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 templum, et omnis populus venit ad eum, et sedens docebat eos.
2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to 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 [pg 150] 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 pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam: et statuerunt eam in medio.
3. And the scribes and Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery; and 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, haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio.
4. And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery.
5. In lege autem Moyses mandavit nobis huiusmodi lapidare. Tu ergo quid dicis?
5. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a 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 tentantes eum, ut possent accusare eum. Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum, digito scribebat in terra.
6. And this they said, tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his 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 interrogantes eum, erexit se, et dixit eis: Qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem mittat.
7. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said to them: He that is without sin 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 [pg 151] 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, scribebat in terra.
8. And again stooping down, he 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 unum exibant, incipientes a senioribus: et remansit solus Iesus, et mulier in medio stans.
9. But they hearing this went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst.
10. Erigens autem se Iesus, dixit ei: Mulier, ubi sunt qui te accusabant? nemo te condemnavit?
10. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?
11. Quae dixit: Nemo, Domine. Dixit autem Iesus: Nec ego te condemnabo: vade, et iam amplius noli peccare.
11. Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin 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 [pg 152] it, Christ's Divine power to forgive sin.
12. Iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus, dicens. Ego sum lux mundi: qui sequitur me non ambulat in tenebris, sed habebit lumen vitae.
12. Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not 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 pharisaei: Tu de teipso testimonium perhibes: testimonium tuum non est verum.
13. The Pharisees therefore said to him: Thou givest testimony of thyself: thy testimony is not true.
13. Thy testimony is not true; that is to say, is not juridical, such as ought to be accepted.
14. Respondit Iesus, et dixit eis: Et si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, verum est testimonium meum: quia scio unde veni, et quo vado: vos autem nescitis unde venio, aut quo vado.
14. Jesus answered, and said to them: Although I give testimony of myself, my testimony is true: For I know whence I came, and whither I go: but you know not whence I 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 iudicatis: ego non iudico quemquam:
15. You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man.
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.
[pg 153]
16. Et si iudico ego, iudicium meum verum est, quia solus non sum: sed ego, et qui misit me, Pater.
16. And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the 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 est, quia duorum hominum testimonium verum est.
17. And in your law it is written, that the testimony of two men is true.
17. ?a? ... d?, 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 perhibeo de meipso: et testimonium perhibet de me, qui misit me, Pater.
18. I am one that give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me, giveth 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 Pater tuus? Respondit Iesus: Neque me scitis, neque Patrem meum: si me sciretis forsitan et Patrem meum sciretis.
19. They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if 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 Iesus in gazophylacio, docens in templo: et nemo apprehendit eum, quia necdum venerat hora eius.
20. These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple: and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
20. The Greek word translated by “treasury” is ?a??f??a???, derived from the Persian gaza (money), and f???ss? (to guard). This treasury was a chest or safe for holding [pg 154] 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 Iesus: Ego vado, et quaeretis me, et in peccato vestro moriemini. Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire?
21. Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go, and you shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither I go, you 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: Numquid interficiet semetipsum, quia dixit: Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire?
22. The Jews therefore said: Will he kill himself, because he said: Whither I go, you cannot come?
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 deorsum estis, ego de supernis sum. Vos de mundo hoc estis, ego non sum de hoc mundo.
23. And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, 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 [pg 155] 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 moriemini in peccatis vestris: si enim non credideritis quia ego sum, moriemini in peccato vestro.
24. Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.
25. Dicebant ergo ei: Tu quis es? Dixit eis Iesus: Principium, qui et loquor vobis.
25. They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, who 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, t?? ????? ?t? (or ? t?) ?a? ?a?? ???; 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 t?? ????? as a substantive, others as an adverb; some regard ? t? as a relative (that which), others as an interrogative = t? (how or why?) and others again as a conjunction, ?t? (for, or, because). The Vulgate translator may have read ?st?? (who) instead of ? t?, or ?t?; 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 t?? ????? 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 [pg 156]esse: Believe Me to be the beginning, &c.
(2) Others, understanding t?? ????? in the same way as the preceding opinion, take ? t? 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 t?? ????? 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 t?? ????? is not found elsewhere in Sacred Scripture in this sense, and moreover that the verb ?a?? (to discuss with, to converse) is wrongly taken to be equivalent to ???? (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. ??? ????? 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 loqui, et iudicare: sed qui me misit, verax est: et ego quae audivi ab eo, haec loquor in mundo.
26. Many things I have to speak and to judge of you. But he that sent me is true; and the things I have heard of 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, [pg 157]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 Patrem eius dicebat Deum.
27. And they understood not 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 exaltaveritis Filium hominis, tunc cognoscetis quia ego sum, et a meipso facio nihil, sed sicut docuit me Pater, haec loquor:
28. Jesus therefore said to them: When you shall have lifted up the son of man, then shall you know that I am he, and that I do nothing of 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 et non reliquit me solum, quia ego quae placita sunt ei, facio semper.
29. And he that sent me is with me, and he hath not left me alone: for I do always the 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 crediderunt in eum.
30. When he spoke these things, many believed in him.
31. Dicebat ergo Iesus ad eos, qui crediderunt ei Iudaeos: Si vos manseritis in sermone meo, vere discipuli mei eritis:
31. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall 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, [pg 158] and conform our works thereto, that we can be truly said to be His disciples.
32. Et cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos.
32. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
32. The truth; i.e., the whole body of revelation.
33. Responderunt ei: Semen Abrahae sumus, et nemini servivimus unquam: quomodo tu dicis: Liberi eritis?
33. They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any man: how sayest thou: You shall be free?
34. Respondit eis Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis: quia omnis qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati:
34. Jesus answered them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin.
35. Servus autem non manet in domo in aeternum: filius autem manet in aeternum:
35. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth for ever:
36. Si ergo vos filius liberaverit, vere liberi eritis.
36. If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be 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 estis: sed quaeritis me interficere, quia sermo meus non capit in vobis.
37. I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38. Ego quod vidi apud Patrem meum loquor, et vos quae vidistis apud patrem vestrum, facitis.
38. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father.
38. Your father; i.e., the devil (see verse 44). Others understand p??e?te as an imperative; do then the works which [pg 159] 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 ei: Pater noster Abraham est. Dicit eis Iesus: Si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite.
39. They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do 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 interficere, hominem qui veritatem vobis locutus sum, quam audivi a Deo: hoc Abraham non fecit.
40. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.
41. Vos facitis opera patris vestri. Dixerunt itaque ei: Nos ex fornicatione non sumus nati: unum patrem habemus Deum.
41. You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father even God.
42. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Si Deus pater vester esset, diligeretis utique me: ego enim ex Deo processi, et veni: neque enim a me ipso veni, sed ille me misit.
42. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came: for I came not of myself, but he sent me.
41, 42. Understanding Christ to mean that they were not true Jews, but idolaters (p?????a 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 cognoscitis? Quia non potestis audire sermonem meum.
43. Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word.
43. The sense is: why do [pg 160] you not understand My discourses (?a????) on this and on other occasions? The reason is, because you cannot, you will not, receive My doctrine (?????). 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 estis: et desideria patris vestri vultis facere. Ille homicida erat ab initio, et in veritate non stetit: quia non est veritas in eo: cum loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur, quia mendax est, et pater eius.
44. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: 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. 34269), 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 ?st??e?, 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 a?t?? (ejus) to ?e?d??? [pg 161] (understood). “??t??, scil. ?e?d??? quae vox sumi debet ex antegressa ?e?st?? in qua veluti continetur” (Gr. Gram. N. T., page 104).
45. Ego autem si veritatem dico, non creditis mihi.
45. But if I say the truth, you believe me not.
45. Instead of “si” (Vulg.) the Greek has ?t? (quia): because I speak the truth.
46. Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? Si veritatem dico vobis, quare non creditis mihi?
46. Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you 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 audit. Propterea vos non auditis, quia ex Deo non estis.
47. He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you 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, et dixerunt ei: Nonne bene dicimus nos quia Samaritanus es tu, et daemonium habes?
48. The Jews therefore answered and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
49. Respondit Iesus: Ego daemonium non habeo: sed honorifico Patrem meum, et vos inhonorastis me.
49. Jesus answered: I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and you have 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 gloriam meam: est qui quaerat, et iudicet.
50. But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
50. But though you dishonour (the Greek has the present in end of 49) Me, I [pg 162] will not seek to avenge the dishonour; the Father will avenge it. See Deut. xviii. 19.
51. Amen, amen dico vobis: si quis sermonem meum servaverit, mortem non videbit in aeternum.
51. Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.
51. In verse 32, He promised freedom, now He promises immortality, to those that hearken to His words.
52. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: Nunc cognovimus quia daemonium habes. Abraham mortuus est, et prophetae: et tu dicis: Si quis sermonem meum servaverit, non gustabit mortem in aeternum.
52. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets: and thou sayest: If any man keep my word he shall not taste death for ever.
53. Numquid tu maior es patre nostro Abraham, qui mortuus est? et prophetae mortui sunt. Quem teipsum facis?
53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. 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 glorifico, meipsum, gloria mea nihil est: est Pater meus, qui glorificat me, quem vos dicitis quia Deus vester est.
54. Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say 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. Ego autem novi eum: et si dixero quia non scio eum, ero similis vobis, mendax. Sed scio eum, et sermonem eius servo.
55. And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and 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.
[pg 163]
56. Abraham pater vester exultavit ut videret diem meum: vidit, et gavisus est.
56. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my 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 (??a ?d?). 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 (e?de? ?a? ?????), 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 eum: Quinquaginta annos nondum habes, et Abraham vidisti?
57. The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty 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, amen dico vobis, antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum.
58. Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.
58. In verse 56, He spoke of the day of His mortal life, [pg 164] now He declares His eternity. Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made (?e??s?a?, came into being), I am (??? e??).
59. Tulerunt ergo lapides, ut iacerent in eum. Iesus autem abscondit se, et exivit de templo.
59. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went 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.
[pg 165]
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 hominem caecum a nativitate:
1. And Jesus passing by, saw a 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.
[pg 166]
2. Et interrogaverunt eum discipuli eius: Rabbi, quis peccavit, hic, aut parentes eius, ut caecus nasceretur?
2. And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that 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 peccavit, neque parentes eius: sed ut manifestentur opera Dei in illo.
3. Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of 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—??a, 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 eius qui misit me, donec dies est: venit nox, quando nemo potest operari.
4. I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh when no man can work.
4. Day is here the span of Christ's mortal life: night[pg 167] 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 sum mundi.
5. As long as I am in the 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 in terram, et fecit lutum ex sputo, et linivit lutum super oculos eius.
6. When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, 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 natatoria Siloe (quod interpretatur Missus). Abiit ergo, et lavit, et venit videns.
7. And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing.
7. St. John interprets for his readers the Hebrew name (?????) 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 [pg 168] 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 viderant eum prius quia mendicus erat, dicebant: Nonne hic est qui sedebat et mendicabat? Alii dicebant: Quia hic est.
8. The neighbours therefore, and they who had seen him before that he was a beggar, said: Is not this he that sat, and begged? Some said: This is he.
9. Alii autem: Nequaquam, sed similis est ei. Ille vero dicebat: Quia ego sum.
9. But others said: No, but he is like him. But he said: I am he.
10. Dicebant ergo ei: Quomodo aperti sunt tibi oculi?
10. They said therefore to him: How were thy eyes opened?
11. Respondit: Ille homo qui dicitur Iesus, lutum fecit, et unxit oculos meos, et dixit mihi: Vade ad natatoria Siloe, et lava, Et abii, et lavi, et video.
11. He answered: That man that is called Jesus, made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me: Go to the pool of Siloe, and wash. And I went, I washed, and I see.
11. He answered: That man (? ?????p?? 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.
[pg 169]
12. Et dixerunt ei: Ubi est ille? Ait: Nescio.
12. And they said to him: Where is he? He saith: I know not.
13. Adducunt eum ad pharisaeos qui caecus fuerat.
13. They bring him that had 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, quando lutum fecit Iesus, et aperuit oculos eius.
14. Now it was the sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.
15. Iterum ergo interrogabant eum pharisaei quomodo vidisset. Ille autem dixit eis: Lutum mihi posuit super oculos, et lavi, et video.
15. Again therefore the Pharisees asked him, how he had received his sight. But he said to them: He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed, and I see.
16. Dicebant ergo ex pharisaeis quidam: Non est hic homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non custodit. Alii autem dicebant: Quomodo potest homo peccator haec signa facere? Et schisma erat inter eos.
