Sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee” is not susceptible of complete explanation.
Cyprian (Test. iii. 27) quotes “jam noli peccare, ne quid tibi deterius fiat,” to illustrate the danger of sin after baptism, by which a man has been “made whole”—a characteristic comment.
J. H. Moulton1 has called attention to the curious fact that the Greek words here fall naturally into anapæ
ὑιςγγνς μκθ ἁάτν,
ἵαμ χῖό σίτ γντι
—a tolerable, if not perfect, couplet. This is, of course, a mere accident. Cf. 4:35.
15. κὶεπντῖ Ἰυαοςκλ επνis read by א but ἀήγιε by ABΓΘand ἀήγιε (which means the same thing, “reported”; see on 16:25) by D.
The man went off and reported to the Jews who it was that had healed him, as soon as he had identified Him. But there is no reason to suppose that this was due to ingratitude, or that he meant to betray his benefactor. He had good reason to fear that severe punishment would follow his technical breach of the Sabbath, despite his excuses (v. 11), and he may have desired to propitiate the ecclesiastical authorities, without meaning that any harm should come to Jesus. They were entitled to know all that he could tell them about a breach of the Sabbath. His action may have been like that of the Jews who reported the raising of Lazarus to the Pharisees, without any malevolent intention (11:46). Yet, in any event, his conduct stands in contrast with that of the blind man who was healed later on (9:33-38).
16. κὶδὰτῦοἐίκνκλ “And for this cause the Jews began to persecute Jesus, because, etc.” The force of the imperfects, ἐίκν ἐοε, ἐήον(v. 18), must not be overlooked. This was the first open declaration of hostility to Jesus by the Pharisees of Jerusalem, and its immediate cause was His first open violation of the Sabbatical law. ἐίκν “they began to persecute Him”; ὅιτῦαἐοε ἐ σβάῳ “because He began to do these things on the Sabbath.” Cf. Mar_3:6, where a similar cause is assigned for the first exhibition of enmity to Him in Galilee.
δὰτῦο “for this cause,” referring to what follows (not, as more commonly, to what precedes, e.g. 6:65), is a favourite opening phrase with Jn. Cf. v. 18, 8:47, 10:17, 12:18, 39, 1Jn_3:1, and Isa_24:6 δὰτῦοἀὰἔεα τνγν ὅιἡάτσνο κτιονε ατν
After τνἸσῦ the rec. with AΓΘinserts κὶἐζτυ ατνἀοτῖα (from v. 18), but om. here א
17. ἀερντ (1 aor. mid.) is found in Jn. only here and at v. 19; ἀερθ occurring more than 50 times. Abbott1 points out that while ἀερθ is the colourless “answered,” ἀερντ carries the sense of “made public and formal answer” to a charge or accusation that has been made: “He made His defence,” in reply to the prosecution or persecution of the Jews (ἐίκν v. 16). Cf. οδνἀερντ (Mar_14:61, Mat_27:12, Luk_23:9). See also 12:23, 13:38, 18:34.
The defence of His technical breach of the Sabbath which Jn. here ascribes to Jesus is different from most of the sayings on the subject of which the Synoptists tell. Thus in Mar_3:4, Luk_6:9, Jesus confounds His critics by the simple question, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good?” when they objected to His cure of the man with the withered hand. In Mat_12:11, Luk_13:15, He puts the case that no one will scruple to pull a sheep out of a pit or to water his cattle on the Sabbath (cf. 7:23, where appeal is made to a similar principle). In Mar_2:25, Luk_6:3, Mat_12:3, He appeals to O.T. precedent to show that necessity may override strict law, and in Mat_12:8 He appeals to the saying that God prefers mercy to sacrifice (Hos_6:6). But in Mar_2:28, Mat_12:8, Luk_6:5, He lays down the principle that “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath”1 This principle contains in germ the argument which Jn. puts forward here, in a different form.
ὁπτρμυἕςἄτ ἐγζτι κγ ἐγζμι Here is claimed by Jesus the same freedom with regard to the Sabbath that belongs to God Himself. God instituted the Sabbath for man, but the law of its observance does not bind Him who gave the law.
Philo points out that God, the Author of nature, does not observe the Sabbath: “Having ceased from the creation of mortal creatures on the seventh day, He begins with other more divine beings (δαυώεν For God never ceases making (πύτιγροδπτ πινὁθό) but as it is the property of fire to burn and of snow to chill, so it is the property of God to make (οτςκὶθο τ πιῖ)” (Leg. All. i. 2, 3). And, again, Πινὁθὸ ο πύτι(l.c. i. 7).2
Justin Martyr quotes a saying from the old man to whom he owed his conversion, to the effect that the heavenly bodies do not keep the Sabbath, ὁᾶεὅιτ σοχῖ οκἀγῖοδ σβαίε (Tryph. 23); and the same idea is expressed in the Odes of Solomon: “He rested from His works; and created things run in their courses and do their works, and they know not how to stand or be idle” (Ode xvi. 13).
