diff options
Diffstat (limited to '46337-tei')
| -rw-r--r-- | 46337-tei/46337-tei.tei | 37304 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 46337-tei/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 31127 bytes |
2 files changed, 37304 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/46337-tei/46337-tei.tei b/46337-tei/46337-tei.tei new file mode 100644 index 0000000..15e214f --- /dev/null +++ b/46337-tei/46337-tei.tei @@ -0,0 +1,37304 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> + +<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "http://www.gutenberg.org/tei/marcello/0.4/dtd/pgtei.dtd" [ + +<!ENTITY u5 "http://www.tei-c.org/Lite/"> + +]> + +<TEI.2 lang="en"> +<teiHeader> + <fileDesc> + <titleStmt> + <title>The Gospel of St. John</title> + <author><name reg="MacRory, Joseph">Joseph MacRory</name></author> + </titleStmt> + <editionStmt> + <edition n="1">Edition 1</edition> + </editionStmt> + <publicationStmt> + <publisher>Project Gutenberg</publisher> + <date>July 19, 2014</date> + <idno type="etext-no">46337</idno> + <availability> + <p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and + with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it + away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg + License online at www.gutenberg.org/license</p> + </availability> + </publicationStmt> + <sourceDesc> + <bibl> + Created electronically. + </bibl> + </sourceDesc> + </fileDesc> + <encodingDesc> + </encodingDesc> + <profileDesc> + <langUsage> + <language id="en"></language> + <language id="la"></language> + <language id="he"></language> + <language id="ar"></language> + </langUsage> + </profileDesc> + <revisionDesc> + <change> + <date value="2014-07-19">July 19, 2014</date> + <respStmt> + <name> + Produced by Júlio Reis, Moisés S. Gomes, David King, and the Online + Distributed Proofreading Team at <http://www.pgdp.net/>. + </name> + </respStmt> + <item>Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1</item> + </change> + </revisionDesc> +</teiHeader> + +<pgExtensions> + <pgStyleSheet> + .boxed { x-class: boxed } + .shaded { x-class: shaded } + .rules { x-class: rules; rules: all } + .indent { margin-left: 2 } + .bold { font-weight: bold } + .italic { font-style: italic } + .smallcaps { font-variant: small-caps } + </pgStyleSheet> + + <pgCharMap formats="txt.iso-8859-1"> + <char id="U0x2014"> + <charName>mdash</charName> + <desc>EM DASH</desc> + <mapping>--</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2003"> + <charName>emsp</charName> + <desc>EM SPACE</desc> + <mapping> </mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2026"> + <charName>hellip</charName> + <desc>HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS</desc> + <mapping>...</mapping> + </char> + </pgCharMap> +</pgExtensions> + +<text lang="en"> + <front> + <div> + <divGen type="pgheader" /> + </div> + <div> + <divGen type="encodingDesc" /> + </div> + + <div rend="page-break-before: always"> + <p rend="font-size: xx-large; text-align: center">The Gospel of St. John</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">With Notes Critical and Explanatory</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">By the</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">Rev. Joseph MacRory, D.D.</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Professor of Sacred Scripture and Hebrew, Maynooth College</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται, ἵνα πιστέυσητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ +θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.--St. John, xx. 31.</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">Browne & Nolan, Limited</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">Dublin</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">1897</p> + </div> + <div rend="page-break-before: always"> + <head>Contents</head> + <divGen type="toc" /> + </div> + + </front> +<body> + +<div> + <p rend='text-align: center'> + <figure url='images/cover.jpg' rend='width: 30%'> + <figDesc>Cover Art</figDesc> + </figure> + </p> + <p> + [Transcriber's Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter at + Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.] + </p> +</div> + +<pb n='ii'/><anchor id='Pgii'/> + +<div> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Nihil Obstat.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Gualterus MacDonald, D.D.</hi>, +</p> + +<p> +Censor Theolog. Deputat. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Imprimatur.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +Gulielmus, +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Archiep. Dublinen., Hiberniae Primas.</hi> +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='iii'/><anchor id='Pgiii'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Preface.</head> + +<p> +It may be well to state briefly the object and plan of the present +work. Some years ago their Lordships the Archbishops and +Bishops of Ireland decided to lengthen considerably the course +of Sacred Scripture read in this College. As a result of their +decision, all our students are now expected to read the whole +of the New Testament with the exception of the Apocalypse, +together with portions of the Old Testament. This change, +while it has the desirable advantage of familiarizing our students +with a larger portion of the Sacred Text, obviously renders it +impossible that so much time as formerly should be devoted to +the study of any one portion. The consequence of this is that +it is now impossible for any but the very ablest students to +find time to read the longer commentaries, such as those of +Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide. I was not long, therefore, +in charge of the Class of Sacred Scripture, when I became +convinced that it would be useful, if not necessary, to provide +the students with a more compendious exposition of the portions +of Scripture that they are expected to study. +</p> + +<p> +With this object in view, I have not attempted, in the present +work, to give an exhaustive commentary on the Fourth Gospel. +Such an attempt, indeed, would have frustrated my object. +I have tried rather, while omitting nothing of importance, to +introduce nothing unnecessary, and to observe throughout the +utmost consistent brevity. +</p> + +<p> +I am prepared to hear that some will consider I have passed +too lightly over the easier portions of the Gospel. I can only +say, in reply, that what I have done, has been done deliberately. +Where the meaning of God's word is sufficiently clear, I consider +that it ought to be left to the exercise of the student's intelligence +to find it, and I am strongly of opinion that in such +cases a commentator may well be excused from interposing his +remarks between the reader and the Sacred Text. +</p> + +<p> +It might seem that the able and learned commentary of +Dr. MacEvilly—the only Catholic commentary hitherto existing +<pb n='iv'/><anchor id='Pgiv'/> +on this Gospel in the English language—would render such a +work as the present unnecessary. But the length of His Grace's +work, like the works of Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide, +renders it not wholly adapted to the present conditions of our +students. Besides, anyone acquainted with the work of a +professor will readily realize how important it is, and how +desirable, when possible, that students should possess in handy +and permanent form the professor's views. No two men will +think alike on all the difficult and intricate questions arising out +of the Gospel of St. John; and while I should feel it my duty, if +lecturing on the work of another, to impose upon the students +of my class the necessity of taking notes, I have hope that the +present work will to a large extent obviate such a necessity. +His Grace's work will, no doubt, continue to be used by many +of our students in preference to mine, and with all of them it +will still hold its place as a useful book of reference. +</p> + +<p> +The Latin Text that I have followed is a reprint from the +Latin Vulgate published at Turin in 1883: <hi rend='italic'>Biblia Sacra Vulgatae +Editionis, Sixti V. Pontificis Maximi jussu recognita, et Clementis +VIII. auctoritate edita. Editio emendatissima, Indicis Congregationis +decreto probata, et iterum hoc anno evulgata. Augustae +Taurinorum, typis Hyacinthi Marietti</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>mdccclxxxiii</hi>. In only +one instance is there a conscious departure from this edition, +and that is in verses 3 and 4 of the first chapter, where I have +returned to the original punctuation of the Clementine Edition. +</p> + +<p> +The English Text is from the Rhemish New Testament +approved by Cardinal Wiseman, and published by Burns and +Oates, Limited. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Maynooth College</hi>,<lb/> +<hi rend='italic'>Ascension Thursday, 1897</hi>. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='001'/><anchor id='Pg001'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Introduction.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I.—Authenticity Of The Fourth Gospel.</head> + +<p> +That St. John the Apostle is +also an Evangelist, and author +of the fourth Gospel, has been +the all but unanimous testimony +of tradition. If we +except the Alogi (St. Epiph., +<hi rend='italic'>Haer.