16. Some therefore of the Pharisees said: This man is not of God, who keepeth not the sabbath. But others said: How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
17. Dicunt ergo caeco iterum: Tu quid dicis de illo qui aperuit oculos tuos? Ille autem dixit: Quia propheta est.
17. They say therefore to the blind man again: What sayest thou of him that hath opened thy eyes? And he said: He is a 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 (p??f?t?? 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 Iudaei de illo quia caecus fuisset et vidisset, donec vocaverunt parentes eius qui viderat:
18. The Jews then did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they call the parents of him that had received his sight.
18. The Pharisees now doubt the fact of the cure, and send [pg 170] for the man's parents to inquire if he had indeed been born blind.
19. Et interrogaverunt eos, dicentes: Hic est filius vester, quem vos dicitis quia caecus natus est? Quomodo ergo nunc videt?
19. And asked them, saying: Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then doth he now see?
20. Responderunt eis parentes eius, et dixerunt: Scimus quia hic est filius noster, et quia caecus natus est:
20. His parents answered them and said: We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind.
21. Quomodo autem nunc videat, nescimus: aut quis eius aperuit oculos, nos nescimus: ipsum interrogate: aetatem habet, ipse de se loquatur.
21. But how he now seeth, we know not: or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: ask himself; he is of age, let him 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 eius, quoniam timebant Iudaeos: iam enim conspiraverant Iudaei, ut si quis eum confiteretur esse Christum, extra synagogam fieret.
22. These things his parents said, because they feared the Jews: For the Jews had already agreed among themselves, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
22. Put out of the synagogue; that is to say, deprived of all religious intercourse by a sort of excommunication.
[pg 171]
23. Propterea parentes eius dixerunt: Quia aetatem habet, ipsum interrogate.
23. Therefore did his parents say: He is of age, ask him.
24. Vocaverunt ergo rursum hominem qui fuerat caecus, et dixerunt ei: Da gloriam Deo: nos scimus quia hic homo peccator est.
24. They therefore called the man again that had been blind, and said to him: Give glory to God. We know that this man is 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 peccator est, nescio: unum scio, quia caecus cum essem, modo video.
25. He said therefore to them: If he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.
25. Being blind, t?f??? ??. The present part. is used relatively to the time when he blind.
26. Dixerunt ergo illi: Quid fecit tibi: Quomodo aperuit tibi oculos?
26. They said then to him: What did he to thee? How did he open thy eyes?
27. Respondit eis: Dixi vobis iam, et audistis: quid iterum vultis audire? numquid et vos vultis discipuli eius fieri?
27. He answered them: I have told you already, and you have heard: why would you hear it again? will you also become his disciples?
27. You have heard (Gr. ?a? ??? ????sate, 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 dixerunt: Tu discipulus illius sis: nos autem Moysi discipuli sumus.
28. They reviled him therefore, and said: Be thou his disciple; but we are the disciples of Moses.
28. They reviled him (????d???sa?) therefore, and said: Be thou that man's disciple.
29. Nos scimus quia Moysi locutus est Deus: hunc autem nescimus unde sit.
29. We know that God spoke to Moses: but as to this man, we know not from whence he is.
29. The meaning is: We know not whether this man is sent by God or the devil.
[pg 172]
30. Respondit ille homo, et dixit eis: In hoc enim mirabile est quia vos nescitis unde sit, et aperuit meos oculos:
30. The man answered, and said to them: Why herein is a wonderful thing that you know not from whence he is, and he hath opened my eyes.
30. You is emphatic; you the teachers of God's people!
31. Scimus autem quia peccatores Deus non audit: sed si quis Dei cultor est, et voluntatem eius facit, hunc exaudit.
31. Now we know that God doth not hear sinners: but if a man be a server of God, and doth his will, him he heareth.
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 quia quis aperuit oculos caeci nati.
32. From the beginning of the world it hath not been heard, that any man hath opened the eyes of one born blind.
33. Nisi esset hic a Deo, non poterat facere quidquam.
33. Unless this man were of God, he could not do anything.
33. Anything; that is to say, such as the miracle performed upon me.
34. Responderunt, et dixerunt ei: In peccatis natus es totus, et tu doces nos? Et eiecerunt eum foras.
34. They answered, and said to him: Thou wast wholly born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
34. Thou wast wholly born in sins, ???? (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 [pg 173] 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 eiecerunt eum foras: et cum invenisset eum, dixit ei: Tu credis in Filium Dei?
35. Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he said to him: 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: Quis est, Domine, ut credam in eum?
36. He answered, and said: Who is he, Lord, that I may 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. ????e) 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 vidisti eum, et qui loquitur tecum, ipse est.
37. And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and 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.
[pg 174]
38. At ille ait: Credo Domine. Et procidens adoravit eum.
38. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down he adored him.
38. He adored Christ as God. Though the word p??se????se?, 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 iudicium ego in hunc mundum veni: ut qui non vident videant, et qui vident caeci fiant.
39. And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world, that they who see not, may see: and they who see, may 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 (???a, not ???s??), 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 [pg 175] blind.” Compare Rom. v. 20: “Now the law entered in that sin might abound.”
40. Et audierunt quidam ex pharisaeis qui cum ipso erant et dixerunt ei: Numquid et nos caeci sumus?
40. And some of the Pharisees, who were with him, heard; and they said unto him: Are we also blind?
41. Dixit eis Iesus: Si caeci essetis, non haberetis peccatum: nunc vero dicitis: Quia videmus. Peccatum vestrum manet.
41. Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth.
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.
[pg 176]
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 non intrat per ostium in ovile ovium, sed ascendit aliunde, ille fur est, et latro.
1. Amen, amen, I say to you: he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but 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 [pg 177] 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 [pg 178] 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 ostium, pastor est ovium.
2. But he that entereth in by 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 (p????, 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 oves vocem eius audiunt, et proprias oves vocat nominatim, et educit eas.
3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep 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 [pg 179] provides them with proper nourishment.
4. Et cum proprias oves emiserit, ante eas vadit: et oves illum sequuntur, quia sciunt vocem eius.
4. And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow 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 sequuntur, sed fugiunt ab eo: quia non noverunt vocem alienorum.
5. But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers.
5. The true reading is ? ????????s??s?? ???? fe????ta?, (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 Iesus. Illi autem non cognoverunt quid loqueretur eis.
6. This proverb Jesus spoke to them. But they understood not what he spoke to them.
6. Proverb. The Greek word (pa????a?) 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 Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis, quia ego sum ostium ovium.
7. Jesus therefore said to them again: Amen, amen, I say 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, fures sunt et latrones, et non audierunt eos oves.
8. All others, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers: and the sheep heard them not.
8. All others, as many as[pg 180]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 (????, 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 quis introierit, salvabitur: et ingredietur, et egredietur, et pascua inveniet.
9. I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and 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 furetur, et mactet, et perdat. Ego veni ut vitam habeant, et abundantius habeant.
10. The thief cometh not, but for to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come that 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. Bonus pastor animam suam dat pro ovibus suis.
11. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
11. I am the good shepherd (? p???? ? ?a???); that particular shepherd foretold by [pg 181] 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 non est pastor, cuius non sunt oves propriae, videt lupum venientem, et dimittit oves, et fugit: et lupus rapit, et dispergit oves:
12. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: 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, quia mercenarius est, et non pertinet ad eum de ovibus.
13. And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling; and 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 cognosco meas, et cognoscunt me meae.
14. I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know 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 [pg 182] 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 ego agnosco Patrem: et animam meam pono pro ovibus meis.
15. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I 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 non sunt ex hoc ovili: et illas oportet me adducere, et vocem meam audient, et fiet unum ovile, et unus pastor.
16. And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and 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 [pg 183] 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” (p????), 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 Pater: quia ego pono animam meam, ut iterum sumam eam.
17. Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my 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” (??a) 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 ego pono eam a meipso, et potestatem habeo ponendi eam: et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam. Hoc mandatum accepi a Patre meo.
18. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down; and I have power to take it up again. This 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 [pg 184] 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[pg 185] 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 inter Iudaeos propter sermones hos.
19. A dissension rose again among the Jews for these words.
20. Dicebant autem multi ex ipsis: Daemonium habet, et insanit: quid eum auditis?
20. And many of them said: He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear you him?
21. Alii dicebant: Haec verba non sunt daemonium habentis; numquid daemonium potest caecorum oculos aperire?
21. Others said: These are not the words of one that hath a devil: Can a devil open the 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 in Ierosoylmis: et hiems erat.
22. And it was the feast of 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.
[pg 186]
23. Et ambulabat Iesus in templo, in porticu Salomonis.
23. And Jesus walked in the 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 Iudaei, et dicebant ei: Quousque animam nostram tollis? si tu es Christus, dic nobis palam.
24. The Jews therefore came round about him, and said to him: How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? if thou 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. Loquor vobis, et non creditis: opera quae ego facio in nomine Patris mei, haec testimonium perhibent de me:
25. Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me.
26. Sed vos non creditis, quia non estis ex ovibus meis.
26. But you do not believe: because you are not of my sheep.
25, 26. He again appeals to His miracles, and upbraids their incredulity.
27. Oves meae vocem meam audiunt: et ego cognosco eas, et sequntur me:
27. My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they 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 [pg 187] Christ so as to imitate His example, as far as lies in Him.
28. Et ego vitam aeternam do eis: et non peribunt in aeternum, et non rapiet eas quisquam de manu mea.
28. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no 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 mihi, maius omnibus est: et nemo potest rapere de manu Patris mei.
29. That which my Father hath given me is greater than all: and no one can snatch them 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 Iudaei, ut lapidarent eum.
32. Respondit eis Iesus: Multa bona opera ostendi vobis ex Patre meo, propter quod eorum opus me lapidatis?
32. Jesus answered them: Many good works I have shewed you from my Father; for which of 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 bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia; et quia tu homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum.
33. The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God?
34. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne scriptum est in lege vestra quia: Ego dixi, dii estis?
34. Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law: I 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 quos sermo Dei factus est, et non potest solvi scriptura:
35. If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36. Quem Pater sanctificavit, et misit in mundum, vos dicitis: Quia blasphemas, quia dixi, Filius Dei sum.
36. Do you say of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou 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, [pg 189] 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 mei, nolite credere mihi.
37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38. Si autem facio, et si mihi non vultis credere, operibus credite, ut cognoscatis et credatis quia Pater in me est, et ego in Patre.
38. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is 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 [pg 190] 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 apprehendere: et exivit de manibus eorum.
39. They sought therefore to take him; and he escaped out 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 Iordanem, in eum locum ubi erat Ioannes baptizans primum: et mansit illic.
40. And he went again beyond the Jordan into that place where John was baptizing 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, et dicebant: Quia Ioannes quidem signum fecit nullum.
41. And many resorted to him, and they said: John indeed did 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 dixit Ioannes de hoc, vera erant. Et multi crediderunt in eum.
42. But all things whatsoever John said of this man were true. And many believed in him.
42. And many believed in him. Most authorities add the note of place there (??e?), 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.
[pg 191]
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 Lazarus a Bethania, de castello Mariae et Marthae sororis eius.
1. Now there was a certain man sick named Lazarus, of Bethania, of the town of Mary 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. [pg 192] 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 (?s?e???; see James v. 14).
2. (Maria autem erat, quae unxit Dominum unguento, et extersit pedes eius capillis suis: cuius frater Lazarus infirmabatur.)
2. (And Mary was she that anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair: whose brother Lazarus was sick.)
2. The Greek aorist (? ?????asa) 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 [pg 193] 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 [pg 194] 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 ad eum, dicentes: Domine, ecce quem amas infirmatur.
3. His sisters therefore sent to him, saying: Lord, behold, 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 eis: Infirmitas haec non est ad mortem, sed pro gloria Dei, ut glorificetur Filius Dei per eam.
4. And Jesus hearing it, said to them: This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God: that the Son of God 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 Martham, et sororem eius Mariam, et Lazarum.
5. Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister Mary, and Lazarus.
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 [pg 195] 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 f??e??, 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 ???pa, 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, infirmabatur, tunc quidem mansit in eodem loco duobus diebus.
6. When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he still remained in the same place two days.
7. Deinde post haec dixit discipulis suis: Eamus in Iudaeam iterum.
7. Then after that he said to his disciples: Let us go into Judea again.
8. Dicunt ei discipuli: Rabbi, nunc quaerebant te Iudaei lapidare, et iterum vadis illuc?
8. The disciples say to him: Rabbi, the Jews but now sought to stone thee: and goest thou 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 duodecim sunt horae diei? Si quis ambulaverit in die, non offendit, quia lucem huius mundi videt:
9. Jesus answered: Are there not twelve hours of the day? If a man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he 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 nocte offendit, quia lux non est in eo.
10. But if he walk in the night he stumbleth, because the light is not in him.
10. But after the time of My mortal life, then, indeed, you may expect persecution and [pg 196] 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 dixit eis: Lazarus amicus noster dormit: sed vado ut a somno excitem eum.