Such thoughts were prevalent in Jewish circles, and it is to the idea that God Himself does not share the Sabbath rest of man, that appeal is made in this saying which Jn. ascribes to Jesus. Thus Origen rightly says that Jesus shows in Joh_5:17 that God does not rest on earthly Sabbaths from His providential ordering of the world, the true Sabbath of God being the future rest when He shall be all in all.1 And the Syriac commentator Isho’dad, who wrote in the ninth century, but whose interpretations preserve much older material, in like manner represents Christ as saying here: “Do I allow the circuit of the sun …the flowing of the rivers …the birth and growth of men together and the energies of all living beings about everything? These are things which are accomplished by means of angels, according to His will, and these things are done in the feasts and on the Sabbaths and at every hour.”2
Thus the ancient interpretation of ὁπτρμυἕςἄτ ἐγζτιis clear. The words express the idea (obvious when it is expressed) that God does not keep the Sabbath ἕςἄτ, that is, hitherto (see 2:10, 16:24, 1Jn_2:9). God’s working has not been intermitted since the Creation. He works, goes on working uninterruptedly, until now. The rest of God is for the future, as Origen points out.
κγ ἐγζμι “And I also work,” sc. in the same way. That is, Jesus claims not only that He may call God ὁπτρμυ(“my Father,” in a unique sense; see on 2:16), but that His relation to the Sabbath law is not different from that of God Himself. This is the Johannine form of the Synoptic saying, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath,” expressed in mystical and uncompromising fashion.
18. This declaration provoked the Jews to indignation. δὰτῦο(see on v. 16) ον(om. א but ins. ABCL) μλο ἐήονατνο Ἰυαο ἀοενι The phrase “sought to kill Him” is repeated 7:1, 19, 25, 8:37, 40.
ο μννἔυντ σβαο. For λενin the sense of “break,” “set at naught,” as in Mat_5:19, cf. 7:23, 10:35, Moulton-Milligan’s Vocab. (p. 384) cites from papyri of the third century b.c. ἐνδ τςτύω τ λη, κτρτςἔτ, and also λεντ πνη “to break the period of mourning,” i.e. to go out of mourning.
That Jesus was setting Sabbatical rules at naught was the primary cause of the Jews’ hostility to Him; but it was a much graver offence that He claimed to have Divine prerogatives. This they treated as blasphemy (cf. 8:59, 10:36, Mar_2:7, Mat_26:65).
It need not be doubted that the breaches of the Sabbath which Jesus countenanced provoked the first suspicions of His opponents at Jerusalem (as in Galilee, Mar_3:2), and that the incident of the healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath is historical. Jn. is here true to fact, but he is not interested so much in Jewish Sabbatical doctrines as in the Divine Personality of Jesus,1 and so he dwells at great length on the doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God which is implied in His claim to be Lord of the Sabbath.
πτρ ἴινἔεε, “He was calling God His own Father,” in a special sense, as indeed the words ὁπτρμυof v. 17 implied. Cf. Rom_8:32 ὁἴιςυό.
ἴο ἑυὸ πιντ θῷ This was the form in which His Jewish enemies defined the meaning of His words (cf. 10:33, 19:7), and there is a sense in which their complaint might be justified. But the actual phrase ἴο θῷis not part of the claim of Jesus for Himself (see on 14:28 ὁπτρμίω μύἐτ), and Paul’s phrase is ἴαθῷ which refers to the attributes rather than to the person of Christ (see Lightfoot on Php_2:6). It is not taught anywhere by Jn. that Christ is ἴο θῷ for that would seem to divide the Godhead (cf. θὸ ἦ ὁλγς 1:1).
19. For ἀερντ, see on v. 17.
ἀὴ ἀὴ λγ ὑῖ: see on 1:51.
For ὁυό used absolutely, see on 3:17.
ο δντιὁυό πιῖ ἀʼἑυο οδν Cf. ο δνμιἐὼπιῖ ἀʼἐατῦοδν(v. 30), and see 7:28, 8:28, 14:10. So Moses had said (Num_16:28), and it is true of every man that “he can do nothing of himself,” but only what God empowers him to do. Here, however, the thought is deeper. It is that the relation between the Father and the Son is so intimate, that even the Son of God can do “nothing of Himself.” His works are the works of the Father (cf. v. 17) who sent Him (see on 3:17). He has ἐοσα(see on 10:18), but it is always a delegated authority. It is a moral impossibility that He should do anything “of Himself,” ἂ μ τ βέῃτνπτρ πιῦτ, “unless He be seeing the Father doing something.” Thus the Incarnate Son is represented as continually seeing on earth what the Father is doing in heaven, and as Himself doing the same thing.2 The action of the Father and the Son is, sc to say, coextensive; cf. 14:10.