</hi>, li. 3, 4), heretics of the +second century, who denied the +Johannine authorship, not on +historical, but on dogmatic +grounds, the authenticity of +the Gospel was unquestioned +down to the end of the eighteenth +century. Since that +time, however, it has been frequently +and variously attacked +by the so-called Rationalists, +whose many views in regard +to it may be reduced to one or +other of the three following +theories:— +</p> + +<p> +1. The patrons of what is +sometimes called the <q>partition +theory</q> hold that, though the +work as a whole cannot be said +to be St. John's, still considerable +portions of it are his. +About the extent of these portions +they differ. Weisse, +who, in the year 1838, first +gave prominence to this theory, +held that the discourses attributed +to Christ in the Gospel +are studies from the pen of +St. John, representing what he +considered to be the doctrine +of Christ; and that St. John's +disciples afterwards set these +discourses in their present historical +framework, and thus +produced the Gospel. Others, +however, admit that some portions +of the narrative, as well +as the discourses, are the work +of St. John. +</p> + +<p> +2. The Gospel is in no part +the work of St. John; still the +historical portions contain +valuable traditions derived +from that Apostle. Renan, +<pb n='002'/><anchor id='Pg002'/> +who holds this view, says:—<q>The +fourth Gospel is not the +work of the Apostle John. It +was attributed to him by one +of his disciples, about the year +100. The discourses are +almost wholly fictitious; but +the narrative portions contain +valuable traditions, which reach +back in part to the Apostle +John.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Vie de Jesus</hi>, ed. xiii., pp. 10, 11.</note> +</p> + +<p> +3. This, like the preceding +theory, denies the Johannine +authorship; but it goes farther +than the preceding, in denying +to our Gospel any historical +value. According to this +theory, not only are the discourses +spurious, but the historical +portions are wholly +unreliable, and the Gospel was +forged in the latter half of the +second century. So Baur and +many others. +</p> + +<p> +Against these various adversaries +there is abundant evidence, +external and internal, +in favour of the authenticity of +our Gospel. +</p> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>A.—External Evidence.<note place='foot'>See Lamy, vol. ii., pp. 246-270; Cornely, Introd. iii., pp. 216-260.</note></head> + +<p> +1. The <hi rend='bold'>Apostolic Fathers</hi> +do not, indeed, quote our +Gospel as the work of St. John, +for it was not their custom to +name the author from whom +they quoted; but passages +are met with in the works of +these fathers which are very probably +founded upon passages +in our Gospel. Compare, for +instance, with John xxi. 20, the +words of St. Clement of Rome +(† 101):—<q>John also, who +leaned upon the bosom of our +Lord, whom the Lord loved +exceedingly</q> (Epis. 1 <hi rend='italic'>De Virgin</hi>, +c. 6); or with John iii. 8, the +words of St. Ignatius of Antioch +(† 107):—<q>The Spirit, since +He is born of God, is not +deceived, <hi rend='italic'>for He knoweth +whence He cometh and +whither He goeth</hi></q> (Ad. +Philad. 7). It would be easy +to multiply instances of this +kind;<note place='foot'>See, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, Cornely, iii., pp. 222, 223.</note> but, as such coincidences +are always more or less +inconclusive, it is more important +to note here that Papias +and Polycarp, two disciples +of St. John, indirectly support +the claim of the fourth Gospel +to authenticity. For it is +certain that both these writers +accepted the First Epistle of +St. John as his.<note place='foot'>Eusebius, <hi rend='italic'>Hist. Eccl.</hi>, iii. 39.</note> Now, so +great is the similarity of style +between our Gospel and that +Epistle, and so close the relation +between the two, that we +are justified in concluding, +with Cornely (Introd. iii. 59, +3), that Papias and Polycarp, +admitting the one, probably +admitted also the other to be +the work of St. John. Even +Renan admits that <q>The two +writings offer the most complete +identity of style, the +same terms, the same favourite +expressions.</q> Indeed we have +now the direct testimony of +<pb n='003'/><anchor id='Pg003'/> +Papias in a fragment of his +rather recently discovered: +<q>Quant au silence de Papias il +n'est plus possible d'en tirer +un argument contre le quatrième +Evangile. Un nouveau +fragment de l'évêque d'Hieropolis, +cité par Thomasius (i. +344) ... temoigne qu'il connaissait +l'œuvre de l'Apotre</q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Didon—Jesus Christ</hi>, Introd. +xxviii.). +</p> + +<p> +2. The <hi rend='bold'>Fathers of the +second century</hi> were thoroughly +acquainted with our +Gospel, and some of them +refer to it as the work of +St. John. Thus, when <hi rend='bold'>Justin +Martyr</hi> († 167), in proving the +necessity of Baptism (<hi rend='italic'>Apol.</hi> i. +61), says: <q>For Christ said: +<q>Unless you be born again, +you shall not enter into the +kingdom of heaven.</q> Now +that those born once cannot +enter again into the wombs of +their mothers, is clear to all,</q> +there can hardly be a doubt +that he had before his mind +John iii. 3, 4. +</p> + +<p> +Again, <hi rend='bold'>Tatian</hi>, a disciple of +St. Justin, actually wrote a +Harmony of the Four Gospels, +known as Tatian's <hi rend='italic'>Diatessaron</hi>, +which commenced with the +opening words of our Gospel: +<q>In the beginning was the +Word.</q><note place='foot'>St. Ephrem († 373) wrote a Commentary, in Syriac, on the <hi rend='italic'>Diatessaron</hi>, +and this Commentary is still extant in an Armenian translation, which is +probably as old as the fifth century.</note> +</p> + +<p> +The <hi rend='bold'>Muratorian Fragment</hi>, +which contains a list of canonical +books, made not later than +170 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>, says: <q>John, one +of the disciples, (is the author) +of the fourth Gospel.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Theophilus</hi> of Antioch +(† 186), who was the sixth +successor to St. Peter in the +see of Antioch, says:—<q>These +things we are taught by the +Sacred Scriptures, and by all +inspired by the Holy Ghost, <emph>of +whom John says</emph>: <q>In the beginning +was the Word,</q></q> &c. +</p> + +<p> +Finally, <hi rend='bold'>Irenæus</hi> († 202), +who was Bishop of Lyons in +Gaul, from about the year 180, +and who wrote his work, +<hi rend='italic'>Against Heresies</hi>, probably +between 180 and 190 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>, +says:—<q>Afterwards John, a +disciple of the Lord, who +reclined upon His breast, also +wrote a Gospel.</q> This testimony +of Irenæus is of very +special importance; for, besides +being a native of Asia +Minor, and a bishop in Gaul, +and thus representing in himself +the traditions of both +countries, he was moreover a +disciple of Polycarp, who was +himself a disciple of St. John, +so that no one had better +opportunities than Irenæus of +learning everything connected +with the Apostle. +</p> + +<p> +Indeed, so well was our +Gospel known, and its authority +recognised in the second +century, that even the heretics +of the time sought the sanction +of its authority for their errors. +<q>They use that which is +according to John,</q> says +Irenæus, speaking of the +Valentinian heretics of the +second century (Iren., <hi rend='italic'>Haer.</hi>, +iii. 11. 7). +</p> + +<pb n='004'/><anchor id='Pg004'/> + +<p> +3. We abstain from quoting +Fathers of the <hi rend='bold'>third century</hi>, +because it is not denied that +they knew our Gospel, and +acknowledged St. John to be +the author. Even Strauss +(<hi rend='italic'>Leben Jesu</hi>, § 10, p. 47) says: +<q>It is certain that towards +the end of the second century, +the same four Gospels which +we have still, are found recognised +in the Church, and +are repeatedly quoted as the +writings of the Apostles, and +disciples of the Apostles, whose +names they bear, by the three +most eminent ecclesiastical +teachers—Irenæus, in Gaul; +Clement, in Alexandria; and +Tertullian, in Carthage.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It is undeniable then that +before the close of the second +century, the fourth Gospel was +everywhere in the Church +received as the genuine work +of St. John. This, we hold, +proves that it must be indeed +his work. For he lived on till +the end of the first century; +his disciples till the middle, +and their disciples till the end, +of the second century. Is it +possible then that a spurious +work, produced by some forger +in the second century, could +have been everywhere so soon +received and recognised as the +work of the Apostle? +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>B.—Internal Evidence.</head> + +<p> +1. The author himself tells +us (xxi. 20, 24), that he is <q>the +disciple whom Jesus loved, who +also leaned on His breast at +supper.