The Gospel of St. John

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Gospel of St. John
Author: MacRory, Joseph
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Gospel of St. John" ***

The Gospel of St. John

With Notes Critical and Explanatory

By the

Rev. Joseph MacRory, D.D.

Professor of Sacred Scripture and Hebrew, Maynooth College

Ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται, ἵνα πιστέυσητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ
θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.‐‐St. John, xx.
31.

Browne & Nolan, Limited

Dublin

1897

CONTENTS

Preface.
Introduction.
I.—Authenticity Of The Fourth Gospel.
A.—External Evidence.
B.—Internal Evidence.
II.—Author.
III.—For Whom Written, And With What Object.
IV.—Outline Of The Plan Of The Gospel.
V.—Time And Place Of Writing.
VI.—Integrity.
VII.—Language.
VIII.—Christ’s Discourses In The Gospel.
IX.—Errors Combated In The Gospel.
Chapter I.
Chapter II.
Chapter III.
Chapter IV.
Chapter V.
Chapter VI.
Chapter VII.
Chapter VIII.
Authenticity of John vii. 53‐viii. 11.
Evidence against Authenticity.
Evidence in favour of Authenticity.
Conclusion.
Text.
Chapter IX.
Chapter X.
Chapter XI.
Chapter XII.
Chapter XIII.
Chapter XIV.
Chapter XV.
Chapter XVI.
Chapter XVII.
Chapter XVIII.
Chapter XIX.
Chapter XX.
Chapter XXI.
Footnotes

[Cover Art]

_Nihil Obstat._

GUALTERUS MACDONALD, D.D.,

Censor Theolog. Deputat.

IMPRIMATUR.

Gulielmus,

_Archiep. Dublinen., Hiberniae Primas._

PREFACE.

It may be well to state briefly the object and plan of the present work.
Some years ago their Lordships the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland
decided to lengthen considerably the course of Sacred Scripture read in
this College. As a result of their decision, all our students are now
expected to read the whole of the New Testament with the exception of the
Apocalypse, together with portions of the Old Testament. This change,
while it has the desirable advantage of familiarizing our students with a
larger portion of the Sacred Text, obviously renders it impossible that so
much time as formerly should be devoted to the study of any one portion.
The consequence of this is that it is now impossible for any but the very
ablest students to find time to read the longer commentaries, such as
those of Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide. I was not long, therefore, in
charge of the Class of Sacred Scripture, when I became convinced that it
would be useful, if not necessary, to provide the students with a more
compendious exposition of the portions of Scripture that they are expected
to study.

With this object in view, I have not attempted, in the present work, to
give an exhaustive commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Such an attempt,
indeed, would have frustrated my object. I have tried rather, while
omitting nothing of importance, to introduce nothing unnecessary, and to
observe throughout the utmost consistent brevity.

I am prepared to hear that some will consider I have passed too lightly
over the easier portions of the Gospel. I can only say, in reply, that
what I have done, has been done deliberately. Where the meaning of God’s
word is sufficiently clear, I consider that it ought to be left to the
exercise of the student’s intelligence to find it, and I am strongly of
opinion that in such cases a commentator may well be excused from
interposing his remarks between the reader and the Sacred Text.

It might seem that the able and learned commentary of Dr. MacEvilly—the
only Catholic commentary hitherto existing on this Gospel in the English
language—would render such a work as the present unnecessary. But the
length of His Grace’s work, like the works of Maldonatus, Estius, and A
Lapide, renders it not wholly adapted to the present conditions of our
students. Besides, anyone acquainted with the work of a professor will
readily realize how important it is, and how desirable, when possible,
that students should possess in handy and permanent form the professor’s
views. No two men will think alike on all the difficult and intricate
questions arising out of the Gospel of St. John; and while I should feel
it my duty, if lecturing on the work of another, to impose upon the
students of my class the necessity of taking notes, I have hope that the
present work will to a large extent obviate such a necessity. His Grace’s
work will, no doubt, continue to be used by many of our students in
preference to mine, and with all of them it will still hold its place as a
useful book of reference.

The Latin Text that I have followed is a reprint from the Latin Vulgate
published at Turin in 1883: _Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis, Sixti V.
Pontificis Maximi jussu recognita, et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita.
Editio emendatissima, Indicis Congregationis decreto probata, et iterum
hoc anno evulgata. Augustae Taurinorum, typis Hyacinthi Marietti_,
MDCCCLXXXIII. In only one instance is there a conscious departure from
this edition, and that is in verses 3 and 4 of the first chapter, where I
have returned to the original punctuation of the Clementine Edition.

The English Text is from the Rhemish New Testament approved by Cardinal
Wiseman, and published by Burns and Oates, Limited.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE,
_Ascension Thursday, 1897_.

INTRODUCTION.

I.—Authenticity Of The Fourth Gospel.

That St. John the Apostle is also an Evangelist, and author of the fourth
Gospel, has been the all but unanimous testimony of tradition. If we
except the Alogi (St. Epiph., _Haer._, li. 3, 4), heretics of the second
century, who denied the Johannine authorship, not on historical, but on
dogmatic grounds, the authenticity of the Gospel was unquestioned down to
the end of the eighteenth century. Since that time, however, it has been
frequently and variously attacked by the so‐called Rationalists, whose
many views in regard to it may be reduced to one or other of the three
following theories:—

1. The patrons of what is sometimes called the “partition theory” hold
that, though the work as a whole cannot be said to be St. John’s, still
considerable portions of it are his. About the extent of these portions
they differ. Weisse, who, in the year 1838, first gave prominence to this
theory, held that the discourses attributed to Christ in the Gospel are
studies from the pen of St. John, representing what he considered to be
the doctrine of Christ; and that St. John’s disciples afterwards set these
discourses in their present historical framework, and thus produced the
Gospel. Others, however, admit that some portions of the narrative, as
well as the discourses, are the work of St. John.

2. The Gospel is in no part the work of St. John; still the historical
portions contain valuable traditions derived from that Apostle. Renan, who
holds this view, says:—“The fourth Gospel is not the work of the Apostle
John. It was attributed to him by one of his disciples, about the year
100. The discourses are almost wholly fictitious; but the narrative
portions contain valuable traditions, which reach back in part to the
Apostle John.”(1)

3. This, like the preceding theory, denies the Johannine authorship; but
it goes farther than the preceding, in denying to our Gospel any
historical value. According to this theory, not only are the discourses
spurious, but the historical portions are wholly unreliable, and the
Gospel was forged in the latter half of the second century. So Baur and
many others.

Against these various adversaries there is abundant evidence, external and
internal, in favour of the authenticity of our Gospel.

A.—External Evidence.(2)

1. The *Apostolic Fathers* do not, indeed, quote our Gospel as the work of
St. John, for it was not their custom to name the author from whom they
quoted; but passages are met with in the works of these fathers which are
very probably founded upon passages in our Gospel. Compare, for instance,
with John xxi. 20, the words of St. Clement of Rome († 101):—“John also,
who leaned upon the bosom of our Lord, whom the Lord loved exceedingly”
(Epis. 1 _De Virgin_, c. 6); or with John iii. 8, the words of St.
Ignatius of Antioch († 107):—“The Spirit, since He is born of God, is not
deceived, _for He knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth_” (Ad.
Philad. 7). It would be easy to multiply instances of this kind;(3) but,
as such coincidences are always more or less inconclusive, it is more
important to note here that Papias and Polycarp, two disciples of St.
John, indirectly support the claim of the fourth Gospel to authenticity.
For it is certain that both these writers accepted the First Epistle of
St. John as his.(4) Now, so great is the similarity of style between our
Gospel and that Epistle, and so close the relation between the two, that
we are justified in concluding, with Cornely (Introd. iii. 59, 3), that
Papias and Polycarp, admitting the one, probably admitted also the other
to be the work of St. John. Even Renan admits that “The two writings offer
the most complete identity of style, the same terms, the same favourite
expressions.” Indeed we have now the direct testimony of Papias in a
fragment of his rather recently discovered: “Quant au silence de Papias il
n’est plus possible d’en tirer un argument contre le quatrième Evangile.
Un nouveau fragment de l’évêque d’Hieropolis, cité par Thomasius (i. 344)
... temoigne qu’il connaissait l’œuvre de l’Apotre” (_Didon—Jesus Christ_,
Introd. xxviii.).

2. The *Fathers of the second century* were thoroughly acquainted with our
Gospel, and some of them refer to it as the work of St. John. Thus, when
*Justin Martyr* († 167), in proving the necessity of Baptism (_Apol._ i.
61), says: “For Christ said: ‘Unless you be born again, you shall not
enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now that those born once cannot enter
again into the wombs of their mothers, is clear to all,” there can hardly
be a doubt that he had before his mind John iii. 3, 4.

Again, *Tatian*, a disciple of St. Justin, actually wrote a Harmony of the
Four Gospels, known as Tatian’s _Diatessaron_, which commenced with the
opening words of our Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word.”(5)

The *Muratorian Fragment*, which contains a list of canonical books, made
not later than 170 A.D., says: “John, one of the disciples, (is the
author) of the fourth Gospel.”

*Theophilus* of Antioch († 186), who was the sixth successor to St. Peter
in the see of Antioch, says:—“These things we are taught by the Sacred
Scriptures, and by all inspired by the Holy Ghost, _of whom John says_:
‘In the beginning was the Word,’ ” &c.

Finally, *Irenæus* († 202), who was Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, from about
the year 180, and who wrote his work, _Against Heresies_, probably between
180 and 190 A.D., says:—“Afterwards John, a disciple of the Lord, who
reclined upon His breast, also wrote a Gospel.” This testimony of Irenæus
is of very special importance; for, besides being a native of Asia Minor,
and a bishop in Gaul, and thus representing in himself the traditions of
both countries, he was moreover a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a
disciple of St. John, so that no one had better opportunities than Irenæus
of learning everything connected with the Apostle.

Indeed, so well was our Gospel known, and its authority recognised in the
second century, that even the heretics of the time sought the sanction of
its authority for their errors. “They use that which is according to
John,” says Irenæus, speaking of the Valentinian heretics of the second
century (Iren., _Haer._, iii. 11. 7).

3. We abstain from quoting Fathers of the *third century*, because it is
not denied that they knew our Gospel, and acknowledged St. John to be the
author. Even Strauss (_Leben Jesu_, § 10, p. 47) says: “It is certain that
towards the end of the second century, the same four Gospels which we have
still, are found recognised in the Church, and are repeatedly quoted as
the writings of the Apostles, and disciples of the Apostles, whose names
they bear, by the three most eminent ecclesiastical teachers—Irenæus, in
Gaul; Clement, in Alexandria; and Tertullian, in Carthage.”

It is undeniable then that before the close of the second century, the
fourth Gospel was everywhere in the Church received as the genuine work of
St. John. This, we hold, proves that it must be indeed his work. For he
lived on till the end of the first century; his disciples till the middle,
and their disciples till the end, of the second century. Is it possible
then that a spurious work, produced by some forger in the second century,
could have been everywhere so soon received and recognised as the work of
the Apostle?

B.—Internal Evidence.

1. The author himself tells us (xxi. 20, 24), that he is “the disciple
whom Jesus loved, who also leaned on His breast at supper.” Now according
to all the fathers, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” &c., was St. John.
Moreover, the three most favoured disciples were Peter, James, and John.
They alone were permitted to be present at the raising to life of the
daughter of Jairus (Mark v. 37), at the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1),
and at the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37). But Peter cannot be the
writer of our Gospel, from whom he is explicitly distinguished (John xxi.
20); nor James the Greater, for, in the opinion of all, he had been
beheaded by Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) many years before our Gospel
was written. It remains then that the writer must be St. John. Nor does
this argument lose its force, even though we admit that the last two
verses of our Gospel (John xxi. 24, 25) were not written by St. John. For
since they have stood in the Gospel from the beginning, they must at least
be the evidence of a contemporary; so that we have here either an internal
argument or another powerful external one in favour of the Johannine
authorship.

2. While the Apostle John plays an important part in the other Gospels, he
is not named even once in the fourth Gospel. If we had only it, we should
not know that there was an Apostle of that name. The fair inference then
is, that he himself being the writer, suppressed his own name through
modesty. Moreover, while the other Evangelists are accustomed, when they
speak of John the Baptist, to distinguish him from John the Apostle, our
author, again through modesty, ignores the Apostle, and refers nineteen
different times to the Baptist as John without any distinguishing
appellative.

3. The style is just such as we should expect from St. John; the Greek
purer than that of the other Gospels, because of the author’s long sojourn
in Asia Minor, yet not untinged by Hebraisms because of his earlier life
spent in Palestine.

4. The whole Gospel points to its author as one who was intimately
acquainted with Palestine and its customs, and who had lived and moved
among the events he describes.(6) Thus the journey from Cana to Capharnaum
is rightly described as a _descent_ (John iv. 47, 51); the author is
acquainted with the pools of Bethsaida and Siloe at Jerusalem (John v. 2,
ix. 7), with the position of the brook of Cedron in relation to Jerusalem
and the Mount of Olives (John xviii. 1), and with the distance of Bethany
from the Holy City (xi. 18).

Among Jewish customs he refers to the manner of purification before meals
(John ii. 6), and to their avoidance of intercourse with Samaritans (iv.
9), and hints at the objection of their teachers to speak publicly with
women (John iv. 27). He shows, too, that he is familiar, not merely with
Jewish festivals, but also with their peculiar solemnities (John vii. 2,
37), and the time of their occurrence (x. 22). Finally, he declares
himself an _eye‐witness_, as well where he says:—“The Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us, _and we saw His glory_” (John i. 14), as where he
tells us, “He _that saw it_, hath given testimony ... and he knoweth that
he saith true” (John xix. 35).

II.—Author.

St. John, Apostle, Evangelist, prophet, and martyr, was born in Galilee,
the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of some means, and Salome, one of those
holy women who ministered to our Lord during His public life, and stood by
His cross on Calvary (Mark i. 20; Matt. iv. 21, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40,
xvi. 1). Before his call by Jesus, John was probably a disciple of the
Baptist, and it is extremely likely that he was one of the two who at the
preaching of their Master first believed in Christ (John i. 37, and
foll.). Called with his brother James, immediately after Peter and Andrew
(Matt. iv. 18, 19, 21), he left all things to follow Christ, and became
the best beloved of all the disciples. With Peter and his own brother
James he was permitted to witness the raising to life of the daughter of
Jairus, and to be present at the transfiguration on Thabor, and the agony
in Gethsemane (Mark v. 27; Matt. xvii. 1; Matt. xxvi. 37). He was
privileged to recline on his Master’s bosom at the Last Supper (John
xviii. 23), and to him alone was given from the cross the blessed trust of
providing for the Mother of God (John xix. 27). Nor did he fail to return
love for love. When the Apostles fled in terror from Gethsemane (Mark xiv.
50), Peter and John followed Jesus into the court of the High‐priest (John
xviii. 15); and at the last tragic scene on Calvary, our Evangelist, brave
with the courage begotten of love, was still close to his Master (John
xix. 26).

After the descent of the Holy Ghost, St. John, with St. Peter, took a
leading part in establishing the Church. He and Peter were the first to
suffer imprisonment for preaching the faith of Christ (Acts iv. 2, 3);
and, again in company with Peter, he was chosen to go down from Jerusalem,
and confer the Sacrament of Confirmation on the converted Samaritans. How
long he remained in Palestine, we cannot say with certainty. When St. Paul
went up to the Council of Jerusalem, in 47 A.D.,(7) he found St. John
there; but whether our Apostle had himself gone up specially to the
Council, or had hitherto confined his preaching to Palestine, it seems
impossible to say, for St. Peter was there too, though he had been already
Bishop of Antioch, and was then Bishop of Rome.

In addition to the preceding facts gleaned from the New Testament, we
learn from tradition that the saint remained in Jerusalem till after the
Blessed Virgin’s death (Niceph., _H. E._, ii. 42); that he subsequently
preached in Asia Minor, and, probably after the martyrdom of St. Paul (67
A.D.), settled at Ephesus (Origen, _apud._ Euseb., _H. E._, iii. 1). In
the reign of Domitian (81‐96 A.D.) he was taken to Rome, and thrown into a
cauldron of boiling oil, from which he came forth unhurt (Tertull., _De
Praescr._ 36).(8) He was then banished to the island of Patmos, in the
Aegean Sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse; was liberated on the accession
of Nerva (96‐98 A.D.), and allowed to return to Ephesus, where he lived to
an extreme old age, and died in the sixty‐eighth year after our Lord’s
Passion (Jer., _Advers. Jovin_, i. 14), _i.e._, about 101 of the Dionysian
era.

III.—For Whom Written, And With What Object.

St. Jerome tells us that the fourth Gospel was written for the Christians
of Asia Minor, and at their request.(9)

The object or scope of the Gospel was threefold:—

1. To prove that Jesus was the Son of God made man, and that all
supernatural life must come to us through faith in His name. Hence he
tells us in the very beginning that “the Word was God ... and the Word was
made flesh, and dwelt amongst us” (John i. 14); and in xx. 31: “But these
are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,
and that believing you may have life in His name.”

2. As connected with the preceding, indirectly to refute the heresies of
the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Nicolaites,(10) all of whom erred in
regard to either the Divinity or humanity of Christ. See below IX., and
Cornely, iii., † 64.

3. To supplement the three Synoptic Gospels. So nearly all the fathers.
And, indeed, it is perfectly evident that an Evangelist who is entirely
silent regarding the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, and who
introduces Him abruptly to the reader at the beginning of His public life,
cannot have meant to write a complete life of Christ. And since St. John
wrote many years after the other Evangelists, it is not surprising to find
that his work partakes more of a supplemental character than any of the
Synoptic Gospels.

IV.—Outline Of The Plan Of The Gospel.

What has just been said regarding the object of the Gospel will enable us
to form a general conception of its plan. It must be carefully borne in
mind that St. John did not intend to write a Life of Christ, nor to give a
general view of His teaching, nor to compile a work on the general history
of his own times. His main object was to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was
the Son of God; and the various parts of the Gospel are carefully disposed
with a view to this end. Out of the vast mass of materials at his disposal
(xxi. 25; xx. 30) he selects such incidents, such miracles and discourses
of our Lord, as are best suited to the attainment of this special purpose.
In accordance with this view, we subjoin a brief outline of the _plan_ of
the Gospel.

I. 1‐18.

*The Prologue.* The Word in His absolute, eternal Being; in His relation
to creation generally, and to the spiritual enlightenment and
sanctification of man; His incarnation.

I. 19‐XXI. 23.

_The Narrative_, which divides itself naturally into two parts:—

(_a_) I. 19‐XII. 50. Manifestation of Christ’s Divinity in His _Public
Life_—

By the testimony of the Baptist.

By the testimony of His disciples.

By the testimony of His miracles.

By the testimony of His discourses.

(_b_) XIII. 1‐XXI. 23. Manifestation of Christ’s Divinity in His last
discourses, and in His passion, death, resurrection, and risen life.

XXI. 24, 25.

*The Epilogue*, in which the beloved disciple testifies that he is the
author of the Gospel, and that what he has written is true, though
incomplete.

V.—Time And Place Of Writing.

The exact date of our Gospel is uncertain. One thing is absolutely
certain: that it was written after the other three Gospels. Some have
placed it almost as early as 70 A.D.; but the weight of evidence, external
and internal, places it in the last decade of the first century, that is
to say, between 90 and 100 A.D.

There is great doubt, too, as to the place where it was written. Irenæus
distinctly states that it was written at Ephesus,(11) and many of the
fathers are of the same opinion. On the other hand, a large number of
ancient writers hold, that, like the Apocalypse, it was written in Patmos.
See Patrizzi, lib. i., cap. iv., § 86, who himself inclines to the latter
view.

VI.—Integrity.

With the exception of three passages: v. 4, vii. 53‐viii. 11, and the
whole of the last chapter, which have been attacked as interpolations, the
integrity of the fourth Gospel has not been seriously questioned. These
passages we shall examine as they occur, and there discuss the question of
their authenticity.

VII.—Language.

It is certain that St. John wrote in Greek. Such has been the opinion of
all writers, and it is proved by the fact that he wrote for the Christians
of Asia Minor, whose language we know was Greek.

VIII.—Christ’s Discourses In The Gospel.

St. John’s Gospel has this peculiarity, that it is made up, in great part,
of Christ’s discourses. Judging from the attention which the Evangelist
seems to pay to the order of time, we feel sure that these discourses are
reported in the chronological order in which they were delivered.

But are they reported in the very words used by Christ? We feel convinced
that they are not. The important heads of doctrine, such as iii. 3, 5,
bearing on baptism; or vi. 48, 52, regarding the Blessed Eucharist, are,
doubtless, reported in almost(12) the exact words of our Lord. But the
discourses generally we believe to be reported merely in substance. For
this was sufficient for the Evangelist’s purpose; and, therefore, we have
no reason to suppose a miraculous assistance which would enable him to
remember every word. No doubt the Evangelist had the assistance of
inspiration; but the Catholic view of inspiration warrants us in believing
that in general the ideas only, and not the words, were inspired. We thus
get rid of the Rationalist difficulty that the discourses must be
fictitious, because, they say, no human memory could retain such long
discourses for more than half a century. For in our view it is only the
substance of the discourses that is handed down, and, even if we
abstracted altogether from the assistance given him by inspiration, it is
not difficult to believe that the young and retentive mind of a loving
disciple would treasure up and retain the substance of his Divine Master’s
discourses, aided as it must have been by the fact that these discourses,
besides being the food of his daily meditation, were doubtless again and
again repeated in his apostolic preaching.

IX.—Errors Combated In The Gospel.

There is not one of all the many heresies that have arisen regarding the
Person and natures of Jesus Christ that may not be refuted from the Gospel
of St. John. We intend, however, to speak here only of those errors which
had already arisen in the time of the Evangelist, and against which,
therefore, his Gospel was immediately directed. What these were we learn
from SS. Irenæus and Jerome. The former distinctly says that our Gospel
was directed against the errors of *Cerinthus*, and of “those who are
called *Nicolaites*” (see above, III. 2, note); while the latter says that
it was directed against *Cerinthus*, and *other heretics, especially the
Ebionites*.(13) It is important for us, then, in approaching the study of
this Gospel to understand what was the nature of these errors against
which it was directed.

*Cerinthus*, though professing belief in a Supreme Being, held that the
world was not made by Him, but by an inferior _power_ (virtus) distinct
from Him, and ignorant of Him. (2) That Jesus was not born of a Virgin,
but the child of Joseph and Mary, born according to the ordinary course of
nature. (3) That Christ (the Word) was quite distinct from Jesus; that,
however, He had descended upon Jesus immediately after the latter’s
baptism, and remained with Him filling His soul till shortly before the
Passion; that then Christ departed from Jesus, who suffered and died a
_mere_ man, while Christ suffered nothing, being indeed entirely spiritual
and impassible.(14)

The *Ebionites*, unlike the Cerinthians, admitted that the world was
created by God, but, like them, denied that Christ was anything but a mere
man. They scrupulously observed the Mosaic Law, which they held to be
_obligatory_, by the observance of which Jesus had merited to be called
Christ, and through which every man was able to become a Christ.(15)

About the doctrine of the *Nicolaites*, which they claimed to have derived
from Nicolas the Deacon (Acts vi. 5), we know nothing definite; but it is
generally held that it was akin to that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites.

Among the “other heretics” alluded to by St. Jerome in the passage cited
above were, doubtless, the *Simonians* (followers of Simon Magus, Acts
viii. 9, and foll.), and the *Docetae*.

The *Simonians* agreed with the Cerinthians in denying that the world was
made by God, and that Jesus was God, and St. Irenæus speaks of them as the
originators of the Gnostic heresy. “Simoniani a quibus _falsi nominis
scientia_ accepit initia.” (_Adv. Haer._, i. xxxiii. 4.)

The *Docetae* (δοκεῖν = to seem) held that Christ had only the
_appearance_ of a human body; and hence, that His sufferings and death
were not real, but apparent.

CHAPTER I.

1‐18. *The prologue*(*16*)* declares the Word’s eternity, distinct
personality, and essential unity with God; His relations with
creation generally, and with man in particular; His incarnation,
and the fulness of grace, and perfection of revelation attained
through Him.*

19‐34. *Some of the Baptist’s testimonies to Christ.*

35‐51. *Circumstances in which Christ’s first disciples were
called.*

1. In principio erat Verbum, 1. In the beginning was the
et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Word, and the Word was with
Deus erat Verbum. God, and the Word was God.

1. *In the beginning.* These words most probably mean here, as in Gen. i.
1, at the beginning of all created things; in other words, when time
began. Their meaning must always be determined from the context. Thus we
know from the context in Acts xi. 15, that St. Peter there uses them in
reference to the beginning of the Gospel. Similarly, the context here
determines the reference to be to the beginning of creation; for He who is
here said to have been in the beginning, is declared in verse 3 to be the
creator of all things, and must therefore have already been in existence
at their beginning.

Others, however, have interpreted the words differently. Many of the
fathers understood them to mean: in the Father, and took this first clause
of v. 1, as a declaration that the Word was in the Father. But, though it
is quite true to say that the Word was and is in the Father (x. 38), both
being consubstantial, still such does not seem to be the sense of the
phrase before us. Had St. John meant to state this, surely he would have
written: In God, or, in the Father, was the Word. He names God in the next
two clauses: _And the Word was with God, and the Word was God_. Why then
should he at the risk of being misunderstood, refer to Him in this first
clause under another name? Besides, if this first clause stated the Word’s
consubstantiality with the Father, the third clause: _And the Word was
God_, would then be tautological.

Many of the commentators also urge against this view, that if the first
clause meant, in God (or, in the Father) was the Word, the _second_ clause
would be merely a repetition. But we cannot assent to this, since, as we
shall see, the second clause would add the important statement of the
Word’s distinct personality. However, the view seems to us improbable for
the other reasons already stated.

Others take “beginning” here to mean eternity, so that we should have in
this first clause a _direct_ statement of the Word’s eternity. But against
this is the fact that ἀρχη (beginning) nowhere else bears this meaning,
and can be satisfactorily explained in a different sense here. Hence, as
already explained, “in the beginning” means: when time began.

*Was* (ἦν), _i.e._, was _already_ in existence. Had St. John meant to
declare that at the dawn of creation the Word began to exist, he would
have used ἐγένετο as he does in verse 3 regarding the beginning of the
world, and again in verse 6 regarding the coming of the Baptist. This
cannot fail to be clear to anyone who contrasts verses 1, 2, 4, and 9 of
this chapter with verses 3, 6, and 14. In the former ἦν is used throughout
in reference to the eternal existence of the Word;(17) in the latter
ἐγένετο, when there is question of the beginning of created things (3), or
of the coming of the Baptist (6), or of the assumption by the Word of
human nature at the incarnation (14). At the beginning of creation, then,
the Word was already in existence; and hence it follows that He must be
uncreated, and therefore eternal. St. John’s statement here that the Word
was already in existence in the beginning, is, accordingly, equivalent to
our Lord’s claim to have existed _before_ the world was (xvii. 5), and in
both instances the Word’s eternity, though not directly stated, follows
immediately. Hence we find that the Council of Nice and the fathers
generally inferred, against the Arians, the eternity of the Son of God
from this first clause of verse 1. “If He was in the beginning,” says St.
Basil (_De Div._, _Hom._ xvi. 82), “when was He not?”

*The Word* (ὁ λόγος). St. John here, as well as in his First Epistle (i.
1), and in the Apocalypse (xix. 13), designates by this term the Second
Divine Person. That he speaks of no mere abstraction, or attribute of God,
but of a Being who is a distinct Divine Person, is clear. For this “Word
was with God, was God, was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us,” and in the
person of Jesus Christ was witnessed to by the Baptist (i. 1, 14, 15, 29,
30). Outside the writings of St. John there is no _clear_(18) instance in
either Old or New Testament of this use of the term λόγος. Throughout the
rest of the Scriptures its usual meaning is _speech_ or _word_.

What, then, we may ask, led our Evangelist, in the beginning of his
Gospel, to apply this term rather than Son, or Son of God, to the Second
Divine Person? Why did he not say: In the beginning was the Son?

Apart from inspiration, which, of course, may have extended to the
suggestion of an important word like the present, apart also from the
appropriateness of the term, of which we shall speak in a moment, it seems
very probable that St. John was impelled to use the term λόγος because it
had been already used by the heretics of the time in the expression of
their errors.(19) Endowed, too, as St. John was, like the other Apostles,
with a special power of understanding the Sacred Scriptures (Luke xxiv.
46), and privileged as he had been on many an occasion to listen to the
commentaries of Christ Himself on the Old Testament, he may have been
able, where we are not, to see clearly in the Old Testament instances in
which λόγος refers to the Son of God; _e.g._, “Verbo (τῷ λόγῳ) Domini
coeli firmati sunt” (Psalm xxxii. 6).

One thing, at all events, is quite plain, that, whatever may be said
regarding his reason for the application of this _term_ to the Son of God,
St. John did not borrow his _doctrine_ regarding the λόγος from Plato or
Philo or the Alexandrian School. For though the term (λόγος) is frequently
met with in the writings of both Plato and Philo, yet Plato never speaks
of it as a person, but only as an attribute of God; and Philo, though in
our opinion, he held the distinct personality of the Word, yet denied that
he was God, or the creator of matter, which latter Philo held to be
eternal. As to the Alexandrian School, to which Philo belonged, and of
whose doctrines he is the earliest witness, there is not a shadow of
foundation for saying that any of its doctors held the same doctrine as
St. John regarding the Divine Word.

From the teaching of Christ, then, or by inspiration, or in both ways, our
Evangelist received the sublime doctrine regarding the λόγος with which
his Gospel opens.

Having now inquired into the origin of the term λόγος as applied to the
Son of God, and having learned the source whence St. John derived his
doctrine regarding this Divine Word, let us try to understand how it is
that the Son of God could be appropriately referred to as *the Word* (ὁ
λόγος). Many answers have been given, but we will confine ourselves to the
one that seems to us most satisfactory.

We believe, and profess in the Athanasian Creed (Filius a Patre solo est
non factus, nec creatus, sed _genitus_), that the Son is begotten by the
Father; and it is the common teaching that He is begotten through the
Divine intellect. Now, this mysterious procession of the Son from the
Father through the intellect, is implied here in His being called the
Word. For, as our word follows, without passion or carnal feeling, from
our thought, as it is the reflex of our thought, from which it detracts
nothing, and which it faithfully represents; so, only in an infinitely
more perfect way, the Son of God proceeded, without passion or any carnal
imperfection, through the intellect of the Father, detracting nothing from
Him who begot Him, being the image of the Father, “the figure of His
substance.” (Heb. i. 3.) “Verbum proprie dictum,” says St. Thomas, “in
Divinis personaliter accipitur, et est proprium nomen personae filii,
significat enim quamdam emanationem intellectus. Persona autem quae
procedit in Divinis secundum emanationem intellectus, dicitur filius, et
hujusmodi processio dicitur generatio” (St. Thom., 1 Qu. 34, a. 2 c.)

*And the Word was with God* (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν). Πρός here signifies not
motion towards, but a living union with, God.(20) God refers not to the
Divine Nature, but to the Divine Person of the Father (see 1 John i. 2);
otherwise the _Verbum_ would be unnecessarily and absurdly said here to be
with Himself, since He is the Divine Nature terminated in the Second
Person. Many commentators are of opinion that the use of πρός (with), and
not ἐν (in), proves that the _Verbum_ is not a mere attribute of the
Father, but a distinct Person. So Chrys., Cyril, Theophy., A Lap.,
Patrizzi, M’Evilly.

*And the Word was God.* As our English version indicates, *Word* is the
subject of this clause, God the predicate, for in the Greek λόγος has the
article, Θεός wants it; and besides, as appears from the whole context,
St. John is declaring what the Word is, not what God is. A desire to begin
this clause with the last word of the clause preceding—a favourite
construction with St. John (see verses 4 and 5)—may have led to the
inversion in the original. Or the inversion may have been intended to
throw the Divinity of the Word into greater prominence by placing the
predicate before the verb.

Some, like Corluy, refer *God*, in this third clause, to the Divine
Nature, which is common to the three Divine Persons; others, as Patrizzi,
to the Divine Nature as terminated in the Second Divine Person. We prefer
the latter view, but in either interpretation we have in this clause a
declaration of the Divinity of the Word, a proof that cannot be gainsaid
of His essential unity with the Father. Nor does the absence of the Greek
article before “God” in this third clause, when taken in conjunction with
its presence in the second, imply, as the Arians held, that the Word is
inferior to the Father. For our Evangelist certainly refers sometimes to
the supreme Deity without using the article (i. 6, 12, 18); and the
absence of the article is sufficiently accounted for in the present case
by the fact that Θεός is a predicate standing before the copula.(21)

2. Hoc erat in principio apud 2. The same was in the
Deum. beginning with God.

2. *The same was in the beginning with God*. To emphasize the three great
truths contained in verse 1: namely, the Word’s eternity, His distinct
personality, and essential unity with the Father, they are repeated in
verse 2. The same, that is, this Word who is God, was in the beginning,
and was with God.

Various attempts have been made by the Unitarians to escape the invincible
argument for a Second Divine Person which these opening verses of our
Gospel contain. Thus, they put a full stop after the last “erat” of verse
1; and, taking the words in the order in which they occur in the Greek and
Latin, make the sense of the third clause: _And God was._ Then they join
“_verbum_,” the last word of verse 1, with verse 2: This Word was in the
beginning with God. But even if we granted to the Unitarians this
punctuation of the verses, the sense of the third clause would still be
that the Word was God, and not that God existed. For “Deus” (Θεός without
the article), in the beginning of the third clause ought still to be
regarded as the predicate, with “verbum” of the preceding clauses as the
subject. This follows not merely from the absence of the Greek article
already alluded to, but also from the absurdity of the Unitarian view,
which supposes that St. John thought it necessary, after telling us that
the Word was with God, to tell us that God existed!

Others have tried to explain away the text thus: At the beginning of the
Christian dispensation the Word existed, and the Word was most intimately
united to God by love. But, primum, they have still to explain how this
Word is declared Creator in verses 3 and 10; secundum, the statement in
verse 14: “And the Word was made flesh,” implies transition of the Word to
a state different from that in which He existed “in the beginning;” but
the time of the transition is just the commencement of the Christian
dispensation, which cannot, therefore, be the time referred to in verse 1
as “the beginning.”

3. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: 3. All things were made by
et sine ipso factum est nihil, him: and without him was made
quod factum est, nothing that was made.
4. in ipso vita erat, et vita 4. In him was life, and the
erat lux hominum: life was the light of men.

3. St. John passes on to the relations of the Word with creatures. *All
things* (πάντα = τὰ πάντα, 1 Cor. viii. 6, Col. i. 16). The passages
indicated, as well as verse 10 of this chapter: _the world was made by
Him_, make it clear that the Son of God created all things. Nor could this
doctrine be more plainly stated than in the words before us: _All things
were made by Him_, &c. How absurd, then, is the Socinian view, according
to which St. John merely tells us here that all Christian virtues were
introduced, and the whole _moral_ world established by Christ!

*Were made* ἐγένετο, _i.e._, got their whole _being_ from Him, and not
merely were fashioned by Him from pre‐existing matter. The Cerinthian
theory, that the world was made by an inferior being, is here rejected.
*By Him* (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ). We are not to suppose that the Word was an
instrument in the hands of the Father, or inferior to the Father, as the
Arians held. The preposition διά (per) is often used in reference to a
principal efficient cause. Thus, St. Paul says of the Father: God is
faithful, _by whom_ (δι᾽ οὗ) you are called unto the fellowship of His
Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord (1 Cor. i. 9. See also 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i.
1, Gal. iv. 27, Heb. ii. 10.) And since our Evangelist has just declared
in verse 1 the Word’s divinity, and knew Him to be one with the Father (x.
30), it cannot be implied here that the Word is inferior to the Father.
Some commentators hold that there is no special significance in the use
here of the preposition διά, while others see in it an allusion to the
fact that the Son proceeds from the Father, and derives from Him His
creative power. According to these, creation is _from_ the Father, but
_through_ the Son, because the Son has received His creative power,
together with His essence, from the Father and is not, therefore, like the
Father, “principium sine principio.”

Others think that since all things were created according to the Divine
idea, _i.e._, according to the Divine and eternal wisdom, and since the
Word is that wisdom, therefore all things are rightly said to have been
created through the Word. So St. Thomas on this verse:—“Sic ergo Deus
nihil facit nisi per conceptum sui intellectus, qui est sapientia ab
aeterno concepta, scilicet Dei Verbum, et Dei Filius; et ideo impossibile
est quod aliquid faciat nisi per Filium.” In this view, which seems to us
the most probable, though like all the Divine works that are “ad extra,”
_i.e._ do not terminate in God Himself, creation is common to the Three
Divine Persons, yet, for the reason indicated, it is rightly said to be
through the Son.

*And without him was made nothing* (οὐδὲ ἕν = not anything, emphatic for
οὐδέν nothing) *that was made* (Gr.: hath been made). By a Hebrew
parallelism the same truth is repeated negatively: all things were made by
Him, and nothing was made without Him. To this negative statement,
however, there is added, according to the method of pointing the passage
common at present, an additional clause which gives us the meaning:
nothing was made without Him, of all the things that have been made. This
restrictive clause may then be understood to imply that, together with the
Word, there was something else uncreated, that is to say (besides the
Father, whose uncreated existence would be admitted by all) the Holy Ghost
also.

In this way after the Macedonian heresy arose in the middle of the fourth
century, and blasphemously held that the Word had made the Holy Ghost,
because without Him was made nothing, many of the Fathers replied: Nothing
was made without the Word, of the things that were made; but the Holy
Ghost was not made at all, and is therefore not included among the things
made by the Word. However, this restriction is not necessary to defend the
Divinity of the Holy Ghost. Even though we understand it to be stated
absolutely that nothing was made without the Son, no difficulty can
follow; for the Holy Ghost was not _made_ (ἐγένετο), but _was_ (ἦν) from
all eternity, as is clearly implied elsewhere. John xvi. 13, 14.

On dogmatic grounds, therefore, there is no necessity for connecting:
_Quod factum est_, in the end of verse 3, with the preceding. And, as a
matter of fact, all the writers of the first three centuries seem to have
connected these words with verse 4,(22) and it appears to us very likely,
that it was because of the Macedonian heresy they began to be connected
with verse 3. St. Chrysostom certainly is very strong in connecting them
with verse 3, but the reason is because the heretics of the time were
abusing the other connection to support their errors. “For neither will
we,” he says, “put a full stop after that ‘nothing,’ as the heretics do”
(Chrysostom on John, Hom. v). We must not, however, conclude, from this
remark of St. Chrysostom that it was the heretics alone who did so; for,
as we have said already, such was the ordinary way of connecting the
clauses during the first three centuries; and it is supported not only by
the Fathers, but by the oldest Latin MSS., and by some of the oldest Greek
MSS. And even after the Macedonian heretics had abused this passage to
blaspheme the Holy Ghost, the old pointing, or to speak more correctly the
old method of connecting the clauses, remained the more common.(23) Not
only did Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine, and Venerable Bede, and St.
Thomas, and a host of others read in this way, but Maldonatus, who himself
prefers the connection in our English version: “Without Him was made
nothing that was made,” admits that the usage of his time was against him,
and that it was then the practice to put a full stop after “nothing”:
“Without Him was made nothing.” Nor can the Sixtine or Clementine edition
of the Vulgate be appealed to in favour of our present pointing. As a
matter of fact, the Sixtine edition _rejected_ it, printing thus: “Et sine
ipso factum est nihil: quod factum est in ipso vita erat;” while the
Clementine Bible left the matter undecided by printing thus: “Et sine ipso
factum est nihil, quod factum est, in ipso vita erat,” &c. We cannot,
therefore, understand to what Roman Bibles A Lapide refers when he says
that the Bibles corrected at Rome connect thus: “And without Him was made
nothing that was made.”

We think it extremely probable, then, that the words: Quod factum est
(_that was made_, or, as we shall render in our interpretation; _what was
made_), standing at present in the end of verse 3, are to be connected
with verse 4. Some may be inclined to blame us for departing from what is
at present the received connection of the words in such a well‐known
passage as this. Let us, therefore, sum up briefly the evidence that has
forced us, we may say reluctantly, to connect the words with verse 4.

1. Though Maldonatus tries to throw doubt upon the fact, this is the
connection adopted by practically all, if not all, the Fathers and other
writers of the first three centuries, and by the majority of writers
afterwards down to the sixteenth century.

2. It is supported by the oldest MSS. of the Vulgate, and, what is more
remarkable, by some of the oldest Greek MSS., notwithstanding the fact
that St. Chrysostom was against it.

3. The parallelism in the verse is better brought out: _All things were
made by Him, and without Him was made nothing._

4. If _Quod factum est_ were intended to be connected with the preceding,
the clause would be certainly unnecessary, and apparently useless, because
it is plain without it that the Evangelist is speaking of what was _made_,
and not including any uncreated Being, like the Father or the Holy Ghost.

We prefer, then, to connect: _Quod factum est_, with what follows. But it
still remains for us to inquire in what way precisely the connection is to
be made, for various views have been held upon the subject.

*A.* Some connect thus: What was made in (_i.e._ by) Him, was life, and
the life was the light of men. *B.* Others thus: What was made was life in
Him, and the life was the light of men. *C.* Others again, adopting the
same punctuation as in the preceding, but understanding differently: What
was made in it was the Life, and the Life was the Light of men.

The last seems to us the correct view. For *A* is improbable, inasmuch as
it either declares all things to have life, or implies that though what
was made by the Word had life, yet there were other things wanting life,
which proceeded, as the Manichaeans held, from the evil principle.

Nor can we accept *B*, even as explained by St. Augustine in the sense
that all created things are in the mind of God, as the house before
building is in the mind of the architect; and that being in the mind of
God they are God Himself, and “life in Him.” For though this is in a
certain sense true, yet it seems to us unnatural to suppose that St. John
here, in this sublime exordium, thinks it necessary or useful to tell us
that the archetypes of created things lived in the Divine Mind. *C* then
appears to us to be the more probable view regarding the passage: “What
was made, in it was the Life;” or, more plainly: “In that which was made
was the Life;” for here, as elsewhere, St. John begins with the relative
(see i. 45, 1 John i. 1); so that, in this view, the Evangelist after
telling us the relations of the Word to all things at their beginning:
“All things were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing,” now goes
on to point out His relations to them after their creation: first, His
relations with things generally: “In that which was made was the Life,”
then his relations with man in the supernatural order: “And the Life was
the Light of men.”

5. Adopting this view as to the connection between verses 3 and 4, St.
Cyril of Alexandria thus explains: “The Life (ἡ ζωή), that is to say, the
Only‐begotten Son of God, was in all things that were made. For He, being
by nature life itself, imparts being, and life, and motion to the things
that are ... In all things that were made was the Life, that is, the Word
which was in the beginning. The Word, being essential life, was mingling
Himself by participation with all existing things.”

If it be objected to this interpretation that the first ζωή of verse 4,
not having the article, cannot mean the Eternal Life, _i.e._ the Divine
Word, we reply that St. Cyril, one of the greatest of the Greek Fathers,
thought differently; and moreover, that very many of the commentators who
are against us in the interpretation of this passage, are yet with us in
referring ζωή here to the uncreated life of the Divine Word.

But if we follow what is at present the common punctuation, and read: “In
Him was life,” this is commonly interpreted to mean that the Word is the
source of supernatural life to man. S. Amb., S. Ath., Tol., Mald., A Lap.,
Patr., Beel.

But this view is not without difficulty. For, first, if it be merely meant
that life comes to man through the Word, we might rather expect that the
preposition διά of the preceding verse would have been retained.

Secondly, if there be question here of the Word as the life of _man_, how
is it that it is only in the next clause that man is first mentioned?
Surely, if the opinion we are considering were correct, we should rather
expect St. John to have written: “In Him was the life of man, and the life
was the light.” For these reasons, and because of what we have stated
already in favour of connecting “Quod factum est” with what follows, we
prefer to understand this passage, with St. Cyril, as a statement that the
Word, the Essential Life, was present in all things, conserving them in
existence.

*And the Life was the Light of men.* In our view the meaning is that the
Word, the Life, who conserved all things in existence, was, moreover, in
the case of men, their Light—the source and author of their faith. Hence,
we suppose St. John, after referring to the creation of all things, in
verse 3, and the conservation of all things, in the beginning of verse 4,
to pass on now in the end of verse 4 to speak of that new creation that is
effected in man by means of a spiritual illumination: “All things were
made by (or through) Him, and without Him was made nothing. In that which
was made was the Life, and the Life was the Light of men.”

Those who interpret the beginning of the verse to mean that the spiritual
life of man comes through the Word, take the present clause as explaining
how that was so, how the Word was the Life; namely, inasmuch as He was the
Light. He was the source of our life of grace here and glory hereafter,
inasmuch as He was the source of our light, that is to say, our faith. And
some of them, as Patrizzi, hold that the order of the terms in this clause
is inverted, and that we should read: “the light of men was the life,”
“light of men” being the subject.

Maldonatus tells us that almost all writers before his time understood
“light of men” in reference to the light of reason. However, this view is
now generally abandoned, and rightly, for that man owed his reason to the
Word has been already implied in verse 3: “All things were made by Him.”
Besides, the “light” of this fourth verse is doubtless the same as that of
verse 5, which _men did not receive_, and of verse 7, to which the Baptist
was to bear witness. But in neither of the latter verses can there be
question of the light of reason; hence, neither is there in verse 4. The
meaning, then, is that He who was the preserver of all things was moreover
the source of the _spiritual_ light of men.

5. Et lux in tenebris lucet, 5. And the light shineth in
et tenebrae eam non darkness, and the darkness did
comprehenderunt. not comprehend it.
6. Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui 6. There was a man sent from
nomen erat Johannes. God, whose name was John.

5. *And the light shineth.* The meaning is, that the Word, as the source
and author of faith, was always, as far as in Him lay, enlightening men.
*Shineth*—the present tense is used, though the latter part of the verse
shows that the past also is meant: “The light shineth in the darkness, and
the darkness _did not_ comprehend it.” Probably the Evangelist avoids
using the past tense, lest it might be inferred that the Word had ceased
to shine. Besides, the present is more appropriate, seeing that, in the
sense explained, the Word shines _throughout all time_. From the beginning
the Word shone, as far as in Him lay. If men generally were not
enlightened, it was their own fault. But all who were saved from the
beginning, were saved through faith, and no one ever received the gift of
faith except in view of the merits of the Word Incarnate. “Nulli unquam
contigit vita nisi per lucem fidei, nulli lux fidei nisi intuitu Christi”
(St. August.)

*The darkness* is man shrouded in unbelief. See Luke i. 79, Eph. v. 8.

*And the darkness did not comprehend it.*(24) As we have just said, the
meaning is, that unbelieving men refused to be enlightened. Ordinarily,
indeed, light cannot shine in darkness without dispelling it; but in this
case the darkness was man, a free agent, capable of rejecting the light of
faith through which the Eternal Word was shining. In telling us that men
refused to be enlightened, the Evangelist is stating what was the general
rule, to which at all times there were noble exceptions.

6. The correct rendering of the Greek text is: *There came* (ἐγένετο) *a
man, sent by God, whose name was John*. This reference to the Baptist in
the middle of this sublime exordium is surprising, and has been variously
accounted for. Some think that our Evangelist, after having treated of the
Divinity of the Word, merely wishes, before going on to speak of the
incarnation, to refer to the precursor. But it seems most probable that
the Evangelist wished to remove at once the error of those who, impressed
by the austerity and sanctity of the Baptist’s life, had looked upon him
as the Messias. If any of them still remained at the time when St. John
wrote, or should arise afterwards, they are here told that the Baptist,
though having his mission from Heaven, was only a man intended to bear
witness to Christ. Thus the superior excellence of Christ is thrown into
relief from the fact that a great saint like the Baptist was specially
sent by Heaven to be His herald. The reference in this verse is to the
Baptist’s coming into the world, at his conception, rather than to the
beginning of his preaching, for at the moment of his conception, he came,
sent by God to be the herald of Christ. See Luke i. 13‐17.

*John* is the same name as Jochanan (וחנן), which is itself a shortened
form of Jehochanan = Jehovah hath had mercy. This name was appointed for
the Baptist, before his conception, by the Archangel Gabriel, Luke i. 13.

7. Hic venit in testimonium, 7. This man came for a
ut testimonium perhiberet de witness, to give testimony of
lumine, ut omnes crederent per the light, that all men might
illum: believe through him.
8. Non erat ille lux, sed ut 8. He was not the light, but
testimonium perhiberet de was to give testimony of the
lumine. light.
9. Erat lux vera, quae 9. That was the true light,
illuminat omnem hominem which enlighteneth every man
venientem in hunc mundum that cometh into this world.

7. This man came for witness, namely, in order that he might bear witness
of _the light_, that is to say, the Incarnate Word, to the end that
through him all might believe in the Word.

8. *He was not the light* (τὸ φῶς), that is, he was not the great
uncreated light which enlighteneth all men; though, in his own way, the
Baptist too was a light, nay, as Christ Himself testified “the lamp that
burneth and shineth.” (v. 35). Ἵνα depends on ἦλθεν (he came), which is to
be understood from the preceding verse.

9. *That was the true light* (or, there was the true light), *which
enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world*. The Greek of this
verse may be construed and translated in three different ways:—1. By
connecting ἦν with ἐρχόμενον: The true light, which enlighteneth every
man, was coming into this world. 2. By taking ἐρχόμενον as a nominative
agreeing with φῶς: There was the true light which _at its coming_ into the
world, enlighteneth every man (iii. 19.) 3. By connecting ἐρχόμενον with
ἄνθρωπον, as in the Vulgate and our English version. This is far the most
probable view. In favour of it we have all the Latin Fathers, all the
Greek Fathers except one, and all the ancient versions. Besides, ἐρχόμενον
is thus connected with the nearest substantive with which it agrees in
form. Add to this that the second opinion, the more probable of the other
two, would seem to signify that the Word was not a light to all men before
His coming, but only at His coming; and this, as we have explained above
on verse 5, is false. The meaning, then, is that the Word was the true,
_i.e._ the perfect light, and as far as in Him lies enlighteneth at all
times every man that cometh into this world, be he Jew or Gentile. *That
cometh into this world*, is in our view a Hebrew form of expression
equivalent to: that is born. It is used only here in the New Testament,
but “to be born” was commonly expressed by Jewish Rabbins by בוא בעולס (to
come into the world).

10. In mundo erat et mundus 10. He was in the world, and
per ipsum factus est, et the world was made by him, and
mundus eum non cognovit. the world knew him not.

10. *He was in the world.* The Word, not the light, is the subject here,
as is proved by the masculine pronoun αὐτόν towards the end of the verse.
It is disputed to what presence of the Word in the world there is
reference here. Almost all the Fathers understood the reference to be to
the presence of the Word in the world before the incarnation. According to
this view, which is held also by A Lapide, the Word was in the world, in
the universe, conserving what He had created, “sustaining all things by
the word of His power” (Heb. i. 3). God is everywhere present by His
essence, by His knowledge, and by His power; but it is of the latter
presence, which could be known, that the view we are considering
understands this clause.

Maldonatus, though he admits that the Fathers are against him, holds that
the reference is to the mortal life of the Word Incarnate. He argues from
the fact that the world is blamed, in the next clause, for not having
known the Word; but knowledge of the Word was impossible before the
incarnation. It was possible indeed to know there was a God, but
impossible to know the Second Divine Person, the Word. Whatever may be
thought of the probability of this second view, the arguments ordinarily
adduced against it, from the use of the imperfect “erat” (ἦν) and from the
alleged fact that all the preceding verses refer to the Word before His
incarnation, have no weight. For the imperfect may be used not in
reference to Christ’s existence before His incarnation, but to show that
He not merely appeared among men, but _continued_ to dwell for a time
among them; and the statement that everything before this verse refers to
the Word before His incarnation, cannot be sustained. For the “Light” to
which the Baptist came to bear witness (v. 7) was not the Word before His
incarnation, but the Word Incarnate, as is evident. According to this
second opinion, verse 11: He came unto His own, and His own received Him
not, merely emphasizes the ingratitude of the world towards the incarnate
Word by showing that He was rejected even by His own chosen people.

*And the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.* Those who
interpret the first clause of this verse of the existence of the Word in
the world before the incarnation, understand the world to be blamed, in
the remainder of the verse, for its ignorance of its Creator. The world is
not blamed, they say, for not knowing the Word as the Second Divine
Person, for such knowledge it could not have gathered from the works of
creation, but for not knowing God (Rom. i. 20), who is one in nature with
the Word.

Those who interpret the first part of the verse of the presence of Christ
on earth during His mortal life, hold that in the remainder the world is
blamed for not recognising the Word Incarnate as the Son of God, and
Second Divine Person. The meaning of the whole verse then, in this view,
is: that though the Son of God, who created the world, deigned to live
among men, yet they refused to recognise Him as God.

11. In propria venit, et sui 11. He came unto his own, and
eum non receperunt. his own received him not.

11. *He came unto his own.* It is clear from what we have said on the
preceding verse, that some take this to be the first reference to the
presence on earth of the Word Incarnate; while others regard it as merely
repeating the idea of the preceding verse, with the additional
circumstance that even _His own_ refused to recognise Christ. Some few
have held that the reference here is to the transient coming of the Word
in the apparitions of the Old Testament. But all the Fathers understood
the verse of the coming of the Word as man, and the verses that follow
prove their view to be correct. *His own* is understood by many of His own
world, which He had created; but we prefer to take it as referring to His
own chosen people, the Jews. “Verbum inter Judæos veniens, natumque ex
gente Judæorum, quos sibi Deus elegerat in populum peculiarem (Deut. xiv.
2) percommode dicitur venisse εἰς τὰ ἴδια atque ipsi Judaei Verbo ἴδιοι
esse dicuntur,” Patriz.

*And his own received him not.* That is to say, believed not in Him, but
rejected Him. This was the general rule, to which, of course, there were
exceptions, as the following verse shows. These words together with the
two following verses, we take to be a parenthetic reflexion on the
reception Christ met with, and the happy consequences to some.

12. Quotquot autem receperunt 12. But as many as received
eum, dedit eis potestatem him, he gave them power to be
filios Dei fieri, his qui made the sons of God, to them
credunt in nomine eius. that believe in his name.
13. Qui non ex sanguinibus, 13. Who are born, not of
neque ex voluntate carnis blood, nor of the will of the
neque ex voluntate viri, sed flesh, nor of the will of man,
ex Deo nati sunt. but of God.

12. There were some, however, who believed in Him, or, according to the
Hebraism, in His name, and to these, _whether Jews or Gentiles_, He gave
power to become adopted children of God. That is to say, after they had
co‐operated with His grace and believed, He mercifully gave them further
grace whereby they could be justified, and thus be God’s adopted children.
The last words of this verse: *To them that believe in His name*, explain
what is meant in the beginning of the verse by receiving Him.

13. Some commentators have found great difficulty in this verse, because
they supposed that those who in the preceding verse are said to have got
the power to become children of God are here said to have been already
born of God. But the difficulty vanishes, it seems to us, if verse 13 be
taken as explaining not what those who believed were before they became
sons of God, but the _nature of the filiation_, to which those who
believed got power to raise themselves. It is not faith that makes them
sons of God, but through faith (not as a meritorious cause, but as a
condition) they attained to charity, which made them children of God. This
too is all that is meant in 1 Jn. v. 1. It is not meant that by believing
they are _eo ipso_, through faith alone, sons of God. Faith, as the
Council of Trent lays down, is the root of justification, but it is not
the formal nor even the meritorious cause of justification; it is a
condition “sine qua non.” And just as St. Paul attributes justification to
faith without meaning that it is of itself sufficient, so St. John (1 John
v. 1) attributes to faith Divine sonship without meaning that it comes
from faith alone. See Decrees of the Council of Trent, Sess. vi. Chap. vi.
and viii. The meaning of the two verses, according to this view, is, that
as many as received Christ by believing in Him, got power to become
children of God, children who _were_ born (ἐγεννήθησαν) not of
_bloods_,(25) nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God. Thus verse 13 explains that these sons of God were born not in a
carnal but in a spiritual manner. “Tria hic de generatione humana sic
exponit St. Thomas: _ex sanguinibus_, ut ex causa materiali; _ex voluntate
carnis_,(26) ut ex causa efficiente quantum ad concupiscentiam (in qua est
voluntas sensitiva); _ex voluntate viri_, ut ex causa efficiente
intellectuali (libere actum conjugalem perficiente).” Corl.

To be born of God, implies that we are transferred into a new life wherein
we become in some sense partakers of the Divine nature (2 Pet. i. 4).
Through the seed of Divine grace we are begotten anew and raised to this
higher life.

14. Et Verbum caro factum est, 14. And the Word was made
et habitavit in nobis: et flesh, and dwelt among us (and
vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam we saw his glory, the glory as
quasi Unigeniti a Patre, it were of the only‐begotten
plenum gratiae et veritatis. of the Father) full of grace
and truth.

14. After the reflexion in verses 12 and 13 on the way Christ was received
by men, the Evangelist now states the _manner_ in which He came; namely,
by taking human nature. According to some, the first “and” is equivalent
to “for.” “After He had said that those who received Him are born of God
and sons of God, He adds the cause of this unspeakable honour, namely,
that the Word was made flesh.” (St. Chrys.). Others, however, think that
“and” has merely its ordinary conjunctive force. Note that Ὁ λόγος, not
mentioned since verse 1, is again named, for emphasis, and to put it
beyond doubt or cavil that it is the same Eternal God of verse 1 who is
declared to have become man in verse 14. *Flesh* is a Hebraism for man.
See also Gen. vi. 12; Isai. xl. 5; Ps. lv. 5; John xvii. 2. Probably it is
used here specially against the Docetae, heretics who denied that Christ
had really taken flesh, which they contended was essentially polluted and
corrupt.

“Docetae discernebant in homine tria principia τὴν σάρκα, τὴν ψυχήν, et
τὸν νοῦν vel τὸ πνεῦμα. Duo priora habebant ut essentialiter polluta, cum
quibus ideo Verbum hypostatice uniri non posset. St. Joannes haec tria
Verbi hypostasi fuisse unita docet, τὴν σάρκα hoc loco; τὴν ψυχήν, John
xii. 27; τὸ πνεῦμα, xi. 33; xiii. 21; xix. 30,” Corluy, p. 40, note.

*And dwelt.* Many think, with St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril, that the Greek
verb used is employed specially to indicate that the Word did not cease to
be God when He became man, but _dwelt_ in His humanity as in a tent among
men.

*And we saw.* The Greek verb signifies to behold with attention. We beheld
not merely His human nature present among us, but we beheld His glory as
in the transfiguration, Matt. xvii. 1, and ascension, Acts i. 9, 11. For
glory, the Greek word is δόξα, the solemn Scriptural term for the glorious
majesty of God.

*The glory as it were* (quasi, Gr. ὡς) of the only‐begotten; _i.e._, glory
_such as was becoming_ the only‐begotten, &c. Beware of taking the meaning
to be: a glory like that of the Son of God, but not His. As St. Chrys.
points out, the ὡς here expresses not similitude, but the most real
identity(27): “As if he said: We have seen His glory such as it _was
becoming and right_ that the only begotten and true Son of God should
have.” S. Chrys. on John, Hom. xii. *Of the Father* should be *from the
Father*, and may be joined either with “glory,” or with “only‐
begotten.”(28)

*Full of grace and truth.* (πλήρης, in the nominative, is the correct
reading). This is to be connected closely with the beginning of the verse:
“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth,”
and the other clause, *And we saw His glory*, &c., is parenthetic, thrown
in to prove the preceding statement.

Christ is said to have been full of grace and truth, not merely in
Himself, but also, as the following verses prove, in reference to men with
whom He freely shared them. Kuinoel, followed by Patrizzi, understands by
“grace and truth” true grace or true benefits. But it is more natural to
take grace and truth as two distinct things, seeing that they are again
mentioned separately (ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια) in verse 17. Grace may be
understood in its widest sense; for not only had Christ the “gratia
unionis,” as it is called, whereby His humanity was hypostatically united
to the Divinity; but, moreover, His human soul was replenished to its
utmost capacity with created grace, which not only sanctified Him, but was
also through Him a source of sanctification to us. See St. Thomas, p. 2,
sec. 7, 8. Christ is said to be “full of truth,” not only because “all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him” (Col. ii. 3), but
also because, as verse 17 states, He gave us the knowledge of the true
faith and true way of salvation.

15. Ioannes testimonium 15. John beareth witness of
perhibet de ipso, et clamat, him, and crieth out, saying:
dicens: Hic erat quem dixi: This was he of whom I spoke:
Qui post me venturus est, ante He that shall come after me,
me factus est: quia prior me is preferred before me:
erat. because he was before me.

15. *John.* The Baptist (for it is he who is meant: comp. with John i. 27;
Mark i. 4, 7; Luke iii. 2, 16) is now referred to parenthetically, as
confirming what our Evangelist has said, namely, that the eternal Word
dwelt among men.

*Crieth out.* (Gr. perf. with pres. signif., Beel., _Gr. Gram._, § 41, 4
(B) note); viz., gives solemn, public testimony.

*This was he of whom I spoke* (rather, said). Some, like Patrizzi, think
that the testimony of the Baptist here referred to is a distinct testimony
not mentioned elsewhere. Others, and with more probability, hold that the
Evangelist mentions here by anticipation the same testimony whose
circumstances he describes in verses 29 and 30.

*He that shall come after me*, in His public ministry, *is preferred
before me, because he was before me*. Some commentators, as Kuinoel and
Patrizzi, understand “before” in both cases of _time_: is before Me,
because He is eternal; others, as St. Chrys. and Toletus, in both cases of
dignity: is preferred before Me, because really preferable; and others, as
our English version, with St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Beelen, Alford, in
the former case of dignity in the latter of time: is preferred before Me,
because He is eternal. The last seems the correct interpretation, and in
it the past tense “is preferred” (ante me factus est) is used
prophetically for the future, or may be explained as a past: has been
preferred in the designs of God.(29)

16. Et de plenitudine eius nos 16. And of his fulness we all
omnes accepimus, et gratiam have received, and grace for
pro gratia. grace.
17. Quia lex per Moysen data 17. For the law was given by
est, gratia et veritas per Moses, grace and truth came by
Iesum Christum facta est. Jesus Christ.

16. After the parenthetic clause contained in verse 15, the Evangelist,
not the Baptist, continues regarding the Word: *And of his fulness* (see
verse 14) *we have all received, and grace for grace*. The second “and” is
explanatory. *Grace for grace*; _i.e._—(1) the grace of eternal life
following on the grace of justification here; or (2) abundant grace,
according as the grace given to Christ was abundant: gratia nobis pro
gratia Christi (Rom. v. 15); or (3) the more perfect grace of the New Law,
instead of that given under the Old Law (Chrysostom, Cyril, Patrizzi); or
(4), and best, by a Hebraism, abundant grace. “aντ’i dicitur de
successione, gratiam unam post aliam (gratiam cumulatam).” (Beel., _Gr.
Gram._, § 51 A.) So also Kuin.

17. The Evangelist confirms what is stated in verse 16, and at the same
time takes occasion to prefer Christ to Moses, as he has already preferred
Him to the Baptist. Moses was but the medium of _communicating_ to the
Jews the Mosaic Law, which only pointed out man’s duty, without enabling
him to fulfil it—Rom. vii. 7, 8; but Christ was the _source_ and _author_
of grace and truth to us; of all the graces whereby we are to merit
heaven, and of the perfect knowledge of the true faith. This is,
doubtless, directed against some of the Judaizers, who held that
sanctification through the Mosaic Law was at all times possible, even
after the Christian religion was established.

18. Deum nemo vidit unquam: 18. No man hath seen God at
unigenitus Filius, qui est in any time: the only‐begotten
sinu Patris, ipse enarravit. Son who is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him.

18. There is considerable difference of opinion as to the drift or bearing
of this verse. Some think that a reason is given why only Christ could
give the truth, because only He saw God in His essence. Others, that a
reason is given why the gifts of Christ mentioned in the preceding verse,
are superior to the Law given by Moses, namely, because Moses never saw
God in His essence. Others, that the evangelist explains how he and his
fellow‐Apostles received of Christ’s fulness, not only through what Christ
did (17), but through what He taught (18); and the necessity for such a
Divine teacher is shown by the fact that no one but He ever saw God. So
St. Thomas.

Others, as Maldonatus and Patrizzi, hold that the Evangelist is here
adding to his own testimony, and that of the Baptist, the testimony of our
Lord Himself, in favour of all that he has said regarding our Lord in this
sublime prologue; the meaning being: What I have said regarding the
eternity, personality, and Divinity of the Word, regarding His power as
creator and regenerator, and regarding His incarnation, I have neither
seen with my own eyes, nor learned from anyone who saw, for “no man hath
seen God at any time,” but Jesus Christ Himself explained these things to
me.

*No man hath seen God at any time.* If understood of the vision of
_comprehension_ this is universally true of every creature, man or angel;
if of seeing God in His essence without comprehending Him, it is true of
all while they are here below. The latter is the sense here, for the
Evangelist wishes to signify that he could not have learned from any mere
mortal the foregoing doctrine. The saints in heaven see God in His
essence, for as our Evangelist tells us in his First Epistle: “We shall
see Him as He is” (1 John iii. 2. See also John xvii. 3).

*The only‐begotten Son.* Instead of: “The only‐begotten Son,” the reading:
“God only‐begotten” is found in very many ancient authorities, and is
almost equally probable. Were it certain, it would be an additional proof
of Christ’s Divinity. Christ is the only‐begotten Son of God, because
while He is the natural Son of God, all others are but adopted sons.

*Who is in the bosom of the Father* (εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός). This
means that the Son is consubstantial with the Father: “In illo ergo sinu,
id est in occultissimo paternae naturae et essentiae, quae excedit omnem
virtutem creaturae, est unigenitus Filius, et ideo consubstantialis est
Patri.” St. Thomas on this verse.

*He hath declared him.* “Him” is not represented in the original; and if
our view of the verse is the correct one, the object of the verb “hath
declared” is not so much the Word, as the doctrine contained in this
prologue concerning Him.(30)

19. Et hoc est testimonium 19. And this is the testimony
Ioannis, quando miserunt of John, when the Jews sent
Iudaei ab Ierosolymis from Jerusalem priests and
sacerdotes et Levitas ad eum, Levites to him, to ask him:
ut interrogarent eum: Tu quis Who art thou?
es?

19. The Evangelist now records, with its various circumstances, one of the
most solemn testimonies borne by the Baptist to Christ. The “Jews” are
probably the Sanhedrim, whose duty it was to inquire into the credentials
of preachers. The deputation was, therefore, a most solemn one, sent by
the Sanhedrim, from the Jewish capital, composed of Priests and Levites,
to make inquiries regarding a momentous question.

20. Et confessus est, et non 20. And he confessed, and did
negavit: et confessus est: not deny: and he confessed: I
Quia non sum ego Christus. am not the Christ.

20. The Baptist first confesses what he is not, and what many at the time
believed him to be, namely, the Christ (Luke iii. 15).

21. Et interrogaverunt eum: 21. And they asked him: What
Quid ergo? Elias es tu? Et then? Art thou Elias? And he
dixit: Non sum. Propheta es said: I am not. Art thou the
tu? Et respondit: Non. prophet? And he answered: No.
22. Dixerunt ergo ei: Quis es, 22. They said therefore unto
ut responsum demus his qui him: Who art thou, that we may
miserunt nos? quid dicis de give an answer to them that
teipso? sent us? What sayest thou of
thyself?

21. *Art thou Elias?* This question arose from a misunderstanding of Mal.
iv. 5. *Art thou the prophet?* (ὁ προφήτης), as foretold by Moses (Deut.
xviii. 15). These interrogators evidently regarded “the prophet” as
different from the Messias, though in reality they were the same. See Acts
iii. 22‐24.

23. Ait: Ego vox clamantis in 23. He said: _I am the voice
deserto: Dirigite viam Domini, of one crying in the
sicut dixit Isaias propheta. wilderness, Make straight the
way of the Lord_, as said the
prophet Isaias.

23. The Baptist with striking humility replies that he is merely a voice,
a passing sign—yet that voice spoken of by Isaias, which was to call upon
men to prepare their hearts to receive Christ. The Hebrew of Isaias may be
rendered: “The voice of one that crieth in the wilderness: Prepare ye the
way of the Lord (Jehovah), make straight in the desert a highway for our
God.” Or, as is more probable from the Hebrew parallelism: “The voice of
one that crieth: Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord, make
straight in the desert a highway for our God.” The Baptist, in applying to
himself this prophetic passage, which is also applied to him by the three
Synoptic Evangelists (Matt. iii. 3; Mark i. 3; Luke iii. 4), gives merely
the substance of the original. It is disputed whether Isaias refers in the
literal sense to preparing the roads by which the people should return
from the Babylonian Captivity, and only in the mystical sense to the
preparation for the Messias, or directly and literally to the preparation
for the Messias. The latter seems the more probable view. At any rate, the
words as applied here mean that the Baptist is the voice to which Isaias
referred (in some sense literal or mystical), and that the burden of his
cry in the desert of Judea is, that men who heard him in the desert should
prepare their hearts for Christ.

The language is metaphorical, and alludes to the custom prevalent in those
days of sending forward couriers to get the roads ready for advancing
princes.

24. Et qui missi fuerant, 24. And they that were sent
erant ex Pharisaeis. were of the Pharisees.

24. The Pharisees were a sect among the Jews, so called according to some
from their founder, Pharos, or more probably, perhaps, from the Hebrew
verb “pharash” (פרשׂ) to separate, as though they were separated from and
above ordinary men, owing to their strict observance of the Law. They held
many erroneous tenets: thus—(1) They relied for God’s favour upon their
carnal descent from Abraham. (2) They taught that no oath was binding in
which the name of God or the gold of the temple was not expressly invoked.
(3) That internal sins were not forbidden; and (4) some of their schools
admitted the right of arbitrary divorce. See Matt. v. 33‐36; xix. 3;
xxiii.

25. Et interrogaverunt eum, et 25. And they asked him, and
dixerunt ei: Quid ergo said to him: Why then dost
baptizas, si tu non es thou baptize, if thou be not
Christus, neque Elias, neque Christ, nor Elias, nor the
propheta? prophet?
26. Respondit eis Ioannes, 26. John answered them,
dicens: Ego baptizo in aqua: saying: I baptize with water;
medius autem vestrum stetit, but there hath stood one in
quem vos nescitis. the midst of you, whom you
know not.

25. Being Pharisees, and therefore versed in the Law, they knew from
Ezech. xxxvi. 25, and Zach. xiii. 1, that in the time of the Messias there
was to be a baptism unto the remission of sins. They concluded, then, that
only the Messias, or some of those that were to accompany Him, could
confer this baptism; and, not understanding the import of the Baptist’s
answer, verse 23, in which he really declared himself the herald of
Christ’s coming, they ask why he presumes to baptize.

26. The Baptist answers that his is not the baptism foretold by the
Prophets, which was to cleanse the sinner, but as he had declared at the
beginning of his preaching, a baptism unto penance (Matt. iii. 21). John’s
baptism consisted in an ablution of the body, accompanied by the
profession of a penitential spirit, preparatory to the coming of Him who
was to baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire (Matt. iii. 11). It could in
no sense be said to remit sin; while the baptism of Christ really remits
sin (Acts ii. 38). Hence the Council of Trent defined:—“Si quis dixerit
baptismum Joannis habuisse eamdem vim cum baptismo Christi anathema sit.”
(Sess. vii., Can. i.) _De Bapt._

*There hath stood* (ἕστηκεν); rather there *standeth*, the perfect of this
verb having a present signification. Many authorities indeed read the
later present στήκει. The meaning is not that our Lord was then actually
present in the crowd, else St. John would probably have pointed him out,
as he did on the following day (v. 29); but that He was already present
among the Jewish people, was already living among them.

27. Ipse est qui post me 27. The same is he that shall
venturus est, qui ante me come after me, who is
factus est: cuius ego non sum preferred before me: the
dignus ut solvam eius latchet of whose shoe I am not
corrigiam calceamenti. worthy to loose.

27. Many authorities omit the words: “The same is,” and also: “who is
preferred before me,” and then connect with the preceding thus: “But there
hath stood One in the midst of you whom you know not, even He that shall
come (rather, that cometh) after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not
worthy to loose.” So Tisch., Treg., Westcott, and Hort, and the Rev. Vers.
It is not easy to explain why the words are wanting in so many MSS., if
they were written by St. John; certainly it is easier to believe that they
were inserted by some scribe to bring the verse into closer resemblance to
15 and 30.

In the latter part of the verse, the Baptist declares himself unworthy to
perform the lowest menial service for Christ. To loose the sandals of
their masters was the business of slaves; yet for even such service to
Christ the great Prophet confesses himself unfit.

28. Haec in Bethania facta 28. These things were done in
sunt trans Iordanem, ubi erat Bethania beyond the Jordan,
Ioannes baptizans. where John was baptizing.

28. *Bethania*, here mentioned, was situated in Peraea, east of the
Jordan, and must be carefully distinguished from the town of the same
name, in which Lazarus lived, about two miles east of Jerusalem, but west
of the Jordan. Many ancient authorities read Bethabara, instead of
Bethania. Origen, though admitting that nearly all the MSS. of his time
read Bethania, changed it, on topographical grounds, for Bethabara, in his
edition of our Gospel. Bethania, according to some, means the house of a
ship (בית אניה), while Bethabara means the house of a ferry‐boat (בית
עברה); so that, perhaps, they may have been different names for the same
place on the Jordan.

29. Altera die vidit Ioannes 29. The next day John saw
Iesum venientem ad se, et ait: Jesus coming to him, and he
Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui saith: Behold the lamb of God,
tollit peccatum mundi. behold him who taketh away the
sin of the world.

29. On the day after that on which the Baptist bore the preceding
testimony, he saw Jesus coming towards him. This is the first time that
the mention of the Holy Name occurs in our Gospel. *Jesus* (Gr. Ἰησοῦς) is
the same as the Hebrew ישׂוע, which is itself a contraction for יהושׂוע,
meaning God the Saviour. That our Lord was so called, to show that He was
to be the Saviour of men, is clear from the words of the angel to St.
Joseph: “And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call His name
JESUS, _for_ He shall _save_ His people from their sins” (Matt. i. 21). We
cannot be certain whence Jesus was now coming; but it seems very probable
that He was coming from the desert after His forty days’ fast. We know
from St. Mark (i. 12) that as soon as He was baptized, “_immediately_ the
spirit drove Him out into the desert, and He was in the desert forty days
and forty nights.” Since, then, the present occasion was subsequent to His
baptism, as we learn from a comparison of verse 33 with St. Matthew iii.
16 (for the Baptist alludes, on the present occasion, to what took place
at the baptism), it follows that it must have been at least forty days
subsequent. Christ seems too to have been absent when, on the day before
this, the Baptist bore witness to Him, else the Baptist would have
probably pointed Him out as present, just as he does on this occasion. All
things considered, then, it is likely Jesus is now returning, and that the
Baptist here takes the first opportunity of again commending Him to the
people.

*Behold the lamb* (ὁ ἀμνός) of God. The Baptist, in these words, points
out Jesus as the Messias, for there is evident allusion to Isaias liii.
7‐12, where the Messias is compared to a lamb before his shearers, bearing
the sins of many. In referring to Jesus as a lamb, the Baptist recalled
this prophecy, insinuated Christ’s innocence, and perhaps suggested that
he was to be sacrificed. *Lamb of God*, because offered by God for the
sins of men, as we speak of the sacrifice of Abraham, meaning the
sacrifice offered by him; or it may mean simply the Divine Lamb. But the
first opinion seems more probable.

*Who taketh away the sin of the world.* Every word is emphatic. Christ not
merely covers up, or abstains from imputing sin, but He takes it away
altogether, as far as in Him lies. And it is not merely legal impurities
that the sacrifice of this Divine Lamb will remove, but sin; and not
merely the sin of one race, like the Jewish, but the sin of the whole
world. “Sin,” in the singular number, designates as one collective whole
every sin of every kind.

30. Hic est de quo dixi: Post 30. This is he of whom I said:
me venit vir qui ante me After me there cometh a man,
factus est, quia prior me who is preferred before me:
erat: because he was before me.

30. The Baptist goes on to say that Jesus is that very Person of whom he
had said on a previous occasion: *After me*, &c. Some take the reference
here to be to the testimony of the preceding day, when the Baptist bore
witnesses in verse 27; others think the reference is to the occasion
spoken of in verse 15, and regard that testimony as distinct from the one
recorded in verse 27. We prefer the latter view, and distinguish in all
six testimonies of the Baptist recorded in the Gospels. The first, before
Christ’s Baptism, as in Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 7; Luke iii. 16; the
second, as in John i. 15; the third, as in John i. 19‐27; the fourth, as
in John i. 29‐34; the fifth, as in John i. 35‐36; and the sixth and last,
as in John iii. 27‐36.

31. Et ego nesciebam eum, sed 31. And I knew him not, but
ut manifestetur in Israel, that he may be made manifest
propterea veni ego in aqua in Israel, therefore am I come
baptizans. baptizing with water.

31. *And I knew him not*; _i.e._, _officially_, so as to be able to bear
witness to Him publicly; or, better: I knew Him not personally; I was
unacquainted with Him, so that my testimony in His favour then and now
cannot be the result of prejudice or partiality towards Him. The Baptist
was indeed a relative of our Lord (Luke i. 36), and must known what his
father, Zachary, had declared, “Praeibis enim ante faciem Domini parare
vias ejus” (Luke i. 76), that he himself was to herald the public coming
of Jesus. Yet, as Jesus dwelt at Nazareth in Galilee during His private
life; and John, reared in the hill country of Juda (Luke i. 39), spent the
years before his public mission—perhaps from his very childhood (as
Origen, Mald.) in the deserts (Luke i. 80), it is conceivable how he might
not have known Christ’s appearance. “What wonder,” says St. Chrys., “if he
who from his childhood spent his life in the desert, away from his
father’s home, did not know Christ?” But as he had, while still in his
mother’s womb, been divinely moved to recognise Christ (Luke i. 41, 44);
so, immediately before the baptism of the latter, he was enabled to
recognise Him (Matt. iii. 14).

32. Et testimonium perhibuit 32. And John gave testimony,
Ioannes, dicens: Quia vidi saying: I saw the Spirit
Spiritum descendentem quasi coming down as a dove from
columbam de coelo, et mansit heaven, and he remained upon
super eum. him.
33. Et ego nesciebam eum: sed 33. And I knew him not: but
qui misit me baptizare in he, who sent me to baptize
aqua, ille mihi dixit: Super with water, said to me: He
quem videris Spiritum upon whom thou shalt see the
descendentem, et manentem Spirit descending and
super eum, hic est qui remaining upon him, he it is
baptizat in Spiritu Sancto. that baptizeth with the Holy
Ghost.
34. Et ego vidi: et 34. And I saw; and I gave
testimonium perhibui quia hic testimony, that this is the
est Filius Dei. Son of God.

32‐34. Some, as Patrizzi, take this as a new testimony; others, with more
probability, take it as a continuation of the preceding, and say that our
Evangelist inserts the words, *and John gave testimony*, in the middle of
the Baptist’s words, in order to arrest the reader’s attention. The
Baptist here declares what he had beheld after the baptism of Christ
(Matt. iii. 16), and how that sign had been revealed to him beforehand as
one that was to mark out the Messias, and _confirm_ his own faith: and how
he had accordingly on that occasion borne witness that Jesus is the Son of
God.

*That baptizeth with the Holy Ghost*; _i.e._, who will _wash_ you, not
with water, but in the graces of the Holy Ghost. There may be special
reference to the graces conferred in Christian baptism.

35. Altera die iterum stabat 35. The next day again John
Ioannes, et ex discipulis eius stood, and two of his
duo. disciples.
36. Et respiciens Iesum 36. And beholding Jesus
ambulantem, dicit: Ecce Agnus walking, he saith: Behold the
Dei. Lamb of God.
37. Et audierunt eum duo 37. And the two disciples
discipuli loquentem, et secuti heard him speak, and they
sunt Iesum. followed Jesus.
38. Conversus autem Iesus, et 38. And Jesus turning, and
videns eos sequentes se, dicit seeing them following him,
eis: Quid quaeritis? Qui said to them: What seek you?
dixerunt ei: Rabbi (quod Who said to him: Rabbi (which
dicitur interpretatum, is to say, being interpreted,
magister), ubi habitas? Master), where dwellest thou?

35‐38. Circumstances in which the first disciples attached themselves to
Jesus. The Evangelist interprets the Syro‐Chaldaic word Rabbi (38),
because he is writing for the Christians of Asia Minor.

39. Dicit eis: Venite, et 39. He saith to them: Come and
videte. Venerunt, et viderunt see. They came, and saw where
ubi maneret, et apud eum he abode, and they staid with
manserunt die illo: hora autem him that day: now it was about
erat quasi decima. the tenth hour.

39. *About the tenth hour.* According to those who hold that St. John
numbers the hours of the day after the Jewish method, the time here
indicated would be about two hours before sunset. For the Jews divided the
natural day or time of light into twelve equal parts, each part being one‐
twelfth of the whole, so that the length of their hour varied according to
the season of the year. If we suppose St. John to number as we do now, and
as the Greeks did then, the time here indicated would be about 10 a.m.

40. Erat autem Andreas frater 40. And Andrew the brother of
Simonis Petri unus ex duobus Simon Peter was one of the two
qui audierant a Ioanne, et who had heard of John, and
secuti fuerant eum. followed him.

40. It is extremely probable that the other who followed, and whose name
is not given, was our Evangelist himself. See Introd. I. B. 2.

41. Invenit hic primum fratrem 41. He findeth first his
suum Simonem, et dicit ei: brother Simon, and saith to
Invenimus Messiam (quod est him: We have found the
interpretatum Christus). Messias, which is, being
interpreted, the Christ.

41. *First*; _i.e._, before the other (our Evangelist) findeth his
brother, James. *Messias* (from the Hebrew root _Mashàch_ (משׂח), to
anoint) = χριστός = anointed. It was the custom to anoint Hebrew kings,
priests, and prophets; and Christ, as combining the three dignities in
Himself, was _the anointed_ by excellence.

42. Et adduxit eum ad Iesum. 42. And he brought him to
Intuitus autem eum Iesus, Jesus. And Jesus looking upon
dixit: Tu es Simon filius him said: Thou art Simon the
Iona: tu vocaberis Cephas, son of Jona: thou shalt be
quod interpretatur Petrus. called Cephas, which is
interpreted Peter.

42. Christ’s omniscience is left to be inferred from His knowing Simon(31)
here at first sight. *Cephas*, Syro‐Chaldaic, _Képha_ (כפא); Hebrew _Keph_
(כפ) = πέτρα (rock), from which we have πέτρος with the feminine
termination changed into the masculine. The change of Simon’s name was now
predicted, but was probably not made till afterwards. See Mark iii. 16.

43. In crastinum voluit exire 43. On the following day he
in Galilaeam, et invenit would go forth into Galilee,
Philippum. Et dicit ei Iesus: and he findeth Philip. And
Sequere me. Jesus saith to him: Follow me.

43. *On the following day he would go forth.* The sense is: when He was
about to set out; “cum in eo esset, ut e Judaea abiret” (Kuin.). Jesus had
come from Nazareth, the home of His private life in Galilee, to be
baptized by John, (Matt. iii. 13; Mark i. 9). He had then spent forty days
in the desert, and been tempted there, (Matt. iii. 16‐iv. 3); had returned
from the desert to the Jordan, and been witnessed to again by the Baptist
(see above John i. 15, 19‐36), and was now on the point of returning to
Galilee.

*Follow me.* Philip to whom these words were addressed was afterwards the
Apostle of that name. The call to follow our Lord on this occasion was not
the formal call to the _Apostleship_, but rather an invitation to him to
become a disciple. The same is to be said regarding the others referred to
in this chapter, Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Nathanael. Four of
these—Peter, Andrew, James, and John, who had in the meantime returned to
Galilee, and were pursuing their calling of fishermen, were again called,
Matt. iv. 18‐22, Luke v. 1‐11; and on this second occasion “leaving all
things they followed Him,” and became inseparably attached to Him as
disciples. Finally, the solemn formal call of the twelve to the
Apostleship is narrated, Matt. x. 2; Luke vi. 13.

44. Erat autem Philippus a 44. Now Philip was of
Bethsaida, civitate Andreae et Bethsaida, the city of Andrew
Petri. and Peter.

44. *Bethsaida.* In our view there were two towns of this name: the one
mentioned here, on the western shore of the sea of Galilee, about four
miles south of Capharnaum; the other Bethsaida Julias, situated to the
north east of the same sea. The latter was enlarged and greatly improved
by Philip the Tetrarch, son of Herod the Great, who gave it the name
Julias, in honour of Julia the daughter of the Roman Emperor Augustus.

45. Invenit Philippus 45. Philip findeth Nathanael,
Nathanaël, et dicit ei: Quem and saith to him: We have
scripsit Moyses in lege, et found him of whom Moses in the
prophetae, invenimus Iesum law, and the prophets did
filium Ioseph a Nazareth. write, Jesus the son of Joseph
of Nazareth.
46. Et dixit ei Nathanaël: A 46. And Nathanael said to him:
Nazareth potest aliquid boni Can anything of good come from
esse? Dicit ei Philippus: Nazareth? Philip saith to him:
Veni, et vide. Come and see.

45. Philip not only obeys the call to become a disciple himself, but
brings another disciple with him to Jesus. Nathanael (= _Deus dedit_) was
a native of Cana in Galilee (John xxi. 2), and is most probably identical
with Bartholomew (= son of Tolmai) the Apostle, “For Nathanael and Philip
are coupled in John i. 45, as Bartholomew and Philip are here (Matt. x.
3); Nathanael is named in the very _midst_ of Apostles, John xxi. 2.
‘There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, who is called Didymus, and
Nathanael who was of Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee.’ Would
anyone but an Apostle be so named? Finally, Matthew, Luke, and Mark do not
allude to Nathanael, nor does John to Bartholomew” (M’Carthy on Matt. x.
3).

*The son of Joseph.* Doubtless, he means a son conceived and born in the
ordinary way. So it was generally thought, and so thought Philip, ignorant
of the miraculous conception of Christ, and of His birth at Bethlehem. It
is absurd to charge our Evangelist, as De Wette has done, with ignorance
of Christ’s miraculous birth of a virgin, because he records the ignorance
of Philip.

*Nazareth*, for ever famous as the scene of the incarnation, was a little
town in Lower Galilee, in the tribal territory of Zabulon. It was the
dwelling‐place of our Lord during His private life. Nazareth, indeed all
Galilee, was held in contempt (see John vii. 52), and hence Nathanael’s
doubt, (verse 46), though he was himself a Galilean (John xxi. 2).

47. Vidit Iesus Nathanaël 47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming
venientem ad se, et dicit de to him, and he saith of him:
eo; Ecce vere Israelita, in Behold an Israelite indeed, in
quo dolus non est. whom there is no guile.
48. Dicit ei Nathanaël: Unde 48. Nathanael saith to him:
me nosti? Respondit Iesus, et Whence knowest thou me? Jesus
dixit ei: Priusquam te answered, and said to him:
Philippus vocaret, cum esses Before that Philip called
sub ficu, vidi te. thee, when thou wast under the
fig‐tree, I saw thee.
49. Respondit ei Nathanaël, et 49. Nathanael answered him,
ait: Rabbi, tu es Filius Dei, and said: Rabbi, thou art the
tu es rex Israel. Son of God, thou art the King
of Israel.

47‐49. When Nathanael had approached near enough to be able to hear what
was said, but before he had spoken anything from which our Lord might have
been thought to guess at his character, our Lord said: *Behold an
Israelite ** indeed, in whom there is no guile*; that is to say, one who,
not merely by descent, but by the simplicity and honesty of his character,
is a true son of Jacob. See Gen. xxv. 27; Rom. ix. 6. Jacob’s name was
changed into Israel, after he wrestled with the angel, Gen. xxxii. 28.

47‐49. Nathanael must have felt convinced that he had been hidden from
Christ’s natural view, otherwise he could not draw the inference which,
aided by divine grace, he draws. Whether Nathanael yet recognised Jesus to
be true God, and professed his belief in Him as such, in the words of
verse 49, is disputed. If we are to judge from his words (ὁ υἱός), the
affirmative opinion seems much more probable. The words are an echo of the
Baptist’s testimony (v. 34), but Nathanael confesses not alone Christ’s
Divine origin, but also His human sovereignty: Thou art the Son of God,
Thou art the King of Israel.

50. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 50. Jesus answered and said to
ei: Quia dixi tibi: Vidi te him: Because I said unto thee,
sub ficu, credis: maius his I saw thee under the fig‐tree,
videbis. thou believest: greater things
than these shalt thou see.

50. Jesus promises Nathanael stronger arguments in proof of His Divinity.
In the words: *Greater things than these shalt thou see*, the plural these
seems to point to the class and not merely the special incident.

51. Et dicit ei: Amen, amen. 51. And he saith to him: Amen,
dico vobis, videbitis coelum amen, I say to you, you shall
apertum, et Angelos Dei see the heaven opened, and the
ascendentes, et descendentes Angels of God ascending and
supra Filium hominis. descending upon the son of
man.

51. *Amen, amen*, is peculiar to John. The other Evangelists use “Amen”
only once in such asseverations. “Amen means verily (at the end of a
prayer, so be it); and when doubled, strengthens the asseveration, and
points to the solemnity of the declaration about to follow” (M’Ev.).

*Son of man.* This term, probably derived in its Messianic sense from Dan.
vii. 13, 14, was very rarely applied to Christ, except by Himself, and we
find Him using it very frequently (though not exclusively; see, _e.g._,
Matt. ix. 6; xxiii. 30; Acts vii. 56) in connection with His privations,
sufferings, and death (Matt. viii. 20; xii.40; xvii. 12; xxvi. 21‐25; John
iii. 14, &c.). It indicates that Christ was not only man like Adam; but
that, unlike him, He was _descended_ of man, and therefore our brother in
the truest sense.

*You shall see.* Though Nathanael is addressed (and He saith to _him_),
yet the plural (videbitis) shows that the wondrous sign here promised was
to be seen not by him alone, but at least by Philip also, and probably by
others. The meaning of the prediction is obscure. Evidently some great
sign is promised; but what it is, interpreters are far from agreed. Some
take the words metaphorically, others literally.

Of those who understand them metaphorically, some take the sense to be:
You shall see numerous miracles, such as are usually attributed to angels
(or, in the performance of which angels shall minister to Me) wrought by
Me, the Son of Man, during My public life. So Beelen, Maier, &c. We cannot
accept this view, for it seems highly improbable that our Lord would speak
in language so obscure to the guileless Nathanael and his companions on an
occasion like the present, when Nathanael had only just believed.

Others understand of the spiritual glories of the whole period from the
commencement of Christ’s public mission till the end of the world. Alford,
explaining this view (which, by the way, he calmly claims to have been
“the interpretation of all commentators of any depth in all times”!) says:
“It is not the outward visible opening of the material heavens nor ascent
or descent of angels in the sight of men, which the Lord here announces,
but the series of glories which was about to be unfolded in His Person and
work, from that time forward.” Our difficulty in regard to this view is
the same as in regard to the preceding.

St. Augustine is generally supposed to have understood this text in
reference to the preachers of the New Testament, “ascending” when they
preach the more sublime, “descending,” when they preach the more
elementary doctrines of religion. If St. Augustine meant this as a
_literal_ interpretation of the passage, as he certainly seems to do in
Tract vii. on this Gospel, we cannot accept it. Surely, something stranger
and more striking is promised here, after the opening of the heavens, than
the sight of preachers!

Others hold that we must interpret this passage entirely in the light of
Jacob’s dream, Gen. xxviii. 12. Jacob saw a ladder reaching from earth to
heaven, with angels ascending and descending upon it. That vision meant in
his regard that God would make him the object of His special protection
(see Gen. xxviii. 13‐15). And now Nathanael, who is _an Israelite indeed_,
a true son of Jacob (v. 47), is told that he and others shall see that
Divine favour and protection which Jacob’s vision signified, extended in
such an extraordinary manner to Christ, during His life, that it will be
most manifest He is the Son of God.

This view we regard as probable. The Fathers tell us that Nathanael was
particularly well versed in the Scriptures, and our Lord’s words might
readily recall to his mind Jacob’s dream, with all its significance of
Divine favour and protection.

Of the opinions that attempt to explain the words literally, some may be
dismissed at once. Thus there cannot be reference to the angels who
appeared at Christ’s birth, or after His temptations (Matt. iv. 11), for
Christ speaks of an event still to come, whereas His birth and temptations
were already past. Nor can there be reference to the transfiguration, even
if we suppose angels to have been present; nor to the agony in the garden;
nor to the resurrection; for on none of these occasions did Philip and
Nathanael see the angels. Less improbable, perhaps, is the view that there
is reference to the ascension, and the two angels that appeared then (Acts
i. 10). But this opinion too we reject without hesitation. In the passage
of the Acts referred to, St. Luke tells us: “And while they were beholding
Him going up to heaven, behold two men _stood by them_ in white garments.”
Now, it is clear that angels who stood by the apostles and disciples,
cannot possibly be those referred to here as “ascending and descending
upon the Son of Man.”

A Lapide refers the prediction to some miraculous vision seen by the
disciples during our Lord’s life, and not recorded in the Gospels. But it
seems improbable that the fulfilment of such a prediction would be passed
over in silence by all the Evangelists.

Finally, there is the opinion, which is held by Maldonatus, that there is
reference to the last judgment, when the heavens shall be opened, and
Christ shall come riding on the clouds of heaven, accompanied by angels,
and all men shall be forced to confess Him God. This seems to us the most
probable interpretation. For, first, it is likely that our Lord refers to
the clearest and most incontrovertible proof that shall be given of His
Divinity; and such will be His coming in majesty to judge the world.
Secondly, we know that on another occasion, when he was challenged by the
Jewish High Priest to say if he was the Son of God, He appealed to this
same proof of His Divinity: “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou
tell us if thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith to him: Thou
hast said it. Nevertheless, I say to you: Hereafter you shall see the Son
of Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the
clouds of heaven” (Matt. xxvi. 63‐64). Probably the expression: *ascending
and descending* is to be understood metaphorically, even in this opinion,
and means merely that the angels shall be _attendant upon_ the great
Judge, ready to execute His will. The order is remarkable: they are said
first to ascend, and then to descend, as was the case also in Jacob’s
vision.

CHAPTER II.

1‐11. *Christ at the marriage feast in Cana changes water into
wine.*

12. *He goes down to Capharnaum.*

13‐17. *At the approach of the Pasch He goes up to Jerusalem, and
there drives the buyers and sellers out of the Temple.*

18‐22. *Challenged by the Jews for a sign of His authority, He
predicts His own Resurrection, as the disciples called to mind
after He had risen.*

23‐25. *On the occasion of this first Pasch of His public life
many believe in Him because of His miracles.*

1. Et die tertia nuptiae 1. And the third day there was
factae sunt in Cana Galilaeae, a marriage in Cana of Galilee:
et erat mater Iesu ibi. and the mother of Jesus was
there.
2. Vocatus est autem et Iesus, 2. And Jesus also was invited,
et discipuli eius, ad nuptias. and his disciples, to the
marriage.

1. The Evangelist having narrated how our Lord was witnessed to by the
Baptist, and joined by His first disciples, now proceeds to tell how He
bore testimony of Himself by His miracles.

*The third day.* Naturally the third from the point of time last referred
to, in verse 43.

The marriage feast was celebrated for a week among the Jews, and this
custom had come down from very ancient times, as we learn from the book of
Judges, xiv. 12.

*Cana of Galilee* was situated most probably in the tribe of Zabulon near
Capharnaum. There was another Cana in the tribe of Aser, near Sidon (see
Jos. xix. 28).

2. *And Jesus also was invited*; that is to say, He also, _as well as_ the
Blessed Virgin, was invited. Mald. holds that καὶ (et) is explanatory: on
that account, that is to say, because she _was_ there as a friend of the
family, Jesus was _invited_.

3. Et deficiente vino, dicit 3. And the wine failing, the
mater Iesu ad eum: Vinum non mother of Jesus saith to him:
habent. They have no wine.

3. *And the wine failing* (Gr. having failed). Either all the wine was
already drunk, or, at least, there was no more to be drawn; the last was
on the table. When we take into account what Mary says to the servants (v.
5), it is plain that her object in telling Jesus that the wine had run
short, was not that He and His disciples might retire (Bengel), nor that
He might exhort the company to patience (Calvin), nor that He might buy
wine (Kuin.), but that He might work a miracle. “The Mother of the Lord
having heard of the testimony of the Baptist, and seeing the disciples
gathered round her Son, the circumstances of whose miraculous birth she
treasured in her heart (Luke ii. 19, 51) must have looked now at length
for the manifestation of His power, and thought that an occasion only was
wanting. Yet even so she leaves all to His will” (Westc., in _Speaker’s
Comm._).

4. Et dicit ei Iesus: Quid 4. And Jesus saith to her:
mihi et tibi est mulier: Woman, what is it to me and to
Nondum venit hora mea. thee? My hour is not yet come.

4. *Woman, what is it to me and to thee?* The Vulgate has. “Quid mihi et
tibi _est_, mulier?” But the verb is not in the Greek text (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ
σοί γύναι?), which would therefore be better translated: “What to Me and
to thee, woman?” The Revised Version of the Church of England renders:
“Woman, what have I to do with thee?”

Most Protestant writers have held that these words of our Lord contain a
reproof of His mother. Among Catholics many have held that the words
contain _the semblance_ of reproof; to teach us, not Mary, that we are not
to be influenced by motives of flesh and blood in the service of God.
Others have held (and this is the general opinion of modern Catholic
commentators) that the words do not contain even the appearance of
reproof.

(1) It is now generally acknowledged even by Protestant commentators that
the term γύναι is not reproachful or disrespectful. According to Alford
there is no reproach in the term, but rather respect; and Trench says: “So
far from any harshness, the compellation has something solemn in it”
(_Miracles_, p. 100). Liddell and Scott’s _Lexicon_, says: “It is often
used as a term of respect or affection, mistress, lady.” Yet Calvin
impiously asserts that our Lord does not deign to call Mary His Mother:
“Deinde cur simplici repulsa non contentus eam in vulgarem mulierum
ordinem cogit, nec jam matris nomine dignatur?” “Why doubt of the heavenly
origin of a reformation wrought by such reasoning as this?” (McCarthy).

