Chapter 5

1 Jesus on the sabbath day cureth him that was diseased eight and thirty years. 10 The Jews therefore cavil, and persecute him for it. 17 He answereth for himself, and reproveth them, shewing by the testimony of his Father, 32 of John, 36 of his works, 39 and of the scriptures, who he is.

1. After this. [Second Passover: The Invalid at Bethesda, John 5:1–15. See Judean Ministry from First Passover A.D. 28; The Duration of Christ’s Ministry; on miracles pp. 208–213.] Literally, “after these [things],” the same phrase used at the beginning of chs. 6 and 7 (see on ch. 6:1).

A feast. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 146) between this and the reading “the feast.”

Since ancient times commentators have been divided regarding the identity of this feast. The opinion of the Church Fathers is divided between Passover and Pentecost, and indeed one 9th-century gospel manuscript at Oxford goes so far as to insert “feast of unleavened bread” instead of “feast of the Jews,” thus identifying the feast as the Passover. Another, later manuscript, however, shows a different attempt at identification by inserting after the word “Jews” the words “the Tabernacles.” In modern times some commentators have championed the Feast of Dedication as the one here mentioned, and many others have held that this feast is to be identified as Purim. Thus almost every feast of the Jewish religious year has had its champion.

Although it must be admitted that no final answer can be given to this problem, there are certain evidences that may be taken into consideration in arriving at a tentative conclusion. In the previous chapter (ch. 4:35) Jesus declared that four months remained until the harvest. As the grain harvest in Palestine occurred in April and May, the events of ch. 4 would seem to have occurred in December or January. At this very time the Feast of Dedication (also known as Hanukkah) was celebrated in all the synagogues throughout Palestine. It is doubtful, however, that this was the feast referred to here, not only because it was not one of the feasts that the Jews regularly went to Jerusalem to celebrate (see Ex. 23:14; Deut. 16:16), but also because it occurred in the winter (see John 10:22), a time when the sick would scarcely have been on the porches surrounding the Pool of Bethesda. The next feast was Purim, which occurred in the middle of the last month of the Jewish year, near the first of March. Although by this time the weather would have been milder, it is still doubtful that Purim is the feast in view here, because, like the Feast of Dedication, it was not one of the great feasts for which the Jews generally journeyed to Jerusalem.

The three other feasts with which the feast of ch. 5:1 has been identified, Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, were all celebrated at Jerusalem and were in periods of generally clement weather. Of these three, it would seem that the Passover has the strongest evidence in its favor as the one under consideration in the present passage. It was so identified as early as the 2d century by Irenaeus (Against Heresies ii. 22. 3, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 391). The same expression, “a feast of the Jews,” is used for the Passover in ch. 6:4; and the feast of ch. 5:1 is the first feast following ch. 4:35 to which Jesus, like the Jews in general, would have gone “up to Jerusalem.” See pp. 192, 193; The Duration of Christ’s Ministry; see on Matt. 20:17.

This miracle and the arraignment of Jesus before the Sanhedrin that resulted (see on vs. 16–18) mark the close of the Judean ministry. It was now probably the Passover of a.d. 29 (see p. 192; The Duration of Christ’s Ministry; see Additional Note on Luke 4), a year after the First Cleansing of the Temple (see on John 2:13). The Judean ministry thus occupied about one year, having been interrupted temporarily by the withdrawal to Galilee mentioned in ch. 4:1–3.

Up to Jerusalem. See on Matt. 20:17.

2. Sheep market. Gr. probatikeµ, an adjective referring to something having to do with sheep. Interpreters differ as to whether it should be understood here as meaning “sheep market,” “sheep pool,” or “sheep gate,” all of which are possible interpretations. In favor of taking the words “sheep” and “pool” together and reading, “Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep pool [a place] called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda,” is the fact that all Christian writers until the 13th century who consider the passage understand it this way. On the other hand, if “sheep” and “pool” are not taken together, and “sheep” is understood to be an abbreviated name for a certain locality in Jerusalem, the “sheep gate” (Neh. 3:1; 12:39) seems to be a probable identification.

Pool. Although there is still some discussion as to the location of this pool, its generally accepted identification with a double pool at the Church of St. Anne, just north of the present Via Dolorosa, is valid. Origen, in the 3d century, described this pool as being surrounded by four porticoes with a fifth bisecting it, which corresponds with the record of John. As it exists today, it is 55 by 12 ft. (16.7 by 3.6 m.) and lies many feet below the surface of the ground, for the ground level is now higher than in ancient times. It is covered by five arches, which support the floor of the ancient Christian church that was subsequently built above it.