</q> Now according to all +the fathers, <q>the disciple whom +Jesus loved,</q> &c., was St. John. +Moreover, the three most +favoured disciples were Peter, +James, and John. They alone +were permitted to be present +at the raising to life of the +daughter of Jairus (Mark v. 37), +at the transfiguration (Matt. +xvii. 1), and at the agony in +the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37). +But Peter cannot be the writer +of our Gospel, from whom he +is explicitly distinguished (John +xxi. 20); nor James the Greater, +for, in the opinion of all, he +had been beheaded by Herod +Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) many +years before our Gospel was +written. It remains then that +the writer must be St. John. +Nor does this argument lose +its force, even though we admit +that the last two verses of our +Gospel (John xxi. 24, 25) were +not written by St. John. For +since they have stood in the +Gospel from the beginning, +they must at least be the evidence +of a contemporary; so +that we have here either an +internal argument or another +powerful external one in favour +of the Johannine authorship. +</p> + +<anchor id='Intro_I_B_2'/> +<p> +2. While the Apostle John +plays an important part in the +other Gospels, he is not named +even once in the fourth Gospel. +If we had only it, we should +not know that there was an +Apostle of that name. The +fair inference then is, that he +himself being the writer, suppressed +his own name through +modesty. Moreover, while the +other Evangelists are accustomed, +when they speak of +John the Baptist, to distinguish +<pb n='005'/><anchor id='Pg005'/> +him from John the Apostle, our +author, again through modesty, +ignores the Apostle, and refers +nineteen different times to the +Baptist as John without any +distinguishing appellative. +</p> + +<p> +3. The style is just such as +we should expect from St. John; +the Greek purer than that of +the other Gospels, because of +the author's long sojourn in +Asia Minor, yet not untinged +by Hebraisms because of his +earlier life spent in Palestine. +</p> + +<p> +4. The whole Gospel points +to its author as one who was +intimately acquainted with +Palestine and its customs, and +who had lived and moved +among the events he describes.<note place='foot'>It is important to note this, because the Rationalist arguments against +the Johannine authorship prove nothing against St. John that they do not +prove also against all his contemporaries.</note> +Thus the journey from Cana +to Capharnaum is rightly +described as a <emph>descent</emph> (John +iv. 47, 51); the author is acquainted +with the pools of +Bethsaida and Siloe at Jerusalem +(John v. 2, ix. 7), with +the position of the brook of +Cedron in relation to Jerusalem +and the Mount of Olives (John +xviii. 1), and with the distance +of Bethany from the Holy City +(xi. 18). +</p> + +<p> +Among Jewish customs he +refers to the manner of purification +before meals (John ii. 6), +and to their avoidance of intercourse +with Samaritans (iv. 9), +and hints at the objection of +their teachers to speak publicly +with women (John iv. 27). He +shows, too, that he is familiar, +not merely with Jewish festivals, +but also with their peculiar +solemnities (John vii. 2, 37), +and the time of their occurrence +(x. 22). Finally, he declares +himself an <emph>eye-witness</emph>, as +well where he says:—<q>The +Word was made flesh, and +dwelt among us, <hi rend='italic'>and we saw +His glory</hi></q> (John i. 14), as +where he tells us, <q>He <emph>that +saw it</emph>, hath given testimony +... and he knoweth that he +saith true</q> (John xix. 35). +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II.—Author.</head> + +<p> +St. John, Apostle, Evangelist, +prophet, and martyr, was born +in Galilee, the son of Zebedee, +a fisherman of some means, +and Salome, one of those holy +women who ministered to our +Lord during His public life, and +stood by His cross on Calvary +(Mark i. 20; Matt. iv. 21, +xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1). +Before his call by Jesus, John +was probably a disciple of the +Baptist, and it is extremely +likely that he was one of the +two who at the preaching of +their Master first believed in +Christ (John i. 37, and foll.). +Called with his brother James, +immediately after Peter and +Andrew (Matt. iv. 18, 19, 21), +<pb n='006'/><anchor id='Pg006'/> +he left all things to follow +Christ, and became the best +beloved of all the disciples. +With Peter and his own brother +James he was permitted to +witness the raising to life of +the daughter of Jairus, and to +be present at the transfiguration +on Thabor, and the agony +in Gethsemane (Mark v. 27; +Matt. xvii. 1; Matt. xxvi. 37). +He was privileged to recline on +his Master's bosom at the Last +Supper (John xviii. 23), and +to him alone was given from +the cross the blessed trust of +providing for the Mother of +God (John xix. 27). Nor +did he fail to return love for +love. When the Apostles fled +in terror from Gethsemane +(Mark xiv. 50), Peter and John +followed Jesus into the court of +the High-priest (John xviii. 15); +and at the last tragic scene on +Calvary, our Evangelist, brave +with the courage begotten of +love, was still close to his +Master (John xix. 26). +</p> + +<p> +After the descent of the Holy +Ghost, St. John, with St. Peter, +took a leading part in establishing +the Church. He and +Peter were the first to suffer +imprisonment for preaching the +faith of Christ (Acts iv. 2, 3); +and, again in company with +Peter, he was chosen to go +down from Jerusalem, and confer +the Sacrament of Confirmation +on the converted Samaritans. +How long he remained +in Palestine, we cannot say +with certainty. When St. Paul +went up to the Council of Jerusalem, +in 47 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>,<note place='foot'>See notes on chronology of the Acts.</note> he found +St. John there; but whether +our Apostle had himself gone +up specially to the Council, +or had hitherto confined his +preaching to Palestine, it seems +impossible to say, for St. Peter +was there too, though he had +been already Bishop of Antioch, +and was then Bishop of Rome. +</p> + +<p> +In addition to the preceding +facts gleaned from the New +Testament, we learn from tradition +that the saint remained +in Jerusalem till after the +Blessed Virgin's death (Niceph., +<hi rend='italic'>H. E.</hi>, ii. 42); that he subsequently +preached in Asia Minor, +and, probably after the martyrdom +of St. Paul (67 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>), +settled at Ephesus (Origen, +<hi rend='italic'>apud.</hi> Euseb., <hi rend='italic'>H. E.</hi>, iii. 1). +In the reign of Domitian (81-96 +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>) he was taken to Rome, +and thrown into a cauldron of +boiling oil, from which he came +forth unhurt (Tertull., <hi rend='italic'>De +Praescr.</hi> 36).<note place='foot'>St. Jerome, referring to this, writes: <q>Refert Tertullianus quod Romae +missus in ferventis olei dolium purior et vegetior exierit quam intraverit.</q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Advers. Jovin</hi>, i. 26.)</note> He was then +banished to the island of +Patmos, in the Aegean Sea, +where he wrote the Apocalypse; +was liberated on the accession +of Nerva (96-98 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>), and +allowed to return to Ephesus, +where he lived to an extreme +old age, and died in +the sixty-eighth year after +our Lord's Passion (Jer., +<hi rend='italic'>Advers. Jovin</hi>, i. 14), <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, +about 101 of the Dionysian +era. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='007'/><anchor id='Pg007'/> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<anchor id='Intro_III'/> +<head>III.—For Whom Written, And With What +Object.</head> + +<p> +St. Jerome tells us that the +fourth Gospel was written for +the Christians of Asia Minor, +and at their request.<note place='foot'><q>Joannes quum esset in Asia, et jam tunc haereticorum semina pullularent +Cerinthi et Ebionis et ceterorum qui negant Christum in carne venisse +... coactus est ab omnibus tunc pene Asiae Episcopis et multarum ecclesiarum +legationibus de divinitate Salvatoris altius scribere.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Prol. in Matthew.</hi></note> +</p> + +<p> +The object or scope of the +Gospel was threefold:— +</p> + +<p> +1. To prove that Jesus was +the Son of God made man, and +that all supernatural life must +come to us through faith in +His name. Hence he tells us in +the very beginning that <q>the +Word was God ... and the +Word was made flesh, and +dwelt amongst us</q> (John i. 14); +and in xx. 31: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<anchor id='Intro_III_2'/> +2. As connected with the +preceding, indirectly to refute +the heresies of the Cerinthians, +Ebionites, and Nicolaites,<note place='foot'>Iren., <hi rend='italic'>Haer.</hi> iii. 1: <q>Joannes volens per evangelii annunciationem +auferre, eum qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus errorem et multo +prius ab his qui dicuntur Nicolaitae ... sic inchoavit evangelium.</q></note> all +of whom erred in regard to +either the Divinity or humanity +of Christ. See below <ref target='Chapter_IX'>IX.</ref>, and +Cornely, iii., † 64. +</p> + +<p> +3. To supplement the three +Synoptic Gospels. So nearly +all the fathers. And, indeed, +it is perfectly evident that an +Evangelist who is entirely silent +regarding the birth, infancy, +and childhood of our Lord, +and who introduces Him +abruptly to the reader at the +beginning of His public life, +cannot have meant to write a +complete life of Christ. And +since St. John wrote many +years after the other Evangelists, +it is not surprising to find +that his work partakes more of +a supplemental character than +any of the Synoptic Gospels. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<anchor id='Intro_IV'/> +<head>IV.—Outline Of The Plan Of The Gospel.