Father Coleridge thinks that Mary is addressed here by the title γύναι
because that is “what we may call her official and theological title ...
for she is the ‘woman’ of whom our Lord was born; she is the ‘woman’ of
whom God spake to our first parents when He made them the promise of a
Redeemer after the fall; she is the ‘woman’ to whom the whole range of
types look forward, who was to conceive and compass a man (Jer. xxxi. 22);
she is the ‘woman,’ the second Eve, as our Lord is the Man, and the Son of
Man, the second Adam.”(32) But whatever may be thought of this view,
enough has been said to show that the term γύναι does not imply reproof or
disrespect.

(2) Neither does the phrase “What to Me and to thee?” (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί?).
We find exactly the same phrase in Judg. xi. 12; 3 Kings xvii. 18; 4 Kings
iii. 13; 2 Paral. xxxv. 21; Mark v. 7; Luke viii. 28.(33)

(A). After a candid examination of these texts, it must, we think, appear
that the meaning of the phrase is _not_: What does this concern you and
Me? for in some, if not all, of the passages cited the phrase cannot have
that meaning. Besides, is it likely Jesus would say that the wants of the
poor, who were His hosts, and perhaps His relatives, and their shame
consequent upon those wants, did not concern Him?

(B). Neither is the meaning: What have I to do with you, or, what have I
in common with you? (as author of a miracle such as you suggest); it must
proceed from My Divine nature, while only My human nature has been derived
from you (so Augus., Tolet., Patriz.). For—

(_a_) This is not the meaning of the phrase in the parallel passages.

(_b_) Christ gives a different reason: _My hour is not yet come._

(_c_) His person hypostatically united to His human nature, had that
nature in common with her, and it is of His person (_mihi_), not of His
Divine nature merely that He speaks.

(C). What the precise meaning of the phrase is, it is difficult to
determine with certainty. In all the passages where it occurs, it seems to
indicate some divergence between the thoughts or wishes of the persons so
brought together. Most probably it is here a _remonstrance_; because the
suggestion that Christ should work a miracle is _inconvenient or
inopportune_, inasmuch as it brings moral pressure to bear upon Him to
make Him begin His miracles before the time at which, prescinding from
this suggestion, His public miracles were to begin. Something similar are
the words of God to Moses: “_Let Me alone_, that My wrath may be kindled
against them, and that I may destroy them” (Exod. xxxii. 10). On that
occasion God, after remonstrating, granted the prayer of Moses, just as on
this occasion, after remonstrating, He yielded to the suggestion of His
Mother. So St. Cyril of Alex., St. Amb., Corl, &c.

Whether the above be the correct meaning of the phrase or not, one thing
is clear, against Calvin, Alf., Trench, &c., that the words cannot contain
a rebuke—not a _real_ rebuke; because there was no fault on Mary’s part,
not even venial (Council of Trent, sess. vi., can. 23). St. Aug., whose
authority Protestants must respect, whatever they may think of that of the
Council of Trent, says: “De Sancta Maria Virgine, propter honorem Christi,
nullam prorsus quando de peccato agitur volo habere quaestionem” (_De
Natura et Gratia_, ch. xxxvi.). Moreover, if the Blessed Virgin were
guilty of any fault, it would be either because of the thing suggested, or
of some circumstance of time, place, motive, &c. Now, our Lord granted
what she suggested; the object was therefore, good. The circumstances were
the very same when the miracle was wrought as when it was suggested. As to
her motive, it may have been good—charity for the poor. Why, then, ascribe
a bad motive, such as vanity, without convincing proof? That the
suggestion was acceded to, goes to show that it was made in circumstances
in which it was not displeasing to God.(34)

Neither is there in the words a _feigned_ rebuke, that is, feigned for our
instruction, to show us that we are not to regard flesh and blood in doing
the work of God (Mald., Tolet., &c.); for Christ actually did what was
suggested; and, besides, it is Catholic teaching that Christ in heaven
grants many requests to His Mother, _because_ she is His Mother.

In vain, then, have Protestants tried to find, in these words of our Lord,
anything derogatory to the dignity of His Blessed Mother. To every
interpretation which would give such a sense to His words, we may answer,
with St. Justin, Martyr: “Non verbo matrem objurgavit qui facto
honoravit.” “He reproved not His mother by what He said who honoured her
by what He did.”

*My hour is not yet come.* In our interpretation it is easy to explain
these words. His hour is not the hour of His death, nor the time when the
want of wine would be fully felt, but the time at which, according to the
ordinary providence of God, and prescinding from His Mother’s suggestion,
His public miracles were to begin.

5. Dicit mater eius ministris: 5. His mother saith to the
Quodcumque dixerit vobis, waiters: Whatsoever he shall
facite. say to you, do ye.

5. *Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.* These are not the words of one
whose suggestion had been reproved and rejected.

6. Erant autem ibi lapideae 6. Now there were set there
hydriae sex positae secundum six waterpots of stone,
purificationem Iudaeorum, according to the manner of the
capientes singulae metretas purifying of the Jews,
binas vel ternas. containing two or three
measures a‐piece.

6. For the custom of the Jews in the matter of ablutions, see Matt. xv. 2;
Mark vii. 2‐5. The μετρητής was a Greek liquid measure, containing about
nine gallons, or, to be accurate, eight gallons 7.4 pints. There were six
jars, or water‐pots, each containing two or three measures. If each jar
contained two measures, the whole quantity of wine miraculously provided
would be = 6 × 2 × 9 = 108 gallons. If each contained three measures, the
whole would be = 6 × 3 × 9 = 162 gallons. The quantity of wine
miraculously produced was therefore very great, being at least about 108
gallons. It is absurd, however, to seek in this miracle of our Divine Lord
any excuse for intemperance. As well might God be accused of conniving at
intemperance, because He fills the grape each year with the moisture of
earth and heaven, and then transmutes this into the nobler juices which He
knows man will convert into wine. He gives in every case, that we may use,
not that we may abuse. If the quantity of wine miraculously provided on
this occasion was large, we ought to remember that the marriage feast
lasted for a week; that there were probably many guests present, whose
number was considerably increased by the invitation, at the last moment,
of Christ and His disciples on their arrival from Judea; that others would
probably be attracted now by the fame of this miracle, and the desire to
see Him who had wrought it; and, finally, that the quantity of the wine
made the miracle more striking.

7. Dicit eis Iesus. Implete 7. Jesus saith to them: Fill
hydrias aqua. Et impleverunt the waterpots with water. And
eas usque ad summum. they filled them up to the
brim.

7. *To the brim.* So that there was no room left to mix wine or anything
else with the water; this shows, too, the quantity of wine that was
miraculously supplied.

8. Et dicit eis Iesus: Haurite 8. And Jesus saith to them:
nunc, et ferte architriclino. Draw out now, and carry to the
Et tulerunt. chief steward of the feast.
And they carried it.

8. *Chief steward* (Gr. ἀρχός, chief, or ruler, and τρίκλινος, a dining‐
room, with three couches, and more generally, a dining‐room). The
president of the feast, according to some, was _one of the guests_
selected by the host, or by the unanimous consent of the guests; according
to others, he was not a guest, but the _chief servant_. In the first view
he corresponds with the συμποσιάρχης of the Greeks, and the “magister
convivii,” or “arbiter bibendi,” of the Romans; and this we take to be
correct, for his familiarity with the bridegroom (v. 10) bespeaks the
friend rather than the servant.

9. Ut autem gustavit 9. And when the chief steward
architriclinus aquam vinum had tasted the water made
factam, et non sciebat unde wine, and knew not whence it
esset, ministri autem sciebant was, but the waiters knew who
qui hauserant aquam, vocat had drawn the water; the chief
sponsum architriclinus. steward calleth the
bridegroom.

9. St. John mentions that the president of the feast knew not whence the
wine was, nor how it had been produced, in order to show that his
testimony in its favour was not the result of previous collusion with
Jesus. *Who had drawn the water.* ἠντληκότες is the form for the
pluperfect, as well as for the perfect participle, and is rightly rendered
“had drawn.” We consider it more likely that the reference is to their
drawing the water from the well in order to fill the water‐pots. But if
the reference be to drawing the wine from the pots (in v. 8 the same Greek
verb is used in reference to that action), then the wine is called water
because it had been water so recently, just as the serpent is called a rod
in Exod. vii. 12. because it had been a rod immediately before. It is most
likely that the conversion took place in the water‐pots, and not on the
way from them to the table.

10. Et dicit ei: Omnis homo 10. And saith to him: Every
primum bonum vinum ponit: et man at first setteth forth
cum inebriati fuerint, tunc good wine, and when men have
id, quod deterius est: Tu well drank, then that which is
autem servasti bonum vinum worse. But thou hast kept the
usque adhuc. good wine until now.

10. Most probably the Greek word (μεθυσθῶσιν) rendered in the Vulgate
“inebriati fuerint” does not here imply drunkenness, but only drinking
freely. “In classical use it generally, but not always, implies
intoxication. In the Hellenistic writers, however, as Josephus, Philo, and
the LXX., it very often denotes drinking freely, and the hilarity
consequent, which is probably the sense here” (Bloomf.). In any case,
whatever meaning we give the word here, the president of the feast merely
speaks of what was the common practice, without saying that the guests at
this particular feast had indulged to the same extent.

11. Hoc fecit initium signorum 11. This beginning of miracles
Iesus in Cana Galilaeae: et did Jesus in Cana of Galilee:
manifestavit gloriam suam, et and manifested his glory, and
crediderunt in eum discipuli his disciples believed in him.
eius.

11. This was Christ’s first miracle, or better perhaps, it was His first
_public_ miracle, the first _sign_, or proof given in public of His Divine
power. It is worthy of note that our Lord honoured marriage on this
occasion not only by His presence, but also by His first public miracle.
The effect of the miracle is carefully noted by our Evangelist whose main
object, as we saw, is to prove Christ’s Divinity. And He manifested His
glory, δόξα (see i. 14); and the faith of the disciples was _confirmed_.
The fact that they were disciples, shows that they had some faith already.

12. Post hoc descendit 12. After this he went down to
Capharnaum, ipse, et mater Capharnaum, he and his mother,
eius, et fratres eius; et and his brethren, and his
discipuli eius: et ibi disciples: and they remained
manserunt non multis diebus. there not many days.

12. *Capharnaum*, the largest town of Galilee, was situated, on the
western shore of the sea of Galilee (Matt. iv. 13, John vi. 24), and the
journey to it from Cana is rightly described as a descent. During His
public life our Lord seems to have dwelt chiefly in this town, which is
therefore sometimes spoken of as His own city (see Matt. ix. 1, and
compare with Mark ii. 1). It was long thought to be impossible to identify
the site of Capharnaum, but it seems now to be practically certain that
the site is that of the modern Tell Hûm, about two and a half miles south‐
west of the point where the Jordan enters the sea of Galilee. Capharnaum
means the village (נפר) of Nahum. _Tell_ is the Arabic for a hillock
covered with ruins, and it is reasonably conjectured that Hûm is a
contraction for Nahum, the first syllable, as sometimes happens in such
cases, being dropped. Thus Tell Hûm would mean the ruin‐clad hillock of
Nahum. A summary of the various reasons for identifying the two places is
given by Pére Didon, in his able work: _Jesus Christ_, vol. ii., Appendix
F. The *brethren* of the Lord here referred to were His cousins, but
according to the Scriptural usage any near relations are called brethren.
Thus Abraham and Lot are “brethren” (Gen. xiii. 8), though Abraham was in
reality Lot’s uncle (Gen. xi. 27). See also remarks on vii. 3.

13. Et prope erat pascha 13. And the pasch of the Jews
Iudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus was at hand, and Jesus went up
Ierosoloymam: to Jerusalem.

13. *And* (= for) *the Pasch*, &c. This was the first Pasch of our Lord’s
public life. The Evangelist calls it the Pasch of the Jews, because he is
writing for the inhabitants of Asia Minor, most of whom were Greeks. The
Pasch (Heb. _pesach_, פסח), beginning at evening on the 14th, and ending
at evening on the 21st of Nisan,(35) was the greatest festival of the
Jews. The word “pasch” means the passing over (from _pasach_, פסח, to pass
or leap over), and the name was given to this festival as commemorating
the passing over of the houses of the Israelites when the destroying angel
slew the first‐born in the land of Egypt (see Exod xii. 11, 12).

*And Jesus went up to Jerusalem.* At the three principal feasts: Pasch,
Pentecost, and Tabernacles, all the male adults were bound to go up to the
temple at Jerusalem.

14. Et invenit in templo 14. And he found in the temple
vendentes boves, et oves, et them that sold oxen and sheep
columbas, et numularios and doves, and the changers of
sedentes. money sitting.

14. The animals here mentioned were sold to be sacrificed. The money‐
changers were there to change foreign money into Jewish. It was probably
in the Court of the Gentiles that Christ found them. *In the temple* (ἐν
ἱερώ, _i.e._, in sacro loco). The ἱερόν must be carefully distinguished
from the ναός (v. 20). The former included the temple proper, and also its
courts, porches, and porticoes; in a word, all its _sacred_ precincts; the
latter was the temple proper, the house of God, the place where He _dwelt_
(ναίω = to dwell). We know that around the temple as rebuilt by Herod the
Great, there were three courts: the outer, or that of the Gentiles; the
inner, or that of the Israelites; and between them, on the eastern side,
the Court of the women. In the inner court, or that of the Israelites,
there was a portion next the temple proper set apart for the priests.

15. Et cum fecisset quasi 15. And when he had made as it
flagellum de funiculis, omnes were a scourge of little
eiecit de templo, oves quoque, cords, he drove them all out
et boves, et numulariorum of the temple, the sheep also
effudit aes, et mensas and the oxen, and the money of
subvertit. the changers he poured out,
and the tables he overthrew.

15. *He drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen.*
These words of our version mean that He drove out not only the animals,
but also the sellers, and this is distinctly stated by S. Aug., and
several other Fathers. The sense of the Greek is ambiguous: *He drove all
out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen.*

16. Et his qui columbas 16. And to them that sold
vendebant, dixit: Auferte ista doves he said: Take these
hinc, et nolite facere domum things hence, and make not the
Patris mei, domum house of my father a house of
negotiationis. traffic.

16. Christ deals more leniently with those who sold the doves, perhaps
because these were the offerings of the poor.

*A house of traffic.* Our Lord does not on this occasion say the traffic
was unjust, but implies that it was sacrilegious, as being carried on in a
holy place. On another occasion, three years afterwards, Christ again
drove traders from the temple, who He says had made it “a den of thieves,”
adding the sin of injustice to that of sacrilege (Matt. xxi. 13). Note how
He calls God His Father. See v. 18.

17. Recordati sunt vero 17. And his disciples
discipuli eius, quia scriptum remembered that it was
est: Zelus domus tuae comedit written: _The zeal of thy
me. house hath eaten me up._

17. Our Evangelist, mindful of his scope in writing this Gospel, draws
attention to the fulfilment of this prophecy of the Psalmist, inasmuch as
this tends to prove that Jesus was the Messias and the true God.
καταφάγεται (_will eat_ me up) is the true reading here, though the Psalm
has the prophetic past.

18. Responderunt ergo Iudaei, 18. The Jews therefore
et dixerunt ei: Quod signum answered, and said to him:
ostendis nobis, quia haec What sign dost thou show unto
facis? us, seeing thou dost these
things?

18. The Jews challenge (_answered_, meaning here, as frequently, _went on
to speak_) Christ for a proof of that authority which He appeared to claim
for Himself in driving them from the temple, and also in calling God His
Father (see v. 17‐18). The incident itself, with so many men tamely
submitting to His action, was, as Origen points out, one of the most
wonderful signs He could have shown them. But they hoped, as St. Chryst.
remarks, to put Him in a dilemma by obliging Him either to work a miracle
on the spot, or else cease to interfere with them.

19. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 19. Jesus answered, and said
eis: Solvite templum hoc, et to them: Destroy this temple,
in tribus diebus excitabo and in three days I will raise
illud. it up.

19. Instead of working a miracle He merely refers darkly to a future sign
that was still some years off, as He does on a similar occasion, when
dealing with other unbelievers, Matt. xii. 38‐40. “He, however,” says St.
Chrys., “who even anticipated men’s wishes, and gave signs when He was not
asked, would not have rejected here a positive request, had He not seen a
crafty design in it.”

Standing as He was beside Herod’s temple, probably in the Court of the
Gentiles or immediately outside it, His words, *Destroy this temple, and
in three days I will raise it up*, were understood by the Jews (v. 20),
and apparently by His disciples (v. 22), in reference to Herod’s temple.
Various views have been put forward to show that His words were not
necessarily misleading.

(1) It is said that He may have pointed with His finger to His body while
He said: Destroy this temple. But the fact that He was actually
misunderstood by all seems to exclude this hypothesis.

(2) It is held by many that He spoke both of Herod’s temple and of His
body. So, apparently, Origen; and Cardinal Wiseman says explicitly:
“Finally did our Lord speak altogether of His resurrection so as to
exclude all allusion to rebuilding the temple which stood before Him? I
must confess that ... I cannot read the passage without being convinced
that He spoke of both” (_Lect. on the Euch._, p. 135, No. 4). We, however,
cannot bring ourselves to adopt this view against what seems to be the
clear sense according to the interpretation of the inspired Evangelist,
who tells us, (v. 21), _But He spoke of the temple of His body_.

(3) There is the common answer, that He spoke ambiguously and allowed them
to be deceived, because they were unworthy of plainer speech. They were
not, however, necessarily deceived, for ναός (a temple) was used
frequently in reference to the human body (see, _e.g._, 1 Cor. iii. 16,
17; vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16), and our Lord’s language might have given them
some reason for suspecting that it was of His body He spoke. For the two
verbs, which he used λύσατε and ἐγερῶ though they could be understood in
reference to the temple of stone, applied more appropriately to His body;
the former signifying the breaking up or _loosing_ of the union between
His soul and body; the latter, the raising of the body to life, as so
often in St. Paul. See, _e.g._, 1 Cor. xv. 4, 12, 14, &c.

*Destroy this temple*, is not, of course, a command to put Him to death,
but a permission like what He said to Judas: _That which thou dost, do
quickly_ (John xiii. 27). It was usual with the Prophets to announce their
predictions in the form of a command; as, for instance, Isaias (xlvii. 1):
“Come down, sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon.”

20. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: 20. The Jews then said: Six
Quadraginta et sex annis and forty years was this
aedificatum est templum hoc, temple in building, and wilt
et tu in tribus diebus thou raise it up in three
excitabis illud? days?

20. The rebuilding of the temple by Herod the Great is said by Josephus,
in Antiq. xv. 11, 1, to have been begun in the eighteenth year of his
reign; in B. Jud. i. 21, 1, in the fifteenth; the difference arising from
the fact that in one case Josephus counts from the death of Antigonus, in
the other from Herod’s appointment by the Romans. (See Antiq. xvii. 8, 1.)
Reckoning from the latter, we have twenty years till the birth of Christ,
and thirty years since that event, making fifty, from which, however, four
must be subtracted, because our era is four years too late. This gives
forty‐six years. The mere building of the temple took only nine years and
a half, but during the remainder of the time it was decorated. These
decorations were still going on, and were not completed till 64 A.D., so
that the Greek verb ought to get its proper sense: _has been_ in building.

21. Ille autem dicebat de 21. But he spoke of the temple
templo corporis sui. of his body.

21. The inspired Evangelist here tells us that it was of His body Christ
spoke. He adds the explanation to show, perhaps, how utterly devoid of all
foundation in fact was the distorted testimony of the false witnesses, who
on the night before His death charged our Lord with having threatened to
destroy the temple _made with hands_ (Matt. xxvi. 61; Mark xiv. 58).

22. Cum ergo resurrexisset a 22. When therefore he was
mortuis, recordati sunt risen again from the dead, his
discipuli eius, quia hoc disciples remembered that he
dicebat, et crediderunt had said this, and they
scripturae, et sermoni quem believed the scripture, and
dixit Iesus. the word that Jesus had said.

22. When Christ had risen His disciples understood the Scriptures, or
rather they believed that they (see, _e.g._, Psalms iii. 6; xv. 10), and
Christ’s present words, referred to His resurrection.

23. Cum autem esset 23. Now when he was at
Ierosolymis in pascha in die Jerusalem at the pasch, upon
festo, multi crediderunt in the festival day, many
nomine eius, videntes signa believed in his name, seeing
eius, quae faciebat. his signs which he did.

23. *Upon the festival day.* Rather during the festal time, which, at the
Pasch, lasted a week, many believed in His name, that is to say, in Him,
seeing the miracles which he wrought, and which were _proofs_ of His
divine power.

24. Ipse autem Iesus non 24. But Jesus did not trust
credebat semetipsum eis, eo himself unto them, for that he
quod ipse nosset omnes. knew all men.

24. *Unto them*; _i.e._, all the Jews, or perhaps those very persons who
believed in Him; because, as searcher of hearts (verse 25), He foresaw
that they would not remain faithful followers.

25. Et quia opus ei non erat 25. And because he needed not
ut quis testimonium perhiberet that any should give testimony
de homine: ipse enim sciebat of man: for he knew what was
quid esset in homine. in man.

25. He knew this, not by any external indications, but because He is the
searcher of hearts. This is noted as another proof of Christ’s Divinity,
because this knowledge of the secrets of the hearts of all men belongs to
God alone. See 3 Kings viii. 39; 1 Paral. xxviii. 9; Job xlii. 2; Ps. vii.
10; Acts xv. 8. Some of the saints in special cases were able to read the
hearts of certain individuals, but no one save God knows the hearts of
all.

CHAPTER III.

1‐21. *Nicodemus comes to Christ; their discourse.*

22‐36. *Christ begins to baptize; complaints of the Baptist’s
disciples, and testimony of the Baptist to Christ’s divine origin,
and to the necessity of faith in Him.*

1. Erat autem homo ex 1. And there was a man of the
pharisaeis, Nicodemus nomine, Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a
princeps Iudaeorum. ruler of the Jews.

1. This chapter is closely connected with the end of the preceding. Among
the many who believed (ii. 23) was *a man of the Pharisees* (see i. 24).
The sect, name, and dignity of the man are mentioned, because of his
importance, and because of the importance of the discourse about to be
narrated.

*A ruler of the Jews*; that is to say, as we gather from vii. 45, 50, he
was a member of the Sanhedrim.

2. Hic venit ad Iesum nocte, 2. This man came to Jesus by
et dixit ei: Rabbi, scimus night, and said to him: Rabbi,
quia a Deo venisti magister: we know that thou art come a
nemo enim potest haec signa teacher from God: for no man
facere quae tu facis, nisi can do these signs which thou
fuerit Deus cum eo. dost, unless God be with him.

2. Because he believed in Jesus, he came; but because he feared the Jews,
he came by night.

*We know.* Nicodemus may have come in the name of several, to learn more
about Jesus, or he may be merely alluding to the fact that some others
were of the same belief. He professed his faith in Jesus as a heaven‐sent
teacher, stating the nature of his belief. “Nicodemus estimates
accurately, we may almost say with theological precision, the force of the
evidence of the miracles of our Lord, if they were to be taken apart from
other considerations which belonged to the same subject‐matter. The
miracles _in themselves_ proved exactly that God was with Him; but if they
were taken in conjunction with the witness of St. John the Baptist, with
our Lord’s manner of working them, that is, _as one who was using His own
power_, and with His way of speaking of Himself, and of God as His Father,
they might have been enough to form the ground of a still higher faith
concerning our Blessed Lord” (Coleridge, _Life of our Lord_, vol. i., page
256).

3. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 3. Jesus answered and said to
ei: Amen, amen, dico tibi, him: Amen, amen, I say to
nisi quis renatus fuerit thee, unless a man be born
denuo, non potest videre again, he cannot see the
regnum Dei. kingdom of God.

3. *Jesus answered.* This might merely mean that He went on to speak, the
verb to answer being again and again found in this sense in the New
Testament. Here, however, it may be used in its strict sense of replying
to a question, for it seems to us extremely probable that a portion of the
discourse leading up to the statement made in verse 3 is omitted by the
Evangelist. It is highly improbable that the whole discourse between
Christ and Nicodemus is here recorded, as it seems very unlikely that
Nicodemus, after the trouble of coming specially to Christ by night, left
Him, or would be allowed to leave, after the two or three minutes in which
the discourse here reported was spoken.

*Born again.* The Greek word ἄνωθενα, which is rendered “again,” may
mean—(_a_) from above, or (_b_) again. The latter meaning, however, is
more probable here, for so Nicodemus understood our Lord’s words (see
verse 4): so, also S. Chrysostom, and nearly all the Latin fathers.
Compare, too, Tit. iii. 5; 1 Pet. i. 23. The truth expressed in this verse
is universal; whoever is born needs to be reborn in order to see (= “to
enter into,” verse 5) the kingdom of God in Christ’s Church here, and in
heaven hereafter.

4. Dicit ad eum Nicodemus: 4. Nicodemus saith to him: How
Quomodo potest homo nasci, cum can a man be born when he is
sit senex? numquid potest in old? can he enter a second
ventrem matris suae iterato time into his mother’s womb,
introire, et renasci? and be born again?

4. Nicodemus either understood our Lord to speak of a second carnal birth;
or perhaps, not understanding the words at all, he may have pretended to
misunderstand, in order to get Christ to explain. His motive, at all
events, was good—to obtain light and instruction.

5. Respondit Iesus: Amen, amen 5. Jesus answered: Amen amen,
dico tibi, nisi quis renatus I say to thee, unless a man be
fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu born again of water and the
sancto, non potest intriore in Holy Ghost, he cannot enter
regnum Dei. into the kingdom of God.

5. Hence Christ goes on to give a more precise statement of the truth
contained in verse 3, with an additional explanation regarding the means
of regeneration under the new dispensation.

*Amen, Amen.* This formula indicates the importance of the pronouncement.
It has been defined by the Council of Trent—(_a_) that there is question
in this fifth verse of natural water, and (_b_) of that natural water as
necessary for Baptism. “Si quis dixerit aquam veram et naturalem non esse
de necessitate baptismi, atque ideo verba illa D. N. J. C.: ‘Nisi quis
renatus fuerit ex aqua, et Spiritu Sancto,’ ad metaphoram aliquam
detorserit, anathema sit” (Sess. vii. Can. 2. De bapt.).

This solemn declaration of the infallible Church settles, for Catholics,
the question as to whether there is reference here to Christian Baptism.
But even against heretics, for whom the Council of Trent speaks in vain,
it is not difficult to show that there must be reference here to
_Christian Baptism_. For (1) it cannot be denied that Christ inaugurated
some external rite of baptism (John iii. 25, 26; iv. 11). (2) Christ and
His disciples are represented (verse 22) as beginning to baptize after
this discourse with Nicodemus. (3) Every circumstance of this second birth
spoken of to Nicodemus is found in Christian Baptism. (_a_) Here we are
said to be born again; so, too, are we in Baptism:—“According to His mercy
He saved us by the laver of _regeneration_ and renovation of the Holy
Ghost” (Tit. iii. 5). (_b_) This second birth is necessary that we may be
saved and enter the kingdom of God; so is Christian Baptism (Mark xvi. 16;
Acts iii. 37, 38), (_c_) This second birth is through water and the Holy
Ghost; so is Baptism. See Acts viii. 36‐47; Tit. iii. 5.

Seeing that there is reference in the text to Christian Baptism, the word
“water” in the text, as the Council of Trent defined, is to be understood,
not metaphorically, but literally. Moreover, since this new birth is
attributed to the water as to the Holy Ghost “(ex aqua et Spiritu
Sancto”), water is not merely an empty symbol in the sacrament, but an
efficient cause of grace like the Holy Ghost; He being the principal, the
water the instrumental, efficient cause.

This new birth in Baptism implies—(1) that we die to the old man of sin,
“for we are buried together with Him by Baptism into death” (Rom. vi. 4).
It implies (2) that we are born through the divine gift of God’s grace to
a new and spiritual life, in which we are His adopted children. “So do you
also reckon that you are dead to sin, but _alive_ unto God in Christ Jesus
our Lord” (Rom. vi. 11).

We may remark, before passing from this text—(1) against the Pelagians and
Anabaptists, that Baptism is here declared necessary for all who have been
born, and therefore for infants before the use of reason; (2) against the
Calvinists and Socinians, who hold that children of Christian parents need
not be baptized, that no exception is here made in favour of the children
of Christians; (3) against Protestants, that water in Baptism is not a
mere symbol of regeneration, but is as truly its efficient cause as the
Holy Ghost Himself; with this difference, however, that whereas the water
is the instrumental, the Holy Ghost is the principal, cause.

6. Quod natum est ex carne, 6. That which is born of the
caro est: et quod natum est ex flesh, is flesh: and that
spiritu, spiritus est. which is born of the Spirit,
is spirit.

6. Christ explains why the agent of the regeneration of which He speaks
must be the Holy Ghost. What is born of man (flesh here is taken for human
nature without grace), is merely human; what is born of the Holy Ghost, is
spiritual, and partakes of the Divine (2 Pet. i. 4). Since, then, the new
life to which a man must be born again is spiritual, a spiritual and
supernatural principle is required.

7. Non mireris quia dixi tibi: 7. Wonder not, that I said to
Oportet vos nasci denuo. thee, you must be born again.

7. Wonder not, therefore, that I said to you: ye must be born again, for
if that which is born of the flesh is flesh, certainly you need a new
birth to be born to a life which is so far above the flesh.

8. Spiritus ubi vult spirat: 8. The Spirit breatheth where
et vocen eius audis, sed he will: and thou hearest his
nescis unde veniat, aut quo voice, but thou knowest not
vadat: sic est omnis qui natus whence he cometh, and whither
est ex spiritu. he goeth: so is every one that
is born of the Spirit.

8. Christ goes on to show how a difficulty in knowing the way in which the
regeneration takes place is no proof of its impossibility, nor a reason
for incredulity regarding its possibility. The sense of this verse depends
upon the meaning given to the first “spirit,” τὸ πνεῦμα. Some understand
this of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost acts in men according to His own
good pleasure; “you hear His voice that cannot be mistaken—its power, its
sweetness, the peace which it breathes, the light which it pours on you;
but you cannot tell that He is approaching, or when He will come, or how
He will work on your soul; _in such manner_ is it that everyone is born of
the Spirit who is so born” (Coleridge, _Public Life of our Lord_, vol. i.,
page 262). Others understand the first spirit here of the wind; and this
is the more common opinion among commentators. In this view, by means of a
simple and obvious illustration from nature, Christ shows Nicodemus that
he must believe in the possibility of this second birth, even though he
know not the manner in which it takes place. The wind bloweth where it
listeth, and you know not whence it cometh or whither it goeth: _so is it_
in regeneration; you are regenerated, though you cannot comprehend the
process. That πνεῦμα sometimes means wind in Biblical Greek, is undeniable
(see, _e.g._, Gen. vii. 1; Ps. civ. 4; Matt. xxiv. 31; Heb. i. 7), and the
use of the word here in different senses is plain from the comparison (*so
is it*, &c.), according to the patrons of this second opinion. Nor does
the fact that it is preceded by the article here oblige us, according to
these, to refer it to the Holy Ghost; for, just as in verse 5, without the
article, it refers to the Holy Ghost, so here, with the article, it may
not refer to Him.

9. Respondit Nicodemus, et 9. Nicodemus answered, and
dixit ei: Quomodo possunt haec said to him: How can these
fieri? things be done?
10. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 10. Jesus answered, and said
ei: Tu es magister in Israel, to him: Art thou a master in
et haec ignoras? Israel, and knowest not these
things?

9, 10. Nicodemus again asks how these things can come to pass, and Jesus
gently upbraids him for his ignorance. As one of the chief teachers of
Israel ὁ διδάσκαλος(36) (see also vii. 45‐50), one of the seventy‐one
members of the Sanhedrim, or supreme Council of the Jews, he should be
familiar with the Sacred Scriptures, and ought to have read in them the
promise of a spiritual regeneration. See Ezech. xxxvi. 25; Zach. xiii. 1.

11. Amen, amen, dico tibi, 11. Amen, amen I say to thee,
quia quod scimus loquimur, et that we speak what we know,
quod vidimus testamur, et and we testify what we have
testimonium nostrum non seen, and you receive not our
accipitis. testimony.

11. Christ continues using the solemn form of asseveration. *What we
know.* The plural is used not of Himself and the Holy Spirit, nor of
Himself and the Prophets, nor of all born of the Spirit, nor of the Three
Persons of the Trinity, but simply as a plural of majesty. *What we have
seen.* Sight, says St. Chrys. on this verse, we consider the most certain
of all the senses, so that when we say we saw such a thing with our eyes,
we seem to compel men to believe us. In like manner, Christ, speaking
after the manner of men, does not indeed mean that He has seen actually
with the bodily eye the mysteries He reveals, but it is manifest that He
means He has the most certain and absolute (and we may add, immediate: see
above on i. 18) knowledge of them. In these words, then, Christ insists
upon His authority to teach, and His claim to be believed.

12. Si terrena dixi vobis, et 12. If I have spoken to you
non creditis: quomodo, si earthly things, and you
dixero vobis coelestia, believe not: how will you
credetis? believe if I shall speak to
you heavenly things?

12. If you will not believe Me when I teach you the comparatively
elementary doctrine of Baptism, which regards the regeneration of man here
on earth, how shall you believe if I go on to speak of truths more
sublime, more removed from the realms of sense and human comprehension?
The spiritual vision of Nicodemus was hardly able to bear the first ray of
truth; how then was it to bear the full flood of the light of higher
revelation?

13. Et nemo ascendit in 13. And no man hath ascended
coelum, nisi qui descendit de into heaven, but he that
coelo, Filius hominis, qui est descended from heaven, the son
in coelo. of man who is in heaven.

13. The meaning is: No one was in heaven except Him who has descended from
heaven, and now speaks to you; namely, the Son of Man, who still remains
in heaven. In this view, which is that of St. Thomas, Toletus, and Beelen,
Christ speaks of Himself as _having ascended_ into heaven only to
accommodate His language to human ideas, which conceive of _ascent_ to
heaven as necessary, in order to our being there. The Son of Man, *as Son
of God*, had, of course, been there from all eternity and needed not to
ascend. Some think that Christ here begins to explain the “heavenly
things” referred to in the preceding verse; but a more probable connection
is the following:—He had said: how shall you believe heavenly things from
Me since you question even the elementary truths which I tell you? And yet
from Me alone you must learn such things, for no one else has been in
heaven, so as to know and be able to teach you the mysteries of God.

14. Et sicut Moyses exaltavit 14. And as Moses lifted up the
serpentem in deserto, ita serpent in the desert, so must
exaltarioportet Filium the son of man be lifted up:
hominis:
15. Ut omnis, qui credit in 15. That whosoever believeth
ipsum, non pereat, sed habeat in him, may not perish, but
vitam aeternam. may have life everlasting.

14, 15. Christ now goes on to speak of some of the more sublime doctrines.
As Moses raised up the serpent, upon which whosoever looked was healed
(Numbers xxi. 4‐9), so must Christ be lifted up on the cross (see John
viii. 28; xii. 32‐34), to save those who believe in Him. The best
supported Greek reading of verse 15 would be rendered:—*That everyone who
believes may, through him, have eternal life*; μὴ ἀπόληται αλλ᾽ (may not
perish, but) not being genuine, and ἐν αὐτώ standing instead of εἰς αὐτόν.
Though faith is the only condition to salvation which is mentioned in
verse 15, others are supposed, as is evident from verse 5:—“Unless a man
be born again.” &c. Faith, however, is often specially referred to,
because as the Council of Trent (Sess. vi., c. 8) says:—“Fides est humanae
salutis initium, fundamentum, et radix omnis justificationis.”

16. Sic enim Deus dilexit 16. For God so loved the
mundum, ut Filium suum world, as to give his only
unigenitum daret: ut omnis, begotten Son; that whosoever
qui credit in eum, non pereat, believeth in him, may not
sed habeat vitam aeternam. perish, but may have life
everlasting.

16. Some commentators, following Erasmus, hold that what follows to the
end of verse 21, is not the language of Christ, but a comment of the
Evangelist; but more probably Christ still continues. The boundless love
of God for the world, and not merely for the elect, is declared to be the
cause of the incarnation, and the world’s salvation its object. It was
this love that made God give His _only‐begotten Son_ to suffer for men and
save them.

17. Non enim misit Deus Filium 17. For God sent not his Son,
suum in mundum, ut iudicet into the world, to judge the
mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus world, but that the world may
per ipsum. be saved by him.

17. For it was to save, not to judge the world, that the Son of God came
at His first coming. Hereafter in His second coming He will come to judge
and to condemn (the context proves there is question of the judgment of
condemnation).

18. Qui credit in eum, non 18. He that believeth in him
iudicatur: qui autem non is not judged. But he that
credit, iam iudicatus est, doth not believe is already
quia non credit in nomine judged: because he believeth
unigeniti Filii Dei. not in the name of the only
begotten Son of God.

18. He who believeth in Christ escapes the judgment of condemnation; but
he who believeth not is already condemned, because, inasmuch as he has not
believed, “the wrath of God,” _i.e._, original sin (Eph. ii. 3) and its
effects in actual sin, remain upon him (verse 36); and he has rejected the
only means whereby he could be delivered from them. It is as it a
physician were sent to the sick, says St. Augustine, they who come to him
are cured; they who come not, perish; not through him, however, but
because of their disease.

19. Hoc est autem iudicium: 19. And this is the judgment:
quia lux venit in mundum, et because the light is come into
dilexerunt homines magis the world, and men loved
tenebras quam lucem: erant darkness rather than the
enim eorum mala opera. light: for their works were
evil.

19. This is the _reason_ of the condemnation, namely, that men do not come
to the light, but rather shrink from it, through the fear of being forced
by an awakened conscience to abandon sin.

20. Omnis enim qui male agit, 20. For every one that doth
odit lucem, et non venit ad evil hateth the light, and
lucem, ut non arguantur opera cometh not to the light, that
eius: his works may not be reproved:

20. *For every one that doth evil*, and, as St. Chrys. explains determines
to _remain_ in his wickedness, *hateth the light, and cometh not to the
light, that his works may not be reproved*.

21. Qui autem facit veritatem, 21. But he that doth truth,
venit ad lucem, ut cometh to the light, that his
manifestentur opera eius, quia works may be made manifest,
in Deo sunt facta. because they are done in God.

21. *But he that doth the ** truth*; that is to say, what truth directs,
or rather the practical truth of good works, for right action is the
realization of true thought, *cometh to the light*, by accepting the faith
of Christ, by believing (v. 18). *That his works may be made manifest.*
Just as he who does evil, and intends to persist in it, shuns the light,
in order that his works may not be reproved (v. 20), so he who does good,
and means to persevere in it, comes to the light and believes, in order
that his works may be approved. The antithesis between this and the
preceding verse, shows that the manifestation of which there is question
here is equivalent to approval; and indeed, from the nature of the case,
the manifestation of such works in the light of Christian truth would be
necessarily followed by their approval, not only by God, but also by the
enlightened judgment of him who wrought them.

*Because* (ὅτι) *they are done* (Gr. _have been done_) *in God*. These
words may be differently connected. They may give the reason why he who
does good, readily comes to the light, namely, because his works have been
good, and he is not afraid to have them tested. Or, they might be
understood to give the reason why such a one’s works are approved, namely
because they are done in God. Or again, ὅτι may be taken to mean not,
“because,” but “that;” and then the sense will be, that he who does good
comes to the light and believes, that his works may be made manifest as
having been (that they have been) done in God. The last is perhaps the
simplest and most natural interpretation, but the first also is probable.

But in any of these interpretations, the question arises—how can the works
of a man who has not yet believed, be said to have been “done in God.”
Various answers have been given. We cannot agree with those commentators
who reply that there is question of future works to be performed after the
reception of faith; for the whole context, and the Greek text (_have been_
done), show that there is question of past works done before their author
has come to the light. Nor do we think that there is question merely of
natural works done in the past with the aid of medicinal grace, for such
works would scarcely be said to have been “done in God.” We hold, then,
that there is reference to the “initium fidei,” that is to say, to all
those works that sprang from supernatural grace, were salutary in
themselves, and led up to faith. These are the only works of one who has
not yet believed, that can be properly said to have been done in God, done
according to His will and pleasure. That there are such works antecedent
to faith, cannot be denied; for the proposition: “Faith is the first
grace,” put forward in the schismatical Council of Pistoia, was condemned
by Pius VI., in the Bull _Auctorem Fidei_. Besides, it is _de fide_,
against the Semipelagians, that supernatural grace is necessary for the
“initium fidei,” from which it follows that the works included in the
“initium fidei,” are salutary, and “done in God.”

22. Post haec venit Iesus, et 22. After these things Jesus
discipuli eius, in terram and his disciples came into
Iudaeam: et illic demorabatur the land of Judea; and there
cum eis, et baptizabat. he abode with them and
baptized.

22. *After these things*; that is to say, after this discourse with
Nicodemus. How long our Lord remained in Jerusalem on the occasion of this
first Pasch, we know not. By *the land of Judea*, is meant the country
parts of that province, as distinguished from the city of Jerusalem, where
the discourse with Nicodemus had taken place. In these country parts,
then, Jesus baptized through His disciples (iv. 2), the baptism most
probably being sacramental.

23. Erat autem et Ioannes 23. And John also was
baptizans in Aennon, iuxta baptizing in Ennon near Salim;
Salim: quia aquae multae erant because there was much water
illic, et veniebant, et there, and they came, and were
baptizabantur. baptized.

23. *Ennon, near Salim.* The site of Aennon (Gr. Αἰνών, from a Chaldaic
word meaning springs) is difficult to determine. If we compare verse 26 of
this chapter with John i. 28, it would seem that Aennon was west of the
Jordan. Eusebius and Jerome place it eight miles south of Scythopolis,
“juxta Salim et Jordanem;” and the latter states that the ruins of
Melchizedek’s palace existed in his day at Salim. These statements are so
positive that they cannot lightly be set aside. In the Jordan valley,
about seven and a‐half miles from Beisan (Scythopolis), there is a
remarkable group of seven springs, all lying within a radius of a quarter
of a mile, which answers well to the description “many waters.”(37)
According to this view, Aennon was situated in the north‐east corner of
Samaria. Others, however, think, from the connection between this verse
and verse 22, in which Jesus is said to baptize in Judea, that Aennon also
was in Judea, and refer to Josue xv. 32, where the cities of Selim and
_Aen_ are mentioned as in the tribe of Juda.

24. Nondum enim missus fuerat 24. For John was not yet cast
Ioannes in carcerem. into prison.

24. The Evangelist notes that the Baptist had not yet been imprisoned,
probably lest it should be thought, from Matt. iv. 11, 12, that the
imprisonment of the Baptist followed at once upon the return of Christ
from the forty days’ fast in the desert. This verse, therefore, affords a
strong proof that our Evangelist was acquainted with the Gospel of St.
Matthew.

25. Facta est autem quaestio 25. And there arose a question
ex discipulis Ioannis cum between some of John’s
Iudaeis de purificatione. disciples and the Jews
concerning purification:
26. Et venerunt ad Ioannem, et 26. And they came to John, and
dixerunt ei: Rabbi, qui erat said to him: Rabbi, he that
tecum trans Iordanem, cui tu was with thee beyond the
testimonium perhibuisti, ecce Jordan, to whom thou gavest
hic baptizat, et omnes veniunt testimony, behold he
ad eum. baptizeth, and all men come to
him.

25, 26. A question arose between (ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν Ἰωάννου μετα Ἰονδαίου,
_i.e._, “cujus auctores extitere discipuli Joannis,” Beel, _Gr. Gram._, §
51, B. 2, 8) John’s disciples and _the Jews_, _i.e._, some leading Jews,
perhaps members of the Sanhedrim, concerning the relative merits of John’s
baptism and Christ’s; and John’s disciples come to their master, jealous
that his fame is being eclipsed by that of Him whom he had been the means
of bringing before the public notice. The best supported reading is _a
Jew_, not the Jews.

27. Respondit Ioannes, et 27. John answered and said: A
dixit: Non potest homo man cannot receive anything,
accipere quidquam, nisi fuerit unless it be given him from
ei datum de coelo. heaven.
28. Ipsi vos mihi testimonium 28. You yourselves do bear me
perhibetis, quod dixerim: Non witness, that I said, I am not
sum ego Christus, sed quia Christ, but that I am sent
missus sum ante illum. before him.

27, 28. John’s answer to his disciples is his last recorded testimony to
Christ. It is to the effect that a man may not arrogate to himself power
or office unless he have authority from God, and that his own office is
merely that of precursor to the Messias.

29. Qui habet sponsam, sponsus 29. He that hath the bride, is
est: amicus autem sponsi, qui the bridegroom: but the friend
stat, et audit eum, gaudio of the bridegroom, who
gaudet propter vocem sponsi. standeth and heareth him,
Hoc ergo gaudium meum impletum rejoiceth with joy because of
est. the bridegroom’s voice. This
my joy therefore is fulfilled.

29. By a familiar example the Baptist illustrates the difference between
himself and Christ. On the occasion of a Jewish marriage it was usual for
the bridegroom to have a friend (“amicus sponsi,” corresponding to the
παράνυμφος of the Greeks), whose duty it was to arrange the preliminaries
to the marriage, and at the marriage feast to minister to the bridegroom.
The sense of the Baptist’s words then is, that though many are present to
a wedding, only one, he who hath the bride, is the bridegroom. His friend,
who has helped to bring about the marriage, is satisfied to stand and
minister to him, rejoicing exceedingly to hear the bridegroom speaking
with his bride, nor jealous of the happy relations which subsist between
them. *This, my joy, therefore, is fulfilled.* In these words the Baptist
points the application of the comparison to Christ and himself. The
Baptist is the “amicus sponsi,” who prepared the disciples for Christ;
Christ is the bridegroom, and the disciples flocking to Christ (verse 26)
were to constitute the Church, which is His spouse. See 2 Cor. xi. 2; Eph.
v. 25, 27.

30. Illum oportet crescere, me 30. He must increase, but I
autem minui. must decrease.

30. John had fulfilled his mission; thenceforward, therefore, whereas
Christ, in virtue of His nature, and His office of Messias, should
increase, the Baptist himself should decrease, in influence and fame.

31. Qui desursum venit, super 31. He that cometh from above,
omnes est. Qui est de terra, is above all. He that is of
de terra est, et de terra the earth, of the earth he is,
loquitur. Qui de coelo venit, and of the earth he speaketh.
super omnes est. He that cometh from heaven, is
above all.

31. He that hath a divine origin is above all men, and so above me; but He
that is of the earth by origin, of the earth he is in nature, and of the
earth He speaks (compare verse 6). This is true of all men, in comparison
with Christ: their thoughts are earthly, weak, and limited; His divine and
inexhaustible; but it is also true absolutely, if we consider them apart
from faith and grace. “Hoc autem in Joanne verum est primo, si ejus nudam
naturam spectes, et seclusa Dei gratia, vocatione, et revelatione: sic
enim Joannes non nisi terreus et terrenus erat, nec nisi terrena sapiebat;
quia ‘si quid divinum audisti a Joanne illuminantis est, non recipientis,’
ait St. Augustinus, quasi dicat, id accepit a Deo, non habet a se” (A
Lap.).

32. Et quod vidit, et audivit, 32. And what he hath seen and
hoc testatur: et testimonium, heard, that he testifieth: and
eius nemo accipit. no man receiveth his
testimony.

32. What Christ knoweth of His own _immediate_ divine knowledge, as being
“in the bosom of the Father” (i. 18), this He testifieth; and yet hardly
anyone (“no man” being an hyperbole) receiveth His testimony. Christ is
metaphorically spoken of here as seeing and hearing, to indicate His
direct and _immediate_ knowledge of things divine. Compare v. 19; vi. 46;
viii. 38; xv. 15; xvi. 13.

According to Patrizzi and others, this and the following verses are the
words of the Evangelist; but more probably the Baptist continues to the
end of the chapter, developing the reason why Christ must increase.

33. Qui accepit eius 33. He that hath received his
testimonium, signavit quia testimony, hath set to his
Deus verax est. seal that God is true.

33. He who has believed in Christ has thereby testified solemnly (as
though he set his _seal_ to the testimony) that God is truthful. *God*
here refers to the Father; and the meaning is, that by believing what
Christ teaches, we believe Him to be truthful, and therefore believe the
Father also, from whom He has received His divine nature and knowledge,
and His mission as Messias, to be truthful. This is better than to refer
God here to the Son (Christ), as Maldonatus does; for in the next verse,
which proves this, God plainly refers to the Father.

34. Quem enim misit Deus, 34. For he whom God hath sent,
verba Dei loquitur: non enim speaketh the words of God: for
ad mensuram dat Deus spiritum. God doth not give the spirit
by measure.

34. *For he whom God* (the Father) *hath sent* (*as His Son*, verse 35),
as the Messias, *speaketh the words of God, for God doth not give the
spirit by measure*. The contrast is between the abundant gift of the
Spirit to Christ, as man, and the stinted participation of the same Spirit
by those who are merely of the earth (Rom. xii. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 14). The
sense, then, is, that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were poured out in
abundance on Christ as man; that “He unceasingly possessed them all at
once to the greatest extent of which human nature is capable” (M’Ev.); and
this plenitude of the gifts of the Holy Ghost within Him is the reason why
He speaks the words of God.

35. Pater diligit Filium: et 35. The Father loveth the Son:
omnia dedit in manu eius. and he hath given all things
into his hand.

35. This plenitude of the Spirit in Christ, this fulness of grace and
truth (i. 16, 17), in Christ as man, is the effect of the love of the
Father for His Incarnate Son, which love has also caused the Father to
grant to Christ, as _man_, the _bestowal_ (He hath given all things *into
His hand*) of all the gifts of the Spirit required for the salvation of
men.

36. Qui credit in Filium habet 36. He that believeth in the
vitam aeternam: qui autem Son, hath life everlasting:
incredulus est Filio, non but he that believeth not the
videbit vitam, sed ira Dei Son, shall not see life, but
manet super eum. the wrath of God abideth on
him.

36. Since, then, Jesus Christ has been constituted our help unto
salvation, he that believes _in Him_ as Son of God (and acts accordingly)
hath eternal life begun in him by justification; he that believeth not,
&c. See verse 18.

This splendid testimony of the Baptist in favour of Christ was intended to
detach his disciples from himself, and win them to Christ, of whom, as we
learn from verse 26, they had shown themselves jealous.

CHAPTER IV.

1‐4. *Jesus sets out from Judea to Galilee.*

5‐26. *Arrival in Sichar, and discourse with the Samaritan woman.*

27‐38. *Discourse with the disciples.*

39‐42. *Stay with the people of Sichar.*

43‐54. Continuation of the journey into Galilee, and healing of
the ruler’s son.

1. Ut ergo cognovit Iesus quia 1. When Jesus therefore
audierunt pharisaei quod Iesus understood that the Pharisees
plures discipulos facit, et had heard that Jesus maketh
baptizat, quam Ioannes, more disciples, and baptizeth
_more_ than John,

1. *When Jesus therefore understood*, &c. Christ is spoken of as if on
this occasion He gained knowledge of which He had been ignorant, because
though, as God, He knew all things, every inmost thought of the Pharisees,
yet, _as man_, like other men, He gathered knowledge from His fellow‐men.
See Mald.

*That Jesus.* Not that He Himself; because the report which the Pharisees
had heard is given verbatim, “that” (ὅτι) merely introducing it.

2. (Quamquam Iesus non 2. (Though Jesus _himself_ did
baptizaret sed discipuli not baptize, but his
eius,) disciples,)

2. Jesus Himself did not usually baptize; probably because, like St. Paul
(1 Cor. i. 14‐16), His mission was to preach and teach. It by no means
follows from this verse that He never baptized anyone; and many writers
are of opinion that He baptized some Himself.

3. Reliquit Iudaeam, et abiit 3. He left Judea, and went
iterum in Galilaeam; again into Galilee.

3. Because His time to suffer had not yet come, and much of the work of
His public mission still remained to be accomplished, He left Judea, the
headquarters of the Pharisees, whose jealousy He knew would be aroused by
the report mentioned in verse 1, and went again (see John i. 43) into
Galilee.

4. Oportebat autem eum 4. And he was of necessity to
transire per Samariam. pass through Samaria.
5. Venit ergo in civitatem 5. He cometh therefore to a
Samariae, quae dicitur Sichar: city of Samaria which is
iuxta praedium quod dedit called Sichar; near the land
Iacob Ioseph filio suo. which Jacob gave to his son
Joseph.

4, 5. Not choosing to cross to the east of the Jordan, and go up through
Peraea, as some of the stricter Jews did, who wished to avoid all possible
contact with the Samaritans, He was obliged to pass through Samaria. Of
the three provinces of Palestine west of the Jordan, Samaria was in the
centre, with Judea to the south, and Galilee to the north. “St. John is
thus careful to note that this was no mission to the Samaritans which the
Lord undertook. On the contrary, the law which He imposed on His
disciples: ‘And into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not’ (Matt. x.
5), this, during the days of His flesh, He imposed also on Himself. He was
not sent ‘but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt. xv. 24;
Acts xiii. 46); and if any grace reached Samaritan or heathen, it was, so
to speak, but by accident, a crumb falling from the children’s table.”(38)
Samaria had been the portion of the tribe of Ephraim and of half the tribe
of Manasses. The province derived its name from its chief city, Samaria,
which, in turn, got its name from Mount Somer (or Semer), on which it was
built (3 Kings xvi. 24). See A Lap. The city called Sichar(39) (the modern
Nabulus) by St. John is the ancient Sichem, where Abram built an altar to
the Lord (Gen. xii. 7), under the turpentine tree behind which Jacob
buried the idols of his household (Gen. xxxv. 4), and where the bones of
the twelve patriarchs were laid to rest (Acts vii. 16).

*Near the land which Jacob gave to his son Joseph.* See Gen. xxxviii. 18,
19; Josue xxiv. 32.

6. Erat autem ibi fons Iacob, 6. Now Jacob’s well was there.
Iesus ergo fatigatus ex Jesus therefore being wearied
itinere, sedebat sic supra with his journey, sat thus on
fontem. Hora erat quasi sexta. the well. It was about the
sixth hour.

6. *Jacob’s well*, which he had dug or bought, was there; and Jesus, weary
because of His journey, sat _thus_ (_sic._, “hoc est, fatigatus ut erat,”
Beel.) by the well.

*It was about the sixth hour.* See on i. 39.

7. Venit mulier de Samaria 7. There cometh a woman of
haurire aquam. Dicit ei Iesus: Samaria to draw water. Jesus
Da mihi bibere. saith to her: Give me to
drink.

7. There cometh a woman of Samaria, not of the city of Samaria, for that
was six miles distant, but of the country of Samaria, a Samaritan woman,
to draw water.(40)

8. (Discipuli enim eius 8. For his disciples were gone
abierant in civitatem ut cibos into the city to buy meats.
emerent.)

8. Because He had no one else to give Him to drink, He asks her to do so,
and thus leads up naturally to the following discourse.

9. Dicit ergo ei mulier illa 9. Then that Samaritan woman
Samaritana: Quomodo tu Iudaeus saith to him: How dost thou,
cum sis, bibere a me poscis, being a Jew, ask of me to
quae sum mulier Samaritana? drink, who am a Samaritan
non enim coutuntur Iudaei woman? For the Jews do not
Samaritanis. communicate with the
Samaritans.

9. The Samaritans, with whom, as here stated, the Jews avoided all
intercourse, were either pure Assyrians or a mixture of Jews and
Assyrians, at best a mongrel race. Very probably some Jews were left
behind in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian captivity, under
Salmanassar, 721 B.C.; and from these intermarrying with the imported
Easterns sprang the Samaritans. The Jews regarded the Samaritans with
special aversion for many reasons. They were the descendants of the
Assyrian conquerors; they held what was the rightful inheritance of the
Jews; they corrupted Jewish worship; they endeavoured to prevent the
rebuilding of the Temple under Zorobabel (1 Esd. iv. 2, 7, 8), and were
always prepared to harbour the false friends or open enemies of the Jews.
Hence this woman, recognising in Christ’s dress and accent His Jewish
origin, wonders that He would speak to, much less drink from, a Samaritan.
The last clause: *For the Jews do not communicate with the Samaritans*, is
added by the Evangelist as an explanation of the woman’s question for
Gentile readers.

10. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 10. Jesus answered and said to
ei: Si scires donum Dei, et her: If thou didst know the
quis est qui dicit tibi, Da gift of God, and who he is
mihi bibere; tu forsitan that saith to thee, Give me to
petisses ab eo, et dedisset drink; thou perhaps wouldst
tibi aquam vivam. have asked of him, and he
would have given thee living
water.

10. *The gift of God* is not the Holy Ghost, nor Christ Himself, nor the
opportunity now offered her, but most probably the gift of grace, the
“living water” spoken of in the end of the verse. Hence Christ’s words
mean: If you knew that there is a spiritual water which slakes the thirst
of man in the desert of this world, and that He who can bestow it speaks
to you, *thou perhaps wouldst have asked*, &c. *Perhaps* (_forsitan_) is
not represented in the Greek, in which we have an ordinary conditional
sentence; and certainly Christ knew without doubt what would have been the
result. The Vulgate translator, probably added “forsitan” to indicate that
she would still be _free_ to reject the grace offered.

*Living water.* There is the same diversity of opinion here as in regard
to the “gift of God,” with the addition that some have held the reference
here to be to the waters of baptism. We take it that the reference again
is to grace. Living water properly signifies _running water_, in
opposition to the stagnant water of pools or cisterns. Here, however the
words seem to be used in their highest sense, of waters which come from
God and bestow _life_ upon all who drink of them.

11. Dicit ei mulier: Domine, 11. The woman saith to him:
neque in quo haurias habes, et Sir, thou hast nothing wherein
puteus altus est: unde ergo to draw, and the well is deep:
habes aquam vivam? from whence then hast thou
living water?
12. Numquid tu maior es patre 12. Art thou greater than our
nostro Iacob, qui dedit nobis father Jacob, who gave us the
puteum, et ipse ex eo bibit, well, and drank thereof
et filii eius, et pecora eius? himself, and his children, and
his cattle?

11, 12. She understands Him to speak of natural water, which He seemed to
think superior to that of Jacob’s well; and, concluding that He must refer
to the water of some other well, since indeed He had no bucket, no means
of drawing from the deep well at which she stood, she asks Him: Art Thou
greater than our father Jacob, so as to be able to provide a better water
than he provided for us in this well? That its waters were good enough for
him and his sons, is a proof of their excellence; that they sufficed for
all his household and cattle, is evidence of their abundance. There is a
tinge of resentment in the words of verse 12, for the Samaritans claimed
descent from Jacob (*our father, Jacob*), through Joseph and Joseph’s
sons, Ephraim and Manasses, whose tribal territory they possessed, and
this Jewish Stranger seemed to the woman to set Himself above the great
Patriarch of her race.

13. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 13. Jesus answered, and said
ei: Omnis qui bibit ex aqua to her: Whosoever drinketh of
hac, sitiet iterum: qui autem this water, shall thirst
biberit ex aqua quam ego dabo again: but he that shall drink
ei, non sitiet in aeternum: of the water that I will give
him, shall not thirst for
ever.

13. Without replying explicitly that He was indeed greater than Jacob,
Christ implies this by declaring that the water which He will give is
superior to that of Jacob’s well. For while the latter only satisfies
present wants, that which He will give will quench present and prevent
future thirst. What is said in Eccl. xxiv. 29: “They that drink Me shall
yet thirst,” is not opposed to our Lord’s words here; for in
Ecclesiasticus there is question of desire springing from love, here of a
craving arising from want. These words of our Lord show, then, that
sanctifying grace is of its own nature perennial in the soul. Time does
not wear it away; use does not consume it; unless it be expelled, it never
departs: “He that drinks ... shall not thirst for ever.”

14. Sed aqua, quam ego dabo 14. But the water that I will
ei, fiet in eo fons aquae give him, shall become in him
salientis in vitam aeternam. a fountain of water springing
up into life everlasting.

14. But so far from thirsting, he shall have that within him, that is, the
Holy Ghost and His graces, which will conduct him to eternal life. In this
beautiful metaphor, the spiritual water of grace is represented as finding
its own level; coming from heaven, it will return thither in those whom it
has saved. The mention of *eternal life* ought to have made it clear that
Christ spoke of supernatural and spiritual water.

15. Dicit ad eum mulier: 15. The woman saith to him:
Domine, da mihi hanc aquam, ut Sir, give me this water, that
non sitiam, neque veniam huc I may not thirst, nor come
haurire. hither to draw.

15. Yet she probably still understands of Him merely natural water, “Adhuc
carnalis est mulier” (Mald.): and anticipates only relief from having come
to Jacob’s well in future.

16. Dicit ei Iesus: Vade, voca 16. Jesus saith to her: Go,
virum tuum, et veni huc. call thy husband, and come
hither.

16. Christ, of course, knew she had no husband; but He knew also what
answer she would give, and He wished to get a natural opportunity of
disclosing to her the secrets of her wicked life, that He might manifest
His supernatural knowledge.

17. Respondit mulier, et 17. The woman answered, and
dixit: Non habeo virum. Dicit said: I have no husband. Jesus
ei Iesus: Bene dixisti, quia said to her: Thou hast said
non habeo virum: well, I have no husband:
18. Quinque enim viros 18. For thou hast had five
habuisti: et nunc quem habes, husbands: and he whom thou now
non est tuus vir: hoc vere hast, is not thy husband. This
dixisti. thou hast said truly.

17, 18. *Thou hast well said, I have no husband*, or rather, _husband_ I
have not, with an emphasis on husband, which is marked in the Greek by its
position in the sentence, as reproduced by Christ.

*Thou hast had five husbands.* Though St. Chrys. and Mald. think that
there is question, not of husbands, but of paramours, the common opinion,
and certainly the obvious one, is that husbands are spoken of. It is not
necessary to suppose that the husbands made room for one another by death,
for she may have been divorced by several of them. See Deut. xxiv. 1, 2;
Matt. xix. 3.

19. Dicit ei mulier: Domine, 19. The woman saith to him:
video quia propheta es tu. Sir, I perceive that thou art
a prophet.

19. *A prophet*; _i.e._, here, as elsewhere frequently, one who has
supernatural knowledge, who knows things which are naturally hidden from
him. In these words the poor woman confesses her own guilt and the exalted
character of Christ, whom, however, she does not yet recognise as “_The_
Prophet,” the Messias, but only as a prophet.

20. Patres nostri in monte hoc 20. Our fathers adored on this
adoraverunt, et vos dicitis, mountain, and you say that at
quia Ierosolymis est locus ubi Jerusalem is the place where
adorare oportet. men must adore.

20. Not so much for the purpose of turning the conversation from the
unpleasant subject of her own character,(41) as in order to have the
opinion of a prophet upon an important question, she adds: *Our fathers*,
&c.

She says that her Samaritan ancestors had worshipped on that mountain. She
evidently refers to public worship, public ceremonies appointed by God,
especially the worship of *sacrifice*; for the Jews never held that
private worship, as of prayer, should be restricted to Jerusalem. The
mountain to which she refers, and beneath the shadow of which Christ and
she were standing, is Mount Garizim, which overhangs the town of Sichar.
In the time of Alexander the Great, Manasses, a Jewish priest, was
excluded from the exercise of his ministry for marrying the daughter of
the king of Sichem. The king accordingly built for Manasses a temple on
Mount Garizim, where he offered sacrifice to the true God. This temple was
built about 330 B.C., and stood for two hundred years. After it was
destroyed, about 130 B.C., the Samaritans erected an altar upon Garizim,
and continued to offer sacrifice there; so that from the time of Manasses
the true God was worshipped, though imperfectly, among them. There still
remain a few families of Samaritans, under the shadow of Mount Garizim, in
the modern city of Nabulus, or Naplouse.

21. Dicit ei Iesus: Mulier 21. Jesus saith to her: Woman,
crede mihi, quia venit hora believe me, that the hour
quando neque in monte hoc, cometh, when you shall neither
neque Ierosolymis adorabitis on this mountain, nor in
Patrem. Jerusalem adore the Father.

21. Christ declares with all solemnity that the time is at hand—nay,
already come (see verse 23), when true worship _shall be restricted_
neither to Jerusalem nor to Garizim; and hence her question is practically
unimportant.

22. Vos adoratis quod 22. You adore that which you
nescitis: nos adoramus quod know not: we adore that which
scimus, quia salus ex Iudaeis we know; for salvation is of
est. the Jews.

22. *You adore that which* (ὅ) *you know not*. As the woman’s inquiry
regarded not the object, but the place of worship, some have understood
these words of our Lord in reference to the place, as if He said: You
adore in a place for worshipping in which you have no Divine sanction, we
in a place pointed out by the finger of God. But it is difficult to
reconcile this view with our Lord’s words: “You adore _that which_ you
know not.” Hence it is more probable, that in replying to her inquiry, He
takes occasion to refer to the imperfect knowledge of God, possessed by
Samaritans. The neuter (ὅ) seems to be used in the first instance, to show
the want of personality and definiteness in the Samaritan idea of God,(42)
and in the second instance merely for the sake of correspondence between
the two members of the sentence. *We adore.* That Christ numbers Himself
among those who adore, merely proves that He had a human nature.

23. Sed venit hora, et nunc 23. But the hour cometh, and
est, quando veri adoratores now is, when the true adorers
adorabunt Patrem in spiritu et shall adore the Father in
veritate. Nam et Pater tales spirit and in truth. For the
quaerit, qui adorent eum. Father also seeketh such to
adore him.

23. Still, though this is so, not even to Jerusalem, shall worship be
restricted in the future; *but the hour cometh*, &c.

What is the adoration *in spirit and in truth*, here foretold? Evidently
the worship of the new dispensation, as contrasted with that of the old;
this is plain from the whole context. What, then, is meant by saying that
the worship of the new dispensation is to be *in spirit and in truth*?
Various interpretations of the words have been given.

(1) “In spirit” is opposed to the worship of the Jews; “in truth” to that
of the Samaritans. Hence the worship of the new dispensation is to be,
_not merely external_, as was the Jewish (unless it was accompanied by
faith in the Redeemer to come, in which case it was not merely Jewish, but
Christian), nor _false_, as was the Samaritan. (Toletus.)

(2) “In spirit” is opposed to all merely external and local worship,
whether of _Jews_ or _Samaritans_; “in truth” to the _typical_ and
imperfect worship of the Jews. For the Jewish sacrifices and ceremonies
were only shadows and types of the realities in the New Law. “For the law
having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image (reality)
of the things: by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually
every year, can never make the comers thereunto perfect” (Heb. x. 1),
Mald., who favours next opinion also.

(3) “In spirit” and “in truth” are synonymous, and signify true
supernatural worship, springing from faith and grace, and hence opposed to
all imperfect or false worship. This opinion, considered equally probable
with the preceding by Maldonatus, and held by Beelen and Corluy, we
prefer; for in verse 24, the fact that God is a Spirit (it is not stated
that He is also Truth) is given as the reason why He should be worshipped
in _both_ spirit and truth.

The distinguishing features of true Christian worship, indicated in verses
21, 23, are that it is to be _universal_, not restricted, like the Jewish
or Samaritan, to Jerusalem or Garizim; and _spiritual_, offered with
hearts animated by faith and grace, and not consisting merely in external
rites.

24. Spiritus est Deus: et eos, 24. God is a Spirit, and they
qui adorant eum, in spiritu et that adore him, must adore him
veritate oportet adorare. in spirit and in truth.

24. In the end of verse 23 and in this verse Christ goes on to give the
reasons why this worship, which is primarily spiritual, is to exist in the
new and more perfect dispensation—(1). It is the Father’s will. (2) It is
meet that such should be the worship paid to Him who is Himself a Spirit.
It is hardly necessary to point out that Calvin’s interpretation of
adoration by faith alone cannot be admitted. Were that sufficient, the
devils themselves would be true adorers, for “the devils also believe and
tremble” (James ii. 19). Neither does Christ here imply that all
_external_ worship, external rites and ceremonies, were to cease, but only
that they were to cease to be _merely external_; else (1) His acts would
contradict His words, Luke xxii. 41; xxiv. 50; (2) His Apostles would
distinctly disobey Him: see Acts xvi. 25; ix. 40: Eph. iii. 14; (3) His
Church _in every age_ has misunderstood Him.

25. Dicit ei mulier: Scio quia 25. The woman saith to him: I
Messias venit (qui dicitur know that the Messias cometh
Christus): cum ergo venerit (who is called Christ),
ille, nobis annuntiabit omnia. therefore when he is come, he
will tell us all things.

25. The poor woman, apparently bewildered by what Christ had just said, is
satisfied to wait in confidence till Messias (here without the article,
used as a proper name) shall come, who, she believes, will make known all
that it is necessary to know regarding the place and character of the
worship of the true God. As the Samaritans admitted only the Pentateuch,
where the term Messias is not used (though His coming is foretold, Deut.
xviii. 18); as, moreover, she could not have gathered from the Pentateuch
the _time_ of His coming, she must have learned by rumour that the Jews
were _at this time_ expecting the Messias; her words, “He will tell _us_
all things,” showed that she hoped for His coming in her own day.

It is difficult to say whether the words explanatory of Messias, *who is
called Christ*, are the woman’s or our Evangelist’s. That the Evangelist
explained the term before (i. 41), is not a proof that he does not do so
again, for see John xi. 16; xx. 24; xxi. 2.

26. Dicit ei Iesus: Ego sum, 26. Jesus saith to her: I am
qui loquor tecum. he who am speaking with thee.
27. Et continuo venerunt 27. And immediately his
discipuli eius: et mirabantur, disciples came: and they
quia cum muliere loquebatur. wondered that he talked with
Nemo tamen dixit: Quid the woman. Yet no man said:
quaeris, aut quid loqueris cum What seekest thou, or why
ea? talkest thou with her?

26, 27. At length Christ reveals Himself; and now that He has excited her
interest and awakened her faith, the disciples return from Sichar, and are
astonished to find Him speaking publicly with a woman—a thing not usually
done by Jewish doctors.

28. Reliquit ergo hydriam suam 28. The woman therefore left
mulier, et abiit in civitatem, her waterpot, and went her way
et dicit illis hominibus: into the city, and saith to
the men there:
29. Venite, et videte hominem 29. Come, and see a man who
qui dixit mihi omnia has told me all things
quaecumque feci: numquid ipse whatsoever I have done. Is not
est Christus? he the Christ?
30. Exierunt ergo de civitate, 30. They went therefore out of
et veniebant ad eum. the city, and came unto him.

28‐30. The discourse being interrupted by the arrival of the disciples,
the woman, forgetful or indifferent regarding the errand which had brought
her to the well, *went her way into the city*, and soon returned with a
number of her fellow‐citizens.

31. Interea rogabant eum 31. In the meantime the
discipuli, dicentes: Rabbi, disciples prayed him, saying:
manduca. Rabbi, eat.
32. Ille autem dicit eis: Ego 32. But he said to them: I
cibum habeo manducare, quem have meat to eat which you
vos nescitis. know not.
33. Dicebant ergo discipuli ad 33. The disciples therefore
invicem: Numquid aliquis said one to another: Hath any
attulit ei manducare? man brought him to eat?
34. Dicit eis Iesus: Meus 34. Jesus saith to them: My
cibus est ut faciam voluntatem meat is to do the will of him
eius qui misit me, ut that sent me, that I may
perficiam opus eius. perfect his work.

31‐34. Meanwhile the disciples invite Jesus to eat, to whom He replies
that He has meat to eat which they know not, that meat being, as He
explains in verse 34, to do the will of Him that sent Him. It was no time
for attending to the wants of His human nature; He had more serious work
in hand in the conversion of the Samaritans.

35. Nonne vos dicitis quod 35. Do not you say, there are
adhuc quatuor menses sunt, et yet four months, and then the
messis venit? Ecce dico vobis: harvest cometh? Behold I say
Levate oculos vestros, et to you, lift up your eyes, and
videte regiones, quia albae see the countries, for they
sunt iam ad messem. are white already to harvest.

35. *There are yet four months, and then the harvest cometh.* Maldonatus,
followed by Father Coleridge, takes this to be a proverb(43) meaning that
there is no need of hurry—that the matter in question is still far off.
As, however, there is no evidence that such a proverb was current among
the Jews, it is much better to understand the verse thus: You say what is
true, that it is still four months till the harvest of nature; but lift up
your eyes, and behold the harvest of grace in the men of Sichar who are
approaching.

As the barley harvest in Palestine came in about the middle of April, this
time, four months earlier, was the middle of December, the end of the
first year of our Lord’s public life.(44)

36. Et qui metit, mercedem 36. And he that reapeth
accipit, et congregat fructum receiveth wages, and gathereth
in vitam aeternam: ut, et qui fruit unto life everlasting:
seminat, simul gaudeat, et qui that both he that soweth, and
metit. he that reapeth, may rejoice
together.

36. He encourages His disciples to the work; in saving others they save
themselves.

37. In hoc enim est verbum 37. For in this is the saying
verum: quia alius est qui true: that it is one man that
seminat, et alius est qui soweth, and it is another that
metit. reapeth.
38. Ego misi vos metere quod 38. I have sent you to reap
vos non laborastis: alii that in which you did not
laboraverunt, et vos in labour: others have laboured,
labores: eorum introistis. and you have entered into
their labours.

37‐38. The Prophets and Doctors of the old Law had prepared the way for
the Apostles and disciples of Christ; had ploughed and sown where they
were now to reap. *I have sent you.* Mald., who holds that this is not the
same journey with that referred to in Matt. iv. 12, Mark i. 14, and that
the Apostles were already formally called by Christ, understands “I have
sent” of an action already completed by Christ. As, however, it is more
probable that the Apostles were not yet formally called (see Matt. iv. 12,
18; x. 1), it is better to understand this, with A Lap., of the Divine
decree to send the Apostles on their mission afterwards.

39. Ex civitate autem illa 39. Now of that city many of
multi crediderunt in eum the Samaritans believed in
Samaritanorum, propter verbum him, for the word of the woman
mulieris testimonium giving testimony: He told me
perhibentis: Quia dixit mihi all things whatsoever I have
omnia quaecumque feci. done.
40. Cum venissent ergo ad 40. So when the Samaritans
illum Samaritani, rogaverunt were come to him, they desired
eum ut ibi maneret. Et mansit him that he would tarry there.
ibi duos dies. And he abode there two days.
41. Et multo plures 41. And many more believed in
crediderunt in eum propter him because of his own word.
sermonem eius.

39‐41. Many believed in Him on account of what the woman told them, and,
after He had remained two days in Sichar, many more on account of His
discourses.

42. Et mulieri dicebant: Quia 42. And they said to the
iam non propter tuam loquelam woman: we now believe, not for
credimus: ipsi enim audivimus, thy saying: for we ourselves
et scimus, quia hic est vere have heard him, and know that
Salvator mundi. this is indeed the Saviour of
the world.

42. This is the Hebrew way of expressing that it was not _so much_ on
account of the woman’s saying, as because they had heard Him themselves.

43. Post duos autem dies exiit 43. Now after two days he
inde: et abiit in Galilaeam. departed thence: and went into
Galilee.
44. Ipse enim Iesus 44. For Jesus himself gave
testimonium perhibuit, quia testimony that a prophet hath
propheta in sua patria honorem no honour in his own country.
non habet.

43‐44. The connection between these two verses is obscure. (1) Verse 44
gives the reason why He had _left Galilee_, to which He now returns; or
(2) the reason why He _passes Nazareth_, and goes on to Capharnaum (Matt.
iv. 13), Tolet, A Lap., Corl.; or (3) the reason why He proceeded on His
way from _Judea, His birthplace_, into Galilee, Mald., Patriz.

45. Cum ergo venisset in 45. And when he was come into
Galilaeam, exceperunt eum Galilee, the Galileans
Galilaei, cum omnia vidissent received him, having seen all
quae fecerat Ierosolymis in the things he had done at
die festo: et ipsi enim Jerusalem on the festival day:
venerant ad diem festum. for they also went to the
festival day.

45. He is well received by the Galileans, because the remembrance of His
exercise of authority and of His miracles, on the occasion of the previous
Pasch (ii. 15, 23), is still fresh in their memories.

46. Venit ergo iterum in Cana 46. He came again therefore
Galilaeae ubi fecit aquam into Cana of Galilee, where he
vinum. Et erat quidam regulus, made the water wine. And there
cuius filius infirmabatur was a certain ruler whose son
Capharnaum. was sick at Capharnaum.
47. Hic cum audisset quia 47. He having heard that Jesus
Iesus adveniret a Iudaea in was come from Judea into
Galilaeam, abiit ad eum, et Galilee, went to him, and
rogabat eum ut descenderet, et prayed him to come down and
sanaret filium eius: heal his son: for he was at
incipiebat enim mori. the point of death.

46. *A certain ruler whose son was sick at Capharnaum*, on hearing that
Jesus was in Cana, came and asked Him to _come down_ and heal his son, who
was on the point of death. Origen thinks this ruler may have belonged to
the household of Cæsar, and been on duty in Palestine at this time. But
Josephus uses the word (βασιλικός) to designate the courtiers or officers
of the Herods (see B. J. vii. 5, 2; Antt. xv. 8, 4); so that this ruler of
Capharnaum may have been an officer of Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of
Galilee. Doubtless the ruler had heard of the miracle at the marriage
feast in Cana (ii. 7, 11); and perhaps he had witnessed the evidence of
Christ’s miraculous power at the feast of the Pasch (ii. 23).

48. Dixit ergo Iesus ad eum: 48. Jesus therefore said to
Nisi signa et prodigia him: Unless you see signs and
videritis, non creditis. wonders, you believe not.
49. Dicit ad eum regulus: 49. The ruler saith to him:
Domine, descende prius quam Lord, come down before that my
moriatur filius meus. son die.

48. Christ upbraids the ruler for his imperfect faith. The ruler is blamed
either because he was waiting to _see_ a miracle before he would believe,
or because he foolishly considered that it was _necessary_ for Christ to
go down to Capharnaum in order to heal his son.

50. Dicit ei Iesus: Vade, 50. Jesus saith to him: Go thy
filius tuus vivit. Credidit way, thy son liveth. The man
homo sermoni quem dixit ei believed the word which Jesus
Iesus, et ibat. said to him, and went his way.
51. Iam autem eo descendente, 51. And as he was going down,
servi occurrerunt ei, et his servants met him: and they
nuntiaverunt dicentes, quia brought word, saying that his
filius eius viveret. son lived.

50. Jesus said to him, *Go thy way; thy son liveth*. It is plain, from all
the circumstances, that this miracle is quite distinct from that recorded
in Matt. viii. 5 and foll.; Luke vii. 2 and foll., though some of the
Rationalists have sought to identify the two. There it is the centurion’s
servant, here the ruler’s son, who is ill; there the illness is paralysis,
here fever; there, though asked not to go, Christ goes to the sick person;
here, though asked to go, he goes not.

52. Interrogabat ergo horam ab 52. He asked therefore of them
eis in qua melius habuerit. Et the hour, wherein he grew
dixerunt ei: Quia heri hora better. And they said to him:
septima reliquit eum febris. Yesterday at the seventh hour
the fever left him.

52. *The seventh hour;* _i.e._, about an hour after noon, 1 p.m., or 7
p.m. See i. 39.

53. Cognovit ergo pater, quia 53. The father therefore knew
illa hora erat, in qua dixit that it was at the same hour,
ei Iesus: Filius tuus vivit: that Jesus said to him, Thy
et credidit ipse, et domus son liveth; and himself
eius tota. believed and his whole house.
54. Hoc iterum secundum signum 54. This _is_ again the second
fecit Iesus, cum venisset a miracle that Jesus did, when
Iudaea in Galilaeam. he was come out of Judea into
Galilee.

54. It is not said that this was the second miracle He performed, but that
it was the second He performed on coming out of Judea into Galilee. For
the first, see ii. 6, 11, and compare i. 43.

CHAPTER V.

1‐9. *Jesus goes up to Jerusalem on the occasion of a festival,
and there cures a man on the Sabbath day.*

10‐16. *The Jews first challenge him who was healed, and then
persecute Christ for violating the Sabbath.*

17. *Christ’s answer and defence.*

18. *They are still more exasperated, and seek to kill Him.*

19‐39. *Christ’s discourse, in which He proves, by various
arguments, that He is justified in calling God HIS Father, and in
making Himself equal to God.*

40‐47. *He upbraids their incredulity, and points out its cause.*

1. Post haec erat dies festus 1. After these things was a
Iudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus festival day of the Jews, and
Ierosolymam. Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

1. The interval to be admitted between the events now about to be narrated
and the preceding, depends upon the answer to be given to the question:
what festival is here referred to? On this question a great diversity of
opinion has always existed among commentators. The more common opinion is
that it is the festival of the _Pasch_; others, however, hold that it is
the festival of _Pentecost_, or of _Tabernacles_, or of the _Purification_
of the Temple, or of _Lots_.

The Pasch was celebrated from the evening of the 14th till that of the
21st of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish sacred year. Pentecost was
the fiftieth day from the second day of the Pasch. The feast of
Tabernacles was celebrated from the evening of the 14th till that of the
22nd of Tisri, the seventh month of the sacred year. The feast of
Purification lasted eight days, beginning with the 25th Casleu, the ninth
month of the sacred year. The feast of Lots lasted two days, the 14th and
15th of Adar, the twelfth month of the sacred year.

The three feasts of Pasch, Pentecost, and Tabernacles were the great
Jewish feasts, on which, and on which alone, all adult males were bound to
go up to Jerusalem to worship. See Exod. xxiii. 14‐17; xxxiv. 18, 22, 23.
Many have held that the approach of the feast is mentioned (verse 1), as
giving the reason why Christ went up, like the other adult Jewish men, to
Jerusalem (ii. 13). Others, however, hold that the text merely states a
fact, that Christ went up on the occasion of a festival, without implying
at all that the festival was such as ought to be celebrated at Jerusalem.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to definitely decide which feast is
meant; but it seems to us extremely probable that it is either Pasch or
Lots. In favour of the Pasch it is argued—(1) (ἑορτὴ) even without the
article(45) _may_ designate the Pasch (Matt. xxvii. 15; Mark xv. 6); and
it is to be believed that it does in the present instance, because ten
verses before (iv. 45) the same word is used to designate the Pasch
(compare John ii. 13, 23). (2) From iv. 35 we learn that Jesus was on His
way, through Samaria, to Galilee, in December; that is, about the _close_
of the first year of His public life. Hence it cannot be to any of the
three great feasts of that _first_ year that our text refers. Naturally,
then, it is to the Pasch of the second year, which was the first great
feast to occur in the course of the year, and for which, if Christ had not
gone to Jerusalem, St. John would probably have explained His absence, as
He does (vii. 1) in reference to the Pasch mentioned vi. 4. (3) Were it
any other feast than that of the Pasch, which was by excellence _the_
feast of the Jews, St. John, according to his custom (vii. 2; x. 22),
would have named it. (4) This is the opinion of St. Irenæus, who was a
disciple of Polycarp, himself a disciple of our Evangelist.

In favour of the feast of Lots—(1) The absence of the article in the more
probable reading points to one of the minor feasts of the Jews. (2) From
John iv. 35, and vi. 4, it would seem to be clear that this feast fell
between December and the Pasch; but only the feast of Lots occurred at
that time. (3) If this be the second Pasch of our Lord’s public life, and
that in vi. 4 the third, then the events of a whole year are passed over
by our Evangelist, who proceeds, in vi. 1: “After these things Jesus
went,” &c., affording no hint that he has passed over the events of a
year. (4). Were this the Pasch, St. John would have named it, as he does
on the other three occasions (ii. 13; vi. 4; xi. 55). But as it was only a
minor feast of the Jews, and probably unheard‐of by the Christians of Asia
Minor, the Evangelist thinks it unnecessary to name it, and contents
himself with referring to it as *a feast of the Jews*.

It is perhaps impossible, as we have said already, to decide with
certainty which feast is meant, but we shall follow the more common
opinion and hold that there is question of the Pasch. Thus, we hold that
St. John mentions four Paschs as having occurred during our Lord’s public
life: the first in ii. 13; the second here; the third in vi. 4; and the
fourth and last in xii. 1 and xiii. 1, when our Lord was put to death. He
passes over the events that occurred between the second and third Pasch,
because they were already narrated by the Synoptic Evangelists.

2. Est autem Ierosolymis 2. Now there is at Jerusalem a
probatica piscina, quae pond, _called_ Probatica,
cognominatur hebraice which in Hebrew is named
Bethsaida, quinque porticus Bethsaida, having five
habens. porches.

2. The best supported Greek reading would be rendered, “Now there is in
Jerusalem _by the sheep‐gate_ (πύλη being understood) a pond which is
called in Hebrew _Bethesda_,” &c.

Bethesda, in Syro‐Chaldaic, which was the language of Palestine at this
time, means the house (place) of mercy; and the name was given in the
present instance on account of the merciful cures wrought there. For the
building of this sheep‐gate by the priests, see 2 Esd. iii. 1. The site of
either gate or pond cannot be determined with certainty; but the pond
seems to have been close to the Temple, near the gate through which the
sheep to be sacrificed entered within the outer enclosure of the temple.
The *porches*, which served to shelter the sick from sun and rain, were
open on the sides, but covered with a roof supported on pillars.

The Vulgate reading, *a sheep‐pond*, has been variously explained. Some
say the pond might be so called because the sheep were washed there before
they were sacrificed; others, because their entrails were brought there to
be washed. *Bethsaida*, read by the Vulgate, means the house (place) for
fishing.

3. In his iacebat multitudo 3. In these lay a great
magna languentium, caecorum, multitude of sick, of blind,
claudorum, aridorum, of lame, of withered, waiting
expectantium aquae motum. for the moving of the water.
4. Angelus autem Domini 4. And an Angel of the Lord
descendebat secundum tempus in descended at certain times
piscinam: et movebatur aqua. into the pond; and the water
Et qui prior descendisset in was moved. And he that went
piscinam post motionem aquae, down first into the pond after
sanus fiebat a quacumque the motion of the water, was
detinebatur infirmitate. made whole of whatsoever
infirmity he lay under.

3, 4. The genuineness of the passage, beginning with *waiting for the
moving of the water*, and comprising the whole of verse 4, is disputed.
The Council of Trent, indeed, defined “libros singulos cum omnibus suis
partibus ... prout in vulgata Latina Editione habentur ... pro sacris et
canonicis esse suscipiendos:” but it is not thereby defined that every
tittle (_particula_) or every verse, is canonical Scripture. It would
seem, therefore, that Catholics are free to reject this passage, and it is
a question for criticism to decide whether we are to receive or reject it.

After an examination of the evidence for and against, we believe that the
passage is more probably genuine. It stands in codex A (Alexandrinus), and
in at least ten other uncial and very many _cursive_ MSS. It is read in
the “Vetus Itala” and in the Vulgate; in the _plain_ and _figured_ Syriac
versions, and in the Persian, Coptic, and Arabian versions. It is read by
Cyril of Alexandria, Chrys., Theophy., Euthy., Tertull., Ambr., and
August. Finally, the context, especially the reply of the sick man (verse
7), supposes it. Why it came to be wanting in so many MSS. it is difficult
to explain.(46)

That the wonderful efficacy here attributed to the water of this pond was
miraculous, and not merely, as the Rationalists would have us believe, the
effect of salubrious natural properties in the water, seems clear. For—(1)
there is the intervention of an angel which disturbed (ἐτάρασσε) the
water; (2) only the first person entering the pond was cured; (3) he was
cured not gradually, but at once, and completely: “he was immediately made
whole;” (4) he was cured no matter what his disease. When the Rationalists
find for us an intermittent spring whose waters possess the properties
here attributed to Bethesda, we shall be prepared to listen to them.

The waters of Bethesda, in their wonderful efficacy to cure every disease,
were a striking though imperfect type of the waters of Penance, which heal
every spiritual malady of everyone, be he first or last who bathes in
them.

5. Erat autem quidam homo ibi 5. And there was a certain man
triginta et octo annos habens there, that had been eight and
in infirmitate sua. thirty years under his
infirmity.
6. Hunc cum vidisset Iesus 6. Him when Jesus had seen
iacentem, et cognovisset quia lying, and knew that he had
iam multum tempus haberet, been now a long time, he saith
dicit ei: Vis sanus fieri? to him: Wilt thou be made
whole?
7. Respondit ei languidus: 7. The infirm man answered
Domini, hominem non habeo, ut, him: Sir, I have no man, when
cum turbata fuerit aqua, the water is troubled, to put
mittat me in piscinam: dum me into the pond. For whilst I
venio enim ego, alius ante me am coming, another goeth down
descendit. before me.
8. Dicit ei Iesus: Surge, 8. Jesus saith to him: Arise,
tolle grabatum tuum, et take up thy bed, and walk.
ambula.
9. Et statim sanus factus est 9. And immediately the man was
homo ille: et sustulit made whole: and he took up his
grabatum suum, et ambulabat. bed and walked. And it was the
Erat autem sabbatum in die sabbath that day.
illo.

5‐9. Christ speaks with and heals a man who had been thirty‐eight years
ill (of paralysis or some similar disease, as would appear from verses
7‐8); and, to show how complete the cure was, perhaps also to give an
occasion for the discourse which follows, He orders the man who has been
cured to take up his bed and walk. It would be a rather severe trial of
recovered strength to have to carry some of the beds of modern times; but
that on which the poor paralytic had been resting was not cumbrous. It was
probably only a carpet or mattress, or at most there was but a very light
framework. In Acts v. 15, we find the term used in our text distinguished
from κλίνη, which was rather the bed of the rich, more expensive and
cumbrous.

10. Dicebant ergo Iudaei illi 10. The Jews therefore said to
qui sanatus fuerat: Sabbatum him that was healed: It is the
est, non licet tibi tollere sabbath, it is not lawful for
grabatum tuum. thee to take up thy bed.

10. *It is not lawful.* See Exod. xx. 8; Jer. xvii. 21, 22.

11. Respondit eis: Qui me 11. He answered them: He that
sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit: made me whole, he said to me:
Tolle grabatum tuum, et Take up my bed, and walk.
ambula.

11. The man appeals to the authority of Him who had cured him, who surely
must be from God, and able to dispense in the Sabbath law.

12. Interrogaverunt ergo eum: 12. They asked him, therefore:
Quis est ille homo qui dixit Who is that man who said to
tibi, Tolle grabatum tuum, et thee: Take up thy bed and
ambula? walk?
13. Is autem qui sanus fuerat 13. But he who was healed,
effectus, nesciebat quis knew not who it was. For Jesus
esset. Iesus enim declinavit a went aside from the multitude
turba constituta in loco. standing in the place.

13. Christ had gone aside to escape the envy of the evil‐minded as well as
the admiration of the well‐disposed. See vi. 15. A more correct rendering
of the Greek would be: *For Jesus had gone aside, there being a crowd in
the place.*

14. Postea invenit eum Iesus 14. Afterwards Jesus findeth
in templo, et dixit illi: Ecce him in the temple, and saith
sanus factus es: iam noli to him: Behold thou art made
peccare, ne deterius tibi whole: sin no more, lest some
aliquid contingat. worse thing happen to thee.
15. Abiit ille homo, et 15. And the man went his way,
nuntiavit Iudaeis quia Iesus and told the Jews that it was
esset, quia fecit eum sanum. Jesus who had made him whole.

14. Christ’s words, *Sin no more*, insinuate that the man’s previous
illness had been the result of sin; and he is warned that if he provoke
God further, something worse may happen to him; worse, perhaps, even on
this side, and infinitely worse beyond, the grave. “Some say, indeed,”
says St. Chrys., “because we have corrupted ourselves for a short time,
shall we be tormented eternally? But see how long this man was tormented
for his sins. Sin is not to be measured by length of time, but by the
nature of sin itself.”

16. Propterea persequebantur 16. Therefore did the Jews
Iudaei Iesum, quia haec persecute Jesus, because he
faciebat in sabbato. did these things on the
sabbath.

16. Therefore the Jews, especially the Scribes and Pharisees, persecuted,
or rather, perhaps, accused(47) Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath
(comp. vii. 23; Luke vi. 7), and for authorizing him who was healed to
violate the Sabbath.

17. Iesus autem respondit eis: 17. But Jesus answered them:
Pater meus usque modo My Father worketh until now;
operatur, et ego operor. and I work.

17. Christ’s reply is, that as _His_ (not _our_, for He was the natural
Son of God, we are only adopted sons) Father worketh continually, and
therefore even on the Sabbath, conserving and governing all things; so,
too, He Himself, He being consubstantial with the Father. Thus He tells
them that equally with the Father He is exempt from the law of the
Sabbath.

18. Propterea ergo magis 18. Hereupon therefore the
quaerebant eum Iudaei Jews sought the more to kill
interficere, quia non solum him, because he did not only
solvebat sabbatum, sed et break the sabbath, but also
patrem suum dicebat Deum, said God was his Father,
aequalem se faciens Deo. making himself equal to God.
Respondit itaque Iesus, et
dixit eis:

18. They understand Him, so far at least as to see that He makes Himself
equal to God; and as they now consider Him to be not merely a Sabbath‐
breaker, but also a blasphemer, they become more exasperated, and seek to
kill Him. See Deut. xiii. 5.

19. Amen, amen dico vobis: non 19. Then Jesus answered and
potest Filius a se facere said to them: Amen, amen, I
quidquam, nisi quod viderit say unto you: the Son cannot
Patrem facientem: quaecumque do anything of himself, but
enim ille fecerit, haec et what he seeth the Father
Filius similter facit. doing: for what things soever
he doth, these the Son also
doth in like manner.

19. The remainder of the chapter is taken up with Christ’s discourse, in
which He asserts His Divinity, and proves it by various arguments. (1) By
His own testimony (19‐30), which the Jews might be excused for rejecting,
were it alone and unsupported (31); (2) by the testimony of the Baptist
(32‐35); (3) by the testimony of His miracles (36); (4) by the testimony
of His Father which is contained in the Sacred Scriptures (37‐39).

The Jews had understood Him to make Himself equal to God, and He goes on
not to withdraw, but to reiterate and expand what He had said. He declares
His operation as God to be identical with that of the Father; in a word,
His works to be the works of God. He had received, in His eternal
generation, His Divine nature and operation identical with the Father’s,
and as God He does nothing except what the Father does, and the Father
does nothing except what He does. This inability to work of Himself, that
is to say, alone, without the Father (_a seipso_), proceeds not from any
defect of power, but from His inseparable union with the Father in nature
and operation. The Son’s “seeing,” and the Father’s “showing” (v. 20), are
both metaphorical expressions, and signify that the Son derives His divine
nature and operation from the Father.(48) The Arians appealed to this
verse to prove the inferiority of the Son to the Father, because, they
said, Christ here declares Himself merely an imitator of the works of the
Father, just as a pupil or apprentice imitates his master. But Christ’s
words, “I and the Father are one” (x. 30), show that there can be no
question here of inferiority; and, moreover, since _all_ things were made
by the Son (i. 3), it was impossible for Him to copy from anything made
beforehand.

*But what he seeth* (βλέπει) *the Father doing*. “But what,” that is, not
by Himself, _but_ together with the Father, “nisi” of the Vulgate being
here equal to “sed.” See Matt. xii. 4; Gal. ii. 16.

*For what things soever He doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.*
St. Thomas on this verse says:—“Excludit in his tria circa potestatem
suam: scilicet particularitatem (_quaecumque_), diversitatem (_haec_), et
imperfectionem (_similiter_).” And St. Augustine on this verse says
beautifully: “He does not say whatsoever the Father doeth, the Son does
_other_ things like them, but the very same things. The Father made the
world, the Son made the world, the Holy Ghost made the world. If the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are one, it follows that one and the same
world was made by the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost. Thus it
is the very same thing that the Son doth. He adds _likewise_, to prevent
another error arising. For the body seems to do the same things with the
mind, but it does not do them in a like way, inasmuch as the body is
subject, the soul governing; the body visible, the soul invisible. When a
slave does a thing at the command of his master, the same thing is done by
both; but is it in a like way? Now in the Father and Son there is not this
difference; they do the same things, and in a like way. Father and Son act
with the same power; so that the Son is equal to the Father.” Since then
the works of the Son as God are the works of the Father, if they blamed
the Son for violating the Sabbath, they thereby blamed the Father also.
And it is of the Son _as God_ there is question here; for as man, or as
God‐man He could do many things “of Himself,” such as eating, walking on
the waters, &c., which, of course, the Father never did; and, moreover, it
would not be true to say that the Son as man does all that the Father
does.

20. Pater enim diligit Filium, 20. For the Father loveth the
et omnia demonstrat ei quae Son, and showeth him all
ipse facit: et maiora his things which himself doth: and
demonstrabit ei opera, ut vos greater works than these will
miremini. he show him, that you may
wonder.

20. Here is given the reason for the Son’s identity of operation with the
Father. *For the Father loveth the Son*, and from all eternity
communicateth to Him the one Divine power and operation, whereby He
Himself doth all things; and that Divine power shall yet be _manifested_
by the Son in greater works than the healing of the paralytic, that you
may wonder.

We are not to conclude from this verse that the love of the Father is the
cause of the communication of the Divine nature to the Son, as if the Son
proceeded from the Father through love, and therefore through the Will.
The common teaching of theologians is that the Son proceeds not through
the Divine will, but through the Divine intellect. See Perr. De. Trin., §
401. Hence the meaning is not, that the Father loves the Son, and
_therefore_ communicates His Divine nature to Him. Toletus, however,
thinks that this form of expression is purposely used here by Christ to
show men that the Father shares His nature and power with the Son, since
among men, those who love share their goods with each other.(49)

As already indicated, the future, “will show,” is used in this verse in
reference to the _manifestation_ in time of that power which was given
from eternity. *That you may wonder.* Some take “that” (ἵνα) here as
introducing a consequence; others, and rightly, in its usual sense as
introducing a purpose. The purpose of God was that they might wonder and
believe.

21. Sicut enim Pater suscitat 21. For as the Father raiseth
mortuos, et vivificat: sic et up the dead, and giveth life:
Filius, quos vult, vivificat. so the Son also giveth life to
whom he will.

21. The connection here shows that the raising of the dead is one of the
“greater works” just referred to, as is also the judgment by Christ
mentioned in the next verse. But who are the dead, and what is the
resurrection of which there is question?

(_a_) Those who were _corporally_ dead like Lazarus, and were raised by
Christ, to the wonder of the Jews.(50) For—(1) This view suits the
context. Christ had cured a paralytic; He now promises greater miracles;
hitherto he had only healed bodies that were sick; now He would raise to
life bodies that were dead. (2) In verse 28 there is certainly question of
a corporal resurrection; therefore also here. (3) This raising of the dead
was to excite the wonder of the Jews; therefore there must be question of
the raising of the body, since a spiritual resurrection could not be
known, and hence could not be a matter of wonder.

(_b_) Those _spiritually_ dead, who were to be raised through the
preaching of Christ and His Apostles from the death of sin to the life of
grace. For—(1) It is more probable that there is question of spiritual
death and resurrection in verse 24; therefore also in verse 21. (2) The
words “And now is” of verse 25 point to a resurrection then present,
therefore to a _spiritual_. (3) This view suits the context. The spiritual
resurrection brought about by Christ, though in itself invisible, produced
in the world effects _more wonderful_ than the curing of the paralytic,
and it is as a proof that Christ can raise those spiritually dead, that He
refers in verse 28 to the fact that He will raise those corporally dead.