11. These things he said: and after that he said to them: Lazarus our friend sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep.
12. Dixerunt ergo discipuli eius: Domine, si dormit, salvus erit.
12. His disciples therefore said: Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13. Dixerat autem Iesus de morte ejus: illi autem putaverunt quia de dormitione somni diceret.
13. But Jesus spoke of his death; and they thought that he spoke of the repose of sleep.
14. Tunc ergo Iesus dixit eis manifeste: Lazarus mortuus est:
14. Then therefore Jesus said to them plainly: Lazarus is 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 credatis, quoniam non eram ibi; sed eamus ad eum.
15. And I am glad for your sakes, that I was not there, 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 dicitur Didymus, ad condiscipulos: Eamus et nos, ut moriamur cum eo.
16. Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow-disciples: Let us also go, that we may die with him.
16. See verse 8. Thomas, Aramaic ????, 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 invenit eum quatuor dies iam in monumento habentem.
17. Jesus therefore came and found that he had been four days already in the grave.
17. Four days. The day of the messenger's arrival would [pg 197] 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 Ierosolyman quasi stadiis quindecim.)
18. (Now Bethania was near Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off.)
18. See above on verse 1, and especially on vi. 19.
19. Multi autem ex Iudaeis venerant ad Martham et Mariam, ut consolarentur eas de fratre suo.
19. And many of the Jews were come to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their 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 quia Iesus venit, occurrit illi: Maria, autem domi sedebat.
20. Martha therefore, as soon as she heard that Jesus was come, went to meet him; but Mary sat at home.
21. Dixit ergo Martha ad Iesum: Domine si fuisses hic, frater meus non fuisset mortuus:
21. Martha therefore said to Jesus: Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
22. Sed et nunc scio quia quaecumque poposceris a Deo, dabit tibi Deus.
22. But now also I know that whatsoever thou wilt ask of 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 frater tuus.
23. Jesus saith to her: Thy 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 resurget in resurrectione in novissimo die.
24. Martha saith to him: I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
24. Understanding Him to speak of the final resurrection, [pg 198] 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 resurrectio et vita: qui credit in me, etiam si mortuus fuerit, vivet:
25. Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me although he be dead, shall live.
26. Et omnis qui vivit et credit in me, non morietur in aeternum. Credis hoc?
26. And every one that liveth, and believeth in me shall not 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.
[pg 199]
27. Ait illi: Utique Domine, ego credidi quia tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi, qui in hunc mundum venisti.
27. She saith to him: Yea, Lord, I have believed that thou art Christ the Son of the living God, who art come into this world.
28. Et cum haec dixisset, abiit, et vocavit Mariam, sororem suam silentio, dicens: Magister ad est, et vocat te.
28. And when she had said these things, she went, and called her sister Mary secretly, saying: The master is come and calleth for thee.
29. Illa ut audivit, surgit cito, et venit ad eum.
29. She, as soon as she heard this, riseth quickly and cometh to him.
30. Nondum enim venerat Iesus in castellum: sed erat adhuc in illo loco ubi occurrerat ei Martha.
30. For Jesus was not yet come into the town; but he was still in that place where Martha had met him.
31. Iudaei ergo qui erant cum ea in domo, et consolabantur eam, cum vidissent Mariam quia cito surrexit et exiit, secuti sunt eam dicentes: Quia vadit ad monumentum ut ploret ibi.
31. The Jews therefore who were with her in the house and comforted her, when they saw Mary that she rose up speedily and went out, followed her, saying: She goeth to the grave, to weep there.
32. Maria ergo, cum venisset ubi erat Iesus, videns eum, cecidit ad pedes eius, et dicit ei: Domine, si fuisses hic, non esset mortuus frater meus.
32. When Mary therefore was come where Jesus was, seeing him, she fell down at his feet, and saith to him: Lord, if thou hadst been here, my 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 believes77 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, [pg 200] 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 plorantem, et Iudaeos qui venerant cum ea, plorantes, infremuit spiritu, et turbavit seipsum.
33. Jesus therefore, when he saw her weeping, and the Jews that were come with her, weeping, groaned in the spirit, and troubled himself.
33. The word ??e???sat? 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 eum? Dicunt ei: Domine, veni, et vide.
34. And said: Where have you laid him? They say to him: 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 quomodo amabat eum.
36. The Jews therefore said: Behold how he loved him.
37. Quidam autem ex ipsis dixerunt: Non poterat hic, qui aperuit oculos caeci nati, facere ut hic non moreretur?
37. But some of them said: Could not he that opened the eyes of the man born blind, have caused that this man should not die?
38. Iesus ergo rursum fremens in semetipso, venit ad monumentum: erat autem spelunca: et lapis superpositus erat ei.
38. Jesus therefore again groaning in himself, cometh to the sepulchre: Now it was a cave; and a stone was laid over it.
38. Caves were the usual [pg 201] 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 lapidem: Dicit ei Martha, soror eius qui mortuus fuerat: Domine, iam foetet, quatriduanus est enim.
39. Jesus saith: Take away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith to him: Lord, by this time he 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 tibi quoniam si credideris, videbis gloriam Dei?
40. Jesus saith to her: Did not I say to thee, that if 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: Iesus autem elevatis sursum oculis, dixit: Pater gratias ago tibi quoniam audisti me:
41. They took therefore the stone away. And Jesus lifting up his eyes said: Father, I 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 [pg 202] 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 semper me audis: sed propter populum qui circumstat, dixi, ut credant quia tu me misisti.
42. And I knew that thou hearest me always, but because of the people who stand about 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 [pg 203] 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).
[pg 204]
43. Haec cum dixisset, voce magna clamavit: Lazare veni foras.
43. When he had said these things, he cried with a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth.
44. Et statim prodiit qui fuerat mortuus, ligatus pedes et manus institis, et facies illius sudario erat ligata. Dixit eis Iesus: Solvite eum, et sinite abire.
44. And presently he that had been dead came forth, bound feet and hands with winding-bands, and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus said to them: Loose him and let him go.
45. Multi ergo ex Iudaeis qui venerant ad Mariam et Martham; et viderant quae fecit Iesus, crediderunt in eum.
45. Many therefore of the Jews who were come to Mary and Martha, and had seen the things that Jesus did, believed in him.
46. Quidam autem ex ipsis abierunt ad pharisaeos, et dixerunt eis quae fecit Iesus.
46. But some of them went to the Pharisees, and told them the things that Jesus had done.
47. Collegerunt ergo pontifices et pharisaei concilium et dicebant: Quid facimus, quia hic homo multa signa facit?
47. The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said: What do we, for this man doth many miracles?
48. Si dimittimus eum sic, omnes credent in eum: et venient Romani, et tollent nostrum locum, et gentem.
48. If we let him alone so, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come, and take 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 Caiphas nomine, cum esset pontifex anni illius, dixit eis: Vos nescitis quidquam.
49. But one of them named Caiphas, being the high-priest that year, said to them: You know nothing.
50. Nec cogitatis quia expedit vobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo, et non tota gens pereat.
50. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51. Hoc autem a semetipso non dixit: sed cum esset pontifex anni illius, prophetavit quod Iesus moriturus erat pro gente.
51. And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high-priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.
52. Et non tantum pro gente, sed ut filios Dei, qui erant dispersi, congregaret in unum.
52. And not only for the nation, but to gather together 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 [pg 205] 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 ????e?e?? by St. Luke. This latter is the view of Cornely, [pg 206] iii., § 76, n. 18. See Acts vii. 1; ix. 1, 2.
53. Ab illo ergo die cogitaverunt ut interficerent eum.
53. From that day therefore they devised to put him to 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 palam ambulabat apud Iudaeos, sed abiit in regionem iuxta desertum, in civitatem quae dicitur Ephrem, et ibi morabatur cum discipulis suis.
54. Wherefore Jesus walked no more openly among the Jews, but he went into a country near the desert, unto a city that is called Ephrem, and there he abode with his disciples.
54. The city of Ephrem (Gr. ?fa?) 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 Iudaeorum: et ascenderunt multi Ierosolymam de regione ante pascha, ut sanctificarent seipsos.
55. And the pasch of the Jews was at hand: and many from the country went up to Jerusalem before the pasch, to purify 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 colloquebantur ad invicem, in templo stantes: Quid putatis, quia non venit ad diem festum? Dederant autem pontifices et pharisaei mandatum, ut si quis cognoverit ubi sit, indicet, ut apprehendant eum.
56. They sought therefore for Jesus; and they discoursed one with another, standing in the temple: What think you, that he is not come to the festival day? And the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a 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, [pg 207] 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 ?t? ?? ? ???? a past, whereas it ought to have a future sense. Hence the Revised Version translates with two questions.
[pg 208]
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 paschae venit Bethaniam, ubi Lazarus fuerat mortuus, quem suscitavit Iesus.
1. Jesus therefore six days before the pasch came to Bethania, where Lazarus had 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 [pg 209] 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 ibi: et Martha ministrabat, Lazarus vero, unus erat ex discumbentibus cum eo.
2. And they made him a supper there: and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of them that 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 unguenti nardi pistici, pretiosi, et unxit pedes Iesu, et extersit pedes eius capillis suis: et domus impleta est ex odore unguenti.
3. Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her 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 [pg 210] 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 p?st????, which may mean genuine, from p?st??; or liquid, from p?st?? (p???, 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 discipulis eius, Iudas Iscariotes, qui erat eum traditurus:
4. Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said:
5. Quare hoc unguentum non veniit trecentis denariis, et datum est egenis?
5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, 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 [pg 211] 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 de egenis pertinebat ad eum, sed quia fur erat, et loculos habens, ea quae mittebantur portabat.
6. Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried 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 ??sta?e? 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 illam ut in diem sepulturae meae servet illud.
7. Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep 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 (tet????e?) against the day of my burial; and the meaning of this reading is plain. The more probable80 Greek reading, however, is: “That she might keep it (??a ... t???s?) 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 [pg 212] 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 habetis vobiscum: me autem non semper habetis.
8. For the poor you have always with you; but me you 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 ex Iudaeis quia illic est: et venerunt, non propter Iesum tantum, sed ut Lazarum viderent, quem suscitavit a mortuis.
9. A great multitude therefore of the Jews knew that he was there: and they came, not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.
10. Cogitaverunt autem principes sacerdotum ut et Lazarum interficerent.
10. But the chief priests thought to kill Lazarus also:
11. Quia multi propter illum abibant ex Iudaeis, et credebant in Iesum.
11. Because many of the Jews by reason of him went away, 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 multa, quae venerat ad diem festum, cum audissent quia venit Iesus Ierosolymam.
12. And on the next day a great multitude, that was come to the festival day, when they 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 [pg 213] already arrived. Doubtless many of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were also among the crowd on this occasion.
13. Acceperunt ramos palmarum, et processerunt obviam ei, et clamabant: Hosanna, benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, rex Israel.
13. Took branches of palm-trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried: Hosanna, blessed is he that cometh in 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 (???????, which is contracted for ??????? ??) 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, et sedit super eum, sicut scriptum est:
14. And Jesus found a young ass, and sat upon it, as it is 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 (?p? a?t??, 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 (?p??? a?t??); 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 [pg 214] 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: ecce rex tuus venit sedens super pullum asinae.
15. Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy king cometh, 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 discipuli eius primum: sed quando glorificatus est Iesus, tunc recordati sunt quia haec erant scripta de eo, et haec fecerunt ei.
16. These things his disciples did not know at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of him, 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 perhibebat turba quae erat cum eo quando Lazarum vocavit de monumento, et suscitavit eum a mortuis.
17. The multitude therefore gave testimony, which was with him when he called Lazarus out of the grave, and raised him from the dead.
17. When he called Lazarus out of the grave. It is [pg 215] doubtful, and authorities are much divided, whether the true reading here is when (?te), or that (?t?). 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 ei turba, quia audierunt eum fecisse hoc signum.
18. For which reason also the people came to meet him: 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 (? ?????); 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 semetipsos: Videtis quia nihil proficimus? ecce mundus totus post eum abiit.
19. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves: Do you see that we prevail nothing? 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.”[pg 216] (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 gentiles, ex his qui ascenderant ut adorarent in die festo.
20. Now there were certain gentiles among them who came up to adore on the festival day.
21. Hi ergo accesserunt ad Philippum, qui erat a Bethsaida Galilaeae, et rogabant eum, dicentes: Domine volumus Iesum videre.
21. These therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying: Sir, we would see Jesus.
22. Venit Philippus, et dicit Andreae: Andreas rursum et Philippus dixerunt Iesu.
22. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew. Again Andrew and 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, dicens: Venit hora, ut clarificetur Filius hominis.