ἃγρἂ ἐενςπι κλ “for what He, the Father, does (see on 1:8 for ἐενςin Jn.), the Son does likewise.”
This mystical doctrine that the Son cannot do anything except what He sees the Father doing has verbal affinity with the teaching of Philo. He speaks of the πεβττςυό, or πωόοο, as one “who imitated the ways of the Father and, seeing His archetypal patterns, formed certain species” (μμύεο τςτῦπτὸ ὁος πὸ πρδίμτ ἀχτπ ἐενυβέω ἐόφυεδ, de confus. ling. 14).
Ignatius (Magn. 7) has the words ὥπρονὁκρο ἄε τῦπτὸ οδνἐοηε, ἡωέο ὤ (cf. Joh_10:30), οτ δ ἑυο οδνδὰτνἀοτλν which appear to be a reminiscence of Johannine texts such as the present passage and 8:28.
Discourse on the Relation of the Son to the Father (Vv. 20-29)
20. Vv. 20-29 form a section by themselves. They deal with the secrets of the Divine Life, and unfold in some degree the relation of the Son to the Father, thus providing an explanation of, or commentary on, the mystic words of v. 17, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,” and of v. 19, “The Son can do nothing of Himself.” As at other points in the Gospel (see on 3:16), it is impracticable to distinguish precisely the evangelist’s own commentary from the words which he ascribes to Jesus. The formula “Verily, verily, I say unto you,” which precedes vv. 19, 24, 25, always introduces words of Jesus Himself, and this must be the intention here. And vv. 28, 29, seem also to be placed in His mouth. But the use of ὥπργρat the beginning of v. 21 and again at v. 26 (ὥπρdoes not appear again in Jn.) suggests that vv. 21-23 and vv. 26, 27, may be comments of the evangelist on the sayings of Jesus introduced by ἀὴ ἀή in vv. 19, 24, 25. This is like Jn.’s use of γρelsewhere (see on 3:16).1 It will be observed that the third person is employed throughout in vv. 21-23, 26, 27. We do not return to the first person until v. 30, where the opening words are the words of v. 19.
It is possible that the sayings of vv. 24, 25 and 28, 29 belong to some discourse different from that which was addressed to the Jewish cavillers about work on the Sabbath day; but the argument of this section (vv. 20-29) is quite consecutive (see on v. 28).
ὁγρπτρφλῖτνυό. D reads ἀαᾷfrom 3:35 (where see note). “The Father loves the Son, and so exhibits to Him the things which He Himself does.” φλῖ expresses more than the intimacy of friendship; it is here equivalent to ἀαᾶ (see on 3:35 and 21:17), and expresses the mystery of the Divine Love, of the Father for the Son. This is so complete and unreserved that all the Father’s works are displayed, as they are being wrought, to the Son. No reference is made to any limitation of the Incarnate Son’s knowledge of the future, such as is indicated in Mar_13:32; the statement is that the Son has complete cognizance of all that the Father does in the present.
κὶμίοατύω δίε ατ ἔγ, “and greater works than these (sc. healing miracles such as the cure of the impotent man, which had disquieted the Jews so much) shall He show Him.” In the following verses, these “greater works” are specified, viz. that of raising the dead, and that of judging mankind.
The miracles of Christ are described in Mat_11:2 as His ἔγ, and Jn. applies this description to them frequently (5:36, 7:3, 21, 10:25, 32, 38, 14:12, 15:24), as he does to the “works”of God (4:34, 6:28, 9:3, 17:4; cf. Psa_95:9). For God there is no distinction in kind between “natural” and “supernatural” works. And the works of Christ are actually the works of God: ὁπτρἐ ἐο μννπιῖτ ἔγ ατῦ(14:10). See on 7:21.
ἵαὑεςθυάηε ὐεςis emphatic, “you, incredulous Jews.” The healing miracles did not so much arouse their wonder, as their jealous indignation (there is no hint that the cure of the impotent man caused any wonder); but the “greater works” of raising the dead, and of judgment, could not fail to make them marvel. Such astonishment may pass into admiration, and thence into faith (cf. Act_4:13).
Later on, it is promised to the faithful disciple that, in the power of Christ’s Risen Life, he too should do “greater things” than those which had attended the Lord’s public ministry: μίοατύω πισι But this is not in contemplation here. See note on 14:12.