Bethesda. The name of this place appears variously in the manuscripts as Beµthesda,Beµthzatha, Belzetha, and Beµthsaida, and the textual evidence for each of these readings is not without importance. Although a final decision on this question cannot be made, it seems probable that the original reading was Beµthzatha, or something similar, inasmuch as the northeastern section of the city, in which this pool appears to have been situated (see above under “Pool”), was named Bezetha (see Josephus War ii. 19. 4 [530]; 4. 2 [151]), which could easily be a variant of Beµthzatha.

The name Bethesda appears to be from the Aramaic (here called “Hebrew,” as elsewhere in John; see chs. 19:13, 17; 20:16)beth chesdaХ, “house of mercy.” It may have been introduced into later manuscripts because it was a fitting name for a place where Jesus healed the sick. However, inasmuch as John makes no attempt to interpret the meaning here, he obviously did not intend to make a point of the meaning of the word, and modern interpreters will do well to follow his example by refraining from allegorizing the name.

Five porches. See above under “Pool.”

3. Waiting for the moving. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for omitting the words “waiting for the moving of the water,” and the whole of v. 4. Thus the story of an angel’s bestowing supernatural healing powers upon the water of the pool appears not to have been part of the original gospel text, but was probably added in an attempt to explain v. 7. However, that this legend was based on an early tradition is indicated by the fact that Tertullian knew of it at the beginning of the 3d century. There is no evidence for this insertion prior to his time. In view of v. 7 this passage evidently preserves what was a popular opinion regarding the waters of the pool (see DA 201).

The rippling of the water was real (DA 202), but there is evidence implicit in the account of the legend that this popular belief had no further basis in fact. The stronger trampled upon the weak in their anxiety to reach the waters when they were agitated, and many died on the brink of the pool (see DA 201, 202, 206). Thus, the more selfish, determined, and strong a man might be, the more likely he was to reach the pool first and be healed. The most needy were least likely to benefit, whereas Jesus chose the worst case. The first to reach the pool each time the waters were agitated, apparently was healed, whereas the gifts of God are for all alike who qualify to receive them. Also, healing took place only periodically. The principles implicit in this record of those “healed” at the pool seem strangely different from those principles by which Jesus performed His miracles (see pp. 208, 209).

5. Thirty and eight years. This statement is an important testimony to the truly miraculous nature of Jesus’ healing, for it precludes any possibility that the man could have been suffering from a temporary disability. For similar statements regarding other miracles see Luke 13:1; Acts 4:22. This invalid sat alone and friendless, a hopeless, paralyzed cripple (see DA 202, 203). His case was the worst of those assembled on the brink of the pool (see DA 206).

6. Wilt thou? Too great emphasis on the function of the will implied in this question should be avoided, for the Greek conveys the simple sense, “Do you wish to be healed?” Jesus’ question was rhetorical, for it was obvious that the man desired release from his disease, but it served to turn the sufferer’s attention immediately to Jesus and to the problem of healing from his affliction.

7. I have no man. The pathetic reply of the afflicted man lays bare a story of physical misery, of desertion by friends, and of the repeated revival of hope, followed each time by bitter disappointment. At this point in the narrative his hope was still centered on the supposedly miraculous pool. Apparently it had not yet occurred to him that Jesus could heal him by other means.

8. Rise. Jesus’ words here are strikingly similar to those in Mark 2:11. Their terseness and directness must have inspired confidence in the sick man (see DA 202, 203). Jesus apparently made no attempt to refute the superstition regarding the pool, nor did He question the causes of the man’s disease. Rather, by a positive approach He enjoined the man to demonstrate his faith. For the requirements Jesus made of those whom He would heal see p. 209.

Bed. A pallet that might easily be rolled up and carried on the shoulder.

9. Immediately. John uses this word much less frequently than Mark (see on Mark 1:10), and here it is in striking contrast with the “thirty and eight years” during which the man had been ill.

Walked. The form of the word employed here, in the Greek implies, not merely one act of walking, but a new facility that the man continued to possess. Physically he now entered upon a new way of life.

The sabbath. This is the first of seven recorded Sabbath miracles (see miracles 3, 5, 6, 9, 27–29, listed on pp. 210-213). Now for the first time Jesus openly challenged the rabbinical Sabbath regulations (see on Mark 1:22; 2:23–28; 7:6–13). That He did so when the city was filled with visitors for the feast, and that He dramatized His rejection of such traditions by performing a miracle and publicizing it by having the man carry his bed, demonstrate the importance He attached to the question. See on John 5:10, 16.