We prefer the latter view; but whichever view we may hold, we must bear in
mind that the sense is not that the Father raises some, and the Son
others, from the dead. As God, Christ’s will is _identical_ with the
Father’s, and what one does the other does. Christ then is here said to
raise “whom He will” in order to show us His absolute equality with the
Father.

22. Neque enim Pater iudicat 22. For neither doth the
quemquam: sed omne iudicium Father judge any man: but hath
dedit Filio. given all judgment to the Son.

22. Another greater work than the curing of the paralytic is the judging
of men. Some think it is the judgment of discussion, the trial which
awaits all (Heb. ix. 27), that is referred to; others that (as in verses
24, 29, and iii. 19) it is the judgment of condemnation passed upon the
reprobate, the Greek word which is used being generally (if not always)
used by St. John of the judgment of condemnation. When it is said here
that *neither doth the Father judge any man*, the meaning is that although
the Father and the Holy Ghost pass the same identical judgment as the Son,
yet they do not do this _visibly_, so as to be seen and heard like the
God‐man Jesus Christ. This is particularly true in regard to the judgment
of the wicked; Christ alone, in His humanity, appears to them; for as St.
Augustine says: “Si mali Deum in propria natura viderent jam essent
beati.” The Father gave all power to judge to Christ as God in the eternal
generation, to Christ as man at the incarnation; and it is as God and man
that Christ judges: as God authoritatively, and as man visibly.(51)

23. Ut omnes honorificent 23. That all men may honour
Filium, sicut honorificant the Son, as they honour the
Patrem; qui non honorificat Father. He who honoureth not
Filium, non honorificat Patrem the Son, honoureth not the
qui misit illum. Father who hath sent him.

23. Here is declared the end that God had in view in conferring the
supreme judiciary power upon the Son, namely, that men might honour Him
_equally_ with the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not
the Father who sent Him in the Incarnation equal in all things to Himself.
In dishonouring Jesus Christ, the Jews were dishonouring that Divine
nature and majesty which is one with the Father’s, and they were,
moreover, spurning the testimony which the Father had already given to the
Divinity of His Son, as well after Christ’s baptism (Matt. iii. 17), as in
the miracles which He had given Christ to perform (verse 36).

24. Amen, amen dico vobis, 24. Amen, amen, I say unto
quia qui verbum meum audit, et you, that he who heareth my
credit ei qui misit me, habet word, and believeth him that
vitam aeternam, et in iudicium sent me, hath life
non venit, sed transiit a everlasting; and cometh not
morte in vitam. into judgment but is passed
from death to life.

24. We believe the connection with the preceding to be this. In speaking
of the end God had in view in conferring the supreme judiciary power upon
the God‐man, our Lord had noted parenthetically the effect of not
honouring the Son (verse 23); here He adds what the effect of honouring
Him is.

*Amen, amen.* The repeated asseveration indicates the solemn importance of
the declaration about to be made, namely, that he who accepts the teaching
of Christ, and thereby the testimony of the Father testifying to Christ as
His Son, has eternal life. We take “death” and “life” of this verse of the
death of sin and the life of grace, and understand “has passed” in
reference to the justification of the sinner. See 1 John iii. 14, and what
we have said on i. 13.

25. Amen, amen dico vobis, 25. Amen, amen, I say unto
quia venit hora, et nunc est, you, that the hour cometh and
quando mortui audient vocem now is, when the dead shall
Filii Dei: et qui audierint, hear the voice of the Son of
vivent. God, and they that hear shall
live.

25. Having stated parenthetically the effect of dishonouring and honouring
Himself, Christ returns to the proof of His divine power. There is the
same difference of opinion here regarding the life and death meant, as in
verse 21.

The words, *And now is*, favour the view that there is question of a
spiritual resurrection that had already begun.

*And they that hear, shall live.* These words, too, suggest that there is
question of a spiritual resurrection, a resurrection in which all those
that hear and believe are to share.

26. Sicut enim Pater habet 26. For as the Father hath
vitam in semetipso: sic dedit life in himself; so he hath
et Filio habere vitam in given to the Son also to have
semetipso: life in himself:

26. For the Son is essential Life like the Father, and being in Himself
the source of life can therefore impart it to others.

27. Et potestatem dedit ei 27. And he hath given him
iudicium facere, quia Filius power to do judgment, because
hominis est. he is the son of man.

27. The meaning is, that as it was ordained from all eternity, that the
Second Person of the Blessed Trinity should become man, so it was ordained
that He, as God‐man should judge all men without exception in the general
judgment, and all who die after the incarnation, in the particular
judgment.

28. Nolite mirari hoc, quia 28. Wonder not at this, for
venit hora in qua omnes qui in the hour cometh wherein all
monumentis sunt, audient vocem that are in the graves shall
Filii Dei: hear the voice of the Son of
God.

28. *This* at which they are not to wonder, is His power of raising the
dead, _i.e._, the few whom He raised corporally during His public life,
or, as we prefer, the many whom He raised spiritually; and His power of
judging.

*For the hour cometh wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the
voice of the Son of God.* It is admitted by all that the reference in
these words is to the general resurrection, and the Jews are told not to
be surprised at the spiritual resurrection, inasmuch as the resurrection
of all flesh shall come to pass at the word of the same Son of God. The
words of this verse imply that the spiritual resurrection excites less
wonder than the corporal; and this indeed is true, for though the
spiritual resurrection is, in fact, the greater miracle, and in itself
more wonderful, yet it is not sensible, and cannot excite our wonder so
much as the raising of even one dead body to life.

29. Et procedent qui bona 29. And they that have done
fecerunt, in resurrectionem good things, shall come forth
vitae: qui vero mala egerunt, unto the resurrection of life;
in resurrectionem iudicii. but they that have done evil,
unto the resurrection of
judgment.

29. This verse affords a clear proof that we are not justified by faith
alone, but that according to our works we shall be rewarded or condemned.

30. Non possum ego a meipso 30. I cannot of myself do
facere quidquam. Sicut audio, anything. As I hear, so I
iudico: et iudicium meum judge: and my judgment is
iustum est, quia non quaero just: because I seek not my
voluntatem meam, sed own will, but the will of him
voluntatem eius qui misit me. that sent me.

30. What Christ said in verse 19 of every operation of His, He now repeats
and applies in particular to this judgment. Since He judges as God‐man,
the words “As I hear,” probably refer both to His Divine nature, which,
like His judgment was identical with that of the Father, and to His human
nature, in which, on account of the plenitude of grace within Him, He can
think or will nothing contrary to the Father.(52)

31. Si ego testimonium 31. If I bear witness of
perhibeo de meipso, myself, my witness is not
testimonium meum non est true.
verum.

31. From verse 19 Christ has borne witness to Himself, to His Divine power
and equality with the Father, and now He says that if He were _alone_ in
bearing such witness of Himself, His witness would not be such as men
would be bound to receive. Of course, even though a man were alone and
unsupported in testifying regarding himself, still it is plain his witness
_might be true_; but it would not be trustworthy, such as ought to be
received, because it _might be false_, and would be reasonably suspected.
No doubt, Christ’s testimony of Himself though unsupported would be more
than enough to those who believed in His Divinity; but He is here
addressing those who had no such belief. Comp. viii. 14‐16.

32. Alius est qui testimonium 32. There is another that
perhibet de me: et scio quia beareth witness of me: and I
verum est testimonium quod know that the witness which he
perhibet de me. witnesseth of me is true.

32. Christ’s witness of Himself is supported by that of the _Father_ (some
think, by that of the Baptist), to which He can confidently appeal. But
before mentioning how the Father’s testimony is given, He turns aside for
a moment to appeal to the Baptist’s testimony.

33. Vos misistis ad Ioannem: 33. You sent to John; and he
et testimonium perhibuit gave testimony to the truth.
veritati.
34. Ego autem non ab homine 34. But I receive not
testimonium accipio: sed haec testimony from man: but I say
dico ut vos salvi sitis. these things that you may be
saved.

34. He now tells them that He has invoked the testimony of the Baptist,
not that He needs any testimony of men, but in the hope that they, who had
regarded the Baptist as a prophet, might perchance accept his testimony to
Christ.

35. Ille erat lucerna ardens, 35. He was a burning and a
et lucens: Vos autem voluistis shining light. And you were
ad horam exultare in luce willing for a time to rejoice
eius. in his light.

35. The Greek is: _He was the lamp that burneth and shineth_. From the use
of the word _was_ here, it is fairly concluded that the Baptist had been
already put to death by Herod Antipas (Mark vi. 17‐28). The Baptist was a
bright _lamp_ λύχνος of truth, but not _the light_ (τὸ φῶς i. 8, 9), which
was Christ Himself.

36. Ego autem habeo 36. But I have a greater
testimonium maius Ioanne. testimony than that of John.
Opera enim quae dedit mihi For the works which the Father
Pater ut perficiam ea, ipsa hath given me to perfect: the
opera quae ego facio, works themselves, which I do,
testimonium perhibent de me, give testimony of me, that the
quia Pater misit me: Father hath sent me.

36. A third testimony is now invoked in the miracles which the Father gave
Christ to perform. See x. 37, 38, and what was said above on iii. 2.

37. Et qui misit me Pater, 37. And the Father himself who
ipse testimonium perhibuit de hath sent me, hath given
me: neque vocem eius unquam testimony of me: neither have
audistis, neque speciem eius you heard his voice at any
vidistis: time, nor seen his shape.
38. Et verbum eius non habetis 38. And you have not his word
in vobis manens: quia quem abiding in you: for whom he
misit ille, huic vos non hath sent, him you believe
creditis. not.

37, 38. Besides the indirect testimony of the Father through Christ’s
miracles, another testimony of His is now appealed to. Some understand
this of the testimony of the Father on the occasion of Christ’s baptism,
(Matt. iii. 17). So Chrys., A Lap., M’Ev. But if there were reference to
that past and definite occasion, the Greek aorist, not the perfect, would
be used. Others, as Mald., connect this verse closely with the preceding,
and hold the reference is still to the Father’s testimony given through
Christ’s miracles. But the form of words: “And the Father Himself, who
hath sent Me, hath given testimony of Me,” seems to add another distinct
testimony to those already mentioned. Others, therefore, hold that the
reference is to the Father’s testimony conveyed through the oracles of the
prophets. So St. Cyril, Theoph., Euthy., Kuin., Corl.; and this opinion
seems to be the correct one.

About the meaning and connection of the words which follow in this verse
and the next, there is a great variety of view.

(1) Some thus: But you have never listened to His voice speaking to you
through the Sacred Scriptures, nor recognised Him as speaking in them, nor
do you believe in His inspired word; and the reason of this is, because
you do not believe in Me whom He has sent. (Patriz.)

(2) Others thus: But though the Father has testified of Me, “neither have
you heard His voice ... abiding in you;” _i.e._, you have been excluded
from familiarity with Him, and from belief in His testimony, because you
refuse to believe in Me. (Hengstenberg.)

(3) Others take the words to refer to the covenant entered into by God
with the Jews (Deut. xviii. 15‐19), that He should terrify them no more by
His awful presence, as when He gave the law on Sinai (Exod. xx. 19‐21),
but should speak to them through a prophet. Hence Christ’s words signify:
The Father has borne testimony of Me, nor has He broken His word to you,
that you should hear and see no more the terrifying sounds and sights of
Sinai; and yet you refuse to keep your part of the compact (“you have not
His word abiding in you”), inasmuch as you refuse to believe in Me, the
Prophet whom He promised. (Tolet., Beel.)

(4) Others again thus: The Father has borne unquestionable testimony of
Me, though not, I admit, in such a manner as that He could be seen, or His
voice heard by you. But that testimony you accept not (you have not His
word abiding in you), as is plain from the fact that you refuse to believe
in Me. See the note to A Lap., in Migne’s Ed., which agrees with Kuinoel.

Whatever view be adopted, we understand the testimony referred to in verse
37, to be that which is explicitly mentioned in verse 39; viz., the
testimony of God given through the Scriptures in the writings of Moses and
the prophets.(53)

39. Scrutamini scripturas, 39. Search the scriptures, for
quia vos putatis in ipsis you think in them to have life
vitam aeternam habere: et everlasting; and the same are
illae sunt, quae testimonium they that give testimony of
perhibent de me: me:

39. Here our Lord distinctly mentions the testimony to which He had
already alluded (verse 37). *Search the Scriptures*, or rather, *Ye search
the Scriptures*. In both the Greek and Latin texts the form of the verb
leaves it doubtful whether it is to be understood as an indicative or an
imperative. But the context, in which all the verbs are in the indicative,
and the course of the argument, render it much more probable that the form
is to be understood as an indicative. So, too, all the best modern
commentators, even among the Protestants; _e.g._, Kuin., Alf., Bloomf.,
Westc., and the Revised Version, which renders: “Ye search the
Scriptures.”

It is unnecessary then to delay long in refuting the argument which used
to be drawn by Protestants from this text in favour of the
_indiscriminate_ reading of the Bible by all the faithful. A few words
will suffice. (1) It is much more probable that the words do not contain a
precept, but merely state a fact. (2) Even if they did contain a precept,
they are addressed very probably only to the Jewish _teachers_ (see verse
44). (3) Even if we admitted that the words contain a precept, and are
addressed to all the Jews, still it would not follow that all the faithful
now are bound to read the Bible, nor that the Church may not sometimes,
for grave reasons restrict the liberty to read it. For we must bear in
mind that our Lord is here referring to the Sacred Scriptures in
connection with one particular point, namely, the fulfilment of prophecy
in Himself. Even if the Jews were authorized or commanded to read the
Sacred Scriptures in regard to a particular question, it by no means
follows that Protestants are commanded or even authorized to read them in
order to form by the aid of private judgment an opinion on all questions
of faith and morals.

The Catholic Church freely admits, of course, and insists that the reading
of the Bible is in itself good and useful; but since the Bible contains
“certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable
wrest ... to their own destruction” (2 Pet. iii. 16), hence she knows it
is possible that, like all God’s best gifts, the Bible may in certain
circumstances be abused.

40. Et non vultis venire ad me 40. And you will not come to
ut vitam habeatis. me that you may have life.

40. *And* is equivalent to “and yet.”

41. Claritatem ab hominibus 41. I receive not glory from
non accipio. men.

41. Not through a desire to gain glory from them has He borne the
preceding testimony to Himself. This is said parenthetically, and the next
verse is to be connected with verse 40.

42. Sed cognovi vos, quia 42. But I know you, that you
dilectionem Dei non habetis in have not the love of God in
vobis. you.

42. *But I know you, that* &c. Their unbelief in Christ was due to the
fact that they did not love God. Had they loved God, they would have
corresponded with grace, and recognised the Messias whom God had sent.

43. Ego veni in nomine Patris 43. I am come in the name of
mei, et non accipitis me: si my Father, and you receive me
alius venerit in nomine suo, not: if another shall come in
illum accipietis. his own name, him you will
receive.

43. The sense is: I am come in the name, and with the power of My Father
manifested in My works. If another come to you, and without giving any
evidence that He is from God, say that he is the Messias, you will believe
him, and believe in him. We know that this actually happened. Many false
Christs arose before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.); and obtained
a following among the people. A person named Barchochebas was the most
successful of those impostors.

44. Quomodo vos potestis 44. How can you believe, who
credere, qui gloriam ab receive glory one from
invicem accipitis: et gloriam, another: and the glory which
quae a solo Deo est, non is from God alone, you do not
quaeritis? seek?

44. Another cause of their unbelief is their empty vanity which sought,
and was satisfied with, the praise of men.

45. Nolite putare quia ego 45. Think not that I will
accusaturus sim vos apud accuse you to the Father.
Patrem: est qui accusat vos There is one that accuseth
Moyses, in quo vos speratis. you, Moses, in whom you trust.

45. It will not be necessary for Christ to accuse them before God, because
Moses, their own great prophet, will accuse them.

46. Si enim crederetis Moysi, 46. For if you did believe
crederetis forsitan et mihi: Moses, you would perhaps
de me enim ille scripsit. believe me also. For he wrote
of me.

46. *You would perhaps.* See above on iv. 10.

47. Si autem illius litteris 47. But if you do not believe
non creditis, quomodo verbis his writings: how will you
meis credetis? believe my words?

47. This is said because Moses far surpassed Him in their estimation; and
with the telling thought, that their own Scriptures, even Moses himself,
pointed Him out as their Messias, this weighty discourse ends.

CHAPTER VI.

1‐13. *Christ crosses with His disciples to the eastern shore of
the sea of Galilee, where He miraculously feeds a multitude with
five loaves and two fishes.*

14‐15. *The multitude, moved by the miracle, wish to make Him
King, but He withdraws.*

16‐21. *On the night of that same day, as the disciples are
crossing to the western side of the lake, a storm rises, and He
comes to them, walking upon the waters.*

22‐25. *The following day the multitude also cross to the western
side of the lake, enter Capharnaum, and find Him there before
them.*

26‐59. *Christ’s discourse to the multitude, in which He promises
the Blessed Eucharist.*

60. *The place where the discourse was delivered.*

61‐67. *Effect of the discourse—murmuring of many of the
disciples; His explanation, and their departure from Him.*

68‐70. *St. Peter’s noble confession in reply to a question of
Christ.*

71‐72. *Christ refers to the wickedness of one of the Apostles,
and the Evangelist states to whom He refers.*

1. Post haec abiit Iesus trans 1. After these things, Jesus
mare Galilaeae, quod est went over the sea of Galilee,
Tiberiadis: which is that of Tiberias:

1. The interval to be admitted between what is recorded in this chapter
and in the preceding depends upon the view we adopt as to what feast is
referred to in the first verse of the preceding. If that was the Feast of
Pasch, almost a year has elapsed, for we are told here, in verse 4, that
the pasch is again at hand. If that was the Feast of Lots, and this the
Pasch following, then the interval to be admitted is much less, only a
month. Those who, like us, admit the longer interval say that St. John
here passes over the events of that year, because they were already
related by the Synoptic Evangelists.

In the last chapter we left Jesus at Jerusalem in Judea, the southern
province of Palestine, and now, soon after the death of the Baptist (Matt.
xiv. 3, Mark vi. 17, Luke iii. 20) and the return of the Apostles from
their first mission (Mark vi. 30; Luke ix. 10), we find Him in the
northern province, by the shores of the Sea of Galilee. This sea or lake
(the Jews called every large body of water a sea), which lay to the east
of the province of Galilee, was called also the Sea of Tiberias, because
of the town built by Herod Antipas, on its western shore, and named after
the Roman Emperor Tiberius. It was also called sometimes the Lake of
Gennesareth, from the fertile plain of that name on its N.W. shore. It is
almost heart‐shaped, with the narrow end towards the south, and its extent
at present is 12‐½ miles from north to south, by 8 miles at its widest
part east to west. (Smith’s _B. D._, 2nd Ed.)

2. Et sequebatur eum multitudo 2. And a great multitude
magna, quia videbant signa followed him, because they saw
quae faciebat super his qui the miracles which he did on
infirmabantur. them that were diseased.

2. Jesus, accompanied by His disciples, having crossed the lake, a great
multitude follows Him. Comparing the Synoptic Evangelists (Matt. xiv. 13,
and foll.; Mark vi. 32, and foll.; Luke ix. 10, and foll.), we find that
the desert near Bethsaida (Julias) on the north‐eastern side of the lake
was the place to which Jesus repaired (Luke); that the multitude followed
by land (πέζη = on foot, Matt., Mark); that they arrived before Him
(Mark), and that He taught them for a considerable time.

3. Subiit ergo in montem 3. Jesus went therefore up
Iesus: et ibi sedebat cum into a mountain, and there he
discipulis suis. sat with his disciples.

3. *Jesus therefore went up into a mountain* (Gr., _the_ mountain);
_i.e._, the well‐known mountain range on that side of the lake. See too in
verse 15.

4. Erat autem proximum pascha, 4. Now the Pasch, the festival
dies festus Iudaeorum. day of the Jews, was near at
hand.

4. In the view we follow this was the third Pasch of our Lord’s public
life.

5. Cum sublevasset ergo oculos 5. When Jesus therefore had
Iesus, et vidisset quia lifted up his eyes, and seen
multitudo maxima venit ad eum, that a very great multitude
dixit ad Philippum: Unde cometh to him, he said to
ememus panes, ut manducent hi? Philip: Whence shall we buy
bread that these may eat?

5. In the Synoptic Evangelists the disciples are represented as asking our
Lord to dismiss the multitude, that they may go and procure food. We may
reconcile with St. John’s account thus. They make a suggestion, as in the
Synoptic Evangelists. He then turns to Philip, as in St. John.

6. Hoc autem dicebat tentans 6. And this he said to try
eum: ipse enim sciebat quid him: for he himself knew what
esset facturus. he would do.

6. *To try him.* “One kind of temptation leads to sin, with which God
never tempts anyone; and there is another kind by which faith is tried. In
this sense it is said that Christ proved His disciples. This is not meant
to imply that He did not know what Philip would say, but is an
accommodation to man’s way of speaking. For as the expression: _Who
searcheth the hearts of men_, does not mean the searching of ignorance,
but of absolute knowledge; so here, when it is said that our Lord proved
Philip, we must understand that He knew him perfectly, but that He tried
him in order to confirm his faith. The Evangelist himself guards against
the mistake which this imperfect mode of speaking might occasion, by
adding _For He Himself knew what He would do_” (St. Aug.).

7. Respondit ei Philippus: 7. Philip answered him: Two
Ducentorum denariorum panes hundred pennyworth of bread is
non sufficiunt eis, ut not sufficient for them, that
unusquisque modicum quid every one may take a little.
accipiat.

7. The denarius was a Roman silver coin, whose value differed at different
times. From the year 217 B.C. till the reign of Augustus (30 B.C. to 14
A.D.) it was worth 8‐½_d._; afterwards, and, therefore, in the time of
Christ, it was worth about 7‐½_d._ See Smith’s _Lat. Dict. Calendarium_,
Tables viii. and ix. Two hundred denarii, then would be equal to about £6
5_s._, and yet what bread this would purchase would not suffice to give
even a little to each, so great was the multitude.

8. Dicit ei unus ex discipulis 8. One of his disciples,
eius, Andreas frater Simonis Andrew, the brother of Simon
Petri. Peter, saith to him:
9. Est puer unus hic, qui 9. There is a boy here that
habet quinque panes hath five barley loaves and
hordeaceos, et duos pisces: two fishes: but what are these
sed haec quid sunt inter among so many?
tantos?
10. Dixit ergo Iesus: Facite 10. Then Jesus said: Make the
homines discumbere. Erat autem men sit down. Now there was
foenum multum in loco. much grass in the place. The
Discubuerunt ergo viri, numero men therefore sat down in
quasi quinque millia. number about five thousand.

10. Christ tells the disciples to bid the multitude be seated “on the
green grass” (Mark vi. 39); and about 5,000 men (“not reckoning women and
children,” Matt. xiv. 21) sat down in companies “by hundreds and by
fifties” (Mark vi. 40).

11. Accepit ergo Iesus panes: 11. And Jesus took the loaves:
et cum gratias egisset, and when he had given thanks,
distribuit discumbentibus: he distributed to them that
similiter et ex piscibus were set down. In like manner
quantum volebant. also of the fishes as much as
they would.

11. Having returned thanks for all the benefits of God, and particularly
for that which He was now about to bestow, Christ took and blessed the
loaves and fishes, and through His disciples distributed them to the
multitude (Matt., Mark, Luke). It is not said at what precise time the
loaves were multiplied or enlarged, whether in the hands of Christ, or of
the disciples. It may be, as Mald. supposes, that the increase began in
our Lord’s hands, and continued as far as necessary during the
distribution by the disciples. That it at least began in our Lord’s hands,
we think extremely probable, for thus He was more clearly shown to be the
author of the miracle.

12. Ut autem impleti sunt, 12. And when they were filled,
dixit discipulis suis: he said to his disciples:
Colligite quae superaverunt Gather up the fragments that
fragmenta, ne pereant. remain, lest they be lost.

12. The disciples are told to gather up the fragments—(1) to teach us not
to neglect the gifts of God; (2) that the fragments might serve as a proof
and a memorial of the miracle which had been wrought.

13. Collegerunt ergo, et 13. They gathered up
impleverunt duodecim cophinos therefore, and filled twelve
fragmentorum ex quinque baskets with the fragments of
panibus hordeaceis, quae the five barley loaves, which
superfuerunt his qui remained over and above to
manducaverant. them that had eaten.

13. “Observe how the four Evangelists use the word κοφίνους, _baskets_, in
narrating this miracle, thus distinguishing it from a like one recorded
elsewhere by Matthew and Mark, in which there were seven loaves, and 4,000
men, and seven _panniers_ (σπυρίδας) of fragments. It is difficult perhaps
to point out distinctly how σπυρίς differed from κόφινος, but certain it
is that they did differ, else they would never have been so nicely
discriminated by the sacred writers in every instance” (M’Carthy: Gosp. of
the Sundays, fourth Sunday of Lent).(54)

14. Illi ergo homines cum 14. Now these men, when they
vidissent quod Iesus fecerat had seen what a miracle Jesus
signum, dicebant: Quia hic est had done, said: This is of a
vere propheta, qui venturus truth the prophet that is to
est in mundum. come into the world.

14. *The prophet*, the Messiah, for whom their fathers and they had
yearned so long (Luke vii. 19).

15. Iesus ergo cum 15. Jesus therefore when he
cognovisset, quia venturi knew that they would come to
essent ut raperent eum, et take him by force and make him
facerent eum regem, fugit king, fled again into the
iterum in montem ipse solus. mountain himself alone.

15. Jesus, knowing their thoughts and intentions, withdrew to _the_
mountain, where He had already been earlier in the day (verse 3). And He
withdrew all alone, a circumstance which makes it extremely probable that
He rendered Himself invisible, else some of the crowd would have followed.

It may seem strange at first sight, how differently Christ treats the
Jews, on their recognising Him as the Messias, from the way He treated the
Samaritans in similar circumstances (iv. 42, 43). And yet His action in
the two cases is intelligible enough. The Jews looked for a Messias who
would improve their external condition, free them from subjection to any
foreign power, and set them up as a powerful nation. But the Samaritans
could have, and had, no such hope from the advent of a Jewish Messias.
With the Jews, as we see in the present instance, the intention was to
declare the Messias their King, and thus to throw off their allegiance to
Rome. The consequence, of course, would have been great political
excitement and rebellion, ending, doubtless, in the triumph of the Roman
arms. But no matter what the success of such a rebellion, it would have
prejudiced the Roman world against the teachings of Christ, and rendered
more difficult the recognition of the spiritual character of Christ’s
kingdom.

16. Ut autem sero factum est 16. And when evening was come,
descenderunt discipuli eius ad his disciples went down to the
mare. sea.
17. Et cum ascendissent navim, 17. And when they had gone up
venerunt trans mare in into a ship, they went over
Capharnaum: et tenebrae iam the sea to Capharnaum: and it
factae erant: et non venerat was now dark, and Jesus was
ad eos Iesus. not come unto them.

17. *They went over the sea.* Rather, *they were going*. From St. Matthew
we learn that Christ had told the disciples immediately after the miracle,
to go before Him across the lake, whilst He dismissed the crowd. St. Mark
adds that they were told to cross to Bethsaida; _i.e._, to the town of
this name, which was near Capharnaum. See above, i. 44. The direction of
the wind or some other motive may have induced them to go towards
Capharnaum, as St. John here tells us they did.

18. Mare autem, vento magno 18. And the sea arose by
flante, exurgebat. reason of a great wind that
blew.
19. Cum remigassent ergo quasi 19. When they had rowed
stadia viginti quinque aut therefore about five and
triginta, vident Iesum twenty or thirty furlongs,
ambulantem supra mare, et they see Jesus walking upon
proximum navi fieri, et the sea, and drawing nigh to
timuerunt. the ship, and they were
afraid.

19. The stadium, a Greek measure, was nearly equal to an English furlong,
so that the distance here indicated was, at the least, almost three miles.
The exact length of the stadium was 625 feet, that of the English furlong
is 660 feet.

20. Ille autem dicit eis: Ego 20. But he saith to them: It
sum, nolite timere. is I: be not afraid.
21. Voluerunt ergo accipere 21. They were willing
eum in navim: et statim navis therefore to take him into the
fuit ad terram, in quam ibant. ship: and presently the ship
was at the land, to which they
were going.

21. *They were willing therefore to take him into the ship.* ἤθελον here
is equivalent to an adverb (Kuin.), and the sense is: “They gladly took
Him into the ship” (boat), as St. Mark indeed tells us they did (Mark vi.
51). Or, if, with Winer, _Gr. Gram._, p. 586, it be admitted that θέλω
never has an adverbial force, except in the participle, then we would
explain that though at first afraid (verse 19), they were afterwards
willing to take Him into the ship, and took Him in.

22. Altera die, turba quae 22. The next day, the
stabat trans mare, vidit quia multitude that stood on the
navicula alia non erat ibi other side of the sea, saw
nisi una, et quia non that there was no other ship
introisset cum discipulis suis there but one, and that Jesus
Iesus in navim, sed soli had not entered into the ship
discipuli eius abiissent: with his disciples, but that
his disciples were gone away
alone.
23. Aliae vero supervenerunt 23. But other ships came in
naves a Tiberiade, iuxta locum from Tiberias, nigh unto the
ubi manducaverant panem, place where they had eaten the
gratias agente Domino. bread, the Lord giving thanks.
24. Cum ergo vidisset turba 24. When therefore the
quia Iesus non esset ibi, multitude saw that Jesus was
neque discipuli eius, not there, nor his disciples,
ascenderunt in naviculas, et they took shipping, and came
venerunt Capharnaum quaerentes to Capharnaum seeking for
Iesum. Jesus.

22‐24. On the following day, the crowd on the eastern shore seek for Jesus
(verse 24), thinking Him to be still on that side of the lake, inasmuch as
He had not left by the only boat that was there on the preceding evening
(verse 22). Not finding Him, they take boats which had just arrived on the
eastern shore, and cross to the western shore to seek Jesus in Capharnaum,
where He usually abode at this time.

25. Et cum invenissent eum 25. And when they had found
trans mare, dixerunt ei: him on the other side of the
Rabbi, quando huc venisti? sea, they said to him: Rabbi,
when camest thou hither?

25. When they found Jesus, they asked Him when He had come to Capharnaum,
being equally anxious, no doubt, to know _how_ He had come.

26. Respondit eis Iesus, et 26. Jesus answered them and
dixit: Amen, amen dico vobis: said: Amen, amen, I say to
quaeritis me, non quia you, you seek me, not because
vidistis signa, sed quia you have seen miracles, but
manducastis ex panibus, et because you did eat of the
saturati estis. loaves, and were filled.

26. Without answering their question, our Lord takes occasion from the
miracle of the preceding day to raise their thoughts to a higher and more
precious bread than that which He had miraculously given them. But first
He tells them that they followed Him, not because they had realized the
spiritual significance of His miracles, and believed Him to be God, but
merely, He implies, because they hoped for a gross material satisfaction,
such as they had experienced the preceding day. The Greek word, rendered:
_and were filled_, means literally; were satisfied with food, as animals
with fodder.

Having thus made known to them, that He knew their motive in following
Him, He goes on to tell them to labour not, that is to say, not so much,
for the food that perisheth as for that which endureth unto eternal life.
This food enduring unto eternal life (verse 27) we understand to be the
Blessed Eucharist.

But before giving our reasons for holding that reference to the Blessed
Eucharist begins here, and not merely at verses 48, 51, or 52, it is
desirable to indicate the Protestant interpretations of this discourse of
our Lord, and prove that they are untenable.

Most Protestants deny that there is any reference to the Blessed Eucharist
in this chapter; they hold that it refers merely to the reception of
Christ through faith; and through faith especially in the atoning efficacy
of His passion and death. It is of this faith in His passion that they
interpret the words: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and
drink His blood, you shall not have life in you,” (verse 54). Indeed they
are logically constrained either to deny that there is reference here to
the sacrament of the Eucharist, or else to abandon their teaching
regarding the nature and efficacy of the sacraments. On the one hand, if
they admit reference to the Eucharist, they see the difficulty of denying
the real and substantial presence of Christ in the sacrament; on the other
hand, holding, as they do, that the few sacraments which they retain,(55)
are not _causes_ of grace, as the Catholic Church teaches, but merely
signs or pledges of grace, and external notes of the Church, they find
themselves in direct conflict with our Lord, if His words are to be
understood of the sacrament of the Eucharist. For again and again
throughout this discourse He attributes salvation and grace to the eating
of His flesh and the drinking of His blood, in such a way as to leave no
room for doubt that whatever it is He speaks of, whether faith or the
sacrament of the Eucharist, it is the cause of grace. See, _e.g._, 27, 52,
55, 57, 59.

But besides those who deny that there is any reference to the Blessed
Eucharist in this chapter, there is a considerable number of Protestants
who take up even a more indefensible position. These admit the reference,
but contend that nothing more can be concluded from this or any other part
of Scripture than that Christ is _spiritually_ present in the Sacrament.
They will not admit that Christ is really and substantially present, much
less that the sacrament causes grace. Against the first class we shall
show that Christ refers, in this discourse, to the Blessed Eucharist; and
against the second, that His words prove that He is really and
substantially received in the sacrament.

I. CHRIST REFERS IN THIS DISCOURSE TO THE BLESSED EUCHARIST.(56)

We may premise that no more appropriate occasion could have been chosen by
Christ for promising this heavenly bread than the day following that on
which He had multiplied the bread in the desert; and we know that it was
Christ’s practice to explain His doctrines as they were suggested by
circumstances. Thus, after curing the _centurion’s_ servant, He foretells
the vocation of the _Gentiles_ (Matt. viii. 6‐13); after expelling the
unclean spirit, He describes the power of Satan (Matt. xii. 22‐45); after
asking for water, He speaks of the water of life to the Samaritan woman
(John iv. 10, and foll.); after healing the paralytic, He predicts the
general resurrection (John v. 28); and after curing the man born blind, He
denounces the blindness of the Pharisees (John ix. 41). It was quite in
accordance with Christ’s practice, then, to predict the Blessed Eucharist
on the present occasion: and that He did so is proved by the following
arguments:—

(1) If St. John did not mean to record here a reference to the Blessed
Eucharist, then he does not mention that sacrament at all, for he does not
allude, unless perhaps very obscurely (xiii. 1) to its institution. But it
is very improbable that our Evangelist omits all mention of this sacrament
in his Gospel. For if, as we shall prove, this sacrament contains the body
and blood of Christ, there was a reason why St. John should mention it in
order to confirm the faithful against the Docetae who denied the reality
of Christ’s human nature. Nor does it at all weaken this argument to say
that the Docetae who denied the reality of the body in which Christ had
walked and talked, would not be likely to be convinced by a reference to
His body present in the Eucharist. For St. John wrote, not to convert
heretics, but to confirm against heresy Christians who believed in the
real presence.

(2) Christ’s words (27, 52) can refer only to the Eucharist. For He speaks
of a food which was still to be given _in the future_, whereas His
_doctrines_, and His _Person_ as the object of faith, had been given
already.

(3) His words: “Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of
the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you”
(verse 54), could be understood only in a literal sense, and so
understood, they must refer to the Blessed Eucharist. For, if Christ had
spoken in a figurative sense, it should be in that figurative sense which
was known and recognised among the Jews. Now, the recognised figurative
sense of eating a man’s flesh was to do him some serious injury,
especially by calumny.(57) Such a figurative sense, however, would be
absurd here; and hence Christ must have been understood, and must have
spoken, in the literal sense. See Wiseman’s _Lect. on the Euch._, pp.
77‐91.

(4) The disciples understood our Lord to speak of a real eating of His
flesh and blood, such as takes place only in the Eucharist, and understood
Him correctly. Their words (verse 61), and their departure for ever from
Him (verse 67), show that they understood Him of a real eating; otherwise
why should they be offended or desert Him? What had He said that was new,
or hard to take in, if He merely spoke of the necessity of faith in
Himself or His doctrines? Their action, then, shows in what sense the
disciples understood Him; and His action in permitting them to depart,
shows they understood Him correctly.

(5) The Jews understood Him of a real eating, which was quite different
from belief in His doctrines or in Himself, and which has no meaning
unless in reference to the Eucharist. “_How_ can this man give us _His
flesh_ to eat?” they said (verse 53); and His solemn asseveration,
negatively (verse 54), and positively (verse 55), shows that He is
inculcating the very truth which they had questioned, and which they were
bound to accept on His testimony, even though they could not see _how_ it
was to come to pass.

II. CHRIST SPEAKS OF A REAL, ORAL RECEPTION OF HIS BODY AND BLOOD, AND NOT
MERELY OF A SPIRITUAL RECEPTION THROUGH FAITH EXCITED BY THE SACRAMENT.

(1) The manna with which Christ compares the bread that He will give
(verses 49, 50, 59) was really eaten; therefore, also the bread, which is
His flesh (verse 52), is to be _really_ received.

(2) After the Jews had murmured, Christ declared His flesh to be _truly_
meat, and His blood to be _truly_ drink (verse 56), and therefore it must
be truly and really received.

(3) In any sense other than the literal, Christ’s meaning would be
obscure, and His words misleading; and our Evangelist, according to his
ordinary practice (i. 41, 42; ii. 21; iv. 2; xii. 33), would explain. But
he does not explain; therefore the language is not obscure, and therefore
the literal sense was meant.

(4) See arguments (3), (4), and (5) for the preceding proposition.

And now, having satisfied ourselves that there is reference to the Blessed
Eucharist in this chapter, and to a real, oral reception of Christ in the
sacrament, let us try to decide where that reference begins. Some (as
Wiseman, _Lect. on Euch._, p. 51, and foll.) say at verse 48; others, at
51; and others, at 52. But it seems much more probable that the reference
begins before any of these points; and Wiseman is certainly mistaken when
he states, on page 48: “That Protestants and Catholics are equally agreed
that the discourse, as far as the 48th or 51st verse refers entirely to
believing Christ. St. Cyril of Alex., Theophy., Toletus, Lucas of Bruges,
had held, before Wiseman’s time, that the reference to the Blessed
Eucharist begins in verse 27”; and since his time, Beelen, Perrone,
Corluy, Franzelin,(58) and others have held the same.

The most probable view seems to be that from verse 27, wherever there is
question of the bread (verses 27, 32, 33, 35, ... 59), the Blessed
Eucharist is meant. Christ began in verse 27 to promise the Blessed
Eucharist, but the Jews interrupted Him (verse 28), and their interruption
raised the question of faith in Him, so that He digressed for a time from
His main purpose to explain the necessity of faith, in order to ensure a
fruitful reception of the Eucharist. But though we admit this digression,
we hold that wherever Christ refers to the bread to be given, He means the
Blessed Eucharist, and that the reference to it begins in verse 27. For—

(1) In verse 27 He speaks of a food that was still _to be given in the
future_, just as in verse 52, where all Catholics admit there is question
of the Eucharist.

(2) This food was to be given by the Son of Man, Christ Himself; and
though in verse 32 the Father is said to give it, this is naturally
explained by saying that the Father gives us in the Incarnation what
Christ gives in a sacramental form in the Eucharist.

(3) The food in verse 27, is a food for which, as we shall see, faith is a
_preparation_; therefore, not itself faith.

(4) In verses 32, 33, there is question of a bread that cometh down from
heaven, and giveth life to the world, and in verse 59, of a bread to which
the very same properties are attributed; and in both cases this heaven‐
descended, life‐giving bread is contrasted with the manna. Is it not
natural, then, to conclude, remembering that both passages belong to the
same discourse, that the same bread is meant in both instances?

And now we have seen—(1) that there is reference to the Blessed Eucharist
in this discourse; (2) to a real reception of Christ in it; and (3) that
the reference most probably begins in verse 27. Having got so far, it will
not be very difficult to interpret the discourse, and to this we proceed
at once.

27. Operamini non cibum qui 27. Labour not for the meat
perit, sed qui permanet in which perisheth, but for that
vitam aeternam, quem Filius which endureth unto life
hominis dabit vobis. Hunc enim everlasting, which the son of
Pater signavit Deus. man will give you. For him
hath God, the Father, sealed.

27. *Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that ** which
endureth unto life everlasting.* As our Version indicates, the meat is the
object for the attainment of which they are exhorted to do their part. The
meaning cannot be that they are to _make_ the food by believing, as if the
food were faith; for they had not _made_ the bread in the desert the
previous day, nor were they thinking of making it now, but they were
trying, _striving to obtain it_. This sacramental food will endure _in its
effects_ unto eternal life. This food *the Son of Man will give*; _i.e._,
Christ as man will give us His flesh; but since the food is to endure in
its effects unto _eternal life_, mere man could not give such; and hence
it is added that the Father who is God has sealed with the impress of
Divinity (August., Tolet.) the Son of Man, who therefore, being God as
well as man, can give a food that will endure unto eternal life.

28. Dixerunt ergo ad eum: Quid 28. They said therefore unto
faciemus ut operemur opera him: What shall we do that we
Dei? may work the works of God?
29. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 29. Jesus answered, and said
eis: Hoc est opus Dei, ut to them: This is the work of
credatis in eum quem misit God, that you believe in him
ille. whom he hath sent.

28‐29. Some of His hearers now interrupt Christ, not however to inquire
what this food was, but to ask what they must do on their part in order to
perform the works which they take it for granted _God requires_, before
they may receive such food. Christ’s answer is, that in order to obtain
it, so that it may remain unto eternal life, they must believe in Himself.
So too is it even now; the sinner may sacrilegiously receive the Lord into
his breast, but it is only for Him who believes (and acts accordingly)
that the Sacrament endureth unto eternal life.

30. Dixerunt ergo ei: Quod 30. They said therefore to
ergo tu facis signum ut him: What sign therefore dost
videamus, et credamus tibi? thou show that we may see, and
quid operaris! may believe thee? what dost
thou work?
31. Patres nostri 31. Our fathers did eat manna
manducaverunt manna in in the desert, as it is
deserto, sicut scriptum est: written, _He gave them bread
Panem de coelo dedit eis from heaven to eat_.
manducare.

30‐31. Christ having declared the necessity of faith in Himself, they now
ask for motives of credibility, and point to the great standing miracle
wrought for their fathers in the desert. But whereas He had demanded faith
in Himself: “That you believe _in Him_ whom He hath sent” (verse 29), they
seem to miss the point, and speak not of believing in Him, but merely of
believing Him, believing what He may have to say to them. They did not
mention Moses, nor was the manna given by Moses; but our Lord’s reply
shows that the comparison between Himself and Moses was in their minds. It
is as if they said: You call upon us to believe you on the strength of the
miracle wrought yesterday in the desert, whereas Moses fed our _whole
race_ for _forty_ years with a bread _from heaven_. These people who speak
thus, are probably different persons from those who on the preceding day
recognised Christ as the Messias (verse 14).

32. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: 32. Then Jesus said to them:
Amen, amen dico vobis: Non Amen, amen, I say to you:
Moyses dedit vobis panem de Moses gave you not bread from
coelo, sed Pater meus dat heaven, but my Father giveth
vobis panem de coelo verum. you the true bread from
heaven.
33. Panis enim Dei est qui de 33. For the bread of God is
coelo descendit, et dat vitam that which cometh down from
mundo. heaven, and giveth life to the
world.

32‐33. They had asked for some great miracle (comp. Matt. xii. 38), but
since they had already had sufficient evidence to enable them to believe,
Christ does not gratify their desire, but proceeds to declare that it was
not Moses who gave the manna, but God (see Ps. lxxvii. 21‐24); so that
their tacit comparison of Moses with Himself is baseless. He then goes on
to declare that His Father giveth them the true bread from heaven. This
means, as we have already explained, that the Father gave us in the
Incarnation what Christ gives us in the Eucharist, namely, the Person of
the God‐man. That it is true or perfect bread, He proves from the fact
that it comes, not like the manna from the clouds, but from heaven itself,
and that it not merely _sustains_ the life of _one people_, but _gives_
life to the _world_.

34. Dixerunt ergo ad eum: 34. They said therefore unto
Domine, semper da nobis panem him: Lord, give us always this
hunc. bread.
35. Dixit autem eis Iesus: Ego 35. And Jesus said to them: I
sam panis vitae, qui venit ad am the bread of life: he that
me, non esuriet: et qui credit cometh to me shall not hunger;
in me, non sitiet unquam. he that believeth in me, shall
never thirst.

34, 35. They at once ask that He would give them this bread always. They
evidently think that He speaks of some excellent food like the manna,
which would support their corporal existence, and they desire to be
constantly supplied with it. But as they know not _what_ they ask, nor
_how_ they should be disposed to receive it, He tells them—(1) What the
bread is, namely, Himself; and (2) what is required for a proper and
fruitful reception of it, namely, faith in Himself. The words: *He that
cometh to Me*, mean the same thing as: *He that believeth in Me*. The
believer shall *never thirst*; because, if he act upon his belief, he will
receive Christ in the Eucharist, and be spiritually filled, never again to
thirst, except through his own fault.

36. Sed dixi vobis, quia et 36. But I said unto you, that
vidistis me, et non creditis. you also have seen me, and you
believe not.
37. Omne quod dat mihi Pater, 37. All that the Father giveth
ad me veniet: et eum qui venit me shall come to me; and him
ad me, non ejiciam foras: that cometh to me, I will not
cast out.

36, 37. Christ again, as in verse 26, reproves their want of faith, and
declares that those who believe in Him, do so through the grace of the
Father; and all such He receives and rejects not.

38. Quia descendi de coelo, 38. Because I came down from
non ut faciam voluntatem meam heaven, not to do my own will,
sed voluntatem eius qui misit but the will of him that sent
me. me.
39. Hac est autem voluntas 39. Now this is the will of
eius qui misit me, Patris: ut the Father who sent me; that
omne quod dedit mihi, non of all that he hath given me,
perdam ex eo, sed resuscitem I should lose nothing, but
illud in novissimo die. should raise it up again in
the last day.
40. Haec est autem voluntas 40. And this is the will of my
Patris mei, qui misit me: ut Father that sent me; that
omnis qui videt Filium, et every one who seeth the Son,
credit in eum, habeat vitam and believeth in him, may have
aeternam, et ego resuscitabo life everlasting, and I will
eum in novissimo die. raise him up in the last day.

38‐40. He declares the reason why He does not reject such: because He came
down on earth to do His father’s will; and that will is that all who
recognize in Him the Son of God and believe in Him as such (acting
according to that belief), should be raised up to a glorious life on the
last day.

41. Murmurabant ergo Iudaei de 41. The Jews therefore
illo, quia dixisset: Ego sum murmured at him, because he
panis vivus, qui de coelo had said, I am the living
descendi. bread which came down from
heaven.
42. Et dicebant: Nonne hic est 42. And they said: Is not this
Iesus filius Ioseph, cuius nos Jesus the son of Joseph, whose
novimus patrem et matrem? father and mother we know? How
Quomodo ergo dicit hic: Quia than saith he, I came down
de coelo descendi? from heaven?
43. Respondit ergo Iesus, et 43. Jesus therefore answered
dixit eis: Nolite murmurare in and said to them: Murmur not
invicem: among yourselves.

41‐43. The Jews, by whom the Scribes and Pharisees perhaps are meant, now
murmur because He claims celestial origin, whereas they fancy they know
Him to be an ordinary man, born in the ordinary way of an earthly father
and mother. He merely reproves their murmuring without replying to their
difficulty, and proceeds to declare the necessity of grace.

44. Nemo potest venire ad me, 44. No man can come to me,
nisi Pater qui misit me except the Father, who hath
traxerit eum: et ego sent me, draw him, and I will
resuscitabo eum in novissimo raise him up in the last day.
die.

44. No one can believe in Him, unless the Father draw him; _i.e._, by
preventing and assisting grace. We have here a clear proof against the
Pelagians, for the necessity of grace in order to faith. It must be borne
in mind that, though we are drawn by God, we are drawn by impulses of
grace which we are free to resist.(59)

45. Est scriptum in prophetis: 45. It is written in the
Et erunt omnes docibiles Dei. prophets: _And they all shall
Omnis qui audivit a Patre, et be taught of God_. Every one
didicit, venit ad me. that hath heard of the Father
and hath learned, cometh to
me.

45. Christ declares _how_ we are drawn by the Father, namely, by an
illumination of the intellect and motion of the will, so that we hear
(“audivit”) and obey (“didicit”). *It is written in the Prophets: And they
shall all be taught of God.* The Jewish Scriptures were divided into the
Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographers, and the reference here is to the
portion written by the Prophets. The phrase: *They shall all be taught of
God*, which is found substantially in Isaias, liv. 13, implies direct
Divine teaching through the influence of the Spirit upon the mind and
heart, and indicates not merely one Divine communication, but an
established relationship, for the faithful who allow themselves to be
drawn, are life‐long pupils in the school of God.

46. Non quia Patrem vidit 46. Not that any man hath seen
quisquam, nisi is qui est a the Father, but he who is of
Deo, hic vidit Patrem. God, he hath seen the Father.

46. *Not that any man hath seen the Father.* It is, says St. Augustine,
“as if He said: Do not when I tell you: Every man that hath heard and
learned of the Father, say to yourselves: We have never seen the Father,
and how then can we have learned from Him? Hear Him then in Me, I know the
Father, and am from Him.”

47. Amen, amen dico vobis: Qui 47. Amen, amen, I say unto
credit in me, habet vitam you: He that believeth in me
aeternam. hath everlasting life.

47. Having pointed out the necessity of faith (verse 29), its sufficiency
(verse 35), and the necessary condition to it, namely, the grace of God
and correspondence therewith (verses 44, 45), He now solemnly repeats what
He had declared in verses 35 and 37, that he who believes in Him shall
have eternal life. The present tense, *hath everlasting life*, need create
no difficulty here: for he who believes will receive the Blessed
Eucharist, the food “that endureth unto everlasting life,” (verse 57); and
the present tense is so used to indicate the certainty with which the
result will follow.

48. Ego sum panis vitae. 48. I am the bread of life.
49. Patres vestri 49. Your fathers did eat manna
manducaverunt manna in in the desert, and are dead.
deserto, et mortui sunt.
50. Hic est panis de coelo 50. This is the bread which
descendens: ut si quis ex ipso cometh down from heaven: that
manducaverit, non moriatur. if any man eat of it, he may
not die.
51. Ego sum panis vivus, qui 51. I am the living bread,
de coelo descendi. which came down from heaven.

48‐51. Before quitting this portion of His discourse, and going on to
declare _how_ He is the bread of life, Christ sums up what He has said,
repeating again the proposition laid down in verse 35: “I am the bread of
life;” again comparing and preferring the Blessed Eucharist to the manna
(49, 50 compared with 32, 35); and combining in one the two propositions
contained in verses 35 and 38, namely, that He is the bread, and that He
came down from heaven. In verse 50 where it is declared that he who eats
this bread shall not die, the meaning is, that the Blessed Eucharist, _of
its own nature_, is calculated to save us from the death of the soul, and
to secure even for our bodies a glorious resurrection. Sin, of course, may
rob it of its glorious effects.

52. Si quis manducaverit ex 52. If any man eat of this
hoc pane, vivet in aeternuum: bread, he shall live for ever:
et panis, quem ego dabo, caro and the bread that I will
mea est pro mundi vita. give, is my flesh for the life
of the world.

52. Having summed up the preceding portion of His discourse, Christ now
proceeds to declare _how_ He is the bread of life. Till now He had
contented Himself with declaring that He is that bread, and with pointing
out the chief disposition necessary to receive Him worthily; now He goes
further, and points out _how_ He will be the bread of life; namely, by
giving His flesh, that is, His whole human nature (i. 14), to which the
Divine nature is inseparably united, to be received in the Blessed
Eucharist. Thus He gradually unfolds the mystery, reserving till the last
supper the further knowledge, that this reception of His body and blood
was to take place in a sacramental manner.

*And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.*
Many Greek MSS. read: “And the bread that I will give is My flesh, _which
I will give_ for the life of the world.” If the words “which I will give”
be genuine, we would explain them not in reference to the sacrifice of the
cross, but in reference to the sacrifice of the Eucharist, in which Christ
is given for us and to us. Compare St. Luke: “This is My body, which is
_given for you_” (Luke, xxii. 19), and especially Luke xxii. 20, where the
Greek text shows that it is the blood _as in the chalice_ (and not as on
Calvary) that is said to be offered in sacrifice. But the words more
probably are not genuine; they are omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Westcott, and Hort, and by the Revised Version, as well as by
the Vulgate.

Though not merely Christ’s flesh, that is, His humanity (i. 14), but also
His Divinity, is received in the Blessed Eucharist, His human nature is
specially mentioned, lest it should be thought that He is the living bread
only as God, or merely spiritually. “Dixerat enim,” says St. Thomas on
this verse. “Quod erat panis vivus; et ne intelligatur quod hoc ei esset
in quantum est Verbum, vel secundum animam tantum, ideo ostendit quod
etiam caro sua vivificativa est: est enim organum divinitatis suae: unde,
cum instrumentum agat virtute agentis, sicut divinitas Christi
vivificativa est, ita et caro virtute Verbi adjuncti vivificat; unde
Christus tactu suo sanabat infirmos.” Besides, as St. Thomas adds, since
this Sacrament is commemorative of our Lord’s Passion (“For as often as
you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death
of the Lord,” 1 Cor. xi. 26), His “flesh” is mentioned to remind us of the
weakness of that human nature wherein it was possible for Him who was God
to suffer.

53. Litigabant ergo Iudaei ad 53. The Jews therefore strove
invicem, dicentes: Quomodo among themselves saying: How
potest hic nobis carnem suam can this man give us his flesh
suam dare ad manducandum? to eat?
54. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: 54. Then Jesus said to them:
Amen, amen dico vobis: Nisi Amen, amen, I say unto you;
manducaveritis carnem Filii Except you eat the flesh of
hominis, et biberitis eius the son of man, and drink his
sanguinem, non habebitis vitam blood, you shall not have life
in vobis. in you.
55. Qui manducat meam carnem, 55. He that eateth my flesh,
et bibit meum sanguinem, habet and drinketh my blood, hath
vitam aeternam: et ego everlasting life: and I will
resuscitabo eum in novissimo raise him up in the last day.
die.

53‐55. The Jews *therefore* (_ergo_, not enim), because of what He had now
said, disputed among themselves, evidently taking different views of what
He had said; but Jesus, far from retracting, solemnly insists upon what He
had just said, and declares negatively (verse 54), and positively (verse
55), not only the possibility, but the _necessity_ of receiving His body
and blood. It does not follow from verse 54, as the Utraquists falsely
contended, that Communion under both kinds is necessary; for Christ is
received whole and entire under either species. Under the species of bread
only the body is present _in virtue of the words of consecration_, and
similarly under the species of wine only the blood; but since Christ’s
body is now a _living_ body, it follows that in the Blessed Eucharist,
where the body is, there also are the blood and the soul _in virtue of the
natural connection_ between the parts of a living body, and there, too,
the Divinity, _in virtue of the hypostatic union_. See Decrees of the
Council of Trent, sess. xiii., ch. 3. The precept is to receive both body
and blood, but not necessarily under both species. For, as the Council of
Trent (sess. xxi., cap. 1) points out, Christ attributes the same effects
to eating in verses 55, 58, 59, as He does here to eating and drinking.
See also 1 Cor. xi. 26, where he who eats _or_ drinks unworthily, is said
to be guilty of _both_ body and blood. The precept of Christ, then, is
obeyed whether one or both species be received, and it is a disciplinary
matter entrusted to the care of the Church, whether the faithful are to
receive under one or both species.

Seeing, then, that there is no obligation for the faithful to receive the
Blessed Eucharist under both species, it may be asked why does Christ
mention both species? We reply, that He does so to signify that in the
Blessed Eucharist there is a perfect repast, which ordinarily supposes the
presence of both meat and drink; and, perhaps, also to indicate that this
sacrament is commemorative of His death, in which His body and blood were
separated.

Nor do verses 54 and 55 afford any proof that the Blessed Eucharist is
necessary, _necessitate medii_ unto salvation, like Baptism (John iii. 5).
For—(1) Baptism is declared to be absolutely necessary for all, “unless a
man be born again;” here the Blessed Eucharist is declared necessary only
for those who are capable of receiving a precept, “Unless you eat,” &c.
(2) From the nature of the case, Baptism, being a new _birth_, is
absolutely necessary for all who are to live the new spiritual life; and
as many as are born, must be _born again_ in order to live the higher
life; but the Blessed Eucharist is not the introduction to a new life, but
a means of nourishing the life already acquired. Hence for children who
have already acquired that spiritual life in Baptism, and cannot lose it
because incapable of sinning, the Blessed Eucharist cannot be necessary to
salvation, nor even for adults can it be absolutely necessary as a means,
if there be, as there are, other means of retaining the life already
acquired.

56. Caro enim mea, vere est 56. For my flesh is meat
cibus: et sanguis meus, vere indeed: and my blood is drink
est potus. indeed;
57. Qui manducat meam carnem, 57. He that eateth my flesh
et bibit meum sanguinem, in me and drinketh my blood, abideth
manet, et ego in illo. in me, and I in him.

57. In the Blessed Eucharist we are united to Christ, and His humanity
remains in us until the sacred species become corrupted; His divinity,
until mortal sin is committed, and He is expelled.

58. Sicut misit me vivens 58. As the living Father hath
Pater, et ego vivo propter sent me, and I live by the
Patrem: et qui manducat me, et Father: so he that eateth me,
ipse vivet propter me. the same also shall live by
me.

58. The sacred union between Christ and the communicant is compared to the
ineffable union between Him and His heavenly Father.

*The living Father.* This is a unique instance of this title, but we
frequently find: _The Living God_, Matt. xvi. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16, &c. *And
I live by* (διὰ τὸν παπέρα) *the Father*. It is to be noted that διὰ is
followed by the accusative, not the genitive. If, then, we are to regard
it as meaning here what it ordinarily means when followed by the
accusative, and as the Vulgate seems to take it, the sense would rather
be: As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live _on account_ of the
Father, so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live _on account_ of Me.
This would mean that as complete devotion to the Father is the object of
the life of the Incarnate Son (the Son _as sent_), so complete devotion to
the Son shall be the object of the life of him to whom Christ shall have
united Himself in the Blessed Eucharist. Others, however, think that διὰ
is here equivalent to _through_, or _by_, as in our Rheims Version. The
sense then is: as Christ lives through the eternal life communicated to
Him in His eternal generation by the Father; so, in some way, the
communicant shall live in virtue of the spiritual life communicated to him
or sustained in him because of his union with Christ in the Blessed
Eucharist.

59. Hic est panis qui de coelo 59. This is the bread that
descendit. Non sicut came down from heaven. Not as
manducaverunt patres vestri your fathers did eat manna,
manna, et mortui sunt. Qui and are dead. He that eateth
manducat hunc panem, vivet in this bread shall live for
aeternum. ever.

59. This verse concludes and unites the principal points of the discourse.
Compare verses 32, 41, 49, 50, 52, 55. Hence it confirms the view we have
followed regarding the unity of subject throughout the discourse.

*He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.* With this encouraging and
glorious promise, made not to any one people, nor to any class as such,
not even to all believers, but to each one (note the change from the
plural to the singular: _your fathers ... He that eateth_) who shall
worthily receive, and duly profit by the Blessed Eucharist, the discourse
ends.

60. Haec dixit in synagoga 60. These things he said
docens, in Capharnaum. teaching in the synagogue, in
Capharnaum.

60. Because of the solemn importance of the discourse, the place where it
was delivered is noted. At Tell Hûm (see above on ii. 12) the ruins of a
large synagogue are still to be seen.

61. Multi ergo audientes ex 61. Many therefore of his
discipulis eius, dixerunt: disciples hearing it, said:
Durus est hic sermo, et quis This saying is hard, and who
potest eum audire? can hear it?

61. The effect of the _discourse_ upon many of the disciples is recorded.
*Hard* (σκληρός), _i.e._, harsh, hard to accept.

62. Sciens autem Iesus apud 62. But Jesus knowing in
semetipsum quia murmurarent de himself, that his disciples
hoc discipuli eius, dixit eis: murmured at this, said to
Hoc vos scandalizat? them: Doth this scandalize
you?

62. The Evangelist notes, according to his custom, that their thoughts
were known to Christ.

63. Si ergo videritis Filium 63. If then you shall see the
hominis ascendentem ubi erat son of man ascend up where he
prius? was before?

63. *If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?*
The sense according to some, is: If you shall see Me ascending into
heaven, it will then be easier to believe My doctrine, seeing I am Divine;
and you shall at the same time understand, that it is not in a bloody
manner (as you suppose) that you are to eat My body. Thus He would correct
their too carnal interpretation of His words, and point at the same time
to a reason why the true sense, however difficult, was to be accepted.
Others think that Christ’s words increase the difficulty, the sense being,
if you are scandalized now, because I say, _while present with you_, that
I will give My body, how much more will you be scandalized when you see
that body taken away into heaven, and are yet asked to believe that it is
to be eaten on earth? It is argued in favour of this opinion, that the
form of Christ’s reply: “Does this scandalize you? If _therefore_,” &c.,
indicates that their difficulty would then be greater. So Mald., Tolet.,
Beel., Corl. We may remark, as against the Nestorians, that language could
not signify more clearly than this verse signifies the unity of Person in
Christ. The Son of Man will ascend to heaven where as Son of God He is
from all eternity. “Filius Dei et hominis unus Christus ... Filius Dei in
terra suscepta carne, Filius hominis in coelo in unitate personae.” St.
Aug. on this verse.

64. Spiritus est, qui 64. It is the spirit that
vivificat: caro non prodest quickeneth: the flesh
quidquam: verba quae ego profiteth nothing. The words
locutus sum vobis, spiritus et that I have spoken to you, are
vita sunt. spirit and life.

64. Many interpretations of this verse have been advanced. The following
two are the most probable, intrinsically and extrinsically:—

(1) *The spirit* is the spirit of man elevated and ennobled by grace; *the
flesh*, the corrupt dispositions and weak thoughts of human nature unaided
by grace (see Rom. viii. 5, 6); and the meaning of the verse is; it is the
mind illumined by grace that quickeneth to faith and to a proper
understanding of My words; the mind or human nature by itself is of no
avail in such matters; the words which I have spoken to you are _to be
understood by_ the mind quickened and illumined by grace. So St. Chrys.,
Teoph., Wisem., Perr., M’Ev. But there are serious difficulties against
this view—(1) “caro” is then taken metaphorically in this verse, while
throughout the context it has been taken literally of the flesh of Christ;
(2) the explanation of the words “are spirit and life” is unnatural.

(2) Others take *the Spirit* of the Divinity of Christ, *the flesh* of His
humanity considered apart from the Divinity; and the meaning of the verse
then is: it is My Divinity that quickeneth, and maketh My flesh a meat
enduring unto eternal life; the flesh if separated from the Divinity would
profit nothing; the words which I have spoken to you regard My life‐giving
Divinity as united to My humanity. In this view, as Mald. explains it,
“life,” by a Hebraism, is equivalent to an adjective signifying _life‐
giving_, as may be inferred from the beginning of the verse, where it is
said that it is the Spirit _that giveth life_.(60) Hence “Spirit and life”
is equivalent to _life‐giving_ Spirit, and the latter part of the verse
means that Christ’s words have reference to His life‐giving Divinity in
union with His humanity. So, too, St. Cyril of Alex., Beel., Corl. We
prefer this view, and hold that Christ here gives the key to the solution
of the difficulty on account of which His disciples had murmured (verse
62). He had closed His discourse with words attributing eternal life to
the eating of His flesh (verse 59); they murmured accordingly, thinking it
absurd or incredible that such effect could follow from such a cause as
the eating of a man’s flesh; and in verse 64 He explains that His flesh is
the flesh of the Man‐God, which therefore through the quickening influence
of the Divinity with which it is united, is capable of producing such
marvellous effects.

There is not a shadow of probability in the interpretation put upon this
verse by the Sacramentarians. They explained the verse to mean: that the
_figurative_ sense of what He had said regarding the necessity of eating
His flesh and blood profits, but that the _literal_ sense would profit
nothing. Thus they professed to find in these words an assurance that
Christ had not spoken of a real eating of His flesh in the Eucharist, but
only of a spiritual reception of Himself through faith. In reply to this
we say—(1) that throughout the rest of the Bible “spiritus” and “caro” are
not even once used of a figurative and literal sense; (2) if Christ here
gave the explanation which our adversaries suppose, how is it that, as we
learn from verse 67, many of His disciples retired notwithstanding, and
walked with Him no more? In such an explanation all their difficulty would
be removed, and they would be taught that it was only of a figurative
eating by faith that Christ had been speaking. How then account for their
departure? But it was different in the explanation we have given above. In
our view, Christ, still insisting on a real reception of His flesh, merely
explains how it is that such real reception can lead to such glorious
results.

65. Sed sunt quidam ex vobis, 65. But there are some of you
qui non credunt. Sciebat enim that believe not. For Jesus
ab initio Iesus qui essent non knew from the beginning who
credentes, et quis traditurus they were that did not
esset eum. believe, and who he was that
would betray him.

65. In the view we hold regarding verse 64, the connection of this verse
with it is: the fact that I am God explains what you find difficult in My
words (verse 64); but some of you do not believe Me to be God; and hence
your difficulty (verse 65). To indicate Christ’s Divine knowledge, the
Evangelist adds that He knew _from the beginning_, &c.

66. Et dicebat: Propterea dixi 66. And he said: Therefore did
vobis, quia nemo potest venire I say to you, that no man can
ad me, nisi fuerit ei datum a come to me, unless it be given
Patre meo. him by my Father.

66. Christ’s words in this verse are to be connected closely with the
beginning of the preceding, the intervening words of the Evangelist being
parenthetical.

*Therefore did I say to you.* The allusion is to what was said above
(verse 44), which is substantially the same as what is said here, since to
be drawn to Christ by the Father is nothing else than to be given grace by
the Father to come to Christ. It might seem at first sight that these
words excuse the incredulity of those whom Christ addresses; but it is not
so. For, the reason they had not been drawn by the Father was because they
_would_ not, because they had not followed the promptings of grace. See
above on verse 45. “Peccabant tamen qui nolebant venire, id est credere in
Christum, tum quia habebant gratiam sufficientem, qua possent credere si
vellent, etsi non haberent efficacem, qua reipsa et actu crederent; tum
quia humiliter non petebant a Deo gratiam efficacem, qua actu crederent:
tum quia sua superbia aliisque peccatis illa gratia se fecerant indignos,
imo pervicaces Dei gratiam et fidem repellebant et refutabant” (A Lap. on
this verse).

67. Ex hoc multi discipulorum 67. After this many of his
eius abierunt retro: et iam disciples went back; and
non cum illo ambulabant. walked no more with him.

67. Had Christ in the preceding discourse spoken only of faith, surely,
all‐merciful and loving as He is, He would have made His meaning clear,
before allowing many of His disciples to depart from Him for ever. It was
only, then, because they understood Him correctly, and refused to believe
Him, that He allowed them to depart.

68. Dixit ergo Iesus ad 68. Then Jesus said to the
duodecim: Numquid et vos twelve: will you also go away?
vultis abire?

68. *The twelve.* These are spoken of as well known, though this is the
first mention made of their number in this Gospel.

*Will you also go away?* While the question implies that such desertion
was to be feared, its form implies a negative answer, and suggests that in
the case of the chosen twelve such conduct ought to be impossible.

69. Respondit ergo ei Simon 69. And Simon Peter answered
Petrus: Domine, ad quem him: Lord, to whom shall we
ibimus? verba vitae aeternae go? thou hast the words of
habes: eternal life.
70. Et nos credidimus, et 70. And we have believed and
cognovimus quia tu es Christus have known that thou art the
Filius Dei. Christ the Son of God.

69‐70. Peter replies for all the Apostles (not knowing the unbelief of
Judas), and confesses the truth of Christ’s doctrine, and, according to
the Vulgate reading, the Divinity of Christ. It is very doubtful, however,
whether the Vulgate reading here is correct. The oldest Greek MSS. read:
“And we have believed and know that Thou art the _Holy One_ (ὁ ἅγιος) of
God.” Whether in the mind of St. Peter this latter form of the words meant
a full confession of Christ’s Divinity, or only that He was the Messias,
it is difficult to say. It would seem indeed from the praise bestowed upon
Peter by our Lord (Matt. xvi. 16) on an occasion subsequent to this, that
then for the first time Peter fully confessed Christ’s Divinity.

71. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne 71. Jesus answered them: Have
ego vos duodecim elegi, et ex not I chosen you twelve; and
vobis unus diabolus est? one of you is a devil?

71. Peter had answered as he thought for all the Apostles, but Christ
shows that He knows to the contrary. *A devil*, that is to say a sinner
inspired by the devil (viii. 44), Judas was (_est_) even then.

72. Dicebat autem Iudam 72. Now he meant Judas
Simonis Iscariotem: hic enim Iscariot, the son of Simon:
erat traditurus eum, cum esset for this same was about to
unus ex duodecim. betray him, whereas he was one
of the twelve.

72. The Evangelist explains who was meant. “The name Iscariot has received
many interpretations, more or less conjectural, but it is now universally
agreed that it is to be derived from Kerioth (Josh. xv. 25) a city in the
tribe of Judah, the Hebrew אישׂ קרִות ’īsh Kerīyoth passing into
Ἰσκαριώτης” (Smith’s _B. D._, 2nd Ed.). In this view, Judas, unlike the
other Apostles (Acts ii. 7), was from the Province of Judea.

CHAPTER VII.

1. *Christ remains in Galilee.*

2‐10. *His brethren urge Him to go up to Jerusalem to the Feast of
Tabernacles with them; this He declines to do, but goes afterwards
privately.*

11‐13. *The chief men among the Jews look out for Him at the
Feast, and express different opinions regarding Him.*

14‐24. *In the middle of the festival Christ goes up to the temple
and teaches.*

25‐29. *Comments of some of the people of Jerusalem; Christ’s
reply.*

30, 31. *Different opinions of the people regarding Him.*

32‐36. *Jealously of the Sanhedrim, which sends officers to arrest
Him.*

37‐39. *Christ’s words on the eighth day of the feast, and St.
John’s authentic interpretation.*

40, 41. *Different opinions among the people regarding Him.*

44‐49. *Though some were anxious to arrest Him, no one durst, not
even the officers who had been sent for that purpose; consequent
indignation of the Priests and Pharisees.*

50‐52. *Nicodemus interposes in Christ’s favour; reply of the
other members of the Sanhedrim.*

1. Post haec autem ambulabat 1. After these things Jesus
Iesus in Galilaeam, non enim walked in Galilee, for he
volebat in Iudaeam ambulare, would not walk in Judea,
quia quaerebant eum Iudaei because the Jews sought to
interficere. kill him.

1. Instead of “Galilaeam,” “Judaeam,” read “Galilea,” “Judaea” (Abl.) in
the Vulgate. The sense is that Christ continues to remain in Galilee.

2. Erat autem in proximo dies 2. Now the Jews’ feast of
festus Iudaeorum scenopegia. tabernacles was at hand.

2. See note on verse 1.

3. Dixerunt autem ad eum 3. And his brethren said to
fratres eius: Transi hinc, et him: Pass from hence and go
vade in Iudaeam, ut et into Judea: that thy disciples
discipuli tui videant opera also may see thy works which
tua, quae facis. thou dost.

3. *His brethren said to him: Pass from hence, and go into Judea, that thy
disciples also may see thy works which thou dost.*

Who are these brethren of Jesus?

(1) Not the children of Joseph and Mary, born to them after the birth of
our Lord, for this opinion of Helvidius was condemned as _heretical_ in
the Council of Lateran (649 A.D.), and is opposed to the universal and
constant tradition of the Church.(61)

(2) Not the children of Joseph by a previous marriage; for this opinion
too, though not heretical, and though held by some of the fathers, is
opposed to the common opinion of Catholics, according to which St. Joseph
lived and died a virgin.

(3) These brethren were _cousins_ of our Lord. The term “fratres”
(ἀδελφοὶ) is used in the Sacred Scriptures of many who are not children of
the same parents. Thus it is used of fellow‐countrymen, Rom. ix. 3, 4; (2)
of co‐religionists, Rom. i. 13; (3) of relations who were not, however,
members of the same family, Gen. xiii. 8, xiv. 4. In these verses of
Genesis, Abraham and Lot are referred to as _brethren_, though the former
was uncle to the latter (Gen. xii. 5).

In Matthew xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3, James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude, are named
as brethren of our Lord; but whether they are the same cousins who are
referred to here by St. John, is disputed. Of those mentioned by SS.
Matthew and Mark, James, Jude, and probably Simon, were Apostles;(62) and
hence, on account of verse 5, some say it is not these, but other cousins
of our Lord, who are here referred to by St. John. However, there need be
no difficulty about admitting that the faith of the Apostles was still
imperfect, especially if we adopt what seems the more probable reading in
vi. 70. See Matthew xvii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15.

These brethren of the Lord say to Him, that He ought to go up to
Jerusalem, where there would be a concourse of people to witness His
miracles.

4. Nemo quippe in occulto quid 4. For there is no man that
facit, et quaerit ipse in doth anything in secret, and
palam esse: si haec facis, he himself seeketh to be known
manifesta teipsum mundo. openly. If thou do these
things, manifest thyself to
the world.
5. Neque enim fratres eius 5. For neither did his
credebant in eum. brethren believe in him.

5. As already explained, if we regard the three Apostles as included among
the brethren, we may understand here that their faith was still
_imperfect_; if other cousins of our Lord are meant, they may have been
wholly without faith.

6. Dicit ergo eis Iesus: 6. Then Jesus said to them: My
Tempus meum nondum advenit: time is not yet come; but your
tempus autem vestrum semper time is always ready.
est paratum.

6. There are many opinions as to what is meant by _His time_, here
referred to by Christ. Some say it is the time of His passion; others, the
time for manifesting Himself to the world; and others, the time for going
up to Jerusalem. The latter opinion seems to us the most natural and most
probable.

7. Non potest mundus odisse 7. The world cannot hate you;
vos: me autem odit, quia ego but me it hateth: because I
testimonium perhibeo de illo give testimony of it, that the
quod opera eius mala sunt. works thereof are evil.

7. His brethren might go up to Jerusalem at any time, for they, even if
some of them were Apostles, had not yet incurred the odium of the _wicked_
world (John xv. 18, 19).

8. Vos ascendite ad diem 8. Go you up to this festival
festum hunc: ego autem non day, but I go not up to this
ascendo ad diem festum istum, festival day: because my time
quia meum tempus nondum is not accomplished.
impletum est.
9. Haec cum dixisset, ipse 9. When he had said these
mansit in Galilaea. things, he himself staid in
Galilee.
10. Ut autem ascenderunt 10. But after his brethren
fratres eius, tunc et ipse were gone up, then he also
ascendit ad diem festum non went up to the feast, not
manifeste, sed quasi in openly, but as it were in
occulto. secret.

8‐10. Christ here seems to say that He will not go up to Jerusalem for the
feast, and yet He went. Various answers to this difficulty have been
given:—(1) Many ancient MSS. and versions, instead of “Non (οὐκ) ascendo”
read “_Nondum_ (οὔπω) ascendo;” _i.e._, I go not up _yet_. However, as
this is the easier reading to explain, and as the other is equally well
supported by ancient authority, we are inclined to believe that the more
difficult (οὐκ) is the true reading. Hence (2) others say that our Lord
used an ambiguous phrase: I go not up, meaning I go not up _now_ (but
shall go afterwards). (3) The correct explanation seems to be that
insinuated by our Evangelist. Christ said: I go not up (as you desire, in
your company, and publicly); then when He went up, it was not publicly,
but, as it were, in secret.

11. Iudaei ergo quaerebant eum 11. The Jews therefore sought
in die festo, et dicebant: Ubi him on the festival day and
est ille? said: Where is he?

11. The leaders of the Jews seek Him at the feast, but, through contempt,
do not name Him.

12. Et murmur multum erat in 12. And there was much
turba de eo. Quidam enim murmuring among the multitude
dicebant: Quia bonus est. Alii concerning him. For some said:
autem dicebant: Non, sed He is a good man. And others
seducit turbas. said: No, but he seduceth the
people.
13. Nemo tamen palam 13. Yet no man spoke openly of
loquebatur de illo, propter him, for fear of the Jews.
metum Iudaeorum.

13. *Openly* (_palam_) does not fully express the force of the Greek word,
which seems to mean here _with open approval_.

14. Iam autem die festo 14. Now about the midst of the
mediante, ascendit Iesus in feast, Jesus went up into the
templum, et docebat. temple, and taught.

14. The festival lasted for eight days, so that this would be the fourth
or fifth day.

15. Et mirabantur Iudaei, 15. And the Jews wondered,
dicentes: Quomodo hic litteras saying: How doth this man know
scit, cum non didicerit? letters, having never learned?

15. From this verse it is plain that Christ had never attended any of the
Jewish schools, where the _Scriptures_ (γράμματα) were explained.

16. Respondit eis Iesus, et 16. Jesus answered them and
dixit: Mea doctrina non est said: My doctrine is not mine,
mea, sed eius qui misit me. but his that sent me.

16. The sense is: The doctrine I preach has not been excogitated by Me; I
have received it from My Father. As man, Christ had received His knowledge
through the beatific vision, and by infusion into His human soul, and as
God, He had received it from the Father from all eternity.

17. Si quis voluerit 17. If any man will do the
voluntatem eius facere, will of him: he shall know of
cognoscet de doctrina utrum ex the doctrine, whether it be of
Deo sit, an ego a meipso God, or whether I speak of
loquar. myself.
18. Qui a semetipso loquitur, 18. He that speaketh of
gloriam propriam quaerit: qui himself, seeketh his own
autem quaerit gloriam eius qui glory: but he that seeketh the
misit eum, hic verax est, et glory of him that sent him, he
iniustitia in illo non est. is true, and there is no
injustice in him.

17, 18. In proof that His doctrine is from God, He appeals to two
arguments:—(1) If they will only follow the will of God, and believe,
_experience_ will teach them that His doctrine is divine. (2) The fact
that He seeks not His own glory, but the glory of the Father, is a proof
that His doctrine is the doctrine of the Father, and, therefore a proof
that He is veracious, and does not deceive (_injustitia_ in illo non est).
This second argument, as Mald. points out, is based upon what does, not
upon what should, happen among men. When men preach doctrines of their own
invention, they generally seek their own glory.

19. Nonne Moyses dedit vobis 19. Did not Moses give you the
legem: et nemo ex vobis facit law, and _yet_ none of you
legem? keepeth the law?
20. Quid me quaeritis 20. Why seek you to kill me?
interficere? Respondit turba, The multitude answered and
et dixit: Daemonium habes: said: Thou hast a devil; who
quis te quaerit interficere? seeketh to kill thee?

19, 20. Most probably Christ begins here to defend Himself against the
charge of violating the Sabbath, which the Jews had brought against Him on
a former occasion (v. 16, 18), and which they still remembered against
Him.

He uses an “argumentum ad hominem”: You do not keep the law yourselves,
why then seek to kill Me, even for what you allege to be a violation of
it? Some among the crowd were even then anxious to kill Jesus, as His
words prove, and to these He directs His words; but there were many
present who had no such intention, and some of these reply, *Thou hast a
devil*. They may have meant that He was possessed, or simply that He was
raving, out of His senses.

21. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 21. Jesus answered and said to
eis: Unum opus feci, et omnes them: One work I have done;
miramini. and you all wonder:
22. Propterea Moyses dedit 22. Therefore Moses gave you
vobis circumcisionem: (non circumcision (not because it
quia ex Moyse est, sed ex is of Moses, but of the
patribus) et in sabbato fathers); and on the sabbath‐
circumciditis hominem. day you circumcise a man.
23. Si circumcisionem accipit 23. If a man receive
homo in sabbato, ut non circumcision on the sabbath‐
solvatur lex Moysi: mihi day, that the law of Moses may
indignamini quia totum hominem not be broken; are you angry
sanum feci in sabbato? at me because I have healed
the whole man on the sabbath‐
day?

21‐23. He proceeds to show by sober reasoning, that they ought not to
blame Him for having healed the man on the Sabbath.

The *one work* of verse 21 is the healing of the man on the Sabbath day
(v. 9, 16). Some prefer to connect “propterea” with verse 21: “and you all
wonder on account of it.” But it is better to connect it, as in the
Vulgate, with what follows. The sense is: it was on this account Moses
gave you circumcision; namely, because it had been handed down from the
Patriarchs (Gen. xvii. 10), not because it was properly a part of the law.
If then a man may receive circumcision on the Sabbath, _and yet_ the law
regarding the observance of the Sabbath is not violated thereby, are you
angry with Me because, doing the will of God, I made a man whole, both
body and soul, on the Sabbath? In this explanation, “ut” (ἵνα) is ecbatic,
denoting a consequence. See Gen. xxii. 14; John x. 17; Apoc. xiii. 13.
Others, however, give the particle its ordinary telic force, and explain
thus: If then a man may receive circumcision on the Sabbath, _in order
that_ the law commanding circumcision to be performed on the eighth day be
not violated, are you angry, &c.? Both explanations are probable, and
leave the argument unchanged.

24. Nolite iudicare secundum 24. Judge not according to the
faciem, sed iustum iudicium appearance, but judge just
iudicate. judgment.

24. *According to the appearance*; _i.e._, take no account of persons, but
judge according to the merits of the case.

25. Dicebant ergo quidam ex 25. Some therefore of
Ierosolymis: Nonne hic est Jerusalem said: Is not this he
quem quaerunt interficere? whom they seek to kill?
26. Et ecce palam loquitur, et 26. And behold he speaketh
nihil ei dicunt. Numquid vere openly, and they say nothing
cognoverunt principes quia hic to him. Have the rulers known
est Christus? for a truth that this is the
Christ?

25, 26. Some of the people of Jerusalem (the correct reading is
Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν) said: can it be that they have discovered that He is really
Christ?

27. Sed hunc scimus unde sit: 27. But we know this man
Christus autem cum venerit, whence he is: but when the
nemo scit unde scit. Christ cometh, no man knoweth
whence he is.

27. And yet this cannot be, for we know this man whence he is; but when
the Christ cometh no man knoweth whence He is. This erroneous opinion of
theirs may have arisen from Micheas, v. 2: “His going forth is from the
beginning from the days of eternity;” and Mal. iii. 2: “And who shall be
able to think of the day of His coming?”

28. Clamabat ergo Iesus in 28. Jesus therefore cried out
templo docens, et dicens: Et in the temple, teaching and
me scitis, et unde sim scitis: saying: You both know me, and
et a meipso non veni, sed est you know whence I am, and I am
verus qui misit me, quem vos not come of myself; but he
nescitis. that sent me is true, whom you
know not.

28. The meaning is: You know Me as man, and you know My parents, and yet I
come not of My own authority, but sent by My Father, who therein shows
Himself true to His promises.

29. Ego scio eum: quia ab ipso 29. I know him, because I am
sum, et ipse me misit. from him, and he hath sent me.

29. He declares His Divine knowledge of the Father, His eternal
generation, and mission in time.

30. Quaerebant ergo eum 30. They sought therefore to
apprehendere: et nemo misit in apprehend him: and no man laid
illum manus, quia nondum hands on him, because his hour
venerat hora eius. was not yet come.

30. They rightly understand Him to claim to be Divine, and as a
consequence seek to apprehend Him; but the time for His sufferings had not
yet arrived, and so they were powerless.

31. De turba autem multi 31. But of the people many
crediderunt in eum, et believed in him, and said:
dicebant: Christus cum When the Christ cometh, shall
venerit, numquid plura signa he do more miracles than these
faciet quam quae hic facit? which this man doth?

31. Many of the multitude—in contrast with their leaders—believed in Him.
*When the Christ cometh, shall he*, &c. The question, expecting, as it
does, a negative answer (numquid), suggests that Jesus must be the Christ.

32. Audierunt pharisaei turbam 32. The Pharisees heard the
murmurantem de illo haec: et people murmuring these things
miserunt principes et concerning him: and the rulers
pharisaei ministros, ut and Pharisees sent ministers
apprehenderent eum. to apprehend him.

32. *Rulers*, rather chief priests (ἀρχιερεῖς). The *ministers* were
officers attendant upon the Sanhedrim, or engaged about the temple. See
verses 45, 46; xiii. 3, 18, 22; xix. 6; Acts v. 22, 26. As the Sanhedrim
was made up of chief priests, Pharisees, and Scribes, probably it was the
Sanhedrim that sent these ministers to apprehend Christ.

33. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: 33. Jesus therefore said to
Adhuc modicum tempus vobiscum them: Yet a little while I am
sum: et vado ad eum qui me with you: and _then_ I go to
misit. him that sent me.

33. Omit “eis” (to them). Christ’s words were probably directed not merely
to the ministers, but to all the people. *Yet a little while I am with
you*, _i.e._, almost six months more after this feast of Tabernacles, and
then He would go to the Father.

34. Quaeretis me, et non 34. You shall seek me, and
invenietis: et ubi ego sum vos shall not find me: and where I
non potestis venire. am, _thither_ you cannot come.

34. *You shall seek me, and shall not find me.* Some think these words
were fulfilled at the siege of Jerusalem, when many of the Jews must have
looked in vain for help from Him whom they had put to death.

Others, like Maldonatus, say the statement is conditional: even if you
sought me, you should not find me, after a little while.

Since the same words: “You shall seek me,” were afterwards addressed to
the Apostles (xiii. 33), it is not likely that the reference is to seeking
Him at the destruction of Jerusalem, for the Apostles did not seek Him
then. It would also seem from xiii. 33 that the view of Maldonatus just
stated is not probable, for in xiii. 33 there is not a conditional
statement, but simply a prediction that the Apostles would seek Him. Hence
we take it that in the text before us also, there is a prediction that the
Jews after His departure would, when in distress and tribulation, desire
to see Him once more among them. Doubtless, many Jews afterwards had such
a desire, but it was in vain, for He had gone to Him that sent Him.

*And where I am* (= shall be) *thither you cannot come*.

These words too were afterwards addressed to the Apostles (xiii. 33), and
we believe in the same sense as here. The meaning is that until death at
least the separation would be complete, for He would be no longer here,
and where He would be they could not join Him. Some take the words: “You
cannot come,” as meaning here that the Jews on account of their sins could
_never_ enter heaven. But since, as we have said, the same words were
afterwards addressed to the Apostles, the view we have adopted seems more
probable.

35. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad 35. The Jews therefore said,
semetipsos: Quo hic iturus among themselves: Whither will
est, quia non inveniemus eum? he go, that we shall not find
numquid in dispersionem him? will he go unto the
gentium iturus est, et dispersed among the gentiles,
docturus gentes? and teach the gentiles?

35. *The dispersed among the Gentiles*, _i.e._, the Jews scattered among
the Gentiles, or more probably the Gentiles themselves (Ἑλλήνων, not
Ἑλληνιστῶν) scattered over the world. The concluding words of the verse:
“and teach the Gentiles” render the latter view the more probable.

36. Quis est hic sermo, quem 36. What is this saying that
dixit: Quaeretis me, et non he hath said: You shall seek
invenietis: et ubi sum ego, me, and shall not find me; and
vos non potestis venire? where I am, you cannot come?
37. In novissimo autem die 37. And on the last _and_
magno festivitatis, stabat great day of the festivity,
Iesus, et clamabat, dicens: Si Jesus stood and cried, saying:
quis sitit, veniat ad me, et If any man thirst, let him
bibat. come to me, and drink.
38. Qui credit in me, sicut 38. He that believeth in me,
dicit scriptura, flumina de as the scripture saith, _Out
ventre eius fluent aquae of his belly shall flow rivers
vivae. of living water_.

37, 38. On the last day, the great day of the feast, that is, the eighth
day, Jesus cried aloud to the people assembled at the temple. His words
mean: If anyone thirst spiritually, let him come to Me by faith, and grace
shall be abundantly poured into his soul. The words: *Out of his belly*,
&c., are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament; but, as signifying the
abundance of grace in the new dispensation, they convey the sense of many
passages of the Old Testament. See Is. xli. 18, xliv. 3.; Ezech. xxxvi.
25; Joel ii. 28.

39. Hoc autem dixit de 39. Now this he said of the
Spiritu, quem accepturi erant Spirit which they should
credentes in eum: nondum enim receive who believed in him:
erat Spiritus datus, quia for as yet the Spirit was not
Iesus nondum erat given, because Jesus was not
glorificatus. yet glorified.

39. The Evangelist gives an authentic interpretation of our Lord’s words:
*For as yet the Spirit was not given*. These words explain why our Lord
spoke of the abundant outpouring of the Spirit as _still to come_, for the
Holy Ghost was not yet given, inasmuch as Christ was not yet glorified
(xvi. 7). When it is said that the Holy Ghost was not yet given, the
meaning is, that He was not yet given so _abundantly_, so _manifestly_, or
so _universally_, as He has been since the first Pentecost. It is not
meant that the Holy Ghost had not been given to the just of the Old
Testament. They, as well as we, had the grace of the Holy Ghost in their
souls; moreover, according to the common teaching of the fathers and
theologians, they, like the just now, had the Holy Ghost united to their
souls, not merely by His grace, but also by a substantial union. This
union is not, however, peculiar to the Holy Ghost, but is common to the
Three Divine Persons, by reason of their unity of nature, and is only by
appropriation attributed to the Holy Ghost. See Franz., _De Trin., last
Disp._; Corl., pp. 198, 199.

40. Ex illa ergo turba cum 40. Of that multitude
audissent hos sermones eius, therefore, when they had heard
dicebant: Hic est vere these words of his, some said:
propheta. This is the prophet indeed.
41. Alii dicebant: Hic est 41. Others said: This is the
Christus. Quidam autem Christ. But some said: Doth
dicebant: Numquid a Galilaea the Christ come out of
venit Christus? Galilee?
42. Nonne scriptura dicit: 42. Doth not the scripture
Quia ex semine David, et de say: That Christ cometh out of
Bethlehem castello, ubi erat the seed of David, and from
David, venit Christus? Bethlehem the town where David
was?
43. Dissensio itaqua facta est 43. So there arose a
in turba propter eum. dissension among the people
because of him.
44. Quidam autem ex ipsis 44. And some of them would
volebant apprehendere eum: sed have apprehended him: but no
nemo misit super eum manus. man laid hands upon him.

40‐44. The Evangelist notes the difference of opinion among the crowd.
Some believed Him to be _the Prophet_ promised to Moses (Deut. xviii. 18);
others (wrongly distinguishing between the Prophet and the Messias) held
Him to be the Messias; others doubted (verse 41); others remained wholly
incredulous (verse 44). In verse 42, three different passages of Sacred
Scripture are combined: “of the seed of David” (Is. xi. 1); “from
Bethlehem” (Mich. v. 2); “the town where David was” (1 Kings xvii. 12).

45. Venerunt ergo ministri ad 45. The ministers therefore
pontifices et pharisaeos. Et came to the chief priests and
dixerunt eis illi: Quare non the Pharisees. And they said
adduxistis illum? to them: Why have you not
brought him?
46. Responderunt ministri: 46. The ministers answered:
Numquam sic locutus est homo, Never did man speak like this
sicut hic homo. man.
47. Responderunt ergo eis 47. The Pharisees therefore
pharisaei; numquid et vos answered them: Are you also
seducti estis? seduced?
48. Numquid ex principibus 48. Hath any one of the rulers
aliquis credidit in eum, aut believed in him, or of the
ex pharisaeis? Pharisees?
49. Sed turba haec, quae non 49. But this multitude that
novit legem maledicti sunt. knoweth not the law, are
accursed.

45‐49. The officers, who had been sent a few days before to apprehend
Christ (see above, 14, 32), or perhaps other officers, return and bear
favourable testimony to Him, for which they are rebuked by the Pharisees.

50. Dixit Nicodemus ad eos, 50. Nicodemus said to them, he
ille qui venit ad eum nocte, that came to him by night, who
qui unus erat ex ipsis. was one of them.
51. Numquid lex nostra iudicat 51. Doth our law judge any
hominem nisi prius audierit ab man, unless it first hear him,
ipso, et cognoverit quid and know what he doth?
faciat?
52. Responderunt, et dixerunt 52. They answered and said to
ei: Numquid et tu Galilaeus him: Art thou also a Galilean?
es? Scrutare scripturas, et Search the scriptures, and see
vide quia a Galilaea propheta that out of Galilee a prophet
non surgit. riseth not.

50‐52. Nicodemus (iii. 1, 2) interposes in Christ’s favour; to whom the
members of the Sanhedrim impatiently reply that no prophet had ever arisen
in Galilee, thus disposing, as they thought, of Christ’s claim to be a
prophet. But they were wrong in their assumption that Christ had been born
in Galilee (see Luke ii. 4‐7), and equally wrong in the conclusion they
drew that, being a Galilean, He could not be a prophet. For the Sacred
Scriptures had nowhere said that a prophet could not arise in Galilee;
nay, they prove that the prophet Jonas was a Galilean, 4 Kings, xiv. 25.

53. Et reversi sunt 53. And every man returned to
unusquisque in domum suam. his own house.

53. See next chapter.

CHAPTER VIII.

1‐2. *Christ having spent the night on the Mount of Olives,
returns in the morning to the temple and teaches.*

3‐11. *The story of the woman taken in adultery.*

12‐20. *Discourse of Christ with the Pharisees in the treasury.*

21‐29. *He upbraids them for their incredulity, and foretells His
own crucifixion.*

30‐50. *Many believed in Him, but others remained incredulous
(33), and to these He says that they are not the children of
Abraham, but of the devil.*

51‐59. *Challenged by the Jews, He declares Himself greater than
Abraham; and when they were about to stone Him for this
declaration, He hides Himself.*

Authenticity of John vii. 53‐viii. 11.

This is the second of the three passages in our Gospel, whose authenticity
has been seriously questioned. See Introd. VI. We shall sum up the
evidence by which the critical question must be decided, and then say what
we think as to the genuineness of the passage.

Evidence against Authenticity.

1. _Manuscripts._—The passage is wanting in the four oldest Greek MSS.
that we possess, viz., in B, א, A, C; the two former of which are thought
by critics to belong to the fourth, and the two latter, to the fifth
century; also in four other _uncial_ MSS., in more than sixty _cursives_,
and in thirty‐three Evangelistaries.(63) In about fifty other MSS., though
read, it is marked as doubtful.

2. _Versions._—It is wanting in the best MSS. of the “Vetus Itala;” in the
“Simple” and “Figured” Syriac; in most MSS. of the Coptic; in all of
Gothic, and in some of the Armenian.

3. _Fathers._—The passage is not commented upon by any of the Greek
fathers that wrote upon this Gospel.

4. _Internal evidence_ is said to prove the passage spurious, because of
the use of many words and phrases not elsewhere used by St. John.(64)

Evidence in favour of Authenticity.

1. _Manuscripts._—The passage is found in seven _uncial_ MSS. (one of
which, D, though itself only of the sixth century, is thought to represent
the text of the Gospels as it stood in the second century); in more than
three hundred cursives, and in six Evangelistaries.

2. _Versions._—The passage is found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Arabic,
Persian, Ethiopic, Syriac of Jerusalem, Slavic, and Anglo‐Saxon.

3. _Fathers._—_The passage_ is read by nearly all the Latin
fathers—Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo the Great, Chrysologus, Sedulius,
Cassiodorus, &c.; and in the _Apostolic Constitutions_, a work of the
third, or, at the latest, the fourth century.

4. _Internal Evidence_—(_a_) Christ’s merciful treatment of the adulteress
harmonizes beautifully with His declaration immediately after (viii. 15),
that at His first coming He condemned no man. (_b_) It is inconceivable
how a passage _of this nature_ could ever have found its way into so many
MSS., unless it was written by St. John. On the other hand, it is easy to
see how, though genuine, it came to be omitted in many MSS., through the
fear that Christ’s merciful treatment of the adulteress might encourage
sinners. This is exactly what St. Augustine says:—“Nonnulli modicae fidei,
vel potius inimici verae fidei, credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari
mulieribus suis, illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit,
abstulerunt de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui
dixit: ‘Jam deinceps noli peccare’ ” (St. Aug., _De Conj. Adult._, 2, 7).

As regards the arguments _against_ the passage, we believe that the reason
given by St. Augustine in the words just quoted, explains the absence of
the passage in so many MSS., versions, and fathers. As to the internal
arguments against the passage, it must be admitted that a number of words
are used here which are not met with elsewhere in the writings of St.
John; but then the subject is peculiar, and besides in many other passages
which are unquestioned, we meet with several words not used elsewhere by
the Evangelist.(65) Even Renan admits that there is nothing in the passage
that is at variance with the style of the fourth Gospel.(66)

Conclusion.

From the evidence, which has been impartially laid before the reader, we
hold we are justified in concluding that even on mere critical grounds the
passage is more probably genuine. Some, as Franzelin (_De Sacra. Script._,
Thes. xix., pp. 466, 467), go farther, and hold, that since the decree of
the Council of Trent (Sess. iv.), which defined all the sacred books of
the Bible, and _all their parts_, as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be
canonical, it is not lawful for any Catholic to question the authenticity
of this passage. They argue that this passage constitutes a _part_ (not
merely a “particula”) of the Gospel of St. John, and is, therefore,
covered by the decree of Trent. Nor can it be said in reply that the
Council, in the words “cum omnibus suis partibus,” meant to define the
authenticity of the Deuterocanonical fragments of the _Old_ Testament
only, for the Acts(67) of the Council show that these words were intended
to refer especially to the fragments of the Gospels.

To conclude, then, we hold that we are not only critically justified in
accepting John vii. 53‐viii. 11, as authentic, but that it is extremely
probable that as Catholics we are _bound_ to accept it.

Text.

1. Iesus autem perrexit in 1. And Jesus went unto mount
montem Oliveti: Olivet.

1. In contrast to those who retired to their homes (vii. 53), Jesus
retired to Mount Olivet, where He often spent the night in prayer (Luke
xxi. 37; vi. 12). Mount Olivet, separated from Jerusalem by the brook of
Cedron, was a Sabbath day’s journey from the City (Acts i. 12); that is to
say, about seven and a‐half stadia, and therefore less than an English
mile.

2. Et diluculo iterum venit in 2. And early in the morning he
templum, et omnis populus came again into the temple,
venit ad eum, et sedens and all the people came to
docebat eos. him, and sitting down he
taught them.

2. Early on the morning that followed the eight days of the Feast of
Tabernacles (see vii. 37), He came again to the temple, and all the people
who were assembled in the City from the various parts of Palestine, came
to Him, and He was teaching them.