</head> + +<p> +What has just been said +regarding the object of the +Gospel will enable us to form +a general conception of its +plan. It must be carefully +borne in mind that St. John +did not intend to write a Life +of Christ, nor to give a general +view of His teaching, nor to +compile a work on the general +history of his own times. His +main object was to prove that +Jesus of Nazareth was the Son +of God; and the various parts +<pb n='008'/><anchor id='Pg008'/> +of the Gospel are carefully +disposed with a view to this +end. Out of the vast mass +of materials at his disposal +(xxi. 25; xx. 30) he selects +such incidents, such miracles +and discourses of our Lord, as +are best suited to the attainment +of this special purpose. +In accordance with this view, +we subjoin a brief outline of +the <emph>plan</emph> of the Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +I. 1-18. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The Prologue.</hi> The Word +in His absolute, eternal Being; +in His relation to creation +generally, and to the spiritual +enlightenment and sanctification +of man; His incarnation. +</p> + +<p> +I. 19-XXI. 23. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>The Narrative</hi>, which divides +itself naturally into two +parts:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) I. 19-XII. 50. Manifestation +of Christ's Divinity +in His <hi rend='italic'>Public Life</hi>— +</p> + +<p> +By the testimony of the +Baptist. +</p> + +<p> +By the testimony of His +disciples. +</p> + +<p> +By the testimony of His +miracles. +</p> + +<p> +By the testimony of His +discourses. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) XIII. 1-XXI. 23. Manifestation +of Christ's Divinity +in His last discourses, and in +His passion, death, resurrection, +and risen life. +</p> + +<p> +XXI. 24, 25. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The Epilogue</hi>, in which the +beloved disciple testifies that +he is the author of the Gospel, +and that what he has written +is true, though incomplete. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<anchor id='Intro_V'/> +<head>V.—Time And Place Of Writing.</head> + +<p> +The exact date of our Gospel +is uncertain. One thing is +absolutely certain: that it was +written after the other three +Gospels. Some have placed it +almost as early as 70 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>; but +the weight of evidence, external +and internal, places it in the +last decade of the first century, +that is to say, between 90 and +100 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +There is great doubt, too, +as to the place where it was +written. Irenæus distinctly +states that it was written at +Ephesus,<note place='foot'><q>Joannes discipulus Domini ... et ipse edidit evangelium Ephesi +Asiae commorans.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Haer.</hi> iii. 1.</note> and many of the +fathers are of the same opinion. +On the other hand, a large +number of ancient writers hold, +that, like the Apocalypse, it +was written in Patmos. See +Patrizzi, lib. i., cap. iv., § 86, +who himself inclines to the +latter view. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='009'/><anchor id='Pg009'/> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<anchor id='Intro_VI'/> +<head>VI.—Integrity.</head> + +<p> +With the exception of three +passages: v. 4, vii. 53-viii. 11, +and the whole of the last +chapter, which have been +attacked as interpolations, +the integrity of the fourth +Gospel has not been seriously +questioned. These passages +we shall examine as they +occur, and there discuss the +question of their authenticity. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>VII.—Language.</head> + +<p> +It is certain that St. John +wrote in Greek. Such has +been the opinion of all +writers, and it is proved by +the fact that he wrote for +the Christians of Asia Minor, +whose language we know was +Greek. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>VIII.—Christ's Discourses In The Gospel.</head> + +<p> +St. John's Gospel has this +peculiarity, that it is made up, +in great part, of Christ's discourses. +Judging from the +attention which the Evangelist +seems to pay to the order of +time, we feel sure that these +discourses are reported in the +chronological order in which +they were delivered. +</p> + +<p> +But are they reported in the +very words used by Christ? +We feel convinced that they +are not. The important heads +of doctrine, such as iii. 3, 5, +bearing on baptism; or vi. +48, 52, regarding the Blessed +Eucharist, are, doubtless, +reported in almost<note place='foot'>Corluy, indeed, supposes the heads of doctrine to be reported in precisely +the exact words of our Lord: <q>Eas propositiones quae quasi capita doctrinae +apparent ... ad verbum referri admittendum putamus,</q> are his words. +But the fact that the words of institution of the Blessed Eucharist are +<emph>differently</emph> reported by the Synoptic Evangelists seems to us to refute this view.</note> the exact +words of our Lord. But the +discourses generally we believe +to be reported merely in substance. +For this was sufficient +for the Evangelist's +purpose; and, therefore, we +have no reason to suppose a +miraculous assistance which +would enable him to remember +every word. No doubt the +Evangelist had the assistance +of inspiration; but the Catholic +view of inspiration warrants +us in believing that in general +the ideas only, and not the +words, were inspired. We +thus get rid of the Rationalist +difficulty that the discourses +must be fictitious, because, +<pb n='010'/><anchor id='Pg010'/> +they say, no human memory +could retain such long discourses +for more than half a +century. For in our view it +is only the substance of the +discourses that is handed +down, and, even if we +abstracted altogether from the +assistance given him by inspiration, +it is not difficult +to believe that the young and +retentive mind of a loving +disciple would treasure up and +retain the substance of his +Divine Master's discourses, +aided as it must have been +by the fact that these discourses, +besides being the +food of his daily meditation, +were doubtless again and +again repeated in his apostolic +preaching. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<anchor id='Intro_IX'/> +<head>IX.—Errors Combated In The Gospel.</head> + +<p> +There is not one of all the +many heresies that have arisen +regarding the Person and +natures of Jesus Christ that +may not be refuted from the +Gospel of St. John. We intend, +however, to speak here only of +those errors which had already +arisen in the time of the +Evangelist, and against which, +therefore, his Gospel was +immediately directed. What +these were we learn from +SS. Irenæus and Jerome. The +former distinctly says that our +Gospel was directed against +the errors of <hi rend='bold'>Cerinthus</hi>, and +of <q>those who are called +<hi rend='bold'>Nicolaites</hi></q> (see above, <ref target='Intro_III_2'>III. 2</ref>, +note); while the latter says +that it was directed against +<hi rend='bold'>Cerinthus</hi>, and <hi rend='bold'>other heretics, +especially the Ebionites</hi>.<note place='foot'><q>Joannes novissime omnium scripsit evangelium, rogatus ab Asiae +episcopis, adversus Cerinthum aliosque haereticos et maxime tunc Ebionitarum +dogma consurgens, qui asserunt Christum ante Mariam non fuisse.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Jer. de +Vir. Illust.</hi>, 9.</note> +It is important for us, +then, in approaching the study +of this Gospel to understand +what was the nature of these +errors against which it was +directed. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Cerinthus</hi>, though professing +belief in a Supreme +Being, held that the world was +not made by Him, but by an +inferior <emph>power</emph> (virtus) distinct +from Him, and ignorant of +Him. (2) That Jesus was not +born of a Virgin, but the child +of Joseph and Mary, born +according to the ordinary +course of nature. (3) That +Christ (the Word) was quite +distinct from Jesus; that, +however, He had descended +upon Jesus immediately after +the latter's baptism, and +remained with Him filling His +soul till shortly before the +Passion; that then Christ +departed from Jesus, who +suffered and died a <emph>mere</emph> man, +<pb n='011'/><anchor id='Pg011'/> +while Christ suffered nothing, +being indeed entirely spiritual +and impassible.<note place='foot'>The words of Irenæus are:—<q>Et Cerinthus autem quidam in Asia, non a +primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a Virtute quadam valde separata, +et distante ab ea principalitate, quae est super universa, et ignorante eum, qui +est super omnia, Deum. Jesum autem subjecit non ex Virgine natum +(impossibile enim hoc ei visum est); fuisse autem Joseph et Mariae filium +similiter ut reliqui omnes homines.... Et post baptismum descendisse +in eum ab ea principalitate quae est super omnia (ἐκ τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὄλα +αὐθεντίας) Christum figura columbae, et tunc annuntiasse incognitum +Patrem, et virtutes perfecisse, in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu, +et Jesum passum esse et resurrexisse, Christum autem impassibilem perseverasse, +existentem spiritalem.</q>—Iren., <hi rend='italic'>Adv. Haer.</hi>, i. xxvi.</note> +</p> + +<p> +The <hi rend='bold'>Ebionites</hi>, unlike the +Cerinthians, admitted that the +world was created by God, but, +like them, denied that Christ +was anything but a mere man. +They scrupulously observed +the Mosaic Law, which they +held to be <emph>obligatory</emph>, by the +observance of which Jesus had +merited to be called Christ, +and through which every man +was able to become a Christ.<note place='foot'><q><hi rend='italic'>Ebionaei</hi> autem consentiunt quidem mundum ab eo, qui revera Deus +est, factum esse; quae autem ad Christum pertinent, consimiliter Cerintho +fabulantur. Moribus Judaicis utuntur secundum legem; quapropter et +Christum Dei vocatum esse Jesum, quum nemo ex reliquis observaret legem. +Etenim si quis alius fecisset quae in lege praescripta sunt, ille evasisset +Christus. Posse autem etiam ipsos, si similiter egerint, Christos evadere; +etenim illum quoque hominem aeque ac reliquos fuisse dicunt.