23. But Jesus answered them saying: The hour is come, that 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, nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram, mortuum fuerit,
24. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die;
25. Ipsum solum manet: si autem mortuum fuerit, multum fructum affert. Qui amat animam suam, perdet eam: et qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo, in vitam aeternam custodit eam.
25. Itself remaineth alone. But if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it: and he that hateth his life in this world, keepeth it unto 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 [pg 217] 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 sequatur: et ubi sum ego, illic et minister meus erit. Si quis mihi ministraverit, honorificabit eum Pater meus.
26. If any man minister to me, let him follow me: and where I am, there also shall my minister be. If any man 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 est. Et quid dicam? Pater, salvifica me ex hac hora. Sed propterea veni in horem hanc.
27. Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But 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 [pg 218] 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 tuum. Venit ergo vox de coelo: Et clarificavi, et iterum clarificabo.
28. Father, glorify thy name. A voice therefore came from heaven: I have both glorified 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 [pg 219] 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 audierat, dicebat tonitruum esse factum. Alii dicebant: Angelus ei locutus est.
29. The multitude therefore that stood and heard, said that it thundered. Others said, An Angel spoke to him.
30. Respondit Iesus, et dixit: Non propter me haec vox venit, sed propter vos.
30. Jesus answered and said: This voice came not because of 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: nunc princeps huius mundi eiicietur foras.
31. Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of 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 ???s?? 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. [pg 220]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 a terra, omnia traham ad meipsum:
32. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all 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 (p??ta? is the more probable reading, not p??ta), 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, significans qua morte esset moriturus.
33. (Now this he said, signifying what death he should die.)
33. St. John here gives us an authentic interpretation.
34. Respondit ei turba: Nos audivimus ex lege quia Christus manet in aeternum; et quomodo tu dicis, Oportet exaltari Filium hominis? Quis est iste Filius hominis?
34. The multitude answered him: We have heard out of the law, that Christ abideth for ever; and how sayest thou: The son of man must be lifted up? 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 [pg 221] 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: Adhuc modicum, lumen in vobis est. Ambulate dum lucem habetis, ut non vos tenebrae comprehendant: et qui ambulat in tenebris, nescit quo vadat.
35. Jesus therefore said to them: Yet a little while, the light is among you. Walk whilst you have the light, that the darkness overtake you 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 (?a? = ???) 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 in lucem, ut filii lucis sitis. Haec locutus est Iesus: et abiit, et abscondit se ab eis.
36. Whilst you have the light, believe in the light, that you may be the children of light. These things Jesus spoke, and 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, [pg 222] 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 fecisset coram eis, non credebant in eum:
37. And whereas he had done so many miracles before them, they believed not in him.
38. Ut sermo Isaiae prophetae impleretur, quem dixit: Domine, quis credidit auditui nostro? et brachium Domini cui revelatum est?
38. That the saying of Isaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he said: Lord, who hath believed our hearing? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
39. Propterea non poterant credere, quia iterum dixit Isaias:
39. Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias said again.
40. Excaecavit oculos eorum, et induravit cor eorum: ut non videant oculis, et non intelligant corde, et convertantur, et sanem eos.
40. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor 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 (??a) 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. [pg 223] 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 vidit gloriam eius, et locutus est de eo.
41. These things said Isaias when he saw his glory, and spoke of him.
41. See Isaias vi. 1, 9, 10, where the Prophet says: “I saw the Lord” (???? = 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 principibus multi crediderunt in eum: sed propter pharisaeos non confitebantur, ut e synagoga non eiicerentur:
42. However many of the chief men also believed in him: but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, that they might not be cast out of the synagogue.
43. Dilexerunt enim gloriam hominum magis quam gloriam Dei.
43. For they loved the glory of men, more than the glory of God.
44. Iesus autem clamavit, et dixit: Qui credit in me, non credit in me sed in eum qui misit me.
44. But Jesus cried, and said: He that believeth in me, doth not believe in me, but in him 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 qui misit me.
45. And he that seeth 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 omnis qui credit in me, in tenebris non maneat.
46. I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness.
46. Darkness here means unbelief and sin.
47. Et si quis audierit verba mea, et non custodierit, ego non iudico eum, non enim veni ut iudicem mundum, sed ut salvificem mundum.
47. And if any man hear my words and keep them not: I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to 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 accipit verba mea, habet qui iudicet eum: sermo quem locutus sum, ille iudicabit eum in novissimo die.
48. He that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same 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 [pg 225] 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 locutus, sed qui misit me Pater, ipse mihi mandatum dedit quid dicam, et quid loquar.
49. For I have not spoken of myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, 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” (e?p?) refers to the formal discourses, “speak” (?a??s?) 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 vita aeterna est. Quae ergo ego loquor, sicut dixit mihi Pater, sic loquor.
50. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The things 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.
[pg 226]
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, sciens Iesus quia venit hora eius ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad Patrem: cum dilexisset suos qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos.
1. Before the festival day of the pasch, Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father: having loved 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 [pg 227] 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 passages82 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. [pg 228] 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 (?????, the Imperf. denoting what was customary) the pasch, the disciples say to [pg 229] 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 (?de?) 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 [pg 230] 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 [pg 231] 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” (p?? t?? ???t??; comp., e.g., vii. 2, 14, 37).
(2) Others say that the words p?? t?? ???t?? are equivalent to ?? t? p??e??t??; “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. ??? t???? 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 diabolus iam misisset in cor ut traderet eum Iudas Simonis Iscariotae:
2. And when supper was done (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him),
2. And when supper was done. We have taken for granted that the supper here [pg 232] 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 (????????) and not the past (?e??????) is found in many MSS. of the highest authority. Finally, it is obvious that, considering the special signification of the Greek verb employed (????a? 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 Pater in manus, et quia a Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit.
3. Knowing that the Father had given him all things into his 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.
[pg 233]
4. Surgit a coena, et ponit vestimenta sua: et cum accepisset linteum, praecinxit se.
4. He riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments, and having taken a towel, girded 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.
[pg 234]
5. Deinde mittit aquam in pelvim, et coepit lavare pedes discipulorum, et extergere linteo quo erat praecinctus.
5. After that, he putteth water into a basin, and began to wash the feet of his 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 (t?? ??pt??a), 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 Petrum. Et dicet ei Petrus: Domine, tu mihi lavas pedes?
6. He cometh therefore to Simon Peter. And Peter said to 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 ei: Quod ego facio, tu nescis modo, scies autem postea.
7. Jesus answered, and said to him: What I do, thou knowest 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 lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum. Respondit ei Iesus: Si non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum.
8. Peter said to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.
8. Strong in faith, and mindful of the dignity of his Master, with that impetuosity which displayed itself on other [pg 235] 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: Domine, non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus, et caput.
9. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.
10. Dicit ei Iesus: Qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet, sed est mundus totus. Et vos mundi estis, sed non omnes.
10. Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. And you are 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 [pg 236] 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 [pg 237] 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 qui traderet eum: propterea dixit: Non estis mundi omnes.
11. For he knew who he was that would betray him; therefore he said: You are not all clean.
12. Postquam ergo lavit pedes eorum, et accepit vestimenta sua: cum recubuisset iterum, dixit eis: Scitis quid fecerim vobis?
12. Then after he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, being sat down again, he said to them: Know you what I have done to you?
13. Vos vocatis me, Magister et Domine: et benedicitis: sum etenim.
13. You call me Master, and Lord: and you say well, for so I am.
14. Si ergo ego lavi pedes vestros, Dominus et Magister: et vos debetis alter alterius lavare pedes.
14. If then I, being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another's feet.
15. Exemplum enim dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis.
15. For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also.
16. Amen, amen dico vobis: Non est servus maior domino suo: neque apostolus maior est eo qui misit illum.
16. Amen, amen, I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord: neither is the 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 eritis si feceritis ea.
17. If you know these things, 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: ego scio quos elegerim: sed ut adimpleatur scriptura: Qui manducat mecum panem, levabit contra me calcaneum suum.
18. I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth 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[pg 238]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, priusquam fiat: ut cum factum fuerit, credatis quia ego sum.
19. At present I tell you, before it come to pass: that 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 accipit si quem misero, me accipit: qui autem me accipit, accipit eum qui me misit.
20. Amen, amen, I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me: and he 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 [pg 239] 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, turbatus est spiritu: et protestatus est, et dixit: Amen, amen dico vobis: quia unus ex vobis tradet me.
21. When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit: and he testified, and said: Amen, amen, I say to 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 [pg 240] 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 [pg 241] quum intinxisset panem, dedit Judae Simonis Iscariotae.’ ”94
22. Aspiciebant ergo ad invicem discipuli, haesitantes de quo diceret.
22. The disciples therefore looked one upon another, 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 ex discipulis eius in sinu Iesu, quem diligebat Iesus.
23. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples whom Jesus loved.
23. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom. Rather: “Now there was reclining at the table in (??a?e?e??? ... ??) 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 Petrus, et dixit ei: Quis est, de quo dicit?
24. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to 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 [pg 242] 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 (p???s?a?) 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 ille supra pectus Iesu, dicit ei: Domine quis est!
25. He therefore leaning on the breast of Jesus saith to 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. (??apes?? ??e???? ??t?? ?p?).
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 cui ego intinctum panem porrexero. Et cum intinxisset panem, dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotae.
26. Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
26. If we suppose the bread which was handed to Judas to have been dipped in the Charoseth (?????) 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, introivit in eim Satanas. Et dixit ei Iesus; Quod facis, fac citius.
27. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.
27. After the morsel had been given to Judas, “Satan [pg 243] 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 discumbentium ad quid dixerit ei.
28. Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said 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 loculos habebat Judas, quod dixisset ei Iesus: Eme ea quae opus sunt nobis ad diem festum: aut egenis ut aliquid daret.
29. For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: 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 [pg 244] 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 buccellam, exivit continuo. Erat autem nox.
30. He therefore having received the morsel, went out 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 [pg 245] 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 Iesus: Nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis: et Deus clarificatus est in eo.
31. When he therefore was gone out, Jesus said: Now is the son of man glorified, and God 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 [pg 246] 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 in eo, et Deus clarificabit eum in semetipso: et continuo clarificabit eum.
32. If God be glorified in him, God also will glorify him in himself: and immediately 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 vobiscum sum quaeretis me: et sicut dixi Iudaeis: Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire: et vobis dico modo.
33. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You shall seek me, and as I said to the Jews: Whither I 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 [pg 247] motive seems rather to be to forearm the Apostles by forewarning them and putting before them various motives of consolation.
The term (te???a) 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: ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos, ut et vos diligatis invicem.
34. A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, 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 quia discipuli mei estis, si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem.
35. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.
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: Domine, quo vadis? Respondit Iesus: Quo ego vado, non potes me modo sequi: sequeris autem postea.
36. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord whither goest thou? Jesus answered: Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but 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[pg 248]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 possum te sequi modo? animam meam pro te ponam.
37. Peter saith to him: Why cannot I follow thee now? I 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 tuam pro me pones? Amen, amen dico tibi: non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges.
38. Jesus answered him: Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Amen, amen, I say to thee, the 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. [pg 249] 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.
[pg 250]
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 bethe way,and His Fatherthe termwhither He goeth.
8-12a.Philip's request, and Christ's reply containing a fourth motive of consolation.
12b-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. Creditis in Deum, et in me credite.
1. Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, 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[pg 251]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 p?ste?ete, 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 mansiones multae sunt; si quo minus, dixissem vobis: quia vado parare vobis locum.
2. In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you, that I go 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 ??? 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 (?t?, 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 [pg 252] 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 praeparavero vobis locum: iterum venio, et accipiam vos ad meipsum, ut ubi sum ego, et vos sitis.
3. And if I shall go, and prepare a place for you: I will come again, and will take you to myself, that where I am 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 viam scitis.
4. And whither I go you know, 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, nescimus quo vadis: et quomodo possumus viam scire?
5. Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest, and how can we know the way?
6. Dicit ei Iesus: Ego sum via, et veritas, et vita, nemo venit ad Patrem, nisi per me.
6. Jesus saith to him, I am the way, and the truth, and 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.
[pg 253]
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 Patrem meum utique cognovissetis: et amodo cognoscetis eum, et vidistis eum.
7. If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also; and from henceforth you shall know him, 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 [pg 254] 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, ostende nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis.
8. Philip saith to him: Lord show us the Father, and it is 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 tempore vobiscum sum: et non cognovistis me? Philippe, qui videt me, videt et Patrem. Quomodo tu dicis: Ostende nobis Patrem?
9. Jesus saith to him:. So long a time have I been with you: and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How 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 Patre, et Pater in me est? Verba quae ego loquor vobis, a meipso non loquor. Pater autem in me manens, ipse facit opera.
10. Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who 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 [pg 255] 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 Patre, et Pater in me est?