3. Adducunt autem scribae et 3. And the scribes and
pharisaei mulierem in Pharisees bring unto him a
adulterio deprehensam: et woman taken in adultery; and
statuerunt eam in medio. they set her in the midst,

3. While Jesus was engaged in teaching the people, the Pharisees bring to
him a woman who had been caught in adultery, *in the very act*, as we
learn from the Greek of verse 4.

4. Et dixerunt ei: Magister, 4. And said to him: Master,
haec mulier modo deprehensa this woman was even now taken
est in adulterio. in adultery.
5. In lege autem Moyses 5. Now Moses in the law
mandavit nobis huiusmodi commanded us to stone such a
lapidare. Tu ergo quid dicis? one. But what sayest thou?

5. It is not stated anywhere in the Pentateuch that the adulterer and
adulteress should be _stoned_, but it is, that they should be put to death
(Lev. xx. 10). Doubtless the death was by stoning, as is indicated in
Ezech. xvi. 38‐40.

6. Hoc autem dicebant 6. And this they said,
tentantes eum, ut possent tempting him, that they might
accusare eum. Iesus autem accuse him. But Jesus bowing
inclinans se deorsum, digito himself down, wrote with his
scribebat in terra. finger on the ground.

6. They hoped to entrap our Lord; for if he acquitted the woman they could
charge him with being an adversary of the Mosaic Law (Lev. xx. 10); while
if He condemned her to death, they could charge Him with defying the Roman
Law, which at this time denied to the Jews the right of inflicting capital
punishment (John xviii. 31). What Jesus wrote it is impossible to say.
Probably it was His intention to signify by this turning away to something
else that He wished not to have anything to do with the matter in
question.

7. Cum ergo perseverarent 7. When therefore they
interrogantes eum, erexit se, continued asking him, he
et dixit eis: Qui sine peccato lifted up himself and said to
est vestrum, primus in illam them: He that is without sin
lapidem mittat. among you, let him first cast
a stone at her.

7. *Let him first cast a stone at her.* The deep wisdom of this answer
gave them no ground for charging Him with opposition to any law, and at
the same time referred them to their own guilty consciences. He does not
say that sinners may not be punished by sinners, but implies that it was
not seemly that they who were guilty of the same or greater sins should be
the accusers of the poor wretch who stood before them.

8. Et iterum se inclinans, 8. And again stooping down, he
scribebat in terra. wrote on the ground.

8. Having shamed them by this appeal to the tribunal of their conscience,
He again stooped down to write, probably to afford them an opportunity to
depart.

9. Audientes autem unus post 9. But they hearing _this_
unum exibant, incipientes a went out one by one, beginning
senioribus: et remansit solus at the eldest. And Jesus alone
Iesus, et mulier in medio remained, and the woman
stans. standing in the midst.
10. Erigens autem se Iesus, 10. Then Jesus lifting up
dixit ei: Mulier, ubi sunt qui himself, said to her: Woman,
te accusabant? nemo te where are they that accused
condemnavit? thee? Hath no man condemned
thee?
11. Quae dixit: Nemo, Domine. 11. Who said: No man, Lord.
Dixit autem Iesus: Nec ego te And Jesus said: Neither will I
condemnabo: vade, et iam condemn thee. Go, and now sin
amplius noli peccare. no more.

11. *Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.* Doubtless the
treatment of her accusers by Christ, and abundant grace poured into her
soul, had already moved the woman’s heart to repentance, and Christ,
exercising His Divine power, absolved her from her sin. He did not condemn
her, but, in telling her to sin no more, He showed that she had done what
was wrong, and warned her as to the future. Thus the incident shows the
boundless mercy of Christ for sinners, His hatred of sin, and, what St.
John probably had chiefly before his mind in recording it, Christ’s Divine
power to forgive sin.

12. Iterum ergo locutus est 12. Again therefore Jesus
eis Iesus, dicens. Ego sum lux spoke to them, saying: I am
mundi: qui sequitur me non the light of the world: he
ambulat in tenebris, sed that followeth me, walketh not
habebit lumen vitae. in darkness, but shall have
the light of life.

12. We do not know whether this is a new discourse, or only a continuation
of that referred to above in verse 2. On Christ’s words here recorded, see
above on i. 5. They follow Christ, who believe in Him, and obey Him.

13. Dixerunt ergo ei 13. The Pharisees therefore
pharisaei: Tu de teipso said to him: Thou givest
testimonium perhibes: testimony of thyself: thy
testimonium tuum non est testimony is not true.
verum.

13. *Thy testimony is not true*; that is to say, is not juridical, such as
ought to be accepted.

14. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 14. Jesus answered, and said
eis: Et si ego testimonium to them: Although I give
perhibeo de meipso, verum est testimony of myself, my
testimonium meum: quia scio testimony is true: For I know
unde veni, et quo vado: vos whence I came, and whither I
autem nescitis unde venio, aut go: but you know not whence I
quo vado. come, or whither I go.

14. Christ’s answer is: though I bear testimony of Myself, My testimony
should be accepted, because I am God (I know whence I came, and whither I
go); self‐interest and self‐love can have no influence on Me, so as to
warp My judgment or weaken My testimony.

15. Vos secundum carnem 15. You judge according to the
iudicatis: ego non iudico flesh: I judge not any man.
quemquam:

15. *You judge according to the flesh*; _i.e._, according to appearances,
as though I were a mere man; or, more probably, according to your carnal
ideas (Rom. viii. 4‐6); thinking Me an impostor, you condemn Me. *I judge
not any man.* The sense is that Christ at His first coming, condemned no
one, for it is of the judgment of condemnation there is question,
according to what seems the most probable view. Compare iii. 17; xii. 47.

16. Et si iudico ego, iudicium 16. And if I do judge, my
meum verum est, quia solus non judgment is true: because I am
sum: sed ego, et qui misit me, not alone, but I and the
Pater. Father that sent me.

16. The meaning is: if I did judge, My judgment would be just, because not
the judgment of a mere man, but identical with the judgment of My Father.
See x. 30; xiv. 10.

17. Et in lege vestra scriptum 17. And in your law it is
est, quia duorum hominum written, that the testimony of
testimonium verum est. two men is true.

17. Καὶ ... δὲ, indicate the transition in which He passes from speaking
of condemnation to speak of His testimony. Your law, He says, requires and
is satisfied with two Witnesses (Deut. xvii. 6).

18. Ego sum qui testimonium 18. I am one that give
perhibeo de meipso: et testimony of myself: and the
testimonium perhibet de me, Father that sent me, giveth
qui misit me, Pater. testimony of me.

18. Now, two bear testimony to Me. Two _Persons_ bore testimony that the
man Christ, who spoke to the Jews, was God. The Son Himself, as God bore
this testimony by word and work, and the Father by the miracles that He
gave the Son to perform (v. 36).

19. Dicebant ergo ei: Ubi est 19. They said therefore to
Pater tuus? Respondit Iesus: him: Where is thy Father?
Neque me scitis, neque Patrem Jesus answered: Neither me do
meum: si me sciretis forsitan you know, nor my Father: if
et Patrem meum sciretis. you did know me, perhaps you
would know my Father also.

19. To their question Jesus answers: *Neither me do you know, nor my
Father*. The sense is: You know not who I am, _that I am God_; if you knew
and recognised Me to be God, you would also know who My Father is, that He
must be God; and thus you would know the answer to your question, since
God dwells in heaven. On the use of “forsitan,” see above on iv. 10.

20. Haec verba locutus est 20. These words Jesus spoke in
Iesus in gazophylacio, docens the treasury, teaching in the
in templo: et nemo apprehendit temple: and no man laid hands
eum, quia necdum venerat hora on him, because his hour was
eius. not yet come.

20. The Greek word translated by “treasury” is γαζοφυλακίῳ, derived from
the Persian _gaza_ (money), and φυλάσσω (to guard). This treasury was a
chest or safe for holding money (see Luke xxi. 1), but by metonymy the
name was given to the cloister in which it stood. This cloister was in the
court of the women. See above on ii. 14.

21. Dixit ergo iterum eis 21. Again therefore Jesus said
Iesus: Ego vado, et quaeretis to them: I go, and you shall
me, et in peccato vestro seek me, and you shall die in
moriemini. Quo ego vado, vos your sin. Whither I go, you
non potestis venire? cannot come.

21. It is doubtful whether this is a continuation of the preceding, or a
new discourse. For the meaning of the verse, see above on vii. 34. The
particular _sin_ referred to here is infidelity; but dying in infidelity,
meant dying in many sins besides; and hence the plural _sins_, is used in
verse 24.

22. Dicebant ergo Iudaei: 22. The Jews therefore said:
Numquid interficiet Will he kill himself, because
semetipsum, quia dixit: Quo he said: Whither I go, you
ego vado, vos non potestis cannot come?
venire?

22. Josephus (_De Bello Jud._, iii. 8, 5) tells us that the Pharisees
believed that the lowest depths of hell are reserved for suicides. The
words of this verse may refer to that superstition; as if they said: does
He mean to go into the depths of hell, where we the children of Abraham
cannot, of course, follow Him? But the more simple explanation is: He
cannot escape from us wherever He may go on this earth. Does He then mean
to take His own life, that so He may be out of our reach?

23. Et dicebat eis: Vos de 23. And he said to them: You
deorsum estis, ego de supernis are from beneath, I am from
sum. Vos de mundo hoc estis, above. You are of this world,
ego non sum de hoc mundo. I am not of this world.

23. Taking no notice of what had just been said, Jesus proceeds in His
discourse. *You*, He says, *are from beneath, I am from above* (see iii.
31); _i.e._, you are earthly in origin and nature, I am of heaven;
moreover, you are earthly in sentiment, you belong to the _wicked_ world
(see xv. 19), I do not belong to it. Thus He shows them there is a twofold
difference between Him and them; and unless by the supernatural principle
of faith they are lifted above their nature, and taken out of the wicked
world, they shall die in their sins, and shall never here or hereafter be
able to follow whither He goeth. Instead of _peccato_ (Vulg.) in the end
of verse 24, read _peccatis_. *For if you believe not that I am he.* “He”
is not represented in the Greek or Latin text, and ought not to stand in
the English. The predicate may be purposely suppressed in order to leave
the meaning, which was still sufficiently intelligible, obscure, and thus
afford no opportunity to His enemies of charging Him with blasphemy.

24. Dixi ergo vobis quia 24. Therefore I said to you,
moriemini in peccatis vestris: that you shall die in your
si enim non credideritis quia sins. For if you believe not
ego sum, moriemini in peccato that I am he, you shall die in
vestro. your sin.
25. Dicebant ergo ei: Tu quis 25. They said therefore to
es? Dixit eis Iesus: him: Who art thou? Jesus said
Principium, qui et loquor to them: The beginning, who
vobis. also speak unto you.

25. This is a very obscure verse. Christ had just spoken of faith in
Himself; but in Himself _under what aspect_ He had not defined; and now in
the hope of evoking an answer for which they could punish Him, they ask:
*Who art thou?* His answer is purposely obscure. It is according to the
Greek text, τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι (or ὅ τι) καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; which is rendered in
the Vulgate: _Principium qui et loquor vobis_, and in our Rheims version:
*The beginning, who also speak unto you*.

About the meaning of this answer there is a great diversity opinion. Some
take the words affirmatively, others interrogatively; some understand τὴν
ἀρχήν as a substantive, others as an adverb; some regard ὅ τι as a
relative (that which), others as an interrogative = τί (how or why?) and
others again as a conjunction, ὅτι (for, or, because). The Vulgate
translator may have read ὅστις (who) instead of ὅ τι, or ὅτι; or possibly
“Qui et” of our Vulgate is a corruption of “quia,” which is found in the
oldest Vulgate MSS. The objection against the Vulgate and English
translations is that while τῆν ἀρχήν is an accusative, they _seem_ to
understand it as a nominative. Nor can it be replied, that it is attracted
into the accusative case of the relative which follows; for, apart from
the fact that there is no other instance of such attraction in St. John,
the explanation is inadmissible here, inasmuch as these translations
understand the relative not as an accusative, but as a nominative. A
better defence is that of St. Augustine, who would supply some such words
as: “Believe Me to be,” before the sentence, thus making _principium_ the
accusative after _esse_: Believe Me to be the beginning, &c.

(2) Others, understanding τὴν ἀρχήν in the same way as the preceding
opinion, take ὁ τι as a relative, and render: I am the beginning, that
which I also declare unto you. Here there is room for attraction, since
the relative is now taken as an accusative; but against such attraction is
the usage of St. John, as already stated.

(3) Others, taking τὴν ἀρχήν as an adverb (from the beginning), render: I
am from the beginning, from eternity, what I even declare unto you. But it
is objected to this view that τὴν ἀρχήν is not found elsewhere in Sacred
Scripture in this sense, and moreover that the verb λαλῶ (to discuss with,
to converse) is wrongly taken to be equivalent to λέγω (to declare). To
this latter point, however, it is replied that the two verbs are
frequently interchanged in later Greek.

(4) Others thus: Even that which I have also spoken to you from the
beginning.(68) But this view is open to the same objections as the
preceding.

(5) Others again: Essentially (or, in very deed) that which I speak unto
you. So Alford.

(6) Others: On the whole, why do I even speak with you? So St. Chrys.,
Corluy, &c.

(7) Others: Absolutely, or most certainly, that which I also tell you. So
Beel., Kuin, &c. Τὴν ἀρχήν is thus taken as equivalent to _omnino_, for
which sense Beelen quotes several classical writers.

We prefer the sixth and seventh opinions; but rather the seventh, since it
supposes Christ to answer their question, though in language purposely
obscure. In the sixth opinion, Christ vouchsafes no answer to their
question, and we should naturally expect an impatient interruption from
them immediately after, were that opinion correct.

26. Multa habeo de vobis 26. Many things I have to
loqui, et iudicare: sed qui me speak and to judge of you. But
misit, verax est: et ego quae he that sent me is true; and
audivi ab eo, haec loquor in the things I have heard of
mundo. him, these same I speak in the
world.

26. Some explain thus: I have many things to say of you, and to condemn in
you, _but with this only will I charge you now_, namely, that you are
guilty of incredulity, since He who sent Me is true (truthful), and I
speak His words, and yet you refuse to believe in Me. But the ellipsis
here is not sufficiently obvious; and, hence, we prefer to understand
thus: I have many things, &c., but My judgments will be just, and such as
cannot be gainsaid.

27. Et non cognoverunt quia 27. And they understood not
Patrem eius dicebat Deum. that he called God his father.

27. The Greek is: _They knew not that He spoke to them of the Father_.

28. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Cum 28. Jesus therefore said to
exaltaveritis Filium hominis, them: When you shall have
tunc cognoscetis quia ego sum, lifted up the son of man, then
et a meipso facio nihil, sed shall you know that I am he,
sicut docuit me Pater, haec and that I do nothing of
loquor: myself, but as the Father hath
taught me, these things I
speak.

28. *Lifted up.* The reference is to Christ’s crucifixion as is clear from
xii. 32, 33. The substance of Christ’s prediction is, that after His death
they will come to recognise Him as God. We know how truly this prediction
was fulfilled, not merely in the centurion and his soldiers (Matt. xxvii.
54), and in the crowd that returned from Calvary, striking their breasts
(Luke xxiii. 48), but all along from that time through the preaching of
the Apostles. On the Father’s teaching the Son, see above on v. 19, 20.

29. Et qui me misit, mecum est 29. And he that sent me is
et non reliquit me solum, quia with me, and he hath not left
ego quae placita sunt ei, me alone: for I do always the
facio semper. things that please him.

29. *For.* “The word seems to be used as in Luke vii. 47, to indicate the
sign of the truth of the statement made, and not to give the ground of the
fact stated” (Westc.).

30. Haec illo loquente, multi 30. When he spoke these
crediderunt in eum. things, many believed in him.
31. Dicebat ergo Iesus ad eos, 31. Then Jesus said to those
qui crediderunt ei Iudaeos: Si Jews who believed him: If you
vos manseritis in sermone meo, continue in my word, you shall
vere discipuli mei eritis: be my disciples indeed.

31. Christ here lays down the test by which His disciples are to be known.
It is only when we accept His words, and conform our works thereto, that
we can be truly said to be His disciples.

32. Et cognoscetis veritatem, 32. And you shall know the
et veritas liberabit vos. truth, and the truth shall
make you free.

32. *The truth*; _i.e._, the whole body of revelation.

33. Responderunt ei: Semen 33. They answered him: We are
Abrahae sumus, et nemini the seed of Abraham, and we
servivimus unquam: quomodo tu have never been slaves to any
dicis: Liberi eritis? man: how sayest thou: You
shall be free?
34. Respondit eis Iesus: Amen, 34. Jesus answered them: Amen,
amen dico vobis: quia omnis amen, I say unto you, that
qui facit peccatum, servus est whosoever committeth sin, is
peccati: the servant of sin.
35. Servus autem non manet in 35. Now the servant abideth
domo in aeternum: filius autem not in the house for ever: but
manet in aeternum: the son abideth for ever:
36. Si ergo vos filius 36. If therefore the son shall
liberaverit, vere liberi make you free, you shall be
eritis. free indeed.

33‐36. To Christ’s promise that the truth should make them free, some of
the crowd who remained incredulous, replied that they were never slaves,
to which Christ makes answer that they are the slaves of sin: and only
when the Son of God shall free them, shall they be truly free. Verse 35 is
an illustration drawn from ordinary life. As slaves who displease their
masters may be sold, or expelled from the household, so you who, instead
of serving God, are the slaves of sin, are, and shall remain, excluded
from the household of God here and hereafter.

37. Scio quia filii Abrahae 37. I know that you are the
estis: sed quaeritis me children of Abraham: but you
interficere, quia sermo meus seek to kill me, because my
non capit in vobis. word hath no place in you.
38. Ego quod vidi apud Patrem 38. I speak that which I have
meum loquor, et vos quae seen with my Father: and you
vidistis apud patrem vestrum, do the things that you have
facitis. seen with your father.

38. *Your father*; _i.e._, the devil (see verse 44). Others understand
ποιεῖτε as an imperative; do then the works which you have seen with your
father (Abraham). But since the following verse proves that the Jews
understood Christ to speak of another father than Abraham, for this
reason, and because of verse 44, the first interpretation is preferable.
The sense then is: You do the works that you have learned from your father
the devil.

39. Responderunt, et dixerunt 39. They answered, and said to
ei: Pater noster Abraham est. him: Abraham is our father.
Dicit eis Iesus: Si filii Jesus saith to them: If you be
Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae the children of Abraham, do
facite. the works of Abraham.

39. *If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.* The
Greek is: If you _were_ the (true) children of Abraham, you would do the
works of Abraham.

40. Nunc autem quaeritis me 40. But now you seek to kill
interficere, hominem qui me, a man who have spoken the
veritatem vobis locutus sum, truth to you, which I have
quam audivi a Deo: hoc Abraham heard of God. This Abraham did
non fecit. not.
41. Vos facitis opera patris 41. You do the works of your
vestri. Dixerunt itaque ei: father. They said therefore to
Nos ex fornicatione non sumus him: We are not born of
nati: unum patrem habemus fornication: we have one
Deum. Father _even_ God.
42. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Si 42. Jesus therefore said to
Deus pater vester esset, them: If God were your father,
diligeretis utique me: ego you would indeed love me. For
enim ex Deo processi, et veni: from God I proceeded, and
neque enim a me ipso veni, sed came: for I came not of
ille me misit. myself, but he sent me.

41, 42. Understanding Christ to mean that they were not true Jews, but
idolaters (πορνέια being frequently used of idolatry in the Bible; _e.g._,
Ezech. xvi. 15, foll.; see ii. 4, 5,), they protest that they are not
idolaters, and that they worship but one God. To this Christ replies, that
if they were true children of God, they would love Himself. *I proceeded
and came*, denote respectively the eternal generation, and mission in
time.

43. Quare loquelam meam non 43. Why do you not know my
cognoscitis? Quia non potestis speech? Because you cannot
audire sermonem meum. hear my word.

43. The sense is: why do you not understand My discourses (λαλιάν) on this
and on other occasions? The reason is, because you cannot, you _will not_,
receive My doctrine (λόγος). What we do not desire to hear, we are slow to
understand. Christ’s teaching, so opposed to flesh and blood, so much at
variance with all that the Jews had hoped for from their Messias, they
were very unwilling to accept. “Ideo audire non poterant, quia corrigi
credendo nolebant” (St. August.).

44. Vos ex patre diabolo 44. You are of _your_ father
estis: et desideria patris the devil, and the desires of
vestri vultis facere. Ille your father you will do. He
homicida erat ab initio, et in was a murderer from the
veritate non stetit: quia non beginning, and he stood not in
est veritas in eo: cum the truth; because truth is
loquitur mendacium, ex not in him. When he speaketh a
propriis loquitur, quia mendax lie, he speaketh of his own:
est, et pater eius. for he is a liar, and the
father thereof.

44. At last He plainly tells them who their father is. *He was a murderer
from the beginning*, for he tempted Eve, and thus brought death upon the
human race, and he prompted Cain to slay Abel.

*And he stood not in the truth*; or rather, he _standeth_ not in the truth
(the perfect of this verb having a present signification. See Winer, _Gr.
Gram. N. T._, p. 342(69)), because there is no truth in his nature. St.
Augustine argued from this verse to prove the fall of the rebel angels:
“Ergo in veritate fuit, sed non stando cecidit, et de veritate lapsus
est.” But the conclusion is not warranted by this verse, for the true
meaning of ἕστηκεν, and the reason given by our Lord for the devil’s not
standing in the truth—namely, _because truth is not in him_, show that
there is no reference to the devil as he was before the fall, but only to
his nature and methods since. *Of his own*, _i.e._, in accordance with his
nature. *The father thereof*, namely, of _lying_. We thus, with Beelen,
refer αὐτοῦ (ejus) to ψεύδους (understood). “Αὐτοῦ, scil. ψεύδους quae vox
sumi debet ex antegressa ψεύστης in qua veluti continetur” (_Gr. Gram. N.
T._, page 104).

45. Ego autem si veritatem 45. But if I say the truth,
dico, non creditis mihi. you believe me not.

45. Instead of “si” (Vulg.) the Greek has ὅτι (quia): because I speak the
truth.

46. Quis ex vobis arguet me de 46. Which of you shall
peccato? Si veritatem dico convince me of sin? If I say
vobis, quare non creditis the truth to you, why do you
mihi? not believe me?

46. Christ appeals to His integrity of character and innocence of life; as
if He said: it cannot be My life that prevents you from believing: so that
if My doctrine is true, you have no excuse.

47. Qui ex Deo est, verba Dei 47. He that is of God, heareth
audit. Propterea vos non the words of God. Therefore
auditis, quia ex Deo non you hear them not, because you
estis. are not of God.

47. “He assigns the cause of their not believing or obeying His words,
viz., because they are not of God. They are not children of God, sharers
in His spirit; but rather children of the devil, filled with his spirit”
(M’Evilly).

48. Responderunt ergo Iudaei, 48. The Jews therefore
et dixerunt ei: Nonne bene answered and said to him: Do
dicimus nos quia Samaritanus not we say well that thou art
es tu, et daemonium habes? a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
49. Respondit Iesus: Ego 49. Jesus answered: I have not
daemonium non habeo: sed a devil; but I honour my
honorifico Patrem meum, et vos Father, and you have
inhonorastis me. dishonoured me.

48, 49. They say to Him that He is a Samaritan, and has a devil. The first
charge He passes over as unworthy of notice; to the second He replies
that, so far from having a devil, He honours His Father, while they
dishonour Himself. On account of His language, strange to them, and His
earnest fervour, they say that He is possessed; and He replies that His
words and manner are due to the fact that He is seeking the glory of His
Father.

50. Ego autem non quaero 50. But I seek not my own
gloriam meam: est qui quaerat, glory: there is one that
et iudicet. seeketh and judgeth.

50. But though _you dishonour_ (the Greek has the present in end of 49)
_Me_, I will not seek to avenge the dishonour; the Father will avenge it.
See Deut. xviii. 19.

51. Amen, amen dico vobis: si 51. Amen, amen, I say to you:
quis sermonem meum servaverit, If any man keep my word, he
mortem non videbit in shall not see death for ever.
aeternum.

51. In verse 32, He promised freedom, now He promises immortality, to
those that hearken to His words.

52. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: Nunc 52. The Jews therefore said:
cognovimus quia daemonium Now we know that thou hast a
habes. Abraham mortuus est, et devil. Abraham is dead, and
prophetae: et tu dicis: Si the prophets: and thou sayest:
quis sermonem meum servaverit, If any man keep my word he
non gustabit mortem in shall not taste death for
aeternum. ever.
53. Numquid tu maior es patre 53. Art thou greater than our
nostro Abraham, qui mortuus father Abraham, who is dead?
est? et prophetae mortui sunt. and the prophets are dead.
Quem teipsum facis? Whom dost thou make thyself?

52, 53. The Jews accuse Him of preferring Himself to Abraham and the
prophets, to which He replies—

54. Respondit Iesus: Si ego 54. Jesus answered: If I
glorifico, meipsum, gloria mea glorify myself, my glory is
nihil est: est Pater meus, qui nothing. It is my Father that
glorificat me, quem vos glorifieth me, of whom you say
dicitis quia Deus vester est. that he is your God.

54. If I glorify Myself, _let it go for nought_; it is My Father, &c.

55. Et non cognovistis eum. 55. And you have not known
Ego autem novi eum: et si him, but I know him. And if I
dixero quia non scio eum, ero shall say that I know him not,
similis vobis, mendax. Sed I shall be like to you, a
scio eum, et sermonem eius liar. But I do know him, and
servo. do keep his word.

55. The Jews knew not the Father as the Father of Christ; moreover, they
knew Him not at all with a practical knowledge so as to serve Him.

56. Abraham pater vester 56. Abraham your father
exultavit ut videret diem rejoiced that he might see my
meum: vidit, et gavisus est. day: he saw it, and was glad.

56. *Abraham your father rejoiced*, &c. He leaves it to be inferred that
He, being the object of Abraham’s hope and joy, is greater than Abraham,
and still not opposed to him. Our Lord’s _day_ here is not the eternal
existence of the Son, nor the day of His death, nor Himself, the day‐star
of justice, but the day for which all the ancient just had so long prayed
and sighed: “_drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds
rain the just_” (Is. xlv. 8), the day or time of Christ’s mortal life on
earth. *Rejoiced that he might see* (ἵνα ἴδη). Most probably the meaning
is, that Abraham, after God had revealed to him that the Messias was to be
born of his seed, hoped and yearned in joyful confidence that he might see
Christ on earth. *He saw it, and was glad.* It would seem from these words
that Abraham saw in the way in which he had yearned to see. And since he
cannot have yearned to see Christ’s day merely by faith, for he already
saw it by faith; hence there must be question here of some other vision.
Mald., A Lap., and most commentators hold that Abraham’s mental vision was
elevated by God, so that from limbo he saw and knew that Christ was on
earth just as the angels and saints in heaven know what happens on earth
and in hell. The aorist tenses in the Greek (εἶδεν καὶ ἐχάρη), with their
past definite signification, are not easily reconciled with this view, and
hence others prefer to suppose that there is reference to some very
special revelation made to Abraham during his life on earth, in which he
saw with something more than the vision of ordinary faith the time and
various circumstances of Christ’s mortal life (compare Heb. xi. 13).

57. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad 57. The Jews therefore said to
eum: Quinquaginta annos nondum him: Thou art not yet fifty
habes, et Abraham vidisti? years old, and hast thou seen
Abraham?

57. In saying Christ was not yet fifty years of age, they take an age
about which there could be no dispute, as if they said: at the very
outside Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? The
common opinion is that Christ died in his thirty‐fourth year, though,
strange to say, St. Irenæus held the singular view that he lived to be
fifty. (Iren., _Adv. Haer._, ii. 39, 40.)

58. Dixit eis Iesus: Amen, 58. Jesus said to them: Amen,
amen dico vobis, antequam amen, I say to you, before
Abraham fieret, ego sum. Abraham was made, I am.

58. In verse 56, He spoke of the day of His mortal life, now He declares
His eternity. *Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made*
(γενέσθαι, came into being), *I am* (ἐγώ εἴμι).

59. Tulerunt ergo lapides, ut 59. They took up stones
iacerent in eum. Iesus autem therefore to cast at him. But
abscondit se, et exivit de Jesus hid himself, and went
templo. out of the temple.

59. Understanding Him to claim to be eternal, as He really did, they took
up stones to stone Him, the Law commanding that a blasphemer, as they
accounted Him, should be stoned (Lev. xxiv. 16). But Jesus hid Himself,
most probably rendered Himself invisible, and thus passed out of the
temple, showing us that it is sometimes advisable, and conducive to the
greater glory of God, that we should flee from danger, even when we are
persecuted for God’s sake. Many ancient authorities add at the end of this
verse: “And going through the midst of them went His way, and so passed
by;” but more probably the words are a gloss.

CHAPTER IX.

1‐7. *Jesus cures a man born blind.*

8‐13. *Comments of the man’s neighbours, who bring him to the
Pharisees.*

14. *It was on the Sabbath day the cure was wrought.*

15‐23. *Interview between the man and the Pharisees. They refuse
to believe that he had been blind, and summon his parents in order
to ascertain the truth. The parents declare that he had indeed
been born blind.*

24‐34. *Again therefore the Pharisees interrogate the man himself,
and at length, wincing under his remarks and indignant with him
for his favourable opinion of Jesus, they expel him from their
assembly.*

35‐38. *Jesus finds him, and now illumines the darkness of his
soul.*

39‐41. *The blindness of the Pharisees.*

1. Et praeteriens Iesus vidit 1. And Jesus passing by, saw a
hominem caecum a nativitate: man who was blind from his
birth.

1. Some think that the events about to be narrated occurred shortly after
Christ left the temple (viii. 59) and had been rejoined by His disciples,
who are supposed to have left when He disappeared. This view seems to us
more probable than that which places the events about to be narrated on a
different day from those referred to in the close of the preceding
chapter. When we are told that Jesus went out of the temple (viii. 59),
and passing by, saw a man blind from his birth, the natural inference is,
that the Evangelist is speaking of Christ’s passing along after He left
the temple. This view is confirmed too by the fact, that *Jesus* should
not be read in this verse, being spurious according to all critics, but
must be supplied from the preceding chapter.

The man was *blind from his birth*, so that it was no mere passing
affection of the eyes, from which he suffered; and thus the miracle was
the more striking.

2. Et interrogaverunt eum 2. And his disciples asked
discipuli eius: Rabbi, quis him: Rabbi, who hath sinned,
peccavit, hic, aut parentes this man, or his parents, that
eius, ut caecus nasceretur? he should be born blind?

2. How the disciples knew the man had been *born blind*, we are not told.
To excite greater compassion, and probably to obtain alms, he may have
been himself proclaiming the fact. It was reasonable enough that the
disciples should think of the sins of the man’s parents as the reason why
he was born blind, for God Himself tells us that He is “jealous, visiting
the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth
generation” (Exod. xx. 5). And we know that David was punished by the
death of his child (2 Kings xii. 14). But why should the disciples imagine
that the man might have been born blind on account of _his own_ sins? Some
think that the disciples may have been imbued with the false notions of
the Jews regarding the transmigration of souls, and have thought that this
man’s soul had sinned in some previous state of existence, and been
therefore imprisoned in a blind body. But it is unlikely that the
disciples at this time, the third year of our Lord’s public life, were
still in such ignorance.(70) Others think that the question means: was he
born blind for some sin which it _was foreseen_ he would commit? Others
think that the question was hastily put without advertence to its
absurdity. Others that the meaning is: was it for his own, or, _since that
is out of the question_, was it for the sin of his parents that this man
was born blind?

3. Respondit Iesus: Neque hic 3. Jesus answered: Neither
peccavit, neque parentes eius: hath this man sinned, nor his
sed ut manifestentur opera Dei parents; but that the works of
in illo. God should be made manifest in
him.

3. Christ replies that neither the man himself nor his parents had sinned,
so as to explain his blindness—ἵνα, as a _cause_ why he should be born
blind; but his blindness was ordained, or at least permitted, for the sake
of the miracle which Christ was now about to work.

4. Me oportet operari opera 4. I must work the works of
eius qui misit me, donec dies him that sent me, whilst it is
est: venit nox, quando nemo day: the night cometh when no
potest operari. man can work.

4. *Day* is here the span of Christ’s mortal life: *night* the time after
death, when Christ was no longer to perform works visibly before men. Of
course, as God, Christ still works, “sustaining all things by the word of
His power” (Heb. i. 3), but of this Divine operation there is no question
here.

5. Quamdiu sum in mundo, lux 5. As long as I am in the
sum mundi. world, I am the light of the
world.

5. *The light.* See i. 4, 5. Christ was the spiritual light, and as a
symbol and proof of His office of spiritual light‐giver, He was now about
to open the eyes of the blind man to the light of day.

6. Haec cum dixisset, exspuit 6. When he had said these
in terram, et fecit lutum ex things, he spat on the ground,
sputo, et linivit lutum super and made clay of the spittle,
oculos eius. and spread the clay upon his
eyes.

6. *He spat on the ground.* Of course such ceremonies as that here
recorded were wholly unnecessary to Christ for effecting the cure. Why He
sometimes used them it is hard to say; perhaps to help to excite the faith
of those who were being cured. “Those who impiously jeer at the use of
ceremonies, and material elements in connection with spiritual effects,
which they symbolize, have a clear refutation in this action, and several
similar actions on the part of our Divine Redeemer for similar effects
(Mark vii. 33; viii. 23).” (McEvilly).

7. Et dixit ei: Vade, lava in 7. And said to him: Go, wash
natatoria Siloe (quod in the pool of Siloe, which is
interpretatur Missus). Abiit interpreted, Sent. He went
ergo, et lavit, et venit therefore, and washed, and he
videns. came seeing.

7. St. John interprets for his readers the Hebrew name (שׂלוח) of the
pool. Some have regarded the interpretation as the gloss of a copyist or
interpreter; but there is practically no authority for doubting that it
was written by St. John. Doubtless the pool bore this name for some mystic
reason; by the natural salubrity of its waters, or by a supernatural
virtue, like Bethesda (v. 2), it may have typified _Him who was sent_ from
God to heal men. The pool which still retains its old name _Birket
Silwan_, is one of the few undisputed sites at Jerusalem. St. Jerome
speaks of the spring which supplied it as situated at the foot of Mount
Sion, and mentions also the intermittent character of the spring. See
Isaiah viii. 6. In another place St. Jerome speaks of Siloe as situated at
“the foot of Mount Moria,” so that there is no reason for doubting that
the pool was situated in the valley called Tyropaeon, which separated
Mount Sion from Mount Moria, just where _Birket Silwan_ is still to be
seen. See also Josephus, _Bella Jud._, v. 4. 1. The blind man journeying
towards the pool, with clay upon his eyes, must have attracted the
attention of many, and thus helped to make the miracle more public. That
one born blind, and accustomed to move about Jerusalem, would be able to
find his way to the pool, there is no reason to doubt; in any case there
need be no difficulty raised on this point, as he could probably have
readily found some one willing to guide him.

8. Itaque vicini, et qui 8. The neighbours therefore,
viderant eum prius quia and they who had seen him
mendicus erat, dicebant: Nonne before that he was a beggar,
hic est qui sedebat et said: Is not this he that sat,
mendicabat? Alii dicebant: and begged? Some said: This is
Quia hic est. he.
9. Alii autem: Nequaquam, sed 9. But others _said_: No, but
similis est ei. Ille vero he is like him. But he said: I
dicebat: Quia ego sum. am he.
10. Dicebant ergo ei: Quomodo 10. They said therefore to
aperti sunt tibi oculi? him: How were thy eyes opened?
11. Respondit: Ille homo qui 11. He answered: That man that
dicitur Iesus, lutum fecit, et is called Jesus, made clay,
unxit oculos meos, et dixit and anointed my eyes, and said
mihi: Vade ad natatoria Siloe, to me: Go to the pool of
et lava, Et abii, et lavi, et Siloe, and wash. And I went, I
video. washed, and I see.

11. *He answered: That man* (ὁ ἄνθρωπος is the true reading) *that is
called Jesus.* He yet recognises in Christ only a holy man, but refers to
Him as one who was well known and much spoken of.

12. Et dixerunt ei: Ubi est 12. And they said to him:
ille? Ait: Nescio. Where is he? He saith: I know
not.
13. Adducunt eum ad pharisaeos 13. They bring him that had
qui caecus fuerat. been blind to the Pharisees.

13. Why they brought him to the Pharisees is not certain; probably in
order to have the facts sifted more closely, and perhaps to have Christ
condemned of violating the Sabbath (verse 14).

14. Erat autem sabbatum, 14. Now it was the sabbath
quando lutum fecit Iesus, et when Jesus made the clay and
aperuit oculos eius. opened his eyes.
15. Iterum ergo interrogabant 15. Again therefore the
eum pharisaei quomodo Pharisees asked him, how he
vidisset. Ille autem dixit had received his sight. But he
eis: Lutum mihi posuit super said to them: He put clay upon
oculos, et lavi, et video. my eyes, and I washed, and I
see.
16. Dicebant ergo ex 16. Some therefore of the
pharisaeis quidam: Non est hic Pharisees said: This man is
homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non not of God, who keepeth not
custodit. Alii autem dicebant: the sabbath. But others said:
Quomodo potest homo peccator How can a man that is a sinner
haec signa facere? Et schisma do such miracles? And there
erat inter eos. was a division among them.
17. Dicunt ergo caeco iterum: 17. They say therefore to the
Tu quid dicis de illo qui blind man again: What sayest
aperuit oculos tuos? Ille thou of him that hath opened
autem dixit: Quia propheta thy eyes? And he said: He is a
est. prophet.

16, 17. The Pharisees themselves disagree as to the character of Christ,
and ask the man who had been cured (note how he is still spoken of as
blind, just as in the Blessed Eucharist (vi. 52) the flesh of Christ is
spoken of as bread, not because it is any longer bread, but because of
what it is known to have been shortly before) what he thought of Him who
cured him. His reply is that Christ is a prophet (προφητής without the
article), a man sent by God; not _the_ Prophet, for he did not yet
recognise Christ as the Messias.

18. Non crediderunt ergo 18. The Jews then did not
Iudaei de illo quia caecus believe concerning him, that
fuisset et vidisset, donec he had been blind and had
vocaverunt parentes eius qui received his sight, until they
viderat: call the parents of him that
had received his sight.

18. The Pharisees now doubt the _fact_ of the cure, and send for the man’s
parents to inquire if he had indeed been born blind.

19. Et interrogaverunt eos, 19. And asked them, saying: Is
dicentes: Hic est filius this your son, who you say was
vester, quem vos dicitis quia born blind? How then doth he
caecus natus est? Quomodo ergo now see?
nunc videt?
20. Responderunt eis parentes 20. His parents answered them
eius, et dixerunt: Scimus quia and said: We know that this is
hic est filius noster, et quia our son, and that he was born
caecus natus est: blind.
21. Quomodo autem nunc videat, 21. But how he now seeth, we
nescimus: aut quis eius know not: or who hath opened
aperuit oculos, nos nescimus: his eyes, we know not: ask
ipsum interrogate: aetatem himself; he is of age, let him
habet, ipse de se loquatur. speak for himself.

19‐21. Three questions are put to the parents; to two they reply: that
this is their son, and that he was born blind; but to the third they
return no answer, though, doubtless, they believed their son’s account of
the cure.

22. Haec dixerunt parentes 22. These things his parents
eius, quoniam timebant said, because they feared the
Iudaeos: iam enim Jews: For the Jews had already
conspiraverant Iudaei, ut si agreed among themselves, that
quis eum confiteretur esse if any man should confess him
Christum, extra synagogam to be Christ, he should be put
fieret. out of the synagogue.

22. *Put out of the synagogue*; that is to say, deprived of all religious
intercourse by a sort of excommunication.

23. Propterea parentes eius 23. Therefore did his parents
dixerunt: Quia aetatem habet, say: He is of age, ask him.
ipsum interrogate.
24. Vocaverunt ergo rursum 24. They therefore called the
hominem qui fuerat caecus, et man again that had been blind,
dixerunt ei: Da gloriam Deo: and said to him: Give glory to
nos scimus quia hic homo God. We know that this man is
peccator est. a sinner.

24. The man himself is again interrogated. The words: *Give glory to God*
are a sort of adjuration; as if they said—remember you are in the presence
of God, and speak the truth. See Jos. viii. 19. And yet while, pretending
to be anxious to hear the truth, they tried to overawe the poor man by
declaring that they are convinced already that Christ is an impostor and
sinner.

25. Dixit ergo eis ille: Si 25. He said therefore to them:
peccator est, nescio: unum If he be a sinner, I know not:
scio, quia caecus cum essem, one thing I know, that whereas
modo video. I was blind, now I see.

25. *Being blind*, τυφλὸς ὤν. The _present_ part. is used relatively to
the time when he blind.

26. Dixerunt ergo illi: Quid 26. They said then to him:
fecit tibi: Quomodo aperuit What did he to thee? How did
tibi oculos? he open thy eyes?
27. Respondit eis: Dixi vobis 27. He answered them: I have
iam, et audistis: quid iterum told you already, and you have
vultis audire? numquid et vos heard: why would you hear it
vultis discipuli eius fieri? again? will you also become
his disciples?

27. *You have heard* (Gr. καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσατε, _You did not heed_). *Will you
also become his disciples?* These words are ironical. The man saw that the
Pharisees were hostile to Jesus, and his natural gratitude towards his
benefactor made him impatient with them.

28. Maledixerunt ergo ei, et 28. They reviled him
dixerunt: Tu discipulus illius therefore, and said: Be thou
sis: nos autem Moysi discipuli his disciple; but we are the
sumus. disciples of Moses.

28. *They reviled him* (ἐλοιδόρησαν) *therefore, and said: Be thou that
man’s disciple*.

29. Nos scimus quia Moysi 29. We know that God spoke to
locutus est Deus: hunc autem Moses: but as to this man, we
nescimus unde sit. know not from whence he is.

29. The meaning is: We know not whether this man is sent by God or the
devil.

30. Respondit ille homo, et 30. The man answered, and said
dixit eis: In hoc enim to them: Why herein is a
mirabile est quia vos nescitis wonderful thing that you know
unde sit, et aperuit meos not from whence he is, and he
oculos: hath opened my eyes.

30. *You* is emphatic; you the teachers of God’s people!

31. Scimus autem quia 31. Now we know that God doth
peccatores Deus non audit: sed not hear sinners: but if a man
si quis Dei cultor est, et be a server of God, and doth
voluntatem eius facit, hunc his will, him he heareth.
exaudit.

31. *Now we know that God doth not hear sinners.* These are the words of
the blind man, and we are not bound to hold that they state what is true:
that they were spoken by the man, the inspired Evangelist tells us; and
the _fact_ that they were spoken is all that is covered by inspiration.
But the words are generally true in the sense in which the context proves
they were used. For God does not generally hear sinners so as to work
miracles at their will; and this is what the words mean. That God never
hears the prayers of sinners, is not stated here, and is not true.

32. A saeculo non est auditum 32. From the beginning of the
quia quis aperuit oculos caeci world it hath not been heard,
nati. that any man hath opened the
eyes of one born blind.
33. Nisi esset hic a Deo, non 33. Unless this man were of
poterat facere quidquam. God, he could not do anything.

33. *Anything*; that is to say, such as the miracle performed upon me.

34. Responderunt, et dixerunt 34. They answered, and said to
ei: In peccatis natus es him: Thou wast wholly born in
totus, et tu doces nos? Et sins, and dost thou teach us?
eiecerunt eum foras. And they cast him out.

34. *Thou wast wholly born in sins*, ὅλος (_totus_); that is to say,
altogether, entirely, as thy blindness proves. And dost thou, steeped from
thy birth in sin and ignorance, presume to teach us, the sainted doctors
of the Law? *And they cast him out.* Some take the sense to be, that they
excommunicated him, but the obvious meaning is, that they drove him from
their presence, wherever it was that they were assembled.

35. Audivit Iesus quia 35. Jesus heard that they had
eiecerunt eum foras: et cum cast him out: and when he had
invenisset eum, dixit ei: Tu found him, he said to him:
credis in Filium Dei? Dost thou believe in the Son
of God?

35. Christ as God knew, of course, that the man had been expelled by the
Pharisees; but He waited till He heard it as man, and then went to seek
for and reward the poor fellow, who had so intrepidly defended Him before
them. Instead of *Son of God*, some manuscripts of great authority read
_Son of Man_; but it is more probable that the former is the correct
reading. We may here remark how Christ, who had cured the blindness of the
body without requiring faith now asks for faith in Himself before He will
dispel the deeper darkness of the soul. “Qui fecit te sine te, non
justificat te sine te; fecit nescientem, justificat volentem” (St. Aug.,
Serm. 15, _de verbis Apost._).

36. Respondit ille, et dixit: 36. He answered, and said: Who
Quis est, Domine, ut credam in is he, Lord, that I may
eum? believe in him?

36. Probably the man recognised the voice of his benefactor, whom he had
not seen until now, and he at once shows himself prepared to do what he
understands Christ’s question to suggest. He believed that Christ who had
cured him, and whom he regarded as a prophet, would not deceive him as to
who was really the Son of God. Lord (Gr. κύριε) ought rather to be
rendered “Sir.” It is a term of respect, but does not at all imply that
the man already recognised Christ to be his Lord and God, as is clear from
the context.

37. Et dixit ei Iesus: Et 37. And Jesus said to him:
vidisti eum, et qui loquitur Thou hast both seen him; and
tecum, ipse est. it is he that talketh with
thee.

37. *Thou hast both seen.* The meaning is: Thou _seest_ Him, the Greek
perfect having here the force of a present. See 1 John iii. 6. Christ’s
reference to the man’s _seeing_, was doubtless designed to stimulate his
gratitude, and help him to faith.

38. At ille ait: Credo Domine. 38. And he said: I believe,
Et procidens adoravit eum. Lord. And falling down he
adored him.

38. He *adored* Christ as God. Though the word προσεκύνησεν, which is here
rendered “adored,” does not, in our opinion, necessarily imply supreme
worship in the Greek of either the Old or New Testament,(71) still the
context here determines it to that meaning. For Christ had just declared
Himself to be the Son of God, and it is _as such_ the man worships Him.

39. Et dixit Iesus: In 39. And Jesus said: For
iudicium ego in hunc mundum judgment I am come into this
veni: ut qui non vident world, that they who see not,
videant, et qui vident caeci may see: and they who see, may
fiant. become blind.

39. *For judgment I am come into this world.* The blind man had recovered
sight in two senses—bodily and spiritual—and Christ, as the occasion
naturally suggested, now goes on to speak of spiritual blindness. Christ’s
words here are not contradictory of iii. 17 or viii. 15, because here
there is question of a different judgment. In those passages there is
question of the judgment of _condemnation_, for which Christ did not come
at His first coming; here there is question of the judgment of
_discernment_ (κρίμα, not κρίσις), and for this He had come at His first
coming. The sense of the present passage then is: I am come to separate
the good from the bad; to make known who love God, and who do not; to show
and to effect that those who have been regarded as spiritually blind, and
who, indeed, in many cases, have been so, may have the eyes of their souls
opened to the light of truth, while those who have been thought, and who
think themselves, to see (such as you Pharisees), may be shown to be
indeed spiritually blind, and may really _become more blind_, by being
involved in deeper darkness through their own unbelief. This latter
effect—that they should become more blind—was not directly intended by
Christ, but it was foreseen and permitted, and this is enough to justify
Christ’s expression: “That they who see may become blind.” Compare Rom. v.
20: “Now the law entered in that sin might abound.”

40. Et audierunt quidam ex 40. And some of the Pharisees,
pharisaeis qui cum ipso erant who were with him, heard; and
et dixerunt ei: Numquid et nos they said unto him: Are we
caeci sumus? also blind?
41. Dixit eis Iesus: Si caeci 41. Jesus said to them: If you
essetis, non haberetis were blind, you should not
peccatum: nunc vero dicitis: have sin: but now you say: We
Quia videmus. Peccatum vestrum see. Your sin remaineth.
manet.

40, 41. The Pharisees ask: *Are we also blind?* and Jesus replies: *If you
were blind, you should not have sin*; that is to say, if you were blind
through invincible ignorance, or, as we prefer to hold, if you were blind
_in your own estimation_, if you _recognised_ your spiritual blindness,
you should not have sin, because I would wipe it out; but now that you
_say_ you see, and rely upon yourselves, your sin remaineth.

CHAPTER X.

1‐5. *The parable (or rather allegory, see below on verse 1), of
the door of the sheepfold.*

6. *The Pharisees understood not the parable.*

7‐10. *Christ, therefore, applies it.*

11‐18. *The parable of the Good Shepherd.*

19‐21. *There was a difference of opinion among the Pharisees
regarding Christ.*

22‐30. *On another occasion the Pharisees ask Him to tell them
plainly if He is the Christ; to whom He replies that He is, and
the Son of God, one in nature with His Father.*

31. *Thereupon they took up stones to stone Him.*

32‐38. *He defends his language by a quotation from their own
Psaltery.*

39‐42. *When they sought to take Him prisoner, He escaped from
them, and crossed over to the east side of the Jordan, where many
believed in him.*

1. Amen, amen dico vobis: qui 1. Amen, amen, I say to you:
non intrat per ostium in ovile he that entereth not by the
ovium, sed ascendit aliunde, door into the sheepfold, but
ille fur est, et latro. climbeth up another way, the
same is a thief and a robber.

1. This verse and those that follow down to the end of verse 18, are a
continuation of the discourse directed to the Pharisees, and begun in ix.
39, with which verse this tenth chapter might more correctly have been
commenced. The logical connection of the following parable with the close
of the preceding chapter is not clear. Some, as St. Aug., say that Christ
is proving that the Pharisees were _blind_, else they would recognise Him
as the _door_ through which the true fold must be entered, and as the
_true Shepherd_. Others, as St. Chrys., think that He is replying to a
tacit objection of the Pharisees, to the effect that they refused to
recognise Him, not because they were blind, but because He was an
impostor.

The parable, taken strictly, is a narrative of a probable but fictitious
_event_, like that relating to the Prodigal Son (Luke xv. 11‐32). Where,
as in the present instance, there is continued or prolonged metaphor,
without the description of any event, some would call it an allegory and
not a parable; but we prefer not to interfere with a phrase so familiar as
“the parable of the good Shepherd.” It will be noted that we speak of
parables, and not merely of one parable, for we hold that the parable of
Christ as _door_ of the fold is distinct from that of Christ as Shepherd.
Our reasons for this will appear as we proceed. To understand the
grammatical sense of these two parables, we must bear in mind what were
the relations of the shepherd to his sheep in eastern countries, and
especially in Palestine.

In the Spring of the year the Jewish shepherd conducted his sheep to their
pasture, and there they remained until the end of the following Autumn. At
night they were enclosed in folds, the flocks of several shepherds being
sometimes gathered in the same fold. The fold, open overhead, was
surrounded by a wall, in which there was but one door, at which the
doorkeeper (_ostiarius_) remained through the night, until the shepherd’s
return in the morning. A thief, wishing to steal sheep, would, of course,
not attempt to enter by the door, but would climb the wall. On the
shepherd’s return in the morning the door of the fold was thrown open by
the doorkeeper, and each shepherd entered and called his own sheep, which,
knowing his voice, followed him to their own pasture. Throughout the whole
day the shepherd remained with them, guarding them from wild beasts and
robbers, and attending to the weak and maimed. Thus his relations with his
sheep were very close and constant indeed, and must be carefully borne in
mind, in order that we may rightly appreciate the full significance of
these beautiful parables.

*He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold.* If we strip this
language of its metaphorical character, the sense is: that the teacher who
enters not into the Church through Christ as the door, that is to say, by
believing in Christ, is a false teacher, as were therefore, the Scribes
and Pharisees. Christ, then, is the door (see verse 7); the Church is the
sheepfold; and the Scribes and Pharisees, with all such, are the thieves
and robbers who injure their fellow‐men, sometimes secretly like thieves,
sometimes with open violence like robbers. That Christ is signified by
“the door,” is the view of SS. Aug., Cyril, Bede, Greg., and of A Lap.;
and is, indeed, distinctly stated by Himself, in verse 7, after His
hearers had failed to understand His words. Hence we unhesitatingly reject
the view of Mald. and many others, who take “the door” in verse 1 to be
different from that in verse 7; the latter, they say, being the door of
the _sheep_, Christ Himself; the former the door of the shepherds, which
Mald. understands of _legitimate authority_ to teach. We have no doubt
that the door in both verses is the same, because Christ begins to
explain, in verse 7: “Jesus _therefore_ said to them again” what He had
said in verses 1‐5.

2. Qui autem intrat per 2. But he that entereth in by
ostium, pastor est ovium. the door, is the shepherd of
the sheep.

2. The sense is that he who entereth by faith in Christ, and by Christ’s
authority, is _a_ true shepherd (ποιμήν, without the article). Such a
pastor is contrasted with the Pharisees who blindly refused to enter by
the only gate.

3. Huic ostiarius aperit, et 3. To him the porter openeth;
oves vocem eius audiunt, et and the sheep hear his voice:
proprias oves vocat nominatim, and he calleth his own sheep
et educit eas. by name, and leadeth them out.

3. *To him the porter openeth.* In the higher sense, the porter is not the
Scriptures, nor Christ Himself, but the Holy Ghost. To the true pastor of
souls the Holy Ghost “openeth,” by giving him grace to teach and govern
rightly, and by moving the hearts of the faithful to listen to and profit
by his teaching.

*And leadeth them out.* It is an obvious and familiar principle that in
explaining metaphorical language, we are not to expect resemblance in all
points between the two things which are implicitly compared. If we say
Patrick is a lion, we mean that he has courage or strength; but we do not
mean that he has four legs. Similarly, though the Church is compared to a
sheepfold, it does not follow that because the sheep had to be led outside
the fold in order to find pasture, that therefore the faithful must be
_led outside the Church_ before they can obtain the spiritual food of
their souls. No, the Church is a fold which has its pastures within
itself; and what Christ here declares is that a good pastor does for the
faithful what the shepherd does for the sheep when he leads them forth;
namely, he provides them with proper nourishment.

4. Et cum proprias oves 4. And when he hath let out
emiserit, ante eas vadit: et his own sheep, he goeth before
oves illum sequuntur, quia them: and the sheep follow
sciunt vocem eius. him, because they know his
voice.

4. A good pastor not only puts before his people the sound doctrine of
faith, and the right line of duty, but he also goes before them, guiding
and directing them by his example, and is rewarded by their obedience, for
“the sheep follow him,” and tread in his footsteps.

5. Alienum autem non 5. But a stranger they follow
sequuntur, sed fugiunt ab eo: not, but fly from him, because
quia non noverunt vocem they know not the voice of
alienorum. strangers.

5. The true reading is μη ἀκολουθήσουσιν ἀλλὰ φεύξονται, (_will_ not
follow, but _will_ fly), the sense, however, being the same. As the sheep
followed their own shepherd every morning from the fold to their pasture,
and would follow no stranger, so faithful Christians take their spiritual
nourishment from, and are obedient to, only the true pastor.

6. Hoc proverbium dixit eis 6. This proverb Jesus spoke to
Iesus. Illi autem non them. But they understood not
cognoverunt quid loqueretur what he spoke to them.
eis.

6. *Proverb.* The Greek word (παροιμίαν) suggests the notion of a saying
that is deep and mysterious and not merely metaphorical. See John xvi. 25,
29.

7. Dixit ergo eis iterum 7. Jesus therefore said to
Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis, them again: Amen, amen, I say
quia ego sum ostium ovium. to you, I am the door of the
sheep.

7. *Jesus therefore said to them again*; _i.e._, _because_ they did not
understand, He explains. As we have said already, we take the door here to
be the same as in verse 1, and the reference in both cases to be to
Christ. Here, however, Christ is spoken of as the door through which the
sheep, there as the door through which the shepherd, entered. But this
need create no difficulty, for as we explained in our preliminary remarks
on verse 1, there was only one door on the ordinary sheepfold, and through
it both sheep and shepherd entered.

8. Omnes quotquot venerunt, 8. All _others_, as many as
fures sunt et latrones, et non have come, are thieves and
audierunt eos oves. robbers: and the sheep heard
them not.

8. *All others, as many as ** have come* (many ancient authorities add
“before Me”). The sense is: all others who have come forward before now,
pretending to be the door, the Messias, _are_ thieves and robbers. The
present “_are_” is used to denote the essential character of their nature.
*But* (ἀλλ᾽, _at_ not _et_) *the sheep heard them not*; _i.e._, did not
listen to them so as to remain their disciples. Many such impostors
pretending to be the Messias had arisen before this time; such were
Theodas and Judas of Galilee (Acts v. 36, 37); and, after the time of
Christ, Simon Magus, Barchochebas, and others appeared in the same
character.

9. Ego sum ostium. Per me si 9. I am the door. By me, if
quis introierit, salvabitur: any man enter in, he shall be
et ingredietur, et egredietur, saved: and he shall go in, and
et pascua inveniet. go out, and shall find
pastures.

9. Christ here declares Himself the door absolutely; and therefore, as we
have held, the door of both sheep and shepherds. He then proceeds to
explain in this verse what this means in reference to the sheep, and in
next verse what it means in reference to the shepherds. *Shall go in and
go out* is a Hebraism (1 Kings xxix. 6; 2 Paral. i. 10; Psalm. cxx. 8),
meaning he shall deal securely, confidently, and freely.(72)

10. Fur non venit nisi ut 10. The thief cometh not, but
furetur, et mactet, et perdat. for to steal and to kill and
Ego veni ut vitam habeant, et to destroy. I am come that
abundantius habeant. they may have life, and may
have it more abundantly.

10. In reference to the pastor, he who enters not through Christ (and who
is therefore a thief, verse 1), cometh not but to steal, &c. This verse
effects the transition from Christ as door to Christ as shepherd. He here
sets Himself in opposition to the thief, and so passes on naturally to
another parable in which He speaks of Himself as shepherd.

11. Ego sum pastor bonus. 11. I am the good shepherd.
Bonus pastor animam suam dat The good shepherd giveth his
pro ovibus suis. life for his sheep.

11. *I am the good shepherd* (ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός); that particular shepherd
foretold by the prophets (Ezech. xxxiv. 11, 15, 16, 22, 23; Zach. xi. 17;
Isai. xl. 11). There is no difficulty in the fact that Christ now calls
Himself the shepherd, whereas in the preceding verses He has spoken of
Himself as the door of the sheepfold. For we hold that a new parable
begins in verse 11, and it is obviously open to Christ to use a new
metaphor, in which to express under a new aspect His relations to the
faithful. See xv. 1, where, in the metaphor of the true vine, His
relations with the faithful are set forth under yet another aspect. *The
good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.* This is to be understood, of
Christ, and is the first note of this great Shepherd.

12. Mercenarius autem et qui 12. But the hireling, and he
non est pastor, cuius non sunt that is not the shepherd,
oves propriae, videt lupum whose own the sheep are not,
venientem, et dimittit oves, seeth the wolf coming, and
et fugit: et lupus rapit, et leaveth the sheep, and flieth:
dispergit oves: and the wolf catcheth, and
scattereth the sheep.

12. *The hireling* is most probably a pastor who has a divine mission like
the Pharisees (Matt. xxiii. 2) which, however, he abuses for base motives
of self‐interest. Such an one, and also he who has no true mission, flieth
at the approach of _any danger_, the particular danger from the wolf being
put to represent danger in general.

13. Mercenarius autem fugit, 13. And the hireling flieth,
quia mercenarius est, et non because he is a hireling; and
pertinet ad eum de ovibus. he hath no care for the sheep.

13. The last word of verse 12 and the first three words of verse 13 in the
Vulgate: “Oves: Mercenarius autem fugit,” are regarded by many as not
genuine; the remaining portion of verse 13 is to be connected with
“flieth” of verse 12, in case they are omitted.

14. Ego sum pastor bonus: et 14. I am the good shepherd;
cognosco meas, et cognoscunt and I know mine, and mine know
me meae. me.

14. Here we have another note of our great Shepherd, Jesus Christ. He
knows _every member_ of His flock; not merely the _just_, or the _elect_
(as Aug., Bede, Ypr., Tol.), and watches over each with special
solicitude. And they, in turn, know Him with the knowledge of faith
accompanied by charity. That there is not question merely of a barren
faith, is proved by the comparison in the next verse between this
knowledge and Christ’s. If it be objected that all Christians do not love
Christ, we reply that, _as far as in Him lies_, they do; and the purpose
of the parable is to show Christ’s love and solicitude for His sheep, to
show forth what He does for them, not what they do for Him. He knows them,
gathers them into His one fold, saves them by His grace here, and conducts
them to heaven hereafter. What the sheep must do on their part after
entering the fold, is outside the scope of the parable.

15. Sicut novit me Pater, et 15. As the Father knoweth me,
ego agnosco Patrem: et animam and I know the Father: and I
meam pono pro ovibus meis. lay down my life for my sheep.

15. Connect with 14: *I know mine, and mine know me, as the Father knoweth
me, and I know the Father.* The knowledge is similar, but not, of course,
equal; just as our perfection can never equal the infinite perfection of
God, though Christ says: “Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father
is perfect.” Matt. v. 48.

*And I lay down my life for my sheep.* Perfect knowledge and sympathy
bring forth the perfect remedy, and Christ’s knowledge and love of His
sheep receive their fitting consummation in His sacrifice. The words “I
lay down My life” show that Christ gave up His life freely and voluntarily
(see verse 18); while the closing words of the verse prove the vicarious
character of Christ’s sacrifice.

16. Et alias oves habeo, quae 16. And other sheep I have,
non sunt ex hoc ovili: et that are not of this fold;
illas oportet me adducere, et them also I must bring, and
vocem meam audient, et fiet they shall hear my voice, and
unum ovile, et unus pastor. there shall be one fold and
one shepherd.

16. Having referred to His death for men, Christ goes on to speak of the
call of the Gentiles, thereby indicating the efficacy of His sacrifice for
all, whether Jews or Gentiles. *And other sheep I have, that are not of
this fold.* The other sheep were those Gentiles who were outside the
Jewish Church, but were to be brought within the Church of Christ, so that
there might be one fold (rather _flock_), and one shepherd. Strictly
speaking, the Gentiles except very few were not yet His sheep, but those
who were to obey the call are spoken of as such by anticipation, and
because in the designs of God it was decreed that they should be
efficaciously called to the faith. *And there shall be one fold and one
shepherd.* The “one fold,” or rather “one flock” (ποίμνη), distinctly
implies the unity of Christ’s Church, and the “one shepherd,” is Jesus
Christ Himself as invisible head, with the Pope His representative as
visible head.(73) We have therefore three very important declarations in
this verse. (1) The faith was to be preached to the Gentiles; (2) Christ
was to have but one flock composed alike of Jews and Gentiles; (3) that
one flock was to have one supreme visible head. Some, like Mald., think
that the expression “_this_ fold” implies that there was another fold,
that is to say, those who were to be called from among the Gentiles. But
this does not necessarily follow, as the contrast may be, and we believe
is, not between a fold of the Jews and a fold of the Gentiles, but between
the fold of the Jewish Church which excluded the Gentiles, and the fold of
the Christian Church which was to include them.

17. Propterea me diligit 17. Therefore doth the Father
Pater: quia ego pono animam love me: because I lay down my
meam, ut iterum sumam eam. life that I may take it again.

17. After the parenthetical statement in verse 16, Christ takes up what He
had said in the end of verse 15, about laying down His life. *Therefore*:
that is to say, because I lay down My life, and so obey Him, the Father
loveth Me. *That I may take it again.* “Ut” (ἱνα) cannot be taken to
express a purpose here, but means either _so as_, as Mald. holds, or, _on
the condition that_, as Patrizzi. The supreme dominion which Christ here
claims over His own life and death, is a proof of His Divinity.

18. Nemo tollit eam a me: sed 18. No man taketh it away from
ego pono eam a meipso, et me: but I lay it down of
potestatem habeo ponendi eam: myself, and I have power to
et potestatem habeo iterum lay it down; and I have power
sumendi eam. Hoc mandatum to take it up again. This
accepi a Patre meo. commandment have I received of
my Father.

18. *No man taketh it away from me; but I lay it down of myself.* Christ
declares that His death would be voluntary, because He would lay down His
life _freely_. But a difficulty here presents itself. How was He free in
laying down His life, if, as He declares, in the end of this same verse,
He had a command from His Father to do so? Surely He was bound not to
disobey that command, and thus bound to die, and so not free in dying? The
difficulty then is to reconcile Christ’s freedom in dying with the
Father’s command that He should die. Many answers have been given.

(1) The command of the Father was not really a command or precept, but
only a wish, with which Christ, without sinning, was free not to
correspond. But this answer is commonly rejected by commentators and
theologians, who hold that there was a strict command. Hence:—

(2) Christ was commanded to redeem man, but not to die. He could have
redeemed us in many other ways; therefore in choosing death as the way, He
died freely. But it is replied to this that St. Paul tells us that Christ
was _obedient even unto death_ (Phil. ii. 8), thereby implying that His
death was commanded.

(3) Christ was commanded to die, but was left free as to the manner and
circumstances of His death, and therefore was free as to the actual death
He underwent upon the cross. But it is again replied that St. Paul
declares “He was obedient unto death, even the _death of the cross_”
(Phil. ii. 8).

(4) De Lugo and others hold that Christ’s freedom in dying consisted in
the fact that He could have asked and obtained a dispensation from His
Father. He freely chose not to ask a dispensation; therefore He died
freely.

(5) Franzelin inclines to the view that the will of the Father was merely
a “beneplacitum,” a wish, until Christ freely accepted it, when it became
a command: consequent, however, upon Christ’s free acceptance. Thus, in
virtue of this free acceptance, Christ died freely, though having a
command from His Father that He should die.

(6) Lastly, there is the opinion of Suarez, who explains thus: Christ’s
human will had, strictly speaking, the _power_ of resisting the will of
God, and of sinning, and was therefore free: consequently, His human will
was free in accepting the command to die, because, strictly speaking, it
had the power to resist. No doubt this power could never be reduced to act
in our Divine Lord, for the Second Divine Person, in virtue of its
hypostatic union with Christ’s humanity, was bound to preserve His human
will from sin by the operation of grace.

“On account of this perpetual watchfulness on the part of the Second
Divine Person,” says A Lap., who adopts this opinion, “the humanity of
Christ is said to be extrinsically impeccable; not that the Divinity took
away the _power_ of sinning (non quod Verbum illam (humanitatem)
praedeterminaret), but that it always supplied the grace, under the
influence of which it was foreseen that Christ’s human will would freely
fulfil each precept.” This view we prefer; and hence we hold—(1) that
Christ had a _strict command_ from His Father to die; (2) that His human
will had the _power_ to disobey this command, and was consequently free in
accepting death; (3) that the Second Divine Person provided that this
power to disobey could _never be reduced to act_, and hence Christ was
always extrinsically impeccable.

19. Dissensio iterum facta est 19. A dissension rose again
inter Iudaeos propter sermones among the Jews for these
hos. words.
20. Dicebant autem multi ex 20. And many of them said: He
ipsis: Daemonium habet, et hath a devil, and is mad: why
insanit: quid eum auditis? hear you him?
21. Alii dicebant: Haec verba 21. Others said: These are not
non sunt daemonium habentis; the words of one that hath a
numquid daemonium potest devil: Can a devil open the
caecorum oculos aperire? eyes of the blind?

19‐21. Again, as on previous occasions there was a difference of opinion
among the leaders of the Jews.

22. Facta sunt autem encaenia 22. And it was the feast of
in Ierosoylmis: et hiems erat. the dedication at Jerusalem;
and it was winter.

22. A new chapter might well have been begun here. The events and
discourses recorded by the Evangelist, from chapter viii., probably
followed close upon the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2). Now the Evangelist
suddenly passes on to the Feast of Purification. During the period of more
than two months that intervened (see above on v. 1), Christ returned to
Galilee (Luke ix. 51; xiii. 22); or, as Patrizzi holds, spent his time in
the country parts of Judea, away from Jerusalem. The Feast of the
Dedication instituted by Judas Maccabeus, about 165 B.C., in memory of the
cleansing of the temple and dedication of the altar of holocausts after
the defeat of the Syrians, was celebrated annually for eight days. The
first day of the feast was the 25th of Casleu, the ninth month of the
Jewish sacred year, which corresponded to the latter part of our November
and the first part of December. See 1 Mach. iv. 59.

23. Et ambulabat Iesus in 23. And Jesus walked in the
templo, in porticu Salomonis. temple in Solomon’s porch.

23. And because it was winter, Jesus was walking in Solomon’s porch. This
was probably a cloister, open on one side, and covered overhead, and
stood, according to Beel. (Comm. on Acts iii. 11), on the eastern side of
the court of the Gentiles. That the Porch of Solomon referred to in 3
Kings vi. 3; 2 Paral. iii. 4, is not meant here (as Mald. holds), we feel
certain; for that being within the court of the priests, Christ would not
have been permitted by the Jewish priests to approach, much less walk,
there.

24. Circumdederunt ergo eum 24. The Jews therefore came
Iudaei, et dicebant ei: round about him, and said to
Quousque animam nostram him: How long dost thou hold
tollis? si tu es Christus, dic our souls in suspense? if thou
nobis palam. be the Christ tell us plainly.

24. *How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense?* The phrase here used
by the Evangelist to record the words of the Jews is a Hebraism (see Exod.
xxxv. 21; Deut. xxiv. 15; Prov. xix. 23). They wished Christ to state
openly that He was their Messias, their King, probably in order that they
might accuse Him before the Roman authorities of treason against Rome.

25. Respondit eis Iesus. 25. Jesus answered them: I
Loquor vobis, et non creditis: speak to you, and you believe
opera quae ego facio in nomine not: the works that I do in
Patris mei, haec testimonium the name of my Father, they
perhibent de me: give testimony of me.
26. Sed vos non creditis, quia 26. But you do not believe:
non estis ex ovibus meis. because you are not of my
sheep.

25, 26. He again appeals to His miracles, and upbraids their incredulity.

27. Oves meae vocem meam 27. My sheep hear my voice:
audiunt: et ego cognosco eas, and I know them, and they
et sequntur me: follow me.

27. We prefer to understand the *sheep* here, as in verse 14, not of the
just merely, nor of the elect only, but, with A Lap., of all the faithful.
All the faithful hear Christ, so as to _believe_, and in this they are
contrasted with those addressed in the preceding verse, who believe not;
and all too follow Christ so as to imitate His example, _as far as lies in
Him_.

28. Et ego vitam aeternam do 28. And I give them life
eis: et non peribunt in everlasting; and they shall
aeternum, et non rapiet eas not perish for ever, and no
quisquam de manu mea. man shall pluck them out of my
hand.

28. In the same sense He gives them life eternal, and they shall not
perish, and (= for) no one can snatch them from His hand. As far as their
salvation depends upon Him, they shall be saved; they may indeed fail to
correspond with His grace, but they shall not perish through His fault.
They may desert Him themselves, but no one shall snatch them from Him.

29. Pater meus quod dedit 29. That which my Father hath
mihi, maius omnibus est: et given me is greater than all:
nemo potest rapere de manu and no one can snatch _them_
Patris mei. out of the hand of my Father.
30. Ego et Pater unum sumus. 30. I and the Father are one.

29, 30. He proves that no one shall snatch them from Him. No one shall
snatch them from the Father (_who_ is greater and more powerful than all).
But I and the Father are one in nature and power; therefore no one shall
snatch them from Me. This is the argument in the more probable Greek
reading, and is more natural than that afforded by the Vulgate. We would
read then instead of the present Vulgate text in verse 29: “Pater meus
_qui_ dedit mihi _major_ omnibus est,” &c.(74) Note that the unity with
the Father to which Christ here lays claim is not a _moral_ union, but a
unity of _nature and power_, else the proof of His statement that no one
could snatch His sheep from His hands would not be valid.

31. Sustulerunt ergo lapides 31. The Jews then took up
Iudaei, ut lapidarent eum. stones to stone him.

31. See above on viii. 59.

32. Respondit eis Iesus: Multa 32. Jesus answered them: Many
bona opera ostendi vobis ex good works I have shewed you
Patre meo, propter quod eorum from my Father; for which of
opus me lapidatis? those works do you stone me?

32. *For which of those works do you stone me?* _i.e._, wish to stone
Me.(75)

33. Responderunt ei Iudaei: De 33. The Jews answered him: For
bono opere non lapidamus te, a good work we stone thee not,
sed de blasphemia; et quia tu but for blasphemy; and because
homo cum sis, facis teipsum that thou, being a man, makest
Deum. thyself God?
34. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne 34. Jesus answered them: Is it
scriptum est in lege vestra not written in your law: _I
quia: Ego dixi, dii estis? said you are gods_?

34. To the charge of blasphemy Christ replies, and His reply has been
often urged by Arians and Unitarians to show that He did not claim to be
the natural Son of God, but merely meant to call Himself God in some
improper sense, analogous to that in which the Sacred Scriptures sometimes
speak of judges, who were merely men, as gods.

The sense of verse 34 is: men are called gods in your own law, the
reference being to Psalm lxxxi. 6.

35. Si illos dixit deos, ad 35. If he called them gods, to
quos sermo Dei factus est, et whom the word of God was
non potest solvi scriptura: spoken, and the scripture
cannot be broken;
36. Quem Pater sanctificavit, 36. Do you say of him, whom
et misit in mundum, vos the Father hath sanctified and
dicitis: Quia blasphemas, quia sent into the world: Thou
dixi, Filius Dei sum. blasphemest, because I said, I
am the Son of God?

35, 36. While all Catholic commentators and theologians contend that
Christ does not in these two verses withdraw His claim to true Divinity,
yet they differ as to the sense of His reply, and hence as to the
interpretation of the verses.

(1) Some, as Franzelin, hold that Christ here proves both that He is God,
and that He has a right to call Himself God. The argument then is
according to these: if your judges could be called gods, even in an
improper sense, how much more _in the strictest sense_ can He be called
and is He God, whom the Father generated _holy with His own holiness_, and
sent into the world?

(2) Others, as Maran, Jungmann, &c., explain the argument here from the
context in the 81st Psalm. Christ, they say, reasons thus. If men could be
called gods, as they are in Sacred Scripture (and the Sacred Scripture
cannot be gainsaid), how much more, in a strict sense, can He be called
God, and is He God, whom the same Scriptures address in the 8th verse of
the same 81st Psalm: “Arise, _O God_, judge Thou the earth, for Thou shalt
inherit among the nations”?

(3) Others hold that Christ in these two verses does not insist upon the
_nature_ of His Sonship, but contents Himself with showing that He has a
right to _call_ Himself God; then in the following verses He shows that He
is God in the strictest sense. In this view Christ prescinds in these
verses from the sense in which He is God, and shows that _in some sense_,
as the legate of the Father, He has a right to be called God. This was
sufficient for the moment to shut the mouths of His adversaries. Whether
He is God in the truest and strictest sense, or only in an improper sense,
He does not here insist, though His language shows that even in these
verses He speaks of Himself as truly God. For the argument shows that in
concluding, in verse 36, that He has a right to call Himself “Son of God,”
He means to justify his original statement: “I and the Father are one”
(verse 30); but these statements are synonymous, and the one justifies the
other only when there is question of natural Sonship. No merely adopted
son of God could say that He is one with the Father.

Any of these answers solves the objection drawn from these verses against
Christ’s Divinity; but we prefer the last, and hold, therefore, that
Christ first proves against the Pharisees that He has a right to _call_
Himself God, and then goes on to show in what sense He is God.

37. Si non facio opera Patris 37. If I do not the works of
mei, nolite credere mihi. my Father, believe me not.
38. Si autem facio, et si mihi 38. But if I do, though you
non vultis credere, operibus will not believe me, believe
credite, ut cognoscatis et the works: that you may know
credatis quia Pater in me est, and believe that the Father is
et ego in Patre. in me, and I in the Father.

37, 38. He appeals to His miracles as a proof that He is God in the
strictest sense. See notes on iii. 2. *That the Father is in me, and I in
the Father.* According to the fathers, this is a statement in other words
of what He said above: “I and the Father are one.” “The Son,” says St.
Augustine on this verse, does not say: “The Father is in Me, and I in Him,
in the sense in which men who think and act aright may say the like;
meaning that they partake of God’s grace, and are enlightened by His
Spirit. The Only‐begotten Son of God is in the Father, and the Father in
Him, as an equal in an equal.”

39. Quaerebant ergo eum 39. They sought therefore to
apprehendere: et exivit de take him; and he escaped out
manibus eorum. of their hands.

39. *They sought therefore to take him.* These words prove that His
hearers did not understand Christ to retract what He had said.

40. Et abiit iterum trans 40. And he went again beyond
Iordanem, in eum locum ubi the Jordan into that place
erat Ioannes baptizans primum: where John was baptizing
et mansit illic. first: and there he abode.

40. He went again to Bethania beyond the Jordan. See above on i. 28. The
name of Bethania must have been dear to our Evangelist, because it was
probably in its neighbourhood he had first met his heavenly Master.

41. Et multi venerunt ad eum, 41. And many resorted to him,
et dicebant: Quia Ioannes and they said: John indeed did
quidem signum fecit nullum. no sign.

41. *John indeed did no sign.* This remark is of great importance as
showing how little tendency there was to invest great and popular teachers
with miraculous powers. And yet the Rationalists will have us believe that
our Lord’s miracles were all a popular delusion!

42. Omnia autem quaecumque 42. But all things whatsoever
dixit Ioannes de hoc, vera John said of this man were
erant. Et multi crediderunt in true. And many believed in
eum. him.

42. *And many believed in him.* Most authorities add the note of place
_there_ (ἐκεῖ), as if the Evangelist wished to bring out into bolder
relief the incredulity of the Jews (verse 39), by contrasting it with the
faith of those beyond the Jordan.

CHAPTER XI.

1‐3. *The illness of Lazarus is made known to Christ.*

4‐10. *After the lapse of two days, Christ proposes to return to
Judea; the disciples try to dissuade Him.*

11‐16. *Before setting out, He declares that Lazarus is dead.*

17‐32. *On Christ’s approach He is met by the sisters of Lazarus,
and many Jews.*

33‐44. *Having groaned in the spirit, wept, and returned thanks to
His Father, He raises Lazarus from the dead.*

45‐53. *Many believed in Him on account of the miracle, but the
chief priests and Pharisees forthwith resolved on putting Him to
death.*

54‐56. *Jesus retired from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and the
chief priests and Pharisees gave orders, that anyone knowing where
He was, should inform upon Him, in order that He might be
arrested.*

1. Erat autem quidam languens 1. Now there was a certain man
Lazarus a Bethania, de sick named Lazarus, of
castello Mariae et Marthae Bethania, of the town of Mary
sororis eius. and of Martha her sister.

1. “The narrative of the raising of Lazarus is unique in its completeness.
The essential circumstances of the fact in regard to persons, manner,
results, are given with perfect distinctness. The history is more complete
than that in chapter ix., because the persons stand in closer connection
with the Lord than the blind man, and the event itself had in many ways a
ruling influence on the end of His ministry. Four scenes are to be
distinguished:—(1) the prelude to the miracle (1‐16); (2) the scene at
Bethany (17‐32); (3) the miracle (33‐44); (4) the immediate issues of the
miracle (45‐57)” (Westcott in the Speakers Comm.).

*Bethania.* This _village_ lay nearly two miles east of Jerusalem; see
verse 18, and our remarks on vi. 19. To prevent the reader from
confounding it with Bethania beyond the Jordan (i. 28), the Evangelist
adds that he means the village of Mary and of Martha her sister, who are
supposed to be already known to the reader from the Synoptic Gospels. See,
_e.g._, Luke x. 38‐42. Bethania is spoken of as their village, not because
they owned it, but because they resided there, just as Bethsaida is called
the city of Andrew and Peter (i. 44). In this village, then, Lazarus was
_seriously_ ill (ἀσθενῶν; see James v. 14).

2. (Maria autem erat, quae 2. (And Mary was she that
unxit Dominum unguento, et anointed the Lord with
extersit pedes eius capillis ointment and wiped his feet
suis: cuius frater Lazarus with her hair: whose brother
infirmabatur.) Lazarus was sick.)

2. The Greek aorist (ἡ ἀλέιψασα) shows that the reference is to some
unction that had already taken place, and not to that which happened
subsequently, and which is narrated by our Evangelist (xii. 3; Matt. xxvi.
7; Mark xiv. 3). The unction here referred to we take to be that recorded
by St. Luke (vii. 37, 38); and hence, notwithstanding their apparently
different characters, we regard Mary the sister of Lazarus (xi. 2) as
identical with “the woman who was a sinner in the city” (Luke vii. 37).
For St. John in the words: “Mary was she that anointed the Lord,” &c.,
certainly seems to speak of an unction already known to his readers, and
the only unction of Christ, as far as is known, that had taken place
before this illness of Lazarus, is that recorded by St. Luke in the
passage referred to. In this view, then, our Lord was _twice_ anointed by
a woman; on the first occasion in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke
vii. 40, 46), probably in Galilee (see Luke vii. 11), as recorded by St.
Luke vii. 37, 38; on the second occasion at Bethania, in Judea, in the
house of Simon the leper (Matt. xxvi. 6), as recorded by Matthew, Mark,
and John (J. xii. 3). As the present verse proves that Mary, the sister of
Lazarus, had already anointed our Lord: and as John xii. 3, with its
context, proves that the same sister of Lazarus again anointed Him on a
subsequent occasion, we hold that the only woman referred to in the
Gospels as having anointed the living body of our Lord, is Mary, the
sister of Lazarus; and that she did so on _two_ different occasions. Thus,
as already stated, we identify Luke’s “sinner in the city” with the sister
of Lazarus. If it be objected that the contemplative character of the
sister of Lazarus (Luke x. 38‐42), and the close friendship of Jesus with
her and her family (John xi. 3, 5), forbid us to regard her as identical
with the woman who had once been “a sinner in the city,” we reply that
Mary, converted in the beginning of our Lord’s public life, had now for
some years led an edifying life of penance. As a sinner she had lived in
some city of Galilee, far away from home, whither she may have gone with
some lover whom she met at Jerusalem at one of the great festivals; now
she lived with her brother at Bethania, in Judea, where possibly her
former sinful life may have been unknown, so that there was no danger of
scandal in Christ’s friendship with herself and her family. To those who,
like Steenkiste (_Comm. on Matt. Quaes._ 678, _conclusio_), have “a deep‐
rooted repugnance” to believing that the sister of Lazarus had ever been a
public sinner, we would recall the fact that there are many sinners in
heaven to‐day enjoying the society of God after a far shorter penance than
we require to suppose in the case of the sister of Lazarus, before she
began to enjoy the friendship of Christ. Our Divine Lord’s tenderness and
mercy towards sinners are written on every page of the Gospels, and the
only real difficulty here is that to which we have already replied,
arising from the danger of scandal, through our Lord’s associating with
such a woman.

Thus far we have spoken only of “the sinner,” and the sister of Lazarus;
but there is a further question, whether Mary Magdalen (Luke viii. 2;
Matt. xxvii. 56, 61; Matt. xxviii. 1; John xx. 1, &c.) and they are all
three, one and the same person. We believe it to be more probable that
they are. The more common opinion among the fathers identifies the three;
from the sixth till the seventeenth century their identity was
unquestioned in the Western Church; and our Roman Breviary and Missal
still identify them on the Feast of St. Mary Magdalen, the 22nd of July.
So, too, Tertull., Gregory the Great, Mald., Natal‐Alex., Mauduit, M’Ev.,
Corluy.

We have stated what we consider the most probable view—that Christ was
twice anointed during His public life, and on both occasions by the same
person, the sister of Lazarus, who is identical with “the sinner” and
Magdalen. It is right, however, that we should add, that there is great
diversity of opinion, even among Catholic commentators. Some have held
that there were three different unctions, others that there was only one.
Some have held that the sister of Lazarus, “the sinner,” and Magdalen are
all three distinct; others, that at least the sister of Lazarus and the
sinner are distinct; and among those who will not admit the identity of
all three are found such able commentators as St. Chrys., Estius, Calmet,
Beelen. In such a case, where the Scriptures are obscure, where the
fathers disagree, where commentators are so divided, and the Greek Church,
which celebrates three different feasts for the three women, _seems_ (we
say _seems_, because the different feasts might possibly be celebrated in
honour of the same woman) to differ from the Latin, it is hard to attain
to anything more than probability, and we have set forth above what, after
a very careful examination of the whole question, seems to us most
probable. See Corl., _Dissert._, p. 263 and foll.; Mald. on Matt. xxvi. 6,
7, and xxvii. 56; Steenk. on Matt. _Quaes._ 678.

3. Miserunt ergo sorores eius 3. His sisters therefore sent
ad eum, dicentes: Domine, ecce to him, saying: Lord, behold,
quem amas infirmatur. he whom thou lovest is sick.

3. They merely announce their trouble through a messenger, and in hopeful
confidence leave the remedy to Jesus. “Sufficit ut noveris: non enim amas
et deseris” (St. Aug. on this verse).

4. Audiens autem Iesus dixit 4. And Jesus hearing it, said
eis: Infirmitas haec non est to them: This sickness is not
ad mortem, sed pro gloria Dei, unto death, but for the glory
ut glorificetur Filius Dei per of God: that the Son of God
eam. may be glorified by it.

4. *And Jesus hearing it, said to them* (“to them” (_eis_) is not
genuine): *This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God: that
the Son of God may be glorified by it.* The words of Christ were obscure
until the miracle threw light upon them. They mean that the sickness of
Lazarus was not to end in _ordinary_ death, for ordinary death is the end
of mortal life, whereas Lazarus was to live again a mortal life. The
sickness and death of Lazarus were intended to show forth the Divine power
of Jesus in the miracle to be wrought.

5. Diligebat autem Iesus 5. Now Jesus loved Martha and
Martham, et sororem eius her sister Mary, and Lazarus.
Mariam, et Lazarum.

5. Some connect this verse with what has gone before, as giving the reason
why the sisters of Lazarus informed Jesus of the illness of His friend.
But it is better to connect with what follows in this way. Jesus loved
Lazarus, and therefore when He had remained in the same place two days,
then He said: Let us go into Judea again, as if He were unable to remain
any longer away from His friend. Thus it is not merely His return to
Judea, but His return after two days, that proves His friendship. Had He
returned sooner, the miracle of the raising of Lazarus would have been
less striking, and would not have afforded to Martha and Mary such a
powerful motive of faith. See below on verse 15.

The passing notice here of a friendship that must have been the result of
long and intimate intercourse shows us how incomplete are the Gospel
records. It is very interesting to notice how in this verse St. John
refers to the love of Jesus for Lazarus and his sisters by a different
word from that used by the sisters in verse 3. Instead of φιλεῖς, which
expresses the affection of personal attachment, St. John, now that there
is question of the love of Jesus not only for Lazarus but also for his
sisters, uses Ἠγάπα, which expresses rather esteem than love, rather a
reasoning appreciation than a heartfelt attachment. See below on xxi.
15‐17, where the contrast between the two words is most marked.

6. Ut ergo audivit quia, 6. When he had heard therefore
infirmabatur, tunc quidem that he was sick, he still
mansit in eodem loco duobus remained in the same place two
diebus. days.
7. Deinde post haec dixit 7. Then after that he said to
discipulis suis: Eamus in his disciples: Let us go into
Iudaeam iterum. Judea again.
8. Dicunt ei discipuli: Rabbi, 8. The disciples say to him:
nunc quaerebant te Iudaei Rabbi, the Jews but now sought
lapidare, et iterum vadis to stone thee: and goest thou
illuc? thither again?

8. The disciples, fearing for His safety and for their own (see verse 16,
where Thomas takes it for granted that return to Judea meant death to Him
and them), try to dissuade Him from returning.

9. Respondit Iesus: Nonne 9. Jesus answered: Are there
duodecim sunt horae diei? Si not twelve hours of the day?
quis ambulaverit in die, non If a man walk in the day, he
offendit, quia lucem huius stumbleth not, because he
mundi videt: seeth the light of this world.

9. The meaning is: just as a man walks safely and without stumbling during
the period of daylight, which is a fixed period that cannot be shortened:
so, during the time appointed for My mortal life by My Father, I am safe,
and so are you.

10. Si autem ambulaverit in 10. But if he walk in the
nocte offendit, quia lux non night he stumbleth, because
est in eo. the light is not in him.

10. But after the time of My mortal life, then, indeed, _you_ may expect
persecution and suffering; for when I am gone, you shall be as men walking
after the sun’s light has gone down.

11. Haec, ait, et post haec 11. These things he said: and
dixit eis: Lazarus amicus after that he said to them:
noster dormit: sed vado ut a Lazarus our friend sleepeth;
somno excitem eum. but I go that I may awake him
out of sleep.
12. Dixerunt ergo discipuli 12. His disciples therefore
eius: Domine, si dormit, said: Lord, if he sleep, he
salvus erit. shall do well.
13. Dixerat autem Iesus de 13. But Jesus spoke of his
morte ejus: illi autem death; and they thought that
putaverunt quia de dormitione he spoke of the repose of
somni diceret. sleep.
14. Tunc ergo Iesus dixit eis 14. Then therefore Jesus said
manifeste: Lazarus mortuus to them plainly: Lazarus is
est: dead;

11‐14. Jesus declares of His own Divine knowledge (there is no hint of a
second message) that Lazarus sleeps. The disciples fail to understand, and
He explains.

15. Et gaudeo propter vos, ut 15. And I am glad for your
credatis, quoniam non eram sakes, that I was not there,
ibi; sed eamus ad eum. that you may believe: but let
us go to him.

15. Jesus rejoices that He was not with Lazarus, in which case His tender
mercies would have led Him to prevent the death of Lazarus, and He
rejoices for the sake of His disciples, inasmuch as a new and powerful
motive to _strengthen_ their faith would now be afforded them in the
miracle to be wrought.

16. Dixit ergo Thomas, qui 16. Thomas therefore, who is
dicitur Didymus, ad called Didymus, said to his
condiscipulos: Eamus et nos, fellow‐disciples: Let us also
ut moriamur cum eo. go, that we may die with him.

16. See verse 8. *Thomas*, Aramaic תאמא, means a twin, the Greek
equivalent being Didymus. The Greek equivalent is again mentioned after
the name in xx. 24, xxi. 2. Possibly Thomas was commonly known in Asia
Minor as Didymus.

17. Venit itaque Iesus: et 17. Jesus therefore came and
invenit eum quatuor dies iam found that he had been four
in monumento habentem. days already in the grave.

17. *Four days.* The day of the messenger’s arrival would probably be the
first day: two other days our Lord remained in Peraea after He had
received the news, and one more He would be likely to spend in the journey
to Bethania. Dying upon the first day, Lazarus, according to the custom of
the Jews, that burial should immediately follow on death (see, _e.g._,
Acts v. 6, 10), had been buried on that same day, as a comparison of this
verse with 39 clearly proves.

18. (Erat autem Bethania iuxta 18. (Now Bethania was near
Ierosolyman quasi stadiis Jerusalem, about fifteen
quindecim.) furlongs off.)

18. See above on verse 1, and especially on vi. 19.

19. Multi autem ex Iudaeis 19. And many of the Jews were
venerant ad Martham et Mariam, come to Martha and Mary, to
ut consolarentur eas de fratre comfort them concerning their
suo. brother.

19. *The Jews*, whom our Evangelist always carefully distinguishes from
the “turba,” or lower class, were leading men among the people; so that it
appears from this that the family of Lazarus had a good social standing.

20. Martha ergo ut audivit 20. Martha therefore, as soon
quia Iesus venit, occurrit as she heard that Jesus was
illi: Maria, autem domi come, went to meet him; but
sedebat. Mary sat at home.
21. Dixit ergo Martha ad 21. Martha therefore said to
Iesum: Domine si fuisses hic, Jesus: Lord, if thou hadst
frater meus non fuisset been here, my brother had not
mortuus: died.
22. Sed et nunc scio quia 22. But now also I know that
quaecumque poposceris a Deo, whatsoever thou wilt ask of
dabit tibi Deus. God, God will give it thee.

22. Even still she has hope that He may intercede with God to restore life
to her brother.

23. Dicit illi Iesus: Resurget 23. Jesus saith to her: Thy
frater tuus. brother shall rise again.

23. In words, purposely ambiguous, and meant to try her faith, Jesus
assures her that her brother shall rise again.

24. Dicit ei Martha: Scio quia 24. Martha saith to him: I
resurget in resurrectione in know that he shall rise again
novissimo die. in the resurrection at the
last day.

24. Understanding Him to speak of the final resurrection, or at least
wishing to force Him to explain, she says: *I know*, &c. Note how Martha’s
words prove the faith of the Jews of that time in the resurrection of the
body.

25. Dixit ei Iesus: Ego sum 25. Jesus said to her: I am
resurrectio et vita: qui the resurrection and the life:
credit in me, etiam si mortuus he that believeth in me
fuerit, vivet: although he be dead, shall
live.
26. Et omnis qui vivit et 26. And every one that liveth,
credit in me, non morietur in and believeth in me shall not
aeternum. Credis hoc? die for ever. Believest thou
this?

25, 26. Christ avails of this occasion to perfect her faith, and in the
beautiful and consoling words which we read in the antiphon of the
_Benedictus_ in the Office for the Dead, declares that He Himself by His
own power, and not merely by supplication to the Father, as she imagined
(verse 22), is the author of our resurrection and life. In the following
words He explains what He means. He who believes in Me, and dies in the
living faith, which worketh by charity, even though he be _corporally_
dead, like Lazarus, shall live again a glorious life, even in his body;
and everyone who is living _in the body_, and so believeth shall never
die, because though he shall indeed pass through the gates of death, I
shall quicken him again to a better life so that he may be said rather to
have slept than died.(76) If this interpretation of the words, “shall
never die,” seem to anyone strained, he may take them in reference to the
death of the soul; but as there is question in the context of the raising
of the _body_ of Lazarus, we consider the opinion we have adopted more
probable. In these verses, then, Jesus declares Himself the resurrection
and the life; the resurrection of the _dead_, the enduring life of the
_living_. So that verse 25 encourages Martha to hope to have Lazarus
restored to her, and verse 26 warns her to look to herself, in order that
she may live for ever.

27. Ait illi: Utique Domine, 27. She saith to him: Yea,
ego credidi quia tu es Lord, I have believed that
Christus Filius Dei vivi, qui thou art Christ the Son of the
in hunc mundum venisti. living God, who art come into
this world.
28. Et cum haec dixisset, 28. And when she had said
abiit, et vocavit Mariam, these things, she went, and
sororem suam silentio, dicens: called her sister Mary
Magister ad est, et vocat te. secretly, saying: The master
is come and calleth for thee.
29. Illa ut audivit, surgit 29. She, as soon as she heard
cito, et venit ad eum. _this_, riseth quickly and
cometh to him.
30. Nondum enim venerat Iesus 30. For Jesus was not yet come
in castellum: sed erat adhuc into the town; but he was
in illo loco ubi occurrerat ei still in that place where
Martha. Martha had met him.
31. Iudaei ergo qui erant cum 31. The Jews therefore who
ea in domo, et consolabantur were with her in the house and
eam, cum vidissent Mariam quia comforted her, when they saw
cito surrexit et exiit, secuti Mary that she rose up speedily
sunt eam dicentes: Quia vadit and went out, followed her,
ad monumentum ut ploret ibi. saying: She goeth to the
grave, to weep there.
32. Maria ergo, cum venisset 32. When Mary therefore was
ubi erat Iesus, videns eum, come where Jesus was, seeing
cecidit ad pedes eius, et him, she fell down at his
dicit ei: Domine, si fuisses feet, and saith to him: Lord,
hic, non esset mortuus frater if thou hadst been here, my
meus. brother had not died.

27‐32. To Christ’s question, if she believed what He had said of Himself
as the resurrection and the life, she replies that she believes(77) Him to
be the Messias, the Son of God, and so she implicitly believes in
everything He teaches, even though, as was probably the case now, she did
not quite understand. Then she goes home, and secretly calls her sister
Mary, who hurries out to meet Jesus. The Jews, thinking Mary went out to
weep at the tomb of Lazarus, follow her, and she and they come to the
place where Jesus still remained outside the village. Mary repeats almost
the exact words which Martha had used on meeting Jesus.

33. Iesus ergo, ut vidit eam 33. Jesus therefore, when he
plorantem, et Iudaeos qui saw her weeping, and the Jews
venerant cum ea, plorantes, that were come with her,
infremuit spiritu, et turbavit weeping, groaned in the
seipsum. spirit, and troubled himself.

33. The word ἐνεβριμήσατο which we translate *groaned*, is far more
expressive of indignation than of grief. So Tolet., Beel., Trench, &c.
Christ’s indignation on the present occasion was on account of sin which
brought death upon Lazarus and the whole human race, or rather perhaps on
account of the incredulity of the Jews, which made this miracle and the
sorrow consequent upon the death of Lazarus necessary.

*Troubled himself.* These words imply Christ’s supreme control over the
passions of His human nature.

34. Et dixit: Ubi posuistis 34. And said: Where have you
eum? Dicunt ei: Domine, veni, laid him? They say to him:
et vide. Lord, come and see.

34. He knew well, but probably wished to excite their faith and hope by
the question.

35. Et lacrymatus est Iesus. 35. And Jesus wept.

35. Truly this is a touching scene! The Lord of heaven weeps over the
grave of His departed friend. In no other part of the Gospels are the
human and Divine sides of our Blessed Lord’s character more clearly
brought out than in this beautiful story of the raising of Lazarus. Christ
as man weeps over him, whom He is about as God to raise from the dead.

36. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: Ecce 36. The Jews therefore said:
quomodo amabat eum. Behold how he loved him.
37. Quidam autem ex ipsis 37. But some of them said:
dixerunt: Non poterat hic, qui Could not he that opened the
aperuit oculos caeci nati, eyes of the man born blind,
facere ut hic non moreretur? have caused that this man
should not die?
38. Iesus ergo rursum fremens 38. Jesus therefore again
in semetipso, venit ad groaning in himself, cometh to
monumentum: erat autem the sepulchre: Now it was a
spelunca: et lapis cave; and a stone was laid
superpositus erat ei. over it.

38. Caves were the usual family vaults of the Jews, sometimes natural,
sometimes artificial and hollowed out of a rock. See Gen. xxiii. 9; Judith
xvi. 24; Isai. xxii. 26; John xix. 41.

39. Ait Iesus: Tollite 39. Jesus saith: Take away the
lapidem: Dicit ei Martha, stone. Martha, the sister of
soror eius qui mortuus fuerat: him that was dead, saith to
Domine, iam foetet, him: Lord, by this time he
quatriduanus est enim. stinketh, for he is now of
four days.

39. Martha evidently imagined that Jesus wished merely to see her
brother’s corpse, and she shudders at the thought of its being exposed,
now decomposing, to the gaze of the crowd. Her words and Christ’s reply,
both show that she did not _now_ hope that Jesus could raise her brother
who was four days dead.