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Philosophumena</hi>, +vii. 16, 3342 (Migne).</note> +</p> + +<p> +About the doctrine of the +<hi rend='bold'>Nicolaites</hi>, which they claimed +to have derived from Nicolas +the Deacon (Acts vi. 5), we +know nothing definite; but it +is generally held that it was +akin to that of the Cerinthians +and Ebionites. +</p> + +<p> +Among the <q>other heretics</q> +alluded to by St. Jerome in the +passage cited above were, +doubtless, the <hi rend='bold'>Simonians</hi> +(followers of Simon Magus, +Acts viii. 9, and foll.), and the +<hi rend='bold'>Docetae</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +The <hi rend='bold'>Simonians</hi> agreed with +the Cerinthians in denying that +the world was made by God, +and that Jesus was God, and +St. Irenæus speaks of them +as the originators of the +Gnostic heresy. <q>Simoniani +a quibus <emph>falsi nominis scientia</emph> +accepit initia.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Adv. Haer.</hi>, +i. xxxiii. 4.) +</p> + +<p> +The <hi rend='bold'>Docetae</hi> (δοκεῖν = to +seem) held that Christ had +only the <emph>appearance</emph> of a human +body; and hence, that His +sufferings and death were not +real, but apparent. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<pb n='013'/><anchor id='Pg013'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter I.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-18. <hi rend='bold'>The prologue<note place='foot'>Referring to this sublime prologue, St. Augustine says: <q>Ceteri tres evangelistae +tanquam cum homine Domino in terra ambulant, et de divinitate ejus +pauca dixerunt, istum autem quasi piguerit in terra ambulare, sicut in ipso +exordio sui sermonis intonuit, erexit se non solum super terram et super omnem +ambitum aeris et coeli, sed super omnem etiam exercitum angelorum, omnemque +constitutionem invisibilium potestatum; et pervenit ad eum per quem +facta sunt omnia, dicendo: <q>In principio erat verbum.</q> Huic <emph>tantae sublimitati +principii</emph> etiam caetera congrua praedicavit,</q> etc.—Tract 36 on St. John.</note> declares the Word's eternity, distinct personality, +and essential unity with God; His relations with creation +generally, and with man in particular; His incarnation, and +the fulness of grace, and perfection of revelation attained +through Him.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +19-34. <hi rend='bold'>Some of the Baptist's testimonies to Christ.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +35-51. <hi rend='bold'>Circumstances in which Christ's first disciples were called.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.</cell> +<cell>1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, +and the Word was God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='bold'>In the beginning.</hi> These +words most probably mean +here, as in Gen. i. 1, at the +beginning of all created things; +in other words, when time +began. Their meaning must +always be determined from the +context. Thus we know from +the context in Acts xi. 15, that +St. Peter there uses them in +reference to the beginning of +the Gospel. Similarly, the +context here determines the +reference to be to the beginning +of creation; for He who is here +said to have been in the beginning, +is declared in verse 3 to be +the creator of all things, and +must therefore have already +been in existence at their +beginning. +</p> + +<p> +Others, however, have interpreted +the words differently. +Many of the fathers understood +them to mean: in the Father, +and took this first clause of +<pb n='014'/><anchor id='Pg014'/> +v. 1, as a declaration that the +Word was in the Father. But, +though it is quite true to say +that the Word was and is in +the Father (x. 38), both being +consubstantial, still such does +not seem to be the sense of the +phrase before us. Had St. +John meant to state this, surely +he would have written: In +God, or, in the Father, was the +Word. He names God in the +next two clauses: <hi rend='italic'>And the +Word was with God, and the +Word was God</hi>. Why then +should he at the risk of being +misunderstood, refer to Him in +this first clause under another +name? Besides, if this first +clause stated the Word's consubstantiality +with the Father, +the third clause: <hi rend='italic'>And the +Word was God</hi>, would then +be tautological. +</p> + +<p> +Many of the commentators +also urge against this view, +that if the first clause meant, +in God (or, in the Father) +was the Word, the <emph>second</emph> +clause would be merely +a repetition. But we cannot +assent to this, since, as we shall +see, the second clause would +add the important statement +of the Word's distinct personality. +However, the view +seems to us improbable for the +other reasons already stated. +</p> + +<p> +Others take <q>beginning</q> +here to mean eternity, so that +we should have in this first +clause a <emph>direct</emph> statement of the +Word's eternity. But against +this is the fact that ἀρχη +(beginning) nowhere else bears +this meaning, and can be satisfactorily +explained in a different +sense here. Hence, as already +explained, <q>in the beginning</q> +means: when time began. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Was</hi> (ἦν), <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, was <emph>already</emph> +in existence. Had St. John +meant to declare that at the +dawn of creation the Word +began to exist, he would have +used ἐγένετο as he does in +verse 3 regarding the beginning +of the world, and again in +verse 6 regarding the coming +of the Baptist. This cannot +fail to be clear to anyone who +contrasts verses 1, 2, 4, and 9 +of this chapter with verses 3, +6, and 14. In the former ἦν +is used throughout in reference +to the eternal existence of the +Word;<note place='foot'>Compare also 1 John i. 1, where our Vulgate should have translated by +<q>erat</q> instead of <q>fuit.</q></note> in the latter ἐγένετο, +when there is question of the +beginning of created things (3), +or of the coming of the Baptist +(6), or of the assumption by the +Word of human nature at the +incarnation (14). At the beginning +of creation, then, the +Word was already in existence; +and hence it follows that He +must be uncreated, and therefore +eternal. St. John's statement +here that the Word was +already in existence in the +beginning, is, accordingly, +equivalent to our Lord's claim +<pb n='015'/><anchor id='Pg015'/> +to have existed <emph>before</emph> the +world was (xvii. 5), and in +both instances the Word's +eternity, though not directly +stated, follows immediately. +Hence we find that the Council +of Nice and the fathers generally +inferred, against the +Arians, the eternity of the Son +of God from this first clause of +verse 1. <q>If He was in the +beginning,</q> says St. Basil (<hi rend='italic'>De +Div.</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>Hom.</hi> xvi. 82), <q>when +was He not?</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The Word</hi> (ὁ λόγος). St. John +here, as well as in his First +Epistle (i. 1), and in the +Apocalypse (xix. 13), designates +by this term the Second +Divine Person. That he speaks +of no mere abstraction, or +attribute of God, but of a Being +who is a distinct Divine Person, +is clear. For this <q>Word was +with God, was God, was made +flesh, and dwelt amongst us,</q> +and in the person of Jesus +Christ was witnessed to by the +Baptist (i. 1, 14, 15, 29, 30). +Outside the writings of St. John +there is no <emph>clear</emph><note place='foot'>According to many, Heb. iv. 12 affords another instance in the New +Testament.</note> instance in +either Old or New Testament +of this use of the term λόγος. +Throughout the rest of the +Scriptures its usual meaning +is <emph>speech</emph> or <emph>word</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +What, then, we may ask, +led our Evangelist, in the +beginning of his Gospel, to +apply this term rather than Son, +or Son of God, to the Second +Divine Person? Why did he +not say: In the beginning was +the Son? +</p> + +<p> +Apart from inspiration, +which, of course, may have +extended to the suggestion of +an important word like the +present, apart also from the +appropriateness of the term, of +which we shall speak in a +moment, it seems very probable +that St. John was impelled +to use the term λόγος because +it had been already used by the +heretics of the time in the +expression of their errors.<note place='foot'><q>Huic nomini seligendo occasionem forte dederunt tunc jam grassantes +doctrinae Gnosticorum, qui ita post Philonem vocabant ens aliquod sublimius +quod dicebant Jesu fuisse unitum. Sic etiam nomina ἀρχή, ζωή, χάρις, ἀλήθεια, +μονογενής, a Gnosticis tribuuntur aeonibus suis, quae omnia Joannes in suo +prologo sensu genuino exponit.</q>—Corl., <hi rend='italic'>Comm. in S. Joan.</hi>, Quaer. 3, p. 26.</note> +Endowed, too, as St. John was, +like the other Apostles, with a +special power of understanding +the Sacred Scriptures (Luke +xxiv. 46), and privileged as he +had been on many an occasion +to listen to the commentaries +of Christ Himself on the Old +Testament, he may have been +able, where we are not, to see +clearly in the Old Testament +instances in which λόγος refers +to the Son of God; <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, <q>Verbo +(τῷ λόγῳ) Domini coeli firmati +sunt</q> (Psalm xxxii. 