10. Not lawful. See on Mark 2:24. The Jews seemed to be concerned, not that the man was healed on the Sabbath, but that he was carrying a burden, his bed, on that day. Jewish traditional law provided strict regulations in regard to the carrying of burdens on the Sabbath. Thus the Mishnah lists 39 types of work that cannot be performed on Sabbath, the last one of which is “carrying out from one domain to another” (Mishnah Shabbath 7, Soncinco ed. of the Talmud, p. 349). Another Mishnaic passage declares that if a man carries into the public domain “a living person in a bed, he is not culpable even in respect of the bed, because the bed is subsidiary to him” (Mishnah Shabbath 10, Soncinco ed. of the Talmud, p. 448), which seems to imply that carrying an empty couch would be considered a transgression.

11. He that made. The erstwhile invalid apparently made no attempt to justify his action in terms of Jewish law, but appealed, instead, to the higher authority that his experience had shown him Jesus possessed.

12. What man? Those who asked this question knew well enough that none but Jesus could have performed the miracle, but were probably seeking direct evidence by which they could make Him out to be a violator of their Sabbath regulations. As later events prove (vs. 16–47), they felt that they had a clear case against Him.

13. Conveyed himself away. Gr. ekneuo, “to slip out,” “to slip away.” Jesus’ purpose in performing this miracle was not to involve Himself in debate with the Jews, but by a concrete, striking act to demonstrate the nature of true Sabbath-keeping and to show the falsity of the traditional restrictions with which the Pharisees sought to bind their nation.

A multitude. Jerusalem was especially crowded during the great feasts (see v. 1), and doubtless this miracle was performed in the presence of many who would carry the report of it far beyond the borders of Judea. It is noteworthy that Jesus required no confession of faith from the infirm man before healing him. Obviously, however, his faith rose to the call of the occasion.

14. Jesus findeth him. Apparently Jesus sought out the man, for the spiritual impact of the healing had not yet been brought to bear upon him. Although the larger purpose of the miracle seems to have been to show the Jews the meaninglessness of their traditions (see on v. 10), Jesus did not neglect the salvation of the one whom He had made whole.

Temple. Gr. hieron, a word that refers to the whole Temple complex rather than to the sanctuary proper (see on Matt. 4:5). Jesus probably found the man in one of the courtyards of the Temple.

Sin no more. Or, “do not go on sinning.” Jesus directed the man’s mind from his physical well-being to his need of spiritual hygiene. His response at Bethesda to Jesus’ injunction, “Rise, take up thy bed, and walk,” had been one of faith, the beginning of spiritual as well as physical health. Now Jesus’ further admonition, “Sin no more,” implied both that his former life had been one of sin (see DA 202) and that those sins were forgiven. The intimate relationship between physical healing and forgiveness of sins was demonstrated in the healing of the palsied man (Mark 2:5–12).

Worse thing. This might be understood as a relapse into even more severe illness than the man had previously experienced, perhaps an acute sickness in place of the chronic infirmity he had so long suffered. It should not be concluded from this passage, however, that sickness constitutes divine punishment for an iniquitous life on the part of the one smitten, or that illness necessarily follows a life of sin. The story of Job and the words of Jesus in regard to the blind man (ch. 9:2, 3) clearly indicate the danger in assuming such a connection. See on Job 42:5; Ps. 38:3; 39:9.

15. Told the Jews. Apparently the man identified his Benefactor to the Jews because he sought to soften their condemnation of himself by cooperating in answering their question (see vs. 10–13), and also because he now desired to publish the knowledge of the One who had healed him.

16. Persecute Jesus. Jesus was haled before the Sanhedrin and charged with Sabbathbreaking (see DA 204), and to this charge was added that of blasphemy (v. 18). The leaders of the nation sought to counteract Jesus’ undeniably great influence over the people (see on ch. 2:23). Also, they set spies to watch Him, apparently to build up a case, so that they could condemn Him to death (see DA 213).

By their action in publicly censuring Jesus in the spring of a.d. 29 the Jewish leaders sought to undermine His authority and influence with the people (DA 213). They made a public proclamation warning the nation against Him and set spies to follow Him in an endeavor to find cause for legal action against Him. In the full knowledge that their opposition to Him was without excuse they became even more bitter toward Him from now on, and began laying plans how they might take His life. This design they succeeded in carrying out two years later, at the Passover of a.d. 31.