21. The first of the “greater works” specified is that of the “quickening” power of Christ, in raising the dead. The power of death and life is a Divine prerogative (Wisd. 16:13), “Yahweh kills and makes alive” (Deu_32:39, 1Sa_2:6 θντῖκὶζοοε, 2Ki_5:7 θντσικὶζοοῆα). Several times in the daily prayer of the Jews, the Shemoneh Esreh, which in substance goes back to a period before the first century,1 is God invoked as One who “quickens the dead.” Cf. θο τῦζοοονο τὺ νκος(Rom_4:17), and also Rom_8:11 ὁἐερςἐ νκῶ ΧιτνἸσῦ ζοοήε κὶτ θηὰσμτ ὑῶ. So here we have ὁπτρἐεριτὺ νκοςκὶζοοε, ἐερι being used of God’s “raising” of the dead, as it is at Mar_12:26.
This Divine prerogative also appertains to the Son: οτςκὶὁυὸ οςθλιζοοε. Paul has the same doctrine of Christ, as πεμ ζοοον(1Co_15:45; cf. 1Co_15:22), revivifying the dead. ζοοενis not used here in a spiritual sense only (as at 6:63; cf. Eph_2:5), although that is included in its meaning; the significance of the verse as specifying one of Christ’s “greater works” is that He is declared to be one who has power over the death of the body, so that it is His to “quicken” whom He will. He is the Resurrection as well as the Life (11:25).
οςθλι His will is final as to who are to be “quickened,” just as there is no appeal from God’s will (Rom_9:18).
22, 23. The second of the “greater works” of Christ is that of judgment, a prerogative which has been already implied in οςθλιof the preceding verse, for all judgment or separation between the evil and the good is a selective process.
Judgment is the prerogative of God (cf. Deu_1:17), for to be perfectly administered it demands omniscience. But this tremendous office has been “given” (see on 3:35) by the Father to the Son. ὁπτρκίε οδν, ἀλ τνκίι πσνδδκντ υῷ The doctrine of the Son of Man as the final Judge of mankind has been already examined (see Introd., pp. cxxvii, clvi; cf. 3:17). Here is added the Divine reason for this delegation of judgment to the Son by the Father. It is ἵαπνε τμσ τνυό κθςτμσ τνπτρ.
The Jews were dishonouring Jesus (cf. 8:49) in accusing Him of blasphemy (v. 18), but worship is His due, for the honour due to the Father is His. With the thought that they who dishonour Him dishonour the Father, cf. 15:23, 1Jn_2:23, and Luk_10:16.
τμνis found in Jn. again at 8:49, 12:26, and is generally used by him of the honour due to Christ or to His Father.
τνπματ ατν see on 3:17.
24. In vv. 24, 25, the thought is of spiritual life and death, the believer in Christ possessing already eternal life, and the words of eternal life being proclaimed in the ears of the spiritually dead, that they too may hear and live. In vv. 28, 29, the reference is to the future life, the voice of Christ being a voice of power at the Last Judgment, even as it is now. See on v. 28.
ἀὴ ἀή … see on 1:51. Here this formula introduces two distinct assertions, both surprising in their majestic claims of power, in vv. 24 and 25 respectively.
ὁτνλγνμυἀοω …“he that hears my word” (cf. 8:43; and for ἀοενfollowed by an accusative, see on 3:8), κὶπσεω τ πματ μ, “and believes Him that sent me.” To hear with the outward ear is not enough; the inward response is essential. There must be the belief in Christ (3:15, where see note), which is the same thing as belief in the word of Him who sent Him (12:44). For the “sending” of the Son by the Father, see on 3:17.
ἔε ζὴ αώιν The obedient believer has eternal life, as a present possession. See on 3:15, and cf. 1Jn_5:12.
κὶεςκίι οκἔχτι Cf. 3:18 ὁπσεω εςατνο κίεα. The believer “comes not to judgment”; that has already been determined.1 None the less, the prayer of humility will always be μ εσλῃ εςκίι μτ τῦδύο συ(Psa_143:2).
ἀλ μτββκνἐ τῦθντυεςτνζή. Some Latin versions try to escape the force of the pft. tense by the renderings transit, transiet, and Nonnus in his paraphrase has ἴεα ἐ θντί; but this is through misunderstanding. Jn. is quite clear that the believer has “passed from death into life,” into the eternal life which begins here. Cf. οδμνὅιμτββκμνἐ τῦθντυεςτνζή (1Jn_3:14), the reason for such assurance being added, ὅιἀαῶε τὺ ἀεφύ.
25. ο νκο ἀοσυι κλ Even those who do not believe, who are spiritually dead, are not beyond the range of Christ’s words. They, too, may hear and live. This is one of those extraordinary assurances which must be introduced by the solemn adjuration ἀὴ ἀή. It is, as it were, a corollary or sequel to v. 24; see on 1:51.
Of the quickening of the physically dead at the Last Judgment, it is said in v. 28 ἔχτιὥα but of the spiritually dead in the present, ἔχτιὥακὶννἐτν as at 4:23, where see note. To treat κὶννἐτνas an editorial interpolation here is to misunderstand the sequence of thought in vv. 24-29.
ο νκο here are the spiritually dead, as at Eph_2:1,