6). +</p> + +<pb n='016'/><anchor id='Pg016'/> + +<p> +One thing, at all events, is +quite plain, that, whatever may +be said regarding his reason +for the application of this <emph>term</emph> +to the Son of God, St. John did +not borrow his <emph>doctrine</emph> regarding +the λόγος from Plato +or Philo or the Alexandrian +School. For though the term +(λόγος) is frequently met with +in the writings of both Plato +and Philo, yet Plato never +speaks of it as a person, but +only as an attribute of God; +and Philo, though in our opinion, +he held the distinct personality +of the Word, yet denied +that he was God, or the creator +of matter, which latter Philo +held to be eternal. As to the +Alexandrian School, to which +Philo belonged, and of whose +doctrines he is the earliest +witness, there is not a shadow +of foundation for saying that +any of its doctors held the same +doctrine as St. John regarding +the Divine Word. +</p> + +<p> +From the teaching of Christ, +then, or by inspiration, or in +both ways, our Evangelist received +the sublime doctrine regarding +the λόγος with which +his Gospel opens. +</p> + +<p> +Having now inquired into +the origin of the term λόγος +as applied to the Son of God, +and having learned the source +whence St. John derived his +doctrine regarding this Divine +Word, let us try to understand +how it is that the Son of God +could be appropriately referred +to as <hi rend='bold'>the Word</hi> (ὁ λόγος). Many +answers have been given, but +we will confine ourselves to the +one that seems to us most +satisfactory. +</p> + +<p> +We believe, and profess in +the Athanasian Creed (Filius a +Patre solo est non factus, nec +creatus, sed <emph>genitus</emph>), that the +Son is begotten by the Father; +and it is the common teaching +that He is begotten through +the Divine intellect. Now, +this mysterious procession of +the Son from the Father through +the intellect, is implied here in +His being called the Word. +For, as our word follows, without +passion or carnal feeling, +from our thought, as it is the +reflex of our thought, from +which it detracts nothing, +and which it faithfully represents; +so, only in an infinitely +more perfect way, the Son of +God proceeded, without passion +or any carnal imperfection, +through the intellect of the +Father, detracting nothing from +Him who begot Him, being +the image of the Father, <q>the +figure of His substance.</q> (Heb. +i. 3.) <q>Verbum proprie dictum,</q> +says St. Thomas, <q>in Divinis +personaliter accipitur, et est +proprium nomen personae filii, +significat enim quamdam emanationem +intellectus. Persona +autem quae procedit in Divinis +secundum emanationem intellectus, +dicitur filius, et hujusmodi +processio dicitur generatio</q> +(St. Thom., 1 Qu. 34, a. 2 c.) +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And the Word was with +God</hi> (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν). Πρός here +<pb n='017'/><anchor id='Pg017'/> +signifies not motion towards, +but a living union with, God.<note place='foot'>Sometimes (with πρός) the import of the accusative is apparently lost, πρός +signifying <emph>with</emph>, particularly in connection with names of persons (John i. 1); +but here πρός indicates (ideal) <emph>annexation</emph>, implying rather the active notion of +intercourse than a mere passive idea.—Winer, Gr. <hi rend='italic'>Gram. N. T.</hi>, 8th Eng. ed., +p. 504, h. and note 4.</note> +God refers not to the Divine +Nature, but to the Divine +Person of the Father (see 1 +John i. 2); otherwise the +<emph>Verbum</emph> would be unnecessarily +and absurdly said here to be +with Himself, since He is the +Divine Nature terminated in +the Second Person. Many commentators +are of opinion that +the use of πρός (with), and not +ἐν (in), proves that the <emph>Verbum</emph> +is not a mere attribute of +the Father, but a distinct +Person. So Chrys., Cyril, +Theophy., A Lap., Patrizzi, +M'Evilly. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And the Word was God.</hi> +As our English version indicates, +<hi rend='bold'>Word</hi> is the subject of +this clause, God the predicate, +for in the Greek λόγος has the +article, Θεός wants it; and besides, +as appears from the +whole context, St. John is +declaring what the Word is, +not what God is. A desire to +begin this clause with the last +word of the clause preceding—a +favourite construction with +St. John (see verses 4 and 5)—may +have led to the inversion +in the original. Or the inversion +may have been intended +to throw the Divinity of the +Word into greater prominence +by placing the predicate before +the verb. +</p> + +<p> +Some, like Corluy, refer <hi rend='bold'>God</hi>, +in this third clause, to the +Divine Nature, which is common +to the three Divine +Persons; others, as Patrizzi, +to the Divine Nature as terminated +in the Second Divine +Person. We prefer the latter +view, but in either interpretation +we have in this clause a declaration +of the Divinity of the +Word, a proof that cannot be +gainsaid of His essential unity +with the Father. Nor does the +absence of the Greek article +before <q>God</q> in this third +clause, when taken in conjunction +with its presence in the +second, imply, as the Arians +held, that the Word is inferior +to the Father. For our Evangelist +certainly refers sometimes +to the supreme Deity +without using the article (i. 6, +12, 18); and the absence +of the article is sufficiently +accounted for in the present +case by the fact that Θεός is a +predicate standing before the +copula.<note place='foot'><q>The omission of the article before the predicate, when the predicate +stands before the copula is the usage of the New Testament.</q>—Alford, on this +verse.</note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.</cell> +<cell>2. The same was in the beginning with God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='bold'>The same was in the +beginning with God</hi>. To +<pb n='018'/><anchor id='Pg018'/> +emphasize the three great +truths contained in verse 1: +namely, the Word's eternity, +His distinct personality, and +essential unity with the Father, +they are repeated in verse 2. +The same, that is, this Word +who is God, was in the beginning, +and was with God. +</p> + +<p> +Various attempts have been +made by the Unitarians to +escape the invincible argument +for a Second Divine Person +which these opening verses of +our Gospel contain. Thus, +they put a full stop after the +last <q>erat</q> of verse 1; and, +taking the words in the order +in which they occur in the +Greek and Latin, make the +sense of the third clause: +<hi rend='italic'>And God was.</hi> Then they join +<q><hi rend='italic'>verbum</hi>,</q> the last word of +verse 1, with verse 2: This +Word was in the beginning +with God. But even if we +granted to the Unitarians this +punctuation of the verses, the +sense of the third clause would +still be that the Word was God, +and not that God existed. For +<q>Deus</q> (Θεός without the +article), in the beginning of the +third clause ought still to be +regarded as the predicate, with +<q>verbum</q> of the preceding +clauses as the subject. This +follows not merely from the +absence of the Greek article +already alluded to, but also +from the absurdity of the Unitarian +view, which supposes +that St. John thought it necessary, +after telling us that the +Word was with God, to tell us +that God existed! +</p> + +<p> +Others have tried to explain +away the text thus: At the +beginning of the Christian dispensation +the Word existed, +and the Word was most intimately +united to God by love. +But, primum, they have still to explain +how this Word is declared +Creator in verses 3 and 10; +secundum, the statement in verse 14: +<q>And the Word was made flesh,</q> +implies transition of the Word +to a state different from that +in which He existed <q>in the +beginning;</q> but the time of +the transition is just the commencement +of the Christian +dispensation, which cannot, +therefore, be the time referred +to in verse 1 as <q>the beginning.</q> +</p> + +<anchor id='I_3'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: et sine ipso +factum est nihil, quod factum est,</cell> +<cell>3. All things were made by him: and +without him was made nothing that was made.</cell></row> +<row><cell>4. in ipso vita erat, et vita erat lux hominum:</cell> +<cell>4. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. St. John passes on to the +relations of the Word with +creatures. <hi rend='bold'>All things</hi> (πάντα = τὰ πάντα, +1 Cor. viii. 6, Col. +i. 16). The passages indicated, +as well as verse 10 of this +chapter: <hi rend='italic'>the world was made +by Him</hi>, make it clear that the +Son of God created all things. +Nor could this doctrine be +more plainly stated than in the +words before us: <hi rend='italic'>All things +were made by Him</hi>, &c. How +absurd, then, is the Socinian +view, according to which +St. John merely tells us here +that all Christian virtues were +introduced, and the whole +<emph>moral</emph> world established by +Christ! +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Were made</hi> ἐγένετο, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, +got their whole <emph>being</emph> from +<pb n='019'/><anchor id='Pg019'/> +Him, and not merely were +fashioned by Him from pre-existing +matter. The Cerinthian +theory, that the world +was made by an inferior being, +is here rejected. <hi rend='bold'>By Him</hi> +(δι᾽ αὐτοῦ). We are not to +suppose that the Word was an +instrument in the hands of the +Father, or inferior to the +Father, as the Arians held. +The preposition διά (per) is +often used in reference to a +principal efficient cause. Thus, +St. Paul says of the Father: +God is faithful, <emph>by whom</emph> +(δι᾽ οὗ) you are called unto +the fellowship of His Son, +Jesus Christ, our Lord (1 Cor. +i. 9. See also 1 Cor. i. 1, +2 Cor. i. 1, Gal. iv. 27, Heb. +ii. 10.) And since our Evangelist +has just declared in verse +1 the Word's divinity, and +knew Him to be one with the +Father (x. 30), it cannot be +implied here that the Word +is inferior to the Father. Some +commentators hold that there +is no special significance in the +use here of the preposition +διά, while others see in it an +allusion to the fact that the +Son proceeds from the Father, +and derives from Him His +creative power. According to +these, creation is <emph>from</emph> the +Father, but <emph>through</emph> the Son, +because the Son has received +His creative power, together +with His essence, from the +Father and is not, therefore, +like the Father, <q>principium +sine principio.