A little before indeed she had hoped for even this (verse 22); but now her
faith began to waver. “Habuit ergo alternantes motus gratiae et naturae,
fidei et diffidentiae, spei et desperationis de resurrectione Lazari” (A
Lap.).

From this verse we learn that Lazarus was four days dead; from verse 17
that he was four days in the grave; hence he must have been buried on the
day he died.

40. Dicit ei Iesus: Nonne dixi 40. Jesus saith to her: Did
tibi quoniam si credideris, not I say to thee, that if
videbis gloriam Dei? thou believe, thou shalt see
the glory of God?

40. Christ’s reply shows that Martha’s faith was now imperfect. *Did I not
say to thee, that if thou believe, thou shalt see the glory of God?* Where
He had said these exact words to her is not recorded, but the reference is
probably to what was said to the messenger and reported by him to the
sisters of Lazarus (4), or to the discourse with Martha, epitomized above
(23‐26). By the “glory of God” is meant the glorious power of God.

41. Tulerunt ergo lapidem: 41. They took therefore the
Iesus autem elevatis sursum stone away. And Jesus lifting
oculis, dixit: Pater gratias up his eyes said: Father, I
ago tibi quoniam audisti me: give thee thanks that thou
hast heard me.

41. The stone that closed the mouth of the cave was removed, and Jesus
raising His eyes to heaven returns thanks to His Father. As man He returns
thanks for the power which He was about to manifest; and He does so before
the event, so confident is He that Lazarus will start at His call. Jesus
did not enter the sepulchre; if He had entered, our Evangelist who records
all the circumstances so minutely would have mentioned the fact. It is
hardly necessary to remark upon the absurd explanation of Paulus and
Gabler, to the effect that Jesus alone looked into the sepulchre, or alone
entered it, and to His surprise found Lazarus alive; that He then returned
thanks to God that Lazarus was not dead, and told Lazarus to come out of
the sepulchre. For that Christ did not enter the sepulchre, is clear from
what has been already stated, as well as from His words, “Come forth,”
which imply that He was outside. That He alone looked into the sepulchre,
is incredible; for we may be sure that the natural curiosity of the crowd
assembled, led many of them to look into the sepulchre. Is it likely too,
that if Jesus on looking into the sepulchre saw His friend alive, He would
coolly begin to return thanks to God, and then quietly tell Lazarus to
come out? He should have been more than man, which our adversaries will
not admit Him to have been, to preserve such coolness in such
circumstances.

42. Ego autem sciebam quia 42. And I knew that thou
semper me audis: sed propter hearest me always, but because
populum qui circumstat, dixi, of the people who stand about
ut credant quia tu me misisti. have I said it; that they may
believe that thou hast sent
me.

42. Christ’s thanks to the Father on this occasion must not lead us to
suppose that some unexpected favour had been conferred by the Father upon
Him. He knew well that on account of the conformity of His will with that
of His Father, He could ask nothing that His Father could refuse; but He
returns thanks now, as He Himself tells us, in order that the people
present might believe that the Father had sent Him. In other words, Jesus
wished to make the raising of Lazarus a clear proof of His Divinity, by
thus calling God to witness to the miracle before it was wrought.
Unquestionably the raising of Lazarus from the dead is a most powerful
proof of the Divinity of Christ. It was a manifest and public miracle
performed in the presence of a whole crowd of witnesses (see 19, 31, 45),
performed to prove that Christ had come from the Father (verse 42); that
He was the resurrection and the life (verses 25, 26); that He was the Son
of God (verse 4); that, in fact, He was all that which, a short time
previously, and in Jerusalem itself, He had claimed to be, namely, the
Lord of life, one with the Father (x. 28, 30). Such a miracle in such
circumstances God could never have permitted, had Christ not been in truth
all that He claimed to be.

Rationalists have tried in various ways to explain away this stupendous
miracle. Some say that the story is a pure concoction of St. John, else it
would have been narrated by some other Evangelist. Others, that the death
of Lazarus was merely feigned, a pious ruse in which Christ and Lazarus,
as well as Martha and Mary were accomplices, with the object of inducing
the people to accept and follow the teachings of Christ.

But we need hardly point out how absurd it is to suppose, that St. John
would attempt, fifty years after the Synoptic Evangelists, to invent and
put forward such a minute account of an extraordinary event till then
unheard‐of by the Jews. That the other Evangelists make no mention of this
stupendous miracle is remarkable, but may be accounted for by the fact
that prior to the history of the Passion, they confine their narratives
almost entirely to what Christ said and did in Galilee. Hence they do not
mention the healing of the man who had been ill for thirty‐eight years
(John v. 5‐9), nor of the man born blind (John ix.), nor, for the same
reason, the raising of Lazarus, all these miracles having occurred in
Judea.

The second theory mentioned above hardly requires refutation. Even His
Jewish enemies never accused Christ of fraud or deception; and in this
particular instance the Jews, many of whom were hostile to Jesus (verse
46), and no doubt investigated the miracle, had not the slightest
suspicion of fraud. So certain were all, even the Pharisees, that the
miracle was genuine, that without attempting to deny it, they merely
bethink themselves what they will do with Jesus (verses 47, 48).

43. Haec cum dixisset, voce 43. When he had said these
magna clamavit: Lazare veni things, he cried with a loud
foras. voice: Lazarus, come forth.
44. Et statim prodiit qui 44. And presently he that had
fuerat mortuus, ligatus pedes been dead came forth, bound
et manus institis, et facies feet and hands with winding‐
illius sudario erat ligata. bands, and his face was bound
Dixit eis Iesus: Solvite eum, about with a napkin. Jesus
et sinite abire. said to them: Loose him and
let him go.
45. Multi ergo ex Iudaeis qui 45. Many therefore of the Jews
venerant ad Mariam et Martham; who were come to Mary and
et viderant quae fecit Iesus, Martha, and had seen the
crediderunt in eum. things that Jesus did,
believed in him.
46. Quidam autem ex ipsis 46. But some of them went to
abierunt ad pharisaeos, et the Pharisees, and told them
dixerunt eis quae fecit Iesus. the things that Jesus had
done.
47. Collegerunt ergo 47. The chief priests
pontifices et pharisaei therefore and the Pharisees
concilium et dicebant: Quid gathered a council, and said:
facimus, quia hic homo multa What do we, for this man doth
signa facit? many miracles?
48. Si dimittimus eum sic, 48. If we let him alone so,
omnes credent in eum: et all will believe in him, and
venient Romani, et tollent the Romans will come, and take
nostrum locum, et gentem. away our place and nation.

48. They dreaded lest the Romans, fearing He should become king, should
come and destroy their temple and nation.

49. Unus autem ex ipsis 49. But one of them named
Caiphas nomine, cum esset Caiphas, being the high‐priest
pontifex anni illius, dixit that year, said to them: You
eis: Vos nescitis quidquam. know nothing.
50. Nec cogitatis quia expedit 50. Neither do you consider
vobis ut unus moriatur homo that it is expedient for you
pro populo, et non tota gens that one man should die for
pereat. the people, and that the whole
nation perish not.
51. Hoc autem a semetipso non 51. And this he spoke not of
dixit: sed cum esset pontifex himself: but being the high‐
anni illius, prophetavit quod priest of that year, he
Iesus moriturus erat pro prophesied that Jesus should
gente. die for the nation.
52. Et non tantum pro gente, 52. And not only for the
sed ut filios Dei, qui erant nation, but to gather together
dispersi, congregaret in unum. in one the children of God,
that were dispersed.

49‐52. Then Caiphas, the High‐priest for that year said: *You know
nothing*, &c. Caiphas meant that Jesus should be got rid of to save the
Jewish nation from incurring the anger of the Romans. The Holy Ghost,
however, as St. John tells us, signified through Caiphas (as an
unconscious instrument) that the death of Jesus was necessary for the
eternal salvation of the Jewish people, and of all to be called to the
faith who were scattered then or since among the Gentiles. Caiphas was
unaware of the solemn sense of the words which he enunciated; so that the
Holy Ghost speaking through a prophet may sometimes mean one thing, the
Prophet himself something quite different. It is the common opinion, too,
that even the _inspired writers_ did not always understand the meaning of
what they wrote, and in such cases the sense of Scripture is, of course,
that which was intended by the Holy Ghost.

Caiphas, whom on this occasion the Holy Ghost employed to declare the
necessity for man of the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, was the Jewish
High‐priest at the time (xi. 49, xviii. 13). His father‐in‐law, Annas, is
called High‐priest by St. Luke (Luke iii. 2; Acts iv. 6), from which some,
as Beelen, conclude, that each filled the office of High‐priest every
alternate year. For this view, however, there is no historical evidence,
and it seems more probable that Annas is called High‐priest by St. Luke,
not because he was then discharging the duties of the successor of Aaron,
but because, having been High‐priest, and unlawfully deposed (A.D. 14) by
Valerius Gratus, the Roman Governor of Judea, he was still regarded by the
Jews as the lawful High‐priest.(78)

Or it may be that, as _President of the Sanhedrim_, a position which Annas
filled, after he had been deposed from that of High‐priest, he is styled
ἀρχιερεύς by St. Luke. This latter is the view of Cornely, iii., § 76, n.
18. See Acts vii. 1; ix. 1, 2.

53. Ab illo ergo die 53. From that day therefore
cogitaverunt ut interficerent they devised to put him to
eum. death.

53. Thus the raising of Lazarus, which was the occasion of Caiphas’
suggestion, had an important influence upon the final determination of the
Jews to put Christ to death. St. John notes the growth of Jewish hostility
step by step: v. 16 ff.; vii. 32, 45 ff.; viii. 45 ff.; viii. 59; ix. 22;
x. 39.

54. Iesus ergo iam non in 54. Wherefore Jesus walked no
palam ambulabat apud Iudaeos, more openly among the Jews,
sed abiit in regionem iuxta but he went into a country
desertum, in civitatem quae near the desert, unto a city
dicitur Ephrem, et ibi that is called Ephrem, and
morabatur cum discipulis suis. there he abode with his
disciples.

54. The city of Ephrem (Gr. ἐφαίμ) is probably the same to which Josephus
refers (_Bell. Jud._, iv. 9, 9) as situated in the mountains of Judea. The
city probably occupied the site of the modern et‐Taiyibeh, about 14 miles
N.E. of Jerusalem, in the mountainous district lying between the central
towns and the Jordan. See Smith’s _B. D._

55. Proximum autem erat pascha 55. And the pasch of the Jews
Iudaeorum: et ascenderunt was at hand: and many from the
multi Ierosolymam de regione country went up to Jerusalem
ante pascha, ut sanctificarent before the pasch, to purify
seipsos. themselves.

55. This was the fourth and last Pasch of our Lord’s public life, and
during it He was put to death. *To purify themselves*; _i.e._, from any
legal uncleanness, in order that they might be able to keep the Passover.
See Numb. ix. 10; 2 Paral. xxx. 17; Acts xxi. 24‐56. In any case where
sacrifice was required in the process of purification, it was necessary to
go to Jerusalem, because there only could sacrifice be offered.

56. Quaerebant ergo Iesum: et 56. They sought therefore for
colloquebantur ad invicem, in Jesus; and they discoursed one
templo stantes: Quid putatis, with another, standing in the
quia non venit ad diem festum? temple: What think you, that
Dederant autem pontifices et he is not come to the festival
pharisaei mandatum, ut si quis day? And the chief priests and
cognoverit ubi sit, indicet, the Pharisees had given a
ut apprehendant eum. commandment, that if any man
knew where he was, he should
tell, that they might
apprehend him.

56. Whether those who sought Jesus were His friends or enemies, is
disputed. But from what follows in this verse, we believe they were His
enemies, who were looking for Him, in order to deliver Him up to the
Sanhedrim.

*What think you, that he is not come to the festival day?* We much prefer
to understand here two questions—*What think you?* Do you think *that he
will not come to the feast*? For our Rhemish translation gives ὅτι οὐ μη
ἔλθῃ a past, whereas it ought to have a future sense. Hence the Revised
Version translates with two questions.

CHAPTER XII.

1‐8. *The Supper in Bethania six days before the Pasch.*

9‐11. *The chief priests think of killing Lazarus.*

12‐19. *On the day after the supper Christ enters Jerusalem in
triumph, to the disgust of the Pharisees.*

20‐22. *Some Gentile Proselytes wish to see Him.*

23‐33. *Christ (at the temple) foretells the near approach of His
passion, and a voice from heaven is heard.*

34‐36. *He continues to refer to His approaching death, and
exhorts the people to faith.*

37‐43. *Yet though they had witnessed many miracles, most of them
refused to believe, as the prophets had foretold.*

44‐50. *Christ’s testimony regarding the object of the
Incarnation, and the necessity of faith in Him.*

1. Iesus ergo ante sex dies 1. Jesus therefore six days
paschae venit Bethaniam, ubi before the pasch came to
Lazarus fuerat mortuus, quem Bethania, where Lazarus had
suscitavit Iesus. been dead, whom Jesus raised
to life.

1. Maldonatus connects with xi. 55: since the Pasch was near, Jesus on His
way to Jerusalem to celebrate it, came to Bethania. *Six days before the
pasch.* This peculiar Greek construction would be better rendered in
Latin; “sex diebus ante pascha.” We have now entered upon the last week of
our Divine Lord’s mortal life, but there is a diversity of opinion
regarding the exact day here indicated. The principal views regarding the
days of our Lord’s arrival at Bethania, of the supper there, and of the
triumphant entry into Jerusalem, are:—

(1) Arrival at Bethania on Friday; the supper (_a_) on the same evening,
or (_b_) according to others, on Saturday evening; the triumphal entry on
Sunday.

(2) Arrival at Bethania on Saturday evening; the supper on the same
evening; the entry into Jerusalem (_a_) on Sunday, or (_b_) according to
others, on Monday.

(3) Arrival on Sunday; supper on the same evening; the entry into
Jerusalem on Monday.

2. Fecerunt autem ei coenam 2. And they made him a supper
ibi: et Martha ministrabat, there: and Martha served, but
Lazarus vero, unus erat ex Lazarus was one of them that
discumbentibus cum eo. were at table with him.

2. In Bethania then (in the house of Simon the leper, as we learn from
Matt. xxvi. 6; Mark xiv. 3) a supper was prepared for Jesus, at which
Lazarus was present and Martha served. We take it as certain that Matthew
(xxvi. 6‐13) and Mark (xiv. 3‐9) refer to the same unction of Christ which
is recorded by St. John in the following verses here. If not, we should
have to suppose that the same murmuring for the same cause in the same
circumstances took place a second time within four days, though
reprehended by Christ on the first occasion it occurred. That SS. Matthew
and Mark seem to refer to an occasion _two_ days before the Pasch (Matt.
xxvi. 2; Mark xiv. 1), while St. John refers to an occasion _six_ days
before, is readily explained. The two Synoptic Evangelists record this
anointing of Jesus by Mary out of its place, and in connection with the
treachery of Judas, because it was it that finally determined Judas to
betray our Lord.(79)

3. Maria ergo accepit libram 3. Mary therefore took a pound
unguenti nardi pistici, of ointment of right
pretiosi, et unxit pedes Iesu, spikenard, of great price, and
et extersit pedes eius anointed the feet of Jesus,
capillis suis: et domus and wiped his feet with her
impleta est ex odore unguenti. hair: and the house was filled
with the odour of the
ointment.

3. When we bear in mind the prominence given to Lazarus, Martha, and Mary
in the preceding chapter, and find two of the three mentioned in verse 2
here, it is certain that the Mary mentioned here, in verse 3, can be no
other than she who was sister to Martha and Lazarus.

*Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard.* We learn
from Matthew and Mark that the ointment was contained in an alabaster box.
Alabaster is a species of stone resembling marble, and derives its name
from Alabastron, a town in Egypt, near which it was found in large
quantities. The term “alabaster box” came in time to be applied to any box
for holding perfumes.

*Spikenard*, or nard, is a famous aromatic substance obtained from an
eastern plant of the same name. It is said in our Rhemish Version to be
*right* spikenard. The Greek adjective thus translated is πιστικῆς, which
may mean _genuine_, from πίστις; or _liquid_, from πίστος (πίνω, to
drink); or, as St. Augustine says, the nard may have been so called from
the place in which it was obtained. St. John tells us that Mary anointed
the _feet_ of our Lord, who, according to the Jewish custom, would be
reclining on His left side upon a couch, with His feet stretching out
behind. The first two Evangelists mention only the unction of our Lord’s
head, so that St. John supplements their account. The fact that the odour
of the ointment filled the house, is mentioned as a proof of its
excellence. Pliny (xiii. 3) refers to such unctions among the Romans:
“Vidimus etiam vestigia pedum tingi.”

4. Dixit ergo unus ex 4. Then one of his disciples,
discipulis eius, Iudas Judas Iscariot, he that was
Iscariotes, qui erat eum about to betray him, said:
traditurus:
5. Quare hoc unguentum non 5. Why was not this ointment
veniit trecentis denariis, et sold for three hundred pence,
datum est egenis? and given to the poor?

4, 5. From SS. Matt. and Mark, it would seem that at least two of the
disciples must have murmured, for St. Matt. says: “And the disciples
seeing it, had indignation;” and St. Mark: “Now there were some that had
indignation within themselves, and said: Why was this waste of the
ointment made?” We may admit, then, that some of the others joined Judas
in murmuring, but probably from a different motive; or, we may hold, with
some commentators, that the plural is used indefinitely for the singular.

*Judas Iscariot* (Gr. Judas Iscariot, _son of Simon_: see notes on vi. 72)
spoke out, asking why this ointment was not sold at 300 pence, and the
price given to the poor? We discussed above on vi. 7, the value of the
Roman silver penny at this time current in Palestine, from which it
appears that this box of ointment was thought to be worth nearly £10 of
our money.

6. Dixit autem hoc, non quia 6. Now he said this, not
de egenis pertinebat ad eum, because he cared for the poor;
sed quia fur erat, et loculos but because he was a thief,
habens, ea quae mittebantur and having the purse, carried
portabat. the things that were put
therein.

6. St. John here declares the motive of Judas. It was not love for the
poor, as he pretended, but because, being purse‐bearer, for our Lord and
the disciples, he was always anxious to receive money, that he might have
an opportunity of filching some of it for himself. Whether with our
Rhemish Version we give ἐβάσταζεν the meaning of “carried,” or, as others
prefer, “made away with,” at all events, it is plain from the verse, in
which Judas is declared a thief, that he sometimes appropriated to his own
uses money from the common purse. In his case, too, the saying was true:
“Nemo repente fit turpissimus.”

7. Dixit ergo Iesus: Sinite 7. Jesus therefore said: Let
illam ut in diem sepulturae her alone, that she may keep
meae servet illud. it against the day of my
burial.

7. There is a difference of reading in this verse. Many ancient
authorities read: *She has kept it* (τετήρηκεν) *against the day of my
burial*; and the meaning of this reading is plain. The more probable(80)
Greek reading, however, is: “_That she might keep it_ (ἱνα ... τηρήσῃ)
_against the day of My burial_.” In this reading we take our Lord’s reply
to mean: Let her alone: it was not sold (Judas had asked: Why was it not
sold?) in order that she might keep it against the day of My burial. Thus
we would read “servaret” instead of “servet” in the Vulgate; and we take
“ut” to depend not on “sinite,” but on some words such as “non veniit” (it
was not sold) understood. St. John’s report of Christ’s words agrees
substantially with that of St. Mark, who represents our Lord as saying:
“She is come beforehand to anoint My body for the burial” (Mark xiv. 8);
and both accounts, as well as that of St. Matt. (xxvi. 12), “She hath done
it for My burial,” signify that our Lord’s death was so close at hand that
this unction might be regarded as a preparation for His burial; and hence
Mary was not to be blamed, inasmuch as such honours were usually paid to
bodies before burial.

Immediately after their account of this unction, SS. Matt. and Mark
narrate the compact of Judas with the Jews to betray Jesus for thirty
pieces of silver; so that it is extremely probable that it was spite at
losing the price of the ointment used on this occasion that finally
determined Judas to betray our Lord.

8. Pauperes enim semper 8. For the poor you have
habetis vobiscum: me autem non always with you; but me you
semper habetis. have not always.

8. *But me you have not always.* Christ as God is, no doubt, everywhere,
even now; and even as man He is still upon our altars in the Blessed
Sacrament; but He is no longer with us in a mortal body capable of
deriving sensible pleasure and comfort from such ministrations as those of
Mary upon this occasion.

9. Cognovit ergo turba multa 9. A great multitude therefore
ex Iudaeis quia illic est: et of the Jews knew that he was
venerunt, non propter Iesum there: and they came, not for
tantum, sed ut Lazarum Jesus’ sake only, but that
viderent, quem suscitavit a they might see Lazarus, whom
mortuis. he had raised from the dead.
10. Cogitaverunt autem 10. But the chief priests
principes sacerdotum ut et thought to kill Lazarus also:
Lazarum interficerent.
11. Quia multi propter illum 11. Because many of the Jews
abibant ex Iudaeis, et by reason of him went away,
credebant in Iesum. and believed in Jesus.

9‐11. A great multitude, on learning that Christ was in Bethania, flocked
out to see the wonder‐worker, and Lazarus whom He had raised from the
dead; and so many were being converted by that miracle, that the chief
priests thought of putting Lazarus to death, that they might thus get rid
of a living and manifest proof of the almighty power of Jesus.

12. In crastinum autem turba 12. And on the next day a
multa, quae venerat ad diem great multitude, that was come
festum, cum audissent quia to the festival day, when they
venit Iesus Ierosolymam. had heard that Jesus was
coming to Jerusalem,

12. On the day after the supper, which we take to have been Sunday or
Monday, that is, the first or second day of the Jewish week, a great
multitude came to meet our Lord and escort Him into Jerusalem. Hundreds of
thousands always flocked to Jerusalem for the Pasch, and though the feast
was still some days off, a great number had already arrived. Doubtless
many of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were also among the crowd on this
occasion.

13. Acceperunt ramos palmarum, 13. Took branches of palm‐
et processerunt obviam ei, et trees, and went forth to meet
clamabant: Hosanna, benedictus him, and cried: Hosanna,
qui venit in nomine Domini, blessed is he that cometh in
rex Israel. the name of the Lord, the king
of Israel.

13. Carrying palm branches, with shouts of joy and triumph, they hailed
Jesus as the Messias, and King of Israel; in the words of the great
Paschal chant (Ps. cxvii. 26), *Hosanna* (הושׂענא, which is contracted for
הושׂיעה נא) means: _pray_, _save_, or: _save, I beseech_. It may be taken
here as a prayer to Jesus to save them, or rather as a prayer to God to
save and bless their Messias. Or it may be that it was used as an
expression of joy without attention to its literal meaning, as the
expressions “vivat,” “vive le roi,” and the like, are sometimes used at
the present day.

14. Et invenit Iesus asellum, 14. And Jesus found a young
et sedit super eum, sicut ass, and sat upon it, as it is
scriptum est: written:

14. From the Synoptic Evangelists we learn that Jesus sent His disciples
telling them where they should find the colt, and St. Matthew tells us
that they brought the colt and its mother, and spread their garments upon
both (ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν, Matt. xxi. 7). They spread their garments upon both,
because they did not know upon which He would choose to sit. And St.
Matthew adds that Jesus sat _upon them_ (ἑπάνω αὐτῶν); that is, as we take
it, upon the garments that had been spread upon the colt. In this way the
accounts of the four Evangelists are reconciled.

Another difficulty occurs here, if we compare the parallel passage of St.
Luke (xix. 29). For, whereas St. John’s account naturally leads us to
suppose that the ass’s colt was procured on the way _between_ Bethania,
where Christ had supped on the preceding night (xii. 1, 2) and Jerusalem,
St. Luke, on the other hand, says: “And it came to pass _when He was come
nigh to Bethphage and Bethania_, unto the mount called Olivet, He sent two
of His disciples, saying, Go into the town which is over against you, at
your entering into which you shall find the colt of an ass tied,” &c. We
have searched in vain for a satisfactory solution of this difficulty. If
the words of St. Luke are to be taken strictly as meaning that Christ was
not merely near to, but _approaching_ Bethania, then we would hold that on
this morning, before the procession started, He had retired from Bethania
eastward, and therefore farther away from Jerusalem, and was now again
approaching the village on His way to the Holy City. There is nothing
improbable in this supposition, for Christ did many things which the
Evangelists have not recorded (John xxi. 25), and it enables us to
reconcile two accounts, which are not easily reconciled otherwise.

15. Noli timere filia Sion: 15. _Fear not, daughter of
ecce rex tuus venit sedens Sion: behold, thy king cometh,
super pullum asinae. sitting on an ass’s colt._

15. St. Matthew (xxi. 4) says that these things were done that prophecy
might be fulfilled; that is, they were brought about by God, not by the
disciples, who, as St. John tells us in the next verse, were ignorant that
they were fulfilling a prophecy. The whole quotation here is substantially
from Zach. ix. 9: “Rejoice greatly (‘fear not,’ of St. John) O daughter of
Sion; shout for joy, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold thy King will come to
thee, the Just and Saviour: He is poor and riding upon an ass, and (even)
upon a colt the foal of an ass.”

16. Haec non cognoverunt 16. These things his disciples
discipuli eius primum: sed did not know at the first: but
quando glorificatus est Iesus, when Jesus was glorified, then
tunc recordati sunt quia haec they remembered that these
erant scripta de eo, et haec things were written of him,
fecerunt ei. and that they had done these
things to him.

16. The disciples did not know at that time that prophecy was being
fulfilled; but when the light of the Holy Ghost had flooded their souls at
the first Pentecost (Acts ii. 4), then they recognised in these things the
fulfilment of prophecy.

17. Testimonium ergo 17. The multitude therefore
perhibebat turba quae erat cum gave testimony, which was with
eo quando Lazarum vocavit de him when he called Lazarus out
monumento, et suscitavit eum a of the grave, and raised him
mortuis. from the dead.

17. *When he called Lazarus out of the grave.* It is doubtful, and
authorities are much divided, whether the true reading here is _when_
(ὅτε), or _that_ (ὅτι). In the former reading, eye‐witnesses of the
miracle now bore testimony of it; in the latter, the crowd that was now
with Him having heard and believed that the miracle had been wrought, now
bore witness _that_ Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead.

18. Propterea et obviam venit 18. For which reason also the
ei turba, quia audierunt eum people came to meet him:
fecisse hoc signum. because they heard that he had
done this miracle.

18. It was on account of this miracle too that the crowd had come out to
meet Him. We take “the multitude” in this verse to be the same as that
referred to in the preceding (ὁ ὄχλος); and what St. John tells us is,
that their coming out to meet Him, and their testimony regarding Him, both
proceeded from the fact that He had raised Lazarus from the dead.

19. Pharisaei ergo dixerunt ad 19. The Pharisees therefore
semetipsos: Videtis quia nihil said among themselves: Do you
proficimus? ecce mundus totus see that we prevail nothing?
post eum abiit. behold, the whole world is
gone after him.

19. The jealousy of the Pharisees is at once aroused, and, as often
happens in such circumstances, they exaggerate, saying that the whole
world had gone after Him.

Our Lord moved on towards Jerusalem, riding upon the ass,(81) between two
enthusiastic crowds (see Matt. xxi. 9; Mark xi. 9). As He approached the
city, and shouts of joy and thanksgiving rose from the crowds which
preceded and followed, some Pharisees, as we learn from St. Luke, bade
Jesus rebuke His disciples for the words of homage they were using. To
whom He replied: “I say to you, if these shall hold their peace, the
stones will cry out” (Luke xix. 40). Then when He had mounted the summit
of Olivet, and the city and temple burst upon His view, He wept, and “went
on to prophesy the destruction of the city with a particularity of detail,
to the exactness of which the subsequent history bears wonderful
testimony.” (Coleridge, _Life of our Life_, vol. ii., p. 187). See Luke
xix. 41‐44.

When the procession entered Jerusalem, the “whole city was moved, saying,
Who is this?” And the people said, “This is Jesus the Prophet from
Nazareth of Galilee” (Matt. xxi. 10, 11). As we learn from St. Mark, Jesus
went up to the temple, and there the events occurred which St. John
records down to verse 36.

20. Erant autem quidam 20. Now there were certain
gentiles, ex his qui gentiles among them who came
ascenderant ut adorarent in up to adore on the festival
die festo. day.
21. Hi ergo accesserunt ad 21. These therefore came to
Philippum, qui erat a Philip, who was of Bethsaida
Bethsaida Galilaeae, et of Galilee, and desired him,
rogabant eum, dicentes: Domine saying: Sir, we would see
volumus Iesum videre. Jesus.
22. Venit Philippus, et dicit 22. Philip cometh and telleth
Andreae: Andreas rursum et Andrew. Again Andrew and
Philippus dixerunt Iesu. Philip told Jesus.

20‐22. Some Gentiles, who were probably proselytes, had come to Jerusalem
for the Pasch, and they ask Philip that they may see, that is, speak with
Jesus. Philip consults his fellow‐townsman, Andrew (John i. 44), and they
both make known the request to Jesus. Our Lord was probably in the Court
of the Jews, into which the Gentiles could not enter, so that their
request meant that Jesus should come out into the Court of the Gentiles.
See above on ii. 14.

23. Iesus autem respondit eis, 23. But Jesus answered them
dicens: Venit hora, ut saying: The hour is come, that
clarificetur Filius hominis. the son of man should be
glorified.

23. The Evangelist does not tell us whether Jesus granted an audience to
these Gentiles, but goes on to record His reply to the disciples: *The
hour is come that the son of man should be glorified*: _i.e._, the hour of
His death to be followed by His glorious resurrection and ascension by the
descent of the Holy Ghost, and the call of the Gentiles.

24. Amen, amen dico vobis, 24. Amen, amen, I say to you,
nisi granum frumenti cadens in unless the grain of wheat
terram, mortuum fuerit, falling into the ground die;
25. Ipsum solum manet: si 25. Itself remaineth alone.
autem mortuum fuerit, multum But if it die, it bringeth
fructum affert. Qui amat forth much fruit. He that
animam suam, perdet eam: et loveth his life shall lose it:
qui odit animam suam in hoc and he that hateth his life in
mundo, in vitam aeternam this world, keepeth it unto
custodit eam. life eternal.

24, 25. In a beautiful comparison our Lord points out that as the grain of
wheat dies in order that it may fructify, so in the providence of God His
death is necessary to His triumph and His glory. And applying this
doctrine to His disciples, He points out that whoever loveth his life
inordinately here, shall lose it for eternity, and he that hateth (a
Hebraism for _loveth less_) his life in this world, keepeth it unto life
eternal.

26. Si quis mihi ministrat, me 26. If any man minister to me,
sequatur: et ubi sum ego, let him follow me: and where I
illic et minister meus erit. am, there also shall my
Si quis mihi ministraverit, minister be. If any man
honorificabit eum Pater meus. minister to me, him will my
Father honour.

26. *If any man minister to me, let him follow me.* This exhortation to
follow Christ in despising this life for God’s sake, is addressed to all
His followers, who are to minister to Him by the service of devout lives;
but it is applicable in a special way to Priests, for to them belongs the
privilege of the special ministry. To such as imitate Him He gives the
glorious promise, that where He is, that is, in the glory of the Father,
which as God He then enjoyed, and which as man He was to merit by His
passion, there also shall His followers be.

27. Nunc anima mea turbata 27. Now is my soul troubled.
est. Et quid dicam? Pater, And what shall I say? Father,
salvifica me ex hac hora. Sed save me from this hour. But
propterea veni in horem hanc. for this cause I came unto
this hour.

27. The thought of His approaching Passion now disturbed His human soul,
for as He was true man, His humanity naturally shuddered at the suffering
and death He was about to undergo. Compare Matt. xxvi. 38; Mark xiv. 34.
Christ, of course, permitted this fear to seize upon Him, so that it was
wholly voluntary; and He manifested it at this particular time, probably
lest His disciples should be tempted to say that it was easy for Him who
was God to exhort others to despise their life and endure suffering. He
shows them, therefore, that He dreads death like the rest of men; and St.
John records the fact because of the Docetae, who denied the reality of
the Incarnation, and consequently of Christ’s sufferings. See above on i.
14, and Introd. IX.

*Father save me from this hour.* Some read this with a note of
interrogation after it, as if the meaning were: Shall I say to the Father
to save Me from this hour? But we may understand the words as a
conditional prayer proceeding from Christ’s human will; conditional, that
is, upon his Father’s will to save Him from the Passion which He was to
undergo, just as in St. Luke xxii. 42: “Father, if Thou wilt, remove this
chalice from Me; but not My will, but Thine be done.” That such, indeed,
is the meaning here, is proved by what follows, where Jesus retracts this
conditional prayer, saying that it was for the very purpose that He might
suffer, that He came unto this hour.

28. Pater, clarifica nomen 28. Father, glorify thy name.
tuum. Venit ergo vox de coelo: A voice therefore came from
Et clarificavi, et iterum heaven: I have both glorified
clarificabo. it, and will glorify it again.

28. In this verse, then, He prays absolutely to the Father to glorify His
name by the sufferings and death of the Son. And a voice came from the
air, produced there by God or an angel, saying: *I have both glorified
(it), and will glorify (it) again*. The sense of these words of the Father
is disputed. The Latin fathers understand the sense to be; I have
glorified Thee from all eternity, and will glorify Thee again as God‐man
after Thy ascension. In favour of this view is the prayer of Christ: “And
now glorify Thou Me, O Father, with Thyself, with the glory which I had
before the world was, with Thee” (John xvii. 5). The Greek fathers, on the
other hand, all take the sense to be: I have already glorified Thee by
many miracles, and will again glorify Thee in the miracles to be wrought
at Thy death, resurrection, and ascension, and afterwards by Thy followers
in Thy name. It will be noted that the fathers generally understand the
words of God the Father in reference to the glorification of Christ,
whereas Christ’s prayer regarded the glorification of the Father’s name.
We feel convinced, however, that the _direct_ object of glorification in
both instances is the Father’s name. For when Christ prays: “Glorify Thy
name,” and the Father answers: “I have glorified, and will again glorify,”
obviously the answer must refer to the glorification of the Father’s name,
for which Christ had prayed. Since, however, the glorification of the
Father was to be brought about by the glorification of the Son; hence,
this too is indirectly referred to, and our interpretation agrees
substantially with that of the fathers.

29. Turba ergo quae stabat et 29. The multitude therefore
audierat, dicebat tonitruum that stood and heard, said
esse factum. Alii dicebant: that it thundered. Others
Angelus ei locutus est. said, An Angel spoke to him.
30. Respondit Iesus, et dixit: 30. Jesus answered and said:
Non propter me haec vox venit, This voice came not because of
sed propter vos. me, but for your sakes.

30. Jesus declares that the voice from heaven was the Father’s testimony
to Him, given for their sakes, in order that they might believe in Him.

31. Nunc iudicium est mundi: 31. Now is the judgment of the
nunc princeps huius mundi world: now shall the prince of
eiicietur foras. this world be cast out.

31. *Now is the judgment of the world.* There is a difference of opinion
as to what judgment is here spoken of; whether the judgment of liberation
of the world in general, or the judgment of condemnation of the _wicked_
world. In favour of the former, it is argued—(_a_) that since Satan was to
be cast out, or deprived of his dominion over the world, therefore the
world was to be liberated; (_b_) that verse 32 declares the effect of this
judgment: the world shall be liberated, and as a consequence I shall draw
all things to Myself; (_c_) that the world to be judged is that over which
Satan had ruled, and from which he was now to be cast out. But before the
Incarnation he had held sway over the whole world (Rom. iii. 23, xi. 32;
Gal. iii. 22). Therefore, it is the whole world that is to be judged, and
hence there must be question of the judgment of liberation. So St. Aug.,
Mald., A Lap., Tolet., Beel., Patriz.

In favour of the latter view, which is held by St. Chrysostom and most of
the Greek fathers, it is argued—(_a_) that St. John always uses κρίσις of
the judgment of condemnation; (_b_) that the world in the beginning of the
verse is the same whose prince is to be deprived of his dominion; that,
therefore, it should stand or fall with its prince; hence since he is to
be stripped of his dominion, it is to be condemned; (_c_) that in the
discourse after the Last Supper, Christ always means by the world, the
_wicked_ world, opposed to Himself (John xiv. 17, 22, 30; xv. 18, 19;
xviii. 9, 16, 25); therefore, also here, and hence there must be question
of the judgment of condemnation. *The prince of this world* is plainly the
devil. See also 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12. In the Talmud the same
title is given to the prince of devils. By Christ’s death the devil was
cast out: that is, deprived of that almost universal sway which he had
exercised over men before the coming of Christ. “At nondum diabolus e
mundo ejectus videtur esse, cum in eo adhuc grassetur. Ejectus foras
dicitur non quod nunc in mundo non sit, et in multis etiamnum dominetur;
sed quod, quantum in Christo fuit, ejectus fuerit, ita ut, si homines
vellent, nihil prorsus in ipsos haberet potestatis. Homines illi postea
portam arcis aperuerunt, et proditione quadam in suam quisque domum
admittit. Itaque etiam nunc regnat et operatur, sed in filios
diffidentiae, Eph. ii. 2” (Mald. on this verse).

32. Et ego si exaltatus fuero 32. And I, if I be lifted up
a terra, omnia traham ad from the earth, will draw all
meipsum: things to myself.

32. *And I, if I be lifted up from the earth.* Christ here predicted that
after His death on the cross (see next verse) He should become a centre of
attraction, and draw all men (πάντας is the more probable reading, not
πάντα), both Jews and _Gentiles_ to Himself. This marvellous prophecy
began to be fulfilled in the centurion and his companions (Matt. xxvii.
54), and the rest of the multitude that witnessed the crucifixion (Luke
xxiii. 48), and is daily receiving its fulfilment still.

33. Hoc autem dicebat, 33. (Now this he said,
significans qua morte esset signifying what death he
moriturus. should die.)

33. St. John here gives us an authentic interpretation.

34. Respondit ei turba: Nos 34. The multitude answered
audivimus ex lege quia him: We have heard out of the
Christus manet in aeternum; et law, that Christ abideth for
quomodo tu dicis, Oportet ever; and how sayest thou: The
exaltari Filium hominis? Quis son of man must be lifted up?
est iste Filius hominis? Who is this son of man?

34. The multitude understood Jesus to speak of His death, or at least of
His withdrawal from them, and object that He cannot be the Messias, who,
as they understood the Scriptures (the law is here put for the whole
Scriptures), was to remain for ever. They quote no single text, but
probably they had gathered this idea from many passages; _e.g._, Isai. ix.
6, 7; Ps. cix. 4; Dan. vii. 13, 14, &c. It is not unlikely that they had
the passage of Daniel specially before their minds, for there the power of
the _Son of Man_ is described as “an everlasting power that shall not be
taken away, and His kingdom (a kingdom) that shall not be destroyed.”
Hence, they argued, if Christ was to die, He could not be the Messias, but
must be some other _Son of Man_ than he spoken of by Daniel.

35. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: 35. Jesus therefore said to
Adhuc modicum, lumen in vobis them: Yet a little while, the
est. Ambulate dum lucem light is among you. Walk
habetis, ut non vos tenebrae whilst you have the light,
comprehendant: et qui ambulat that the darkness overtake you
in tenebris, nescit quo vadat. not. And he that walketh in
darkness knoweth not whither
he goeth.

35. Christ might have easily replied, showing them from the same
Scriptures that the Messias was to suffer and die (see, _e.g._, Isai.
liii.; Dan. ix. 26); but probably because He saw that the motive of the
multitude in objecting was not to seek light, but to disprove His claim to
be the Messias, He did not vouchsafe a reply to their objection, but went
on to exhort them to believe, for thus they should find a solution of all
their difficulties.

*Yet a little while*; _i.e._, a few days more, the light, which is
Himself, is to be among them. He exhorts them, therefore, to walk, that
is, to believe, while He is present among them, in order that darkness,
that is, the time when He is gone from among them, may not find them still
in their unbelief.

*And* (καί = γάρ) *he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he
goeth*. Christ does not mean to say that they could not believe after His
death; but just as, though it is quite possible to walk during the time of
darkness, still it is easier to walk in daylight, so it was easier for
them to believe now, when He, the Sun of Justice was corporally present
among them, than it would be when He had withdrawn His light. We take,
“darkness,” then, with Mald., not of sin, nor of unbelief, but, as opposed
to the light which is Christ, of the time when Christ could be no longer
present among them, after His death, as in verse ix. 4; xi. 9, 10.

36. Dum lucem habetis, credite 36. Whilst you have the light,
in lucem, ut filii lucis believe in the light, that you
sitis. Haec locutus est Iesus: may be the children of light.
et abiit, et abscondit se ab These things Jesus spoke, and
eis. he went away, and hid himself
from them.

36. He now explains what He means by telling them to walk. It is that they
should believe. *That you may be* (become) *the children of light*. The
phrase “children of light” is a Hebraism, meaning those who are to possess
the light, who are destined for it. Compare Luke xvi. 8; Eph. v. 8.

*And he went away, and hid himself from them.* SS. Matt. and Mark tell us
that He went to Bethania with the twelve and remained there (Matt. xxi.
17; Mark xi. 11).

37. Cum autem tanta signa 37. And whereas he had done so
fecisset coram eis, non many miracles before them,
credebant in eum: they believed not in him.
38. Ut sermo Isaiae prophetae 38. That the saying of Isaias
impleretur, quem dixit: the prophet might be
Domine, quis credidit auditui fulfilled, which he said:
nostro? et brachium Domini cui _Lord, who hath believed our
revelatum est? hearing? and to whom hath the
arm of the Lord been
revealed?_
39. Propterea non poterant 39. Therefore they could not
credere, quia iterum dixit believe, because Isaias said
Isaias: again.
40. Excaecavit oculos eorum, 40. _He hath blinded their
et induravit cor eorum: ut non eyes, and hardened their
videant oculis, et non heart, that they should not
intelligant corde, et see with their eyes, nor
convertantur, et sanem eos. understand with their heart,
and be converted, and I should
heal them._

37‐40. Before closing this first part of the _narrative_ portion of the
Gospel (see Introd. iv.), St. John pauses in the history to note the hard‐
hearted incredulity of the Jews, notwithstanding the fact that Christ had
wrought _so many_ miracles; an incredulity, however, which had been
foretold by Isaias, which, therefore, came to pass now _in order that_
(ἱνα) the prediction of the Prophet should be fulfilled (verses 37, 38);
and which came to pass necessarily (_necessitate consequente_), because,
as Isaias declared, they no longer had the abundant graces necessary in
order that they might believe (verses 39, 40). Thus the incredulity of the
Jews in our Lord’s time was _necessary_ to the end that prophecy might be
fulfilled. How then, we may ask, was that incredulity culpable, if those
who were incredulous were not free and able to believe? The answer is,
that this incredulity was necessary by a necessity consequent upon the
prediction of the inspired Prophet, which prediction was itself consequent
upon God’s foreknowledge that the Jews would, culpably and of their own
free will, remain incredulous. God foresaw this incredulity, predicted it,
because He foresaw it was to be; and, of course, it came to pass, as He
had foreseen it would. Hence, when God foresees, or His Prophet predicts,
the commission of a certain sin, that sin is infallibly, yet freely
committed. It is, as if we saw a man walking across a plain; he does so,
not because we see him, but we see him because he walks. Similarly, in the
boundless plain of His eternal present, God sees all things that are to
be, and they happen, not because He sees them, but He sees them because
they are to happen.

Note, in verse 38, that *our hearing* means what has been heard _from_ us,
for the preachers of the Gospel are represented in Isaias as complaining
of the small number of those who listened to them. *The arm of the Lord*
is Christ, according to several of the fathers; or we may take it to mean
the power of the Lord in the work of man’s redemption.

Note, in verse 40, where the prophecy is cited freely, after neither the
Hebrew nor the Septuagint, that it is not meant that God blinded any man
_positively_, but only negatively, by the withdrawal of His more abundant
graces.

41. Haec dixit Isaias, quando 41. These things said Isaias
vidit gloriam eius, et locutus when he saw his glory, and
est de eo. spoke of him.

41. See Isaias vi. 1, 9, 10, where the Prophet says: “I saw the Lord”
(אדני = the Supreme God), words which are here referred by St. John to the
Prophet’s having seen Christ; therefore, according to St. John, Christ is
the Supreme God.

It would also seem from this verse that the Son of God Himself, and not
merely an angel representing Him, appeared to Isaias on that occasion. It
was the common opinion of the fathers, though denied by most of the
scholastics, that God sometimes appeared in the O. T. apparitions.

*And spoke of him*, rather, “and he spoke of Him,” for this clause does
not depend upon the preceding “when.” It is a statement that it was of
Christ Isaias spoke the words just quoted.

42. Verumtamen et ex 42. However many of the chief
principibus multi crediderunt men also believed in him: but
in eum: sed propter pharisaeos because of the Pharisees they
non confitebantur, ut e did not confess _him_, that
synagoga non eiicerentur: they might not be cast out of
the synagogue.

42. See above on ix. 22.

43. Dilexerunt enim gloriam 43. For they loved the glory
hominum magis quam gloriam of men, more than the glory of
Dei. God.
44. Iesus autem clamavit, et 44. But Jesus cried, and said:
dixit: Qui credit in me, non He that believeth in me, doth
credit in me sed in eum qui not believe in me, but in him
misit me. that sent me.

44. These words of our Lord recorded in the remainder of this chapter seem
to have been spoken on a subsequent day of Holy Week (see verse 36); but
on what precise day, it is difficult to determine. *Doth not believe in
me* is the Hebrew way of saying: doth not _so much_ believe in Me, as in
Him that sent Me. Compare Mark ix. 36.

45. Et qui videt me, videt eum 45. And he that seeth me,
qui misit me. seeth him that sent me.

45. In these words Christ declares His unity of nature with the Father.
“Sensus est de visione corporali, non quod Deus oculo corporeo videatur
immediate, et per se, sed mediante humanitate, cui Divina substantia
Patris et Filii est unita” (Tolet.).

46. Ego lux in mundum veni: ut 46. I am come a light into the
omnis qui credit in me, in world; that whosoever
tenebris non maneat. believeth in me, may not
remain in darkness.

46. *Darkness* here means unbelief and sin.

47. Et si quis audierit verba 47. And if any man hear my
mea, et non custodierit, ego words and keep them not: I do
non iudico eum, non enim veni not judge him: for I came not
ut iudicem mundum, sed ut to judge the world, but to
salvificem mundum. save the world.

47. *I do not judge him*; _i.e._, I do not _condemn_ him. Compare iii. 17;
viii. 15, 50. At his _first_ coming Christ did not come to condemn, but to
save.

48. Qui spernit me, et non 48. He that despiseth me, and
accipit verba mea, habet qui receiveth not my words, hath
iudicet eum: sermo quem one that judgeth him: the word
locutus sum, ille iudicabit that I have spoken, the same
eum in novissimo die. shall judge him in the last
day.

48. *Hath one that judgeth him*; namely, the Father (viii. 50). Hence the
sense of the verse is that he that despiseth Me ... hath one that judgeth
him _even now_; and moreover, on the last day My words shall rise in
judgment against him.

49. Quia ego ex meipso non sum 49. For I have not spoken of
locutus, sed qui misit me myself, but the Father who
Pater, ipse mihi mandatum sent me, he gave me
dedit quid dicam, et quid commandment what I should say,
loquar. and what I should speak.

49. This verse gives the reason why the words of Christ shall stand in
judgment against the unbeliever; because His words were not merely His
own, uttered by His private authority, but spoken by the command of His
Father, whom therefore they despise, in despising Him. In our view Christ
here speaks of Himself as man.

If *say* and *speak* are to be distinguished, then “say” (εἴπω) refers to
the formal discourses, “speak” (λαλήσω) to the ordinary conversations; so
that in all His words Christ had spoken to them the words of God.

50. Et scio quia mandatum eius 50. And I know that his
vita aeterna est. Quae ergo commandment is life
ego loquor, sicut dixit mihi everlasting. The things
Pater, sic loquor. therefore that I speak; even
as the Father said unto me, so
do I speak.

50. To show them their folly, and in the hope of yet inducing them to
believe, He tells them He knows with certainty that the command of the
Father (that is, what the Father had commanded Him to say and do, and
hence, all His own words and works) is the cause of life eternal to
mankind. Hence their folly in not believing.

*The things therefore that I speak; even as the Father said unto me, so do
I speak.* Thus He concludes, insisting on the fact that He is the legate
of God (consubstantial with the Father, verse 45), and as such worthy to
be believed.

CHAPTER XIII.

1‐20. *On the night before (according to the Jewish method of
reckoning their days, on the first night of) the great festal week
of the Pasch, Jesus celebrates the Paschal Supper with His
disciples in Jerusalem, washes their feet, exhorts them to imitate
His example of humility and charity, and hints at the sin of
Judas.*

21‐30. *He reveals the traitor, who then leaves the supper‐room.*

31‐39. *He foretells the near approach of His own death and
glorification; gives the new commandment of Christian charity, and
predicts the triple denial by Peter.*

With this chapter the second part of the narrative of our Gospel
commences. See Introd. IV.

St. John now passes on to the history of the events of the night before
our Lord’s death, omitting a number of incidents of Holy Week, which had
been already recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists. Thus, he does not
mention the weeping over Jerusalem (Luke xix. 39‐44); the cursing of the
barren fig‐tree (Matt. xxi. 18, 19, Mark xi. 12‐14); or the cleansing of
the temple (Matt. xxi. 12, 14; Mark xi. 15; Luke xix. 45, 46). There can
be little doubt that it was his intention to supplement the Synoptic
Gospels, for not only does he omit many things that they record, but he
records very much that they omit.

1. Ante diem festum paschae, 1. Before the festival day of
sciens Iesus quia venit hora the pasch, Jesus knowing that
eius ut transeat ex hoc mundo his hour was come, that he
ad Patrem: cum dilexisset suos should pass out of this world
qui erant in mundo, in finem to the Father: having loved
dilexit eos. his own who were in the world,
he loved them unto the end.

1. *Before the festival day of the pasch.* We are here met by a serious
difficulty when we compare with these words of St. John the accounts of
the Synoptic Evangelists; for, while they represent the supper, referred
to by St. John in verse 2, as having taken place on the evening of the
first day of Azymes, St. John here seems to place it prior to that Feast.
If we had only the Synoptic Gospels, we should, without any hesitation,
come to the conclusion—(_a_) that our Lord and His Apostles ate the
Paschal Supper on the night before He died; and (_b_) that the Jews that
year eat it on the same night. For St. Matthew tells us: “And on the first
day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou
that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch? But Jesus said: Go ye into the
city to a certain man, and say to him: The Master saith, my time is near
at hand; with thee I make the pasch with my disciples. And the disciples
did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch. But when it
was evening he sat down with his twelve disciples” (Matt. xxvi. 17‐20).
Similarly, St. Mark (xiv. 12‐17) and St. Luke (xxii. 7‐14) seem to take
for granted that the ordinary time for celebrating the Paschal Supper was
come, for St. Mark says: “Now on the first day of the unleavened bread,
_when they sacrificed the pasch_, the disciples say to him,” &c.; and St.
Luke: “And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which _it was
necessary_ that the pasch should be killed.” St. John, on the other hand,
in the verse before us, in which he introduces his account of the events
of this last night of Christ’s mortal life, speaks of the time as;
“_Before_ the festival day of the pasch.” Moreover, in subsequent
passages(82) of our Gospel, to which we shall direct attention as they
occur, St. John uses language which, at first sight, at least, would seem
to show that the Jews did not eat the Pasch on the night of Christ’s last
supper, but on the following night, after He was crucified. Hence the
difficulty of reconciling St. John’s account with that of the Synoptic
Evangelists. A vast amount of learning has been expended upon this
question, and a great deal has been written upon it. We shall indicate as
briefly as possible the different opinions, and state what seems to us
most probable.

(1) Some, as St. Clement of Alexandria, Calmet, &c., have held that our
Lord did not eat the Pasch at all in the last year of His life. They argue
from texts in St. John, which prove, they say, that the time for eating
the Pasch had not come until after Christ was put to death. They take the
“first day of the Azymes,” in the Synoptic Gospels, to mean the 13th day
of Nisan; and hold that it, and not the 14th, was so called because the
Jews removed all leaven from their houses a day before the Feast. In this
view they have no difficulty in reconciling St. John’s account with that
of the other Evangelists; for the Synoptic Evangelists are then made to
represent the Last Supper as having taken place on the 13th of Nisan. That
being so, it is at once concluded that there cannot be question of the
Paschal Supper, but of an ordinary supper, and St. John, in agreement with
the Synoptists, states that the supper in question was held “before the
festival day of the pasch.”

This opinion, however, we regard as wholly improbable and untenable in the
face of the statements of the Synoptic Evangelists, for these statements
are such as to leave no reasonable doubt that our Lord and His Apostles
did eat the Paschal Supper the night before He died. Thus, they tell us
that the disciples were sent by our Lord to prepare the Pasch, that they
prepared it, and that when the time for eating it was come, Christ sat
down with the Twelve.(83) Moreover, St. Luke tells us that after they sat
down, Christ said: “With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you
before I suffer” (Luke xxii. 15)—words which clearly imply that on the
occasion of that last supper the Pasch was eaten by Christ and the
Apostles. Hence the opinion we are now considering, which would reconcile
the Evangelists by holding that our Lord, on the night before He died, did
not partake of the Paschal Supper, but only of an ordinary supper, is, as
we have already said, wholly improbable; and, indeed, the book of a
certain Florentine named Vecchietti, published at the close of the
sixteenth century, and maintaining this view, was condemned by the Holy
Office and its author imprisoned.(84)

(2) Others, especially among the Greeks, admit that our Lord did eat the
Paschal Supper on this occasion, but hold that He did so on the night
following the 13th of Nisan, thus anticipating by a day the ordinary time
for celebrating it.

But this view, too, seems to us very improbable; for the language of the
Synoptic Evangelists appears to us to prove conclusively that our Lord did
not anticipate the legal time for eating the Pasch, which, as we know from
Exod. xii. 6, 8, and from tradition, was the night following the 14th of
Nisan. Thus St. Mark, in the passage already quoted, says: “Now, on the
first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed (ἔθυον, the
Imperf. denoting what was _customary_) the pasch, the disciples say to
Him: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?”
(Mark xiv. 12). And St. Luke: “And the day of the unleavened bread came,
on which it was _necessary_ (ἔδει) that the pasch should be killed” (Luke
xxii. 7). These texts, we believe, prove that our Lord celebrated His last
supper on the night following the 14th of Nisan, the night on which the
Jews were bound by their Law to eat the Pasch. Hence we unhesitatingly
reject any view which supposes Him to have anticipated the legal time for
the Paschal Supper.

(3) Others, as Harduin, Bisping, &c., hold that the 13th of Nisan with the
Judeans was the 14th with the Galileans, who therefore kept the Pasch a
day earlier than the Judeans; and that our Lord, being a Galilean, did the
same. This opinion, too, would enable us to readily reconcile the
Evangelists; but unfortunately the assumption as to a difference of
computation between the Judeans and Galileans is a mere conjecture, and
has no evidence to support it.

(4) Others, as Petav., Mald., Kuin., Coleridge,(85) Cornely, &c., hold
that our Lord and the Apostles eat the Paschal Supper on the night of the
14th of Nisan, while the Jews that year eat it on the night of the 15th.
Maldonatus holds that it was customary with the Jews from the time of the
Babylonian captivity, whenever the first day of the Pasch fell on a
Friday, to transfer it to Saturday, in order that two solemn feasts might
not occur on successive days. According to this view, our Lord
corresponded with the requirements of the Jewish Law; the Jews, on the
other hand, followed the custom which had been introduced after the
Babylonian captivity. In this view, too, it is easy to reconcile St.
John’s statement with those of the other Evangelists. He speaks of the
night of the Last Supper, in reference to the feast as celebrated that
year by the Judeans, and so places it _before_ the feast; they, on the
other hand, speak of it in reference to the strict Law, and place it on
the first day of Azymes, or rather on the night following the first day of
Azymes.(86)

The great names of many who have held this opinion, lend to it
considerable probability, and if the custom which is alleged in its favour
were proved to have existed in the time of Christ, we would at once adopt
it. But it is seriously disputed whether such a custom did exist at that
time. It is true, indeed, that among the modern Jews, when the Paschal
feast should begin on Friday, they always defer it till the Sabbath; and
the Talmud is referred to by Comely (vol. iii., § 73, 1) as saying that
the same has been the Jewish practice ever since the Babylonian captivity.
Others, however, contend that the custom is not as old as the time of
Christ, and that in His time the first day of the Pasch was kept on a
Friday whenever it happened to fall on that day. Aben‐Ezra (on Levit.
xxiii. 4) says: “Tam ex Mischna quam ex Talmude probatur Pascha in
secundam, quartam, et _sextam_ feriam quandoque incidisse.” Since, then,
the hypothesis on which this opinion rests seems doubtful, the opinion
itself appears to us less satisfactory than that which follows.

(5) Lastly, there is the old, and always the most common opinion, that our
Lord did eat the Pasch at His last supper; that He eat it on the night of
the 14th of Nisan; and that the Jews eat it on that same night. So St.
Jer., St. Aug., St. Anselm, Suarez, Tolet., A Lap., Benedict XIV.,
Patriz., M’Carthy, Corluy, Didon. This opinion is certainly in accordance
with the obvious meaning of the Synoptic Evangelists; and the objections
against it, which are chiefly drawn from the Gospel of St. John,(87) can
all be answered satisfactorily, as we shall show when discussing the
passages on which they are founded.

We hold, then, that Christ and the Jews eat the Pasch on the night
following the 14th of Nisan, when, according to the Jewish method of
counting their days, the 15th had already commenced; and that Christ was
put to death on the 15th, the first and most solemn day of the Paschal
week.

And now, returning to the text of St. John, we are confronted at the very
commencement of this chapter by an objection to our view, in the words:
“Before the festival day of the pasch.” If Christ celebrated the Last
Supper on the night after the 14th of Nisan, how does St. John speak of
the time of this supper as “before the festival day of the pasch”? To this
difficulty various answers have been given. (1) Some have replied that St.
John means by “day” the natural day, or time of light; and then it is
plain that a supper celebrated on the night following the 14th was before
the festival _day_ of the 15th. This explanation is unsatisfactory, for in
the original St. John does not merely say “Before the festal day,” but
“Before the festal period” (πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς; comp., _e.g._, vii. 2, 14,
37).

(2) Others say that the words πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς are equivalent to ἐν τῷ
προεορτίῳ; “quod ita praecedit festum, ut tamen sit pars festi” are the
words of Bochart, with whom Stier agrees. See Smith’s _B. D._, Art.
“Passover.”

(3) Others prefer to believe that as St. John wrote sixty years after the
Last Supper, after he had spent many years in Asia Minor, and become
accustomed to Greek habits of thought and expression, he speaks according
to the Greek method of reckoning the day. The Greeks, like ourselves,
reckoned their days from midnight to midnight; and St. John, speaking of
the supper as taking place before the midnight that followed the 14th of
Nisan, might well refer it to a time previous to the festival.(88)

*Jesus, knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this
world to the Father.* As God, Jesus knew from all eternity the hour of His
death; as man, he knew it from the first moment of the Incarnation.
Knowing, then, that He was about to pass out of this vale of sorrow and
misery, and by His death, resurrection, and ascension, go to share in the
glory of the Father, having throughout His life loved His Apostles (His
own), whom He was now leaving behind Him to struggle with the world, so He
now chose to manifest towards them His love _in an extraordinary manner_.
Εἰς τέλος which in our Rhemish Version is translated “unto the end,” we
understand, with the Greek fathers, who ought to be the best judges of the
meaning of the phrase, as equivalent to _excessively_, or _in a surpassing
manner_. This excessive love Jesus manifested on this last night, as well
in the washing of the Apostles’ feet as in the institution of the Blessed
Eucharist, the elevation of the Apostles to the dignity of the priesthood,
and the loving discourse which followed this supper.

2. Et coena facta, cum 2. And when supper was done
diabolus iam misisset in cor (the devil having now put into
ut traderet eum Iudas Simonis the heart of Judas Iscariot,
Iscariotae: the son of Simon, to betray
him),

2. *And when supper was done.* We have taken for granted that the supper
here mentioned by St. John is identical with the last supper referred to
by the Synoptic Evangelists, for there is no room for reasonable doubt as
to their identity. On both occasions the traitor is revealed, and the
denial by Peter foretold, and on both the supper is followed by the
departure to the Garden of Olives.(89)

“There are good grounds for questioning the correctness of the Greek
reading, which in the Vulgate is translated ‘coena facta’; for the
_present_ participle (γινομένου) and not the past (γενομένου) is found in
many MSS. of the highest authority. Finally, it is obvious that,
considering the special signification of the Greek verb employed (γίνομαι
_to be, to come into being_), even the _past_ participle by no means
implies that the supper was then over, but merely that it had commenced,
and was then going on. The same participle is used unquestionably in this
sense in many passages of the New Testament; as, for instance, in John
xxi. 4: ‘When morning _was come_;’ in Mark vi. 2, ‘_during_ the Sabbath;’
Matt. xxvi. 6, ‘Jesus _being_ now at Bethany,’ and in many other passages”
(Dr. Walsh, _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, note 19.) The meaning,
then, is that supper was proceeding.

*The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of
Simon, to betray him.* This inhuman treachery was suggested by Satan, but
freely consented to by the wretched Apostle. The treachery of Judas is
here mentioned to throw into relief the loving mercy and condescension of
Jesus in washing even the traitor’s feet.

3. Sciens quia omnia dedit ei 3. Knowing that the Father had
Pater in manus, et quia a Deo given him all things into his
exivit, et ad Deum vadit. hands, and that he came from
God, and goeth to God.

3. While fully conscious of His dignity, of His supreme dominion over all
things, and of the fact that He had come out from the bosom of God in the
incarnation, and would return thither by His resurrection and ascension,
He yet makes Himself as it were the servant of His Apostles.

4. Surgit a coena, et ponit 4. He riseth from supper, and
vestimenta sua: et cum layeth aside his garments, and
accepisset linteum, praecinxit having taken a towel, girded
se. himself.

4. *He riseth from supper.* Hence it is clear that the supper had already
begun when the washing of the Apostles’ feet took place. And for the
reasons given above on verse 2, as also because of verse 12 (“being sat
down again”) we hold that it was _not over_; so that we adhere to the
traditional view that the washing of the feet took place during the
supper.(90) Commentators generally hold that the Paschal Supper on the
present occasion was followed by the ordinary supper or evening meal, and
this again by what we may call the Eucharistic Supper. It is generally
held that the washing of the feet took place immediately after the Paschal
Supper, or during the ordinary, and before the Eucharistic Supper. At the
Paschal Supper the company at the table might not be less than ten nor
more than twenty. In our Lord’s time those partaking of the supper
reclined on couches, this being the usage then, as standing had been
originally. “The rites of the supper were regulated according to the
succession of four, sometimes five, cups of red wine mixed with water,
which were placed before the head of the house or the most eminent guest,
who was called the celebrant, the president, or _proclaimer of the
feast_.”(91) (See Dr. Walsh, _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, note 16.)

Christ having risen from the supper *layeth aside his garments*. The
pallium or cloak, a square or oblong piece of cloth, which was thrown
loosely around the body outside the tunic, was probably what was laid
aside;(92) and thus Jesus made Himself more like a servant, for servants
were not accustomed to wear the cloak. Then He took a towel, and girded
Himself therewith. “Quid mirum,” says St. Augustine, si “praecinxit se
linteo qui formam servi accipiens habitu inventus est ut homo?” Note how
the Evangelist narrates every little circumstance connected with this act
of marvellous condescension.

5. Deinde mittit aquam in 5. After that, he putteth
pelvim, et coepit lavare pedes water into a basin, and began
discipulorum, et extergere to wash the feet of his
linteo quo erat praecinctus. disciples, and to wipe them
with the towel, wherewith he
was girded.

5. *After that, he putteth water into a basin.* In the Greek we have _the_
basin (τὸν νιπτῆρα), probably denoting a vessel ordinarily used for the
washing of feet, or that had been provided for the ceremony of the washing
of hands, which was portion of the ritual of the Paschal Supper. We take
it that the fourth and fifth verses describe in a general way how our Lord
set about washing the disciples’ feet.

6. Venit ergo ad Simonem 6. He cometh therefore to
Petrum. Et dicet ei Petrus: Simon Peter. And Peter said to
Domine, tu mihi lavas pedes? him: Lord, dost thou wash my
feet?

6. Here the Evangelist goes on to state in detail what happened when our
Lord presented Himself first of all before Peter. Thus we need not suppose
that our Lord had washed the feet of any other disciple before He came to
Peter. St. Peter almost always stands first among the Apostles, and on the
present occasion, the remonstrance would naturally come from the first
person at whose feet our Lord presented Himself.

“There is nothing to support the old notion that the action began with
Judas. It is more natural to suppose that the Lord began with St. Peter.
In that case his refusal to accept the services is more intelligible than
it would be if others had already accepted it” (Westc. in _The Speaker’s
Commentary_).

*Dost thou wash my feet?* The position of the pronouns in the Greek brings
out sharply the contrast of the persons.

7. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 7. Jesus answered, and said to
ei: Quod ego facio, tu nescis him: What I do, thou knowest
modo, scies autem postea. not now, but thou shalt know
hereafter.

7. Peter, bewildered by His Divine Master’s condescension, is told that he
shall afterwards learn the moral significance of what Jesus was about to
do.

8. Dicit ei Petrus: Non 8. Peter said to him: Thou
lavabis mihi pedes in shalt never wash my feet.
aeternum. Respondit ei Iesus: Jesus answered him: If I wash
Si non lavero te, non habebis thee not, thou shalt have no
partem mecum. part with me.

8. Strong in faith, and mindful of the dignity of his Master, with that
impetuosity which displayed itself on other occasions, Peter declares that
he will never consent to such an act of self‐abasement on the part of his
Lord. Christ at once replies to him: *If I wash thee not, thou shalt have
no part with me.* The meaning is, that if Peter refused obedience to
Christ’s wish, now distinctly made known to him in these words, he should
be excluded from Christ’s society here and hereafter. Complete surrender
of his will to Christ was a necessary condition of discipleship.

The washing of the feet here referred to is not a sacrament; the practice
of the Church makes this clear. Besides, it cannot be shown that grace was
annexed to it. No doubt, without it Peter was to have no part with Christ;
but this, we hold, would be the effect of disobedience, not the result of
wanting anything which the washing could bestow. In reality, Peter was
already in the state of grace, for in the tenth verse Jesus tells the
Apostles that they are _clean_; and though He qualifies the statement by
saying that all are not clean, yet St. John explains this qualification in
reference to Judas only. Hence Peter was already in the state of grace,
and there is nothing in the text or context to show that he was to obtain
grace if his feet were washed, but only that he was to lose it if they
were not.

9. Dicit ei Simon Petrus: 9. Simon Peter saith to him:
Domine, non tantum pedes meos, Lord, not only my feet, but
sed et manus, et caput. also my hands and my head.
10. Dicit ei Iesus: Qui lotus 10. Jesus saith to him: He
est, non indiget nisi ut pedes that is washed, needeth not
lavet, sed est mundus totus. but to wash his feet, but is
Et vos mundi estis, sed non clean wholly. And you are
omnes. clean, but not all.

10. *Jesus saith to him: He that is washed* (rather _bathed_), *needeth
not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly*. Some ancient authorities
omit the words “but” and “his feet,” and the meaning whether in regard to
body or soul is then clear and simple, namely, that he who has bathed has
no need to wash, but is already clean. However, the words are much more
probably genuine; and the difficulty they create is doubtless the reason
why they are wanting in some authorities. Taking them as genuine, then,
let us try to explain the verse. Some have understood our Lord to speak
only of a corporal washing, as if He merely meant that the Apostles who
had bathed, or at least washed their hands before this Supper (see above
on ii. 6), now needed nothing except to have their feet washed. But the
common opinion of commentators understands our Lord to speak of a
spiritual washing, of which the washing of the feet was a symbol, and this
view we accept. For the closing words of the verse: “And you are clean,
but not all” when taken together with St. John’s explanation in verse 11,
leave no doubt that our Lord speaks of spiritual cleanness, and therefore
we may fairly conclude that He speaks also of a spiritual washing. He was
about to wash their feet literally, but He intended that ceremony as a
symbol of the higher cleansing process required of them and others as a
fitting preparation before receiving the Blessed Eucharist. Such
preparation was not absolutely necessary in their case, for they were
already clean from mortal sin, but it was fitting and in some sense
required, in order that they might remove the dust of venial sin, which
was daily clinging to them in their contact with the world. It is clearly
implied that if they had not been clean, that is to say, free from mortal
sin, a more thorough cleansing would have necessary.

The meaning, then, seems to be that one who has bathed spiritually by
having his soul cleansed from mortal sin, needs afterwards, as a fitting
preparation for the Blessed Eucharist, merely that limited cleansing that
was symbolized by the washing of only the feet.

11. Sciebat enim quisnam esset 11. For he knew who he was
qui traderet eum: propterea that would betray him;
dixit: Non estis mundi omnes. therefore he said: You are not
all clean.
12. Postquam ergo lavit pedes 12. Then after he had washed
eorum, et accepit vestimenta their feet, and taken his
sua: cum recubuisset iterum, garments, being sat down
dixit eis: Scitis quid fecerim again, he said to them: Know
vobis? you what I have done to you?
13. Vos vocatis me, Magister 13. You call me Master, and
et Domine: et benedicitis: sum Lord: and you say well, for so
etenim. I am.
14. Si ergo ego lavi pedes 14. If then I, being _your_
vestros, Dominus et Magister: Lord and Master, have washed
et vos debetis alter alterius your feet; you also ought to
lavare pedes. wash one another’s feet.
15. Exemplum enim dedi vobis, 15. For I have given you an
ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, example, that as I have done
ita et vos faciatis. to you, so you do also.
16. Amen, amen dico vobis: Non 16. Amen, amen, I say to you:
est servus maior domino suo: The servant is not greater
neque apostolus maior est eo than his lord: neither is the
qui misit illum. apostle greater than he that
sent him.

12‐16. Having concluded the washing of the feet, and _again reclined_,
Jesus points out to the Apostles the moral significance of what He had
done. If He, whom they rightly called Lord and Master condescended to wash
their feet, how much more ought they to wash the feet of one another, and
perform towards one another similar acts of humility and mutual charity?
It was that they might reflect in their own lives this spirit of humility
and charity that He had set them the example; and though such humble
offices of charity might at first sight seem unworthy of them, or beneath
them, yet a servant is not greater than his master; and whither Christ had
stooped they too should be prepared to stoop.

17. Si haec scitis, beati 17. If you know these things,
eritis si feceritis ea. you shall be blessed if you do
them.

17. In this verse, He promises them happiness here and hereafter, if they
continue to fulfil towards one another such offices of humility and mutual
charity.

18. Non de omnibus vobis dico: 18. I speak not of you all: I
ego scio quos elegerim: sed ut know whom I have chosen: but
adimpleatur scriptura: Qui that the scripture may be
manducat mecum panem, levabit fulfilled, _He that eateth
contra me calcaneum suum. bread with me, shall lift up
his heel against me_.

18. Christ does not here qualify the promise made in verse 17, for that
promise was conditional, and as such is universally true. But taking
occasion from the word “blessed,” which He had used, He proceeds to say
that not all of them are, or shall be, blessed.

*I know whom I have ** chosen.* SS. Aug. and Bede understand Christ to
speak of the choice or election by which He had predestined some to
_glory_; and as Judas was not predestined, therefore Christ had not
intended to speak of blessedness in connection with him. But since, in
other parts of Scripture, Christ never attributes the act of
predestinating to Himself, but only to the Father, hence we prefer, with
Tol., Mald., A Lap., to understand here not of election to glory, but of
the call to the Apostleship; and the sense is: I know what sort are the
twelve whom I have chosen to be Apostles, and that one of them is not
blessed, and never shall be. *But that the Scripture may be fulfilled.*
The sense is: but though I know and knew how unworthy one of you is, still
I called him to the Apostleship, that the Scripture might be fulfilled
which foretold his ingratitude and guilt. That the prediction of the
treachery of Judas did not deprive him of his liberty, nor extenuate his
guilt, see above on xii. 38. The Scripture quoted is from Psalm xl. 10,
where David complains of the ingratitude of some person whom he had
treated as his familiar friend. David and his false friend were types of
Christ and Judas; and, as we learn from the present passage of St. John,
the mystical sense of David’s words had reference to the betrayal of
Christ by Judas. In the quotation, the words *shall lift* (or rather “has
lifted,” for _levabit_ ought to be _levavit_) *up his heel against me*,
are to be taken metaphorically. The meaning probably is that the
ingratitude of Judas is like that of the beast which kicks him who feeds
it and treats it kindly.

19. Amodo dico vobis, 19. At present I tell you,
priusquam fiat: ut cum factum before it come to pass: that
fuerit, credatis quia ego sum. when it shall come to pass,
you may believe that I am he.

19. Christ tells them that He now makes known to them the treachery of one
of them, in order that when it shall have come to pass, they may remember
that He had foreknowledge of it, and may believe Him to be God.

20. Amen, amen dico vobis: qui 20. Amen, amen, I say to you,
accipit si quem misero, me he that receiveth whomsoever I
accipit: qui autem me accipit, send, receiveth me: and he
accipit eum qui me misit. that receiveth me, receiveth
him that sent me.

20. Some hold that this verse has no connection with the context here; and
that the words of Christ with which it was connected are omitted by our
Evangelist. Others connect in various ways. With Beelen, we prefer to
connect as follows. In verses 15‐17, Christ had exhorted the Apostles to
share in His humiliations; then, in verses 18 and 19 he digressed, to
speak of the treachery of Judas; and now after the digression He tells
them, for their consolation, that they shall be sharers in His honour.

Some harmonists place the institution of the Blessed Eucharist immediately
after the words recorded in verse 20; others, after verse 22; and others,
at other points in the narrative.

21. Cum haec dixisset Iesus, 21. When Jesus had said these
turbatus est spiritu: et things, he was troubled in
protestatus est, et dixit: spirit: and he testified, and
Amen, amen dico vobis: quia said: Amen, amen, I say to
unus ex vobis tradet me. you, one of you shall betray
me.

21. *He was troubled in spirit.* As we said above on xi. 23, this
perturbation of soul was freely permitted by Christ. The disclosure of the
traitor had been begun earlier in the night. It is recorded more or less
fully by the four Evangelists, but in such a manner as to render it
extremely probable that Christ returned to the subject several times
during the night. St. Matthew (xxvi. 21, and foll.) and St. Mark (xiv. 18,
and following) record the allusion to the traitor, immediately before the
institution of the Blessed Eucharist. St. Luke, on the other hand, records
it immediately after the same event: “This is the chalice, the New
Testament, in my blood, which shall be shed for you. But yet behold, the
hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table” (Luke xxii. 20,
21). St. John does not refer, at least explicitly, to the institution of
the Blessed Eucharist; but in his narrative the treachery of Judas is at
first insinuated during the washing of the feet (verse 10); again alluded
to in verse 18; and, finally, clearly foretold in verse 26. We can best
reconcile all the Evangelists by holding that, in the hope of deterring
Judas from his awful purpose, our Lord returned several times to the same
subject: first, during the washing of the feet, as in St. John; then
before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, as in SS. Matthew and
Mark; then, immediately after the institution, as in St. Luke; and
finally, when the dipped bread was handed to the traitor, and he left the
room, as in St. John.

“No doubt it would be difficult to admit this supposition if the words in
question (the words of the Synoptic Evangelists) contained, as seems
generally to be taken for granted, a distinct identification of the
traitor. For it could hardly be supposed that Judas, if thus pointed out,
could have retained his place at the supper table, among the Apostles.
But, in reality, there is no reason to regard the expressions recorded by
St. Matthew and St. Mark—and the same may be said of that recorded by St.
Luke—as thus distinctly identifying the one who was to betray our Lord.”

“We may, indeed, regard them as conveying an intimation to _Judas
himself_, if, as may be supposed, at the time they were uttered, or
shortly before it, his hand had been upon the table, or if he had helped
himself to some meat from the same dish as our Lord, and those others who
sat in immediate proximity to Him. Or we may even suppose that those
expressions, or at least some of them, were _altogether indefinite_, so as
to convey only the sad intelligence that it was one of His chosen Twelve
who was about to betray Him; just as the words, ‘_Unus vestrum_ me
traditurus est,’ of St. Matthew (xxvi. 21), or the ‘_Unus ex vobis_ tradet
me, qui manducat mecum’ of St. Mark (xiv. 18), or the prophetic words of
the Psalmist (Ps. xl. 10) quoted by our Lord, as recorded by St. John
(xiii. 18), ‘_Qui manducat mecum panem_, levabit contra me calcaneum
suum.’

“But there appears no sufficient reason for supposing that any of the
expressions hitherto quoted was calculated, or was intended, to identify
the traitor, at least _in the eyes of his fellow‐Apostles_.(93) Thus,
then, there is no difficulty in supposing that they may have been spoken
by our Lord at even an early period of the supper.”

“The incident recorded by St. John (xiii. 21, 30) is of an essentially
different character. There our Lord, after announcing in general terms,
‘Unus ex vobis tradet me,’ is appealed to by St. John, at the instance of
St. Peter, to declare who the traitor may be. The request of the beloved
disciple is promptly met by the response, ‘Ille est, cui ego intinctum
panem porrexero;’ and the traitor is immediately pointed out by the signal
thus selected by our Lord: ‘Et quum intinxisset panem, dedit Judae Simonis
Iscariotae.’ ”(94)

22. Aspiciebant ergo ad 22. The disciples therefore
invicem discipuli, haesitantes looked one upon another,
de quo diceret. doubting of whom he spoke.

22. *The disciples therefore looked* (rather, _were looking_, as in the
original and Vulgate) *one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke*. The
words vividly recall the actual scene. Strange as the prediction was, no
one doubted its fulfilment; they merely doubted of whom He spoke. We say
of _whom_ He spoke, for though the original might mean, of _what_ He
spoke, Peter’s question immediately afterwards: “Who is it of whom he
speaketh?” (v. 24), shows that their doubt regarded merely which of them
was to betray Him. Earlier in the night, when He first referred to the
betrayal, they may perhaps have doubted even _what_ He meant; but that
stage was now passed, and the only doubt remaining was as to which of
their number was to play the part of traitor.

23. Erat ergo recumbens unus 23. Now there was leaning on
ex discipulis eius in sinu Jesus’ bosom one of his
Iesu, quem diligebat Iesus. disciples whom Jesus loved.

23. *Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom.* Rather: “Now there was
reclining at the table _in_ (ἀνακείμενος ... ἐν) Jesus’ bosom.” Instead of
sitting at table, as we do now, the Jews of our Lord’s time, and for some
time before and after, reclined. The guests lay resting on their left arm,
stretched obliquely, their feet being behind them, instead of under the
table, as with us. In this way a guest was reclining close to the bosom of
the guest behind him, and such was the position that St. John occupied in
reference to Christ on this occasion. When three reclined on the same
couch, the centre was the place of honour.

*One of his disciples whom Jesus loved.* This, according to all antiquity,
was our Evangelist himself. The title, which occurs here for the first
time, is perhaps suggested by the recollection of the privileged position
he occupied at the Last Supper. It occurs again, xix. 26; xxi. 7, 20.
Comp. also xx. 2.

24. Innuit ergo huic Simon 24. Simon Peter therefore
Petrus, et dixit ei: Quis est, beckoned to him, and said to
de quo dicit? him: Who is it of whom he
speaketh?

24. The best‐supported Greek reading agrees substantially with the
Vulgate: “Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, Tell
who it is of whom he speaketh.” According to this reading, St. John was
not asked to inquire of Jesus who the traitor was, but St. Peter takes for
granted that St. John had already learned from Jesus, and simply asks the
beloved disciple to make it known to them all. In the other and less
probable reading, St. John is asked _to inquire_ (πυθέσθαι) who the
traitor is. It might seem more in accordance with St. Peter’s character,
that he should directly ask our Lord to point out the traitor, but it is
possible that Christ’s threat, recorded in verse 8, may have made him less
confident than usual.

25. Itaque cum recubuisset 25. He therefore leaning on
ille supra pectus Iesu, dicit the breast of Jesus saith to
ei: Domine quis est! him: Lord, who is it?

25. If St. Peter supposed that St. John already knew who the traitor was,
he was mistaken, as we see by this verse.

*He therefore leaning on.* The best‐supported Greek reading would be
rendered thus: _He leaning back, as he was, on_ &c. (ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος
οὕτως ἐπί).

From his reclining position, St. John had merely to lean a little farther
back in order to rest his head on His Divine Master’s breast. Thus “as he
was,” _i.e._, without changing his position at table, by merely leaning
back, he was not only close to the _bosom_ of Jesus, but was on His
breast, and could whisper his question. All the fathers speak of the
privilege conferred upon St. John on this occasion in his being admitted
to such familiarity with his Divine Master.

26. Respondit Iesus: Ille est 26. Jesus answered: He it is
cui ego intinctum panem to whom I shall reach bread
porrexero. Et cum intinxisset dipped. And when he had dipped
panem, dedit Iudae Simonis the bread, he gave it to Judas
Iscariotae. Iscariot, _the son_ of Simon.

26. If we suppose the bread which was handed to Judas to have been dipped
in the Charoseth (חרוסת) a kind of sauce used at the Paschal Supper, then
the meats of the Paschal Supper must have been still upon the table. This
there is no difficulty in admitting, even if the ordinary supper,
following upon the Paschal Supper, had already been partaken of.

27. Et post buccellam, 27. And after the morsel,
introivit in eim Satanas. Et Satan entered into him. And
dixit ei Iesus; Quod facis, Jesus said to him: That which
fac citius. thou dost, do quickly.

27. After the morsel had been given to Judas, “Satan entered into him;”
that is to say, Judas now revealed as a traitor, at least to St. John,
became still more confirmed in his evil purpose. The words are generally
understood not as implying corporal possession of Judas by the devil, but
as signifying that the devil now gained full control over him in reference
to the crime contemplated. *And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost,
do quickly*, again intimating that He knew the traitor’s thoughts, and at
the same time manifesting His own readiness to suffer. These words of our
Lord do not contain a command or permission to Judas to commit the crime:
but, taking for granted the traitor’s fixed determination “That which thou
dost,” _i.e._, hast determined to do, they show Christ’s readiness and
eagerness to begin to drink of the chalice that awaited Him.

28. Hoc autem nemo scivit 28. Now no man at the table
discumbentium ad quid dixerit knew to what purpose he said
ei. this unto him.

28. The disciples, even St. John, knew not to what purpose Christ had told
Judas to do quickly what he was determined to do. Though St. John, at
least, had learned immediately before that Judas was to betray our Lord,
still he probably did not expect that the betrayal would follow so rapidly
upon the disclosure of the traitor.

29. Quidam enim putabant, quia 29. For some thought, because
loculos habebat Judas, quod Judas had the purse, that
dixisset ei Iesus: Eme ea quae Jesus had said to him: Buy
opus sunt nobis ad diem those things which we have
festum: aut egenis ut aliquid need of for the festival day:
daret. or that he should give
something to the poor.

29. *For some thought ... for the festival day*. This conjecture of the
Apostles is adduced by some writers as a proof that the supper mentioned
by St. John in this thirteenth chapter is not the Paschal Supper; or, if
the Paschal Supper, that it was not celebrated on the night of the 14th of
Nisan. They argue—(_a_) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan it would
not have been lawful to buy or sell; and, therefore, the Apostles would
not have conjectured as on this occasion they did; and (_b_) that on the
night of the 14th of Nisan the Feast would already have begun, and the
Apostles would not have conjectured that Judas was about to buy
necessaries in preparation for the Feast.

But to (_a_) we reply that the buying and selling of articles of food was
not forbidden during the Pasch (Exod. xii. 16), and certainly was not
forbidden on a festival that fell, as in this case, on a Friday, the day
before the Sabbath. To (_b_) we answer that though the festival time had
begun, yet it lasted seven days; and the fact that a few hours of the
festal period had already elapsed would not prevent the Apostles from
conjecturing that Judas might be making provision for the long period that
was still to come. *To the poor.* From this conjecture, and from xii. 5,
we may conclude that our Lord and the Apostles were in the habit of giving
alms to the poor.

30. Cum ergo accepisset ille 30. He therefore having
buccellam, exivit continuo. received the morsel, went out
Erat autem nox. immediately. And it was night.

30. When Judas found himself revealed as the traitor, he immediately left
the supper‐room. The Evangelist adds: *And it was night*, no doubt in
order to give completeness to the history, but possibly also to mark the
contrast of the light Judas left behind him with the outer darkness into
which he went forth. “Erat autem nox,” says St. Aug., “Et ipse qui exivit
erat nox.”

Let us here pause for a moment in the narrative of St. John to inquire
whether the Blessed Eucharist was instituted before the departure of
Judas; whether, therefore, he sacrilegiously received the Blessed
Eucharist and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. The great majority
of the fathers answer in the affirmative. This view seems to us extremely
probable. For the Synoptic Evangelists all take care to tell us that Jesus
sat down with the Twelve; and then a few verses afterwards, without any
indication of a change in the company, without the slightest hint that
anyone had departed, they proceed: “And whilst they were at supper, Jesus
took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and said:
Take ye, and eat; this is My body” (Matt. xxvi. 26). Compare St. Mark and
St. Luke. Hence, although they must have had the treachery of Judas before
their minds while writing, yet they say not a word about his departure, as
it might naturally be expected they would, if he had actually departed.
Nay, St. Luke’s version of our Lord’s words clearly implies that Judas was
present at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; for in St. Luke our
Lord seems to contrast His own love in instituting the Blessed Eucharist
with the treachery of _one who was present_. “This is the chalice, the New
Testament in My blood, which shall be shed for you. _But yet_ behold, the
hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table” (Luke xxii. 20,
21). Therefore, according to St. Luke, Judas was still at the table after
the institution; and St. Mark states that all present drank of the
chalice: “And they all drank of it” (xiv. 23).

It seems to us, then, much more probable that Judas received the Blessed
Eucharist, and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. Many, however, hold
the opposite view; among others, St. Hilary, Innocent III., Salmeron, B.
Lamy, Corluy, Langen, and Cornely. The latter says that he agrees in this
“Cum plerisque modernis” (Corn., iii., p. 298, note). Their principal
arguments are: (1) That St. Matthew, who was present at the Last Supper,
records the disclosure of the traitor _before_ the institution of the
Eucharist, while we know from St. John (verse 30) that Judas departed when
he was disclosed: therefore he departed before the institution of the
Eucharist. But this argument loses its force, if we hold as above, that
Christ referred on several occasions during the night to the treachery of
Judas, and _only on the last occasion_ definitely disclosed who the
traitor was.

(2) They say, that surely our Lord did not allow Judas to make a
sacrilegious Communion and receive Holy Orders, when He could so easily
have prevented it. But we may reply that Christ referred several times to
the betrayal, in order to recall Judas to a better sense; failing in this,
He left him free, just as He leaves unworthy communicants or bad priests
free now.

We believe, then, that modern commentators have no solid reason for
departing from what was undeniably the common view in the early Church,
that Judas at the Last Supper did receive Holy Communion and was ordained
priest.

31. Cum ergo exisset, dixit 31. When he therefore was gone
Iesus: Nunc clarificatus est out, Jesus said: Now is the
Filius hominis: et Deus son of man glorified, and God
clarificatus est in eo. is glorified in him.

31. With this verse our Lord’s last discourses begin. They are divided
into two portions by the change of place at the close of chapter xiv., the
first portion containing what was spoken in the Supper Room (xiii. 31‐xiv.
31); the second, what was spoken just outside the Supper Room or along the
way to Gethsemane or at some point on the way (xv., xvi.). In the first
portion the leading ideas are that He and the Apostles are to be separated
because He is about to ascend to the glory of the Father; still, that
notwithstanding the separation, they shall not be orphans, but He and they
shall be united.

*When he therefore was gone out Jesus said.* The departure of Judas marked
the beginning of the end, and Jesus at once turned to the eleven with
words that prove His knowledge of what was about to happen, and His
acceptance of the issue of the traitor’s work.

*Now is the son of man glorified.* Judas had finally decided to betray
Him, and He Himself had fully accepted what was to follow, so that His
death, now so certain and so near, might be spoken of as already past: “is
... glorified.” For their consolation and encouragement He refers to His
death as a glorification, as indeed it was, being a triumph over Satan and
sin, and the prelude to victory over death itself.

*And God is glorified in him.* God’s rigorous justice and boundless love
for men were manifested by His sending His Divine Son to die for them, and
hence God was glorified in the death of Christ. See Rom. iii. 25, 26; v.
8, 9.

32. Si Deus clarificatus est 32. If God be glorified in
in eo, et Deus clarificabit him, God also will glorify him
eum in semetipso: et continuo in himself: and immediately
clarificabit eum. will he glorify him.

32. Many authorities omit the words: “If God be glorified in him.” *In
himself.* The meaning seems to be: _with_ Himself, as in xvii. 5: “And now
glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself.” *Immediately*, we refer to the
time of the crucifixion.

33. Filioli, adhuc modicum 33. Little children, yet a
vobiscum sum quaeretis me: et little while I am with you.
sicut dixi Iudaeis: Quo ego You shall seek me, and as I
vado, vos non potestis venire: said to the Jews: Whither I
et vobis dico modo. go, you cannot come: so I say
to you now.

33. The glorification of Christ implied His departure from the Apostles,
and the time was now come for making known to them the separation. At
present they, any more than His enemies, could not follow Him, and what He
had before declared to His enemies (vii. 33, 34), He now declares to His
dearest friends. Yet, though the substance of the declaration is in both
cases the same, Christ’s purpose in making it was very different. To the
Jews it was made in the hope that they would thus be urged to make good
use of the time that still remained to them before the separation, while
in the present case the motive seems rather to be to forearm the Apostles
by forewarning them and putting before them various motives of
consolation.

The term (τεκνία) occurs only here in the Gospels, but is found six (or
seven) times in St. John’s First Epistle. The diminutive form is
expressive of tender affection, and perhaps of anxiety for those who were
still immature.

*Little children you shall seek me*, &c. See above on vii. 34. The
declaration is somewhat different in form on this second occasion. The
words: “and shall not find me” (vii. 34) are omitted, and instead of:
“where I am” the present text has: “whither I go.” As we have said, the
leading idea in both cases is of separation, but since that separation was
to be followed in the case of the Apostles by spiritual union (xiv. 18,
23), hence He now omits the words: “and shall not find me;” though in the
sense of not finding Him any longer visibly present among them, the words
were true even in reference to the Apostles.

34. Mandatum novum do vobis: 34. A new commandment I give
ut diligatis invicem, sicut unto you: That you love one
dilexi vos, ut et vos another, as I have loved you,
diligatis invicem. that you also love one
another.

34. Christ calls this commandment a new one, because though love of the
neighbour had been commanded in the Law (Lev. xix. 18), yet love modelled
on the love of Christ as its exemplar, Christian love, had never been
commanded before. The words: *As I have loved you*, imply that we should
love our neighbour with the same kind of love, and from the same motive,
as Christ loves us; but not, of course, in the same measure, for of this
we are incapable.

35. In hoc cognoscent omnes 35. By this shall all men know
quia discipuli mei estis, si that you are my disciples, if
dilectionem habueritis ad you have love one for another.
invicem.

35. This mutual love was to be a distinctive mark of Christ’s perfect
disciples. And so, in fact, it was in the early Church, for Tertullian
tells us that the Pagans used to say: “See how these Christians love one
another”!... “and how they are ready to die for one another”! (Apol. 39).

36. Dicit et Simon Petrus: 36. Simon Peter saith to him:
Domine, quo vadis? Respondit Lord whither goest thou? Jesus
Iesus: Quo ego vado, non potes answered: Whither I go, thou
me modo sequi: sequeris autem canst not follow me now, but
postea. thou shalt follow hereafter.

36. St. Peter, all absorbed in Christ’s words, (verse 33), which signified
that he was to be separated from his Divine Master, asks: *Lord, whither
** goest thou?* Christ’s reply means that He was going to His Father,
whither Peter should one day follow, though he could not follow then.
*Thou shalt follow hereafter.* These words implied Peter’s final
perseverance and salvation.

37. Dicit ei Petrus: Quare non 37. Peter saith to him: Why
possum te sequi modo? animam cannot I follow thee now? I
meam pro te ponam. will lay down my life for
thee.

37. St. Peter, not understanding Christ’s reply, and thinking that He
meant to go to some place of danger, testifies his readiness to die for
Christ, and hence, he implies, to follow Him anywhere.

38. Respondit ei Iesus: Animam 38. Jesus answered him: Wilt
tuam pro me pones? Amen, amen thou lay down thy life for me?
dico tibi: non cantabit Amen, amen, I say to thee, the
gallus, donec ter me neges. cock shall not crow, till thou
deny me thrice.

38. Christ replies, rebuking Peter’s boastful confidence, and declaring
that so far was Peter from being ready at that time to die for Him, that
before cockcrow he would deny Him thrice.

We believe that our Lord _twice_ on this night predicted the denials by
Peter: once in the supper‐room, as recorded by St. John here, and by St.
Luke (xxii. 34), and again on the way to Gethsemane, as recorded by St.
Matt. (xxvi. 30‐34), and St. Mark (xiv. 26‐30). By the latter Evangelists
the prophecy of Peter’s denial is distinctly placed on the way to
Gethsemane, and connected with the prophecy of the general desertion of
the Apostles. This latter prophecy, it may well be, called forth from
Peter a second expression of his fearless attachment to his Master, and
this was followed in turn by a second reference to Peter’s denials.

While the other three Evangelists represent our Lord as saying that the
three denials by Peter should take place before the cock would crow, St.
Mark, who was a disciple of St. Peter, records the prediction more
minutely, and represents our Lord as saying: “Before the cock crow
_twice_, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Mark xiv. 30). There is, however, no
contradiction between St. Mark and the others, even if all refer to the
same prediction; for the _second_ crowing of the cock, before which,
according to St. Mark, the three denials were to take place, is that which
is meant by the other Evangelists, and which was universally known as
“_the_ cockcrowing.” That the cockcrowing in our Lord’s time was regarded
as so distinct a note of time as to have given its name to one of the four
watches of the night, we have clear evidence in the Gospels. Thus, in St.
Mark (xiii. 35), our Lord says: “Watch ye therefore (for you know not when
the lord of the house cometh; at even, or at midnight, _or at the
cockcrowing_, or in the morning).” Thus, then, although the cock crew
after Peter’s _first_ denial, as St. Mark records (Mark xiv. 68), still
the time generally known as cockcrow—about 3 a.m.—was that meant when the
word was used, as it is in our Lord’s prediction in SS. Matt., Luke, and
John, without any special indication that the first crowing of the cock
was the one intended. Hence, the _second_ crowing of the cock referred to
by St. Mark was _the_ cock‐crowing mentioned by the other three
Evangelists.

Before quitting this chapter, it may be well, for clearness sake, to
repeat here what we consider to be the most probable order of events at
the Last Supper.

(1) There was the Paschal Supper.

(2) During the Paschal Supper, or at its close (but certainly before the
ordinary supper was over: see above on verse 2), the washing of the feet,
accompanied by the first allusion to the traitor (John xiii. 10).

(3) The ordinary supper, during which

(4) Another reference to the traitor (Matt. xxvi. 21 _ff._; and Mark xiv.
18 _ff._).

(5) The Eucharistic Supper.

(6) A third reference to the traitor (Luke xxii. 21).

(7) The strife among the Apostles as to which of them was the greatest,
occasioned, perhaps, by the anxiety of each to shift from himself the
charge of treachery.

(8) The question of St. John (John xiii. 25), and the final disclosure of
the traitor, who quits the supper room.

CHAPTER XIV.

1‐4. *Christ bids the Apostles not to be troubled in heart, and
puts before them three motives of consolation.*

5‐7. *Interrupted by Thomas He declares Himself to be* _the way_,
*and His Father* _the term_ *whither He goeth*.

8‐12_a_. *Philip’s request, and Christ’s reply containing a fourth
motive of consolation.*

12_b_‐14. *All who have the requisite faith shall perform even
greater miracles than His, for whatever they shall ask the Father
or Himself in His name, He will grant.*

15‐17. *As a fifth motive of consolation, He promises to send them
the Holy Ghost.*

18‐21. *As a sixth motive, He promises to come to them Himself.*

22‐24. *Not only to them but to all the faithful shall He come
together with the Father and the Holy Ghost.*

25‐26. *As a seventh motive, He tells them that the Holy Ghost
will teach them all truth, and call to their minds all He has said
to them.*

27. *As an eighth motive, He bequeathes them His peace.*

28. *Finally, as a ninth, He tells them that to leave them and go
to the Father is for His greater glory.*

29. *His object in foretelling His departure and return.*

30‐31. *He declares the approach of Satan, and invites the
Apostles to quit the Supper‐room.*

1. Non turbetur cor vestrum. 1. Let not your heart be
Creditis in Deum, et in me troubled. You believe in God,
credite. believe also in me.

1. *Let not your heart be troubled.* Continuing the discourse after the
Last Supper, begun in xiii. 31, Jesus begins to console the Apostles. He
saw that they were sore at heart, as well they might be, on account of
what He had foretold that night—the treachery of one of their number, the
denials of another, and His own departure whither they could not follow.

*You believe in God, believe ** also in me*; that is, believe Me also to
be God, who can therefore overcome all My enemies, and make you victorious
over yours. Instead of “you believe” we have in the Greek πιστεύετε, which
by its form might be either an indicative or imperative, but is more
probably an indicative, because it is not likely that Christ thought it
necessary to exhort the Apostles to believe in God, a thing that every Jew
did.

2. In domo Patris mei 2. In my Father’s house there
mansiones multae sunt; si quo are many mansions. If not, I
minus, dixissem vobis: quia would have told you, that I go
vado parare vobis locum. to prepare a place for you.

2. *In my Father’s house there are many mansions.* Here He puts before
them the _first_ motive of consolation; namely, that there is room for
them as well as for Him in heaven, in that house of God, the eternal
antitype of the Jewish Temple (ii. 16), wherein He exercised the rights of
a Son. “Mansions” renders the Vulgate “mansiones,” which were resting‐
places or stations along the highways, where travellers found
refreshments. The Greek word μονή is found in the New Testament only here
and in verse 23.

*If not, I would have told you that I go to prepare a place for you.*
_That_ (ὅτι, Vulg., quia) is almost certainly genuine,(95) and hence we
must explain the text, retaining it, though its presence creates
difficulty.

(1) Some explain thus. If not, yet even in that case I would have told you
that I go to prepare a place for you (my intimate friends). And if (in
that case) I should go to prepare a place you, I would return, &c. Against
this view, however, it is fairly objected that Christ’s going is thus
represented as purely _hypothetical_, whereas from the text it seems to be
real: “And if I shall go ... I will come again.”