11. Believe you not that I am 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 ipsa credite. Amen, amen dico vobis, qui credit in me, opera quae ego facio et ipse faciet, et maiora horum faciet, quia ego ad Patrem vado.
12. Otherwise believe for the very works' sake. Amen, amen, I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do, 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 [pg 256] 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 Patrem in nomine meo, hoc faciam: ut glorificetur Pater in Filio.
13. Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my 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 (?? t? ???at? ??). 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 nomine meo, hoc faciam.
14. If you shall ask me 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” (??? t?) is so general, that we [pg 257] 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 mea servate.
15. If you love me keep my 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 alium Paraclitum dabit vobis, ut maneat vobiscum in aeternum.
16. And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide 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 [pg 258] 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 mundus non potest accipere, quia non videt eum, nec scit eum: vos autem cognoscetis eum, quia apud vos manebit, et in vobis erit.
17. The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall 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 [pg 259] 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 orphanos: veniam ad vos.
18. I will not leave you 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 (????a?) 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 [pg 260] 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 me iam non videt. Vos autem videtis me, quia ego vivo, et vos vivetis.
19. Yet a little while: and the world seeth me no more. But you see me: because I 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 cognoscetis quia ego sum in Patre meo, et vos in me, et ego in vobis.
20. In that day you shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
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 [pg 261] 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 servat ea, ille est, qui diligit me. Qui autem diligit me, diligetur a Patre meo: et ego diligam eum, et manifestab o ei meipsum.
21. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them: he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
21. He that hath (? ????) 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 Iscariotes: Domine, quid factum est quia manifestaturus es nobis teipsum, et non mundo?
22. Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world?
23. Respondit Iesus, et dixit ei: Si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit, et Pater meus diliget eum, et ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus:
23. Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will 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, sermones meos non servat. Et sermonem quem audistis, non est meus: sed ejus qui misit me, Patris.
24. He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard is not mine; but the Father's who 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 [pg 262] 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 (????ete). 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, apud vos manens.
25. These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you.
26. Paraclitus autem Spiritus sanctus, quem mittet Pater in nomine meo, ille vos docebit omnia, et suggeret vobis vobis omnia, quaecumque dixero vobis.
26. But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, 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 (?p???se?) all that I said (e?p??) 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 [pg 263] 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, pacem meam do vobis: non quomodo mundus dat, ego do vobis. Non turbetur cor vestrum, neque formidet.
27. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart 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 vobis: Vado et venio ad vos. Si diligeretis me, gauderetis utique, quia vado ad Patrem: quia Pater maior me est.
28. You have heard that I said to you: I go away and I come unto you. If you loved me, you would indeed be glad, because 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 [pg 264] 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 priusquam fiat: ut cum factum fuerit, credatis.
29. And now I have told you before it come to pass: that 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 vobiscum: venit enim princeps mundi huius, et in me non habet quidquam.
30. I will not now speak many things with you. For the prince of this world cometh, 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 quia diligo Patrem et sicut mandatum dedit mihi Pater, sic facio. Surgite, eamus hinc.
31. But that the world may know that I love the Father: and as the Father hath given 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 [pg 265] 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.
[pg 266]
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 Pater meus agricola est.
1. I am the true vine; and my 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 [pg 267] 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 [pg 268] 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 ferentem fructum, tollet eum: et omnem qui fert fructum, purgabit eum, ut fructum plus afferat.
2. Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit he will purge 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. ??t? in both cases is redundant.
3. Iam vos mundi estis propter sermonem, quem locutus sum vobis.
3. Now you are clean by reason of the word which I have 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 vobis. Sicut palmes non potest ferre fructum a semetipso, nisi manserit in vite: sic nec vos, nisi in me manseritis.
4. Abide in me: and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither 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 [pg 269] 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 palmites: qui manet in me et ego in eo, hic fert fructum multum: quia sine me nihil potestis facere.
5. I am the vine; you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for 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 [pg 270] faithful who remain united to Him as branches.
6. Si quis in me non manserit, mittetur foras sicut palmes: et arescet et colligent eum, et in ignem mittent, et ardet.
6. If any one abide not in me: he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and 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 a?t? (ea) instead of “eum” of the Vulgate; and the sense, is that as men usually gather up the withered branches (a?ta), 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 verba mea in vobis manserint: quodcumque volueritis petetis, et fiet vobis.
7. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it 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 Pater meus, ut fructum plurimum afferatis, et efficiamini mei discipuli.
8. In this is my Father glorified; that you bring forth very much fruit, and 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 ?e??ses?e (efficiemini), and the meaning is; And so you shall become more and more My disciples.
9. Sicut dilexit me Pater, et ego dilexi vos. Manete in dilectione mea.
9. As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love.
9. As (?a???) expresses not equality, but resemblance. The resemblance consists in this, [pg 271] 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 servaveritis, manebitis in dilectione mea, sicut et ego Patris mei praecepta servavi, et maneo in eius dilectione.
10. If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father's commandments, 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 gaudium meum in vobis sit, et gaudium vestrum impleatur.
11. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in 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 ?, not e???, but does not alter the sense), and your joy may be perfected.
12. Hoc est prÆceptum meum ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos.
12. This is my commandment, that you love one another, as 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 nemo habet, ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis.
13. Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down 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. [pg 272] 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 feceritis quae ego praecipio vobis.
14. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command 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, quia servus nescit quid faciat dominus eius. Vos autem dixi amicos: quia omnia quaecumque audivi a Patre meo, nota feci vobis.
15. I will not now call you servants: for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doth. But I have called you friends: because all things 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 ego elegi vos et posui vos, ut eatis, et fructum afferatis: et fructus vester maneat: ut quodcumque petieritis Patrem in nomine meo, det vobis.
16. You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit, and your fruit 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; [pg 273] 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 (??a) whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. Some as Mald. and A Lap. take ??a 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 ??a 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 diligatis invicem.
17. These things I command 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 ta?ta (haec) and not t??t? (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, scitote quia me priorem vobis odio habuit.
18. If the world hate you, know you that it hath hated me 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, mundus quod suum erat diligeret: quia vero de mundo non estis, sed ego elegi vos de mundo propterea odit vos mundus.
19. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, 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.
[pg 274]
20. Mementote sermonis mei, quem ego dixi vobis: Non est servus maior domino suo. Si me persecuti sunt, et vos persequentur: si sermonem meum servaverunt, et vestrum servabunt.
20. Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, 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 vobis propter nomen meum: quia nesciunt eum qui misit me.
21. But all these things they will do to you for my name's 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 locutus fuissem eis, peccatum non haberent: nunc autem excusationem non habent de peccato suo.
22. If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin.
23. Qui me odit et Patrem meum odit.
23. He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.
22, 23. That this ignorance is culpable, He now proves from the fact that He had [pg 275] 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 eis quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent: nunc autem et viderunt, et oderunt et me, et Patrum meum.
24. If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin: but now they have 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 qui in lege eorum scriptus est: Quia odio habuerunt me gratis.
25. But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: They have hated me 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 ??a 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 Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit de me:
26. But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.
27. Et vos testimonium perhibebitis, quia ab initio mecum estis.
27. And you shall give testimony, because you are 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. [pg 276] 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.
[pg 277]
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 non scandalizemini.
1. These things have I spoken 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 [pg 278] 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 vos: sed venit hora, ut omnis qui interficit vos, arbitretur obsequium se praestare Deo:
2. They will put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth 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 non noverunt Patrem neque me.
3. And these things will they do to you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
4. Sed haec locutus sum vobis: ut, cum venerit hora eorum, reminiscamini quia ego dixi vobis.
4. But these things I have told you, that when the hour shall come, you may remember 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 [pg 279] 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 non dixi, quia vobiscum eram. Et nunc vado ad eum, qui misit me: et nemo ex vobis interrogat me, Quo vadis?
5. But I told you not these things from the beginning, because I was with you. And now I go to him that sent me, 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. de = 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 [pg 280] 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 vobis: tristitia implevit cor vestrum.
6. But because I have spoken these things to you sorrow 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 vobis: expedit vobis ut ego vadam: si enim non abiero, Paraclitus non veniet ad vos: si autem abiero, mittam eum ad vos.
7. But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you: but if I go, I will send 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 [pg 281] 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 mundum de peccato, et de iustitia, et de iudicio.
8. And when he is come he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment.
9. De peccato quidem, quia non crediderunt in me:
9. Of sin: because they believed not in me.
10. De iustitia vero, quia ad Patrem vado, et iam non videbitis me:
10. And of justice: because I go to the Father; and you shall see me no longer.
11. De iudicio autem, quia princeps huius mundi iam iudicatus est.
11. And of judgment: because the prince of this world is 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 ?????e?, 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.”
[pg 282]
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 dicere: sed non potestis portare modo.
12. I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot 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 Spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem: non enim loquetur a semetipso: sed quaecumque audiet loquetur, et quae ventura sunt annuntiabit vobis.
13. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak: and the things 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 ?d???se?, 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 [pg 283] 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 [pg 284] (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 de meo accipiet, et annuntiabit vobis.
14. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you.
14. He shall glorify me. because he shall receive of mine (?? t?? ???), 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
[pg 285]
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 pat??? after t?? ???, 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 t?? ??? should refer to a word not expressed in the phrase. (2) That all the fathers, Greek as well as Latin, referred t?? ??? to what is in the Son and not to the Father. (3) The context here Proves that t?? ??? 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 (?? ?st??). 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 [pg 286] 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 Pater, mea sunt. Propterea dixi: quia de meo accipiet, et annuntiabit vobis.
15. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, he shall receive of mine, and show it to you.
15. Therefore I said, he shall receive, &c. The present (?a??e?) 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 videbitis me: et iterum modicum, et videbitis me: quia vado ad Patrem?
16. A little while, and now you shall not see me: and again a little while, and you shall see me: because I go to the Father.
16. Instead of ?? the best supported Greek text reads ????t? (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 [pg 287] 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 discipulis eius ad invicem: Quid est hoc quod dicit nobis: Modicum, et non videbitis me: et iterum modicum: et videbitis me, et quia vado ad Patrem?
17. Then some of his disciples said one to another: What is this that he saith to us: A little while, and you shall not see me: and again a little while, and you shall see me, and because I go to the Father?
18. Dicebant ergo: Quid est hoc quod dicit Modicum: nescimus quid loquitur.
18. They said therefore: What is this that he saith, A 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 volebant cum interrogare et dixit eis: De hoc quaeritis inter vos quia dixi, Modicum? et non videbitis me: et iterum modicum, et videbitis me.
19. And Jesus knew that they had a mind to ask him: and he said to them: Of this do you inquire among yourselves, because I said: A little 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 [pg 288] knew their thoughts, and was aware of their perplexity.
20. Amen, amen dico vobis: quia plorabitis et flebitis vos, mundus autem gaudebit: vos autem contristabimini, sed tristitia vestra vertetur in gaudium.
20. Amen, amen, I say to you, that you shall lament and weep, but the world shall rejoice: and you shall be made sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.
21. Mulier cum parit, tristitiam habet, quia venithora eius: cum autem pepererit puerum, iam non meminit pressurae propter gaudium, quia natus est homo in mundum.
21. A woman, when she is in labour, hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but when she hath brought forth the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is 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 tristitiam habetis, iterum autem videbo vos, et gaudebit cor vestrum: et gaudium vestrum nemo toilet a vobis?
22. So also you now indeed have sorrow, but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice; and your joy no 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 rogabitis quidquam. Amen, amen dico vobis: si quid petieritis Patrem in nomine nemo dabit vobis.
23. And in that day you shall not ask me anything. Amen, amen, I say to you: if you ask the Father anything in my 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 questions106 (??? ???t?sete) as just now you wished to do (verse 19), because you shall know all that you can [pg 289] 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 (a?t?s?te) 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 ?? t? (not ?t? ?sa ??), 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 quidquam in nomine meo: petite, et accipietis, ut gaudium vestrum sit plenum.
24. Hitherto you have not asked anything in my name. Ask, and you shall receive: 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.
[pg 290]
25. Haec in proverbiis locutus sum vobis. Venit hora, cum iam non in proverbiis loquar vobis, sed palam de Patre annuntiabo vobis.
25. These things I have spoken to you in proverbs. The hour cometh when I will no more speak to you in proverbs, but will show you plainly of the Father.
25. In proverbs. The word translated “proverbs” is pa????a??, 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 petetis: et non dico vobis quia ego rogabo Patrem de vobis:
26. In that day you shall ask in my name: and I say not to you, that I will ask the 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 [pg 291] 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, quia vos me amastis, et credidistis quia ego a Deo exivi.
27. For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
28. Exivi a Patre, et veni in mundum: iterum relinquo mundum, et vado ad Patrem.
28. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the 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: Ecce nunc palam loqueris, et proverbium nullum dicis:
29. His disciples say to him: Behold now thou speakest 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 omnia, et non opus est tibi ut quis te interroget: in hoc credimus quia a Deo existi.