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Others think that since all +things were created according +to the Divine idea, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, according +to the Divine and eternal +wisdom, and since the Word is +that wisdom, therefore all +things are rightly said to have +been created through the +Word. So St. Thomas on +this verse:—<q>Sic ergo Deus +nihil facit nisi per conceptum +sui intellectus, qui est sapientia +ab aeterno concepta, scilicet +Dei Verbum, et Dei Filius; et +ideo impossibile est quod aliquid +faciat nisi per Filium.</q> +In this view, which seems to us +the most probable, though like +all the Divine works that are +<q>ad extra,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> do not terminate +in God Himself, creation +is common to the Three Divine +Persons, yet, for the reason +indicated, it is rightly said to +be through the Son. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And without him was +made nothing</hi> (οὐδὲ ἕν = not +anything, emphatic for οὐδέν +nothing) <hi rend='bold'>that was made</hi> (Gr.: +hath been made). By a Hebrew +parallelism the same truth is +repeated negatively: all things +were made by Him, and +nothing was made without +Him. To this negative statement, +however, there is added, +according to the method of +pointing the passage common +at present, an additional clause +which gives us the meaning: +nothing was made without +Him, of all the things that +have been made. This restrictive +clause may then +<pb n='020'/><anchor id='Pg020'/> +be understood to imply that, +together with the Word, there +was something else uncreated, +that is to say (besides the +Father, whose uncreated existence +would be admitted by +all) the Holy Ghost also. +</p> + +<p> +In this way after the Macedonian +heresy arose in the +middle of the fourth century, +and blasphemously held that +the Word had made the Holy +Ghost, because without Him +was made nothing, many of +the Fathers replied: Nothing +was made without the Word, +of the things that were made; +but the Holy Ghost was not +made at all, and is therefore +not included among the things +made by the Word. However, +this restriction is not necessary +to defend the Divinity of the +Holy Ghost. Even though we +understand it to be stated absolutely +that nothing was made +without the Son, no difficulty +can follow; for the Holy Ghost +was not <emph>made</emph> (ἐγένετο), but +<emph>was</emph> (ἦν) from all eternity, as +is clearly implied elsewhere. +John xvi. 13, 14. +</p> + +<p> +On dogmatic grounds, therefore, +there is no necessity for +connecting: <hi rend='italic'>Quod factum est</hi>, +in the end of verse 3, with the +preceding. And, as a matter +of fact, all the writers of the +first three centuries seem to +have connected these words +with verse 4,<note place='foot'>See Patrizzi, iii. Diss. viii. 21.</note> and it appears +to us very likely, that it was +because of the Macedonian +heresy they began to be connected +with verse 3. St. Chrysostom +certainly is very strong +in connecting them with verse +3, but the reason is because +the heretics of the time were +abusing the other connection +to support their errors. <q>For +neither will we,</q> he says, +<q>put a full stop after that +<q>nothing,</q> as the heretics do</q> +(Chrysostom on John, Hom. v). +We must not, however, conclude, +from this remark of +St. Chrysostom that it was the +heretics alone who did so; for, +as we have said already, such +was the ordinary way of connecting +the clauses during the +first three centuries; and it is +supported not only by the +Fathers, but by the oldest +Latin MSS., and by some of +the oldest Greek MSS. And +even after the Macedonian +heretics had abused this passage +to blaspheme the Holy +Ghost, the old pointing, or to +speak more correctly the old +method of connecting the +clauses, remained the more +common.<note place='foot'>Patriz.</note> Not only did Cyril of +Alexandria, and Augustine, and +Venerable Bede, and St. +Thomas, and a host of others +read in this way, but Maldonatus, +who himself prefers the connection +in our English version: +<q>Without Him was made nothing +that was made,</q> admits +that the usage of his time was +<pb n='021'/><anchor id='Pg021'/> +against him, and that it was +then the practice to put a full +stop after <q>nothing</q>: <q>Without +Him was made nothing.</q> +Nor can the Sixtine or Clementine +edition of the Vulgate be +appealed to in favour of our +present pointing. As a matter +of fact, the Sixtine edition +<emph>rejected</emph> it, printing thus: +<q>Et sine ipso factum est nihil: +quod factum est in ipso vita +erat;</q> while the Clementine +Bible left the matter undecided +by printing thus: <q>Et sine +ipso factum est nihil, quod +factum est, in ipso vita erat,</q> +&c. We cannot, therefore, +understand to what Roman +Bibles A Lapide refers when +he says that the Bibles corrected +at Rome connect thus: +<q>And without Him was made +nothing that was made.</q> +</p> + +<p> +We think it extremely probable, +then, that the words: +Quod factum est (<hi rend='italic'>that was +made</hi>, or, as we shall render +in our interpretation; <hi rend='italic'>what +was made</hi>), standing at present +in the end of verse 3, +are to be connected with verse +4. Some may be inclined to +blame us for departing from +what is at present the received +connection of the words in +such a well-known passage +as this. Let us, therefore, +sum up briefly the evidence +that has forced us, we may +say reluctantly, to connect the +words with verse 4. +</p> + +<p> +1. Though Maldonatus tries +to throw doubt upon the fact, +this is the connection adopted +by practically all, if not all, the +Fathers and other writers of +the first three centuries, and +by the majority of writers +afterwards down to the sixteenth +century. +</p> + +<p> +2. It is supported by the +oldest MSS. of the Vulgate, +and, what is more remarkable, +by some of the oldest Greek +MSS., notwithstanding the +fact that St. Chrysostom was +against it. +</p> + +<p> +3. The parallelism in the +verse is better brought out: +<hi rend='italic'>All things were made by Him, +and without Him was made +nothing.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +4. If <hi rend='italic'>Quod factum est</hi> were +intended to be connected with +the preceding, the clause +would be certainly unnecessary, +and apparently useless, because +it is plain without it that the +Evangelist is speaking of what +was <emph>made</emph>, and not including +any uncreated Being, like the +Father or the Holy Ghost. +</p> + +<p> +We prefer, then, to connect: +<hi rend='italic'>Quod factum est</hi>, with what +follows. But it still remains +for us to inquire in what way +precisely the connection is to +be made, for various views +have been held upon the +subject. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>A.</hi> Some connect thus: What +was made in (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> by) Him, was +life, and the life was the light of +men. <hi rend='bold'>B.</hi> Others thus: What +was made was life in Him, +and the life was the light +of men. <hi rend='bold'>C.</hi> Others again, +<pb n='022'/><anchor id='Pg022'/> +adopting the same punctuation +as in the preceding, but understanding +differently: What +was made in it was the Life, +and the Life was the Light of +men. +</p> + +<p> +The last seems to us the +correct view. For <hi rend='bold'>A</hi> is improbable, +inasmuch as it either +declares all things to have +life, or implies that though +what was made by the Word +had life, yet there were other +things wanting life, which +proceeded, as the Manichaeans +held, from the evil principle. +</p> + +<p> +Nor can we accept <hi rend='bold'>B</hi>, even +as explained by St. Augustine +in the sense that all created +things are in the mind of God, +as the house before building is +in the mind of the architect; +and that being in the mind of +God they are God Himself, +and <q>life in Him.</q> For though +this is in a certain sense true, +yet it seems to us unnatural to +suppose that St. John here, in +this sublime exordium, thinks +it necessary or useful to tell us +that the archetypes of created +things lived in the Divine +Mind. <hi rend='bold'>C</hi> then appears to us +to be the more probable +view regarding the passage: +<q>What was made, in it was +the Life;</q> or, more plainly: +<q>In that which was made was +the Life;</q> for here, as elsewhere, +St. John begins with the relative +(see <ref target='I_45'>i. 45</ref>, 1 John i. 1); so +that, in this view, the Evangelist +after telling us the relations +of the Word to all things at +their beginning: <q>All things +were made by Him, and without +Him was made nothing,</q> now +goes on to point out His relations +to them after their creation: +first, His relations with +things generally: <q>In that +which was made was the Life,</q> +then his relations with man in +the supernatural order: <q>And +the Life was the Light of men.