(2) Others thus: If not, would I have told you that I go to prepare a
place for you? In this view a note of interrogation is supplied, a thing
that the original text, which was unpointed, admits; and reference is made
to some past occasion when He promised to go and prepare places for them.
That we have no record of a promise made in so many words, does not prove,
of course, that it was not made.

(3) Others thus: If not, I would have told you _so. But, in fact, there
are many mansions_, for I go to prepare a place for you. Against this view
it is objected that it supplies an ellipsis, which is in no way indicated
in the text. The same meaning, however, may be had without any ellipsis,
if the words: “If not, I would have told you” be regarded as parenthetic.
The sense will then be: in My Father’s house there are many mansions (if
not, I would have told you), as is proved by the fact that I go to prepare
a place for you.

*To prepare a place.* Christ by his death, resurrection, and ascension
opened heaven, and made ready a place for man.

3. Et si abiero, et 3. And if I shall go, and
praeparavero vobis locum: prepare a place for you: I
iterum venio, et accipiam vos will come again, and will take
ad meipsum, ut ubi sum ego, et you to myself, that where I am
vos sitis. you also may be.

3. *I will come again.* This is a _second_ motive of consolation. There is
a difference of opinion as to what coming of Christ is meant. Some
understand of His coming at the death of each and the particular judgment;
others, of His coming at the general judgment; and others, of both. We
prefer the last opinion, for while Christ took the souls of the Apostles
to the mansions of bliss at their particular judgment, it is only at the
general judgment that He will take their bodies and perfect their
felicity. The words cannot refer to the continual coming of Christ to the
Church through the Holy Ghost whom He has sent; such a meaning is excluded
by the words that follow: “And will take,” &c.

4. Et quo ego vado scitis, et 4. And whither I go you know,
viam scitis. and the way you know.

4. And though you may think that you know not whither I go, nor the way
thereto, yet you know both. For you know My Father to whom I go, and you
know Me, the way that leads to Him. This may be regarded as a _third_
motive of consolation.

5. Dicit ei Thomas: Domine, 5. Thomas saith to him: Lord,
nescimus quo vadis: et quomodo we know not whither thou
possumus viam scire? goest, and how can we know the
way?
6. Dicit ei Iesus: Ego sum 6. Jesus saith to him, I am
via, et veritas, et vita, nemo the way, and the truth, and
venit ad Patrem, nisi per me. the life, no man cometh to the
Father but by me.

5, 6. St. Thomas interrupts, and Jesus explains, pointing out that He
Himself is the way to the Father.

*I am the way, and the truth, and the life.* Many interpretations of these
words have been given. We believe that the first clause: “I am the way,”
answers Thomas’ difficulty; but as such a statement itself needed
explanation, the remaining words “and the truth, and the life,” are added
to explain how Christ is the way namely, inasmuch as He is the Truth,
_i.e._ the author of faith; and the Life, _i.e._ the author of grace and
of the supernatural life of the soul. In this view the phrase hebraizes,
the first “and” being explanatory: I am the way, _inasmuch as_ I am the
truth and the life. This seems better than to hold with SS. Augustine and
Thomas that Christ declares Himself the way _as man_, the truth and the
life as God. St. Augustine’s words are: “Ipse igitur (vadit) ad seipsum
per seipsum.” But the words that follow in this verse: “No man cometh to
the Father but by me,” show that the Father, and not Christ as God, is the
term to which the way in question leads.

7. Si cognovissetis me, et 7. If you had known me, you
Patrem meum utique would without doubt have known
cognovissetis: et amodo my Father also; and from
cognoscetis eum, et vidistis henceforth you shall know him,
eum. and you have seen him.

7. Having told them that He Himself is the way, He now proceeds to point
out to them that if they had known this way in the manner they ought, they
should also have known the term towards which it led. Hence the sense is:
You would know the Father to whom I go, if you knew Me; for I and the
Father are the same divine substance (John x. 30). Thomas had said that
they did not know the term of Christ’s journey, and therefore could not
know the way thereto, implying that the way was to be known from, or at
least after, the term to which it led. Christ now declares that the
reverse is the case; and if they had known Him, the way, they should also
have known the Father. The words: *If you had known me*, imply that they
had not yet known Christ as they ought. They had indeed known Him to some
extent as He admits in verse 4, but they had not realized fully His
Divinity and consubstantiality with the Father, else they would have
implicitly known the Father in knowing Him. *And from henceforth you shall
know him, and you have seen him.* We would render the Greek thus: “And
_even now_ (see John xiii. 19) you know Him, and you have seen Him.” The
sense is, that even now they knew the Father in some way through their
imperfect knowledge of Christ, and they had seen Him in seeing Christ,
because, as Christ adds in verse 9: “He who seeth me, seeth the Father
also.” Thus it was true that in an imperfect manner they knew whither
Christ went, and the way thereto (verse 4), yet equally true that they
knew neither way nor term so clearly as they might, considering that He
had now for more than three years been gradually revealing Himself to
them.

8. Dicit ei Philippus: Domine, 8. Philip saith to him: Lord
ostende nobis Patrem, et show us the Father, and it is
sufficit nobis. enough for us.

8. Thomas is silenced, but Philip now interposes, and failing to
understand Christ’s statement that they had seen the Father, asks Him to
show them the Father, probably in some visible form, and then they will
ask no more.

9. Dicit ei Iesus: Tanto 9. Jesus saith to him:. So
tempore vobiscum sum: et non long a time have I been with
cognovistis me? Philippe, qui you: and have you not known
videt me, videt et Patrem. me? Philip, he that seeth me
Quomodo tu dicis: Ostende seeth the Father also. How
nobis Patrem? sayest thou, show us the
Father.

9. Christ replies, again insisting on His consubstantiality with the
Father: *He that seeth me, seeth the Father also* (“also” is probably not
genuine.) These words prove clearly, against the Arians, Christ’s
consubstantiality, or unity of nature, with the Father; otherwise in
seeing Him they could not be said to see the Father even implicitly. Yet
it is clear against the Sabellians that the Father and the Son are
distinct Persons, for Christ plainly distinguishes Himself from the Father
in verse 6 where He says “No man cometh to the Father but by me;” and
again in verse 13, where He says that He goes to the Father. There is,
then, identity of nature, but distinction of Persons. _Cognovistis_ of the
Vulgate ought to be _cognovisti_, Philip being addressed.

10. Non creditis quia ego in 10. Do you not believe that I
Patre, et Pater in me est? am in the Father, and the
Verba quae ego loquor vobis, a Father in me? The words that I
meipso non loquor. Pater autem speak to you, I speak not of
in me manens, ipse facit myself. But the Father who
opera. abideth in me, he doth the
works.

10. *Do you not believe* (_creditis_ ought to be _credis_) *that I am in
the Father and the Father in me*? He who saw Christ saw the Father
implicitly, in virtue of the unity of nature. The words, and the
connection with verse 9, show clearly that such is the identity of nature
in the Father and the Son that He who sees the Son, thereby in some sense
sees the Father also. “Hoc autem quod dicit,” says St. Thomas on this
verse, “ ‘Ego in Patre et Pater in me est,’ dicitur propter essentiae
unitatem, de qua dicitur supra x. 30. ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus.’ Sciendum
est enim, quod essentia aliter se habet in divinis ad personam, et aliter
in hominibus. Nam in hominibus essentia Socratis non est Socrates, quia
Socrates est quid compositum, sed in divinis essentia est idem personae
secundum rem, et sic essentia Patris est Pater, et essentia Filii, Filius.
Ubicumque ergo est essentia Patris, est ipse Pater, et ubicumque est
essentia Filii, est ipse Filius. Essentia autem Patris est in Filio et
essentia Filii est in Patre. Ergo Filius est in Patre, et Pater in Filio.”

Then He goes on to prove that the Father is in Him, and He in the Father,
from the fact that His words and works are the words and works of the
Father. Instead of “the works” many authorities read “His works;” but the
sense is the same, for the works were both Christ’s and the Father’s.

11. Non creditis quia ego in 11. Believe you not that I am
Patre, et Pater in me est? in the Father, and the Father
in me.

11. According to the Vulgate reading, Christ, for emphasis, repeats the
question of verse 10. In the original there is not a question, but simply
an injunction addressed to all the Apostles; “Believe me that I am in the
Father, and the Father in me.”

12. Alioquin propter opera 12. Otherwise believe for the
ipsa credite. Amen, amen dico very works’ sake. Amen, amen,
vobis, qui credit in me, opera I say to you, he that
quae ego facio et ipse faciet, believeth in me, the works
et maiora horum faciet, quia that I do, he also shall do,
ego ad Patrem vado. and greater than these shall
he do.

12. The sense is: But if My testimony does not suffice to satisfy you of
My Divinity, at least believe on account of My miracles.

Having thus replied to the interruptions of Thomas and Philip He now
proceeds to put before the Apostles other motives of consolation. The
mention of the _fourth_ motive opens with the solemn “Amen, amen;” and the
Apostles are told that whoever believeth in Him shall perform even greater
miracles than His (“majora horum” is a Graecism for “majora his”), the
reason being that in leaving His followers He bequeaths to them His
thaumaturgic power, and bequeaths it in great perfection, because He
ascends to the glory of the Father.

*Greater than these.* The miracles of Christ’s followers were greater than
His in their visible effects. “Evangelizantibus discipulis ... gentes
etiam crediderunt; haec sunt sine dubitatione majora” (St. Aug. _ad
loc._). We think it very probable that the charism of miracles is here
promised not merely to the Apostles, but _to the Church_, in which it
still resides; for it is promised to whoever believeth. Of course, not
every faith is sufficient that we may work miracles; a specially strong,
unwavering faith is necessary. See Matt. xxi. 21.

13. Et quodcumque petieritis 13. Because I go to the
Patrem in nomine meo, hoc Father: and whatsoever you
faciam: ut glorificetur Pater shall ask the Father in my
in Filio. name, that will I do: that the
Father may be glorified in the
Son.

13. In the Vulgate the words: “Because I go to the Father,” are rightly
connected with the preceding, and form portion of verse 12.

*And whatsoever you shall ask the Father.* The words “the Father” are
probably not genuine, but they indicate the sense. For it is by the Son’s
doing what is asked of the Father that the Father is glorified in the Son.

*In my name* (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου). This phrase occurs here for the first
time in this Gospel. Compare the phrase “in the name of my Father,” v. 43;
x. 25; xvii. 6; 11, 12, 26, and the words of the Evangelist i. 12; ii. 23;
iii, 18. The phrase before us occurs again in xiv. 26; xv. 16; xvi. 23;
xvi. 24; and xvi. 26. See also Acts iii. 6; iv. 10, 12. In the present
verse, and wherever there is question of asking, it seems to mean: _while
invoking with faith the name of Christ_.

14. Si quid petieritis me in 14. If you shall ask me
nomine meo, hoc faciam. anything in my name, that I
will do.

14. Moreover, whatsoever miracle they shall ask of Himself, in His own
name (and, of course, with the requisite faith), that He will perform. We
incline to the view that in verses 13 and 14 there is question _primarily_
of miracles; but the expression “si quid” (ἐάν τι) is so general, that we
would not limit the promise, but are inclined to believe that it proves
the efficacy of all prayer of supplication offered with the proper
dispositions.

15. Si diligitis me, mandata 15. If you love me keep my
mea servate. commandments.

15. Now begins the promise of the Holy Ghost—the _fifth_ and greatest
motive of consolation. But first in this verse, He requires as a condition
that they should prove the love they protested by keeping His
commandments; for, as St. Gregory says, “Love is proved by deeds.”

16. Et ego rogabo Patrem, et 16. And I will ask the Father,
alium Paraclitum dabit vobis, and he shall give you another
ut maneat vobiscum in Paraclete, that he may abide
aeternum. with you for ever.

16. “Paraclitus”(96) may mean comforter, advocate, or helper. Bearing in
mind the tribulations in which the Apostles were already, and the still
greater ones that awaited them, we think the principal meaning here is
that of comforter. But this does not exclude the other meanings,
especially that of helper, which the Holy Ghost undoubtedly was in an
eminent degree. This other Comforter, who is promised in Christ’s stead,
will not leave the Apostles, as Christ did, but is to remain with them for
ever. It is disputed whether the Holy Ghost is here promised only to the
Apostles, or, in them, to the whole teaching Church. In the first case,
“for ever,” would mean during their lives; in the second, it would mean
till the end of the world, as long as the Church shall endure. This latter
sense we prefer, for—(1) the words “for ever” favour this view; (2) though
the Apostles needed a comforter, yet not they only, but their successors
quite as much; (3) this spirit is promised to teach them all truth (John
xvi. 13); why, except in order that they through themselves _and their
successors_ might teach the world? (4) we know from the event that on the
day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost came not to the Apostles alone (Acts ii.
4). We hold then that the Holy Ghost is here promised to the _Ecclesia
docens_, represented by the Apostles, to abide with her for ever.

In either interpretation it cannot be proved from this text that the
Apostles were to be confirmed in grace after the descent of the Holy
Ghost, for it is enough for the fulfilment of the promise here made that
the Holy Ghost was to be, as far as in Him lay, an enduring Comforter,
though the Apostles, on their part, might expel and banish Him. This verse
proves the personality of the Holy Ghost, for He is sent in the place of
Christ (see also verse 26). It proves also His Divinity, for only a Divine
Person would be thus compared to Christ, and spoken of as _another_
Comforter. Moreover the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father is
here implied in the fact that the Father is said to send the Holy Ghost.
For the sending of one Divine Person by another, implies the Eternal
Procession of one from the other with a relation to some term in time.(97)
Finally, the three Persons of the Trinity are shown to be distinct, for
the Father will send the Holy Ghost at the request of the Son.

17. Spiritum veritatis, quem 17. The Spirit of truth, whom
mundus non potest accipere, the world cannot receive,
quia non videt eum, nec scit because it seeth him not, nor
eum: vos autem cognoscetis knoweth him: but you shall
eum, quia apud vos manebit, et know him; because he shall
in vobis erit. abide with you, and shall be
in you.

17. *The Spirit of truth.* The Holy Ghost is so called not only because He
is essential Truth, but also because He was to come to the Apostles as a
teacher of truth (verse 26).

In the following words the Apostles are told that the wicked world (i. 10;
xiv. 30; xvii. 9, 16) cannot receive the Holy Ghost, for as St. Paul says:
“the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of
God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand: because it is
spiritually examined” (1 Cor. ii. 14).

*It seeth him not, nor knoweth him.* Some take the meaning to be: seeth
Him not with the eyes of the body, nor discerneth Him by spiritual vision;
others, and with more probability, take both clauses as synonymous and in
reference to spiritual vision. The sense is that because the wicked world
will refuse to recognise the Holy Ghost, it will be incapable of receiving
Him at His coming. Want of vision shall be a hindrance to possession.

*But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in
you.* Reversing the order of thought, He now says that the presence of the
Holy Ghost abiding in the Apostles shall bring them still fuller
knowledge. Such seems to be the sense of the verse according to the
Vulgate reading. But in the latter part of the verse, instead of “shall
know” and “shall abide,” we have in both instances the present tense in
the Greek, and many authorities also read the present instead of “shall
be.” The clause would then run: “but you know him because he abides with
you and is in you.”

But even in this reading the present may stand for the future, and the
meaning will be the same as in the Vulgate.

18. Non relinquam vos 18. I will not leave you
orphanos: veniam ad vos. orphans, I will come to you.

18. As a _sixth_ motive of consolation, He tells them that He will come
again to them Himself. Already indeed he had spoken of His coming to them,
and had put it forward as a motive of consolation (verse 3), but the
coming there meant we take to be different from that now referred to, and
hence a new motive of consolation is now put forward in the coming
promised here.

*I will come* (ἔρχομαί) *to you*. There are various views as to what
coming of Christ is here promised.

(1) Some hold that the reference is to the coming after His resurrection
when we know He appeared to the Apostles but was unseen by the world. So
St. Chrys., St. Thom., Patriz., &c.

(2) Others hold that there is question of the coming at the Day of
Judgment. As the years are measured before God, only “a little while”
shall elapse till then, and it is only after the Day of Judgment that the
promise of verse 20: “In that day you shall know that I am in my Father,
and you in me, and I in you” shall be fully realized. So St. Aug., Mald.,
&c.

(3) Others understand of the coming of Christ in and with the Holy Ghost
on the day of Pentecost. If the consubstantiality and circumincession of
the three Divine Persons be borne in mind, the whole passage that follows
as far as verse 24, will then be naturally explained. So St. Cyril, Beel.,
Bisp., &c. We prefer the last view, and hold that from 15‐24, there is
question of the coming of the Holy Ghost, first in reference to the
Apostles (15‐20), and then in reference to the faithful generally (21‐24).
In reference to the Apostles, the coming of the Holy Ghost is first
considered in itself (15‐17), and next, for their consolation, as implying
and including the coming of Christ Himself (18‐20).

Though this view may at first sight seem forced, we believe that if the
connection in the passage be followed closely, it must appear the most
probable. For when St. Jude, alluding to the words of verse 19, asks, in
verse 22, how Christ shall be seen by the Apostles, yet unseen by the
world, Christ’s reply, in verse 23, goes to show that the vision is
spiritual, and such as is explained by the fact, that He and His Father
will come and make their abode in those that love Him.

19. Adhuc modicum, et mundus 19. Yet a little while: and
me iam non videt. Vos autem the world seeth me no more.
videtis me, quia ego vivo, et But you see me: because I
vos vivetis. live, and you shall live.

19. *Yet a little while.* This we understand of the few hours that
remained till His death. After that, the world should see Him no longer.
But, He adds, you shall see Me (present for future); not, indeed, with the
eyes of the body, but with those of the soul; because I live (the present
being used, perhaps, of His Divine life, in virtue of which He was to
resume the life of the body), and you shall live the life of grace, which
will be rewarded by the vision of Me.

Thus he tells them that they shall live a spiritual life, a kind of
participation in His own glorious life (vi. 57), and that for this reason
they shall be privileged to see Him spiritually. That there is question of
spiritual vision, is proved, we believe, from what follows; for they shall
see according as He shall manifest Himself (verse 21); and this
manifestation of Himself He explains in verse 23 of His abiding in them.

20. In illo die vos 20. In that day you shall know
cognoscetis quia ego sum in that I am in my Father, and
Patre meo, et vos in me, et you in me, and I in you.
ego in vobis.

20. In that time, after I have come to you at Pentecost (together with the
Holy Ghost), you shall know clearly that I am in My Father, that I am God,
and that you are in Me as its branches in the vine (see below, xv. 2),
deriving all your spiritual life from Me, and I in you by a _special
indwelling_ enjoyed only by the just. See above on vii. 39. If there be a
comparison here between the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son on the
one hand, and that of Christ and the just on the other, it is plain that
the likeness is only imperfect and analogical. Yet such texts as this (see
also vi. 58; xvii. 21, 23), even when we make all necessary allowance for
the imperfection of the likeness, prove clearly how marvellously intimate
and sacred is the union that exists between Christ and the souls of the
just.

21. Qui habet mandata mea, et 21. He that hath my
servat ea, ille est, qui commandments, and keepeth
diligit me. Qui autem diligit them: he it is that loveth me.
me, diligetur a Patre meo: et And he that loveth me, shall
ego diligam eum, et manifestab be loved of my Father: and I
o ei meipsum. will love him, and will
manifest myself to him.

21. *He that hath* (ὁ ἔχων) *my commandments, and keepeth them*, &c. Not
only to the Apostles, but to all that love Him, Christ will manifest
Himself, for in and with the Holy Ghost He and His Father will come and
abide in them.

22. Dicit ei Iudas, non ille 22. Judas saith to him, not
Iscariotes: Domine, quid the Iscariot: Lord, how is it,
factum est quia manifestaturus that thou wilt manifest
es nobis teipsum, et non thyself to us, and not to the
mundo? world?
23. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 23. Jesus answered, and said
ei: Si quis diligit me, to him: If any one love me, he
sermonem meum servabit, et will keep my word, and my
Pater meus diliget eum, et ad Father will love him, and we
eum veniemus, et mansionem will come to him, and will
apud eum faciemus: make our abode with him.

22‐23. Asked by the Apostle Jude, brother to James the Less, who was also
called Thaddeus, how He would manifest Himself to the Apostles, yet be
unseen by the world, Christ replies that He will come and dwell in all
that love Him, and thus manifest Himself, and be seen by them in a
spiritual manner.

24. Qui non diligit me, 24. He that loveth me not,
sermones meos non servat. Et keepeth not my words. And the
sermonem quem audistis, non word which you have heard is
est meus: sed ejus qui misit not mine; but the Father’s who
me, Patris. sent me.

24. He had just said that those who love Him will keep His words and obey
them, and now He adds that those who do not love Him will not keep His
words. The reason why He here insists upon this observance of His words
is, that such observance is necessary, before He will manifest Himself and
make His abode in any heart. For, as is clear from verse 21, Christ will
manifest Himself only to those who are loved by the Father; but they alone
are loved by the Father who love Christ, and they alone love Christ who
keep His commandments (verse 23).

*And the word which you have heard*, &c. “Sermonem” (Vulg.) ought to be
“sermo,” and the verb in the original is in the present (ἀκούετε). The
sense, therefore, is: the words which you are _wont to hear_ from Me are
not Mine alone, but the Father’s also who sent Me. *Is not mine, but the
Father’s who sent me.* This form of expression, which seems to declare
that the words are in no way Christ’s, is a Hebraism, and means that they
are not His alone. See above on vii. 16. Of course the authority of
Christ’s words was equal in every way to that of the Father’s, but since
the Apostles did not yet fully realize His Divinity with all that it
implied, He invokes the Father’s authority as having more weight with
them.

25. Haec locutus sum vobis, 25. These things have I spoken
apud vos manens. to you, abiding with you.
26. Paraclitus autem Spiritus 26. But the Paraclete, the
sanctus, quem mittet Pater in Holy Ghost, whom the Father
nomine meo, ille vos docebit will send in my name, he will
omnia, et suggeret vobis vobis teach you all things, and
omnia, quaecumque dixero bring all things to your mind,
vobis. whatsoever I shall have said
to you.

25, 26. These things I have spoken to you while remaining with you; and if
you fail to fully understand them, yet be consoled with My assurance that
the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He
will teach you all that you need know, and _recall to your minds_
(ὑπομνήσει) all that I _said_ (εἰπον) to you. This may be regarded as the
_seventh_ motive of consolation.

Here again, as in verse 16, we have mention of three distinct Persons: the
Holy Ghost is to be sent by the Father in the name of the Son. And, as we
remarked on verse 16, the fact that the Holy Ghost is to be sent by the
Father, proves His procession from the Father.

The Holy Ghost is said to be sent _in Christ’s name_, most probably
because He was sent in the place of Christ, another Comforter and Helper,
to console the Apostles and carry on the work begun by Christ.

The infallible teaching authority of the _Apostles_ follows from the fact
that they were to be taught by the Holy Ghost, the spirit of truth (verse
17). And since they were endowed with this infallible teaching authority
in order that they might teach the flock of Christ (xv. 16); since,
moreover, there is still the same need for an infallible teaching
authority in the Church, if the work of Christ and His Apostles is to be
continued without danger of failure, we are warranted in concluding that
an infallible teaching authority still resides in the _Church_.

Hence, to use Christ’s own words: “The gates of hell shall not prevail
against her” (Matt. xvi. 18), because in her _office of teacher_ she has
Christ with her, all days, even, to the consummation of the world. “Euntes
... _docete ... et ecce_ ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad
consummationem saeculi” (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20).

27. Pacem relinquo vobis, 27. Peace I leave with you, my
pacem meam do vobis: non peace I give unto you: not as
quomodo mundus dat, ego do the world giveth, do I give
vobis. Non turbetur cor unto you. Let not your heart
vestrum, neque formidet. be troubled, nor let it be
afraid.

27. As the _eighth_ motive of consolation, Christ gives the Apostles His
peace. Among the Jews it was customary for the people to salute and take
leave of one another by wishing one another peace. Christ here says that
His words are not a mere wish or empty formula; with Him to wish peace was
to confer it, and that in a true and lasting manner.

28. Audistis quia ego dixi 28. You have heard that I said
vobis: Vado et venio ad vos. to you: I go away and I come
Si diligeretis me, gauderetis unto you. If you loved me, you
utique, quia vado ad Patrem: would indeed be glad, because
quia Pater maior me est. I go to the Father: for the
Father is greater than I.

28. *You would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father.* “Naturae
humanae gratulandum est, eo quod sic assumpta est a Verbo unigenito, ut
immortalis constitueretur in coelo, atque ita fieret terra sublimis, ut
incorruptibilis pulvis sederet ad dexteram Patris.” (St. Aug. _in loc._).

*For the Father is greater than I.* These words have been variously
explained. We would interpret either with St. Chrys.: For the Father is
greater than I, _in your estimation_; or better still: For the Father is
greater than I _as man_. Hence, since by His going to the Father, Christ’s
humanity was to share in the glory of the Father, and thus be exalted,
they should rejoice at His going, if they really loved Him. This is the
_ninth_ motive proposed for their consolation.

The Arians triumphantly pointed to the words: “The Father is greater than
I,” as a proof of the inferiority of the Son to the Father. But in neither
of the interpretations which we have given of the words, does the Arian
heresy find any support. And certainly whatever be the correct
interpretation, Christ cannot, without contradicting Himself, mean that
_as God_ He is inferior to the Father. For He had already told them that
He is in the Father, and the Father in Him (verse 10), and in the face of
His enemies He had proclaimed that He and the Father are one (John x. 30).

29. Et nunc dixi vobis 29. And now I have told you
priusquam fiat: ut cum factum before it come to pass: that
fuerit, credatis. when it shall come to pass you
may believe.

29. Not that they did not believe His words beforehand: but they would be
strengthened in their belief of all He had told them, when they should see
fulfilled this special prediction _of His going away and returning_ (verse
28).

30. Iam non multa loquar 30. I will not now speak many
vobiscum: venit enim princeps things with you. For the
mundi huius, et in me non prince of this world cometh,
habet quidquam. and in me he hath not
anything.

30. Satan who is here called *the prince of this* (rather _the_) *world*
(see also xii. 31, xvi. 11; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12), and who was
now urging on Judas and the Jews to lay hands on Christ, found nothing in
Christ in virtue of which Christ could be in any way subjected to him.

*In me he hath not anything.* From what we have just said it will be seen
that the meaning is: he has no authority over Me, no claim upon Me,
inasmuch as sin has never had any share in Me.

31. Sed ut cognoscat mundus 31. But that the world may
quia diligo Patrem et sicut know that I love the Father:
mandatum dedit mihi Pater, sic and as the Father hath given
facio. Surgite, eamus hinc. me commandment, so do I:
Arise, let us go hence.

31. Yet, to prove His love for, and His obedience to, the Father, He will
submit to be forthwith seized by the minions of Satan. The construction of
this verse is not clear. The first part may depend on the last clause:
arise, let us go hence, that the world, &c., or there may be ellipsis in
the opening words (comp. ix. 3; xiii. 18), the sense being: but _I deliver
Myself to death_ that the world, &c. For explanation of the words, “As the
Father hath given me commandment,” see above on x. 18.

*Arise, let us go hence.* We may reasonably conclude that Jesus,
accompanied by the Apostles, now left the supper‐room. Had they not done
so, St. John would probably have referred to the delay. Whether they
paused in a porch or court of the house, or at some quiet spot on the way,
till the discourse and prayer to the Father (xv.‐xvii.) were spoken, or
proceeded immediately through the city towards the Garden of Olives, and
had arrived at the brook of Cedron (John xviii. 1), when Christ concluded,
is disputed. Bearing in mind the crowded condition of Jerusalem during the
Paschal week, and that probably it was hardly yet 10 p.m., when the
streets would be still thronged with people, we think it extremely
unlikely that such a discourse and prayer, as are contained in John
xv.‐xvii. 26, were spoken while Christ and the Apostles passed through the
streets of the city. We think it most probable, then, that they paused at
some quiet spot on the outskirts of the city, or in a porch or court of
the house where they had supped.

CHAPTER XV.

1‐11. *In a beautiful allegory, Christ declares the necessity of
union with Himself in order to a supernatural life.*

12‐17. *He inculcates mutual love, proposing as a model His own
love for the Apostles—a love which made him ready to lay down His
life for them (13), and which was spontaneous (16).*

18‐25. *He fortifies them against the world’s hatred by reminding
them that it hated Himself, and so they shall only be treading in
His footsteps. He points out too how inexcusable is this attitude
of the world towards Himself and His followers.*

26‐27. *He again promises the Holy Ghost, who together with the
Apostles, will bear testimony of Him.*

1. Ego sum vitis vera: et 1. I am the true vine; and my
Pater meus agricola est. Father is the husbandman.

1. After they had left the supper‐room Christ again addresses the
Apostles. The fact that the Evangelist gives the discourse that follows
without any introductory remark, such as: And Christ said, or: And while
they went Christ said—favours the view that only a slight break separated
this discourse from that recorded in the preceding chapter. This would,
therefore, render it very probable that what follows was spoken in the
vicinity of the house in which they had supped rather than on the
outskirts of the city.

As Christ was about to leave His Apostles, He now impresses upon them the
necessity of abiding in Him by faith and love. For this purpose He
compares Himself to the stem of the vine, and the Apostles to its
branches. As the branches draw all their life and nourishment from the
stem, so must the Apostles draw all their spiritual life from Him. This
idea would be illustrated by the relation between the trunk of any tree
and its branches. The chief reason, then, why He compares Himself to the
vine is because it was customary to prune its branches, and He was about
to speak of the pruning of His mystical branches by the Father.(98) He is
_the true_, that is the perfect vine, because He nourishes His members
more perfectly than does any vine tree its branches. In a similar sense He
is the true light (John i. 9), and the true bread (John vi. 32).

“He is the ‘vine’ in His _humanity_, in which the branches of the same
nature are united with Him. But it is from His _Divinity_ the branches
derive the spiritual and life‐giving influence that leads to eternal
happiness” (MacEv.)

It is needless to say, that in calling Himself the true vine, Christ does
not mean to signify that He is really a vine. The language is plainly
metaphorical, and is so explained by our Lord Himself in verses 4 and 5.
Hence it bears no comparison with the words used by Christ in instituting
the Blessed Eucharist. In the latter case He declared that what He held in
His hands was His body, and there was nothing in His words, or in the
circumstances in which they were uttered to point to a figurative sense.
On the contrary, His discourse delivered twelve months beforehand in the
Synagogue of Capharnaum, and recorded in the sixth chapter of our Gospel,
prepared the Apostles to receive His words, mysterious though they must
have seemed, in the literal sense.

*And my Father is the husbandman.* The Father attends to and purifies
Christ’s followers in a manner similar to that employed by the vine‐
dresser, that so they may produce more abundant fruit. The Arians appealed
to this text to show that Christ was inferior to God. For as the vine and
the husbandman are not of the same nature, so neither, they said, are
Christ and the Father of the same nature. We answer that in metaphorical
language the comparison is not to be pressed too far, only indeed in that
particular, or in regard to that point, for the illustration of which the
metaphor is employed. See above on x. 3. Now in the present instance
Christ points out (in verse 4) that His metaphorical language is designed
to show the necessity for the Apostles of union with Himself. Nothing
therefore can be inferred in regard to His _nature_ and the Father’s. In
reality, Christ, _as God_, was husbandman, as well as the Father; but as
it would not suit the comparison to call Himself both vine and husbandman,
He attributes the office of husbandman to the Father. “Numquid unum sunt
agricola et vitis? Secundum hoc ergo vitis Christus, secundum quod ait:
Pater major me est. Secundum autem id quod ait: Ego et Pater unum sumus,
et ipse agricola est.” (St. Aug.)(99)

2. Omnem palmitem in me non 2. Every branch in me, that
ferentem fructum, tollet eum: beareth not fruit, he will
et omnem qui fert fructum, take away: and every one that
purgabit eum, ut fructum plus beareth fruit he will purge
afferat. it, that it may bring forth
more fruit.

2. *Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit.* From this it follows that
branches may be unfruitful and yet really remain branches, and members of
Christ’s Church. The sense of Christ’s words is: Every Christian that
beareth not the fruit of good works, the Father _takes_ away (Gr.
present), either in this life, by permitting them to fall into heresy, or
at death when they shall no longer remain members of the Church. They are
therefore lopped off like useless branches. The good, too, are purified by
the Father, who _prunes_ their hearts, removing therefrom all impediments
to perfection, taking away everything that would hinder or impede the
vital power in the production of spiritual fruit. As even the best
branches are improved by judicious pruning, so the just are rendered more
perfect by the purifying action of the Divine Husbandman. Αὐτο in both
cases is redundant.

3. Iam vos mundi estis propter 3. Now you are clean by reason
sermonem, quem locutus sum of the word which I have
vobis. spoken to you.

3. *Now* (already) *you are clean*. The meaning is that the Apostles were
already pruned, that the obstacles to their spiritual growth had been
taken away by His words addressed to them that night. It is possible that,
as some think, there is reference to all Christ’s teaching; but we believe
there is at least _special_ reference to the discourse of that last night.
For He had that night perfected their knowledge (xiv. 6‐11); guarded them
against an unavailing sorrow (xiv. 1‐2, &c.); checked the presumption of
some (xiii. 38), and supplied motives to confirm the faith of all (xiv.
29).

4. Manete in me: et ego in 4. Abide in me: and I in you.
vobis. Sicut palmes non potest As the branch cannot bear
ferre fructum a semetipso, fruit of itself, unless it
nisi manserit in vite: sic nec abide in the vine, so neither
vos, nisi in me manseritis. can you, unless you abide in
me.

4. *Abide in me, and I in you.* The meaning is: take care that ye abide in
Me by faith and love, and I will abide in you by love and grace.(100) Or
it may be that the last clause too is imperative in conception: permit me
to abide in you. Since they are exhorted to abide, it follows that they
were free not to abide; and hence it is possible, as the Council of Trent
defined (Sess. vi., Can. 23) to fall away from faith and grace. *Of
itself*—that is, as the source of its vital energy.

5. Ego sum vitis, vos 5. I am the vine; you the
palmites: qui manet in me et branches: he that abideth in
ego in eo, hic fert fructum me, and I in him, the same
multum: quia sine me nihil beareth much fruit: for
potestis facere. without me you can do nothing.

5. The theme (verse 1) is again repeated, and now there is added the
clause: *Ye are the branches*, which definitely sums up what was already
implied in the preceding verses. *For without me you can do nothing.*
These words show that, though as we have seen in the preceding verse the
Apostles were free not to abide in Him, they were not able of themselves
to abide in Him or to bear any supernatural fruit except through His
grace. The words refute the Pelagian and Semipelagian heresies, for they
show that without the aid of Christ’s grace we are capable of no
supernatural good work. “Sive ergo parum, sive multum, sine illo fieri non
potest, sine quo nihil fieri potest” (St. Aug. _in loc._). It would be
difficult, we think, to prove from this text by itself that even where
_habitual_ grace is present, _actual_ grace is also necessary in order to
a salutary work; but the traditional interpretation given to this text by
the fathers forbids us to doubt that the necessity of actual grace also is
here revealed.

There is no question in this text of the necessity of God’s concurrence in
our _natural_ acts; the question is of Christ’s influx as mystic vine upon
the faithful who remain united to Him as branches.

6. Si quis in me non manserit, 6. If any one abide not in me:
mittetur foras sicut palmes: he shall be cast forth as a
et arescet et colligent eum, branch, and shall wither, and
et in ignem mittent, et ardet. they shall gather him up, and
cast him into the fire, and he
burneth.

6. Observe the variety of tense in the verbs of this verse in the Greek
text. “Sensus est: Si quis in me non manserit, jam eo ipso _ejectus est_
foras sicut palmes et _exaruit_” (Beel., _Gr. Gram._, § 41, 5, b). The
casting forth and withering happen simultaneously with the separation from
Christ. The words of the verse indicate the punishment which is in store
for those who die separated from Christ. In the Greek we have αῦτὰ (ea)
instead of “eum” of the Vulgate; and the sense, is that as men usually
gather up the _withered branches_ (αὐτα), and fling them into the fire,
where they burn, so shall the angels of God do to the sinner. See Matt.
xiii. 41.

7. Si manseritis in me, et 7. If you abide in me, and my
verba mea in vobis manserint: words abide in you, you shall
quodcumque volueritis petetis, ask whatever you will, and it
et fiet vobis. shall be done unto you.

7. In contrast with the unhappy condition of those separated from Christ,
they who remain in Him by faith, and keep His words through charity
working by faith, shall obtain from God through prayer whatever they ask,
provided it be necessary or useful to their spiritual life. “Whatsoever we
shall ask according to His will He heareth us” (1 John v. 14).

8. In hoc clarificatus est 8. In this is my Father
Pater meus, ut fructum glorified; that you bring
plurimum afferatis, et forth very much fruit, and
efficiamini mei discipuli. become my disciples.

8. It is clear from these words that the good works of the just give glory
to God. Instead of “efficiamini,” the more probable Greek reading is
γενήσεσθε (efficiemini), and the meaning is; And so you shall become more
and more My disciples.

9. Sicut dilexit me Pater, et 9. As the Father hath loved
ego dilexi vos. Manete in me, I also have loved you.
dilectione mea. Abide in my love.

9. As (καθώς) expresses not equality, but resemblance. The resemblance
consists in this, that as the Father loved Christ’s humanity gratuitously,
without any previous merit on its part, and united it with the Person of
the Word, so Christ loved the disciples gratuitously, and united them with
Himself. So Toletus, following St. Aug. Then Christ adds as a practical
conclusion: Take care to remain in the enjoyment of that love of mine for
you. Or the meaning of the whole verse according to the Greek text may be:
as the Father hath loved Me, and as I have loved you, so abide ye in the
enjoyment of that love of Mine for you.

10. Si praecepta mea 10. If you keep my
servaveritis, manebitis in commandments, you shall abide
dilectione mea, sicut et ego in my love; as I also have
Patris mei praecepta servavi, kept my Father’s commandments,
et maneo in eius dilectione. and do abide in his love.

10. Here he points out how they are to continue to enjoy His love: it is
by keeping His commandments.

11. Haec locutus sum vobis, ut 11. These things I have spoken
gaudium meum in vobis sit, et to you, that my joy may be in
gaudium vestrum impleatur. you, and your joy may be
filled.

11. The meaning is: these things, namely, that you should keep My
commandments and continue to retain My love, I have spoken in order that
My joy on account of you may continue (the true reading is ᾖ, not μείνῃ,
but does not alter the sense), and your joy may be perfected.

12. Hoc est præceptum meum ut 12. This is my commandment,
diligatis invicem, sicut that you love one another, as
dilexi vos. I have loved you.

12. He had just said that the observance of His commandments is a
necessary condition to be fulfilled by those who would retain His love,
and now He goes on to point to one commandment that in a special manner is
_His_, the “new commandment” (xiii. 34), to which they must attend.

13. Maiorem hac dilectionem 13. Greater love than this no
nemo habet, ut animam suam man hath, that a man lay down
ponat quis pro amicis suis. his life for his friends.

13. In this verse He explains what sort is that love of His upon which
theirs must be modelled (comp. 1 John iii. 16). The meaning is, that no
greater proof of love for a friend can be given than to lay down one’s
life for him. This He was about to do for them. The comparison is not
between dying for a _friend_ and dying for an _enemy_, but between the
different proofs of love for a friend.

14. Vos amici mei estis, si 14. You are my friends, if you
feceritis quae ego praecipio do the things that I command
vobis. you.

14. Here He shows that in speaking of laying down His life for His
friends, He means laying it down for the Apostles.

15. Iam non dicam vos servos, 15. I will not now call you
quia servus nescit quid faciat servants: for the servant
dominus eius. Vos autem dixi knoweth not what his Lord
amicos: quia omnia quaecumque doth. But I have called you
audivi a Patre meo, nota feci friends: because all things
vobis. whatsoever I have heard of my
Father, I have made known to
you.

15. He has referred to them as friends, and will do so in future.
Formerly, indeed, He had referred to them as His servants (John xii. 26,
xiii. 16), but now after He has taken them so fully into His confidence,
told them of His speedy departure from them (xiii. 33), pointed out to
them His consubstantiality with the Father (xiv. 7‐11), and instructed
them that the Holy Ghost was to come to them (xiv. 16, 17), He will no
longer speak of them as servants, but as friends.

*All things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to
you.* That is to say, all the knowledge which was communicated to Him,
together with His Divine nature, in His eternal generation by the Father;
all this, as far as they were capable (John xvi. 12), and it was useful
for them, He had communicated to them.

16. Non vos me elegistis: sed 16. You have not chosen me:
ego elegi vos et posui vos, ut but I have chosen you; and
eatis, et fructum afferatis: have appointed you, that you
et fructus vester maneat: ut should go, and should bring
quodcumque petieritis Patrem forth fruit, and your fruit
in nomine meo, det vobis. should remain: that whatsoever
you shall ask of the Father in
my name, he may give it you.

16. *You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you.* Or more exactly; “it
was not you that chose Me, but I chose you,” where the aorist refers back
to the definite act of selecting and calling the Apostles. Not only then
was His love for them most intense, as was signified in verse 13, but it
was also _gratuitous_, unmerited: and this is now pointed out. You did not
choose Me as your friend, but I chose you as My special friends, My
Apostles; and set you up as such, in order that you should go into the
whole world (Mark xvi. 15). and bear fruit in yourselves and others, and
that this fruit should remain unto eternal life.

*That* (ἵνα) *whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may
give it you*. Some as Mald. and A Lap. take ἵνα here to denote a
consequence: if you bring forth the fruit for which I have chosen you, _it
will come to pass_ that whatsoever, &c. Others think ἵνα may retain its
usual telic force: I appointed you in order that ... your fruit should
remain, and that whatsoever _in reference to that fruit_ you shall ask,
&c. On what is meant by asking the Father in Christ’s name, see above on
xiv. 13.

17. Haec mando vobis, ut 17. These things I command
diligatis invicem. you, that you love one
another.

17. Some take the meaning to be: these things, namely, the greatness and
gratuitousness of My love for you _I insist upon_, to the end that you may
love one another. Others as Mald. and Patriz. take the meaning to be the
same as in verse 11: this is what I command you, namely, that you love one
another. The use of ταῦτα (haec) and not τοῦτο (hoc) is rather against the
latter view, but it is replied that the plural demonstrative followed by
the single precept is intended to signify that charity is the fulfilment
of the whole law.

18. Si mundus vos odit, 18. If the world hate you,
scitote quia me priorem vobis know you that it hath hated me
odio habuit. before you.

18. Having exhorted them to mutual love, He now fortifies them against the
hatred of the world and the persecutions that awaited them. The world, as
is plain, is the wicked world, and in being hated by it they shall only be
treading in the footsteps of their Master.

*It hath hated.* The Greek perfect implies not merely a passing
manifestation of hatred, but an abiding and persistent feeling.

19. Si de mundo fuissetis, 19. If you had been of the
mundus quod suum erat world, the world would love
diligeret: quia vero de mundo its own: but because you are
non estis, sed ego elegi vos not of the world, but I have
de mundo propterea odit vos chosen you out of the world,
mundus. therefore the world hateth
you.

19. *If you had been*, ought rather to be: if you were. The five‐fold
repetition of “the world” in this verse brings vividly before us this
great antagonist of Christ.

20. Mementote sermonis mei, 20. Remember my word that I
quem ego dixi vobis: Non est said to you: The servant is
servus maior domino suo. Si me not greater than his master.
persecuti sunt, et vos If they have persecuted me,
persequentur: si sermonem meum they will also persecute you:
servaverunt, et vestrum if they have kept my word,
servabunt. they will keep yours also.

20. He now reminds them of what He had told them before (xiii. 16) that:
“a servant is not greater than his master,” and from this He goes on to
signify what they must expect to meet with from the world.

*If they have kept my word.* Some think there is reference to those who
having been of the world came out from it to follow Christ and keep His
word. But it appears more probable that He speaks of those who are still
of the world, and leaves it to be supplied that since they had not kept
His word, so neither would they keep that of the Apostles. By the word of
the Apostles is meant the word of Christ as preached by them.

21. Sed haec omnia facient 21. But all these things they
vobis propter nomen meum: quia will do to you for my name’s
nesciunt eum qui misit me. sake: because they know not
him that sent me.

21. But remember that you shall suffer in a glorious cause; namely, on My
account; for they will persecute you because you are My followers, and
this because through culpable ignorance they will not recognise God as My
Father, nor Me as the Son of God.

22. Si non venissem, et 22. If I had not come, and
locutus fuissem eis, peccatum spoken to them, they would not
non haberent: nunc autem have sin: but now they have no
excusationem non habent de excuse for their sin.
peccato suo.
23. Qui me odit et Patrem meum 23. He that hateth me, hateth
odit. my Father also.

22, 23. That this ignorance is culpable, He now proves from the fact that
He had Himself declared to them His relations with the Father. The sin
(_peccatum_) is that of incredulity, and in remaining incredulous and
hating Christ, they thereby showed that they hated the Father who sent
Him.

24. Si opera non fecissem in 24. If I had not done among
eis quae nemo alius fecit, them the works that no other
peccatum non haberent: nunc man hath done, they would not
autem et viderunt, et oderunt have sin: but now they have
et me, et Patrum meum. both seen and hated both me
and my Father.

24. Not only His words (verse 22), but also His unparalleled miracles
deprived them of all excuse for their unbelief. See above on iii. 2. But
now they have seen, or ought to have seen, the Father in Me (see above on
xiv. 9); and they have seen Me, and they have hated Us both.

25. Sed ut adimpleatur sermo 25. But that the word may be
qui in lege eorum scriptus fulfilled which is written in
est: Quia odio habuerunt me their law: _They have hated me
gratis. without cause_.

25. Yet, He continues, it is only what their own Scriptures (Ps. xxxiv.
19) foretold, that they would hate Him without cause. Thus this hatred of
the world, so far from weakening the faith of the Apostles in Christ as
the Messias, should confirm it, since the Messias was to be hated by the
world. In this verse ἵνα has its usual _telic_ force, and the sense is:
but this has come to pass _in order that_ the Scripture might be
fulfilled. See above on xii. 37‐40. The passage of the Psalm referred to
is probably Messianic in its literal sense.

26. Cum autem venerit 26. But when the Paraclete
Paraclitus, quem ego mittam cometh, whom I will send you
vobis a Patre, spiritum from the Father, the Spirit of
veritatis, qui a Patre truth, who proceedeth from the
procedit, ille testimonium Father, he shall give
perhibebit de me: testimony of me.
27. Et vos testimonium 27. And you shall give
perhibebitis, quia ab initio testimony, because you are
mecum estis. with me from the beginning.

26, 27. The connection with the preceding is: though the world hate
Christ, yet the Holy Ghost and the Apostles shall bear witness to Him.
Here again, in verse 26, we have distinct mention of the Three Persons of
the Blessed Trinity. See xiv. 16, 26. Though the Holy Ghost is not here
said to proceed from the Son as well as from the Father (“ex Patre
Filioque”), yet this is implied in His being sent by the Son (see above on
xiv. 26), and can be clearly proved against the schismatical Greeks from
other parts of Scripture, as from John xvi. 13, 14. The Greek rendered
*you shall give testimony*, is ambiguous, and may be either an imperative
or an indicative. However, as Christ seems to be speaking of the witnesses
who will maintain His cause against the world, and not to be prescribing
the duty of the Apostles, the indicative is preferable.

CHAPTER XVI.

1‐4. *Christ points out the violence of the persecutions which
await the Apostles, and His object in forewarning them.*

5‐7. *He again consoles them, and tries to reconcile them to His
departure, by telling them that it is necessary, in order that the
Holy Ghost may come to them.*

8‐15. *He points out that the Holy Ghost will convince the world
vv. (8‐11), instruct them in what they were not yet able to learn
(vv. 12‐13), and give glory to Christ Himself (vv. 14‐15). Hence
they ought to desire the Holy Ghost’s coming.*

16‐22. *He promises that after a brief absence, during which they
shall have bitter sorrow, He will return to them, and their sorrow
shall give place to joy.*

23, 24. *He bids them to pray to the Father in His name, and
promises that such prayer will be heard.*

25‐28. *Though He has spoken obscurely to them in this last
discourse, the time is at hand when He will speak plainly—a time
when they will ask the Father in His name.*

1. Haec locutus sum vobis, ut 1. These things have I spoken
non scandalizemini. to you, that you may not be
scandalized.

1. His object in foretelling *these things* was that the Apostles might
not be scandalized; _i.e._, might not waver in the faith amid the trials
that were before them. But what are “these things” to which He refers?
Some, as St. Aug., understand the reference to be to the promise of the
Comforter (xv. 26, 27). Others, as Mald., to the persecutions that awaited
the Apostles, because the prediction of those persecutions now would
prepare the Apostles for them; nay, when those persecutions should come,
they would be another proof of the omniscience, and, therefore, of the
Divinity of Christ. Others, as A Lap., combine both the preceding
opinions. This appears to us the correct view, for Christ has spoken
towards the end of the preceding chapter, both of the persecutions that
the Apostles were to endure, and of the Comforter, who was to come to
them; and the prediction of both facts was calculated to sustain them when
trials should come. On the one hand, they would not become disspirited by
_unexpected_ reverses; on the other, they would trust in the Comforter,
who had been promised.

2. Absque synagogis facient 2. They will put you out of
vos: sed venit hora, ut omnis the synagogues: yea, the hour
qui interficit vos, arbitretur cometh, that whosoever killeth
obsequium se praestare Deo: you, will think that he doth a
service to God.

2. *They will put you out of the synagogues* (or rather, synagogue) _i.e._
excommunicate you. Compare ix. 22; xii. 42. Yea, He continues, the time is
approaching when persecution will be so violent that your countrymen will
think that they do a service to God by putting you to death. The mention
of the synagogue proves that the reference is to _Jewish_ persecutions. No
doubt many of the Jews thought, like St. Paul (Acts xxvi. 9; 1 Tim. i.
13), that they were pleasing God by persecuting Christians. Their
ignorance, however, while it extenuated, did not wholly excuse, their sin,
for it was culpable. They ought to have known from Christ’s words and
works, and from the fulfilment of prophecy in Him, that He was the
Messias, to whom, therefore, they were bound to hearken (Deut. xviii. 19),
and whose religion was to perfect and supplant their own.

3. Et haec facient vobis, quia 3. And these things will they
non noverunt Patrem neque me. do to you, because they have
not known the Father, nor me.

3. See above on xv. 21.

4. Sed haec locutus sum vobis: 4. But these things I have
ut, cum venerit hora eorum, told you, that when the hour
reminiscamini quia ego dixi shall come, you may remember
vobis. that I told you of them.

4. “Eorum” of the Vulgate is to be connected with “reminiscamini,” on
which it depends. The comma ought to be before “eorum;” the Greek text
makes this clear. As we said above on verse 1, the fact that Christ had
foretold these persecutions, would be another proof of His Divinity.
Moreover, since He knew that these persecutions were in store, and did not
avert them, the Apostles ought to learn from this to bear them with
resignation, inasmuch as they were not merely endured for Him, but
permitted by Him.

5. Haec autem vobis ab initio 5. But I told you not these
non dixi, quia vobiscum eram. things from the beginning,
Et nunc vado ad eum, qui misit because I was with you. And
me: et nemo ex vobis now I go to him that sent me,
interrogat me, Quo vadis? and none of you asketh me:
Whither goest thou?

5. *But I told you not these things from the beginning.* “These things,”
we again understand, as in verse 1, both of the persecutions which were
before them, and of the coming of the Holy Ghost to take Christ’s place,
and console the Apostles.

But had He not already predicted that the Apostles were to be persecuted?
Had He not said: “But beware of men. For they will deliver you up in
councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues. And you shall be
brought before governors and before kings for My sake, for a testimony to
them and to the Gentiles”? (Matt. x. 17, 18). To this we may reply, with
Mald., that He had never predicted persecution until now, and that St.
Matthew, in recording, in the passage cited, the prediction of
persecution, does not follow the order of time, but inserts, in connection
with the mission of the Apostles to the Jews what was spoken long after,
probably immediately before, Christ’s ascension, when they were receiving
their mission to the whole world. (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20). Or we may
reply—and this answer we prefer—that although He had before predicted the
persecution of the Apostles, yet He had not till now told them what He
told them on this occasion; namely, that they should be excommunicated by
the Jews, and that men would think they were actually honouring God in
persecuting them. So that although He had before predicted persecution,
still it was only now He predicted its terrible violence.

*And* (Gr. δε = _but_) *now I go to him that sent me*. These words are to
be connected closely with the preceding. Before, He had not told them
these things, _but_ now He is about to leave them, and there is,
therefore, a special reason for His referring to the future.

*And none of you asketh me: Whither goest thou?* Or: “And does none of you
ask Me: Whither goest thou”? Our Lord probably remained silent for a few
moments after announcing His departure, in order to see if anyone would
question Him further about it. Since no one did, He mildly reminds them in
the words before us, that they are not sufficiently solicitous to learn
the things that concerned Him; but, as He goes on to say in verse 6, are
too much occupied with their own sorrows. No doubt, Peter had already
asked Him: “Lord, whither goest Thou?” (John xiii. 36); and Thomas had
said: “Lord, we know not whither Thou goest; and how can we know the way?”
(John xiv. 5), but they had not persevered in asking; and at present, when
He is just about to depart, they put Him no questions about the glory that
was before Him, or the nature of the kingdom that awaited Him.

6. Sed quia haec locutus sum 6. But because I have spoken
vobis: tristitia implevit cor these things to you sorrow
vestrum. hath filled your heart.

6. *These things* we again take, as in verses 1 and 5, to refer to the
persecutions which He had predicted, and to the coming of the Holy Ghost
_after His departure_. That there is not question merely of persecutions
predicted, is proved by the next verse, in which He goes on, in immediate
connection with this (_But_ I tell you the truth, it is expedient to you
that I go) to reconcile them to His departure. For the same reason, there
is not question merely of the coming of the Holy Ghost, since that was no
cause for sorrow, but of His coming _in Christ’s place_. The prediction of
persecution, and of the coming of the Holy Ghost as _implying the
departure of Christ_, was what filled their hearts with sorrow.

7. Sed ego veritatem dico 7. But I tell you the truth:
vobis: expedit vobis ut ego it is expedient to you that I
vadam: si enim non abiero, go: for if I go not, the
Paraclitus non veniet ad vos: Paraclete will not come to
si autem abiero, mittam eum ad you: but if I go, I will send
vos. him to you.

7. *But.* The meaning is: notwithstanding your silence (verse 5), or:
notwithstanding your sorrow (verse 6), *I tell you the truth: it is
expedient to you that I go*. This expediency arose from the free
disposition of the Divine economy that the Son of God should remove from
among men His visible presence before the Holy Ghost should come. Nothing
in the nature of things necessarily required this; but God freely decreed
it so.

8. Et cum venerit ille, arguet 8. And when he is come he will
mundum de peccato, et de convince the world of sin, and
iustitia, et de iudicio. of justice, and of judgment.
9. De peccato quidem, quia non 9. Of sin: because they
crediderunt in me: believed not in me.
10. De iustitia vero, quia ad 10. And of justice: because I
Patrem vado, et iam non go to the Father; and you
videbitis me: shall see me no longer.
11. De iudicio autem, quia 11. And of judgment: because
princeps huius mundi iam the prince of this world is
iudicatus est. already judged.

8‐11. We may take these four verses together, as the three last explain
the first. Christ goes on to show why it is expedient for the Apostles
that He should leave them, and that the Holy Ghost should come. *And when
he is come, he will convince*, &c. The Greek word for “will convince” is
ἐλένξει, which may mean either—(_a_) to rebuke, or (_b_) to prove a thing
clearly so that it must be admitted. It is not absolutely necessary that
the word be used in the same sense throughout these verses; but since
there is nothing to indicate that it is used in different senses, we take
it in the same sense throughout. This sense we believe to be the second
just indicated, for this alone suits verses 10 and 11.

The meaning of the whole passage, then, we take to be the following:—And
when the Holy Ghost is come, He will clearly prove to the _unbelieving_
world, principally through your preaching and miracles, its own sin, My
justice, and its own condemnation. Its own sin of incredulity, which is
proved by the fact that the children of this wicked world did not believe
in Me (verse 9); My justice, which is proved by the fact that I go to God
to reign with Him for ever, so that men shall see Me no more; its own
condemnation, which is shown to be certain by the fact that its prince,
the devil, is already condemned. Christ’s victory over the devil at His
death implied the condemnation of the devil’s kingdom, the world. And as
Christ’s death was so near, the devil might be said to be already
condemned.

If it be objected to our interpretation that, since there is question in
verses 9 and 11 of the _world’s_ sin and condemnation, so there must be
question of the world’s justice in verse 10, we reply that Christ makes it
sufficiently clear that He is speaking in verse 10 of His own justice by
the words He adds: “Because I go to the Father, and you shall see Me no
longer.”

If it be objected that the Holy Ghost did not prove to the world its own
sin, nor Christ’s justice, nor its own condemnation, we reply that He did,
though the world in many of its children closed its eyes to the proof;
_Oculos habent et non videbunt_. (Ps. cxiii. 5.) The world saw in the
sanctity of the Christian religion, in the miracles wrought by Christ’s
followers, in the power of the Apostles and their successors over devils
and those possessed by devils, what ought to have convinced it of Christ’s
Divinity, and of its own sin and inevitable condemnation.

12. Adhuc multa habeo vobis 12. I have yet many things to
dicere: sed non potestis say to you: but you cannot
portare modo. hear them now.

12. *I have yet many things.* Among these many things which they were not
yet able to bear were, probably, the nature of His earthly kingdom, and
the abrogation of the Jewish Law, in as far as it was judicial and
ceremonial. As Jews who had grown up imbued with deepest reverence for the
Mosaic Law, the Apostles were naturally slow to believe that it was to be
abrogated; and immediately before St. Peter received Cornelius into the
Church as the first‐fruits of the Gentile world, he had to be taught by a
vision from heaven that the Jewish distinction between clean and unclean
meats was no longer to exist. (Acts x. 10‐16.) And as to the nature of
Christ’s earthly kingdom, the Apostles in common with the rest of their
race still hoped that the Messias would establish a mighty Jewish empire,
and restore Israel to a foremost place among the nations. Even on
Ascension day they still cherished this hope, as we learn from the Acts:
“Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts
i. 6).

13. Cum autem venerit ille 13. But when he, the Spirit of
Spiritus veritatis, docebit truth, is come, he will teach
vos omnem veritatem: non enim you all truth. For he shall
loquetur a semetipso: sed not speak of himself: but what
quaecumque audiet loquetur, et things soever he shall hear,
quae ventura sunt annuntiabit he shall speak: and the things
vobis. that are to come he shall shew
you.

13. *But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come.* Though you are now unable
to bear these truths, you shall be taught them all by the Holy Ghost. The
Greek for *will teach* (docebit) is ὀδηγήσει, which means to lead on the
way, to conduct; and the sense, therefore, is: He shall _guide_ you into
_all the truth_ (which I have still to tell you, but which you are now
unable to bear). We are not to suppose that the Apostles were taught all
the truth on the day of Pentecost; the revelation was vouchsafed
gradually, and at their death the deposit of faith was complete.(101)
Since the Apostles’ time, doctrines and dogmas have, indeed, been more
fully drawn out and developed, but no new doctrines have been revealed.
This follows clearly from the words we are considering; for it was to the
Apostles, to those same men who were now unable to bear it, that the Holy
Ghost was to teach the _whole_ truth.

The promise here made to the Apostles, that they should be taught the
whole truth by the Holy Ghost, while it regarded them _directly_, regarded
the whole Church indirectly; for it is to them as Apostles, appointed to
teach the whole Church, that Christ speaks: “I have chosen you, and have
appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit, and your
fruit should remain” (John xv. 16). And in the solemn prayer to the
Father, with which this discourse concludes, He prays the Father:
“Sanctify them (the Apostles) in (the) truth.... And not for them only do
I pray, but for them also who, through their word, shall believe in me.”
So that the Apostles first, and through them the Church of Christ,
received the whole truth from the Holy Ghost.(102)

*For he shall not speak of himself.* These words give a reason why the
Holy Ghost shall teach the truth. No other reason than His own Divinity
and essential truthfulness was necessary; but, as the Apostles did not yet
understand that this new Comforter was Divine, Jesus vouchsafes another
reason to convince them of His truthfulness. This other reason is, that
the Holy Ghost shall speak to them, not what has been excogitated or
invented by Himself, but what he received from the Son of God in His
eternal procession. Doubtless the Apostles did not yet know much about the
mystery of the Divine procession; still they could gather from these words
that the new Comforter was to announce to them the truth, as Christ’s
legate, and this was enough.

*But what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak.* A Divine Person
(unless He were possessed of two natures, like Jesus Christ) cannot be
conceived to acquire anything except in His procession; for once He is a
Divine Person He is infinite, and can receive nothing that He does not
already possess. Hence whatever the Holy Ghost _heard_, He heard from all
eternity, in proceeding from the Father and the Son.(103) Yet, though the
Holy Ghost heard and hears from all eternity, the _future_ tense “shall
hear” is used because there is question of knowledge _to be manifested in
the future_.(104)

*And the things that are to come he shall shew you.* Hence the Holy Ghost
was to confer the gift of prophecy on the Apostles. As evidence that He
conferred this gift upon them, see Acts xx. 29; St. Jude 17, 18, and The
Apocalypse.

14. Ille me clarificabit: quia 14. He shall glorify me;
de meo accipiet, et because he shall receive of
annuntiabit vobis. mine, and shall shew _it_ to
you.

14. *He shall glorify me. because he shall receive of mine* (ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ),
*and shall shew it to you*.

The Holy Ghost gave glory to Christ before men by showing that Christ was
the Messias and Saviour of the world. This He did principally through the
Apostles, by imparting to them (in so far it was necessary or useful for
them) the knowledge which He had received from the Son, and especially, as
the context here (verse 16) proves, the knowledge of future things. In the
words, “He shall receive of mine,” we refer “mine” to the Son’s knowledge,
which, however, _in reality_ does not differ in a Divine Person from His
essence.(105)

As we remarked already on verse 13, a Divine Person (having no other
nature than the Divine), cannot be conceived to receive anything except in
His procession; and hence when the Holy Ghost is here said to receive from
the Son, we have a convincing proof that _He proceeds from the Son_.

The schismatical Greeks attempted in two ways to get rid of the argument
that is thus afforded for the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son.

(_a_) First, they supplied πατρός after τοῦ ἐμοῦ, and thus represented
Christ as saying that the Holy Ghost should receive from the Father. Hence
they concluded that He proceeds only from the Father. But we say in
reply—(1) that it is against the rules of Greek syntax that the possessive
pronoun τοῦ ἐμοῦ should refer to a word not expressed in the phrase. (2)
That all the fathers, Greek as well as Latin, referred τοῦ ἐμοῦ to _what
is in the Son_ and not to the Father. (3) The context here Proves that τοῦ
ἐμοῦ does not refer to the Father. For in verse 15 we have the pronoun
repeated in the plural: “All things whatsoever the Father hath _are mine_
(ἐμά ἐστιν). Therefore I said, he shall receive of _mine_,” and it is
plain that in both instances _mine_ refers to the same thing; hence not to
the Father, but to what is in the Son, communicated from the Father.

(_b_) Equally inadmissible is the other interpretation by which it was
attempted to explain away this text. According to this second view,
Christ’s words would mean: The Holy Ghost shall glorify Me because He
shall receive of Mine _from My Father_, and shall show it to you. But
there is nothing to justify this insertion of the words “from My Father;”
on the contrary, the whole context points to the fact that the Holy Ghost
is to receive what is the Son’s (of mine) _from the Son Himself_. For
since the Holy Ghost in reality glorified the Father and Himself as well
as the Son, when we find it here stated that He shall glorify the Son,
_because_ He shall receive of Him, the natural inference is, that He
receives from Him directly, and not merely through the Father. Besides,
when the text distinctly states that the Holy Ghost shall receive of the
Son, it is wholly arbitrary and really not an interpretation of the words
at all to say that He receives of the Son _through the Father_, and not
directly of the Son Himself.

Hence the words of this verse plainly mean that the Holy Ghost receives
from the Son, and consequently, as we saw above on verse 13, afford a
proof that He proceeds from the Son, just as those of xv. 26 prove that He
proceeds from the Father. He proceeds, therefore, as our faith professes,
Ex Patre _Filioque_.

15. Omnia quaecumque habet 15. All things whatsoever the
Pater, mea sunt. Propterea Father hath, are mine.
dixi: quia de meo accipiet, et Therefore I said, he shall
annuntiabit vobis. receive of mine, and show _it_
to you.

15. *Therefore I said, he shall receive*, &c. The present (λαμβάνει) is
the more probable reading, but it is used for the future, so that the
Vulgate gives the meaning. This verse is variously connected with the
preceding, even by Catholic commentators. We believe that Christ is here
proving what He has just said, namely, that the Holy Ghost should receive
of Him. The proof is this: All whatsoever the Father hath (except, of
course, the relation of Paternity) is the Son’s; but the Father has
_spiratio activa_: in other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him,
therefore He proceeds from the Son also: “All things whatsoever the Father
hath are mine; _therefore_ I said, He shall receive of mine, and shew it
to you.” Note that this verse, too, furnishes a clear proof of the
procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, since the Son has all that the
Father hath.

16. Modicum, et iam non 16. A little while, and now
videbitis me: et iterum you shall not see me: and
modicum, et videbitis me: quia again a little while, and you
vado ad Patrem? shall see me: because I go to
the Father.

16. Instead of ού the best supported Greek text reads οὐκέτι (no longer),
and omits the words “because I go to the Father.” We are not, however,
convinced that the Vulgate is wrong in retaining the words, for the next
verse, where they are certainly genuine, makes it clear that our Lord must
have used the words here; though, of course, it is possible that St. John
did not record them.

*A little while.* There are two probable interpretations of the two
“little whiles.” According to one, the first “little while” is the short
time until Christ’s death, and _after_ that they should not see Him; then
another “little while,” namely the three days that His body was in the
grave, and _after_ that they should see Him risen to a glorious and
immortal life. According to the other, the first “little while” is the
time until the ascension, and _after_ that they should see Him no longer
among them on earth; the second “little while” is the time from the
ascension until the day of general judgment, and _after_ that they should
see Him for ever, their joy no man should take from them (verse 22), and
they would require to ask Him no questions (verse 23), because all would
be clear in the light of the beatific vision.

We prefer the latter view; for when Christ goes on in the following verses
to explain, His words, especially in verses 22 and 23, are not easily or
naturally understood in the first interpretation. For, though the Apostles
did rejoice after His resurrection (John xx. 20), and though that glorious
event with all that it implied must have been to them a source of lasting
joy, still they had very many occasions for sorrowing subsequently.
Besides, we know that after His resurrection they put Him questions (Acts
i. 6). Hence, we prefer to hold that the second “little while” (with the
Lord a thousand years are as one day, 2 Peter iii. 8) shall terminate with
the day of judgment, for then only shall they require to put Him no
questions, and both body and soul shall be for ever happy.

*Because I go to the Father.* Some connect with both the preceding
members. Others, as Mald., only with the first member—you shall not see
Me, because I go to the Father.

17. Dixerunt ergo ex 17. Then some of his disciples
discipulis eius ad invicem: said one to another: What is
Quid est hoc quod dicit nobis: this that he saith to us: A
Modicum, et non videbitis me: little while, and you shall
et iterum modicum: et not see me: and again a little
videbitis me, et quia vado ad while, and you shall see me,
Patrem? and because I go to the
Father?
18. Dicebant ergo: Quid est 18. They said therefore: What
hoc quod dicit Modicum: is this that he saith, A
nescimus quid loquitur. little while? we know not what
he speaketh.

17, 18. The Apostles were perplexed, and did not understand. Doubtless
their sorrow at the thought of His departure confused them, and in any
case the meaning was not clear.

19. Cognovit autem Iesus quia 19. And Jesus knew that they
volebant cum interrogare et had a mind to ask him: and he
dixit eis: De hoc quaeritis said to them: Of this do you
inter vos quia dixi, Modicum? inquire among yourselves,
et non videbitis me: et iterum because I said: A little
modicum, et videbitis me. while, and you shall not see
me: and again a little while,
and you shall see me?

19. Though they had spoken only among themselves, Jesus knew their
thoughts, and was aware of their perplexity.

20. Amen, amen dico vobis: 20. Amen, amen, I say to you,
quia plorabitis et flebitis that you shall lament and
vos, mundus autem gaudebit: weep, but the world shall
vos autem contristabimini, sed rejoice: and you shall be made
tristitia vestra vertetur in sorrowful, but your sorrow
gaudium. shall be turned into joy.
21. Mulier cum parit, 21. A woman, when she is in
tristitiam habet, quia labour, hath sorrow, because
venithora eius: cum autem her hour is come: but when she
pepererit puerum, iam non hath brought forth the child,
meminit pressurae propter she remembereth no more the
gaudium, quia natus est homo anguish, for joy that a man is
in mundum. born into the world.

20, 21. He compares their brief sorrow here below to that of a woman in
labour, and their lasting joy to that of a mother when she has brought
forth her child.

22. Et vosigitur nunc quidem 22. So also you now indeed
tristitiam habetis, iterum have sorrow, but I will see
autem videbo vos, et gaudebit you again, and your heart
cor vestrum: et gaudium shall rejoice; and your joy no
vestrum nemo toilet a vobis? man shall take from you.

22. Applying the preceding comparison, He says: You too now in this life,
the period of your travail, have sorrow; but I will see you again at the
day of general judgment (or, perhaps, when their souls should enter
heaven), and then your joy shall be lasting.

23. Et in illo die me non 23. And in that day you shall
rogabitis quidquam. Amen, amen not ask me anything. Amen,
dico vobis: si quid petieritis amen, I say to you: if you ask
Patrem in nomine nemo dabit the Father anything in my
vobis. name, he will give it you.

23. In that time, when you shall enjoy the vision of God, you shall not
require to put me any questions(106) (οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε) as just now you
wished to do (verse 19), because you shall know all that you can desire to
know. Thus in the interpretation that we have adopted, Christ, after
promising the Apostles the knowledge of future things while they are here
on earth (verses 13‐15), goes on in the following verses (16‐23) to
promise them His own. society, eternal joy, and perfect knowledge in the
life to come.

*Amen, amen, I say to you: if you ask* (αἰτήσητε) *the Father anything*,
&c. These words ought to begin a new verse, for a new subject, the
efficacy of prayer, is begun. The correct Greek reading is ἄν τι (not ὅτι
ὅσα ἄν), and agrees with the Vulgate, “si quid.” Most critics of the Greek
text read the latter part of this verse thus: “If you ask the Father
anything, He will give it you in my name.” Still we are inclined to
believe that the Vulgate reading, which connects “in my name” with “ask”
and not with “will give,” is correct; for immediately after (in verses 24
and 26) we have question of asking in the name of Christ. Moreover, the
connection between verses 23 and 24, with the apparent antithesis: “if you
ask the Father anything in my name, He will give it you. Hitherto you have
not asked anything in my name,” confirms the Vulgate reading. We prefer
the Vulgate reading therefore, and the sense is, that if they ask the
Father anything in the name, through the merits, of Christ, He will give
it; provided, of course, as St. John says in his First Epistle (v. 14)
they ask according to the will of God. Hence the Church always asks
through the merits of Christ: “Per Christum Dominum nostrum,” or “Per
Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum,” &c.

There could be no clearer proof than this verse affords of the wondrous
efficacy of prayer.

24. Usque modo non petistis 24. Hitherto you have not
quidquam in nomine meo: asked anything in my name.
petite, et accipietis, ut Ask, and you shall receive:
gaudium vestrum sit plenum. that your joy may be full.

24. They had already indeed asked of Christ Himself; they had also asked
the Father; but not in the name of Christ, as they are now bid to do. This
was a new form of prayer. The Jews, when praying, begged of God to
remember their Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Christians appeal
through the name and merits of Jesus Christ.

25. Haec in proverbiis locutus 25. These things I have spoken
sum vobis. Venit hora, cum iam to you in proverbs. The hour
non in proverbiis loquar cometh when I will no more
vobis, sed palam de Patre speak to you in proverbs, but
annuntiabo vobis. will show you plainly of the
Father.

25. *In proverbs.* The word translated “proverbs” is παροιμίαις, which
signifies not merely proverbial, but also obscure or figurative language;
and this is the sense here, as is proved by the antithesis between
speaking “in proverbs” and speaking “plainly.” “These things,” then,
concerning His death, His resurrection, His return to the Father, the
“little whiles,” &c., He had spoken obscurely. We must hold that the words
of institution of the Blessed Eucharist are not included in “these
things.” They did not belong to this discourse _after_ the Last Supper,
but were spoken during the supper. Moreover, had they been obscure, surely
three Evangelists and St. Paul would not have narrated them without some
explanation.

*The hour cometh when I will no more speak to you in proverbs.* “Hour” is
the ordinary Hebraism for time. Some refer this to the next life, some to
the forty days of Christ’s risen life, and some to the time after
Pentecost. With St. Aug. and Mald. we prefer this latter view, for the
first opinion seems excluded by the next verse, where it is said they will
ask of the Father during the time in question, and we know they shall not
require to ask in heaven. The second opinion too (unless it be joined with
the third) is improbable, for it was not till the day of Pentecost, when
they were “endued with power from on high” (Luke xxvi. 49), that they were
able to bear plain speaking, or that Christ _through the Holy Ghost_ spoke
plainly to them.

26. In illo die in nomine meo 26. In that day you shall ask
petetis: et non dico vobis in my name: and I say not to
quia ego rogabo Patrem de you, that I will ask the
vobis: Father for you:

26. *I say not to you, that I will ask the Father for you.* The sense is:
I need not say, I do not need to tell you, that I will ask the Father for
you. This form of expression is what is called “praeteritio,” not
“exclusio,” for we know that Christ is “always living to intercede for us”
(Heb. vii. 25). The connection in the following verse: “For the Father
Himself,” &c., shows that Christ also wished to intimate that such
intercession on His part would not be necessary, because the Father
Himself would be prompt to hear and answer their prayers. Thus they should
understand that, though Christ, their advocate, was leaving them, yet they
had no reason to be disheartened, since the Father unsolicited would love
them and hear their prayers, because they had loved Christ, and believed
Him to be the Messias sent by God.

27. Ipse enim Pater amat vos, 27. For the Father himself
quia vos me amastis, et loveth you, because you have
credidistis quia ego a Deo loved me, and have believed
exivi. that I came out from God.
28. Exivi a Patre, et veni in 28. I came forth from the
mundum: iterum relinquo Father, and am come into the
mundum, et vado ad Patrem. world: again I leave the
world, and I go to the Father.

28. Taking up the closing words of the preceding verse, He insists upon
the truth of what they have believed. For in coming into the world I did
come out from God, who is My Father, and now I return to Him in leaving
the world, Some commentators refer the words: “I came forth from the
Father” to the eternal procession, and the following words to the mission
in time; but we think the view we follow more probable; for what is here
asserted is what the Apostles had already believed, and we doubt if they
yet understood or believed in the eternal procession.

29. Dicunt ei discipuli eius: 29. His disciples say to him:
Ecce nunc palam loqueris, et Behold now thou speakest
proverbium nullum dicis: plainly, and speakest no
proverb.

29. In saying that He was about to leave the world and go to the Father,
He spoke plainly, and explained their doubts of verse 17.

30. Nunc scimus quia scis 30. Now we know that thou
omnia, et non opus est tibi ut knowest all things, and thou
quis te interroget: in hoc needest not that any man
credimus quia a Deo existi. should ask thee. By this we
believe that thou comest forth
from God.

30. Seeing that He had read their thoughts (verse 19), and anticipated
their inquiries, even for this reason they declare their faith in Him as
the Messias and Son of God to be _confirmed_ and made perfect.

31. Respondit eis Iesus: Modo 31. Jesus answered them: Do
creditis? you now believe?

31. Christ’s reply does not deny that they believe; yet insinuates, if we
take it interrogatively with the Vulgate, that He had reason to doubt the
firmness of the faith they boasted, as indeed He goes on to declare
plainly in the following verses.

32. Ecce venit hora, et iam 32. Behold the hour cometh,
venit, ut dispergamini and it is now come, that you
unusquisque in propria, et me shall be scattered every man
solum relinquatis: et non sum to his own, and shall leave me
solus, quia Pater mecum est. alone: and yet I am not alone
because the Father is with me.

32. *Hour* is again a Hebraism for time. This same prediction, or a
similar one, is recorded by St. Matt. (xxvi. 31), and St. Mark (xiv. 27),
and according to both it was made after Christ and the Apostles had left
the supper room to go towards the Mount of Olives. As we observed above on
xiv. 31, we think it highly improbable that this long discourse after the
Last Supper was spoken in the crowded streets of Jerusalem; and if the
words of SS. Matthew or Mark obliged us to hold that the prediction,
recorded by those Evangelists was spoken whilst Christ and the Apostles
passed along the streets, we would hold that this prediction, recorded by
St. John, is a different one, and that Christ referred twice on this night
to the desertion of His Apostles. In reality, however, SS. Matthew and
Mark can be satisfactorily explained on the supposition that the
prediction which they record was spoken outside the house where Christ and
the Apostles had supped, or at some quiet spot on the way to Mount Olivet.

33. Haec locutus sum vobis, ut 33. These things I have spoken
in me pacem habeatis. In mundo to you, that in me you may
pressuram habebitis: sed have peace. In the world you
confidite, ego vici mundum. shall have distress: but have
confidence, I have overcome
the world.

33. These last discourses He had spoken to confirm their faith and afford
them consolation, that so they might have peace of heart, despite the
hatred of the world. Then He closes this beautiful discourse with the
consoling and encouraging assurance that He was just about to conquer the
world (by prolepsis He speaks of His victory as already gained). The
context shows that this assurance implied that they too, through Him,
should triumph over the world. For it is because His victory implied
theirs that He tells them to have confidence. “For whatsoever is born of
God overcometh the world: and this is the victory which overcometh the
world, our faith” (1 John v. 4).

Thus in His last words to His Apostles before His passion, at the very
moment when He knew that His enemies were approaching (xv. 30), Christ
confidently claims the glory of a conqueror.

CHAPTER XVII.

1‐5. *As man, Christ prays to the Father for Himself.*

6‐19. *He prays for the Apostles.*

20‐23. *He prays for all the faithful.*

24‐26. *His last prayer for the Apostles.*

1. Haec locutus est Iesus: et 1. These things Jesus spoke,
sublevatis oculis in coelum, and lifting up his eyes to
dixit: Pater venit hora, heaven, he said: Father, the
clarifica Filium tuum ut hour is come, glorify thy Son,
Filius tuus clarificet te: that thy Son may glorify thee.

1. *These things*, we understand here of all that is comprised in the
discourses just recorded (xiii. 31‐xvi. 33). Having completed His words of
warning and consolation and love, Jesus now turns from teaching to prayer,
from earth to heaven, from His children to His Father.

*Glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee.* Christ, _as man_, prays
to His Father; and the sense is: The time of My trial is come; do not
desert Me, but glorify Me by exalting My humanity to a participation in
the glory of the Divinity; that so, by My resurrection and ascension, I
may give glory to Thee, by giving eternal life to all whom Thou hast given
me(107) (verse 2).

2. (_a_) Sicut dedisti ei 2. As thou hast given him
potestatem omnis carnis, ut power over all flesh, that he
omne quod dedisti ei, det eis may give eternal life to all
vitam aeternam. whom thou hast given him.

2. These words explain _how_ Christ will glorify the Father, namely, by
giving eternal life to all whom the Father had given Him.

*All flesh* is a Hebraism for all mankind (John i. 14); and by another
Hebraism the nominative “omne” of the Vulgate is redundant, the sense
being as in our English version.

This verse we connect with the last clause of verse 1, and take the sense
to be: That Thy Son may glorify Thee, _according as_ Thou hast given Him
power over all men, _in order that_ in them He may glorify Thee. In other
words, Christ prays that the Father may bring about His own glory, which
He had in view in giving Christ power over all men. There are various
other interpretations, but the above seems to us best, as it connects
naturally with the preceding, and retains the ordinary signification of
καθώς and ἵνα.

This power over all men, Christ, as God, possessed from eternity, and as
God‐man He obtained at His incarnation.

Though He has power over all men, yet He does not give eternal life to all
men, but only to those _whom God has given Him_ (vi. 37), because only
these correspond with His grace. This is implied in Christ’s language
here, for the words, “to all whom Thou has given Him,” explain the
expression all flesh, and show that it is only in those who believe that
the universal Power over “all flesh” is efficacious.

3. Haec est autem vita 3. Now this is eternal life:
aeterna: ut cognoscant te, that they may know thee, the
solum Deum verum, et quem only true God, and Jesus
misisti Iesum Christum. Christ, whom thou hast sent.

3. *Now this is eternal life*, &c. The sense is: this is the pledge, the
cause of eternal life (see John iii. 36), that they know Thee _with the
knowledge of faith_, know Thee to be the only true God and Jesus Christ
whom Thou hast sent. The Greek ἵνα γινώσκωσίν σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν
shows that the Father is here said to be the only God, to the exclusion of
other Gods, but not to the exclusion of other Persons who participate in
the same Godhead. It is not meant that the Father is the only Divine
Person. There are other Persons in the Godhead, but there is no other
Godhead. The words mean, then, that they may know Thee to be the only true
God, to the exclusion of all other Gods; but do not mean that they may
know Thee alone to be the true God, to the exclusion of the Son and Holy
Ghost.

Many of the fathers adopt another interpretation of the verse, holding
that the order of the words is inverted, and that Divinity is predicated
of both the Father and Christ. They understand the verse thus: that they
may know Thee and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent, to be the only true
God. So SS. Aug., Amb., Hil., Greg. Naz., Athan., Cyp. The latter
interpretation more clearly establishes Christ’s Divinity against the
Arians; but in any interpretation it is clear that Christ implies His own
Divinity, since He declares that the knowledge of Himself, equally with
that of the Father, is the cause and pledge of eternal life. He who had
said: “I and the Father are one” (John x. 30), and who, a few verses
farther down in this prayer, says to the Father: “All my things are thine,
and thine are mine,” cannot reasonably be supposed to withdraw His claims
to Divinity in the words before us.

Some of the fathers, and many of the scholastics, hold that there is
question in verse 3 not of the knowledge of God through _faith_, but of
the knowledge of the blessed in heaven; and they argue from this verse to
prove that the essence of life eternal consists in _knowing_ God; in other
words, that the happiness of the blessed consists in an act of the
_intellect_; namely, the vision of God.(108) Since we believe that the
question here is of the knowledge of God through faith, and not through
the beatific vision, we hold that no argument can be drawn from this verse
as to the essence of the happiness of the blessed.

4. Ego te clarificavi super 4. I have glorified thee on
terram: opus consummavi, quod the earth: I have finished the
dedisti mihi ut faciam: work which thou gavest me to
do:

4. Some understand these words as proleptic, and take the sense to be: I
am about to glorify Thee by My death, to finish the work of _redemption_
which thou gavest Me to do. Others understand of the work of preaching,
which was now actually completed, and by which the Father’s name and glory
had been manifested _upon the earth_. The latter interpretation seems to
us the more natural, and more suited to the context, especially to verse
6: “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of
the world.”

5. Et nunc clarifica me tu, 5. And now glorify thou me, O
Pater, apud temetipsum, Father, with thyself, with the
claritate, quam habui, prius glory which I had, before the
quam mundus esset, apud te. world was, with thee.

5. In return for His having given glory to the Father _upon the earth_,
Christ, as man, prays the Father to glorify Him in heaven. There is a
difficulty here, arising from the fact that Christ seems to pray that the
glory which as God He possessed from all eternity may be given to Him _as
man_. Now, the glory of God is incommunicable, and even the blessed
humanity of Christ is incapable of partaking fully thereof. Hence various
interpretations have been advanced in order to explain this difficulty:—

(1) Some say that Christ, as man, prays merely for that glory which, _in
the decrees of God, was given_ to His humanity from all eternity. But
against this view is the fact that the fathers generally quoted the latter
part of this verse to prove the eternal existence and Divinity of Christ.

(2) Hence others, and we believe rightly, hold that in the latter part of
the verse there is question of the Divine and eternal glory of Christ, and
understand Him to pray that His humanity, according to its capacity, may
be made to partake of the glory of the Divinity. Of course, the humanity
was incapable of receiving the infinite glory of the Divinity; but the
glorious qualities of Christ’s glorified body are a participation,
according to the capacity of the body, of the eternal glory of the Son.
“Da ut claritas et gloria quam ego ut Deus ab aeterno tecum habeo,
communicetur et extendatur usque ad carnem meam, quae propter
dispensationem hactenus est suspensa”(109) (Tolet.)

6. Manifestavi nomen tuum 6. I have manifested thy name
hominibus, quos dedisti mihi to the men whom thou hast
de mundo. Tui erant, et mihi given me out of the world.
eos dedisti: et sermonem tuum Thine they were, and to me
servaverunt. thou gavest them: and they
have kept thy word.

6. This passage from verse 6‐19 refers primarily to the Apostles, as
appears from verses 12 and 18; and Christ prayed specially for them
because He was sending them into the world, the heralds of His Gospel
(verse 18), the foundations upon which His earthly kingdom was to be
reared (Eph. ii. 20). The sense is: I have manifested Thy name, Thy glory
_effectually_ (He had manifested it to others, who refused to believe) to
those whom Thou hast given Me to be My Apostles; they were Thine by
election, &c.

In this verse, as well as in verses 7 and 8, the correct reading is ἔδωκας
(gavest), not δέδωκάς (hast given).(110)

7. Nunc cognoverunt quia 7. Now they have known that
omnia, quae dedisti mihi: abs all things which thou hast
te sunt: given me are from thee.
8. Quia verba quae dedisti 8. Because the words which
mihi, dedi eis: et ipsi thou gavest me, I have given
acceperunt, et cognoverunt to them: and they have
vere quia a te exivi, et received them, and have known
crediderunt quia tu me in very deed that I came out
misisti. from thee, and they have
believed that thou didst send
me.
9. Ego pro eis rogo: non pro 9. I pray for them: I pray not
mundo rogo, sed pro his quos for the world, but for them
dedisti mihi, quia tui sunt: whom thou hast given me:
because they are thine:

9. *I pray for them.* The pronouns are emphatic. For these men who on so
many grounds are deserving of Thy grace and care, do I, to whom Thou
gavest them, ask. But what does the Saviour of the world mean by saying
that He does not pray for the world, He who on the cross prayed for the
very men that crucified Him: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what
they do”? (Luke xxiii. 34). Some reply that Christ speaks not of
sufficient, but of efficacious prayer; but the true view is that He is
speaking only of this particular prayer, in which He asks for the Apostles
what the world was unfit and unwilling to receive (see verses 13, 17, 18).

The fact, then, that He prays in this prayer, not for the Father’s
enemies, but for those who belong to both the Father and Himself is put
forward as a reason why He ought to be heard by the Father.

*Because they are thine.* These words sum up this first reason, and we
take them as depending upon the phrase: “I pray for them” at the
commencement of the verse.

10. Et mea omnia tua sunt: et 10. And all my things are
tua mea sunt: et clarificatus thine, and thine are mine: and
sum in eis. I am glorified in them.

10. *And all my things are thine, and thine are mine.* Could anyone but
God address God so? These words seem to be thrown in to give a reason for
the statement: “they are thine,” the reason being that since they were
Christ’s (the Father had made them Christ’s), they must be the Father’s
also, for “all my things are thine, and thine are mine.”

The remaining words of this verse afford a second reason why the Father
ought to hear Christ’s prayer for the Apostles and watch over them,
because Christ, through them, had been glorified before men, as a teacher
is honoured by disciples attaching themselves to him. Or the words: “I am
glorified,” may possibly be proleptic, and mean that Christ was to be
glorified _afterwards_ through the preaching of the Apostles.

11. Etiam non sum in mundo, et 11. And now I am not in the
hi in mundo sunt, et ego ad te world, and these are in the
venio. Pater sancte, serva eos world, and I come to thee.
in nomine tuo, quos dedisti Holy Father, keep them in thy
mihi: ut sint unum, sicut et name, whom thou hast given me:
nos. that they may be one, as we
also are.

11. A third reason why they ought now to receive the Father’s special care
was because Christ was now leaving them, and they were to remain in the
world.

*Keep them in thy name, whom thou hast given me.* The sense of this
reading is sufficiently evident. The best‐supported Greek reading,
however, is ὧ(111) (not οὕς), ὧ being attracted into the dative case of
the preceding noun, and standing for ὁ. The most probable meaning of this
Greek reading is: keep them in the confession of Thy name, in the
knowledge of Thee, which Thou hast given to Me, and which I in turn have
given to them; that they may be one by a union of faith and charity
resembling, though in an imperfect way, the union between the Persons of
the Blessed Trinity.

12. Cum essem cum eis, ego 12. While I was with them, I
servabam eos in nomine tuo. kept them in thy name. Those
Quos dedisti mihi, custodivi: whom thou gavest me have I
et nemo ex eis periit, nisi kept: and none of them is
filius perditionis, ut lost, but the son of
scriptura impleatur. perdition, that the scripture
may be fulfilled.

12. *I kept them.* In the original, the imperfect tense ἐτήρουν brings out
more clearly Christ’s continuous care.

In this verse, too, there is a difference of opinion as to whether οὐς or
ὦ is the correct reading, but the Vulgate reading is more strongly
supported here than in verse 11.

*And none of them is lost, but the son of perdition.* “Son of perdition”
is a Hebraism, signifying one devoted to destruction, as Judas was,
through his own fault.

None of them was lost in either soul or body except Judas, who was already
lost as to his soul, though not irreparably; and who was soon to be
irreparably lost both as to soul and body. But this loss of Judas was not
to be ascribed to Christ, but took place _in order that_ (see above on
xii. 37‐40) the Scripture (Ps. xl. 10) might be fulfilled. The Holy Ghost
had predicted the ruin of Judas, because it was foreseen that this would
certainly come about through the wretched Apostle’s own fault. In the
words: “none of them is lost,” we think there is question of both the
bodies and souls of the Apostles; for while it is generally admitted that
Christ here claims to have guarded the _souls_ of the Apostles from
spiritual ruin, John xviii. 8, 9, seems to prove, as we shall there show,
that in the words before us Christ speaks of having guarded from harm
their bodies also.

13. Nunc autem ad te venio: et 13. And now I come to thee:
haec loquor in mundo, ut and these things I speak in
habeant gaudium meum impletum the world, that they may have
in semetipsis. my joy filled in themselves.

13. *These things* we refer to what Christ had already spoken in the
hearing of the Apostles in this prayer to the Father; namely, that He
should give them life eternal (verse 2); that He should be glorified with
the Father (verse 5); and that in His absence the Father would watch over
them, and keep them in His name (verse 11).

*That they may have my joy filled* (made full) *in themselves*. “My joy”
might mean the joy they had received from Christ, or the joy they felt
_because_ of Christ; but we think the most probable and most natural
meaning is: that they may have the joy which _I feel_ in going to the
Father, made full in themselves. Before this time He had said to them: “If
you loved Me, you would indeed _be glad_, because I go to the Father”
(xiv. 28); and now He has spoken in this prayer of the glory which awaited
Him, and of the care of the Father for the Apostles, in order that they
may be reconciled to, and fully rejoice in, His departure to the Father.

14. Ego dedi eis sermonem 14. I have given them thy
tuum, et mundus eos odio word, and the world hath hated
habuit, quia non sunt de them, because they are not of
mundo, sicut et ego non sum de the world; as I am not of the
mundo. world.

14. *I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them.* “I” (ἐγώ)
is emphatic; I, Thy Son. This is a _fourth_ reason why the Father ought to
watch over and guard the Apostles—the world hated them, and this because
they had received the words of Christ, which are the words of the Father.

Though _in_ the world, the Apostles were not _of_ the world, not imbued
with its spirit, nor pandering to its tastes.

15. Non rogo ut tollas eos de 15. I pray not that thou
mundo, sed ut serves eos a shouldst take them out of the
malo. world, but that thou shouldst
keep them from evil.

15. *From evil* (ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ). This may refer to the evil of the wicked
world which is sin, or to the devil, the _evil one_. The parallel passage
in 1 John v. 18, 19 favours the latter view. These words, to which the
Apostles were listening, gave them to know that they must not despair, and
wish to quit the world when trials should come; but rather, remaining in
the world, keep themselves unspotted from its defilements.

16. De mundo non sunt, sicut 16. They are not of the world:
et ego non sum de mundo. as I also am not of the world.

16. The last clause of verse 14 is repeated as the ground of another
petition, namely, that the Father may “sanctify” them.

In order to emphasize the point in their hearing, and also as a motive why
God ought to hear the petition that follows, the fact that the Apostles
are not men of the world is repeated and insisted upon by Christ.

17. Sanctifica eos in 17. Sanctify them in truth.
veritate. Sermo tuus veritas Thy word is truth.
est.

17. *In the truth*, is the correct reading; not “in _thy_ truth,” nor “in
truth.” The word in which they are to be sanctified is probably the word
of God, which Christ had preached, and which is referred to in the end of
the verse: “Thy word is truth;” and not, as Mald. holds, the real
sanctification of the New Law as opposed to the typical and merely
external sanctification by which the priests of the Old Law were set apart
for their functions.

In the Gospel, then, and for the preaching of the Gospel Christ prays that
the Apostles may be sanctified. But what does the word “sanctify” here
mean? Sometimes the word ἁγιάζειν signifies to make holy, or to make more
holy, or to keep more holy (1 Cor. vii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 23); at other
times, it means to set apart or destine for an office; and in this sense
it is generally used throughout the Old Testament. Both senses are
probably combined in the word here, for it was by making and keeping them
holy that the Apostles were to be efficaciously set apart by the Father
for the sacred mission to which Christ had already called them.

18. Sicut tu me misisti in 18. As thou hast sent me into
mundum, et ego misi eos in the world, I also have sent
mundum. them into the world.

18. This verse shows that the sanctification is prayed for especially with
a view to their mission as Apostles. *Have sent* (Greek “did send”) is
used proleptically, for the Apostles had not yet received their mission to
the _Gentile_ world. See John xx. 21; Matthew xxviii. 18, 19; Mark xvi.
15.

19. Et pro eis ego sanctifico 19. And for them do I sanctify
meipsum: ut sint et ipsi myself: that they also may be
sanctificati in veritate. sanctified in truth.

19. *And for them do I sanctify myself.* St. Aug. understands of the
sanctification wherewith the Son of God sanctified the humanity He
assumed. “Quando Verbum caro factum est, tunc sanctificavit se in se, id
est hominem se in Verbo se, quia unus Christus Verbum et homo: propter sua
vero membra dicit: et pro eis ego sanctifico meipsum, hoc est, ipsos in
me, quoniam in me etiam ipsi sunt et ego. Ut sint et ipsi sanctificati in
veritate. Quid est ‘et ipsi’ nisi quemadmodum ego.” (St. Aug. _in loc._).

But the common opinion is that Christ speaks of the sacrifice of Himself
which He was about to offer a few hours afterwards. In this view the
meaning is: and for them do I set Myself apart, do I consecrate Myself as
a victim, that they may be truly and efficaciously set apart and
consecrated for the preaching of the Gospel. Thus while the word
“sanctify” has in both clauses the same generic meaning of setting apart,
there is yet a difference. Christ sets Himself apart, devotes Himself to
death, that they may be consecrated in the fulness of grace for the work
of the Apostleship. Christ sets Himself apart, but the Apostles are
evidently to be set apart by the Father; that is to say, effectually
fitted by the Father for the work to which Christ had already called them.

*In truth.* (ἐν ἀληθείᾳ). The absence of the Greek article distinguishes
this clause from that in verse 17. There the question is of “_the_ truth,”
the word of God; here “in truth,” seems to be equivalent to truly,
really—that they also may be truly sanctified. Compare 2 John 1; 3 John 1.

20. Non pro eis autem rogo 20. And not for them only do I
tantum, sed et pro eis qui pray, but for them also who
credituri sunt per verbum through their word shall
eorum in me: believe in me:

20. Instead of *shall believe* the more probable Greek reading has the
present tense, as if Christ looked upon the Church of the future as
actually present. He now prays not alone for the Apostles, but for all who
should believe through their preaching. There is direct reference to the
Apostles and their converts, but the prayer of Christ included the
successors of both.

21. Ut omnes unum sint, sicut 21. That they all may be one,
tu Pater in me, et ego in te, as thou, Father, in me, and I
ut et ipsi in nobis unum sint: in thee: that they also may be
ut credat mundus quia tu me one in us: that the world may
misisti. believe that thou hast sent
me.

21. The unity of the faithful cannot, of course, equal the unity of nature
in the Persons of the Blessed Trinity; but since it is here compared with
the latter, we are justified in concluding that it is as perfect as
possible; and hence a unity of intellect through faith, of will through
charity, and of government through the due subordination of the different
members. Such a moral miracle as this unity implies, must suppose a
_principle_ of unity in the Church; that is to say, a teaching and ruling
authority by which this marvellous unity is Divinely secured.

The words *That the world may believe that thou hast sent me* show that
this unity was to be a _note_ of the true Church, pointing it out even to
the wicked world as the Church of God.

22. Et ego claritatem quam 22. And the glory which thou
dedisti mihi, dedi eis: ut hast given me, I have given to
sint unum, sicut et nos unum them: that they may be one, as
sumus. we also are one.

22. *And the glory which thou hast given me, I have ** given to them.*
Some understand “the glory” here mentioned to be the gift of working
miracles; others, the glory _about to be enjoyed_ by Christ’s humanity,
which is to be shared in by all the faithful after the day of judgment;
others, the glorious privilege of Divine filiation which makes the
faithful the adopted sons, as Christ was the natural Son, of God; others,
in fine, the glory of the Divinity which Christ had just shared with the
Apostles that night, and which He was to share with all the faithful in
future, in giving them His own glorious and Divine Person in the Blessed
Eucharist.

We believe that either the third or fourth is the correct opinion. But it
is not easy to choose between these two. The third is the more obvious,
and is certainly very probable; but in favour of the fourth it must be
said it was very natural that Christ speaking of the union of the faithful
on this night when He had instituted the Blessed Eucharist, should refer
to that wonderful cause and pledge of union which He had just left to the
faithful in the Blessed Sacrament: “For we, being many, are one bread, one
body, all that partake(112) of one bread” (1 Cor. x. 17). See also John
vi. 57.

23. Ego in eis, et tu in me: 23. I in them, and thou in me:
ut sint consummati in unum: et that they may be made perfect
cognoscat mundus, quia tu me in one; and the world may know
misisti, et dilexisti eos, that thou hast sent me, and
sicut et me dilexisti. hast loved them as thou hast
also loved me.