By the spring of a.d. 29 they had ample evidence of his Messiahship—they knew of the vision of Zacharias (Luke 1:5–20), of the announcement to the shepherds (Luke 2:8–12), of the coming of the wise men (Matt. 2:1, 2), of the visit of Jesus to the Temple at the age of 12 (Luke 2:42–50), of the witness of John the Baptist to Christ as the Messiah (John 1:19–34). More recently they had had the additional evidence of the perfection evident in Jesus’ character, of the soundness of His teachings, and of the divine character of His miracles. Added to all of this they had the prophecies. These, the Jews must have been impressed were being fulfilled in events then taking place.

On the sabbath day. The Jews seem not to have punished the man for carrying his bed on the Sabbath, beyond censuring him publicly. But Jesus, the author of the miracle, they sought to slay, probably both because He had healed the man and because He had commanded him to carry his bed on the Sabbath (see on chs. 7:22–24; 9:6, 14). While it was allowed by Jewish law to treat a man who was acutely sick, the treating of a chronic case such as this was forbidden. Thus an ancient Jewish commentary, written many centuries after Jesus’ time, but which undoubtedly reflects the situation in His day, declares: “Is a person allowed to heal on the Sabbath? Our masters have taught: Mortal danger overrides the Sabbath; but if it is doubtful whether he [a sick man] will regain health or not, one should not override the Sabbath [on his account]” (Tanchuma B, cited in Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament vol. 1, p. 624). Jesus’ choice in the present instance of a man who had been ill for 38 years seems to have been made purposely to demonstrate the fallacy of such Jewish legal restrictions.

17. Worketh hitherto. Literally, “is working until now.” By these words Jesus assured His hearers that God, who had created the world, was still actively working in their midst, even on the Sabbath day (see EGW Supplementary Material on Acts 17:28). This was a contradiction of the deistic view in some circles of Judaism that tended to make God so distant from the world that He had little contact with it. Even more than this, Jesus’ words were an assertion that His own works as revealed in the miracle of healing He had just performed were indeed a work of God. The thought here expressed is basic to Jesus’ discourse in John 5:19–47.

And I. Or, “I also.” The emphatic use of the pronoun with the coordinate conjunction implies Jesus’ equality with God.

18. His Father. Literally, “His own Father.” To speak of God as “Father” was not entirely foreign to Jewish usage. Occasionally in intertestamental Jewish literature (see pp. 84-86) God is called the Father of the Jews (see Jubilees 1:24, 25, 28; Tobit 13:4). A few times in prayers He is called “my Father” (see Ecclesiasticus 23:1, 4; Wisdom 14:3). It was not for such an expression that the Jews now accused Jesus of blasphemy. Undoubtedly realizing that they had no reply to His defense for healing on the Sabbath (see on John 5:17), they turned to challenge His claim to equality with God, which they recognized as implicit in His declaration: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” John makes clear the distinction in the minds of the Jews between speaking of God as one’s Father and Jesus’ implied claim that God was His own Father in a special sense.

Equal with God. See Phil. 2:6; see on John 1:1. The recognition here that the Father-Son relationship between God and Christ is one of equality is highly significant. The argument has sometimes been advanced that Jesus was the Son of God only in the same sense that all men are sons of God, that is, by virtue of creation and spiritual fathership. It has been pointed out that the term “son of God” frequently was used in the Graeco-Roman world as a title for emperors, indicating that they were demigods, but not necessarily that they possessed complete deity. Nevertheless John’s record shows that the Jews clearly understood Jesus’ words to be a declaration of equality with the Most High.

19. The Son. Although Jesus frequently referred to Himself as the Son of man, a title that emphasized His humanity and probably implied His Messiahship (see on Matt. 1:1; Mark 2:10), in the present context the unqualified title “the Son” clearly means “the Son of God.” This is evident both from the fact that He uses it in connection with the Father, and from His reference to the Son of God in John 5:25. It is significant that when the Jews accused Jesus of claiming deity, He went on to explain and amplify that claim rather than to minimize it in any way. See Additional Note on Chapter 1.

Of himself. Literally, “from himself,” that is, by His own accord, on His own initiative.

Seeth the Father do. Literally, “sees the Father doing.” Jesus’ deeds were in complete harmony with the way in which God treats man. More than this, they were God’s supreme expression of His loving concern for man. That Jesus could so completely express the character of the Father was possible only because the Son gave entire obedience to the Father’s will.

20. Loveth the Son. See ch. 3:35.

All things. Here Jesus asserts His perfect comprehension of the Father’s will. Only one who was God Himself could honestly make such an assertion.

Greater works. That is, greater than the miracles of healing that Jesus had been performing (see on v. 21). The strength of Jesus’ declaration is the more remarkable in that He made it in the face of condemnation for the miracle He had just performed.