30. Now we know that thou knowest all things, and thou needest not that any man 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.
[pg 292]
31. Respondit eis Iesus: Modo creditis?
31. Jesus answered them: Do 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 venit, ut dispergamini unusquisque in propria, et me solum relinquatis: et non sum solus, quia Pater mecum est.
32. Behold the hour cometh, and it is now come, that you shall be scattered every man to his own, and shall leave me 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 in me pacem habeatis. In mundo pressuram habebitis: sed confidite, ego vici mundum.
33. These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you 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 [pg 293] 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.
[pg 294]
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 sublevatis oculis in coelum, dixit: Pater venit hora, clarifica Filium tuum ut Filius tuus clarificet te:
1. These things Jesus spoke, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said: Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, 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 me107 (verse 2).
2. (a) Sicut dedisti ei potestatem omnis carnis, ut omne quod dedisti ei, det eis vitam aeternam.
2. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to all 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 [pg 295] 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 ?a??? and ??a.
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 aeterna: ut cognoscant te, solum Deum verum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum.
3. Now this is eternal life: that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus 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 ??a ????s??s?? se t?? ???? ???????? ?e?? 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. [pg 296] 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 terram: opus consummavi, quod dedisti mihi ut faciam:
4. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the 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, Pater, apud temetipsum, claritate, quam habui, prius quam mundus esset, apud te.
5. And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the 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 [pg 297] 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 hominibus, quos dedisti mihi de mundo. Tui erant, et mihi eos dedisti: et sermonem tuum servaverunt.
6. I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world. Thine they were, and to me 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, [pg 298] 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 ?d??a? (gavest), not d?d???? (hast given).110
7. Nunc cognoverunt quia omnia, quae dedisti mihi: abs te sunt:
7. Now they have known that all things which thou hast given me are from thee.
8. Quia verba quae dedisti mihi, dedi eis: et ipsi acceperunt, et cognoverunt vere quia a te exivi, et crediderunt quia tu me misisti.
8. Because the words which thou gavest me, I have given to them: and they have received them, and have known in very deed that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9. Ego pro eis rogo: non pro mundo rogo, sed pro his quos dedisti mihi, quia tui sunt:
9. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them 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 tua mea sunt: et clarificatus sum in eis.
10. And all my things are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them.
10. And all my things are thine, and thine are mine.[pg 299] 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 hi in mundo sunt, et ego ad te venio. Pater sancte, serva eos in nomine tuo, quos dedisti mihi: ut sint unum, sicut et nos.
11. And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, whom thou hast given me: 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 ?111 (not ???), ? being attracted into the dative case of the preceding noun, and standing for ?. 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 servabam eos in nomine tuo. Quos dedisti mihi, custodivi: et nemo ex eis periit, nisi filius perditionis, ut scriptura impleatur.
12. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept: and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.
12. I kept them. In the original, the imperfect tense ?t????? brings out more clearly Christ's continuous care.
[pg 300]
In this verse, too, there is a difference of opinion as to whether ??? or ? 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 haec loquor in mundo, ut habeant gaudium meum impletum in semetipsis.
13. And now I come to thee: and these things I speak in the world, that they may have 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 [pg 301] 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 tuum, et mundus eos odio habuit, quia non sunt de mundo, sicut et ego non sum de mundo.
14. I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world; as I am not of the world.
14. I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them.“I” (???) 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 mundo, sed ut serves eos a malo.
15. I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil.
15. From evil (?? t?? p??????). 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 et ego non sum de mundo.
16. They are not of the world: 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 veritate. Sermo tuus veritas est.
17. Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth.
17. In the truth, is the correct reading; not “in thy[pg 302] 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 ?????e?? 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 mundum, et ego misi eos in mundum.
18. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent 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 meipsum: ut sint et ipsi sanctificati in veritate.
19. And for them do I sanctify myself: that they also may be 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 [pg 303] 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. (?? ????e??). 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 tantum, sed et pro eis qui credituri sunt per verbum eorum in me:
20. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall 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 tu Pater in me, et ego in te, ut et ipsi in nobis unum sint: ut credat mundus quia tu me misisti.
21. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee: that they also may be one in us: that the world may 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 dedisti mihi, dedi eis: ut sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus.
22. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that they may be one, as we also are one.
22. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have[pg 304]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 partake112 of one bread” (1 Cor. x. 17). See also John vi. 57.
23. Ego in eis, et tu in me: ut sint consummati in unum: et cognoscat mundus, quia tu me misisti, et dilexisti eos, sicut et me dilexisti.
23. I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one; and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and 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, volo ut ubi sum ego, et illi sint mecum: ut videant claritatem meam, quam dedisti mihi, quia dilexisti me ante constitutionem mundi.
24. Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me: that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because 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 ? (that which) instead of ??? (they whom). The Vulgate reading is at least equally [pg 305] 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 cognovit: ego autem te cognovi, et hi cognoverunt quia te me misisti.
25. Just Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee: and these have known, that thou hast sent me.
26. Et notum feci eis nomen tuum, et notum faciam: ut dilectio, qua dilexisti me, in ipsis sit, et ego in ipsis.
26. And I have made known thy name to them, and will make it known; that the love wherewith 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 [pg 306] 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.
[pg 307]
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, egressus est cum discipulis suis trans torrentem Cedron, ubi erat hortus in quem introivit ipse, et discipuli eius.
1. When Jesus had said these things, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where there was a garden, into which he entered 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 [pg 308] 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” (t?? ??d???). Where there was a garden. SS. Matthew and Mark say that He came to “an enclosed piece of ground” (??????), called Gethsemani. “Gethsemani—??, (gath) = a wine-press, and ???? (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 (?e??????) 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 tradebat eum, locum: quia frequenter Iesus convenerant illuc cum discipulis suis.
2. And Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place: because Jesus had often 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, [pg 309] 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 cohortem, et a pontificibus et pharisaeis ministros, venit illuc cum laternis, et facibus, et armis.
3. Judas therefore having received a band of soldiers, and servants from the chief priests and the Pharisees, 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 (?p???ta?) 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 quae ventura erant super eum, processit, et dixit eis: Quem quaeritis?
4. Jesus therefore knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said to 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: [pg 310]“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 Nazarenum. Dicit eis Iesus: Ego sum. Stabat autem et Iudas qui tradebat eum, cum ipsis.
5. They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them: I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them.
6. Ut ergo dixit eis, Ego sum, abierunt retrorsum, et ceciderunt in terram.
6. As soon therefore as he had said to them: I am he: they 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 eos: Quem quaeritis? Illi autem dixerunt: Iesum Nazarenum.
7. Again therefore he asked them: Whom seek ye? And they said: Jesus of Nazareth.
8. Respondit Iesus: Dixi vobis quia ego sum: si ergo me quaeritis, sinite hos abire.
8. Jesus answered, I have told you, that I am he. If 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 dixit; Quia quos dedisti mihi, non perdidi ex eis quemquam.
9. That the word might be fulfilled, which he said: Of 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 [pg 311] 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 gladium eduxit eum: et percussit pontificis servum: et abscidit auriculam eius dexteram. Erat autem nomen servo Malchus.
10. Then Simon Peter having a sword, drew it; and struck the servant of the high-priest, and cut off his right ear. And the name of the servant was 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: Mitte gladium tuum in vaginam. Calicem, quem dedit mihi Pater, non bibam illum?
11. Jesus therefore said to Peter: Put up thy sword into the scabbard. The chalice 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 et ministri Iudaeorum comprehenderunt Iesum, et ligaverunt eum:
12. Then the band and the tribune, and the servants of the Jews, took Jesus, and bound him:
12. The tribune was the commander of the cohort. ?????????, [pg 312] strictly taken, means the commander of one thousand men. See above on verse 3.
13. Et adduxerunt eum ad Annam primum: erat enim socer Caiphae, qui erat pontifex anni illius.
13. And they led him away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiphas, who 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 consilium dederat Iudaeis: Quia expedit, unum hominem mori pro populo.
14. Now Caiphas was he who had given the counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
15. Sequebatur autem Iesum Simon Petrus, et alias discipulus. Discipulus autem ille erat notus pontifici, et introivit cum Iesu in atrium pontificis.
15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. And that disciple was known to the high-priest, and went in with Jesus into 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.
[pg 313]
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 ostium foris. Exivit ergo discipulus alius qui erat notus pontifici, et dixit ostiariae: et introduxit Petrum.
16. But Peter stood at the door without. The other disciple therefore who was known to the high-priest, went out, and spoke to the 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 a???, where the attendants made a fire; and the passage, beneath the front of the house, from the street to this court is the p??a????? (Mark xiv. 68), or p???? (Matt. xxvi. 71). The place where Jesus [pg 314] 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 ostiaria: Numquid et tu ex discipulis es hominis istius? Dicit ille: Non sum.
17. The maid therefore that was portress, saith to Peter: Art not thou also one of this 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, [pg 315] 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 hima maid servant:“Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean.”“I know not what thou sayest.”
St. Mark.: There cometh to himone of the maid servants:“Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.”“I neither know nor understand what thou sayest.”
St. Luke.: There came acertain maid servant:“This man was also with him.”“Woman, I know him not.”
St. John.: Andthe maid that was portresssaid to Peter:“Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?”“I am not.”
2nd Denial:
St. Matthew.:As he went outto the vestibule,another maidsaw 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.: Andthe maid servantseeing him, began to say to the standers by:“This is one of them.”He denied again.
St. Luke.: Andanother (Alius)says:“Thou also art one of them.”“O man, I am not.”
St. John.: Peter wasstanding 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 bysaid:“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 bysaid:“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 mansaid:“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 priestsaith:“Did I not see thee in the garden with him?”Peter then denied again.
[pg 316]
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 ? pa?d?s?? (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” (??e????ta) 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 ministri ad prunas, quia frigus erat, et calefaciebant se: erat autem cum eis et Petrus stans, et calefaciens se.
18. Now the servants and ministers stood at a fire of coals, because it was cold, and warmed themselves. And with them was Peter also 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 (e?? t? p??a?????). 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 [pg 317] 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 Iesum de discipulis suis, et de doctrina eius.
19. The high-priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, 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 palam locutus sum mundo: ego semper docui in synagoga, et in templo, quo omnes Iudaei conveniunt: et in occulto locutus sum nihil.
20. Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world: I have always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort; 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 ??? is in each instance emphatic) had taught publicly, and nothing in private that was different from His public teaching [pg 318] (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? interroga eos qui audierunt quid locutus sim ipsis? ecce hi sciunt quae dixerim ego.
21. Why askest thou me? ask them who have heard what I have spoken unto them: behold they know what things I have said.
21. Behold they (these, ??t??) 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 ??t?? refers simply to all and any who had at any time heard His doctrine.
22. Haec autem cum dixisset, unus assistens ministrorum dedit alapam Iesu, dicens: Sic respondes pontifici?
22. And when he had said these things, one of the servants standing by gave Jesus a blow, saying: Answerest thou the high-priest so?
22. A blow.“Alapa” is a blow on the ear; but the Greek word (??p?sa) 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 male locutus sum, testimonium perhibe de malo: si autem bene, quid me caedis?
23. Jesus answered him: If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil: but if 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 ad Caipham pontificem.
24. And Annas sent him bound to Caiphas the high-priest.
24. “Et” is not genuine; the true reading is ?p?ste??e? ??? a?t??, “Jesus, therefore, [pg 319] 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 ?p?ste??e? admits. Compare, for this sense of the aorist, John iv. 45, 46; xi. 30; xiii. 12; xix. 23.
25. Erat autem Simon Petrus stans, et calefaciens se. Dixerunt ergo ei: Numquid et tu ex discipulis eius es? Negavit ille, et dixit: Non sum.
25. And Simon Peter was standing, and warming himself. They said therefore to him: Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said: I am not.
26. Dicit ei unus ex servis pontificis, cognatus eius, cuius abscidit Petrus auriculam: Nonne ego te vidi in horto cum illo?
26. One of the servants of the high-priest (a kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut off) saith to him: Did I not see thee in 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 Petrus: et statim gallus cantavit.
27. Again therefore Peter denied: and immediately the 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 Caipha in praetorium. Erat autem mane: et ipsi non introierunt in praetorium, ut non contaminarentur, sed ut manducarent pascha.
28. Then they led Jesus from Caiphas to the governor's hall. And it was morning: and they went not into the hall, that they might not be 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 [pg 320] 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 (?ap?sas??); 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[pg 321]the hall (rather, the governor's residence, p?a?t?????.) 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 (p???). 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 p??? 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 [pg 322] known as the Chagigah (?????).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 foras, et dixit: Quam accusationem affertis adversus hominem hunc?