23. *I in them, and thou in me.* This clause is in apposition to the last
clause of the preceding verse: “that they may be one, as we also are one,”
and explains how the union there spoken of is effected, namely, by the
presence of Christ in the faithful.

24. Pater, quos dedisti mihi, 24. Father, I will that where
volo ut ubi sum ego, et illi I am, they also whom thou hast
sint mecum: ut videant given me may be with me: that
claritatem meam, quam dedisti they may see my glory which
mihi, quia dilexisti me ante thou hast given me, because
constitutionem mundi. thou hast loved me before the
creation of the world.

24. Here, too, as in verses 11, 12, some of the critics read the neuter
pronoun ὃ (that which) instead of ὁὺς (they whom). The Vulgate reading is
at least equally probable. Having prayed in verses 20‐21 for all the
faithful, Christ now continues His prayer for the Apostles, as a
comparison of this verse with verses 11 and 12 proves. And this, His last
petition for them, is, that they may one day be made partakers of that
glory which He as God enjoyed eternally, and into which as man He was to
enter at His ascension.

*That they may see my glory*; that is to say, see and enjoy the glory of
My Divinity (reflected also in My humanity; see above on verse 5). We
believe there is not question merely of the glory of Christ’s humanity,
for He seems to pray here that the Apostles may enjoy the bliss of heaven,
which does not consist in the vision of Christ’s humanity, but in the
vision and enjoyment of the Divinity. If this is the correct view, and we
think, with A Lap., that it is, then this glory was given from all
eternity to the Son. The words: *Because thou hast loved me*, do not, in
this view, state the _cause_ of the communication of the eternal glory of
the Father to the Son. See above on chapter v., verse 20.

If the words be understood, as St. Aug. understood them, of Christ’s
humanity, then the meaning is: Share with My Apostles the glory which Thou
art _about to bestow_ upon Me because from all eternity Thou hast loved
Me, and predestined Me _as man_ for this glory. In this view the love of
the Father for Christ as man is the reason why He glorifies Christ’s
humanity.

The phrase *before the creation of the world*, or more accurately, “before
the foundation of the world,” denotes that the world is not eternal; while
Christ’s claim to have been loved by the Father before creation, is a
claim to personal existence before the world began, and indirectly,
therefore, a claim to an eternal Personality.

25. Pater iuste, mundus te non 25. Just Father, the world
cognovit: ego autem te hath not known thee: but I
cognovi, et hi cognoverunt have known thee: and these
quia te me misisti. have known, that thou hast
sent me.
26. Et notum feci eis nomen 26. And I have made known thy
tuum, et notum faciam: ut name to them, and will make it
dilectio, qua dilexisti me, in known; that the love wherewith
ipsis sit, et ego in ipsis. thou hast loved me, may be in
them, and I in them.

25, 26. These verses give a reason why the Father who is _just_, and who
rewards man’s merits, even though these merits are themselves the result
of His grace, ought to hear Christ’s prayer. The reason is, because He who
prays had known and loved the Father, and they for whom He prays had known
and received Himself as the Messias. Moreover, He had made known the
Father to them, and would do so still more, afterwards, through the Holy
Ghost.

*That the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in
them.* Here He states His object in making known the Father’s name. It was
in order that the special love of the Father might extend to them, and
that He Himself might remain intimately united to them by His grace, and
by the presence of the Divinity in their souls.

With these beautiful and consoling words, which bespoke the special love
of the Father for the Apostles, and His own enduring presence with them
notwithstanding His departure, Christ concludes this sublime prayer to His
eternal Father.

CHAPTER XVIII.

1‐7. *Jesus retires to the Garden of Gethsemani, where, having
been betrayed by Judas, He freely delivers Himself up, after He
had first shown His almighty power, by casting His enemies to the
ground.*

8‐11. *He requests that the Apostles be allowed to depart
unmolested, and forbids Peter to defend Him with the sword.*

12‐14. *He is seized, bound, and led before Annas.*

15‐27. *He is led before Caiphas, followed by Peter and John, and
while being examined there, is thrice denied by Peter.*

28‐38. *He is led before Pilate, the Roman Governor, and examined
by him.*

39‐40. *Pilate attempts to release Jesus, but the crowd calls for
the release of Barabbas.*

1. Haec cum dixisset Iesus, 1. When Jesus had said these
egressus est cum discipulis things, he went forth with his
suis trans torrentem Cedron, disciples over the brook
ubi erat hortus in quem Cedron, where there was a
introivit ipse, et discipuli garden, into which he entered
eius. with his disciples.

1. Having finished His last discourses to the Apostles, and His prayer to
the Father, Jesus accompanied by the Apostles now proceeds towards Mount
Olivet (Matt xxvi. 36; Mark xiv. 32), crossing the brook of Cedron on His
way. As we stated already, we believe that the discourse (xv. 1‐xvi. 33)
and the prayer after the Last Supper were not spoken while Christ and the
Apostles passed along, but at some point of rest either outside the
Supper‐room or along the way. See above on xiv. 31. Nor are we to suppose
from the words of this verse, “He went forth,” that it was only now Christ
and the Apostles left the Supper‐room. As we remarked already, had Christ
and the Apostles not left the Supper‐room when He gave the word to do so
(xiv. 31), St. John would very probably have noted the fact, and added
some word of explanation. In the verse before us, then, there is not
question of going forth from the Supper‐room but of going forth from the
city. Comp. Matthew xxvi. 30, 36; Mark xiv. 26, 32.

*Over the brook Cedron.* Many authorities read “over the brook of the
cedars” (τῶν κέδρων). *Where there was a garden.* SS. Matthew and Mark say
that He came to “an enclosed piece of ground” (χωρίον), called Gethsemani.
“Gethsemani—גת, (gath) = a wine‐press, and שׂמן (shemen) = oil—was the
spot where the prediction of Isaias was fulfilled: ‘I have trodden the
wine press alone’ (Isaias lxviii. 3). A modern garden, enclosed by a wall,
in which are some old olive‐trees, said to date from the time of Christ,
is now pointed out as the Garden of Gethsemani. It is on the left bank of
the Kedron, about seven hundred and thirty feet from the east wall of the
city, and immediately south of the road, from St. Stephen’s Gate to the
summit of Olivet .... This garden is, there is little reason to doubt, the
spot alluded to by Eusebius, when he says (_O. S._, 2, pp. 248, 18) that
‘Gethsemane was at the foot of the Mount of Olives, and was then a place
of prayer for the faithful’ ” (Smith’s _B. D._, _sub voc_).

The Cedron is a small _winter‐flowing_ (χειμάῤῥον) stream, which passes
through the ravine below the eastern wall of Jerusalem, and separates the
Mount of Olives from the Temple mount. For mention of it in the Old
Testament see 3 Kings ii. 37; xv. 13; 4 Kings xxi. ii. 4; Jer. xxxi. 40.

St. John passes over the history of the prayer in the garden, of the
appearance of the angel to strengthen Christ, and of the sweat of blood,
because all this had been already recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists.
(Matt. xxvi. 38‐44; Mark xiv. 34‐40; Luke xxii. 40‐44.)

2. Sciebat autem et Iudas qui 2. And Judas also, who
tradebat eum, locum: quia betrayed him, knew the place:
frequenter Iesus convenerant because Jesus had often
illuc cum discipulis suis. resorted thither together with
his disciples.

2. *Who betrayed him.* In the original the present participle marks the
process of betrayal as going on. *Jesus had often resorted thither with
his disciples.* The original might be rendered more exactly “Jesus and
(with) his disciples often assembled there.” We know from St. Luke xxi.
37, that our Lord on the occasion of this last visit to Jerusalem was in
the habit of spending His nights on Mount Olivet, and the same Evangelist
tells us that, on this occasion after the Last Supper, “going out he went
according to his custom to the Mount of Olives” (Luke xxii. 39).

3. Iudas ergo cum accepisset 3. Judas therefore having
cohortem, et a pontificibus et received a band of soldiers,
pharisaeis ministros, venit and servants from the chief
illuc cum laternis, et priests and the Pharisees,
facibus, et armis. cometh thither with lanterns
and torches and weapons.

3. *A band of soldiers.* If “the band” here means a whole cohort, it was
the tenth part of a Roman legion, and contained about six hundred
infantry, with thirty cavalry. The words of this verse, as well as the
presence of the “tribune” (verse 12), who was the commander of a cohort,
justify the belief that a whole cohort was present on this occasion. Very
likely the authorities were afraid that a strongly‐supported attempt might
be made to save or rescue Christ from them. This large body of soldiers,
strengthened by servants or officers of the temple (ὑπηρέτας) who were
sent by the chief‐priests and Pharisees, came furnished with arms and
lights. As it was now full moon, this being the night of the 14th of the
lunar month Nisan, it might seem that the lights were unnecessary, but
probably the garden was considerably shaded by trees, and no doubt it was
feared that Jesus might try to hide in some dark nook or lurk beneath the
shrubs or trees.

4. Iesus itaque sciens omnia 4. Jesus therefore knowing all
quae ventura erant super eum, things that should come upon
processit, et dixit eis: Quem him, went forth, and said to
quaeritis? them: Whom seek ye?

4. Christ’s foreknowledge is pointed out, both to prove His Divinity, and
to show His readiness to suffer. For, though aware of the sufferings He
was to endure, He did not seek to escape from them. He who had before
withdrawn from His enemies (viii. 59; xii. 36, &c.), now that His hour was
come, _went forth_ (from the enclosure of the garden) to meet them.

We learn from St. Luke (xxii. 47) that Judas preceded the soldiers, and
gave the traitor’s kiss to Jesus, thus marking Him out as the person to be
arrested. We learn too from St. Matthew (xxvi. 50), that Jesus addressed
the traitor, even in this hour of infamy as His friend: “Friend, whereto
art thou come?” and from St. Luke (xxii. 48), that He addressed to him the
pathetic words: “Judas, dost thou betray the Son of Man with a kiss?”
After meekly receiving the kiss from the wretched Apostle, Jesus addressed
the crowd.

5. Responderunt ei: Iesum 5. They answered him: Jesus of
Nazarenum. Dicit eis Iesus: Nazareth. Jesus saith to them:
Ego sum. Stabat autem et Iudas I am he. And Judas also, who
qui tradebat eum, cum ipsis. betrayed him, stood with them.
6. Ut ergo dixit eis, Ego sum, 6. As soon therefore as he had
abierunt retrorsum, et said to them: I am he: they
ceciderunt in terram. went backward, and fell to the
ground.

5, 6. If our view is correct, that the traitor’s kiss had preceded
Christ’s question: “Whom seek ye?” then it would seem that the soldiers
were withheld by Divine power from at once rushing on Jesus; and in order
to visibly prove His power and His ability to escape from them if He
wished, they were stricken to the ground. This prostration of Christ’s
enemies cannot be explained on natural grounds.

7. Iterum ergo interrogavit 7. Again therefore he asked
eos: Quem quaeritis? Illi them: Whom seek ye? And they
autem dixerunt: Iesum said: Jesus of Nazareth.
Nazarenum.
8. Respondit Iesus: Dixi vobis 8. Jesus answered, I have told
quia ego sum: si ergo me you, that I am he. If
quaeritis, sinite hos abire. therefore you seek me, let
these go their way.

8. *Let these go their way.* The meaning obviously is, do not arrest or
molest these My disciples.

9. Ut impleretur sermo quem 9. That the word might be
dixit; Quia quos dedisti mihi, fulfilled, which he said: Of
non perdidi ex eis quemquam. them whom thou hast given me,
I have not lost any one.

9. The Evangelist sees in Christ’s care for the safety of the disciples on
this occasion a fulfilment of His words recorded in xvii. 12. It is true
those words as spoken seem to refer only to the time then past, but as
Christ then knew that He would continue to guard the Apostles from danger
during the few hours of His life that remained, He meant the words to
express His care for the Apostles up to the moment of His death, and
therefore on this occasion at Gethsemani. His present action was,
accordingly, one fulfilment of what is recorded in xvii. 12. We believe
that Christ’s care for the Apostles in the present instance regarded their
bodies as well as their souls. That it regarded their bodies, may be
fairly concluded from His words: “let these go their way;” and that it
regarded their souls is clear from the consideration that if arrested now
they would probably have fallen into sin by denying Him.

10. Simon ergo Petrus habens 10. Then Simon Peter having a
gladium eduxit eum: et sword, drew it; and struck the
percussit pontificis servum: servant of the high‐priest,
et abscidit auriculam eius and cut off his right ear. And
dexteram. Erat autem nomen the name of the servant was
servo Malchus. Malchus.

10. The Synoptic Evangelists merely say that _one_ of those who were with
Jesus struck the servant of the high‐priest, but St. John tells us that
this one was Peter. The Synoptists may have suppressed Peter’s name
through fear of inconvenient consequences to him, but now that the Prince
of the Apostles was dead, there was no further reason for such
concealment. We cannot say whether any other motive than a desire for
historic completeness prompted St. John to give, as he does, the servant’s
name as well as Peter’s.

11. Dixit ergo Iesus Petro: 11. Jesus therefore said to
Mitte gladium tuum in vaginam. Peter: Put up thy sword into
Calicem, quem dedit mihi the scabbard. The chalice
Pater, non bibam illum? which my Father hath given me,
shall I not drink it?

11. *Put up thy sword into the scabbard.* The words are given more fully
by St. Matt. (xxvi. 52, ff). *The chalice ... shall I not drink it?* In
Matt. xxvi. 39, we read that on this same night, and in Gethsemani, before
the arrival of Judas, Christ had prayed: “Father, if it be possible, let
this chalice pass from me;” but now, since it was not to pass, He accepts
it willingly.

12. Cohors ergo, et tribunus 12. Then the band and the
et ministri Iudaeorum tribune, and the servants of
comprehenderunt Iesum, et the Jews, took Jesus, and
ligaverunt eum: bound him:

12. The *tribune* was the commander of the cohort. χιλιάρχος, strictly
taken, means the commander of one thousand men. See above on verse 3.

13. Et adduxerunt eum ad Annam 13. And they led him away to
primum: erat enim socer Annas first, for he was
Caiphae, qui erat pontifex father‐in‐law to Caiphas, who
anni illius. was high‐priest of that year.

13. This journey to Annas is mentioned only by St. John. Annas, though not
the actual high‐priest, was the head of the Sanhedrim, and a man of great
authority among the Jews (see above on xi. 49), and so Jesus was brought
before him in the first instance.

14. Erat autem Caiphas, qui 14. Now Caiphas was he who had
consilium dederat Iudaeis: given the counsel to the Jews,
Quia expedit, unum hominem that it was expedient that one
mori pro populo. man should die for the people.
15. Sequebatur autem Iesum 15. And Simon Peter followed
Simon Petrus, et alias Jesus, and so did another
discipulus. Discipulus autem disciple. And that disciple
ille erat notus pontifici, et was known to the high‐priest,
introivit cum Iesu in atrium and went in with Jesus into
pontificis. the court of the high‐priest.

15. The other disciple was almost certainly our Evangelist himself (see
Introd. I. B. 2); and the fact that he was known to the high‐priest makes
it probable that he belonged to a family of some importance.

But who is the high‐priest into whose court Peter and John followed Jesus?
Is it Caiphas that is meant, or Annas? Some think the reference is to
Annas, who, it must be admitted, is called “high‐priest” by St. Luke (Luke
iii. 2; Acts iv. 6), and to whom it has just been stated, in verse 13,
that Jesus was led. But as our Evangelist has just stated in verse 13, as
he also does in xi. 49, that Caiphas was high‐priest for that year, we
prefer to hold that the “high‐priest” here referred to is not Annas, but
Caiphas. We hold, then, that what is recorded by St. John in this passage
(verses 15‐23) took place in the court of Caiphas, after Jesus had been
led thither from Annas, and that verse 24: “Annas (_had_) sent,” &c., is
added by St. John to guard the reader against supposing that what is
recorded in verses 15‐23 took place at the house of Annas. St. Cyril of
Alexandria, and a few Greek and Syrian MSS. read verse 24 between verses
13 and 14.

In this view the account of St. John harmonizes at once with the Synoptic
Gospels, which represent St. Peter’s first denial, recorded in verse 17
here, as taking place in the court of Caiphas.

Many commentators of note, such as Patrizzi among Catholics, and Alford
among Protestants, reconcile St. John’s account with that of the Synoptic
Evangelists in another way. They hold that the events recorded in verses
15‐23 took place when Jesus was brought before Annas; but as Caiphas and
Annas occupied an official residence in common, or as Annas was, perhaps,
the guest of Caiphas, his son‐in‐law, on this night of the Paschal Supper,
though it was _Annas_ who examined Christ, as recorded by St. John (verses
10‐23), yet it was to the court of Caiphas, or the common court attached
to the house of Annas and Caiphas, that Jesus entered (verse 15); and
there, too, St. Peter denied His Master for the first time. In any of the
above opinions, St. John agrees with the Synoptic Evangelists, that the
place of St. Peter’s first denial was the court of Caiphas: but in the
second opinion, the “high priest” of verse 19 is Annas, not Caiphas. See
Patriz., Liber ii. Adnot. clxxvii.

From St. Matthew (xxvi. 59) and St. Mark (xiv. 55) we learn that Caiphas
was not alone on this occasion. The whole Sanhedrim was present; but as
the case was an important one, this body had to meet again formally after
day‐dawn, to finally decide it. See below on verse 28.

16. Petrus autem stabat ad 16. But Peter stood at the
ostium foris. Exivit ergo door without. The other
discipulus alius qui erat disciple therefore who was
notus pontifici, et dixit known to the high‐priest, went
ostiariae: et introduxit out, and spoke to the
Petrum. portress, and brought in
Peter.

16. *But Peter stood* (was standing) *at the door without*. “An oriental
house is usually built round a quadrangular interior court; into which
there is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part of the house,
closed next the street by a heavy folding gate, with a small wicket for
single persons, kept by a porter. In the text, the interior court, often
paved or flagged, and open to the sky, is the αὐλή, where the attendants
made a fire; and the passage, beneath the front of the house, from the
street to this court is the προαύλιον (Mark xiv. 68), or πυλών (Matt.
xxvi. 71). The place where Jesus stood before the high‐priest may have
been an open room or place of audience on the ground‐floor, raised
somewhat above the court (Mark xiv. 66) in the rear or on one side of the
court; such rooms, open in front, being customary” (Robinson, _Notes to
Harmony_).

17. Dicit ergo Petro ancilla 17. The maid therefore that
ostiaria: Numquid et tu ex was portress, saith to Peter:
discipulis es hominis istius? Art not thou also one of this
Dicit ille: Non sum. man’s disciples? He saith: I
am not.

17. It will be convenient to treat of the three denials by Peter (verses
17, 25‐27) together. Many Rationalist and Protestant commentators have
alleged that it is impossible to harmonize the different accounts of these
denials. We hope to show, however, that there is little difficulty in
harmonizing them.

To this end we would draw attention, with Dean Alford,(113) to the
following points:—

“In the first place, we are not bound to require accordance ... in the
_recognition_ of Peter _by different persons_. These may have been _many_
on _each occasion_ of denial, and independent narrators may have fixed on
different ones among them.”

“Secondly, no reader ... will require that the _actual words spoken by
Peter_ should in each case be _identically reported_.” In support of this
view, Alford refers to the remarks of St. Augustine on the words: “Domine,
salva nos, perimus” (Matt. viii. 25). “What matters it,” says St. Aug.,
referring to the different versions of the words given by the Evangelists,
“whether the disciples, in calling on the Lord, really used one or another
of those three expressions, or some other, not recorded by any of the
Evangelists, differing from all those that are recorded, but still giving
the sense, that those who called upon Him were perishing, and called on
Him to save them.”

“Thirdly, I do not see that we are obliged to limit the narrative to
_three sentences_ from Peter’s mouth, _and no more_. On _three occasions_
during the night he was _recognised_, on _three occasions he was a denier_
of his Lord: such a statement may well embrace _reiterated expressions of
recognition_, and _reiterated and importunate denials on each occasion_.”

“And those remarks being taken into account, I premise that all difficulty
is removed, the resulting inference being that the narratives are
_genuine, truthful accounts of facts underlying them all_.”

Similarly, Patrizzi:—“Considerare etiam juvat, ut ea difficultas quam
quidam in hac historia esse putant, quod alter Evangelista ait Petrum a
muliere, alter a viro, hic ab uno, ille a pluribus, fuisse interrogatum,
in specie quidem gravis, re tamen ipsa propemodum nulla sit; ex his enim
nihil aliud consequitur, nisi, non unum, sed plures, sive simul, sive
alium post alios, Petrum esse percontatos, hunc autem, nisi multis ac
repetitis interrogationibus adactum non respondisse, quod apprime veri
simile est, imo vix dubitandum de hoc foret, etiamsi ex evangeliis id
minime colligeretur” (Lib. ii. Adnot. clxxviii.) That the reader may apply
these principles, and convince himself as to their sufficiency, we quote
from Dr. Walsh’s _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, a tabulated statement
suggesting the chief points to be attended to in the four Gospel accounts.

1st Denial:

ST. MATTHEW.: There came to him _a maid servant_: “Thou also wast
with Jesus the Galilean.” “I know not what thou sayest.”

ST. MARK.: There cometh to him _one of the maid servants_: “Thou
also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.” “I neither know nor understand
what thou sayest.”

ST. LUKE.: There came a _certain maid servant_: “This man was also
with him.” “Woman, I know him not.”

ST. JOHN.: And _the maid that was portress_ said to Peter: “Art
not thou also one of this man’s disciples?” “I am not.”

2nd Denial:

ST. MATTHEW.: _As he went out_ to the vestibule, _another maid_
saw him, and she saith to them that were there: “This man also was
with Jesus of Nazareth.” He denied with an oath: “I do not know
the man.”

ST. MARK.: And _the maid servant_ seeing him, began to say to the
standers by: “This is one of them.” He denied again.

ST. LUKE.: And _another (Alius)_ says: “Thou also art one of
them.” “_O man_, I am not.”

ST. JOHN.: Peter was _standing and warming himself_; and they said
to him: “Art not thou also one of his disciples?” “I am not.”

3rd Denial:

ST. MATTHEW.: _They that stood by_ said: “Surely thou also art one
of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.” He began to
curse and swear that he knew not the man.

ST. MARK.: _They that stood by_ said: “Surely thou art one of
them; for thou also art a Galilean.” He began to curse and swear,
saying: “I know not this man of whom you speak.”

ST. LUKE.: _Another man_ said: “Surely this man was with him, for
he is a Galilean.” “Man, I know not what thou sayest.”

ST. JOHN.: _One of the servants of the high priest_ saith: “Did I
not see thee in the garden with him?” Peter then denied again.

Thus, it is plain that there is no difficulty in regard to the _first_
denial, whether we suppose that St. Peter made use of the different
expressions attributed to him, or, as seems more probable in regard to
this first occasion, used only one expression, which is _substantially_
reported by the four Evangelists.

In regard to the _second_ denial it is to be noted—

(_a_) That according to SS. Matthew and Mark the maid does not address
herself to Peter, but to those who were around; so that there is no
difficulty when we learn from St. Luke that Peter was addressed by a man
(_alius_) on the occasion.

(_b_) St. Matthew, in the account of this denial, speaks of a _different_
maid from her who brought about the first denial. St. Mark seems to speak
of the _same_ maid, for he has ἡ παιδίσκη (xiv. 69), which would seem to
refer to _the_ maid already mentioned. There is nothing improbable,
however, in supposing that _two_ maids spoke to those around on the
occasion of the second denial.

(_c_) As to the _place_ of the second denial, St. John says that it
occurred while “Peter was standing and warming himself,” while St. Matthew
says it occurred “as he went out to the vestibule,” or more correctly,
according to the Greek, “after he _had gone_ out” (ἐξελθόντα) into the
vestibule. But again we may readily explain by saying that on this
occasion Peter was challenged in _both places_, and denied in both.

In regard to the _third_ denial, the reason given, in St. John, by the
high‐priest’s servant, for identifying Peter as a follower of Jesus, is
different from that given in the other Evangelists; but there is no
difficulty in supposing that several different reasons were given by
different persons.

18. Stabant autem servi et 18. Now the servants and
ministri ad prunas, quia ministers stood at a fire of
frigus erat, et calefaciebant coals, because it was cold,
se: erat autem cum eis et and warmed themselves. And
Petrus stans, et calefaciens with them was Peter also
se. standing, warming himself.

18. We are not to connect this verse with the preceding, as if it
indicated that Peter was _standing_ during the first denial. We know from
St. Matthew (xxvi. 69; Comp. Mark xiv. 54; Luke xxii. 55) that he was
_sitting_, and from St. Mark (xiv. 68) that after the first denial he went
out into the passage or vestibule (εἰς τὸ προαύλιον). Hence what St. John
says here is to be understood in reference to a time between the first and
second denial.

The Greek here is somewhat different from the Vulgate. It would be
rendered: “Now the servants and the officers were standing, having made a
fire of charcoal, for it was cold, and they were warming themselves,” &c.
The Roman soldiers had, doubtless, gone back to their quarters in the
castle of Antonia, close to the Temple; and hence we find mention here of
only the servants of the high‐priest and the Temple guards.

19. Pontifex ergo interrogavit 19. The high‐priest therefore
Iesum de discipulis suis, et asked Jesus of his disciples,
de doctrina eius. and of his doctrine.

19. Meantime, while Peter was denying Him in the court, Jesus was being
examined by the high‐priest in a room or hall of the house of Caiphas. See
above on verse 16. As we have said already, we believe that Caiphas is the
“high‐priest” here referred to; so that St. John here supplements the
account given by the Synoptic Evangelists of the preliminary trial, before
Caiphas (Matt, xxvi 59‐68; Mark xiv. 55‐65; Luke xxii. 54‐63). From the
other Evangelists we learn that many false witnesses now appeared against
Jesus; but the inquiry regarding His _disciples_ and _doctrine_ here
recorded by St. John is mentioned by no other Evangelist.

The inquiry regarding Christ’s disciples was probably intended to find out
whether He had collected these followers around Him with any seditious or
unlawful object; and that regarding His doctrine in the hope of convicting
Him from His own mouth of blasphemy. Later on in this trial, as we learn
from SS. Matt. and Mark, they did condemn Him of blasphemy, and judge Him
deserving of death.

20. Respondit ei Iesus: Ego 20. Jesus answered him: I have
palam locutus sum mundo: ego spoken openly to the world: I
semper docui in synagoga, et have always taught in the
in templo, quo omnes Iudaei synagogue, and in the temple,
conveniunt: et in occulto whither all the Jews resort;
locutus sum nihil. and in secret I have spoken
nothing.

20. Jesus makes no reply regarding His disciples, because it was
sufficiently plain that they followed Him from no unworthy motive, but for
sake of His doctrine and its fruits. Of His doctrine, therefore He speaks.
But since He, of all teachers (the twice‐repeated ἐγώ is in each instance
emphatic) had taught publicly, and nothing in private _that was different
from_ His public teaching (or the meaning may be, nothing that He tried to
hide), He refers his interrogator to those who had heard Him, as their
testimony ought naturally to be sought rather than His in a matter that so
intimately concerned Himself.

21. Quid me interrogas? 21. Why askest thou me? ask
interroga eos qui audierunt them who have heard what I
quid locutus sim ipsis? ecce have spoken unto them: behold
hi sciunt quae dixerim ego. they know what things I have
said.

21. *Behold they* (these, οὗτοι) *know what things I have said*. Some
think that Christ here referred, perhaps pointed, to the Priests and
Pharisees around him, or to the crowd in the court outside; for we know
from St. Luke (xxii. 61) that those outside in the court were visible from
the hall where Christ was being examined. It may be, however, that οὗτοι
refers simply to all and any who had at any time heard His doctrine.

22. Haec autem cum dixisset, 22. And when he had said these
unus assistens ministrorum things, one of the servants
dedit alapam Iesu, dicens: Sic standing by gave Jesus a blow,
respondes pontifici? saying: Answerest thou the
high‐priest so?

22. *A blow.* “Alapa” is a blow on the ear; but the Greek word (ῥάπισμα)
signifies any blow with the open hand or with a rod or stick. The blow was
given by one of the Temple guards.

23. Respondit ei Iesus: Si 23. Jesus answered him: If I
male locutus sum, testimonium have spoken evil, give
perhibe de malo: si autem testimony of the evil: but if
bene, quid me caedis? well, why strikest thou me?

23. *If I have spoken* (rather, spoke) *evil*. It is not clear whether the
reference is to the words just uttered in reply to the high‐priest (verse
21), or to the general teaching of Christ. The use of the aorist here,
just as in verses 20 and 21, is in favour of the latter view.

We have here an example of Christ’s meekness and patience in very trying
circumstances, a practical application of the words contained in Matt. v.
39.

24. Et misit eum Annas ligatum 24. And Annas sent him bound
ad Caipham pontificem. to Caiphas the high‐priest.

24. “Et” is not genuine; the true reading is ἀπέστειλεν οὖν αὐτόν, “Jesus,
therefore, had sent him,” &c.(114) We take it that this is added by St.
John to signify that Jesus _had been_ already sent to Caiphas before the
events recorded in verses 15‐23. “Misit” ought, then, to be “miserat,” a
sense which the Aorist ἀπέστειλεν admits. Compare, for this sense of the
aorist, John iv. 45, 46; xi. 30; xiii. 12; xix. 23.

25. Erat autem Simon Petrus 25. And Simon Peter was
stans, et calefaciens se. standing, and warming himself.
Dixerunt ergo ei: Numquid et They said therefore to him:
tu ex discipulis eius es? Art not thou also one of his
Negavit ille, et dixit: Non disciples? He denied it, and
sum. said: I am not.
26. Dicit ei unus ex servis 26. One of the servants of the
pontificis, cognatus eius, high‐priest (a kinsman to him
cuius abscidit Petrus whose ear Peter cut off) saith
auriculam: Nonne ego te vidi to him: Did I not see thee in
in horto cum illo? the garden with him?

25, 26. Here we have St. John’s account of Peter’s second and third
denial. See above on verse 17. We learn from St. Luke that the third
denial took place about an hour after the second.

27. Iterum ergo negavit 27. Again therefore Peter
Petrus: et statim gallus denied: and immediately the
cantavit. cock crew.

27. From St. Mark, who, being a disciple of St. Peter, generally records
more minutely the incidents connected with the Prince of the Apostles, we
learn that the cock crew after St. Peter’s _first_ denial, as well as
after the third. But, as we explained on xiii. 38, the second crowing,
which took place after the third denial, occurred at the time ordinarily
known as cockcrow, and to it St. John refers here.

28. Adducunt ergo Iesum a 28. Then they led Jesus from
Caipha in praetorium. Erat Caiphas to the governor’s
autem mane: et ipsi non hall. And it was morning: and
introierunt in praetorium, ut they went not into the hall,
non contaminarentur, sed ut that they might not be
manducarent pascha. defiled, but that they might
eat the pasch.

28. The Evangelist here passes over much that had already been recorded by
the Synoptic Evangelists. From them we learn that Christ, at this midnight
meeting before the Council, was accused by false witnesses, convicted of
blasphemy, and judged deserving of death (Matt. xxvi. 66; Mark xiv. 64).
Then he was apparently given over to the charge of the servants of the
high‐priest, was spat upon and struck with the closed fist (_colaphis_)
(Mat. xxvi. 67), and with the open hand or a stick (ῥαπίσμασιν); and,
being blindfolded, was mockingly asked to tell who it was that struck him.
Thus He remained, perhaps, till daybreak,(115) mocked and abused by the
servants; though some think that for a part of the time He was put into
prison.

Then when morning was come, the Synoptic Evangelists tell us that Jesus
was again brought before the Sanhedrim, which almost at once decided to
hand him over to Pilate for punishment. “From Luke (as also, he might have
added, from Matt. xxvii. 1; Mark xv. 1) we learn that the night council
had been dissolved and that early again, in the morning of the last day of
our Lord’s life, another more solemn assembly (rather the same assembly)
was summoned, at which all the chief‐priests and elders and scribes
assisted, the subject of discussion being urgent and most important. It
was, besides, a wise Jewish maxim that legal proceedings especially in
capital cases should be conducted in the light of day, and not in the
darkness of night” (M’Carthy on St. Matt. xxvii. 1).

It was after this morning council that Jesus was bound (Matt. xxvii. 2;
Mark xv. 1) and led before Pilate, as St. John here narrates. At this
point, when the Lord was brought before Pilate, and His death now seemed
certain, Judas, touched with remorse, but not with true repentance,
brought back the blood‐money to the priests, and flung it in the temple;
then in despair went and hanged himself (Matt. xxvii. 3‐5).

*Then they led Jesus.* The true reading is: “they lead Jesus therefore.”
That is to say, in accordance with their determination to put Christ to to
death, a determination of which we are informed by St. Matthew (xxvii. 1),
they bring Him before the representative of Roman authority to have the
sentence of death confirmed. See below on verse 29.

*And they went not into ** the hall* (rather, the governor’s residence,
πραιτώριον.) The Roman Governors ordinarily dwelt at Caesarea, on the sea
coast; but at the more important Jewish festivals they resided in
Jerusalem, for the purpose of preventing or repressing, if necessary, any
uprising of the Jewish people against Roman authority (Josephus, _Bell.
Jud._, ii. 14, 3). When in Jerusalem, they usually occupied the palace of
Herod the Great on Mount Sion. A tradition as old as the fourth century,
however, states that on this occasion Pilate was staying in the castle of
Antonia, beside the temple on Mount Moria.

*And it was morning* (πρωΐ). Just as a condemnation to death at night was
technically illegal according to Jewish law, so a Roman court could not be
held till after sunrise. It is likely that the sun was not long risen on
this morning till the Jews in their eagerness appeared with their prisoner
at the residence of Pilate. The term πρωΐ is, in fact, used in St. Mark
xiii. 35, for the fourth watch of the night.

*That they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch.*

In our note on xiii. 1 we held that the Jews, as well as our Lord,
sacrificed the Paschal lamb on Thursday evening, and eat it that night;
and hence we hold that “the Pasch” here referred to, which on this Friday
morning was still to be eaten, was not the Paschal lamb. Had there been
question of the Paschal Supper proper, then such a defilement as that
contracted by entering the house of a Gentile would not have prevented the
Jews from partaking of the supper; for it would appear from Lev. xv. 5,
where there is question of a defilement apparently as serious as that
which would be contracted from entering the house of a Gentile, that such
defilement continued only “until the evening,” and, therefore, could not
be a hindrance to participation in the Paschal Supper, which was eaten
_after_ the evening, and when the next Jewish day had begun.(116)

There is question, then, of some of the other Paschal sacrifices which
were partaken of during the seven days of the Paschal feast (Deut. xvi. 2,
3; 2 Paral. xxx. 22), perhaps of the special sacrifice known as the
Chagigah (חגיגה).(117)

From such a sacrifice, eaten, as we learn from the Mishna in the note
below, not only at night, but also _during the day_, a defilement
contracted in the morning would exclude.

In view of the anxiety of the Jews to avoid the legal defilement incurred
by entering a house from which all leaven had not been removed, one cannot
help wondering, with St. Augustine, at their blind hypocrisy: “O impia et
stulta caecitas: habitaculo videlicet contaminarentur alieno, et non
contaminarentur scelere proprio!”

29. Exivit ergo Pilatus ad eos 29. Pilate therefore went out
foras, et dixit: Quam to them, and said: What
accusationem affertis adversus accusation bring you against
hominem hunc? this man?
30. Responderunt, et dixerunt 30. They answered and said to
ei: Si non esset hic him: If he were not a
malefactor, non tibi malefactor, we would not have
tradidissemus eum. delivered him up to thee.
31. Dixit ergo eis Pilatus: 31. Pilate therefore said to
Accipite eum vos, et secundum them: Take him you, and judge
legem vestram iudicate eum. him according to your law. The
Dixerunt ergo ei Iudaei: Nobis Jews therefore said to him: It
non licet interficere is not lawful for us to put
quemquam. any man to death.

29‐31. As they entered not, Pilate, now first mentioned by St. John, went
out to them and asked: *What accusation bring you against this man?* It is
very likely he had already learned something of the nature of the
accusation, either on the preceding night when the Roman soldiers were
required for Gethsemani, or just now before coming out of his house, but
he would naturally wish to have it made formally. They, having already
pronounced Jesus deserving of death, and having brought Him to Pilate
merely to have the sentence of death pronounced and executed without any
formality of trial, are indignant at the Roman’s question, and reply as in
verse 30: “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up
to thee.” Pilate, wishing to shift from himself responsibility for
Christ’s death, bids the Jews to take Him, and judge Him according to
their own law. This they declined to do, alleging as a reason that the
Romans had taken away from the Jews the power to punish by death. This,
however, was merely an evasion, for they knew thoroughly that Pilate’s
permission in the present case was sufficient warrant for their action,
even if they put Jesus to death. But the motive of the Jewish leaders was
to make the responsibility for His death, in the eyes of the Jewish
people, rest upon the Romans.

32. Ut sermo Iesu impleretur 32. That the word of Jesus
quem dixit, significans qua might be fulfilled which he
morte esset moriturus. said, signifying what death he
should die.

32. *That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled.* The refusal of the Jews
to judge Jesus according to their own law came to pass, adds St. John,
that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, in which He had foretold that
He should die the death of the cross (John iii. 14; xii. 32‐34; Matt. xx.
19). Had He been punished according to Jewish law, having been judged a
blasphemer, He should have been stoned to death, according to Levit. xxiv.
14: “Bring forth the blasphemer without the camp, and let them that heard
him put their hands upon his head, and let all the people stone him.”

33. Introivit ergo iterum in 33. Pilate therefore went into
praetorium Pilatus, et vocavit the hall again, and called
Iesum, et dixit ei: Tu es rex Jesus, and said to him: Art
Iudaeorum? thou the king of the Jews?

33. It was probably at this point, after they had refused to judge Jesus
according to their own law, and when they saw that Pilate was not at once
proceeding to condemn Him, that the Jews brought forward those three
distinct charges against Him, which St. Luke records: “We have found this
man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and
saying that He is Christ the king” (Luke xxiii. 2). Upon this, Pilate
returned into the house, had Jesus called in(118), and questioned Him on
the third count in the indictment just brought against Him. The pretension
of any Jew to be the King of Palestine was a point which, as questioning
the sovereignty of Rome, a Roman governor was bound to look to. Pilate,
therefore, asked Him: *Art thou the King of the Jews?* The words may mean
either, “Art thou He who has just now become notorious under this title?”
or, “Dost thou claim the title, as it is said?” The title itself would be
likely to arrest Pilate’s attention, whether he had heard it spoken of
before in connection with the entry into Jerusalem or only now from the
Jews. And further, he would rightly conclude that the title, when thus put
forward, would be fitted to call out any fanaticism which there might be
in a political enthusiast. In each of the four Gospels, the first words of
Pilate to Jesus are the same: “Art thou the King of the Jews?” (Matt.
xxvii. 11; Mark xv. 2; Luke xxiii. 3). “The form of the sentence (σὺ εἶ)
suggests a feeling of surprise in the questioner: ‘Art thou, poor, and
bound, and wearied, the the King of whom men have spoken?’ Comp. iv. 12.”
Westc. in _Speaker’s Commentary_.

34. Respondit Iesus: A 34. Jesus answered: Sayest
temetipso hoc dicis, an alii thou this thing of thyself, or
dixerunt tibi de me? have others told it thee of
me?

34. To Pilate’s question, Christ replies: Sayest thou this of thyself,
from thy own knowledge or suspicion of My having taken part in seditious
practices, or is it merely because of what others, through envy and
jealousy, have now told thee of Me? These words were, doubtless, intended
to remind Pilate that, although Governor of Judea during all the time of
Christ’s public life (Luke iii. 1), he had no reason from his own personal
knowledge to find fault with Jesus. Hence, he ought to suspect the charges
that had been made.

35. Respondit Pilatus: Numquid 35. Pilate answered: Am I a
ego Iudaeus sum? Gens tua et Jew? Thy own nation and the
pontifices tradiderunt te chief priests have delivered
mihi: quid fecisti? thee up to me: what hast thou
done?

35. Pilate impatiently replies, signifying that as he was not a Jew, he
might easily be ignorant of Christ’s guilt, while it would be well known
to Christ’s countrymen who now accused Him.

36. Respondit Iesus: Regnum 36. Jesus answered: My kingdom
meum non est de hoc mundo: si is not of this world. If my
ex hoc mundo esset regnum kingdom were of this world, my
meum, ministri mei utique servants would certainly
decertarent ut non traderer strive that I should not be
Iudaeis: Nunc autem regnum delivered to the Jews: but now
meum non est hinc. my kingdom is not from hence.

36. In response to Pilate’s question: “What hast thou done?” Jesus
proceeds to explain that His is not that mighty temporal kingdom for which
the Jews had hoped, and which the Romans might well fear; if it were, His
followers would surely have striven that He should not be delivered to the
Jews; but in truth it was not a temporal kingdom.

*My kingdom is not from hence*; _i.e._ is not _of this world_, not a
temporal kingdom. _In_ this world it was, and is; but _of_ this world it
is not. See xvii. 15, 16.

37. Dixit itaque et Pilatus: 37. Pilate therefore said to
Ergo rex es tu? Respondit him: Art thou a king then?
Iesus: Tu dicis quia rex sum Jesus answered: Thou sayest
ego. Ego in hoc natus sum, et that I am a king. For this was
ad hoc veni in mundum, ut I born, and for this came I
testimonium perhibeam into the world: that I should
veritati: omnis qui est ex give testimony to the truth.
veritate, audit vocem meam. Every one that is of the
truth, heareth my voice.

37. *Art thou a king then?* Pilate asked; to which Jesus replied: “Thou
sayest it” (Matt., Mark, Luke); or, as here, “Thou sayest that I am a
king,”(119) meaning thou sayest truly, what is the fact. That this is the
sense of the phrase, see Matt. xxvi. 64, and compare with Mark xiv. 61.
Then, having made this admission, Jesus at once proceeds to point out the
spiritual character of the kingdom which He had come to establish. That
kingdom is His Church, which was established, not amid the clash of arms
or din of battle, but by the preaching of the truth, and to which all
belong, whether Jew or Roman, who hear the truth.

38. Dicit et Pilatus: Quid est 38. Pilate saith to him: What
Veritas? Et cum hoc dixisset, is truth? And when he said
iterum exivit ad Iudaeos, et this he went out again to the
dicit eis: Ego nullam invenio Jews, and saith to them: I
in eo causam. find no cause in him.

38. At the mention of “the truth,” Pilate asks: *What is truth?* (ἀλήθεια,
without the article). The question was not asked for information, for
Pilate went out without waiting for an answer, but impatiently or
sneeringly, as if he said: “Yes, but what _is_ truth?” Then Pilate went
out again to the Jews, and told them that he could find in Jesus no reason
for condemning Him.

Then it was, probably, that as St. Luke tells us: “They were more earnest,
saying: He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea,
beginning from Galilee to this place” (Luke xxiii. 5). “Amid their
confused and passionate exclamation, the practised ear of Pilate caught
the name of ‘Galilee,’ and he understood that Galilee had been the chief
scene of the ministry of Jesus. Eager for a chance of dismissing a
business of which he was best pleased to be free, he proposed, by a
master‐stroke of astute policy, to get rid of an embarrassing prisoner, to
save himself from a disagreeable decision, and to do an unexpected
complaisancy to the unfriendly Galilean tetrarch, who, as usual, had come
to Jerusalem—nominally to keep the Passover, really to please his
subjects, and to enjoy the sensations and festivities offered at that
season by the densely‐crowded capital” (Farrar).

39. Est autem consuetudo 39. But you have a custom that
vobis, ut unum dimittam vobis I should release one unto you
in pascha: vultis ergo at the pasch: will you
dimittam vobis regem therefore that I release unto
Iudaeorum? you the king of the Jews?
40. Clamaverunt ergo rursum 40. Then cried they all again,
omnes dicentes: Non hunc, sed saying: Not this man, but
Barabbam. Erat autem Barabbas Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a
latro. robber.

39. Then, after Herod had examined and mocked Christ, he sent Him back to
Pilate (Luke xxiii. 8‐12); and now it was, after the return from Herod,
that Pilate thought of releasing Jesus, in accordance with his custom of
releasing a prisoner every year at the festival of the Pasch.

*Will you, therefore, that I release unto you the king of the Jews?* or as
St. Matt. has: “Whom will you that I release to you; Barabbas, or Jesus,
that is called Christ?” (Matt. xxvii. 17). Barabbas, as we learn from the
Synoptic Evangelists, was a “notorious prisoner,” “who was put in prison
with some seditious men, who, in the sedition, had committed murder.”
Pilate hoped, therefore, that the release of Jesus rather than of a
notorious criminal like Barabbas would be called for. But the people,
instigated by the chief‐priests and elders (Matt. xxvii. 20), blindly
called for the release of Barabbas.

*A robber.* (λῃιστής), one who appropriates the goods of another by open
violence, as opposed to the thief (κλέπτης), who takes what is not his
own, secretly and by fraud.

We have followed the view held by Patrizzi and the majority of
commentators, that Pilate on only _one occasion_, and after the return
from Herod, proposed our Lord to the Jews as the prisoner to be released.
Others, as Father Coleridge and Dr. Walsh, hold that on _two_ different
occasions, once before the journey to Herod, as recorded by St. John, and
once after, as recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists, Christ was proposed
by Pilate as the prisoner to be released. But we are not convinced by the
reasons urged in favour of this view. It is argued—(_a_) from the fact
that in St. John the question of releasing a prisoner is first mentioned
by Pilate, while in the Synoptic Evangelists the question of having a
prisoner released to them is first moved by the people. But we say, in
reply, that there is nothing in the Synoptic accounts which forbids us to
suppose that Pilate first mentioned the matter, as in St. John: “You have
a custom that I should release one unto you at the Pasch;” that then they
called upon him to observe the custom on that occasion, and that he
forthwith put before them the choice between Jesus and Barabbas. Certainly
St. Matt. (xxvii. 17) as well as St. John represents Pilate as the first
to refer to the matter.

(_b_) Father Coleridge argues also from the fact that Pilate, in St.
Matt., says to the Jews: “Whom will you that I release to you; Barabbas,
or Jesus, that is called Christ?” “That he mentions Barabbas along with
our Lord,” says Father Coleridge, “can only be explained by the fact that,
as St. John mentions, Barabbas had been already called for by the priests
and crowd, when Pilate had, for the first time, spoken of the custom.” But
it seems to us that the mention of Barabbas by Pilate is sufficiently
explained by the fact which St. Matthew himself had just mentioned in the
preceding verse, that Barabbas was a “notorious prisoner;” and hence his
name was more familiar to Pilate than the names of the other prisoners.
Moreover his well‐known guilt encouraged Pilate to hope that if the choice
lay between him and Jesus, the Jews would surely call for the release of
our Lord.

Before quitting this chapter, it may be well to point out the different
tribunals, before which, as we have seen, Jesus was led on this last night
and morning of His mortal life.

(1) First, then, He was led from Gethsemane before Annas.

(2) He was led before Caiphas.

(3) When day dawned, He was led before the Sanhedrim.

(4) He was led before Pilate.

(5) He was led before Herod Antipas.

(6) On His return from Herod, He was again led before Pilate.

CHAPTER XIX.

1‐5. *Jesus is scourged, crowned with thorns, clothed with a
purple garment, and mockingly saluted by the soldiers as King of
the Jews; then shown to the people.*

6‐7. *The people, led on by the Priests and their servants, demand
Christ’s death.*

*8‐12. Pilate becomes still more unwilling to interfere with
Jesus, and again examines Him, and makes known his intention of
releasing Him.*

13‐16. *Then the Jews charge him with disloyalty to the Roman
Emperor, and at length Pilate gives way and delivers Jesus to be
crucified.*

17‐22. *Jesus is led to Calvary, and crucified between two
robbers.*

23‐24. *The soldiers divide His other garments among four of them,
but cast lots for His tunic.*

25‐27. *Jesus gives John to the Blessed Virgin as her son, and her
in turn to him as his mother.*

28‐30. *Jesus, having partaken of the vinegar which was offered to
Him in a soaked sponge, dies.*

31‐37. *The legs of the two robbers are broken, and the side of
Jesus pierced with a lance.*

38‐42. *Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus embalm and bury the body
of Jesus.*

1. Tunc ergo apprehendit 1. Then, therefore Pilate took
Pilatus Iesum, et flagellavit. Jesus, and scourged him.

1. After he had released Barabbas, Pilate now thought of another but a
cruel means of saving the life of Jesus. He had Him scourged, hoping thus
to satisfy the fury of His enemies (Luke xxiii. 22). Then was fulfilled
the prophecy of Isaias: “_I have given my body to the strikers_, and My
cheeks to them that plucked them: I have not turned away my face from them
that rebuked me, and spat upon me” (Isaias 1. 6).

Had Christ been scourged by Jewish authority, according to the Jewish law
He should not have received more than forty stripes. “According to the
measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be: Yet so that
they exceed not the number of forty: lest thy brother depart shamefully
torn before thy eyes” (Deut. xxv. 2, 3). By Jewish practice the number of
stripes was restricted to thirty‐nine (See 2 Cor. xi. 24). But as the
scourging was ordered by Pilate, it was, doubtless, inflicted according to
the cruel Roman method, in which there was no limit to the number of
stripes that might be inflicted. The word used by the Greek translator of
St. Matthew and by St. Mark in reference to this scourging is φραγελλώσας,
which, like that used by St. John (ἐμαστίγωσεν), signifies a scourging
with whips or flagella(120) (not _rods_, which were sometimes used by the
Romans; Acts xvi. 22. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 25). The _flagellum_ was chiefly
used in the punishment of slaves. It was made of cords or thongs of
leather, knotted with bones or circles of bronze, or pieces of hard wood,
and sometimes terminated by hooks in which latter case it was called a
scorpion. No wonder that Horace (_Sat._ 1, 3, 119) speaks of it as
“horribile flagellum.” It was with this brutal instrument of torture,
then, that our Lord was mangled on this morning by the fierce Roman
soldiers.

The pillar to which according to tradition our Lord was tied while being
scourged, was brought from Jerusalem to Rome, in 1223 A.D. “In a small
shrine to the right of the chapel (in the Church of St. Praxedes on the
Esquiline, near St. Mary Major’s), is preserved the marble pillar to which
our Lord is said to have been bound. It measures two feet three inches in
height, not including its circular pedestal, which is two inches high; its
lower diameter is one foot and a‐half, its upper is only nine inches, and
its top was attached to a ring, the perforation for which remains” (Dr.
Donovan’s _Rome, Ancient and Modern_).

2. Et milites plectentes 2. And the soldiers platting a
corronam de spinis, crown of thorns, put it upon
imposuerunt capiti eius: et his head: and they put on him
veste purpurea circumdederunt a purple garment.
eum.

2. There is a difficulty here when we compare this verse with Matt. xxvii.
26‐29; Mark xv. 15‐18. For, while St. John here represents the crowning
with thorns(121) and the incident of the cloak as _preceding_ the sentence
of death (see verse 16), SS. Matthew and Mark seem to say that they
followed it.

Hence, some have held that Christ was twice crowned with thorns and clad
with a cloak, and hailed as King of the Jews: once before the sentence as
signified here, and once after as indicated by SS. Matthew and Mark.

But it seems the more probable opinion that these events occurred only
once, and before the sentence was passed, as St. John records. In this
view, SS. Matthew and Mark do not record these events and the sentence in
the order in which they occurred.(122) We would suggest, in support of
this view, that these Evangelists, in recording the sentence by which
Barabbas recovered his liberty (Matt. xxvii. 26; Mark xv. 15), depart from
the order of time to record in connection with the liberation of Barabbas
the condemnation of Jesus. Thus the sentence of death, though following
the crowning with thorns is represented in the two first Gospels as
preceding it.

*A purple garment.* If it be objected that while the cloak according to
St. John was _purple_, according to St. Matthew it was _scarlet_, we reply
that the same difficulty occurs on a comparison of St. Matthew with St.
Mark, for the latter also says the cloak was _purple_; and yet all admit
that SS. Matthew and Mark refer to the same occasion. In reality, the two
Greek words translated purple and scarlet seem to have been frequently
interchanged.

“Πορφύρα is vaguely used to signify different shades of red, and is
especially convertible with crimson = κοκκίνη, Matt.” (Alf. on St. Mark
xv. 17).

3. Et veniebant ad eum, et 3. And they came to him, and
dicebant: Ave rex Iudaeorum: said: Hail, king of the Jews,
Et dabant ei alapas. and they gave him blows.

3. *Hail, king of the Jews.* The soldiers had derisively arrayed Him in
the insignia of royalty; nothing was wanting but the mockery of their
homage; this they now offer. St. Matthew is more explicit: “And bowing the
knee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, king of the Jews” (Matt.
xxvii. 29).

*And they gave him blows.* From St. Matthew we learn, too, that “spitting
upon him, they took the reed, and struck his head” (Matt. xxvii. 30).

4. Exivit ergo iterum Pilatus 4. Pilate therefore went forth
foras, et dicit eis: Ecce again, and saith to them:
adduco vobis eum foras, ut Behold I bring him forth unto
cognoscatis quia nullam you, that you may know that I
invenio in eo causam. find no cause in him.

4. Pilate now brought Jesus forth, hoping that the wretched plight to
which our Saviour had been reduced, that the mockery and degradation and
suffering to which He had been subjected, would satisfy them, and with
this view he says to them in effect: Behold I bring Him forth to you that
I may make known to you again that I can find no reason for condemning
Him; see, then, the miserable state to which He is reduced, and be
satisfied.

5. (Exivit ergo Iesus portans 5. Jesus therefore came forth
coronam spineam, et purpureum bearing the crown of thorns,
vestimentum). Et dicit eis: and the purple garment. And he
Ecce homo. saith to them: Behold the Man.

5. This verse gives us the graphic description of an eye‐witness. *Behold
the Man.* “Behold” is an interjection, not a verb. It it were a verb,
“man” would be in the accusative case governed by it. This, indeed, is
what is suggested by our translation and punctuation: “Behold the Man.”
But in the original, “man” is in the nominative case (ὁ ἄνθρωπος), and the
meaning is: Behold, here before you is _the Man_.

6. Cum ergo vidissent eum 6. When the chief priests
pontifices et ministri therefore and the servants had
clamabant dicentes: Crucifige, seen him, they cried out,
crucifige eum, Dicit eis saying: Crucify him, crucify
Pilatus: accipite cum vos et him. Pilate saith to them:
crucifigite: ego enim non Take him you, and crucify him;
invenio in eo causam. for I find no cause in him.

6. As soon as Jesus appeared, the chief‐priests and the ministers at once
raised the savage cry, fearing lest the sight of His bleeding and mangled
body might melt the hearts of the people.

Pilate’s words: *Take him, you, and crucify him*, are thought by some to
be ironical, as if he said: Take him you, if you dare. We prefer, however,
to understand the words, like the similar words in verse xviii. 31, as the
expression of his desire to please the Jews. He was convinced that Jesus
was innocent, and was unwilling himself to condemn Him; yet, to please the
Jews, he would permit them to put Him to death.

7. Responderunt ei Iudaei: Nos 7. The Jews answered him: We
legem habemus, et secundum have a law; and according to
legem debet mori, quia Filium the law he ought to die,
Dei se fecit. because he made himself the
Son of God.

7. *The Jews answered him: We have a law.* The Jews reply, that though the
Roman governor sees nothing in Him for which to condemn Him, yet,
according to their law, Jesus has incurred the penalty of death: “He that
blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die; all the multitude
shall stone him” (Lev. xxiv. 16).

*Because he made himself the Son of God.* Note here that the Jews
understood Christ to have claimed to be the _natural_ Son of God. Had they
understood Him to speak of Himself merely as an adopted son, they could
not have blamed Him, for the just are frequently spoken of in the Old
Testament as sons of God. From St. Luke xxiii. 2, then, we know that the
Jews understood Jesus to claim to be “Christ, the King;” that is to say,
to be the Messias; and from the verse before us we learn that they
understood Him to claim to be the Son of God. As such then, and for such
claims on His part, He was put to death; and the fact that He chose rather
to die, than explain away or withdraw these claims, proves that He was
understood correctly.

8. Cum ergo audisset Pilatus 8. When Pilate therefore had
hunc sermonem, magis timuit. heard this saying, he feared
the more.

8. *He feared the more.* When Pilate heard that Christ claimed to be the
Son of God, he became _more_ afraid to interfere with or condemn Him.
Already her dream which Pilate’s wife had made known to him (Matt. xxvii.
19), and the majesty, serenity, and evident innocence of Jesus, must have
greatly impressed the governor.

9. Et ingressus est praetorium 9. And he entered into the
iterum, et dixit ad Iesum: hall again, and he said to
Unde es tu? Iesus autem Jesus: Whence art thou? But
responsum non dedit ei. Jesus gave him no answer.

9. Again, therefore, he entered the palace (πραιτώριον). Jesus, too, was
led in, and Pilate questioned Him in reference to the accusation just made
against Him. You have been charged with claiming to be the Son of God:
*Whence art thou?* from heaven, or of earth, like other men? Pilate was
unworthy of an answer, or else Jesus thought it useless to explain to one
who would not understand or believe it His eternal generation from the
Father, and accordingly He was silent.

10. Dicit ergo ei Pilatus: 10. Pilate therefore saith to
Mihi non loqueris? nescis quia him: Speakest thou not to me?
potestatem habeo crucifigere knowest thou not that I have
te et potestatem habeo power to crucify thee, and I
dimittere te? have power to release thee?

10. *Speakest thou not to me?* In the original the pronoun, standing at
the head of the clause, is emphatic. Speakest thou not _to me_, the
representative of Roman power, who have authority (ἐξουσίαν) to liberate
or crucify thee?

*Knowest thou not that I have power*, &c. The more probable order of the
clauses is: “I have power to release thee, and I have power to crucify
thee,” the motive of hope standing before that of fear.

11. Respondit Iesus: Non 11. Jesus answered: Thou
haberes potestatem adversum me shouldest not have any power
ullam, nisi tibi datum esset against me, unless it were
desuper. Propterea qui me given thee from above.
tradidit tibi, maius peccatum Therefore he that hath
habet. delivered me to thee, hath the
greater sin.

11. Pilate’s claim to unlimited power over Him makes Jesus again break
silence. His words are an implicit admission that Pilate possesses power
over Him, but at the same time a reminder that there was One greater than
even a Roman governor, without whose permission Pilate could do nothing
against Him.

*Unless it were given thee from above.* From the original, in which we
have ἦν δεδομένον, not ἦν δεδομένη (datum, not data), it is clear that the
verb has not “power” for its subject, but is to be taken impersonally:
Unless it were given thee from above _to have such power_.

“From above” has been taken by some to refer to the Sanhedrim, as if
Christ here referred to it as a higher tribunal than Pilate’s; but this
view cannot be admitted. Not only is it opposed to the ordinary sense of
ἄνωθεν (iii. 31; James i. 17; iii. 15, 17), but it would make our Lord say
that Pilate had received his power from the Sanhedrim—a statement which
would not be correct. “From above”, then, means: from heaven or from God.

*Therefore he that hath delivered* (παραδούς, not παραδιδούς) *me to thee
hath the greater sin*. Some, as Kuinoel, hold that διὰ τοῦτο is here
merely a formula of transition (like the Hebrew לבן, Judg. viii. 7, &c.),
of which no account is to be taken. The meaning is then sufficiently
clear. But if, as most commentators take for granted, we are to give διὰ
τοῦτο its ordinary inferential force, the connection is very obscure, and
has been variously explained.

(_a_) Some thus: Because you exercise your power _unwillingly_ therefore
your sin is less than that of Caiphas and the Sanhedrim, who have
delivered me to you, and are forcing you to condemn me. But it is rightly
objected against this interpretation, that the word “unwillingly,” upon
which it turns, is neither expressed nor suggested in the text.

(_b_) Others thus: Since you have received from God power over Me, _but
have not had an opportunity of judging of My character_, therefore your
sin is less than that of Caiphas and the Sanhedrim, who with the clearest
evidences of My Divinity before them have yet condemned Me and delivered
Me to you. But it is objected to this view also, that the words upon which
the interpretation hinges, are not found in the text.

(_c_) Others thus: since you possess lawful authority, therefore the
Sanhedrim is more guilty in handing Me over to you than it would be, if
you possessed not this authority. For, in handing Me over to you, they try
to brand Me as a malefactor, and they surrender Me to one who has the
power to put Me to death, even by the cruel death of crucifixion. In this
view, held by Toletus, the sin of the Sanhedrim is compared, not with that
of Pilate, but with what their own sin would have been, had they merely
brought Jesus before some unlawful tribunal.

The last connection, though, perhaps, not sufficiently obvious, is the
most natural. The meaning of the whole verse is: You have lawful authority
indeed, but not independently of God; and since you have lawful authority,
therefore, My accusers are the more guilty.

The words “he that hath delivered me to thee” refer primarily to Caiphas,
the high‐priest, but include the Sanhedrim with him in the responsibility
for delivering up Christ.

12. Et exinde quaerebat 12. And from thenceforth
Pilatus dimittere eum. Iudaei Pilate sought to release him.
autem clamabant, dicentes: Si But the Jews cried out,
hunc dimittis, non es amicus saying: If thou release this
Caesaris: omnis enim qui se man, thou art not Cesar’s
regem facit contradicit friend. For whosoever maketh
Caesari. himself a king, speaketh
against Cesar.

12. *And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him.* Pilate, who had
hitherto tried to shirk the trial of Jesus, or to induce the Jews to call
for His release, now “sought” himself to release Him. At this juncture,
when all other motives had failed to move Pilate, the Jews exasperated
charge him with being the enemy of Cæsar, if he refuse to condemn one who
claimed to be a sovereign within Cæsar’s dominions. Their words conveyed
to Pilate that they would denounce him to Cæsar, in case he persisted in
refusing to condemn Jesus. Tiberius (14‐37 A.D.), who was Roman Emperor at
the time, was, according to Suetonius (Vit. Tib., c. 58), a most
suspicious tyrant, and one with whom, as Tacitus tells us: “Majestatis
crimen omnium accusationum complementum erat” (Ann. iii. 38).

13. Pilatus autem cum audisset 13. Now when Pilate had heard
hos sermones, adduxit foras these words, he brought Jesus
Iesum: et sedit pro tribunali, forth; and sat down in the
in loco qui dicitur judgment seat, in the place
Lithostrotos, hebraice autem that is called Lithostrotos,
Gabbatha. and in Hebrew Gabbatha.

13. Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth. Pilate,
through fear of the Emperor, at length gave way, and Jesus, who had
remained within the house after the interrogation (verses 9‐11), while
Pilate was signifying his own intention to the people (verse 12), was now
brought forth, and Pilate formally took his seat to pass sentence of
death.

*In the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha.* The
Rev. Vers. renders: “At a place called the Pavement, but in Hebrew
Gabbatha.” The judgment‐seat was usually in front of the Praetorium, on an
elevated platform. The Syro‐Chaldaic word Gabbatha means _a high place_,
probably from the root גבה (Gabhah), and such high places were usually
paved with many‐coloured stones, hence the name “Lithostrotos” (from
λίθος, a stone, and στρωτός, covered, or paved). Suetonius (Caes. 8, 46)
says that Julius Cæsar carried such a pavement with him on his
expeditions.

14. Erat autem parasceve 14. And it was the parasceve
paschae, hora quasi sexta, et of the pasch, about the sixth
dicit Iudaeis: Ecce rex hour, and he saith to the
vester. Jews: Behold your king.

14. *And it was the parasceve of the Pasch.* “Parasceve” (Gr. παρασκευή)
means _preparation_, or _day of preparation_, and the expression: “the
parasceve of the Pasch” _might_ mean the day of preparation for the
Paschal feast, and hence the day _before_ the feast began. This, indeed,
is the meaning given to the phrase by all those who hold that Christ, in
the last year of His mortal life, celebrated the Paschal Supper a day
before the Jews.(123) They hold that St. John here signifies that the
Jewish Pasch had not yet begun. But the phrase may have, and we believe
has, a different meaning. We know from St. Mark that “Parasceve” was
another name for Friday; “It was the Parasceve, that is, the day before
the Sabbath” (Mark xv. 42). Friday naturally enough got this name, because
it was the _day of preparation_ for the Jewish Sabbath.

By “the parasceve of the Pasch,” then, we understand the Friday of the
Paschal week, and we take it that St. John here indicates the day of the
week, as in the words immediately following he indicates the hour of the
day. His readers, some of whom were, doubtless, acquainted with the
Synoptic Gospels, would be already aware that this day was the first of
the Paschal week, and not the eve of the festival. See above on xiii. 1.

*About the sixth hour.* A very great difficulty arises from a comparison
of this account with that of St. Mark. For St. Mark says: “And it was the
_third_ hour, and they crucified Him.... And when the sixth hour was come,
there was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour” (Mark xv.
25, 33).

Thus, while St. John represents our Lord as _condemned_ about the _sixth_
hour, St. Mark represents Him as already _crucified_ at the _third_ hour.
How, it is asked, could He be crucified at the _third_ hour, if He was not
condemned till the _sixth_?

Many solutions of this difficulty have been proposed, but some of them are
so improbable, that we will not delay upon them. When, for instance, St.
Augustine says that St. Mark, in stating that the Jews crucified Jesus at
the third hour, means that at that time they crucified Him with their
_tongues_ by calling for His crucifixion, it is plain from the whole
context of St. Mark that such a view cannot be admitted; because he
evidently speaks of the real nailing of Jesus to the cross. Thus he says:
“And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. And the inscription of
his cause was written over, _The King of the Jews_. And with him they
crucify two thieves, the one on his right hand, and the other on his
left.... And they that passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads, and
saying: ... save thyself, coming down from the cross” (Mark xv. 25‐30).

But, setting aside the less probable methods of reconciliation, we must
notice four which have found favour with commentators.

(1) Maldonatus and many of the older commentators hold that besides the
division of the Jewish day into twelve hours, there was also another
division into four periods, corresponding to the four watches of the
night.(124) Thus, at the Pasch, which occurred about the time of the
vernal equinox, these four periods, or “hours,” would be
respectively—(_a_) from 6 to 9 a.m.; (_b_) from 9 a.m. to noon; (_c_) from
noon to 3 p.m.; and (_d_) from 3 to 6 p.m. According to Mald., these
periods were called respectively, the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth
“hour.” He curiously supposes, however, that sometimes any one of these
“hours” or periods was referred to either by the name of the hour with
which it began, or by the name of that with which it closed. Hence the
period between 9 a.m. and noon, or, to speak more correctly, a time within
that period—about 11.30 a.m.—is referred to by St. Mark as the _third_
hour; while a time within the same period, but about an hour earlier is
referred to by St. John as the sixth hour.

This view is now generally abandoned, and not without reason. For, in the
first place, there are no solid grounds for believing that the fourfold
division of the Jewish day here supposed, ever existed. In the second
place, even if it had existed, we should require a great deal of proof,
indeed, before we could believe that the “hours” were numbered in so
strange and confusing a fashion.

(2) More probable than the preceding is the view of Cornely (Introd., vol.
iii., § 73, 3). He, too, like Mald., holds the above fourfold division of
the day, but says that the divisions were called respectively, the first,
third, sixth, and ninth hour. Now, the Synoptic Evangelists, he says,
follow this fourfold division of the day; and, hence, St. Mark’s third
hour is the time from 9 a.m. to noon. St. John, on the other hand, reckons
according to the more accurate Jewish method of dividing the day into
twelve equal parts; and, therefore, his phrase, “about the sixth hour,”
means _about noon_. Cornely thinks that the vagueness of the phrase:
“_About_ the sixth hour” justifies us in supposing that the time when
Pilate passed sentence upon our Lord, according to St. John, may have been
as early as half‐past ten. Thus, condemned about half‐past ten, Jesus
could be led out to Calvary and put upon the cross before noon; in other
words, while, as St. Mark says, it was still the third hour.

Though this view is more probable than the preceding, we cannot accept it.
For it supposes, like the preceding, a division of the day into four
“hours,” for which Cornely offers no evidence any more than Maldonatus.
Moreover, we cannot bring ourselves to believe that St. John would refer
to a time so early as half‐past ten as “about the sixth hour.”

(3) Others think that while St. Mark follows the Jewish division of the
day, and, therefore counts the hours from sunrise, St. John, on the other
hand, follows the Greek method, and counts them from midnight. Thus, about
the time of the equinox, St. Mark’s “third hour” would mean about 9 a.m.,
while St. John’s “about the sixth hour” would mean about 6 a.m. According
to this view, our Lord was condemned about 6 a.m., and nailed to the cross
about 9 a.m.

Against this view, it is held by many writers that St. John, like the
other Evangelists, counts the hours of the day from sunrise, that is to
say, according to the Jewish method.(125)

But a still more serious difficulty against this view arises from the
difficulty of finding time for all the events of the morning of the
Crucifixion between day‐dawn and 6 a.m.—the time at which, in this
opinion, our Lord was condemned by Pilate. “Those events ... were—(1) the
meeting of the Council; (2) the procession to Pilate’s Court; (3) the
various incidents recorded by the four Evangelists on the occasion of our
Lord’s first appearance before Pilate’s tribunal; (4) the sending of our
Lord to Herod; (5) the interview between our Lord and Herod; (6) the
mocking of our Lord by Herod’s soldiers; (7) the return to the Court of
Pilate; (8) the scourging; (9) the crowning with thorns; (10) the mocking
of our Lord by the Roman soldiers; (11) the incident of the ‘Ecce Homo,’
and (12) the final interview, within the Praetorium, between our Lord and
Pilate, at the close of which Pilate came forth, and, after a final effort
to obtain the liberation of our Lord, took his place on the judgment seat,
‘and it was now about the sixth hour.’

(4) “It would seem, then, that the most satisfactory solution of the
difficulty is that given by the great majority of modern
commentators—Catholic as well as Protestant—namely, that an error has
crept into the text of St. John’s Gospel, and that the true reading of the
passage in question there (xix. 14), is to be obtained by substituting
‘third’ for ‘sixth.’

“Manifestly, such a correction of the text removes the difficulty we are
considering. On the one hand, it leaves abundance of time before Pilate’s
sentence—three or four hours—for the events of the earlier part of the
morning. On the other hand, it leaves quite sufficient time—an interval,
it may be supposed, of nearly an hour—between the passing of the sentence
and the actual crucifixion; for St. John’s statement, that it was ‘about’
the third hour, might surely be understood of any time between half‐past
eight and nine o’clock; and St. Mark’s words are quite consistent with the
supposition that our Lord was crucified at any time between nine and ten.

“And it is not to be supposed that the emendation of the text is suggested
merely on _a priori_ grounds. For (1) this reading is actually found in
one of the five Greek MSS. of the New Testament that rank highest in
antiquity and authority—Codex D. (_Cantabrigiensis_ or _Bezae_): this MS
dates probably from the 5th or 6th century. Moreover (2) we have in its
favour the very strong testimony of an ancient writer, the author of the
_Chronicon Paschale_ (circ. A.D. 630), who adopts this reading on the
authority of many ‘accurate copies,’ and mentions the striking fact that
the clause was thus read in St. John’s original autograph of his Gospel,
then extant, and, of course, deeply venerated by the faithful in the
Church at Ephesus.” (See Patrizzi, _De Evangeliis_, lib. ii., n. 195.)

“But, it may be objected, is it not a somewhat forced hypothesis to
suppose that an interchange of two words so dissimilar as τρίτη and
ἕκτη,—the Greek words for ‘third’ and ‘sixth’ respectively—could have
occurred by an error of transcription? By no means. For, in the first
place, it must be remembered that the usage was almost universal of using
the numeral characters—which, in Greek consist of letters of the
alphabet—instead of writing the words in full. Thus the change would
consist merely in the substitution of one letter for another. But,
furthermore, it is essential to explain that when the ancient MSS. of the
Greek Testament were written, it was the usage to employ only capital, or,
as they are called, uncial letters—thus those MSS. themselves are commonly
known as uncial. Now, since the character by which the numeral 3 was
represented was _gamma_, the _third_ letter of the Greek alphabet, its
uncial form was Γ. The character by which the numeral 6 was represented
was the now obsolete _digamma_, at one time the _sixth_ letter of the
Greek alphabet: its uncial form was Ϝ.

“Thus then we find that the error which, it is suggested, has crept into
this verse of the text of St. John consisted merely in the interchange of
the characters Ϝ and Γ—a mistake so easily made that its very facility
constitutes a strong antecedent probability in favour of the view that it,
in fact, occurred.”(126)

In this view, which seems to us the most probable, Christ was condemned
_about_ the _third_ hour. As the _third_ hour at the season of the Pasch
extended from about 8 till 9 a.m., St. Mark’s “third hour” may refer to a
time immediately after 8 a.m. This opinion allows abundance of time for
the events which on that Good Friday morning preceded the sentence of
death. For, as the sun at the Pasch rose about 6 a.m., day‐dawn began
about half‐past four; and thus we have nearly four hours from the
assembling of the Sanhedrim, before which Jesus was led at dawn, till the
sentence was pronounced upon Him by Pilate. In this view, our Lord was put
upon the cross about 9 a.m.

*Behold your king.* This, like Pilate’s words in the next verse, was
probably said to annoy the Jews because they had forced him to condemn
Jesus.

15. Illi autem clamabant: 15. But they cried out: Away
Tolle, tolle, crucifige eum. with him, away with him,
Dicit eis Pilatus: Regem crucify him. Pilate saith to
vestrum crucifigam? them: Shall I crucify your
Responderunt pontifices: Non king? The chief priests
habemus regem, nisi Caesarem. answered: We have no king but
Cesar.

15. *We have no king but Caesar.* Though the Jews were at this time
chafing under the dominion of the Romans, the chief priests, blinded by
their hatred of Christ, here proclaimed their submission to the Roman
yoke.

16. Tunc ergo tradidit eis 16. Then therefore he
ilium ut crucifigeretur. delivered him to them to be
Susceperunt autem Iesum, et crucified. And they took
eduxerunt. Jesus, and led him forth.

16. And now Pilate at last delivered Jesus to them to be crucified, having
first, as St. Matthew tells us, gone through the vain ceremony of washing
his hands, as if he could thus wash his soul from the guilt of weakly
consenting to Christ’s death!

17. Et baiulans sibi crucem, 17. And bearing his own cross
exivit in eum qui dicitur he went forth to that place
Calvariae locum, hebraice which is called Calvary, but
autem Golgotha: in Hebrew Golgotha.

17. The words “and led him forth,” are probably not genuine. We learn from
the Synoptic Evangelists that Jesus was now mocked, stripped of the purple
cloak, and clothed with His own garments. Then, like Isaac of old (Gen.
xxii. 6), bearing the wood on which He was to suffer, Jesus _went forth_
(comp. xviii. 1) to the place where He was crucified. By Jewish as well as
Roman law the execution should take place outside the city; Numb. xv. 35;
3 K. xxi. 13. And Cicero says: Quid enim attinuit, cum Mamertini _more
atque instituto suo_, crucem fixissent _post urbem_ in via Pompeia, &c.
(Verr. v. 66). Calvary, which is now within the walls of Jerusalem, was
then outside them, lying to the west of the city. A very old tradition
represents Jesus as falling three times beneath the cross on His way to
Calvary; and the three Synoptic Evangelists tell us that Simon of
Cyrene(127), probably a Jew who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the
Pasch, was forced to carry the cross. It is disputed whether Simon was
made to bear the cross alone or merely to assist Jesus. The latter view is
frequently followed in paintings, but the former seems more probable.
Jesus was now worn and weak, and as the Jews were impatient to hurry on to
the place of punishment; perhaps, too, through a fear that He might
otherwise die on the way and deprive them of the pleasure of seeing Him
writhing on the cross, they would be more likely to relieve Him from even
helping to carry the cross. “Nota,” says A Lapide, “non videri Simonem
crucem gestasse cum Christo hac ratione, ut Christus priorem crucis
partem, Simon posteriorem portaret, uti pingunt pictores; sed ipsum solum
totam Christi praeeuntis crucem gestasse” (A Lap. on St. Matt. xxvii. 32).

St. Luke alone mentions the incident of the women of Jerusalem, who
followed Jesus bewailing and lamenting for Him (Luke xxii. 27‐31). A very
ancient tradition represents the Blessed Virgin as meeting Jesus in this
sad procession to Calvary.

_Calvaria_ in the Vulgate is not a proper name. “It is simply the Latin
for κρανίον, a _bare skull_, and used in Vulgate only here (Matt.) and in
the parallel passages of Mark, Luke, and John when describing the
crucifixion—nowhere else in the Old or New Testament. Golgotha was the
Hebrew name of the spot where our Lord was crucified. The pure Hebrew form
of the word גלגלת (Gulgoleth), meaning a skull (from גלל (galal) _to roll,
to be round_), is found in Judges ix. 53. Thence came the Chaldaic (rather
we should say, Syro‐Chaldaic), Gulgalta, abbreviated into Golgotha. But
why was the place called Golgotha, or _skull_? Either because criminals
were commonly executed on that spot, and many skulls were found there
bleaching in the sun (St. Jerome and most modern Catholic comm.); or the
mound was skull‐like (St. Cyril of Jerusalem alludes to this view, but
refutes it); or (according to tradition) the skull of the first man, Adam,
was buried there (Orig., St. Epiph., and nearly all the fathers) ...: In
accordance with this opinion (of the fathers), we see so often in
paintings and pictures a skull placed at the foot of the cross. Although
we read constantly in sermons of the _hill_ of Calvary, there is little to
show that there was any hill or mound on the spot named _Golgotha_. St.
Cyril of Jerusalem objects to the derivation of Calvary from the mound
being skull‐shaped, because he says there was _no hill_ there. In the
whole history of the Passion no mention is made of the _mount_ or hill of
Calvary.... The traditional spot is simply on a high ground, like Holborn
in London, or Patrick’s‐hill in Dublin, or the Pantheon in Paris” (Dr.
M’Carthy, on St. Matthew, xxvii. 33).

18. Ubi crucifixerunt eum, et 18. Where they crucified him,
cum eo alios duos hinc et and with him two others, one
hinc, medium autem Iesum. on each side, and Jesus in the
midst.

18. Whether Jesus was nailed to the cross while it was lying upon the
ground, or whether the cross was first erected and He then raised up to it
by ropes and ladders, is disputed.(128)

As to the shape of the cross, too, on which He was crucified, there is a
slight difference of opinion. Setting aside the _crux simplex_, which was
merely an upright stake, the _crux compacta_, so called from the parts
being joined together, was threefold: “_decussata_ (cut into two equal
parts), like the letter X; _commissa_, like the letter T, and _immissa_,
or Latin +, which differs from the _commissa_, by having the long upright
beam projecting over the transverse bar” (M’Carthy). The almost unanimous
tradition of the fathers holds that Christ died upon the Latin cross, and
there is no reason to doubt that this is correct.

*And with him two others.* These are described as “robbers” (λῃισταί), by
St. Matt. (xxvii. 38), and St. Mark (xv. 27), and as “malefactors” by St.
Luke (xxiii. 32). It may possibly have been to add to His disgrace and
shame that the Jews had these punished together with Jesus. “And the
Scripture was fulfilled which saith: _And with the wicked he was reputed_”
(Mark xv. 28).

19. Scripsit autem et titulum 19. And Pilate wrote a title
Pilatus: et posuit super also: and he put it upon the
crucem, Erat autem scriptum: cross. And the writing was,
IESUS NAZARENUS, REX JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF
IUDAEORUM. THE JEWS.

19. *Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.* It was usual to indicate in
some such way the name and offence of those crucified, and so Pilate had
an inscription placed over the head of Jesus, giving His name, and the
reason why He suffered. We should have expected, however, that Pilate
would have caused to be written: Jesus of Nazareth who _claimed to be_
king of the Jews. But no, either to annoy the Jews, or by an over‐ruling
Providence, Pilate wrote: “KING OF THE JEWS,” thus proclaiming Christ’s
royal dignity even while he crucified Him.

The title is slightly different in all four Evangelists. _Hic est Jesus
Rex Judaeorum_ (Matthew); _Rex Judaeorum_ (Mark); _Hic est Rex Judaeorum_
(Luke); _Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum_ (John).

It is very probable that St. John gives the precise words of the title,
the others the substance. For all that is at present legible(129) of the
Hebrew text of the title agrees exactly with St. John.

The title, written on a whitened wooden tablet, together with the true
cross, nails, and lance, was discovered during the excavations ordered by
an English woman, St. Helen, the mother of Constantine the Great, about
the year 326 A.D. The title was placed by St. Helen in the Church of the
Holy Cross on the Esquiline, in Rome, where it is still venerated. See Dr.
Donovan’s _Rome, Ancient and Modern_, vol. i., p. 508.

20. Hunc ergo titulum multi 20. This title therefore many
Iudaeorum legerunt: quia prope of the Jews did read: because
civitatem erat locus, ubi the place where Jesus was
crucifixus est Iesus: et erat crucified was nigh to the
scriptum hebraice, graece, et city: and it was written in
latine. Hebrew, in Greek, and in
Latin.

20. *The place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city.* Calvary
was less than a mile from the centre of Jerusalem, and as the city was
then crowded, many read the title. The title was in three languages, that
all might be able to read it. The Jews resident in Palestine could read
the Syro‐Chaldaic; the strangers could read the Greek; and the Roman
soldiers, the Latin. It was formerly held by some commentators that the
three inscriptions were in Latin, but written in Syro‐Chaldaic, Greek, and
Latin characters, respectively. This opinion, however, has nothing to
recommend it. The obvious sense of the verse before us, and the relics of
the title, prove that the inscription was in three different languages.
Many authorities reverse the order of the two last clauses in this verse:
“in Latin, and in Greek.”

21. Dicebant ergo Pilato 21. Then the chief priests of
pontifices Iudaeorum: Noli the Jews said to Pilate: Write
scribere, Rex Iudaeorum: sed not, the king of the Jews, but
quia ipse dixit: Rex sum that he said: I am the king of
Iudaeorum. the Jews.

21. *Then the chief priests.* Rather, “the chief priests of the Jews,
_therefore_,” &c.

22. Respondit Pilatus: Quod 22. Pilate answered: What I
scripsi, scripsi. have written, I have written.

22. *What I have written, I have written.* Pilate, already tired of the
painful business, and disgusted with the Jews, refused to make any change
in what he had written.

23. Milites ergo cum 23. The soldiers therefore
crucifixissent eum, acceperunt when they had crucified him,
vestimenta eius (et fecerunt took his garments (and they
quatuor partes: unicuique made four parts, to every
militi partem), et tunicam. soldier a part) and also his
Erat autem tunica coat. Now the coat was without
inconsutilis, desuper contexta seam, woven from the top
per totum. throughout.

23. It was the custom to give the clothes to the executioners. The tunic
was the inner garment worn next the skin, and reaching from the neck to
the ankles. It was usually fastened round the neck with a clasp.

24. Dixerunt ergo ad invicem: 24. They said then one to
Non scindamus eam, sed another: Let us not cut it,
sortiamur de illa cuius sit. but let us cast lots for it
Ut scriptura impleretur, whose it shall be; that the
dicens: Partiti sunt scripture might be fulfilled,
vestimenta mea sibi: et in saying: _They have parted my
vestem meam miserunt sortem. garments among them: and upon
Et milites quidem haec my vesture they have cast
fecerunt. lots_. And the soldiers indeed
did these things.

24. As Christ’s tunic was seamless, and the soldiers thought it a pity to
tear it, they cast lots for it; God so ordaining, in order that the
Scripture might be fulfilled. According to an old tradition, the tunic had
been woven for Jesus by the Blessed Virgin’s own hands.

25. Stabant autem iuxta crucem 25. Now there stood by the
Iesu mater eius, et soror cross of Jesus, his mother,
matris eius, Maria Cleophae, and his mother’s sister, Mary
et Maria Magdalene. of Cleophas, and Mary
Magdalen.

25. *By the cross.* There is no contradiction between this and the
Synoptic Evangelists (Matt. xxvii. 55; Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiii. 49), who
represent the women as standing “afar off;” for they refer to a time
subsequent to Christ’s death, St. John to a time when He was hanging on
the cross still alive.

*His mother’s sister.* Mary of Cleophas was the wife of Cleophas, and
mother of the Apostle James the Less. She was a cousin of the Blessed
Virgin. Some writers, however, prefer to think, that she is called a
“sister,” because her husband Cleophas was brother to St. Joseph.

26. Cum vidisset ergo Iesus 26. When Jesus therefore had
matrem, et discipulum stantem seen his mother and the
quem diligebat, dicit matri disciple standing, whom he
suae: Mulier, ecce filius loved, he saith to his mother:
tuus. Woman, behold thy son.
27. Deinde dicit discipulo: 27. After that, he saith to
Ecce mater tua. Et ex illa the disciple: Behold thy
hora accepit eam discipulus in mother. And from that hour the
sua. disciple took her to his own.

26, 27. *Woman* (γύναι) is the same term by which Jesus addressed His
mother at the marriage feast of Cana (John ii. 4). Its use on the present
sad, solemn occasion were itself sufficient proof that the term implies no
disrespect. (See above on ii. 4.) The virgin disciple is here commended to
the Blessed Virgin’s care, to be loved and treated as her son; and she, in
turn, to His care, to be loved and respected and supported as a mother.
There is no reason for doubting the common opinion that St. Joseph was
dead at this time; had he been still alive, the Blessed Virgin would,
doubtless, have remained under his care.

*To his own* (εἰς τὰ ἴδια, _i.e._ δώματα). The meaning is that he took her
to where he himself abode. He may have had a house of his own, for his
father seems to have been a man of some means (Mark i. 20), and the
expression would most naturally refer to his own house (Acts xxi. 6). But
it is possible, too, that he merely lodged in another’s house. In xvi. 32,
it is predicted that the Apostles should be scattered every man to his own
(εἰς τὰ ἴδια), and very few of these poor Galilean fishermen can have
owned houses in Jerusalem.

Regarding the common belief that St. John, at the foot of the cross,
represented the whole human race, or, at least, all the faithful, it must
be said that the fathers make no mention of this view, and that there is
nothing in the obvious literal sense of the passage to indicate that St.
John held any such representative capacity.

28. Postea sciens Iesus quia 28. Afterwards Jesus knowing
omnia consummata sunt, ut that all things were now
consummaretur scriptura, accomplished, that the
dixit: Sitio. scripture might be fulfilled,
said: I thirst.

28. *Afterwards*, when three o’clock was come, Jesus, knowing that He had
done all for which He had been sent, and that the prophecies regarding the
Messias had been fulfilled in Himself, in order that one remaining
prophecy might be accomplished, said: *I thirst*. Sorrow, and suffering,
and the loss of blood had exhausted the humours of the body, and naturally
produced thirst.

29. Vas ergo erat positum 29. Now there was a vessel set
aceto plenum. Illi autem there full of vinegar. And
spongiam plenam aceto, hyssopo they putting a sponge full of
circumponentes, obtulerunt ori vinegar about hyssop, put it
eius. to his mouth.

29. *Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar.* Some think that
the “vinegar” was the posca, or thin wine, which was the ordinary drink of
the Roman soldiers, and that it was there on this occasion for their use.
But the fact that the sponge and hyssop seem to have been at hand,
provided apparently for the sake of the victims, makes it very probable
that the vinegar also was provided on their account. We must carefully
distinguish this occasion from another referred to by SS. Matt. and Mark,
prior to the crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 34; Mark xv. 23). These Evangelists
refer to the present occasion also, but they speak of only one who took
the sponge, and gave Christ to drink (Matthew xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36). We
may reconcile St. John’s account with theirs, by saying that he simply
uses the indefinite plural for the singular; or that he ascribes to many
what was done by one with their approval. One of those present, then,
probably a soldier, took a sponge,(130) and soaked it in vinegar, and
fastened it around the point of a sprig of hyssop, and then reached it up
to our Lord’s mouth that He might suck it. Thus was the Scripture
accomplished: “And in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink” (Ps.
lxviii. 22). Many think that the vinegar was given to hasten death.

Hyssop is an aromatic plant, which grows upon walls. Its stalks are less
than two feet long, so that our Lord’s mouth seems not to have been raised
higher above the ground than such a stalk in a man’s outstretched arm
could reach.

30. Cum ergo accepisset Iesus 30. Jesus therefore when he
acetum, dixit: Consummatum had taken the vinegar, said:
est. Et inclinato capite It is consummated. And bowing
tradidit spirituum. his head, he gave up the
ghost.

30. *It is consummated*; that is, all the purpose of My life is completed;
only one thing remains, that I finish My course and crown My life and
sufferings by My death. Then, as St. Luke tells us: “Jesus crying with a
loud voice, said: Father into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying
this he gave up the ghost” (Luke xxiii. 46).

*He gave up the ghost.* He gave up His soul into the hands of His eternal
Father. The expression used seems to be employed with the special purpose
of showing that His death itself was a voluntary act (comp. x. 17, 18).
“Spiritum cum verbo sponte dimisit, praevento carnificis officio.”
(Tertull. Apol., ch. 21, p. 58.) And St. Augustine on this verse says
beautifully: “Quis ita dormit quando voluerit, sicut Jesus mortuus est
quando voluit? Quis ita vestem ponit quando voluerit, sicut se carne exuit
quando vult? Quis ita cum voluerit abit, quomodo ille cum voluit obiit?
Quanta speranda vel timenda potestas est judicantis, si apparuit tanta
morientis?”

It may be useful to set down here together what are commonly referred to
as the seven last “words” of Jesus on the cross. The Synoptic Evangelists
record four of them, and St. John the other three. The first was: “Father
forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke xxiii. 34); the
second, addressed to the good thief: “Amen, I say to thee, this day thou
shalt be with me in paradise” (Luke xxiii. 43); the third: “Woman behold
thy son,” together with the words addressed to St. John: “Behold thy
mother” (John xix. 26, 27); the fourth: “My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?” (Matthew xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34); the fifth: “I thirst”
(John xix. 28); the sixth: “It is consummated” (John xix. 30); and the
seventh: “Father into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke xxiii. 46).

31. Iudaei ergo (quoniam 31. Then the Jews (because it
parasceve erat), ut non was the parasceve) that the
remanerent in cruce corpora bodies might not remain upon
sabbato (erat enim magnus dies the cross on the sabbath‐day
ille sabbati), rogaverunt (for that was a great sabbath‐
Pilatum ut frangerentur eorum day) besought Pilate that
crura, et tollerentur. their legs might be broken,
and that they might be taken
away.

31. *(Because it was the parasceve) that the bodies*, &c. We would take
away the brackets. The fact that it was Friday, and that the Sabbath was,
therefore, near, made the Jews anxious to have the bodies removed. This
verse strongly confirms the view we hold (see above on verse 14) that St.
John means by parasceve, the day before the Sabbath, that is to say,
Friday; not the day before the Paschal feast. For, in the present verse
the fact that it was the parasceve is evidently taken to imply that the
next day would be the Sabbath.

*For that was a great sabbath day.* The better‐supported Greek reading
would be rendered: For great was the day of that sabbath (ἐκεινου τοῦ
σαββάτου). The meaning is that this Sabbath was specially solemn, because
it was the Sabbath that fell within the Paschal week.

*And that they might be taken away.* We read in Deut. xxi. 22, 23: “When a
man hath committed a crime for which he is punished with death, and being
condemned to die is hanged on a gibbet, his body shall not remain upon the
tree, but shall be buried _the same day_.” It was more than usually
necessary to have the bodies buried on the same day in the present case,
as the next day was to be a Sabbath, and a very special Sabbath, too. And
as the Sabbath began at sunset, hence the anxiety of the Jews to have the
bodies removed. The breaking of the legs was intended to insure death.
With the Romans it was usual to let the bodies of the crucified hang till
they rotted.

32. Venerunt ergo milites: et 32. The soldiers therefore
primi quidem fregerunt crura, came: and they broke the legs
et alterius, qui crucifixus of the first, and of the other
est cum eo. that was crucified with him.
33. Ad Iesum autem cum 33. But after they were come
venissent, ut viderunt eum iam to Jesus, when they saw that
mortuum, non fregerunt eius he was already dead, they did
crura: not break his legs.
34. Sed unus militum lancea 34. But one of the soldiers
latus eius aperuit, et with a spear opened his side,
continuo exivit sanguis et and immediately there came out
aqua. blood and water.

34. *Opened* (Vulg., aperuit) *his side*. It is very much more probable
that the verb in the original is ἔνυξεν (pierced) not ἤνοιξεν (opened). *A
spear*; (λόνχη). This was the long lance of a horseman. The lance is now
preserved and venerated in Rome, in St. Peter’s. It wants the point, which
is kept in the holy chapel in Paris.

It is uncertain whether it was Christ’s right side or left that was
pierced with a lance. According to the Ethiopian Version, and the
apocryphal Gospels of Nicodemus and the Infancy, it was the right. Thus a
very early tradition points to the right side, and it was on his right
side, too, that St. Francis was marked when he received the sacred
stigmata.

*And immediately there came out blood and water.* It is disputed whether
this flow of blood and water was natural or miraculous.

(1) Some hold that each flow was miraculous, because in a _dead_ body
blood does not flow and water is not found in the region of the heart.

(2) Others, on the contrary, hold that in each case the flow was quite
natural, because in a dead body the _clot_ or red corpuscles become
separated from the _serum_ or watery substance of the blood, and both
would naturally flow out when Christ’s side was pierced. This opinion,
however, is improbable, as the best modern physiologists say it would
require four hours after death to effect this separation,(131) and no such
length of time can be admitted between the death of Christ at three
o’clock and the piercing of his side, for he had to be buried before
sunset, that is to say, at the latest, about 6 p.m.

(3) Hence others hold that Christ’s heart had broken, and that the blood
which had therefore flowed into the pericardium, or sheath of the heart,
had become, when extravasated, _rapidly_ dissolved into its constituent
elements. This view is held by some writers of great authority. See Dr.
Stroud’s _Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ_. Against
it, however, we have the opinion of physiologists, that the heart never
breaks except in those in whom the organism has been long diseased; and it
is contrary to the common opinion that Christ took or had a diseased body,
or any diseased organ.

(4) Hence, with Corluy, we think the most probable view is, that the blood
flowed naturally from a body _only a short time dead_, the water
miraculously. Certainly the fathers generally seem to see in this flow of
blood and water a mystery, something that was not ordinary or natural, and
many think that our Evangelist himself, in the next verse, _insists_ upon
the truth of what he says, as if it were something wholly unnatural and
difficult to believe. It may, however, be replied to this latter argument
that he insists upon the truth of the facts, not because anything
miraculous and difficult to believe had taken place, but because there was
question of the fulfilment of two important Messianic prophecies.

According to the fathers, the flow of blood typified the Sacrament of the
Blessed Eucharist, that of water, the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus St. Cyril
of Alex.: “Lancea latus ejus perfodiunt, unde cruor aqua mistus scaturiit,
quod Eulogiae mysticae et baptismatis imago quaedam erat atque primitiae.”

35. Et qui vidit, testimonium 35. And he that saw it hath
perhibuit: et verum est given testimony: and his
testimonium eius. Et ille scit testimony is true. And he
quia vera dicit: ut et vos knoweth that he saith true;
credatis. that you also may believe.

35. *And he that saw* (hath seen) *it hath given testimony*. “It” is not
represented in the original, and ought not to stand in our English
version, as it seems to determine the reference to be merely to the sight
of the flow of blood and water. We take the object of the verb “hath
seen,” to be _all_ that is stated in the two preceding verses; namely,
that Christ’s legs were not broken, that His side was pierced, and that
blood and water flowed. That this is the meaning is proved by the next
verse.

*That you also may believe.* The sense is not that you also may believe
that blood and water flowed, or that Christ really died; but, with Beel.;
Bisp., Corl., that you also, as well as I, may more firmly believe that
Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets. These words, then, express
the full purpose that our Evangelist had in view in testifying to the
facts just stated. ἵνα (that) may be taken to depend upon the three
preceding clauses, or upon the words immediately preceding: “saith true.”

36. Facta sunt enim haec, ut 36. For these things were done
scriptura impleretur: Os non that the scripture might be
comminuetis ex eo. fulfilled: _You shall not
break a bone of him_.

36. *For these things were done.* “For” establishes the connection, and
proves, we think, the view we hold. It is as if the Evangelist said: these
things happened, and I insist upon their truth, because they afford a
strong argument why you should believe that Jesus was the Messias.

*You shall not break a bone of him*, had reference in its literal sense
(Exod. vii. 46; Num. ix. 12) to the Paschal lamb; yet, St. John tells us
here that the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ. Hence we have here an
invincible argument for the existence of a mystical sense in Scripture.

37. Et iterum alia scriptura 37. And again another
dicit: Videbunt in quem scripture saith: _They shall
transfixerunt. look on him whom they
pierced_.

37. The quotation is from Zach. xii. 10, according to the Hebrew text,
except that, perhaps, the correct reading in Zach. is “on me,” and not “on
him.” The passage in Zach. is Messianic in its literal sense, and the
context shows that there is question of looking upon Jesus in sorrow and
regret for what had taken place. We know from St. Luke that “all the
multitude returned (from Calvary) striking their breasts” (xxiii. 48).

38. Post haec autem rogavit 38. After these things Joseph
Pilatum Ioseph ab Arimathaea of Arimathea (because he was a
(eo quod esset discipulus disciple of Jesus, but
Iesu, occultus autem propter secretly for fear of the Jews)
metum Iudaeorum), ut tolleret besought Pilate that he might
corpus Iesu. Et permisit take away the body of Jesus.
Pilatus. Venit ergo, et tulit And Pilate gave leave. He came
corpus Iesu. therefore and took away the
body of Jesus.

38. *After these things.* We learn from SS. Matthew and Mark that when
Joseph approached Pilate it was evening (Matthew xxvii. 57; Mark xv. 42).
Joseph was “a rich man” (Matthew xxvii. 57), “a noble counsellor” (Mark
xv. 43), that is a member of the Sanhedrim, “a good and a just man” (Luke
xxiii. 50).

*Arimathea.* Opinion is divided as to whether this was Rama in the tribe
of Benjamin (Matt. ii. 18), or Rama (Ramathaimsophim) in the tribe of
Ephraim (1 Kings i. 1). The latter, the birthplace of the Prophet Samuel,
is called Ramatha in 1 Kings i. 19. St. Luke calls Arimathea “a city of
Judea” (Luke xxiii. 51). St. Jerome (Onom. sacr., 2nd Ed., p. 178)
identifies Arimathea with Remftis, now Rantieh, on the plain North of
Lydda. See Smith’s _B. D._ _sub voc._

*Secretly.* Till now he had been a disciple in secret, but after the death
of Christ both he and Nicodemus boldly appeared in public as devoted
friends of their dead Master.