21. As the Father. The comparison is in itself an implication of the equality of the Son with the Father. The Jews believed rightly that resurrecting the dead was a divine prerogative; in claiming the same power Jesus asserted His deity.

The Son quickeneth. Undoubtedly this applies both to Jesus’ power to raise the dead “at the last trump” (1 Cor. 15:52) and to His power to give new life to every Christian experiencing the new birth (see ch. 3:3). Not until much later does Jewish literature indicate that the resurrection was considered to be a work of the Messiah; in the present discourse, however, Jesus was not emphasizing His Messiahship, but rather His deity.

22. Father judgeth. The Father has given into the hands of the Son the successful accomplishment of the work of redemption. The Father has not become man, He has not given His life to save man; but the Son, who did become man and gave His life for the human race, is the rightful One to judge those who have rejected Him. He alone knows the full power of temptation, He alone has borne the sins of the world. See on John 5:27, 29; Heb. 4:15.

23. Should honour. In its immediate setting, Jesus’ words admonished His hearers, who professed to honor God, that for this very reason they should honor also the Son. It is impossible, in fact, to honor God without honoring the Son, whom He has sent.

24. Verily. See on Matt. 5:18; John 1:51.

He that heareth. This verse is significant for the close connection it demonstrates between hearing and believing. In fact, the two acts are expressed in Greek by participles that share a common article, implying that hearing is not significant unless one also believes. See on Matt. 7:24. Here Jesus further emphasizes His submission to the Father, for the Son’s message (“my word”) is intended to bring men to believe on the Father and to put their trust in Him.

Hath everlasting life. This declaration is more than a promise of eternal life to come; it is an assurance that the believer now and here may begin to enjoy life that is eternal in quality, because he is united spiritually with His Lord, whose life He shares. “The Spirit of God, received into the heart by faith, is the beginning of the life eternal” (DA 388). See John 6:47; 1 John 5:11, 12; see on John 3:16.

Not come into condemnation. See John 3:18; Rom. 8:1.

Is passed. Literally, “has passed.” The passage from death to life is not only a bodily transformation at the future resurrection but also an experience through which every true Christian has already passed and the fruits of which he continues to enjoy. Spiritually, the crucial change from death to life comes when a man is born again (see Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:13; 3:1; see on John 1:13; 3:5).

25. Verily. See on Matt. 5:18; John 1:51.

Is coming, and now is. While the phrase “is coming” clearly applies to the literal resurrection in the future (see v. 28), the words “now is” seem to point to the experience to which Jesus had just referred, when the Christian “is passed from death unto life” (v. 24). Thus they are a reminder that a spiritual resurrection is immediately available to anyone who, though spiritually dead, will yet “hear the voice of the Son of God.” See the similar use of these phrases in ch. 4:21, 23.

It is also true that the present verse appears to speak of only a partial resurrection, whereas v. 28 distinctly declares that in the future resurrection “all that are in the graves shall hear his voice.” So understood, v. 25 may be seen as referring to the special resurrection of many “saints which slept,” but arose at the resurrection of Christ as the first fruits of His victory (see Matt. 27:52, 53).

26. As … so. See on v. 21.

Given to the Son. See on ch. 6:37.

Life in himself. “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived” (DA 530). Yet as the incarnate Son who had “emptied himself” (Phil. 2:7, RSV) of the exercise of His divine prerogatives, Christ, speaking of His existence on earth as a man among men, could refer to His possession of life as a gift from God. “The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life” (DA 530). See Additional Note on Chapter 1.

27. Authority. In commissioning the Son to carry out the plan of redemption for the saving of man and the glory of God, the Father has also committed to Him the execution of judgment. That this should be so is reasonable, for the Son of God, a divine being, is also the Son of man, a human being, who has resisted temptation (Heb. 4:15), borne sin vicariously, and tasted death. Yet He is triumphant in the great controversy with Satan. No other being in the universe is thus qualified to pass eternal judgment upon men, and no other being can glorify and vindicate God by that judgment. See on v. 22.

28. Hour is coming. See on v. 25.

All. This is a general reference to the resurrection of the dead at the end of the world, without making a distinction between the first and second resurrections (see Rev. 20:5, 6). Jewish thinking in Jesus’ day was divided over the question of the resurrection. The Sadducees denied that the dead would arise at all, while the Pharisees strongly maintained that they would. Even among those Jews who held the doctrine of the resurrection, a division apparently also existed over the question of who would be included in it, some holding that only the righteous would arise, others maintaining that both the righteous and the wicked would come forth from their graves. In line with this latter view, a document from the late 2d and the early 1st century b.c. represents the patriarchs as declaring: “Then shall we also rise, each one over our tribe, worshipping the King of heaven. Then also all men shall rise, some unto glory and some unto shame” (The Testament of Benjamin 10:7, 8, in R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, p. 359). Jesus, in accordance with His usual practice, did not enter into dispute over the various views held by the Jews regarding the resurrection, but simply stated the truth that “all that are in the graves … shall come forth.”