29. Pilate therefore went out to them, and said: What accusation bring you against this man?
30. Responderunt, et dixerunt ei: Si non esset hic malefactor, non tibi tradidissemus eum.
30. They answered and said to him: If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up to thee.
31. Dixit ergo eis Pilatus: Accipite eum vos, et secundum legem vestram iudicate eum. Dixerunt ergo ei Iudaei: Nobis non licet interficere quemquam.
31. Pilate therefore said to them: Take him you, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said to him: It is not lawful for us to put 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 [pg 323] 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 quem dixit, significans qua morte esset moriturus.
32. That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which he 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 praetorium Pilatus, et vocavit Iesum, et dixit ei: Tu es rex Iudaeorum?
33. Pilate therefore went into the hall again, and called Jesus, and said to him: Art 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 in118, 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 [pg 324] 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 (s? e?) 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 temetipso hoc dicis, an alii dixerunt tibi de me?
34. Jesus answered: Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or 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 ego Iudaeus sum? Gens tua et pontifices tradiderunt te mihi: quid fecisti?
35. Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered 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 meum non est de hoc mundo: si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum, ministri mei utique decertarent ut non traderer Iudaeis: Nunc autem regnum meum non est hinc.
36. Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now 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 [pg 325] 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: Ergo rex es tu? Respondit Iesus: Tu dicis quia rex sum ego. Ego in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati: omnis qui est ex veritate, audit vocem meam.
37. Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world: that I should give testimony to the truth. 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 Veritas? Et cum hoc dixisset, iterum exivit ad Iudaeos, et dicit eis: Ego nullam invenio in eo causam.
38. Pilate saith to him: What is truth? And when he said this he went out again to the Jews, and saith to them: I find no cause in him.
38. At the mention of “the truth,” Pilate asks: What is truth? (????e?a, without the article). The question was not asked for information, for Pilate went out without waiting [pg 326] 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 vobis, ut unum dimittam vobis in pascha: vultis ergo dimittam vobis regem Iudaeorum?
39. But you have a custom that I should release one unto you at the pasch: will you therefore that I release unto you the king of the Jews?
40. Clamaverunt ergo rursum omnes dicentes: Non hunc, sed Barabbam. Erat autem Barabbas latro.
40. Then cried they all again, saying: Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a 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 [pg 327] and elders (Matt. xxvii. 20), blindly called for the release of Barabbas.
A robber. (???st??), one who appropriates the goods of another by open violence, as opposed to the thief (???pt??), 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.
[pg 328]
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.
[pg 329]
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 Pilatus Iesum, et flagellavit.
1. Then, therefore Pilate took 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).
[pg 330]
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 f?a?e???sa?, which, like that used by St. John (?ast???se?), signifies a scourging with whips or flagella120 (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 corronam de spinis, imposuerunt capiti eius: et veste purpurea circumdederunt eum.
2. And the soldiers platting a crown of thorns, put it upon his head: and they put on him a purple garment.
2. There is a difficulty here when we compare this verse with Matt. xxvii. 26-29; Mark xv. 15-18. For, while St. [pg 331] John here represents the crowning with thorns121 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.
“???f??a is vaguely used to signify different shades of red, and is especially convertible with crimson = ???????, Matt.” (Alf. on St. Mark xv. 17).
3. Et veniebant ad eum, et dicebant: Ave rex Iudaeorum: Et dabant ei alapas.
3. And they came to him, and said: Hail, king of the Jews, 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, [pg 332] too, that “spitting upon him, they took the reed, and struck his head” (Matt. xxvii. 30).
4. Exivit ergo iterum Pilatus foras, et dicit eis: Ecce adduco vobis eum foras, ut cognoscatis quia nullam invenio in eo causam.
4. Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith to them: Behold I bring him forth unto you, that you may know that I 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 coronam spineam, et purpureum vestimentum). Et dicit eis: Ecce homo.
5. Jesus therefore came forth bearing the crown of thorns, and the purple garment. And he 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 (? ?????p??), and the meaning is: Behold, here before you is the Man.
6. Cum ergo vidissent eum pontifices et ministri clamabant dicentes: Crucifige, crucifige eum, Dicit eis Pilatus: accipite cum vos et crucifigite: ego enim non invenio in eo causam.
6. When the chief priests therefore and the servants had seen him, they cried out, saying: Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Take him you, and crucify him; 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, [pg 333] 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 legem habemus, et secundum legem debet mori, quia Filium Dei se fecit.
7. The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, 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 hunc sermonem, magis timuit.
8. When Pilate therefore had 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 iterum, et dixit ad Iesum: Unde es tu? Iesus autem responsum non dedit ei.
9. And he entered into the hall again, and he said to Jesus: Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
9. Again, therefore, he entered the palace (p?a?t?????). Jesus, too, was led in, and Pilate [pg 334] 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: Mihi non loqueris? nescis quia potestatem habeo crucifigere te et potestatem habeo dimittere te?
10. Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest thou not to me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I 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 (????s?a?) 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 haberes potestatem adversum me ullam, nisi tibi datum esset desuper. Propterea qui me tradidit tibi, maius peccatum habet.
11. Jesus answered: Thou shouldest not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore he that hath 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 ?? ded?????, not ?? ded???? (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 ????e? (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 (pa?ad???, not pa?ad?d???) me to thee hath the greater sin. Some, as Kuinoel, hold that d?? t??t? is here [pg 335] merely a formula of transition (like the Hebrew ???, 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 d?? t??t? 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 Pilatus dimittere eum. Iudaei autem clamabant, dicentes: Si hunc dimittis, non es amicus Caesaris: omnis enim qui se regem facit contradicit Caesari.
12. And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying: If thou release this man, thou art not Cesar's friend. For whosoever maketh 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 [pg 336] 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 hos sermones, adduxit foras Iesum: et sedit pro tribunali, in loco qui dicitur Lithostrotos, hebraice autem Gabbatha.
13. Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth; and sat down in the judgment seat, in the place that is called Lithostrotos, 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 ??? (Gabhah), and such high places were usually paved with many-coloured stones, hence the name “Lithostrotos” (from ?????, a stone, and st??t??, covered, or paved). Suetonius (Caes. 8, 46) says that Julius CÆsar carried such a pavement with him on his expeditions.
14. Erat autem parasceve paschae, hora quasi sexta, et dicit Iudaeis: Ecce rex vester.
14. And it was the parasceve of the pasch, about the sixth hour, and he saith to the Jews: Behold your king.
14. And it was the parasceve of the Pasch.“Parasceve” (Gr. pa?as?e??) means preparation, or day of preparation, and the expression: “the [pg 337] 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: [pg 338] ... 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 [pg 339] 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 [pg 340] 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 t??t? and ??t?,—the Greek words for ‘third’ and ‘sixth’ respectively—could have occurred by an error of transcription? By no [pg 341] 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 G. 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 ?.
“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 ? and G—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: Tolle, tolle, crucifige eum. Dicit eis Pilatus: Regem vestrum crucifigam? Responderunt pontifices: Non habemus regem, nisi Caesarem.
15. But they cried out: Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests 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, [pg 342] the chief priests, blinded by their hatred of Christ, here proclaimed their submission to the Roman yoke.
16. Tunc ergo tradidit eis ilium ut crucifigeretur. Susceperunt autem Iesum, et eduxerunt.
16. Then therefore he delivered him to them to be crucified. And they took 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, exivit in eum qui dicitur Calvariae locum, hebraice autem Golgotha:
17. And bearing his own cross he went forth to that place which is called Calvary, but 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 Cyrene127, 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 [pg 343] 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 ??a????, 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 ????? (Gulgoleth), meaning a skull (from ??? (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 [pg 344] Dublin, or the Pantheon in Paris” (Dr. M'Carthy, on St. Matthew, xxvii. 33).
18. Ubi crucifixerunt eum, et cum eo alios duos hinc et hinc, medium autem Iesum.
18. Where they crucified him, and with him two others, one 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” (???sta?), 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 Pilatus: et posuit super crucem, Erat autem scriptum: Iesus Nazarenus, rex Iudaeorum.
19. And Pilate wrote a title also: and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of 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 [pg 345] 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 legible129 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 Iudaeorum legerunt: quia prope civitatem erat locus, ubi crucifixus est Iesus: et erat scriptum hebraice, graece, et latine.
20. This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in 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 pontifices Iudaeorum: Noli scribere, Rex Iudaeorum: sed quia ipse dixit: Rex sum Iudaeorum.
21. Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate: Write not, the king of the Jews, but that he said: I am the king of the Jews.
21. Then the chief priests. Rather, “the chief priests of the Jews, therefore,” &c.
[pg 346]
22. Respondit Pilatus: Quod scripsi, scripsi.
22. Pilate answered: What I 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 crucifixissent eum, acceperunt vestimenta eius (et fecerunt quatuor partes: unicuique militi partem), et tunicam. Erat autem tunica inconsutilis, desuper contexta per totum.
23. The soldiers therefore when they had crucified him, took his garments (and they made four parts, to every soldier a part) and also his coat. Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top 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: Non scindamus eam, sed sortiamur de illa cuius sit. Ut scriptura impleretur, dicens: Partiti sunt vestimenta mea sibi: et in vestem meam miserunt sortem. Et milites quidem haec fecerunt.
24. They said then one to another: Let us not cut it, but let us cast lots for it whose it shall be; that the scripture might be fulfilled, saying: They have parted my garments among them: and upon my vesture they have cast 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 Iesu mater eius, et soror matris eius, Maria Cleophae, et Maria Magdalene.
25. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary 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 [pg 347] 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 matrem, et discipulum stantem quem diligebat, dicit matri suae: Mulier, ecce filius tuus.
26. When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing, whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
27. Deinde dicit discipulo: Ecce mater tua. Et ex illa hora accepit eam discipulus in sua.
27. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own.
26, 27. Woman (???a?) 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 (e?? t? ?d?a, i.e. d?ata). 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 (e?? t? ?d?a), and very few of these poor Galilean fishermen can have owned houses in Jerusalem.
Regarding the common belief that St. John, at the foot [pg 348] 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 omnia consummata sunt, ut consummaretur scriptura, dixit: Sitio.
28. Afterwards Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the 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 aceto plenum. Illi autem spongiam plenam aceto, hyssopo circumponentes, obtulerunt ori eius.
29. Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar. And they putting a sponge full of vinegar about hyssop, put it 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 [pg 349] 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 acetum, dixit: Consummatum est. Et inclinato capite tradidit spirituum.
30. Jesus therefore when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing 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: [pg 350]“Father into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke xxiii. 46).
31. Iudaei ergo (quoniam parasceve erat), ut non remanerent in cruce corpora sabbato (erat enim magnus dies ille sabbati), rogaverunt Pilatum ut frangerentur eorum crura, et tollerentur.
31. Then the Jews (because it was the parasceve) that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on the sabbath-day (for that was a great sabbath-day) besought Pilate that 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 (??e???? t?? sa?t??). 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 [pg 351] 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 primi quidem fregerunt crura, et alterius, qui crucifixus est cum eo.
32. The soldiers therefore came: and they broke the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him.
33. Ad Iesum autem cum venissent, ut viderunt eum iam mortuum, non fregerunt eius crura:
33. But after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
34. Sed unus militum lancea latus eius aperuit, et continuo exivit sanguis et aqua.
34. But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water.
34. Opened (Vulg., aperuit) his side. It is very much more probable that the verb in the original is ????e? (pierced) not ?????e? (opened). A spear; (?????). 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 [pg 352] 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 perhibuit: et verum est testimonium eius. Et ille scit quia vera dicit: ut et vos credatis.
35. And he that saw it hath given testimony: and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; 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. ??a (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 scriptura impleretur: Os non comminuetis ex eo.
36. For these things were done that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him.
36. For these things were done.“For” establishes the connection, and proves, we [pg 353] 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 dicit: Videbunt in quem transfixerunt.
37. And again another scripture saith: They shall 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 Pilatum Ioseph ab Arimathaea (eo quod esset discipulus Iesu, occultus autem propter metum Iudaeorum), ut tolleret corpus Iesu. Et permisit Pilatus. Venit ergo, et tulit corpus Iesu.
38. After these things Joseph of Arimathea (because he was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews) besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus. And Pilate gave leave. He came 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, [pg 354] 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, qui venerat ad Iesum nocte primum, ferens mixturam myrrhae et aloËs, quasi libras centum.
39. And Nicodemus also came, he who at first came to Jesus by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an 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.[pg 355]“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 Iesu, et ligaverunt illud linteis cum aromatibus, sicut mos est Iudaeis sepelire.
40. They took therefore the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
40. And bound it in linen cloths (?????a). They bound the body in swathes of linen cloth covered with layers of the aromatic mixture. The Synoptists speak only of “a linen cloth” (s??d??) 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 crucifixus est, hortus, et in horto monumentum novum, in quo nondum quisquam positus erat.