*And Pilate gave leave.* Permission was usually given to the friends of
one who had been executed to bury his body. Sometimes, indeed, Roman
Governors granted such permission only on receiving money from the friends
(Cic., Verr. v. 45), but in the present instance Pilate granted the
privilege gratis (“_Donavit_ corpus Jesu,” Mark xv. 45).

We learn from St. Mark that Pilate gave the body only after he had
summoned the centurion and learned that Jesus was dead (Mark xv. 44, 45).

*He came therefore and took away the body of Jesus.* We learn from St.
Mark (xv. 46), and St. Luke (xxiii. 53), that he “took down” the body of
Jesus, either aiding in or directing the work. Hence he must have returned
to the foot of the cross, before the orders given to the soldiers (verses
31, 32) were fully carried out. If we suppose Joseph to have come soon
after the Jews (verse 31) to Pilate, the governor, before granting his
request, would naturally wish to be certain that Jesus was dead, and would
therefore summon the centurion and make inquiry (Mark xv. 44, 45); then
Joseph, returning from wherever Pilate was at the time, arrived before the
body of our Lord had been taken down by the soldiers.

39. Venit autem et Nicodemus, 39. And Nicodemus also came,
qui venerat ad Iesum nocte he who at first came to Jesus
primum, ferens mixturam by night, bringing a mixture
myrrhae et aloës, quasi libras of myrrh and aloes, about an
centum. hundred pound _weight_.

39. *He who at first came to Jesus by night.* The reference is to the
visit recorded above in iii. 1, ff. St. John alone makes mention of
Nicodemus on this occasion. The phrase “at first” may imply that Nicodemus
visited Christ on other occasions, or it may indicate merely the beginning
of Christ’s ministry. The present public act of reverence in the light of
day, beside a crowded city, is thrown into relief by contrast with the
timid visit then paid “by night.”

*Bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.*
“The compound was made of the gum of the myrrh tree, and a powder of the
fragrant aloe wood. The amount of the preparation (‘about a hundred pound
weight,’ that is, a hundred Roman pounds of nearly twelve ounces) has
caused some needless difficulty. The intention of Nicodemus was, without
doubt, to cover the body completely with the mass of aromatics. Comp. 2,
Chro. (Paralip.) xvi. 14: for this purpose the quantity was not excessive
as a costly gift of devotion.” (Westc. in _The Speaker’s Commentary_.)

40. Acceperunt ergo corpus 40. They took therefore the
Iesu, et ligaverunt illud body of Jesus, and bound it in
linteis cum aromatibus, sicut linen cloths with the spices,
mos est Iudaeis sepelire. as the manner of the Jews is
to bury.

40. *And bound it in linen cloths* (ὁθόνια). They bound the body in
swathes of linen cloth covered with layers of the aromatic mixture. The
Synoptists speak only of “a linen cloth” (σινδών) in which the body was
“wrapped.” We may naturally suppose that the body when embalmed was
wrapped in a large linen cloth.

*A new sepulchre, wherein no man yet had been laid.* We learn from St.
Matthew (xxvii. 60), that the sepulchre belonged to Joseph, and from all
the Synoptists that it was hewn out of a rock, and therefore artificial.
As no other body had been buried in the sepulchre, there could be no
possible doubt that the body that rose was that of our Lord.

41. Erat autem, in loco ubi 41. Now there was in the
crucifixus est, hortus, et in place, where he was crucified,
horto monumentum novum, in quo a garden; and in the garden a
nondum quisquam positus erat. new sepulchre, wherein no man
yet had been laid.
42. Ibi ergo propter 42. There therefore because of
parasceven Iudaeorum, quia the parasceve of the Jews they
iuxta erat monumentum, laid Jesus, because the
posuerunt Iesum. sepulchre was nigh at hand.

42. *Because the sepulchre was nigh at hand.* It seems to be implied that
if there had been more time, some other sepulchre would have been chosen.
As it was, because the Sabbath was at hand they laid Him in the tomb that
was most convenient. St. John writing for the Christians of Asia Minor,
speaks of “the parasceve of the Jews,” because when he wrote, Saturday was
the Parasceve of Christians, the day of rest having been already changed
from Saturday to Sunday, in honour of our Blessed Lord’s resurrection.
(See Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.)

CHAPTER XX.

1‐10. *On Easter Sunday morning Magdalen comes to the tomb, and
then runs to Peter and John, who also come to the tomb.*

11‐17. *Magdalen, having followed Peter and John back to the tomb,
sees first two angels, and then Jesus Himself.*

18. *Then she announces to the disciples that Jesus had appeared
to her.*

19‐23. *Appearance of Jesus to the disciples on Easter Sunday
evening when he instituted the Sacrament of Penance.*

24, 25. *Incredulity of Thomas.*

26‐29. *Appearance of Jesus again on Low Sunday to Thomas and the
other disciples, when Thomas believes, and confesses his faith.*

30, 31. *Incompleteness of this narrative regarding the miracles
which Christ wrought to prove his resurrection, and statement of
the object which St. John had in view in recording what he has
recorded.*

St. John’s narrative regarding the visit of Magdalen to the tomb on Easter
Sunday morning is very simple, when taken by itself. She came to the tomb
or, at least, started for it, “when it was yet dark,” and then ran from
the tomb to tell Peter and John that the body of Jesus had been removed
(xx. 1, 2). But when we compare this account with those of the other
Evangelists several serious difficulties arise. Thus, while St. John says
that Magdalen “cometh early, _when it was yet dark_, unto the sepulchre;”
St. Matthew says that she and the other Mary came to see the sepulchre “in
the _end of the Sabbath_ (according to the Vulgate: ‘_Vespere_ Sabbati’),
when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week” (Matt. xxviii.
1). And St. Mark creates still further difficulty when he says: “And when
the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen, and Mary (the mother) of James, and
Salome bought (not brought; Vulg. emerunt) sweet spices, that coming they
might anoint Jesus. And very early in the morning, the first day of the
week, they come to the sepulchre, _the sun being now risen_” (Mark xvi.
1‐2). Thus, while St. Matt. represents Magdalen as coming to the sepulchre
in the end of the Sabbath, or as the still more difficult text of the
Vulgate has it: “Vespere Sabbati,” St. Mark represents her as coming on
Sunday morning, _when the sun was risen_; and St. John, as coming on the
Sunday morning _when it was yet dark_.

Again, while St. John does not mention the appearance of any angel on the
occasion of Magdalen’s first visit to the tomb (John xx. 1), St. Mark says
that when the women entered the tomb “they saw a young man _sitting_ on
the right side clothed with a white robe” (Mark xvi. 5); and St. Luke,
that after the women entered the tomb, and found not the body of the Lord
“behold _two_ men _stood_ by them in shining apparel” (Luke xxiv. 4).(132)

Various theories have been advanced to reconcile these different accounts.
Maldonatus (on Matt. xxviii. 3) undertakes, with his usual great ability,
but, we think, without success, to reconcile them in the hypothesis, not
merely that there was only one company of women, but also that Mary
Magdalen visited the tomb but once on the morning of the resurrection.
Others, while admitting that Magdalen came twice to the tomb that morning,
as, indeed, seems to follow naturally from St. John’s account (xx. 2‐11),
hold that there was only one company of women, and that all the
Evangelists speak of the same company. Others again hold that not only did
Magdalen come twice to the tomb, but that at least two different companies
of women visited the tomb that morning, and that some Evangelists refer to
the visit of one company, others to the visit of the other company. Thus
Patrizzi (_De Evang._, Diss. liii. 5, 6, 7) supposes SS. Matt. and Mark to
refer to the visit of one company, SS. Luke and John to the visit of a
different company. On the other hand Dr. Walsh (_Harmony of the Gosp.
Narr._), Cornely (Introd. III., _Synops. Chron._, p. 301), and Greswell
(_Harm. of the Gosp._), suppose St. Luke to refer to the visit of one
company, the other three Evangelists to that of a different company.

The following seems to us the most satisfactory method of reconciling all
the accounts. Very early on Sunday morning, “when it was yet dark” (John
xx. 1), Mary Magdalen, accompanied, perhaps from the start, by Mary of
Cleophas, set out from Bethany, where we suppose her to have spent the
preceding day and night in the house of her brother Lazarus. To this same
departure from Bethany and to the same two women (compare Matt. xxviii. 1
with xxvii. 56) St. Matt. refers: “And in the end of the Sabbath, when it
began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and
the other Mary to see the sepulchre” (Matt. xxviii. 1).(133) Proceeding on
their way they were joined by Salome and probably by others, and arrived
at the tomb, “the sun being now risen” (Mark xvi. 2). The journey from
Bethany was nearly three miles, for Bethany was nearly two miles east of
Jerusalem (John xi. 18), and Calvary was another mile westward from the
eastern part of the city. We may well suppose, then, that an hour and a
half—the length of morning twilight at Jerusalem about the season of the
Pasch (Patriz. Diss. liii. 2)—was spent on the journey, especially if, as
we may suppose, there were delays on the way while the party was being
joined by other women; and hence, though the start from Bethany took place
while it was still dark (John xx. 1), they did not arrive at the tomb till
the sun had risen (Mark xvi. 2).

While these women were on their way, Christ rose and quitted the sealed
tomb, and after His resurrection an angel rolled away the stone and sat
upon it, _in the sight of the guards_ (Matt. xxviii. 2‐4). The women on
arriving saw the stone already rolled away (Mark xvi. 4; John xx. 1), and
Magdalen probably ran and looked into the tomb. Not seeing the body of
Jesus, she concluded it had been removed, and ran to say so to the
disciples (John xx. 2).

Her companions remained at the tomb and entered it, and the angel
mentioned by St. Matt. (xxviii. 5) and St. Mark (xvi. 5) appeared to them.
The women then left the tomb in fear and astonishment and great joy, and
ran to tell the disciples, but through fear told no one _on the way_ (Mark
xvi. 8), though their hearts were full of the wonderful and joyous event.

Soon after their departure from the tomb, Peter and John arrived coming to
see if what Magdalen announced was true. Then Peter and John departed, and
Magdalen who had followed them to the tomb, remained behind them, and saw
the two angels _sitting_ (John xx. 12). Then Jesus appeared to her (John
xx. 14‐17), before he had appeared to anyone else, as we learn from St.
Mark: “But He rising early the first day of the week appeared first to
Mary Magdalen out of whom he had cast seven devils” (xvi. 9).(134)
Meantime the women, Magdalen’s companions, were on their way to the
disciples, and now Jesus appeared to them (Matt. xxviii. 9), immediately
after He had appeared to Magdalen.

And now we have reconciled the accounts of SS. Matthew, Mark, and John
regarding Magdalen and her companions. It remains to speak of St. Luke’s
account.

We believe that St. Luke speaks of a different company of women from that
referred to by the other Evangelists. There is nothing improbable in
supposing that more than one company of women came to the tomb on Sunday
morning. As they had not been able to visit it on the Sabbath, a visit of
several companies on Sunday morning is just what might be expected. But we
are not obliged to depend merely on _a priori_ reasoning. For St. Luke’s
company prepared their spices on Friday evening before the Sabbath: “and
returning they prepared spices and ointments: and on the Sabbath‐day they
rested according to the commandment” (Luke xxiii. 56); the other company,
after the Sabbath, when the first day of the Jewish week had begun: “and
when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen and Mary _the mother_ of James
and Salome bought sweet spices, that coming they might anoint Jesus.”
(Mark xvi. 1). Moreover, the women of whom St. Luke speaks seem to have
come to the tomb earlier than any other company, for they came ὄρθρου
βαθέος (literally, at the first dawn, Luke xxiv. 1): and we are not to
conclude that they merely set out for the tomb at this early hour, for
they seem to have arrived at the tomb before the sun was risen: see Luke
xxiv. 22: ὄρθριαι ἐπὶ τό μνημεῖον.

Again, the natural inference from Luke xxiv. 9‐12, 22‐24 is that the women
he mentions had returned from the tomb and announced Christ’s resurrection
before Peter and John went to the tomb. We are disposed to hold with
Patrizzi (Lib. iii., Diss. liii. 4) that St. Luke xxiv. 10 is a summary
account of _all_ the announcements made by the various women to the
different followers of Christ that morning; and hence all the women there
referred to need not be supposed to have gone to the disciples before
Peter and John went to the tomb. But we think that Luke xxiv. 22‐24,
compared with Luke xxiv. 12, proves that others besides Magdalen had come
to the disciples from the tomb before Peter and John went thither. “Yea,
and certain women also of our company affrighted us, who before it was
light (ὄρθριαι) were at the sepulchre. And not finding his body, came,
saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, who say that he is
alive. And some of our people went to the sepulchre: and found it so as
the women had said, but him they found not” (Luke xxiv. 22‐24).

Hence we hold that St. Luke’s company of women started for the tomb at
early dawn, after Magdalen had set out from Bethany, but as they probably
spent the night in Jerusalem, they _arrived before_ her, saw the two
angels _standing_ (Luke xxiv. 4), and then went to announce Christ’s
resurrection to the disciples. Not long after the departure of this
company, Magdalen and her companions arrived at the tomb, and Magdalen
_running_ from the tomb (John xx. 2) arrived at the house where Peter and
John were staying, about the same time as St. Luke’s company, or perhaps a
little later. Her announcement that the Lord’s body had been removed,
confirming to some extent the announcement of St. Luke’s company that He
had risen, Peter and John now ran to the tomb. The events that followed
have been already arranged above.

1. Una autem sabbati, Maria 1. And on the first day of the
Magdalene venit mane, cum week, Mary Magdalen cometh
adhuc tenebrae essent, ad early, when it was yet dark
monumentum; et vidit lapidem unto the sepulchre: and she
sublatum a monumento. saw the stone taken away from
the sepulchre.

1. *The first day of the week.* The Vulgate reading “una” (μιᾶ) is a
Hebraism for _prima_; and the week is called by the name of its principal
day, the Sabbath. Comp. Luke xviii. 22.

*And when it was yet dark.* She started from Bethany while it was yet
dark, but she did not arrive at Calvary till the sun was risen (Mark xvi.
2).

2. Cucurrit ergo, et venit ad 2. She ran therefore, and
Simonem Petrum, et ad alium cometh to Simon Peter, and to
discipulum quem amabat Iesus, the other disciple whom Jesus
et dicit illis: Tulerunt loved, and saith to them: They
Dominum de monumento, et have taken away the Lord out
nescimus ubi posuerunt eum. of the sepulchre, and we know
not where they have laid him.

2. It is likely that before running to tell the Apostles that the body was
removed, Magdalen had looked into the sepulchre and convinced herself it
was not there.

*And cometh to Simon Peter.* Notwithstanding his fall on the preceding
Thursday night, which can hardly have remained till now unknown to
Magdalen, Peter was still regarded as the leader of the disciples.

*The other disciple whom Jesus loved*, is our Evangelist. He and Peter may
have been staying in different places in the city. Our Blessed Lady was
staying in the same house as St. John (xix. 27).

*They have taken away the Lord.* It is plain that the angels had not yet
appeared to Magdalen and told her that Jesus was risen. Yet Maldonatus
supposes she had already seen the angels, and learned that Jesus was
risen, as recorded below in verses 11, 12, ff.

*We know not.* These words show that Magdalen had not come alone to the
tomb.

3. Exiit ergo Petrus, et ille 3. Peter therefore went out,
alius discipulus, et venerunt and that other disciple, and
ad monumentum. they came to the sepulchre.

3. *And they came to the sepulchre.* The meaning is that they “went
towards” (ἤρχοντο εἰς) the sepulchre.

4. Currebant autem duo simul, 4. And they both ran together,
et ille alius discipulus and that other disciple did
praecucurrit citius Petro, et outrun Peter, and came first
venit primus ad monumentum. to the sepulchre.

4. We have here the vivid touches of one of the two actors in the scene.
The incidents of that eventful morning must have remained for ever fresh
in his memory. St. John being the younger man was able to run more quickly
than Peter.

5. Et cum se inclinasset, 5. And when he stooped down,
vidit posita linteamina, non he saw the linen cloths lying:
tamen introivit. but yet he went not in.

5. It would appear from this, as indeed we might expect, that it was
necessary to stoop in order to look into the sepulchre. See also verse 11
and Luke xxiv. 12.

Having stooped and looked in, St. John saw (seeth) the linen swathes in
which the body of our Saviour had been bound (xix. 40).

6. Venit ergo Simon Petrus 6. Then cometh Simon Peter,
sequens eum, et introivit in following him, and went into
monumentum, et vidit the sepulchre, and saw the
linteamina posita. linen cloths lying.

6. St. John had arrived first at the tomb, but (deterred by some feeling
of fear or awe) he did not enter, as he takes care to record. Then Peter
arrived less fleet but more brave, and, apparently, without pausing to
look in, at once enters the tomb.

*And saw (seeth).* In the original we have here the verb θεωρέι, denoting
an intent and searching gaze, as distinct from St. John’s simple look
(βλέπει) described in the preceding verse.

7. Et sudarium quod fuerat 7. And the napkin that had
super caput eius, non cum been about his head, not lying
linteaminibus positum, sed with the linen cloths, but
separatim involutum in unum apart, wrapt up into one
locum. place.

7. *And the napkin.* St. Peter’s more searching examination discovered
what had been unnoticed by St. John. The presence of the linen swathes,
and the napkin folded and laid apart, are doubtless mentioned as proof
that Christ was truly risen. Had His body been simply taken away to some
other tomb, those taking it, whether friends or enemies, would not have
gone to the useless trouble of removing the spice‐covered bandages and the
napkin. And, certainly, if it had been hurriedly stolen, such nice care
would not have been taken to fold the napkin and place it apart. So,
substantially, St. Chrysostom on this verse.

8. Tunc ergo introivit et ille 8. Then that other disciple
discipulus qui venerat primus also went in, who came first
ad monumentum, et vidit, et to the sepulchre: and he saw
credidit: and believed.

8. St. John now followed Peter into the cave.

*And he saw and believed.* St. Augustine understands this to mean that
John believed what Magdalen had said (verse 2), namely that the body of
Jesus had been removed. We prefer to understand that he believed what St.
Luke’s company of women had told him, namely, that Jesus was risen from
the dead; for when our Evangelist speaks of belief _absolutely_, as here,
he usually means faith.

9. Nondum enim sciebant 9. For as yet they knew not
scripturam, quia oportebat eum the scripture, that he must
a mortuis resurgere. rise again from the dead.

9. *For as yet.* We take the meaning to be, that as yet _until now_ they
knew not the Scripture, that it was necessary Jesus should rise from the
dead. Even now St. Peter “went away, wondering in himself at that which
was come to pass” (Luke xxiv. 12).

10. Abierunt ergo iterum 10. The disciples therefore
discipuli ad semetipsos. departed again to their home.

10. *The disciples therefore*—thinking that they could learn nothing more
there—*departed again to their home*.

11. Maria autem stabat ad 11. But Mary stood at the
monumentum foris, plorans. Dum sepulchre without, weeping.
ergo fleret, inclinavit se, et Now as she was weeping, she
prospexit in monumentum: stooped down, and looked into
the sepulchre.

11. *But Mary stood at the sepulchre without, weeping.* Maldonatus holds
that what is here recorded took place when Magdalen came to the tomb
(verse 1), but that St. John hastening to tell of the coming of St. Peter
and himself to the tomb, inverts the order of events in his narrative. But
this is unnatural. We take it that Magdalen had followed Peter and John
back to the tomb, and now remained behind them. “A stronger affection,”
says St. Augustine, “riveted to the spot one of a weaker nature.”

12. Et vidit duos angelos in 12. And she saw two angels in
albis, sedentes, unum ad white, sitting, one at the
caput, et unum ad pedes, ubi head, and one at the feet,
positum fuerat corpus Iesu. where the body of Jesus had
been laid.

12. *And she saw two angels.* The vision of angels now accorded to
Magdalen is not mentioned by any other Evangelist.

13. Dicunt ei illi: Mulier, 13. They say to her: Woman,
quid ploras? Dicit eis: Quia why weepest thou? She saith to
tulerunt Dominum meum: et them: Because they have taken
nescio ubi posuerunt eum. away my Lord: and I know not
where they have laid him.

13. Magdalen’s words here are the same as in verse 2, except that “my
Lord” is substituted for “The Lord,” and “I know not” for “we know not.”
Both her statement and her loss are now more personal.

14. Haec cum dixisset, 14. When she had thus said,
conversa est retrorsum, et she turned herself back, and
vidit Iesum stantem: et non saw Jesus standing; and she
sciebat quia Iesus est. knew not that it was Jesus.

14. *She turned herself back.* Magdalen, conscious, perhaps, of another
presence, or moved by the ecstatic gaze of the angels on Jesus, now turned
round and saw Him, but did not recognise Him. Probably, as happened to the
two disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 16), her eyes were held
that she should not know Him.

15. Dicit ei Iesus: Mulier, 15. Jesus saith to her: Woman,
quid ploras? quem quaeris? why weepest thou? Whom seekest
Illa existimans quia thou? She thinking that it was
hortulanus esset, dicit ei: the gardener, saith to him:
Domine, si tu sustulisti eum, Sir, if thou hast taken him
dicito mihi ubi posuisti eum: hence, tell me where thou hast
et ego eum tollam. laid him: and I will take him
away.

15. *The gardener*; that is, the man who had charge of Joseph’s garden, in
which our Lord was buried. The man’s presence in the garden at that hour
of the morning—about 7 o’clock—naturally suggested the thought. Without
answering his question, Magdalen replies: *Sir, if thou hast taken him
hence.*... As if she imagined everyone to be filled like herself with only
one thought, she does not say who it is she is seeking.

*And I will take him away.* To her love everything seemed possible, nor
does she pause to think whether she could carry the body, nor whither she
would bear it.

16. Dicit ei Iesus: Maria. 16. Jesus saith to her: Mary.
Conversa illa, dicit ei: She turning, saith to him:
Rabboni (quod dicitur Rabboni (which is to say,
magister). Master).

16. Our Lord now calls her by her name, and she at once recognises Him.

*She, turning, saith to him* (very many authorities add “in Hebrew”)
*Rabboni*. The word strictly means “my Master,” but the pronominal suffix,
just as in Rabbi, gradually became almost a part of the title. The Hebrew
spoken by Magdalen was of course Syrochaldaic The corresponding word in
pure Hebrew would be Rabban (רבן).

17. Dicit ei Iesus: Noli me 17. Jesus saith to her: Do not
tangere, nondum enim ascendi touch me, for I am not yet
ad Patrem meum, vade autem ad ascended to my Father: but go
fratres meos, et dic eis: to my brethren, and say to
Ascendo ad Patrem meum, et them: I ascend to my Father
Patrem vestrum, Deum meum, et and to your Father, to my God
Deum vestrum. and your God.

17. Probably Magdalen had prostrated herself at His feet, and was clinging
to them, as did other women that morning (Matt. xxviii. 9). Christ’s words
are variously explained. The following view seems to be the most natural:
Do not seek to cling to Me, to remain with Me now (ἅπτεσθαι is often used
not in the sense of touching, but of clinging to, hanging on by. See Lidd.
and Scott); you shall have other opportunities of satisfying your love,
since I am to remain with you for forty days, and am not at once ascending
to My Father.

*But go to My brethren and say to them.* For her consolation she is made
the harbinger of Christ’s further exaltation.

*To My Father and to your Father.* “Non ait Patrem nostrum, sed _Patrem
meum et Patrem vestrum_. Aliter ergo meum, aliter vestrum: natura meum,
gratia vestrum. Neque dixit Deum nostrum, sed _Deum meum_, sub quo ego
homo; et Deum vestrum, inter quos et ipsum mediator sum” (St. Aug. on St.
John Tr. 121.)

18. Venit Maria Magdalene 18. Mary Magdalen cometh and
annuntians discipulis: Quia telleth the disciples: I have
vidi Dominum, et haec dixit seen the Lord, and these
mihi. things he said to me.

18. Magdalen went and announced to the disciples that she had seen the
Lord; but, as St. Mark, xvi. 11, tells us, they did not believe her.

19. Cum ergo sero esset die 19. Now when it was late that
illo, uno sabbatorum, et fores same day, the first of the
essen clausae, ubi erant week, and the doors were shut,
discipuli congregati propter where the disciples were
metum Iudaeorum: venit Iesus, gathered together for fear of
et stetit in medio, et dixit the Jews, Jesus came and stood
eis: Pax vobis. in the midst, and said to
them: Peace be to you.

19. *Now when it was late that same day.* Jesus now appears to the ten
Apostles on Easter Sunday evening. Before this, and after the appearance
to Magdalen, He had appeared to the women returning from the tomb (Matthew
xxviii. 9); then to Peter (Luke xxiv. 34); then, towards evening, to the
two disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 13, 31); so that the
apparition to the apostles on Easter Sunday evening was the _fifth_
apparition of Jesus on that day, mentioned in the Gospels. He passed
through the closed doors in virtue of the property of subtility which His
glorified body possessed, and saluted the Apostles “and those who were
with them” (Luke xxiv. 33‐36) with the usual Jewish salutation.

From a comparison of St. Luke (xxiv. 33‐36), we know that the disciples
who had returned from Emmaus were present when our Lord appeared on the
occasion here mentioned by St. John. Now, Emmaus was sixty stadia (about
seven English miles) from Jerusalem (Luke xxiv. 13), and the two disciples
did not reach Emmaus till it was “towards evening,” and the day was “far
spent” (Luke xxiv. 29). Hence though they tarried only a short time in
Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 33), they can hardly have returned much before dark.
Indeed it may have been after dark, and in that case the words “when it
was late that same day” would prove that our Evangelist speaks here, not
according to the Jewish method of counting the day from evening to
evening, but according to the Greek method of counting, as we do, from
midnight to midnight.

20. Et cum hoc dixisset, 20. And when he had said this,
ostendit eis manus et latus. he shewed them his hands, and
Gavisi sunt ergo discipuli, his side. The disciples
viso Domino. therefore were glad, when they
saw the Lord.

20. Then to convince them that it was not a spirit they saw (see Luke
xxiv. 37), He showed them (the wounds in) His hands, and feet (Luke xxiv.
39), and side, and said to them, as St. Luke tells us: “Handle and see,
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me to have” (Luke xxiv.
39). From these words it is plain that Christ’s glorified body, though it
had passed through the closed doors, was yet capable of being touched and
handled.(135) When He had partaken of food in presence of the disciples
(Luke xxiv. 42, 43), and dispelled all their doubts as to the reality of
His body, then, as St. John tells us here, they were glad.

21. Dixit ergo eis iterum: Pax 21. He said therefore to them
vobis. Sicut misit me Pater, again: Peace be to you. As the
et ego mitto vos. Father hath sent me, I also
send you.

21. When fear had been dispelled and doubt overcome, He saluted them again
with the usual salutation, and proceeded to confer upon them the power of
forgiving sins. *As the Father hath sent me*, with Divine authority for
the salvation of mankind, so with the same authority and for the same
purpose, I, who have equal authority with the Father, send you.

22. Haec cum dixisset, 22. When he had said this, he
insufflavit: et dixit eis: breathed on them; and he said
Accipite Spiritum sanctum: to them: Receive ye the Holy
Ghost:

22. *He breathed on them.* He breathed upon the Apostles (probably with
one breath upon all) to signify what His words expressed, that He was
giving them the Holy Ghost. Already, indeed, the Holy Ghost was in their
souls, but He was now given to them more fully in His grace, and in the
new power which they received of forgiving sins. This power of forgiving
sins is common to the three Divine Persons, but is here attributed to the
Holy Ghost, like all other things pertaining to our sanctification. Though
the Apostles already had the Holy Ghost in their souls and though He was
given to them more fully now, yet He was still to be given in a _visible_
and fuller manner on the day of Pentecost. It is important to note that
the power of forgiving sins here evidently attributed to the Holy Ghost
proves Him to be God, for only God, who is offended by sin, can give
authority and power to forgive it.

23. Quorum remiseritis 23. Whose sins you shall
peccata, remittuntur eis: et forgive, they are forgiven
quorum retinueritis, retenta them: and whose _sins_ you
sunt. shall retain, they are
retained.

23. The Council of Trent has defined that there is question here of the
remission of sins in the Sacrament of Penance.(136) As the Council points
out, the Church always understood the words in this sense, and the natural
meaning of the words signifies that the sins are to be remitted or
retained by a _judicial sentence_ of the persons here addressed. For the
words are: _If you remit_ the sins of some (Greek, ἄν τινων), that is if
you _decide_ to remit the sins of some, and to retain the sins of others,
&c.

Since there is question of a judicial sentence, and since judgment can be
passed only upon subjects, it follows that there can be question here only
of sins committed _after_ Baptism.

Upon the words of this text note—(1) That the persons to whom this
wondrous power is given are to _forgive_ (remiseritis) sins, not merely to
_declare_ them forgiven by God.

(2) That there is no restriction as to the sins that may be forgiven; so
that there is no such thing as an irremissible sin, if only the minister
can decide that the penitent is worthy to receive the Sacrament, and the
penitent have the proper dispositions. (3) That instead of the present
tense (remittuntur eis) which stands in the first member(137), we have the
perfect (retenta sunt) in the second member, implying that the sins
_remain_ as they were. (4) That in the second member the words are not:
Whose sins you shall not forgive, but whose sins you shall _retain_;
implying, in the minister, a _positive_ judgment adverse to the penitent.
For other questions arising out of this text, consult works on Dogmatic
Theology.

It appears from St. Luke, xxiv. 33, that there were other persons than the
Apostles present, when these words were spoken and this power to forgive
sins conferred. It may be that Christ made it clear that this power was
given only to the Apostles and their successors, the bishops and priests
of the Catholic Church; but, at all events, the tradition of the Catholic
Church, with which the Holy Ghost remains to teach her all truth (John
xvi. 13), has decided that the power was given only to these.

Whether the power of forgiving sins was on this occasion given to Thomas,
who was absent, is disputed. Some, as Mald., hold that it was, and appeal
to the case mentioned in Numb. xi. 26, when the spirit of prophecy was
given to Eldad and Medad, though they were absent. Others, as Toletus, and
A Lap., hold that it was not, as Thomas was now incredulous, but that it
was given on the following Sunday, when Jesus appeared to Thomas and
converted him.

24. Thomas autem unus ex 24. Now Thomas, one of the
duodecim, qui dicitur Didymus, twelve, who is called Didymus,
non erat cum eis quando venit was not with them when Jesus
Iesus. came.

24. *Thomas.* See above on xi. 16. *One of the twelve* “He says one of the
twelve, although the Apostolic College was _now_ reduced to _eleven_,
because ‘twelve’ was the original number, just as in the case of the
‘Decemvirs,’ they would be thus termed, although only _nine_ out of the
_ten_ were present on a particular occasion” (M’Ev.).

25. Dixerunt ergo ei alii 25. The other disciples
discipuli: Vidimus Dominum. therefore said to him: We have
Ille autem dixit eis: Nisi seen the Lord. But he said to
videro in manibus eius fixuram them: Except I shall see in
clavorum, et mittam digitum his hands the print of the
meum in locum clavorum, et nails, and put my finger into
mittam manum meum in latus the place of the nails, and
eius, non credam. put my my hand into his side,
I will not believe.

25. The reply of Thomas shows how he had dwelt on each terrible detail of
the Passion. The other Apostles may have told him how Christ had pointed
to His hands and feet, and invited them to “handle and see” that it was He
Himself. (Luke xxiv. 29, 30). If so, the language of Thomas would
naturally be shaped in accordance with what they told him.

26. Et post dies octo, iterum 26. And after eight days,
erant discipuli eius intus: et again his disciples were
Thomas cum eis. Venit Iesus, within, and Thomas with them.
ianuis clausis, et stetit in Jesus cometh, the doors being
medio, et dixit: Pax vobis. shut, and stood in the midst,
and said: Peace be to you.

26. *And after eight days*, that is to say, on Low Sunday, Christ again
appeared to the Apostles, Thomas being present; and this was His _sixth_
appearance. Thomas, though still without faith, had remained in the
company of the Apostles.

27. Deinde dicit Thomae: Infer 27. Then he said to Thomas:
digitum tuum huc, et vide put in thy finger hither, and
manus meas, et affer manum see my hands, and bring hither
tuam, et mitte in latus meum: thy hand and put it into my
et noli esse incredulus, sed side; and be not faithless,
fidelis. but believing.

27. We may here admire our Lord’s tender and touching mercy in
condescending to such pains to dispel the unbelief of Thomas. The language
used is such as to prove to the Apostle that Jesus knew the very words in
which he had questioned the resurrection.

28. Respondit Thomas, et dixit 28. Thomas answered, and said
ei: Dominus meus et Deus meus. to him: My Lord, and my God.

28. *My Lord, and my God* (ὁ κύρίος μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου). As often in the
New Testament (Mark ix. 25; Luke viii. 54; John viii. 10), the nominative
is here used for the vocative (see Beel., _Gr. Gram._, § 29, Adnot. 1).
For the Evangelist expressly states that Thomas addressed Christ. It is
absurd then to contend, as the Socinians and Paul of Heidelberg did, that
these words are simply an exclamation, meaning: O Jehovah! For, besides
the fact that Christ is addressed, the Jews were not in the habit of using
any such exclamation. The second council of Constant., cap. 12, condemned
those who, following the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, said: “Haec
verba a Thoma non dicta fuisse de Christo, sed miraculo resurrectionis
perculsum, Thomam laudasse Deum qui Christum resuscitasset.”

Thomas’s words, then, are a confession of faith, as our Lord’s words in
the next verse prove, and of faith in Christ’s humanity and Divinity.

In confessing Jesus to be his Lord, Thomas acknowledges Him to be “the
master” who had been crucified; while, in the remaining words, he clearly
confesses Christ’s Divinity. And so our Evangelist, ever mindful of his
object in writing this Gospel, records this splendid testimony to the
humanity and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and our Lord’s approval thereof.

29. Dixit ei Iesus: Quia 29. Jesus saith to him:
vidisti me Thoma, credidisti: Because thou hast seen me,
beati qui non viderunt et Thomas, thou hast believed:
crediderunt. blessed are they that have not
seen, and have believed.

29. *Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas thou hast believed.* “Aliud vidit,
et aliud credidit. Vidit hominem et cicatrices, et ex hoc credidit
divinitatem resurgentis” (St. Thomas Aquin).

*Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.* Rather: “Blessed
are they that _saw not_ (ἱδόντες), and believed.”

The aorist seems to point to something that had already taken place during
the preceding week. Some had believed who had merely heard from the
Apostles or the pious women that Jesus was risen, and their faith was more
prompt and praiseworthy than that of Thomas.

30. Multa quidem et alia signa 30. Many other signs also did
fecit Iesus in conspectu Jesus in the sight of his
discipulorum suorum, quae non disciples, which are not
sunt scripta in libro hoc. written in this book.

30. *Many other signs.* We understand not of the various other miracles of
Christ’s mortal and risen life, but of the other _proofs_ (σημεῖα,
literally signs) of His resurrection and Divinity, which he afforded
during His risen life. For, the miracles of His mortal life were wrought
in the sight of all the people; but the _proofs_ of His resurrection were
given only “in the sight of His disciples.” So Mald., Tol., Corn., &c.

31. Haec autem scripta sunt ut 31. But these are written that
credatis quia Iesus est you may believe that Jesus is
Christus Filius Dei: et ut the Christ the Son of God; and
credentes, vitam habeatis in that believing you may have
nomine eius. life in his name.

31. But what is here written _in evidence of His resurrection_ is written
in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Messias (ὁ Χριστός), the
Son of God; and that believing you may have life, the life of grace here,
and of glory hereafter, through His name; that is, through faith in Him.

CHAPTER XXI.

1‐14. *Appearance of Jesus to the disciples at the Sea of Galilee;
the miraculous draught of fish, after which St. John first
recognises Jesus, and St. Peter leaps from the boat into the water
to come to Him. The breakfast miraculously prepared for the
disciples by Jesus.*

15‐17. *Peter’s triple confession of his love for his master; he
is constituted by Jesus visible head of the whole Church.*

18‐19. *Jesus predicts the manner of Peter’s death, as St. John
explains.*

20‐23. *He reproves Peter’s curiosity regarding the end in store
for St. John.*

24‐25. *The conclusion.*

The authenticity of this last chapter of our Gospel has been questioned
(see Introd. v.), and it has been contended that the chapter was not
written by St. John, but by some disciple or disciples of his after his
death. Even among those who admit its authenticity, some have held that it
was not written at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, but at a later
period, and added on as an appendix.(138) Both those who deny the
authenticity of the chapter, and those who hold it to be an authentic
_appendix, written at a later date_, argue from the last two verses of
chapter xx., which, they say, prove that St. John intended to conclude at
that point. In addition to this, those who deny the authenticity, contend
that the style of this chapter is so different from that of the rest of
the Gospel as to compel the belief that both cannot possibly be the work
of the same hand.

We may begin by remarking that no Catholic is free to doubt the
_inspiration_ of the chapter, so that whoever wrote it must have been
inspired. This follows from the decree of Trent, which defined the _entire
books_ of the Vulgate with all their _parts_ (and this is certainly a
part, not merely a “particula” of this Gospel) to be canonical Scripture.
See above on iv. 3, 4.

Hence, the only questions remaining are: (_a_) whether St. John or _some
other inspired writer_ wrote the chapter; and (_b_) in case St. John wrote
it, whether he wrote it at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, or
later, and as an appendix.

With Catholic commentators generally, we hold that the chapter was written
by St. John and at the same time as the rest of the Gospel. For, since it
is read in all the MSS., and quoted by all the fathers, the natural
inference is that it stood in the Gospel from the beginning. Against this
unanimous testimony of tradition, the arguments for any other view have no
weight. For, as to the argument drawn from the last two verses of chapter
xx., we have already, with Mald., Tol., and Cornely, given the most
probable explanation of those verses, from which it appears that they were
not intended as a conclusion of the whole Gospel, but only of that portion
of it which deals with the proofs of His Divinity afforded by Christ to
the Apostles during His risen life.(139)

As to the argument from the difference of style, we confidently deny that
any such difference exists. Kuinoel, no mean judge on such a point, and
certainly not a prejudiced witness, says: “Omnino probari nequit,
scribendi genus, in hoc capite, si clausulam(140) ejus exceperis, diversum
esse a scribendi genere, quod in reliquo Evangelio deprehenditur.”

1. Postea manifestavit se 1. After this Jesus shewed
iterum Iesus discipulis ad himself again to the disciples
mare Tiberiadis. Manifestavit at the sea of Tiberias. And he
autem sic: shewed _himself_ after this
manner.

1. *After this.* How many days after Low Sunday (xx. 26) the events now to
be recorded occurred, we cannot determine. In the meantime, at all events,
the disciples had left Jerusalem and gone to Galilee (Mat. xxviii. 16), in
obedience to the express desire of their Divine Master (Mat. xxviii. 7;
Mark xvi. 7).

*The sea of Tiberias.* See above on vi. i.

2. Erant simul Simon Petrus, 2. There were together Simon
et Thomas, qui dicitur Peter, and Thomas who is
Didymus, et Nathanael, qui called Didymus, and Nathanael
erat a Cana Galilaeae, et who was of Cana in Galilee,
filii Zebedaei, et alii ex and the sons of Zebedee, and
discipulis eius duo. two others of his disciples.

2. *Nathanael* is most probably the same with Bartholomew, the Apostle.
See above on i. 45.

*And two others of his disciples.* Who they were we cannot tell. Had “the
sons of Zebedee” not been already named, it would be quite in the style of
our Evangelist to refer to his brother James and himself in this way.

3. Dicit eis Simon Petrus: 3. Simon Peter saith to them:
Vado piscari, Dicunt ei: I go a fishing. They say to
Venimus et nos tecum. Et him: We also come with thee.
exierunt, et ascenderunt in And they went forth and
navim: et illa nocte nihil entered into the ship, and
prendiderunt. that night they caught
nothing.

3. As they had not yet begun to preach the Gospel, and thus to have a
right to support from the faithful, they had to provide themselves with
the necessaries of life, and so they “go a fishing.”

*And they went forth* from the house where they were, *and entered into
the ship* (τὸ πλοῖον), which was there, lent or hired for their use; *and
that night they caught nothing*, God having so arranged, no doubt, in
order to make the miracle of the following morning more remarkable.

4. Mane autem facto stetit 4. But when the morning was
Iesus in littore: non tamen come, Jesus stood on the
cognoverunt discipuli quia shore: yet the disciples knew
Iesus est. not that it was Jesus.

4. *But when the morning was come.* The better supported Greek reading
(γινομένης not γενομένης) gives the meaning: “When the morning was
breaking.” But even if this be the correct reading, and the morning was
only breaking, still this fact by itself may not be the whole reason why
the disciples failed to recognise Jesus. Even when they had come close to
him (verse 12), they knew it was He, rather because of what had happened
than from the testimony of their eyes. Comp. Luke xxiv. 16.

5. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Pueri 5. Jesus therefore said to
numquid pulmentarium habetis? them: Children, have you any
Responderunt ei: Non. meat? They answered him: No.

5. Jesus called to them from the shore: “Have you any meat?” The Revised
Version renders: “Have you aught to eat?” The Hellenistic Greek word
(προσφάγιον), which is here used, meant primarily something that was eaten
as relish with other food, but it came to mean food generally, and so the
meaning here probably is: “have you anything to eat?” See Lidd. and Scott,
_sub voce_.

6. Dicit eis: mittite in 6. He saith to them: Cast the
dexteram navigii rete: et net on the right side of the
invenietis. Miserunt ergo: et ship; and you shall find. They
iam non valebant illud trahere cast therefore: and now they
prae multitudine piscium. were not able to draw it for
the multitude of fishes.

6. *On the right side of the ship.* Jesus directed them to the particular
spot (which John, who was present, is careful to record), in order that
they might not look upon the draught as a mere accident. Why they so
readily obeyed one unknown to them, we cannot say with certainty. Perhaps
the minds of some of them reverted to another occasion, in many respects
similar to this (Luke v. 4‐10), when, after a night of fruitless toil,
their Master, then with them in His mortal flesh, blessed their labours
with a miraculous draught of fish in the morning. And though they did not
now _know_ it was He that spoke to them, yet we cannot help thinking,
especially when we remember how they were now come to Galilee in
expectation of His appearance to them, that some of them must have
_suspected_ that perhaps it was He who now called to them from the shore.

*To draw it*, _i.e._, into the boat. In verse 11 we are told that they
“drew” it to land. It will be noticed that a different word is used in
verse 8 of dragging the net after the boat.

7. Dixit ergo discipulus ille 7. That disciple therefore
quem diligebat Iesus, Petro: whom Jesus loved, said to
Dominus est. Simon Petrus cum Peter: It is the Lord. Simon
audisset quia Dominus est, Peter, when he heard that it
tunica succinxit se (erat enim was the Lord, girt his coat
nudus) et misit se in mare. about him (for he was naked)
and cast himself into the sea.

7. The beloved disciple infers from the miraculous draught that it is the
Lord who stands upon the shore. *Simon Peter* (add “therefore,” οὖν) *when
he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him (for he was
naked)*. The virgin disciple was the first to recognise his master, but
Peter as usual was the leader in action. The “coat” was some garment
usually _worn over another_ (ἐπενδύτην), perhaps an outer and looser
tunic, which Peter had laid aside while fishing. As he was about to swim
to his Master, and foresaw that his garments should necessarily be wet, he
probably thought it decorous to have some other garment on him besides the
tight‐fitting inner tunic. We suppose therefore that he was already
clothed in the inner tunic. He girded himself in order that the garment
might not impede him when swimming. The Greek word, which, in our Version,
is rendered “naked,” is used not only of those who are entirely naked, but
also of those who are sparingly clad. See Matt. xxv. 36; Acts xix. 16; 1
Kings xix. 24.

8. Alii autem discipuli 8. But the other disciples
navigio venerunt (non enim came in the ship (for they
longe erant a terra, sed quasi were not far from the land,
cubitis ducentis), trahentes but as it were two hundred
rete piscium. cubits) dragging the net with
fishes.

8. *In the ship.* Rather: “in the boat” (τῷ πλοιαρίω). It may be that the
reference is to a small boat that was attached to the larger vessel (τὸ
πλοῖον) mentioned in verse 3. As the cubit was eighteen inches, the
distance of the boat from the shore was 100 yards.

9. Ut ergo descenderunt in 9. As soon then as they came
terram, viderunt prunas to land, they saw hot coals
positas, et piscem lying, and a fish laid
superpositum, et panem. thereon, and bread.

9. *They saw hot coals lying.* In the circumstances, the natural view is
that the fire, as well as the fish and bread, was provided miraculously.
Doubtless one of Christ’s objects in preparing this repast was to prove to
His disciples that He could and would provide for the temporal as well as
the spiritual necessities of His followers.

10. Dicit eis Iesus: Afferte 10. Jesus saith to them: Bring
de piscibus, quos prendidistis hither of the fishes which you
nunc. have now caught.

10. There are various views as to why He said this. Some say because He
wished them to cook some of the fish, as what was on the fire was not
enough for all. But, especially on account of the next verse, we believe
Christ’s object was to give the disciples an occasion of seeing at once
the size and number of the fishes, that so they might be the more
impressed with the greatness of the miracle.

11. Ascendit Simon Petrus, et 11. Simon Peter went up, and
traxit rete in terrain, plenum drew the net to land, full of
magnis piscibus centum great fishes, one hundred
quinquaginta tribus. Et cum fifty‐three. And although
tanti essent, non est scissum there were so many, the net
rete. was not broken.

11. *Simon Peter went up.* Peter went _aboard_, and drew the net to land.
The fact that the net was not broken is evidently mentioned as something
extraordinary. If this great draught was intended, as doubtless it was
(see Matthew iv. 19; Luke v. 10: “From henceforth thou shalt catch men”),
to symbolize the success which was to attend the labours of the Apostles
in drawing men into the Church, we may note how fitting it was that Peter
led the way in going to fish (verse 3), and landed the net, and brought
the fish to his Master on this occasion. For it was he who first preached
to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, converting about three thousand (Acts
ii. 14‐41), and he, too, who opened the Church to the Gentiles (Acts x.
1‐48).

12. Dicit eis Iesus: Venite, 12. Jesus saith to them: Come,
prendete. Et nemo audebat and dine. And none of them who
discumbentium interrogare eum: were at meat, durst ask him:
Tu quis es? scientes quia Who art thou? knowing that it
Dominus est. was the Lord.

12. *Come, and dine* (ἀριστήσατε). The _primary_ meaning of the Greek word
used, has reference to breakfast, and since it was early morning (verse
4), that is the meaning here.

*And none of them that were at meat durst ask him.* The best supported
Greek reading has: “And none _of the disciples_ durst ask him.” The words
that follow in this verse seem to imply that Christ’s appearance on this
occasion was not that which was familiar to the disciples; yet that
because of the miracles they were convinced that it was He. Some, as
Kuinoel, think that ἐτόλμα (durst) is redundant.

13. Et venit Iesus, et accipit 13. And Jesus cometh and
panem, et dat eis, et piscem taketh bread, and giveth them,
similiter. and fish in like manner.

13. Their risen Master is not merely their host, but He condescends also
to be their servant. Whether He Himself ate with them, as on another
occasion (Luke xxiv. 43), we are not told.

*And taketh bread* (τὸν ἄρτον). The article points back to the bread
mentioned in verse 9, which Christ Himself had provided. So, too, in the
case of the fish (τὸ ὀψάριον).

14. Hoc iam tertio 14. This is now the third time
manifestatus est Iesus that Jesus was manifested to
discipulis suis, cum his disciples, after he was
resurrexisset a mortuis. risen from the dead.

14. *This is now the third time*, &c. It was not His third appearance
absolutely, for our Evangelist himself has already recorded three before
this: that to Magdalen (xx. 14‐18), that to the ten Apostles on Easter
Sunday (xx. 19‐23), and that to the eleven on Low Sunday (xx. 26). The
meaning, then, appears to be, that this was the third appearance to any
_considerable number_ of the disciples.

Some, as Patrizzi, suppose this appearance at the sea of Galilee to have
been absolutely the seventh, after the resurrection, mentioned in the
Gospels. Others make it the eighth, and suppose the one upon the mountain
of Galilee (Matt. xxviii. 16) to have been the seventh. We rather incline
to the view that it was the seventh; and, perhaps, at this seventh
appearance Jesus named to the Apostles the mountain on which His eighth
appearance would take place (Matt. xxviii. 16). For the other appearances
of the Lord during the forty days of His risen life, see Mark xvi. 14‐20;
Acts i. 4‐9; 1 Cor. xv. 5‐7.

15. Cum ergo prandissent, 15. When therefore they had
dicit Simoni Petro Iesus: dined, Jesus saith to Simon
Simon Ioannis, diligis me plus Peter: Simon _son_ of John,
his? Dicit ei: Etiam Domine, lovest thou me more than
tu scis quia amote. Dicit ei: these? He saith to him: Yea,
Pasce agnos meos. Lord, thou knowest that I love
thee. He saith to him: Feed my
lambs.

15. *When, therefore.* When they had breakfasted, and were, therefore,
free from distractions, so that they could attend to what was said, Jesus
addressed Peter.

*Simon, son of John* (see above on i. 42). It was certainly not without a
reason that Jesus here addressed Peter by his former name of Simon. Though
the Apostle’s name had been already changed into Peter (Mark iii. 10),
still he had not yet begun to be what that new name indicated, the _rock_
or foundation of the Church, its Pope and supreme head on earth. Our Lord
was now about to confer that dignity upon him, and the mention of his
former name, now that he was accustomed to the name of Peter, was
calculated to remind him of the change of name, and still more of the
_promised_ authority and pre‐eminence (Matt. xvi. 17, 19), which that
change implied.

*More than these.* It is supremely ridiculous to suppose, as some
Protestants have done, that Christ merely meant to ask, if Peter loved Him
more than he loved _these fish_. Surely that would be but a poor proof of
his love for his Master! It is equally improbable, though not quite so
absurd, to suppose that Christ meant: Lovest thou Me more than thou lovest
these companions of thine? For Peter knew and believed Jesus to be God
(Matt. xvi. 16), had declared before now his readiness to die with Him
(Luke xxii. 33), and on this very morning had proved the intensity of his
love for his Master by leaping from the boat and quitting the Apostles to
come to Him. Surely, then, it is wholly improbable that Christ merely
meant to ask if Peter loved Him more than he loved his fellow‐Apostles.

The meaning, then, plainly is: lovest thou Me more than these love Me?
Peter replies, humbly avoiding any comparison between his own love and
that of his companions, and appealing to Jesus, whom he knew to be the
Searcher of Hearts, in confirmation of the love that he avows: *Yea, Lord,
thou knowest that I love thee*. It is worthy of note that the word which
Peter uses to express his love, is not that which Christ had just used in
His question. Christ had asked: Lovest thou (ἀγαπᾷς) Me? Peter replies:
Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love (φιλῶ) Thee. Many commentators think
the distinction is not to be pressed, but we cannot believe that Peter
changed the word without a reason, especially as he does so again in his
second reply (verse 16), and Christ, in His third question, adopts the
word that Peter insists upon using. Whatever the distinction be, it is
lost in our English version; but the reader will see that an effort is
made to preserve it in the Vulgate, which in each case renders ἀγαπάω, by
“diligo,” and φιλέω by “amo.” We think that Trench properly appreciates
the difference between the two words. “On occasion,” he says, “of that
threefold Lovest thou Me,” which the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He
asks him first, ἀγαπᾷ με. At that moment, when all the pulses in the heart
of the now penitent Apostle are beating with an earnest affection towards
his Lord, this word on that Lord’s lips sounds too cold; not sufficiently
expressing the warmth of his personal affection toward Him. Besides the
question itself, which grieves and hurts Peter (verse 17), there is an
additional pang in the form which the question takes, sounding as though
it were intended to put him at a comparative distance from his Lord, and
to keep him there; or at least as not permitting him to approach so near
to Him as he fain would. He, therefore, in his answer substitutes for it
the word of a more _personal_ love, φιλῶ σε (verse 15). When Christ
repeats the question in the same words as at the first, Peter in his reply
again substitutes his φιλῶ for the ἀγαπᾷς of his Lord (verse 16). And now
at length he has conquered; for when for the third time his Master puts
the question to him, He does it with the word which Peter feels will alone
express all that is in his heart, and instead of the twice‐repeated
ἀγαπαᾷς, His word is φιλεῖς, now (verse 17). (Trench, _Syn. of the New
Testament_, pp. 48, 49).(141)

16. Dicit ei iterum: Simon 16. He saith to him again:
Ioannis, diligis me? Ait illi: Simon _son_ of John, lovest
Etiam, Domine, tu scis quia thou me? He saith to him: Yea
amo te. Dicit ei: Pasce agnos Lord, thou knowest that I love
meos. thee. He saith to him: Feed my
lambs.

16. In the second question our Lord drops the comparison between Peter’s
love and that of the other Apostles, and, according to the Greek text,
uses different words in giving Peter his commission. Before, it was:
_Feed_ My _lambs_ (Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου): now it is: _Tend_ (or rule) My
_sheep_ (ποίμανε τὰ πρόβατά μου). Among Uncial MSS., B and C read προβάτια
(little sheep) here. But A, D, X, and nearly all others read πρόβατά; and
while the Vulg. (agnos) favours the former, the Vetus Itala (oves)
supports the latter. It is difficult, then, to decide between the two
readings.

Whether Christ intended to signify one portion of His Church by the lambs,
the remaining portion by the sheep, or merely used two different terms to
indicate, in each case, _the whole flock_, matters little as to the sense
of the passage; for in either case the whole flock of Christ is committed
to Peter’s care.

17. Dicit ei tertio: Simon 17. He said to him the third
Ioannis, amas me? Contristatus time: Simon son of John,
est Petrus, quia dixit ei lovest thou me? Peter was
tertio, Amas me? et dixit ei: grieved, because he had said
Domine, tu omnia nosti: tu to him the third time, Lovest
scis quia amo te. Dixit ei: thou me? And he said to him:
Pasce oves meas. Lord, thou knowest all things:
thou knowest that I love thee.
He said to him: Feed my sheep.

17. Again, a third time, Jesus puts the question, but now changing His
word to the stronger word of Peter’s choice. This threefold repetition of
the question, provoking the threefold confession of Peter’s love, was
probably intended, not only to make amends for Peter’s threefold denial,
but also to indicate the solemn importance of the trust that was now
committed to him. Peter was grieved at the repetition of the question,
because it seemed as if his Lord suspected the sincerity of his love, or,
perhaps, he feared that the repeated questioning foreboded another fall.

*He said to him: Feed my sheep.* Here, too, as in the preceding verse it
is doubtful whether “little sheep” or “sheep” is the true reading. In
favour of the former we have here not only B and C but also A. On the
other hand, the Vulgate in this verse (oves) supports the latter. The
diminutive, as a term of endearment, would not be out of place in this
verse or the preceding.

The Vatican Council has interpreted this passage, verses 15‐17, of the
bestowal of the primacy on Peter—a primacy not merely of honour, but also
of jurisdiction—so that no Catholic is free to interpret the passage in
any sense other than this. “Docemus itaque et declaramus, Juxta Evangelii
testimonia primatum _jurisdictionis_ in _universam_ Dei Ecclesiam
_immediate_ et directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a
Christo Domino fuisse.... Atque uni Simoni Petro contulit Jesus post suam
resurrectionem summi pastoris et rectoris jurisdictionem in totum suum
ovile, dicendo: Pasce agnos meos: Pasce oves meas” (_Decr. Vat._, cap. 1,
_De Apost. Prim. Instit._) And, indeed, the passage cannot reasonably be
interpreted in any other sense. For Peter alone is addressed, and his love
for his master singled out for comparison with that of his companions, to
show that to him individually, and not to them with him, the commission
here given was entrusted.

What that commission was the Vatican Council tells us in the passage
already quoted, and the words of Christ prove. Peter was appointed to feed
the _whole flock_ of Christ, to rule it as a shepherd rules his sheep.
Now, the shepherd not merely feeds his sheep, but he directs and controls
them, tends them, guards them from harm (see above on x. 1), and in
various other ways promotes their good. “Wherefore the primacy conferred
upon Peter in this metaphor is an _ordinary_(142), _immediate_(143),
_universal_, _supreme_, power to _teach_ men the doctrine of Christ, to
furnish them with the _pastures_ of salvation, through the Sacraments,
evangelical counsels, &c.; to _make laws_ by which the sheep may be
directed to the eternal pastures; to _appoint subordinate pastors_; to
_secure that the laws be observed_; to _punish_ disobedient sheep, and to
_bring back erring sheep_ to the fold. It is, therefore, the fullest power
of _Episcopal jurisdiction_. Wherefore St. Peter himself (1 Peter ii. 25)
calls Christ ‘the _shepherd_ and bishop of souls’ ” (Corl.).

This wonderful power, then, which as visible head of the Church, and in
behalf of its invisible Head Jesus Christ, Peter was to exercise through
himself and his successors over all the flock of Christ, whether bishops,
priests, or people, was given to him on the shore of the sea of Galilee,
on the present occasion.

18. Amen, amen dico tibi: cum 18. Amen, amen, I say to thee:
esses iunior, cingebas te, et when thou wast younger, thou
ambulabas ubi volebas: cum didst gird thyself, and didst
autem senueris, extendes manus walk where thou wouldst. But
tuas, et alius te cinget, et when thou shalt be old, thou
ducet quo tu non vis. shalt stretch forth thy hands,
and another shall gird thee,
and lead thee whither thou
wouldst not.

18. We are told by St. John in the following verse that, in the words
recorded in this, Christ signified by _what kind_ (ποὶῳ) of death Peter
should glorify God. Why the Lord chose this particular time, immediately
after he had appointed Peter supreme head of the Church, to foretell for
the Apostle a martyr’s death by crucifixion, we cannot say with certainty.
Probably it was to console Peter, now grieved by the thrice‐repeated
question, and to assure him that, though he had denied his Lord and had
just now been closely questioned as to his love, yet his final
perseverance was secure.

*When thou wast younger*, opposed here to: “When thou shalt be old,”
probably includes Peter’s life up to the time to which the prediction
refers. It is as if Christ had said: Whilst thou _art_ young; for as
Kuinoel on this verse says: “Praeterita de re praesente in oraculis
adhibentur.” At all events, Peter was still young in the sense of the word
here, for we know from verse 7 that on this very morning he had girded
himself. *Thou didst gird thyself*, &c. The meaning is: Throughout your
life, as on this morning before you swam to Me, you gird yourself when you
will to do what you will, and go where you will; but the day shall come
when your hands shall no longer be free to gird yourself, but you shall
stretch them forth to have them bound to the transverse beam of a
cross,(144) and another shall gird you (with a cloth round your loins),
and shall lead you away to death—to death, from which human nature
_naturally_ recoils.

19. Hoc autem dixit, 19. And this he said,
significans qua morte signifying by what death he
clarificaturus esset Deum. Et should glorify God. And when
cum hoc dixisset, dicit ei: he had said this, he saith to
Sequere me. him: Follow me.

19. *And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God.*
When St. John wrote this, St. Peter’s death had thrown light on Christ’s
words, if, indeed, our Evangelist did not understand their meaning at the
time they were spoken. That Peter understood it, we may rest assured.
According to tradition, Peter, at his own request, was crucified with his
head downwards, declining, in his humility, to be crucified like his Lord.

*Follow me.* Most of the fathers take these words to mean, not so much
that Peter was now to walk after Jesus, as that he was to follow Him
through the death of the cross to the glory of the Father. Compare xiii.
36, 37.

20. Conversus Petrus vidit 20. Peter turning about, saw
illum discipulum, quem that disciple whom Jesus loved
diligebat Iesus, sequentem, following, who also leaned on
qui et recubuit in coena super his breast at supper, and
pectus eius, et dixit: Domine said: Lord, who is he that
quis est qui tradet te? shall betray thee?

20. *Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following.*
From these words it would appear that Christ had begun to move away and
Peter to follow, as if to symbolize the higher sense in which Peter was
one day to tread in His footsteps.

*Who also leaned.* Rather, “who also leaned back” (ἀνέπεσεν). The
reference is to the incident recorded in xiii. 25, not to the position
John occupied at table.

21. Hunc ergo cum vidisset 21. Him therefore when Peter
Petrus, dixit Iesu: Domine hic had seen, he saith to Jesus:
autem quid? Lord, and what _shall_ this
man _do_?

21. Peter, having learned what his own end was to be, was now anxious to
know the end that awaited our Evangelist, who was so dear to Jesus and to
himself. He therefore asked: “And what shall this man do?” or rather as
the Greek has it; “And this man, what?” that is to say, what end awaits
him?

22. Dicit ei Iesus: Sic eum 22. Jesus saith to him: So I
volo manere donec veniam, quid will have him to remain till I
ad te? tu me sequere. come, what is it to thee?
follow thou me.

22. *So I will*, &c. “So” translates the Vulgate “sic,” which is a
misprint for _si_ (ἐαν). Hence the true reading is: If I will have him to
remain till I come, what is it to thee? Follow _thou_ Me. Our Lord here
reproves Peter’s curiosity and bids him see to himself, nor wish to know
more than his Master was pleased to communicate.

*Follow thou me.* “Thou” is emphatic. Peter’s question regarding the end
that awaited John; and our Lord’s reply, contrasting as it does the two
Apostles (“If I will have _him_” ... Follow _thou_), justifies us in
taking the words “Follow thou me” in reference to Peter’s death by
crucifixion.

23. Exiit ergo sermo iste 23. This saying therefore went
inter fratres quia discipulus abroad among the brethren,
ille non moritur. Et non dixit that that disciple should not
ei Iesus: Non moritur: sed: die. And Jesus did not say to
Sic eum volo manere donec him: He should not die; but,
veniam, quid ad te? So I will have him to remain
till I come, what is it to
thee?

23. Our Evangelist tells us here what was _not_ the meaning of the Lord’s
words; what their meaning was, he does not say. He merely wished to show
that the words afforded no ground for the belief which prevailed among the
faithful, and which his own very advanced age at the time when this Gospel
was written tended to confirm, that he was not to die at all, or at least
not until the day of judgment. Those who deny the authenticity of this
last chapter appeal triumphantly to this verse. It was written, they say,
after St. John died, when it become necessary to explain away the meaning
that had been put upon our Lord’s words. But, from what we have said
already, the reader will have seen that there is not the slightest reason
why this verse may not have been written by St. John himself.

There is a difference of opinion as to what our Lord meant by the words:
“If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?” Some have
taken the meaning to be: If I will have him to remain till I come for him
in a _natural_ death, what is it to thee? But this is not probable; Christ
comes for the martyr just as much as for him who dies a natural death.

Others thus: If I will have him to remain till My coming at the
destruction of Jerusalem, what is it to thee?

But it is most likely that Christ’s coming when spoken of absolutely, as
here, refers to His coming at the day of judgment. Hence the most probable
view seems to be: _If I were_ to will him to remain living even till the
day of judgment, what were that to thee? Thus our Lord makes a purely
hypothetical case, and conveys no information to Peter, thereby reproving
still more his curiosity.

24. Hic est discipulus ille 24. This is that disciple who
qui testimonium perhibet de giveth testimony of these
his, et scripsit haec: et things, and hath written these
scimus quia verum est things: and we know that his
testimonium eius. testimony is true.
25. Sunt autem et alia multa 25. But there are also many
quae fecit Iesus: quae si other things which Jesus did:
scribantur per singula, nec which if they were written
ipsum arbitror mundum capere every one, the world itself, I
posse eos, qui scribendi sunt, think, would not be able to
libros. contain the books that should
be written.

24, 25. The authenticity of these verses has been questioned more than
that of the rest of the chapter, both because it is not in St. John’s
manner to speak of himself in the plural number (as here in verse 24:
“_we_ know”), and because of the hyperbole in verse 25. For these reasons,
some Catholic writers have denied their authenticity, though no Catholic,
as far as we are aware, has denied their _inspiration_. Those Catholics
who deny their authenticity, hold that they were probably written by the
bishops of Asia Minor, at whose request St. John wrote the Gospel. See
Introd. iii., note. This view is not without some probability. Still, we
prefer the common opinion of Catholic commentators, that the verses were
written by St. John himself; for without them the conclusion of the Gospel
would be extremely abrupt.

As to the reasons for the opposite view, though we admit that St. John
does not usually employ the first person plural, still it is not unnatural
that in closing his Gospel he should wish to confirm his own testimony by
an appeal to the consenting voice of his contemporaries. Besides, he does
use the same form of expression in i. 14: “And we saw his glory.” See also
1 Ep. i. 3. As to the argument drawn from the alleged extravagance of the
hyperbole in verse 25, it has no weight. For, there is no reason why St.
John may not have used this striking hyperbole to signify the
inexhaustible treasury of instruction contained in our Divine Lord’s life
and works, and to suggest the deep truth that a full account (“every one”)
of Christ’s human life would be practically infinite. “Hunc loquendi
modum,” says St. Aug. on this passage, “Graeco nomine hyperbolem vocant:
qui modus, sicut hoc loco, ita in nonnullis aliis divinis Literis
invenitur ... et multa hujusmodi, sicut _alii tropi_, Scripturis S. non
desunt.”

FOOTNOTES

1 _Vie de Jesus_, ed. xiii., pp. 10, 11.

2 See Lamy, vol. ii., pp. 246‐270; Cornely, Introd. iii., pp. 216‐260.

3 See, _e.g._, Cornely, iii., pp. 222, 223.

4 Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 39.

5 St. Ephrem († 373) wrote a Commentary, in Syriac, on the
_Diatessaron_, and this Commentary is still extant in an Armenian
translation, which is probably as old as the fifth century.

6 It is important to note this, because the Rationalist arguments
against the Johannine authorship prove nothing against St. John that
they do not prove also against all his contemporaries.

7 See notes on chronology of the Acts.

8 St. Jerome, referring to this, writes: “Refert Tertullianus quod
Romae missus in ferventis olei dolium purior et vegetior exierit
quam intraverit.” (_Advers. Jovin_, i. 26.)

9 “Joannes quum esset in Asia, et jam tunc haereticorum semina
pullularent Cerinthi et Ebionis et ceterorum qui negant Christum in
carne venisse ... coactus est ab omnibus tunc pene Asiae Episcopis
et multarum ecclesiarum legationibus de divinitate Salvatoris altius
scribere.”—_Prol. in Matthew._

10 Iren., _Haer._ iii. 1: “Joannes volens per evangelii annunciationem
auferre, eum qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus errorem et
multo prius ab his qui dicuntur Nicolaitae ... sic inchoavit
evangelium.”

11 “Joannes discipulus Domini ... et ipse edidit evangelium Ephesi
Asiae commorans.”—_Haer._ iii. 1.

12 Corluy, indeed, supposes the heads of doctrine to be reported in
precisely the exact words of our Lord: “Eas propositiones quae quasi
capita doctrinae apparent ... ad verbum referri admittendum
putamus,” are his words. But the fact that the words of institution
of the Blessed Eucharist are _differently_ reported by the Synoptic
Evangelists seems to us to refute this view.

13 “Joannes novissime omnium scripsit evangelium, rogatus ab Asiae
episcopis, adversus Cerinthum aliosque haereticos et maxime tunc
Ebionitarum dogma consurgens, qui asserunt Christum ante Mariam non
fuisse.”—_Jer. de Vir. Illust._, 9.

14 The words of Irenæus are:—“Et Cerinthus autem quidam in Asia, non a
primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a Virtute quadam valde
separata, et distante ab ea principalitate, quae est super universa,
et ignorante eum, qui est super omnia, Deum. Jesum autem subjecit
non ex Virgine natum (impossibile enim hoc ei visum est); fuisse
autem Joseph et Mariae filium similiter ut reliqui omnes homines....
Et post baptismum descendisse in eum ab ea principalitate quae est
super omnia (ἐκ τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὄλα αὐθεντίας) Christum figura columbae,
et tunc annuntiasse incognitum Patrem, et virtutes perfecisse, in
fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu, et Jesum passum esse
et resurrexisse, Christum autem impassibilem perseverasse,
existentem spiritalem.”—Iren., _Adv. Haer._, i. xxvi.

15 “_Ebionaei_ autem consentiunt quidem mundum ab eo, qui revera Deus
est, factum esse; quae autem ad Christum pertinent, consimiliter
Cerintho fabulantur. Moribus Judaicis utuntur secundum legem;
quapropter et Christum Dei vocatum esse Jesum, quum nemo ex reliquis
observaret legem. Etenim si quis alius fecisset quae in lege
praescripta sunt, ille evasisset Christus. Posse autem etiam ipsos,
si similiter egerint, Christos evadere; etenim illum quoque hominem
aeque ac reliquos fuisse dicunt.”—_Philosophumena_, vii. 16, 3342
(Migne).

16 Referring to this sublime prologue, St. Augustine says: “Ceteri tres
evangelistae tanquam cum homine Domino in terra ambulant, et de
divinitate ejus pauca dixerunt, istum autem quasi piguerit in terra
ambulare, sicut in ipso exordio sui sermonis intonuit, erexit se non
solum super terram et super omnem ambitum aeris et coeli, sed super
omnem etiam exercitum angelorum, omnemque constitutionem
invisibilium potestatum; et pervenit ad eum per quem facta sunt
omnia, dicendo: ‘In principio erat verbum.’ Huic _tantae sublimitati
principii_ etiam caetera congrua praedicavit,” etc.—Tract 36 on St.
John.

17 Compare also 1 John i. 1, where our Vulgate should have translated
by “erat” instead of “fuit.”

18 According to many, Heb. iv. 12 affords another instance in the New
Testament.

19 “Huic nomini seligendo occasionem forte dederunt tunc jam grassantes
doctrinae Gnosticorum, qui ita post Philonem vocabant ens aliquod
sublimius quod dicebant Jesu fuisse unitum. Sic etiam nomina ἀρχή,
ζωή, χάρις, ἀλήθεια, μονογενής, a Gnosticis tribuuntur aeonibus
suis, quae omnia Joannes in suo prologo sensu genuino
exponit.”—Corl., _Comm. in S. Joan._, Quaer. 3, p. 26.

20 Sometimes (with πρός) the import of the accusative is apparently
lost, πρός signifying _with_, particularly in connection with names
of persons (John i. 1); but here πρός indicates (ideal)
_annexation_, implying rather the active notion of intercourse than
a mere passive idea.—Winer, Gr. _Gram. N. T._, 8th Eng. ed., p. 504,
h. and note 4.

21 “The omission of the article before the predicate, when the
predicate stands before the copula is the usage of the New
Testament.”—Alford, on this verse.

22 See Patrizzi, iii. Diss. viii. 21.

23 Patriz.

24 The R. V. has “apprehended it not,” with marginal alternative:
“overcame it not.”

25 “Pluralis adhibetur ratione habita utrusque parentis.”—Beel, _Gr.
Gram._ § 273, note.

26 St. Thomas seems to prefer St. Augustine’s peculiar view, that the
woman is here meant by “caro.” The other opinion given above is
given by him only in the second place as an alternative.

27 Compare our expression: he acted _like_ a man.

28 Verba “a Patre” aeque jungi possunt nomini sive “unigeniti,” sive
“gloriam.” Si primum, sensus erit unigeniti, qui est ex Patre, neque
enim Verbum γεννάσθαι, quod continetur in μονογενοῦς constructum
reperitur cum praepositione παρά.—Patriz.

29 Patrizzi, following Kuinoel, contends that ἐμπρόσθεν (before) is
never used of priority in dignity; but see Alford, who cites Gen.
xlviii. 20, as well as Plato and Demosthenes, for this meaning.

30 Thus far, the prologue of our Gospel, of which Franzelin truly
says:—“Singula doctrinae capita de J. Christo vero Deo, Deique Filio
in unum quodamodo collecta verticem conspiciuntur. Hoc enim loco is
qui in tempore caro factus est, docetur esse Deus, Deus aeternus,
Deus creator universi, Deus auctor gratiae et ordinis
supernaturalis, Deus cui supremus cultus debetur.”—_De Verbo
Incarn._, Th. 8.

31 Simon, vel Symeon (Act xv. 14 sine var. lect. in Gr. codd., 2 Pet.
i. 1, א, A, K, L, P, &c.) שׂמעון (exauditio, Gen. xxix. 33). “Nomen
Patris aut Jonas, Ἰωνᾶ (Matt. xvi. 17), aut Ἰωάνες vel Ἰωάννες (Joan
xxi. 15) legitur; Joan i. 43 codd. graeci alii Ἰωνᾶ alii Ἰωάνου vel
Ἰωάννου; unde prius nomen non essi nisi alterius corruptionem nec
quidquam cum nomine prophetae Jonae habere commune elucet.”—Corn.
iii. § 212, note 1.

32 _Publ. Life of our Lord_, vol. i., p. 185.

33 Consult also, as almost exactly the same, 2 Kings xvi. 10; Josue
xxii. 24; Matthew viii. 29; Matthew xxvii. 29; Mark i. 2.

34 See M’Carthy, _Gospels of the Sundays_, p. 72.

35 Nisan, the first month of the sacred year of the Jews, corresponded
to the latter half of March and the first half of April.

36 “Additus ibi voci διδάσκαλος articulus Nicodemum exhibet tanquam ex
Israelis doctoribus _excellentibus unum_.”—Beel., _Gr. Gram._, § 17,
4, adnot 3.

37 Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, 2nd edition, 1893.

38 Trench, _Studies in the Gospels_, p. 84.

39 The name Sichar is derived by some from _shikkor_ (שׂכר), a
drunkard; by others _sheqquer_ (שׂקר), a liar; the city of liars,
perhaps of _false_ worship.

40 “Venit mulier ad puteum et fontem quem non speravit invenit.”—St.
Aug.

41 Massillon, in a beautiful Lenten Sermon on this subject, says:
“Nouvelle artifice, dont elle s’avise pour détourner la question de
ses mœurs, qui lui déplait, et qui l’embarasse, elle se jette
habiliment sur une question de doctrine.”

42 Compare Acts xvii. 23, where the true reading is ὃ οὖν, agreeing
with the Vulgate.

43 Compare the saying, common in parts of Ireland: “It is long till
Hallow‐day.”

44 Our Lord was probably baptized by John between the middle of October
and the 25th December: “Quae quum ita sint, dies baptismi fuerit
oportet inter medium Octobrem interque viii. Kal., Januar,”
Patrizzi, _Diss._ xlvii., c. i. 11.

45 It is not certain which is the correct reading, whether ἑορτὴ or ἡ
ἑορτὴ (a feast, or _the_ feast). Nearly all the critics are against
reading the article. So Lachmann, Tisch, Westc., and Hort; and, so
too, the Protestant Revised Version. Still, there are a great many
ancient authorities, among them the Codex א (Sinait.) in favour of
reading the article. But even if the reading were certain, it would
still be doubtful what feast is meant.

46 The passage is regarded as spurious by Tisch., Tregell., Westc., and
Hort, and by the Rev. Vers.

47 “δίωκειν haud raro est verbum forense, atque significat
accusare.”—Kuin.

48 “Unde secundum Augustinum, demonstrare Patrem Filio, nihil aliud est
quam Patrem generare Filium. Et Filium videre quae Pater facit,
nihil aliud est quam Filium esse et naturam a Patre recipere.”—St.
Thom. on verse 20.

49 “Est argumentum ab humano modo sumptum, respectu hominum illorum,
qui se amant, hi enim mutuo sibi omnia communicant, nihil sibi
occultant, et cum revera Pater summe diligat Filium, utitur hoc
argumento ut signo, et probatione propter nos, non autem quod causa
sit cur omnia demonstret,”—Tolet. For other explanations, Corl.,
page 118, may be consulted.

50 Mald. thinks that the principal reference in verses 21 and 25 is to
the _general_ resurrection.

51 “Deus eam (potestatem judiciariam) communicare noluit nec congrue
potuit puro homini, sed Christo soli, qui Deus est et homo. Ipse
enim ut Deus, summam habet auctoritatem judicandi; ut homo vero
habet facultatem judicium hoc visibiliter coram hominibus salvandis
et damnandis exercendi.”—A Lap.

52 “Nam ipse, qua Deus, idem numero habet judicium, eandem numero
mentem et voluntatem divinam quam habet Pater; qua homo vero, totus
regitur a deitate et verbo inhabitante, ut aliud judicare et velle
nequeat quam id quod ejus deitas, quasi praeses, judicat et vult.”—A
Lap.

53 The inspiration of the prophets, though usually attributed to the
Holy Ghost, is, like every work that is not terminated in God
Himself, common to the three divine Persons, and is here referred to
the Father, since Christ is addressing the Jews, who knew nothing of
the Holy Ghost, and would not value His testimony.

54 From Juvenal we learn that in Rome the cophinus was carried about
with them by the Jews: “Judaeis Quorum cophinus foenumque
supellex.”—_Sat._ iii. 14.

55 Calvin retained Baptism, Eucharist, and Holy Orders; Zwingli,
Baptism, Eucharist, and Matrimony; Luther, in the Confession of
Augsburg, Baptism, Eucharist, and Penance; and the Anglican Church,
in the 25th of the Thirty‐nine Articles, Baptism and the Eucharist.

56 Though it is not _defined_ that there is reference to the Blessed
Eucharist in any part of the 6th chapter of St. John, still, since
the Council of Trent understood the passage (52‐59) in this sense
(Sess. xiii., cap. 2), as did nearly all the fathers who commented
on the chapter, it would be rash for a Catholic to deny that the
Blessed Eucharist is promised in the passage 52‐59.

57 “De hac significatione inter philologos nulla est dubitatio, confer
Psal. xxvi. (_Hebr._ 27) 2; Job xix. 22; Mich. iii. 3.”—Franz., _De
Euch._, Thes. iii., p. 22, note.

58 Though Franz. holds that the discourse from verse 35‐47 regards
_faith_ in Christ, yet he holds that the Blessed Eucharist is
referred to in verse 27.—_De Euch. Thes._, iii., p. 15.

59 “Noli te cogitare invitum trahi; trahitur animus et amore ... Ramum
viridem ostendis ovi, et trahis illam. Nuces puero demonstrantur et
trahitur.”—St. August.

60 See, _e.g._, above iii. 6: What is born of the spirit is spirit;
_i.e._, spiritual.

61 Even Renan, who had held this view in the _Vie de Jesus_ abandoned
it in a later work: _Les Evangiles_, Appendix, page 542.

62 That James the brother of the Lord was an Apostle, is proved from
Gal. i. 19. See also Acts ix. 27, 28. Now Jude, the author of the
short Epistle which bears his name, who is commonly referred to as
identical with Jude the Apostle, calls himself a brother of James
(only James the Less, the brother of the Lord, and well‐known bishop
of Jerusalem can be meant). Jude 1; hence, two at least, of the
brothers of the Lord mentioned by Matthew (xiii. 55), Mark (vi. 3),
were Apostles: and since the Apostle Simon is mentioned side by side
with them in the four lists of the Apostles, it is fairly concluded
that he was their brother Simon; hence three of these brethren of
the Lord were Apostles.

63 Evangelistaries are selections from the Gospels for the purpose of
liturgical reading.

64 “Relate ad stylum haec praesertim notantur; pro particala οὖν quam
amat Joannes, semper adhibetur δέ; deinde occurunt vocabula (vel
phrases), quibus Joannes nullibi utitur: ὄρθρον, πᾶς ὁ λαός, καθίσας
ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς, οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαίοι, ἐπιμενεῖν,
ἀναμάρτητος, καταλείπεσθαι, κατακρίνειν, et πλήν.”—Corn., Introd.,
iii., p. 235, n. 3.

65 _e.g._, ix. 21‐28, ἡλικίαν ἕχειν; συντίθεσθαι; λοιδορείν.

66 “Rien dans le morceau ne fait disparate avec le style du quatrième
Evangile.”—Renan, _Vie de Jesus_, ed. 18, page 500.

67 _Theiner_, i., pp. 71‐77.

68 So the Protestant Revised Version, which in the margin gives as an
alternative: How is it that I even speak to you at all?

69 It is hardly necessary to remind the reader that the present of this
verb means to place, and hence the perfect means, I have placed
myself, or stand.

70 Besides the Pharisees believed that only the _good_ souls passed
into other bodies. See Josephus, _Ant._, viii. 1, 3; _B. Jud._, ii.
8, 14.

71 That προσκύνεω is often used of merely civil worship in the Old
Testament is not denied by anyone; and that it is so used in the New
Testament also, see Matt. xviii. 26, where it is far more probable
that προσεκύνει (“adorabat,” not “orabat,” as Vulg.) is the correct
reading.

72 “Significat enim haec phrasis primo securitatem, secundo fiduciam,
tertio libertatem conversandi ubilibet, suo munere fungendi, et
quaelibet negotia peragendi pro Christo et per Christum.”—A Lap.

73 “Patres omnes ... intelligunt de uno pastore _in terris existente_
qui _visibiliter_ pascat et regat.”—Suarez, _De Fide_, Tract. 1,
Disp. 9, Sect. 6, n. 3.

74 “Lectio Vulgatae ita foret exponenda: Pater _quod_ dedit mihi,
divinam naturam secum identicam, id _majus_ est rebus omnibus,
adeoque omnibus creaturis potentius; ideoque nemo potest oves rapere
de manu mea, sicut nec de manu Patris, nam _Ego et Pater unum
sumus_.... Ceterum si duo versiculi in Vulgata complexive sumuntur,
exprimunt quum Patris omnipotentiam tum Filii cum Patre
consubstantialitem; quae duo dogmata etiam in originali textu
habentur, licet alio modo. Ergo duae lectiones _dogmatice_
concordant substantialiter.”—Corl.

75 “Praesens adhibetur ad significandum id quod _jam jam_ eventurum
est, aut quod quis jam in eo est ut faciat.”—Beel., _G. G._, 41, 2,
a.

76 The bodies of the wicked also shall be raised on the last day, but,
as A Lap. says: “Quia resurgent ad tormenta Gehennae, hinc vita
eorum potius mors dicenda est, quam vita.”

77 The Perfect here has a Present signification. “Praesentis temporis
loco Perfectum adhibetur eatenus tantum quatenus verbo perfecti
temporis significatur actio quaepiam aut conditio, quae praeterito
tempore incepta nunc perdurat quaeque adeo sui initium tantum
praeterito tempore habeat.”—Beel., _Gr. Gram._, § 41, 4 a.

78 By its original institution, the office of High‐priest was to be
held for life; but we know from Josephus that the High‐priest was
frequently deposed by the Romans. “Praetor in Judaeam missus est
Valerius Gratus; qui Ananum Pontificatu privavit, et eum Ismaeli
Phabi filio tribuit, atque hunc non multo post abdicavit, et id
munus Eleazaro Anani Pontificis filio commisit. Uno autem anno post
sacerdotium huic ademtum Simoni Camithi filio tradidit; cumque is
dignitatem non ultra anni spatium tenuisset, Josephus, cui etiam
Caiphae nomen fuit, ei successit.”—Josephus, _Antiq._, xviii. 2, 2.

79 “Dubium non est, quin Matthaeus et Marcus, ut explicent quo modo
Judas ad traditionem pervenerit, narrationem hanc parenthetico modo
illis, quae de Pharisaeorum et sacerdotum consilio tradunt,
inseruerint.”—Corn., iii., p. 296, note n. So too Coleridge, _Life
of our Life_, vol. ii., p. 46: “The two earlier Evangelists give
their accounts of that supper out of its place, and in immediate
connection with the Passion of our Lord, for the obvious reason that
it was an incident of that supper, which finally determined Judas to
betray our Lord to His enemies, and thus to bring about His death.”

80 So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., West & Hort. The R. V. has: Suffer her to
keep it against the day of my burying, and in margin: Let her alone;
it was that she might keep it.

81 It is frequently mentioned as a proof of our Lord’s humility that He
condescended in this hour of triumph to ride upon an ass; and the
context in the prophecy of Zachary quoted above seems to favour this
view. Still there is good reason for supposing that the ass was
commonly used by nobles in the East (see, _e.g._, Judg. v. 10, x. 4;
3 Kings i. 33), and that for this reason, Christ may have used it in
the hour of His triumph.

82 See, _e.g._, John xviii. 28, where we are told that the Jews, on the
morning of the crucifixion, abstained from entering the hall of
Pilate, “that they might not be defiled, but that they might _eat
the pasch_.”

83 Matt. xxvi. 17‐20; Mark xiv. 12‐17; Luke xxii. 7‐14.

84 See Coleridge, _Passiontide_, Part ii., p. 33.

85 _Passiontide_, Part ii., pp. 40‐42.

86 Since the Jews removed all leaven from their houses on the 14th
Nisan, that day seems to have been called the first day of Azymes.
It was _during_ that day that the last supper was _prepared_, but it
was during the following _night_ (Exod. xii. 8), and therefore when
the next Jewish day had already commenced, that it was eaten.

87 The following are the passages from which the objections are
drawn:—John xiii. 1; xiii. 29; xviii. 28; xix. 14, 31.

88 See the able article, by Dr. Molloy, in _I. E. Record_, vol. ix.,
pp. 445‐464.

89 The reader may consult with profit _I. E. Record_, vol. x., pp.
110‐114.

90 “Adhuc coenabatur quum Dominus surrexit et pedes lavit discipulis
suis.”—St. Aug.

91 Anyone who desires fuller information on the rites of the Paschal
Supper will find it in Maclean’s account given by Dr. Walsh in the
note referred to above.

92 “Quam enim Romani togam aut pallium, id est summan vestem, Graeci,
ui ex Plutarcho discimus, το ἱμάτίον appellabant.”—Mald, _in loco_.

93 Matt. xxvi. 25: “And Judas that betrayed him, answering said: Is it
I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said _it_,” presents
considerable difficulty, as Judas appears to be there distinctly
pointed out. Some have held that only the traitor himself heard
Christ’s reply; but it is difficult to see how some of the others
close to Jesus should not also hear it. Hence we prefer to hold that
these words, though recorded by St. Matt. before his account of the
institution of the Blessed Eucharist were in reality not spoken till
after the dipped bread had been given to the traitor.

94 Dr. Walsh, _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, pp. 137, 138.

95 It is read by Lachm., Tisch., Tregel., Westc., and Hort, and by the
Revised Version as well as the Vulgate.

96 The quantity of the third syllable in this word varies. Strictly it
ought to be long, the word being derived from the Greek παράκλητος;
but in ecclesiastical Latin it is generally short, and spelled with
_i_ instead of _e_, as in the _Veni Creator_: Qui diceris
Paraclitus.

97 “Ex dictis colligitur duo ad missionem proprie dictam concurrere,
alterum, sempiternam processionem personae, quae mittitur; alterum,
externam aliquam efficientiam, sive sub sensus incidat, ut cum,
homine suscepto. Verbum hominibus apparuit, aut sub columbae specie
Spiritus Sanctus, sive interius sit nec aspectabile quod agitur, ut
cum Spiritus S. ad fidelium quemque demittitur.”—Perrone, _De
Trin._, cap. vi., Scholion 4, note 3.

98 See also A Lap. _in loco_. Some who hold that this was spoken _on
the way_ to Gethsemane, think that the mention of the vine was
suggested by the sight of a vine as Christ and the Apostles passed
along.

99 See Less. of Thir. Noct. Comm. Marty. (Temp. Pasch.)

100 “Non eo modo illi in ipso, sicut ipse in illis. Utrumque autem
prodest, non ipsi, sed illis. Ita quippe in vite sunt palmites, ut
viti non conferant, sed inde accipiant unde vivant, ita vero vitis
est in palmitibus, ut vitale alimentum subministret eis, non sumat
ab eis. Ac per hoc, et manentem in se habere Christum et manere in
Christo, discipulis prodest utrumque, non Christo. Nam praeciso
palmite potest de viva radice alius pullulare; qui autem praecisus
est, sine radice non potest vivere.”—St. Aug. _in loc._

101 “Non utique ipso die Pentecostes, sed _tempore_ adventus Spiritus
Sancti paulatim, ac per gradus inducti sunt in omnem veritatem, ut
ex manifestis factis et ex ipsis verbis constat: _inducet_ in omnem
veritatem ὀδηγήσει ὑμᾶς.”—_Franz._ _De Trad._, p. 267. note 1.

102 See Franz., _De Div. Trad. Thes._, xxii. 11.

103 “Semper itaque audit Spiritus Sanctus quia semper scit: ergo et
scivit, et scit, et sciet; ac per hoc et audivit, et audit, et
audiet: quia sicut jam diximus, hoc est illi audire quod scire, et
scire illi hoc est quod esse. Ab illo igitur audivit, audit, et
audiet a quo est: ab illo est a quo procedit.”—St. Aug. on this
verse, _Tract._ 99.

104 “Uno verbo: Spiritus Sanctus aeternaliter audit et accipit a Filio
cum respectu ad effectum in tempore, qui tum quando Christus
loquebatur, promittebatur adhuc futurus; ideo auditio et acceptio
quae aeternaliter et ideo etiam tunc est, quando existit effectus,
potuit propter hanc operationem et propter effectum futurum ad extra
enuntiari in forma temporis futuri.”—Franz., _De Trin. Thes._,
xxxii. i. 4 c.

105 “Igitur in _significatione formali_ illud _meum_, quod Spiritus
veritatis dicitur accipere communicatum a Filio, est absoluta
sapientia cum respectu ad extra, ad doctrinam scilicet inspirandam
et annuntiandam. At profecto sapientia absoluta _identice ac
realiter_ est ipsamet essentia divina.”—Franz., _Thes._, xxxii. i. 4
b.

106 There is a clear and important difference between the two words for
asking used in this verse. ᾽Ερωτάω always in classical, and
generally in Hellenistic Greek, means to interrogate, to question.
In Hellenistic Greek it sometimes means to request, to petition, as
in verse 26 below; but even then there is a distinction which is
carefully observed throughout the New Testament between it and
αἰτέω. ᾽Ερωτάω is used of the request of an equal, or at least of a
familiar friend, αἰτέω of the supplication of an inferior. Hence
Christ never once uses the latter word in reference to His own
asking of the Father.

107 “Resuscita me, ut innotescas toti orbi per me.”—St. Aug.

108 All theologians admit that the happiness of the blessed consists
_radically_ in the vision of God; but while many Thomists hold that
it consists _essentially_ in this, other theologians hold that it
consists in acts of the will, as of love and joy, as well as of the
intellect.

109 Christ’s human soul enjoyed the beatific vision from the first
moment of the incarnation; but the connatural effects of this upon
His body were suspended during His mortal life.

110 “_Aoristus_ ... indicat peractam rem esse aut nunc aut olim, hoc
est, aliqua praeteriti temporis parte, quae _indefinita_
relinquitur. _Perfectum_ sicut in classica graecitate, ita et in
graecitate N. Testamenti adhiberi solet ad significandam actionem
plane praeteritam, quae aut nunc finita est, aut per effectus suos
durat.”—Beel., _G. G._, § 41.

111 So Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc., Hort, and the Revised
Version.

112 Or more correctly: “for we all partake of one bread.”

113 Fourth Edition, London, 1859.

114 “Est autem in Graeco sensus hujus sententiae apertior: non enim
habetur particula copulativa, sed illativa, et non est praeteritum,
sed aoristus primus qui saepe plusquam perfecti significationem
habet. Sensus ergo est: _Miserat_ igitur eum Annas ligatum ad
Caipham Pontificem, est enim locutio revertentis ad narrationem
praetermissam, et particula illativa indicat quae relata sunt,
fuisse facta postquam missus est Christus ab Anna ad Caipham.”—Tol.,
_in loc._

115 We shall not be far from the truth, if we say that the Paschal
Supper began about 7 p.m.; that Jesus retired to Gethsemani about
10; that He was arrested between 11 and 12; that the midnight trial
was over about 2 a.m.; and that day dawned about 4.30.

116 Maimonides, _De Pasch._, vi. 1, says: “Qui cadaver reptilis tetigit,
aut reptile, aut _quid aliud simile_ die decima quarta, is lavatur,
et postquam lotus est, pro eo pascha mactant, et sub vesperam, quum
sol ei occubuit, _pascha comedit_.”

117 We read in the Mishna, which is the oldest portion of the Jewish
Talmud, and was composed about the beginning of the third century:
“Sacrificium festi Chagigah (חגיגה) adducebatur ex grege et jumento,
agnis et capris, masculis et feminis; et comedebatur per _duos dies_
et unam noctem.” (Mish., _Pesachim_, vi. 4.)

118 Jesus till now had been outside, for it is well known the Roman law
required that the criminal should be present to hear the charges
brought against him. See Acts xxiv. 2.

119 We prefer to render: “Thou sayest it, _for_ (ὅτι) I am a king;” and
thus St. John’s version of Christ’s reply is more like that of the
other Evangelists.

120 φραγελλόω indeed belongs to late Greek, and is derived from the
Latin flagellum.

121 We know not what kind of thorns was used for the crown. Benedict
XIV. says that in his time it could not be decided from any relics
of the thorns known to exist to what species they belonged.

122 “Jesus igitur flagellis caesus spinisque coronatus fuit, ante quam
Pilatus eum capite damnaret. Non ergo est dubium, ordinem in his
referendis a Matthaeo et a Marco minime esse observatum.”—Patriz.

123 See above on xiii. 1.

124 That a division of the night into four watches existed, is proved
from the New Testament. See, _e.g._, Mark xiii. 35: Luke xii. 38.

125 Whether St. John numbers the hours of the day according to the
Jewish or modern method it is extremely difficult to decide from his
Gospel. In only four passages (i. 39; iv. 6; iv. 52; and xix. 14)
does he refer to distinct hours of the day, and to these passages
the patrons of both opinions appeal. In John iv. 6 we read that it
was “about the sixth hour” when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the
well, and if we are right in holding that it was then the month of
December (see above on iv. 35), this would go to show that our
Evangelist numbers according to the Jewish method. For at 6 a.m. or
6 p.m. it would be dark, and it is wholly improbable that Jesus in
the darkness would have held conversation alone with the woman.

126 Dr. Walsh, _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, note 35.

We have not mentioned the view of those who hold that the error from
transcription occurred in St. Mark and not in St. John, and that we
ought to read “sixth” instead of “third” in St. Mark xv. 25. For, as
Patrizzi well points out, if St. Mark had written “sixth” in verse
25, he would not, after describing the mocking of Christ upon the
cross, say in verse 33: “And when the _sixth hour was come_ there
was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour.” If error
has crept in, then, it is not in St. Mark.

127 Cyrene was “the principal city of that part of Northern Africa,
which was anciently called Cyrenaica, and also (from its five chief
cities) Pentapolitana. This district was that wide projecting
portion of the coast (corresponding to the modern Tripoli) which was
separated from the territory of Carthage on the one hand, and that
of Egypt on the other.”—Smith’s _B. D._

128 The following questions also are disputed:—(_a_) Whether Christ had
the crown of thorns upon Him while He hung on the cross; (_b_)
whether He was entirely naked; (_c_) whether four nails or three
were used, that is to say, whether His feet like His hands were
nailed separately or were placed one over the other, with one nail
piercing both.

129 Darras, _Hist. Eccles._ vol. v., says that P. Drach was able to
trace all the Hebrew characters, and that they agree exactly with
St. John’s version of the title.

130 The sponge is still preserved in Rome, in St. John Lateran’s.

131 Longet, _Physiologie_, t. ii., p. 701.

132 St. Matt. on this point need create no difficulty, for although he
says that an angel rolled back the stone from the mouth of the
sepulchre and sat upon it (probably _outside_ the sepulchre), yet he
does not say that the women were addressed by the angel while he sat
upon the stone, nor even that he was seen by them while he was in
that position. That he was seen by the guards, one of whom may have
been afterwards converted and have told this incident, is plain from
St. Matt.: but we are free to suppose that when the angel addressed
the women (Matt. xxviii. 5), he may have been already within the
sepulchre, as in St. Mark.

133 The difficulty against this view, from the fact that St. Matt.,
according to the Vulgate Version, represents these women as coming
to the tomb on the _evening_ of the Sabbath (Vespere sabbati),
disappears, if we admit that the Vulgate rendering of the Greek
phrase, ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων is incorrect, or, at least, misleading, and
should rather be post sabbatum, as the phrase is explained by Mald.,
Cornely (iii. p. 301, note S), Kuin., Bloomf., and the majority of
commentators. Certainly we are convinced that Magdalen did not visit
the tomb on Saturday evening; for had she done so, she must have
learned that the tomb was guarded and the stone that closed it
sealed, and she and her companions would not come as they did on
Sunday morning, saying to one another: “Who shall roll away the
stone for us?” Had she been at the tomb on Saturday evening, she
could not have hoped to be allowed to roll away the stone, which was
sealed and guarded; or, if she hoped for this permission from the
soldiers, then there would have been no room for the difficulty as
to who should roll away the stone, as the soldiers, if they
permitted its removal, might be counted upon to remove it for women.

134 It is the common belief that Jesus appeared first of all to the
Blessed Virgin, though the appearance to Magdalen is the first
mentioned in the Gospels. Estius and some other great commentators,
however, deny that He appeared to the Blessed Virgin, and hold that
as he appeared in order to confirm the faith of those to whom he
appeared, there was no need that He should appear to the Blessed
Virgin.

135 “Unde secundum naturam suam palpabile est corpus gloriosum, sed ex
virtute supernaturali hoc ei competit ut cum vult non palpetur a
corpore non glorioso.”—St. Thomas, _Summ. Theol._, Suppl., q. 83,
art. 6.

136 “Si quis dixerit verba illa Domini Salvatoris: Accipite Spiritum
Sanctum; quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis; et quorum
retinueritis, retenta sunt: non esse intelligenda de potestate
remittendi et retinendi peccata in Sacramento Poenitentiae, Sicut
Ecclesia Catholica ab initio semper intellexit; detorserit autem,
contra institutionem hujus Sacramenti, ad auctoritatem praedicandi
evangelium, anathema sit.”—Sess. xiv., Can. 2, _De Poen._

137 This reading, however, is not certain, some critics read the perfect
ἀφεώνται (remissa sunt). So Tisch., Treg., Westc. & Hort., and
Lachm.

138 Some, who admit the authenticity of verses 1‐23, deny that of verses
24 and 25.

139 The miraculous draught of fish in chapter xxi. was not intended to
confirm the faith of the disciples, which now needed no
confirmation, but to typify the fecundity of the Church over which
Peter was about to be placed.

140 By “clausulam” he means the last two verses of the chapter.

141 So, too, Hesych. and Lidd. and Scott take φιλέω as stronger than
ἀγαπᾷω, so that the two words correspond to “amare” and “diligere”
respectively, as the Vulgate makes them. The distinction between the
two Latin words is well recognised. Thus Cicero (Ep. Fam. xiii. 47),
writing to one friend about another says: “Ut scires illum a me non
_diligi_ solum verum etiam _amari_.”

142 _I.e._, belonging to him in virtue of his office.

143 _I.e._, extending _directly_ over all the faithful, and not merely
mediately through their several bishops. (See Franz., _De. Eccl.
Thes._, x. iii. 2 c.)

144 “Crux enim solebat ita a cruciariis portari, ut brachia ligno
transverso funibus extensa alligarentur.”—Corl.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Gospel of St. John" ***

Home