29. They that have done good. It is not to be inferred from these words that salvation is earned by “doing good.” Good and evil deeds are like a reflection of a man’s spiritual condition. Trees may be judged good or bad on the basis of their fruit, and consequently worthy of cultivation or destruction, although the intrinsic goodness or badness of a tree does not reside in its fruit. Similarly, men may be classified in terms of their works, although their works are but the outward signs of their inner spiritual condition, which is the determining factor in their salvation.

Resurrection of life. That is, a resurrection that is characterized by, or results in, eternal life; a resurrection, indeed, that is life itself in that it is effected by the life of Christ in which the believer shares. “Christ became one flesh with us, in order that we might become one spirit with Him. It is by virtue of this union that we are to come forth from the grave—not merely as a manifestation of the power of Christ, but because, through faith, His life has become ours” (DA 388).

Damnation. Gr. krisis, “judgment.” The contrast of this word with “life” indicates that it is to be understood here in the sense of “adverse judgment.” This is the same word translated “condemnation” in v. 24 and “judgment” in v. 22; all of which seems to indicate that the judgment referred to there as being committed to Christ is primarily the judgment of the wicked. See on ch. 9:39.

30. Do nothing. See v. 19; ch. 6:38.

As I hear. That is, from the Father.

Judgment. Gr. krisis, see on v. 29. In view of the, the context, Jesus’ words here are an assertion of the justice of His condemnation of sinners in the final judgment. See on vs. 22, 27.

Father. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 146) the omission of this word.

31. Witness of myself. In regard to legal testimony as to certain phases, at least, of one’s personal life, the Mishnah declares: “No one may testify concerning himself” (Mishnah Kethuboth 2. 9, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 151). Jesus’ statement in the present verse probably was intended to appeal to this type of thinking among His Jewish hearers. At first sight ch. 8:14 appears to be a contradiction of His declaration here. In each case, however, Jesus’ words were framed to meet the thinking of His hearers. In ch. 8:14 the discussion was not in regard to His relation to the Father, but rather to His declaration, “I am the light of the world,” which the Pharisees rejected because He said it of Himself. To this objection Jesus insisted nevertheless that His words were true. In the present passage, however, the setting is different: here Jesus sought to demonstrate His dependence upon His Father by pointing to the works that He was empowered to perform as an evidence of His claims (ch. 5:36, 37). To enforce His point, He seems to have reminded His hearers of the Jewish principle that testimony regarding one’s own conduct was not considered valid.

32. Another. Since ancient times commentators have understood this verse in two different ways. Some have taken the word “another” to refer to John the Baptist, in view of the immediate context (vs. 33–35), and doubtless Jesus’ hearers at the time understood Him that way (see on v. 34). Thus, recognizing that His own authority was not accepted (v. 31), Jesus developed His argument by an appeal to four different witnesses: (1) to the witness of John (vs. 32–35); (2) to the miracles (v. 36), which the Jews could not ignore; (3) to the witness of the Father (v. 37); and (4) to the Scriptures (v. 39) and particularly to the writings of Moses (vs. 45–47), whom the Jews acknowledged as their pre-eminent authority.

Many other interpreters, while not denying this fourfold development of Jesus’ argument, have understood the present verse to apply rather to the Father, in anticipation of v. 37. They have pointed out that v. 32 is in the present tense, a fitting expression of the Father’s continuing witness to His Son, whereas vs. 33–35, which clearly apply to John, are in the past, as his ministry had by this time come to an end.

33. Ye sent. This is probably a reference to the incident recorded in ch. 1:19–27.

34. Testimony from man. When Jesus declared that there was another who bore witness of Him (v. 32), undoubtedly many of the Jews immediately thought that He referred to John the Baptist (see ch. 1:7, 8, 15–18, 26, 27, 29–36). Jesus went on to point out that John indeed had borne witness to the truth, but that the validity of His own claims did not stand or fall by such human testimony.

That ye might be saved. Although recognizing that the truth of His words did not depend upon John’s having testified to them, nevertheless Jesus reminded the Jews that John had witnessed to Him, for large numbers of the people believed John (see Matt. 21:26). By appealing to such testimony, Jesus could encourage some to believe in Him, and thus He could save them.