41. Now there was in the place, where he was crucified, a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein no man yet had been laid.
42. Ibi ergo propter parasceven Iudaeorum, quia iuxta erat monumentum, posuerunt Iesum.
42. There therefore because of the parasceve of the Jews they laid Jesus, because the 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.)
[pg 356]
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. [pg 357] 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), [pg 358] 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 [pg 359] 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 [pg 360] 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 ?????? a???? (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: ?????a? ?p? t? ??e???.
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 (?????a?) 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 [pg 361] tomb. The events that followed have been already arranged above.
1. Una autem sabbati, Maria Magdalene venit mane, cum adhuc tenebrae essent, ad monumentum; et vidit lapidem sublatum a monumento.
1. And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark unto the sepulchre: and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
1. The first day of the week. The Vulgate reading “una” (??) 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 Simonem Petrum, et ad alium discipulum quem amabat Iesus, et dicit illis: Tulerunt Dominum de monumento, et nescimus ubi posuerunt eum.
2. She ran therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith to them: They have taken away the Lord out 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 alius discipulus, et venerunt ad monumentum.
3. Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple, and they came to the sepulchre.
3. And they came to the sepulchre. The meaning is that they “went towards” (?????t? e??) the sepulchre.
4. Currebant autem duo simul, et ille alius discipulus praecucurrit citius Petro, et venit primus ad monumentum.
4. And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
4. We have here the vivid touches of one of the two actors in the scene. The incidents of that eventful [pg 362] 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, vidit posita linteamina, non tamen introivit.
5. And when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying: 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 sequens eum, et introivit in monumentum, et vidit linteamina posita.
6. Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the 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 ?e????, denoting an intent and searching gaze, as distinct from St. John's simple look (??pe?) described in the preceding verse.
7. Et sudarium quod fuerat super caput eius, non cum linteaminibus positum, sed separatim involutum in unum locum.
7. And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapt up into one 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.
[pg 363]
8. Tunc ergo introivit et ille discipulus qui venerat primus ad monumentum, et vidit, et credidit:
8. Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw 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 scripturam, quia oportebat eum a mortuis resurgere.
9. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must 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 discipuli ad semetipsos.
10. The disciples therefore 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 monumentum foris, plorans. Dum ergo fleret, inclinavit se, et prospexit in monumentum:
11. But Mary stood at the sepulchre without, weeping. Now as she was weeping, she 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 albis, sedentes, unum ad caput, et unum ad pedes, ubi positum fuerat corpus Iesu.
12. And she saw two angels in white, sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, 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.
[pg 364]
13. Dicunt ei illi: Mulier, quid ploras? Dicit eis: Quia tulerunt Dominum meum: et nescio ubi posuerunt eum.
13. They say to her: Woman, why weepest thou? She saith to them: Because they have taken 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, conversa est retrorsum, et vidit Iesum stantem: et non sciebat quia Iesus est.
14. When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing; and she 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, quid ploras? quem quaeris? Illa existimans quia hortulanus esset, dicit ei: Domine, si tu sustulisti eum, dicito mihi ubi posuisti eum: et ego eum tollam.
15. Jesus saith to her: Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She thinking that it was the gardener, saith to him: Sir, if thou hast taken him hence, tell me where thou hast 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.[pg 365] 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. Conversa illa, dicit ei: Rabboni (quod dicitur magister).
16. Jesus saith to her: Mary. She turning, saith to him: Rabboni (which is to say, 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 (???).
17. Dicit ei Iesus: Noli me tangere, nondum enim ascendi ad Patrem meum, vade autem ad fratres meos, et dic eis: Ascendo ad Patrem meum, et Patrem vestrum, Deum meum, et Deum vestrum.
17. Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God 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 (?ptes?a? 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 annuntians discipulis: Quia vidi Dominum, et haec dixit mihi.
18. Mary Magdalen cometh and telleth the disciples: I have seen the Lord, and these things he said to me.
18. Magdalen went and announced to the disciples that [pg 366] she had seen the Lord; but, as St. Mark, xvi. 11, tells us, they did not believe her.
19. Cum ergo sero esset die illo, uno sabbatorum, et fores essen clausae, ubi erant discipuli congregati propter metum Iudaeorum: venit Iesus, et stetit in medio, et dixit eis: Pax vobis.
19. Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood 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, ostendit eis manus et latus. Gavisi sunt ergo discipuli, viso Domino.
20. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands, and his side. The disciples 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 [pg 367] 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 vobis. Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos.
21. He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the 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, insufflavit: et dixit eis: Accipite Spiritum sanctum:
22. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said 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. [pg 368] 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 peccata, remittuntur eis: et quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt.
23. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you 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, ?? t????), 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 member137, 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 [pg 369] 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 duodecim, qui dicitur Didymus, non erat cum eis quando venit Iesus.
24. Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus 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 discipuli: Vidimus Dominum. Ille autem dixit eis: Nisi videro in manibus eius fixuram clavorum, et mittam digitum meum in locum clavorum, et mittam manum meum in latus eius, non credam.
25. The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and 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 erant discipuli eius intus: et Thomas cum eis. Venit Iesus, ianuis clausis, et stetit in medio, et dixit: Pax vobis.
26. And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you.
26. And after eight days, that is to say, on Low Sunday, [pg 370] 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 digitum tuum huc, et vide manus meas, et affer manum tuam, et mitte in latus meum: et noli esse incredulus, sed fidelis.
27. Then he said to Thomas: put in thy finger hither, and see my hands, and bring hither thy hand and put it into my side; and be not faithless, 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 ei: Dominus meus et Deus meus.
28. Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.
28. My Lord, and my God (? ?????? ?? ?a? ? ?e?? ??). 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 [pg 371] 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 vidisti me Thoma, credidisti: beati qui non viderunt et crediderunt.
29. Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: 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 (?d??te?), 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 fecit Iesus in conspectu discipulorum suorum, quae non sunt scripta in libro hoc.
30. Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not 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 (s?e?a, 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 credatis quia Iesus est Christus Filius Dei: et ut credentes, vitam habeatis in nomine eius.
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.
31. But what is here written in evidence of His resurrection is written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Messias (? ???st??), 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.
[pg 372]
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 [pg 373] 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 clausulam140 ejus exceperis, diversum esse a scribendi genere, quod in reliquo Evangelio deprehenditur.”
1. Postea manifestavit se iterum Iesus discipulis ad mare Tiberiadis. Manifestavit autem sic:
1. After this Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias. And he 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).
2. Erant simul Simon Petrus, et Thomas, qui dicitur Didymus, et Nathanael, qui erat a Cana Galilaeae, et filii Zebedaei, et alii ex discipulis eius duo.
2. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas who is called Didymus, and Nathanael who was of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and 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: Vado piscari, Dicunt ei: Venimus et nos tecum. Et exierunt, et ascenderunt in navim: et illa nocte nihil prendiderunt.
3. Simon Peter saith to them: I go a fishing. They say to him: We also come with thee. And they went forth and entered into the ship, and 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 (t? p?????), 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 Iesus in littore: non tamen cognoverunt discipuli quia Iesus est.
4. But when the morning was come, Jesus stood on the shore: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.
4. But when the morning was come. The better supported Greek reading (???????? not ?e??????) 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 [pg 375] of their eyes. Comp. Luke xxiv. 16.
5. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Pueri numquid pulmentarium habetis? Responderunt ei: Non.
5. Jesus therefore said to them: Children, have you any 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 (p??sf?????), 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 dexteram navigii rete: et invenietis. Miserunt ergo: et iam non valebant illud trahere prae multitudine piscium.
6. He saith to them: Cast the net on the right side of the ship; and you shall find. They cast therefore: and now they 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 quem diligebat Iesus, Petro: Dominus est. Simon Petrus cum audisset quia Dominus est, tunica succinxit se (erat enim nudus) et misit se in mare.
7. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved, said to Peter: It is the Lord. Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat 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. [pg 376]Simon Peter (add “therefore,” ???) 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 (?pe?d?t??), 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 navigio venerunt (non enim longe erant a terra, sed quasi cubitis ducentis), trahentes rete piscium.
8. But the other disciples came in the ship (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits) dragging the net with fishes.
8. In the ship. Rather: “in the boat” (t? p???a???). It may be that the reference is to a small boat that was attached to the larger vessel (t? p?????) 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 terram, viderunt prunas positas, et piscem superpositum, et panem.
9. As soon then as they came to land, they saw hot coals lying, and a fish laid 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.
[pg 377]
10. Dicit eis Iesus: Afferte de piscibus, quos prendidistis nunc.
10. Jesus saith to them: Bring hither of the fishes which you 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 traxit rete in terrain, plenum magnis piscibus centum quinquaginta tribus. Et cum tanti essent, non est scissum rete.
11. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net 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, prendete. Et nemo audebat discumbentium interrogare eum: Tu quis es? scientes quia Dominus est.
12. Jesus saith to them: Come, and dine. And none of them who were at meat, durst ask him: Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.
12. Come, and dine (???st?sate). 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; [pg 378] yet that because of the miracles they were convinced that it was He. Some, as Kuinoel, think that ?t??a (durst) is redundant.
13. Et venit Iesus, et accipit panem, et dat eis, et piscem similiter.
13. And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, 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 (t?? ??t??). The article points back to the bread mentioned in verse 9, which Christ Himself had provided. So, too, in the case of the fish (t? ???????).
14. Hoc iam tertio manifestatus est Iesus discipulis suis, cum resurrexisset a mortuis.
14. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was 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, dicit Simoni Petro Iesus: Simon Ioannis, diligis me plus his? Dicit ei: Etiam Domine, tu scis quia amote. Dicit ei: Pasce agnos meos.
15. When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, 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. [pg 379] 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 (??ap??) Me? Peter replies: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love (f???) 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 [pg 380] Vulgate, which in each case renders ??ap??, by “diligo,” and f???? 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, ??ap? e. 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, f??? se (verse 15). When Christ repeats the question in the same words as at the first, Peter in his reply again substitutes his f??? for the ??ap?? 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 ??apa??, His word is f??e??, now (verse 17). (Trench, Syn. of the New Testament, pp. 48, 49).141
16. Dicit ei iterum: Simon Ioannis, diligis me? Ait illi: Etiam, Domine, tu scis quia amo te. Dicit ei: Pasce agnos meos.
16. He saith to him again: Simon son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea Lord, thou knowest that I love 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 (??s?e t? ????a ??): now it is: Tend (or rule) My sheep (p??a?e t? p??at? ??). Among Uncial MSS., B and C read p???t?a (little sheep) here. But A, D, X, and nearly [pg 381] all others read p??at?; 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 Ioannis, amas me? Contristatus est Petrus, quia dixit ei tertio, Amas me? et dixit ei: Domine, tu omnia nosti: tu scis quia amo te. Dixit ei: Pasce oves meas.
17. He said to him the third time: Simon son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said to him: 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 [pg 382] 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 ordinary142, immediate143, 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 esses iunior, cingebas te, et ambulabas ubi volebas: cum autem senueris, extendes manus tuas, et alius te cinget, et ducet quo tu non vis.
18. Amen, amen, I say to thee: when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou 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 (p???) 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 [pg 383] 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, significans qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum. Et cum hoc dixisset, dicit ei: Sequere me.
19. And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to 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 [pg 384] 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 illum discipulum, quem diligebat Iesus, sequentem, qui et recubuit in coena super pectus eius, et dixit: Domine quis est qui tradet te?
20. Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that 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” (???pese?). The reference is to the incident recorded in xiii. 25, not to the position John occupied at table.
21. Hunc ergo cum vidisset Petrus, dixit Iesu: Domine hic autem quid?
21. Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: 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 volo manere donec veniam, quid ad te? tu me sequere.
22. Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I 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 (?a?). 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.
[pg 385]
23. Exiit ergo sermo iste inter fratres quia discipulus ille non moritur. Et non dixit ei Iesus: Non moritur: sed: Sic eum volo manere donec veniam, quid ad te?
23. This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, 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 qui testimonium perhibet de his, et scripsit haec: et scimus quia verum est testimonium eius.
24. This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25. Sunt autem et alia multa quae fecit Iesus: quae si scribantur per singula, nec ipsum arbitror mundum capere posse eos, qui scribendi sunt, libros.
25. But there are also many other things which Jesus did: which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to 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 [pg 386] 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.”
margin gives as an alternative: How is it that I even speak to you at all?
That ????????? 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 ?????????? (“adorabat,” not “orabat,” as Vulg.) is the correct reading.
“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.
“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.
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.”
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, ??? d? sa?t?? 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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
So, too, Hesych. and Lidd. and Scott take f???? as stronger than ??ap??, 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.”