35. Light. Gr. luchnos, “a lamp” (see on ch. 1:9). The apostle John declares concerning the Baptist that “he was not that Light” (v. 8). Rather, John the Baptist was a lamp as compared with Christ, who was “the true Light” (v. 9). As a lamp is no longer needed when the light of day has come, so the work of John was superseded by that of Jesus.

The word translated “burning” is a form of the verb kaioµ, “to be set on fire,” and thus may imply that John was but a secondary luminary, having himself been “set on fire” by the greater Light.

Ye were willing. In regard to John’s popularity see Matt. 3:5–7; 21:26.

For a season. At the time of the present discourse the public ministry of John had already come to an end, and he apparently was in prison (see on Luke 3:19, 20).

36. That of John. In view of the context in v. 34 it seems clear that Jesus means here that He has greater witness than any that John gave to Him.

Works. These include not only Jesus’ miracles but all of His ministry for men: His sinless life, His teaching, His acts of mercy, His death, and His resurrection. Taken together, these works constitute a testimony to the truth of His claims, one that no human declaration can approach in importance. “The highest evidence that He came from God is that His life revealed the character of God” (DA 407).

37. The Father. The supreme witness to the truth that is in Christ is to be found neither in human testimony nor in the works of Jesus, but in the voice of God speaking to the human heart. When the Christian knows in his own heart that “the Father himself … hath borne witness of” Christ, he is possessed of a certainty that transcends all other assurances. Perhaps Jesus thought also of the voice from heaven at His own baptism (see on Matt. 3:17).

Ye have neither. Jesus’ hearers had heard the testimony of John, and they had seen Jesus’ works, but of the third kind of testimony, the witness of the Father revealed to the heart, they knew nothing, for, as Jesus told them, “whom he hath sent, him ye believe not” (v. 38). Although hearing human testimony and observing the deeds of Jesus may come before faith, the supreme proof of the Messiahship and deity of Jesus Christ can be had only after faith has begun to grow in the heart. Only by the ear and the eye of faith can the Father be heard and seen and can the word He speaks about Jesus Christ abide in man and be apprehended by him. But when this word does abide and is apprehended, there is no greater certainty.

39. Search the scriptures. This passage may be translated either as a simple statement, “Ye search the scriptures,” or as a command, “Search the scriptures!” The context seems to indicate that these words are best understood as a plain declaration of Christ to the Jews, “Ye search the scriptures because ye think to have eternal life in them, and they are the witnesses about me!” It was ancient Jewish thought that a knowledge of the law would itself assure a man of eternal life. Thus Hillel, a rabbi of the 1st century b.c., is reported to have declared: “One who has acquired unto himself words of Torah, has acquired for himself the life of the world to come” (Mishnah Aboth 2. 7, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 17). Jesus here makes use of this belief to remind the Jews that the Scriptures in which they thought to find eternal life were the very writings that testified of Him (see PP 367). This passage has also been used effectively as an injunction to study the Scriptures (see 2 T 121). Had the Jews searched the Scriptures with eyes of faith, they would have been prepared to recognize the Messiah when He stood among them.

A passage almost identical with this verse appears in an apocryphal gospel discovered in Egypt on a papyrus written at the latest by a.d. 150. It reads, “Turning to the rulers of the people, he said this word, ‘Ye search the scriptures; [those scriptures] in which ye think to have life, they are those that witness concerning me’” (Egerton Papyrus 2, lines 5–10; Greek text in H. Idris Bell and T. C. Skeat, Fragments of an Unknown Gospel [London, 1935], pp. 8, 9). Such a passage appears to have been based upon the Gospel of John, and consequently is an important witness to the existence of that Gospel during the first half of the 2d century. The fact that apocryphal gospel papyrus was discovered in Egypt indicates that the Gospel of John apparently had circulated there—at a considerable distance from Ephesus, its probable place of origin—for some time before it was used in the construction of an apocryphal account of Christ. This, together with the contemporary Rylands Papyrus of John, is significant evidence for the validity of the traditional dating of the Fourth Gospel near the end of the 1st century a.d. (see pp. 179-181).

40. Come to me. In two later discourses Jesus showed clearly that coming to Him results in eternal life, and that to “come” to Him is synonymous with believing in Him (chs. 6:35; 7:37, 38). Although the Jews repeatedly came to Him to hear and question Him, they did not come in faith or with a sense of their own need of His power to save.

That ye might have life. See on chs. 3:16; 10:10.

41. Honour from men. The ultimate success of Jesus’ work did not depend upon whether the Jewish leaders of His day recognized Him as the Messiah. The purposes of His message and His ministry transcended any approbation that human beings could give. His ultimate aim was the conquest of the kingdom of evil for the glory of God.

42. Love of God. That is, men’s love for God, not the love of God for them. God loved the Pharisees, but all too often they failed to reciprocate (see 1 John 4:10, 11, 19).

43. Ye receive me not. See ch. 1:5, 10, 11.

If another shall come. Some commentators have understood this as a direct historical allusion to Bar Cocheba, the Jewish insurgent leader who was hailed as the Messiah during the Second Revolt, a.d. 132–135 (see p. 79). Rejecting the possibility of an actual prophetic forecast, they have advanced their interpretation of this verse as an indication that the Gospel of John could not have been written before the Second Revolt. Such an interpretation is to be rejected on two counts: (1) The evidence is clear that John was written before that time (see on v. 39; see also pp. 179, 181); (2) Jesus’ statement is in no way a declaration that someone would come claiming in his own name to be the Messiah, but rather a hypothetical statement that if anyone did, the Jews would be willing to receive him. At the same time, it is true that Bar Cocheba was accepted as the Messiah, even by the Jewish leader Akiba, and in this way the truth of Jesus’ proposition was demonstrated.

44. Honour. Literally, “glory,” “good reputation.” Many of the Jews judged themselves by themselves; they considered a man’s reputation as good or bad in terms of their own traditions, instead of looking to God and His character as their standard. Consequently they were unable to believe in Christ.

From God only. Better, “from the only God.” The fact that God is one and absolute means that there is only one true standard for the judgment of character—the character of God Himself as revealed in His law. The principle of the uniqueness of God was a prime tenet of Jewish faith, but the Jews denied it by their actions to the extent that they judged their fellow men by traditional human standards.

45. Even Moses. For the Jews the Law of Moses was the basis of religion, and indeed, of life as a whole. Now Jesus points His hearers to the startling fact that if they had rightly understood that Law, they would have seen Him revealed in it. Thus they stood condemned by their greatest prophet.

In a manuscript of an apocryphal gospel from the 2d century a.d., a passage appears much like this verse. It reads: “Do not think that I come to accuse you before my Father; your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope” (Egerton Papyrus 2 [see on John 5:39], lines 10–14). For the significance of this and other passages from this document that parallel John see on v. 39.

Trust. Gr. elpizoµ, “to hope.” The Jews placed their hope for eternal life in a conformity to the Law of Moses as traditionally interpreted (see on v. 39).

46. He wrote of me. This is apparently not a reference to any particular passage in the writings of Moses, unless it be Deut. 18:15, 18 (see comment there), but rather a general allusion to the elements of the Pentateuch that pointed to Christ, particularly to the sanctuary service and to the prophecies of Jacob (Gen. 49:10) and to Balaam (Num. 24:17). If the Jews had rightly understood these, they would have been prepared to accept Christ when He came. Instead, they saw the precepts of Moses only as the basis of a legalistic way of life; consequently, they failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and thus placed themselves under the condemnation of the very writings by which they thought they were living.

Ellen G. White comments

1–5MH 81

1–47DA 201–213

2 DA 201

5–9DA 202; SC 50

6 DA 203

6, 7 MH 83

8 MH 84

10 DA 203

11, 12 DA 204

14 CT 466; DA 204, 824; MH 113; ML 154

15, 16 DA 204

17 AH 287; DA 206; LS 80; PP 114; 6T 187; 8T 261

17–208T 268

18 DA 207

19 CT 410; DA 208, 209; FE 268; SC 75

20–238T 269

21 DA 209

22 MB 125; 9T 185

24 COL 38

25 DA 209

28, 29 GC 544

29 GC 482

30 COL 60; CT 410; DA 180, 336, 675; GW 57; FE 347; 3T 107; 8T 334

35 FE 366

38 DA 212

39 COL 39, 111, 128; CSW 17–23, 29, 53, 84, 112; Ev 69, 434; EW 58, 221, 223; FE 164, 182, 309, 382, 391, 404; GC 69; LS 293; ML 28, 73, 97; MYP 257, 259; PP 367; SC 88; 2T 121, 343, 634, 692; 3T 81, 449; 4T 312, 499; 5T 273, 388, 575, 717; 8T 157

40 AA 27; CG 467; CH 211; GC 22; 1T 505; 2T 296, 409; 5T 221, 430

40, 41, 43 DA 212

43 5T 398

46 COL 128

46, 47 DA 213