</q> +</p> + +<p> +5. Adopting this view as to +the connection between verses +3 and 4, St. Cyril of Alexandria +thus explains: <q>The Life (ἡ ζωή), +that is to say, the Only-begotten +Son of God, was in all things +that were made. For He, being +by nature life itself, imparts +being, and life, and motion to +the things that are ... In all +things that were made was the +Life, that is, the Word which +was in the beginning. The +Word, being essential life, was +mingling Himself by participation +with all existing things.</q> +</p> + +<p> +If it be objected to this interpretation +that the first ζωή of +verse 4, not having the article, +cannot mean the Eternal Life, +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> the Divine Word, we reply +that St. Cyril, one of the +greatest of the Greek Fathers, +thought differently; and moreover, +that very many of the +commentators who are against +us in the interpretation of this +passage, are yet with us in +referring ζωή here to the uncreated +life of the Divine Word. +</p> + +<p> +But if we follow what is at +present the common punctuation, +and read: <q>In Him was +<pb n='023'/><anchor id='Pg023'/> +life,</q> this is commonly interpreted +to mean that the Word is +the source of supernatural life +to man. S. Amb., S. Ath., Tol., +Mald., A Lap., Patr., Beel. +</p> + +<p> +But this view is not without +difficulty. For, first, if it be +merely meant that life comes +to man through the Word, we +might rather expect that the +preposition διά of the preceding +verse would have been retained. +</p> + +<p> +Secondly, if there be question +here of the Word as the life of +<emph>man</emph>, how is it that it is only +in the next clause that man is +first mentioned? Surely, if the +opinion we are considering +were correct, we should rather +expect St. John to have written: +<q>In Him was the life of man, +and the life was the light.</q> +For these reasons, and because +of what we have stated already +in favour of connecting <q>Quod +factum est</q> with what follows, +we prefer to understand this +passage, with St. Cyril, as a +statement that the Word, the +Essential Life, was present in +all things, conserving them in +existence. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And the Life was the +Light of men.</hi> In our view +the meaning is that the Word, +the Life, who conserved all +things in existence, was, moreover, +in the case of men, their +Light—the source and author +of their faith. Hence, we suppose +St. John, after referring +to the creation of all things, in +verse 3, and the conservation +of all things, in the beginning +of verse 4, to pass on now in +the end of verse 4 to speak of +that new creation that is effected +in man by means of a spiritual +illumination: <q>All things were +made by (or through) Him, and +without Him was made nothing. +In that which was made was +the Life, and the Life was the +Light of men.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Those who interpret the +beginning of the verse to mean +that the spiritual life of man +comes through the Word, take +the present clause as explaining +how that was so, how the +Word was the Life; namely, +inasmuch as He was the Light. +He was the source of our life +of grace here and glory hereafter, +inasmuch as He was the +source of our light, that is to +say, our faith. And some of +them, as Patrizzi, hold that the +order of the terms in this clause +is inverted, and that we should +read: <q>the light of men was +the life,</q> <q>light of men</q> +being the subject. +</p> + +<p> +Maldonatus tells us that +almost all writers before his +time understood <q>light of +men</q> in reference to the light +of reason. However, this view +is now generally abandoned, +and rightly, for that man owed +his reason to the Word +has been already implied in +verse 3: <q>All things were +made by Him.</q> Besides, the +<q>light</q> of this fourth verse is +doubtless the same as that of +verse 5, which <hi rend='italic'>men did not +receive</hi>, and of verse 7, to +<pb n='024'/><anchor id='Pg024'/> +which the Baptist was to bear +witness. But in neither of the +latter verses can there be question +of the light of reason; +hence, neither is there in verse +4. The meaning, then, is that +He who was the preserver of +all things was moreover the +source of the <emph>spiritual</emph> light of +men. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_5'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Et lux in tenebris lucet, +et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt.</cell> +<cell>5. And the light shineth in +darkness, and the darkness +did not comprehend it.</cell></row> +<row><cell>6. Fuit homo missus a Deo, +cui nomen erat Johannes.</cell> +<cell>6. There was a man sent +from God, whose name was +John.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. <hi rend='bold'>And the light shineth.</hi> +The meaning is, that the +Word, as the source and +author of faith, was always, +as far as in Him lay, enlightening +men. <hi rend='bold'>Shineth</hi>—the +present tense is used, +though the latter part of the +verse shows that the past also +is meant: <q>The light shineth in +the darkness, and the darkness +<emph>did not</emph> comprehend it.</q> Probably +the Evangelist avoids +using the past tense, lest it +might be inferred that the +Word had ceased to shine. +Besides, the present is more +appropriate, seeing that, in the +sense explained, the Word +shines <emph>throughout all time</emph>. +From the beginning the Word +shone, as far as in Him lay. +If men generally were not +enlightened, it was their own +fault. But all who were saved +from the beginning, were saved +through faith, and no one ever +received the gift of faith except +in view of the merits of the +Word Incarnate. <q>Nulli +unquam contigit vita nisi per +lucem fidei, nulli lux fidei nisi +intuitu Christi</q> (St. August.) +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The darkness</hi> is man +shrouded in unbelief. See +Luke i. 79, Eph. v. 8. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And the darkness did not +comprehend it.</hi><note place='foot'>The R. V. has <q>apprehended it not,</q> with marginal alternative: +<q>overcame it not.</q></note> As we have +just said, the meaning is, +that unbelieving men refused +to be enlightened. Ordinarily, +indeed, light cannot shine in +darkness without dispelling it; +but in this case the darkness +was man, a free agent, capable +of rejecting the light of faith +through which the Eternal +Word was shining. In telling +us that men refused to be +enlightened, the Evangelist is +stating what was the general +rule, to which at all times +there were noble exceptions. +</p> + +<p> +6. The correct rendering of +the Greek text is: <hi rend='bold'>There +came</hi> (ἐγένετο) <hi rend='bold'>a man, +sent by God, whose name +was John</hi>. This reference to +the Baptist in the middle of +this sublime exordium is +<pb n='025'/><anchor id='Pg025'/> +surprising, and has been variously +accounted for. Some +think that our Evangelist, +after having treated of the +Divinity of the Word, merely +wishes, before going on to +speak of the incarnation, to +refer to the precursor. But it +seems most probable that the +Evangelist wished to remove +at once the error of those +who, impressed by the austerity +and sanctity of the +Baptist's life, had looked upon +him as the Messias. If any of +them still remained at the +time when St. John wrote, or +should arise afterwards, they +are here told that the Baptist, +though having his mission +from Heaven, was only a man +intended to bear witness to +Christ. Thus the superior +excellence of Christ is thrown +into relief from the fact that +a great saint like the Baptist +was specially sent by Heaven +to be His herald. The reference +in this verse is to the +Baptist's coming into the +world, at his conception, +rather than to the beginning +of his preaching, for at the +moment of his conception, he +came, sent by God to be the +herald of Christ. See Luke +i. 13-17. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>John</hi> is the same name +as Jochanan (וחנן), which is +itself a shortened form of +Jehochanan = Jehovah hath +had mercy. This name was +appointed for the Baptist, +before his conception, by +the Archangel Gabriel, Luke +i. 13. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_7'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Hic venit in testimonium, +ut testimonium perhiberet de +lumine, ut omnes crederent +per illum:</cell> +<cell>7. This man came for a +witness, to give testimony of +the light, that all men might +believe through him.</cell></row> +<row><cell>8. Non erat ille lux, sed ut +testimonium perhiberet de +lumine.</cell> +<cell>8. He was not the light, but +was to give testimony of the +light.</cell></row> +<row><cell>9. Erat lux vera, quae illuminat +omnem hominem venientem +in hunc mundum</cell> +<cell>9. That was the true light, +which enlighteneth every man +that cometh into this world.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. This man came for witness, +namely, in order that he +might bear witness of <hi rend='italic'>the light</hi>, +that is to say, the Incarnate +Word, to the end that through +him all might believe in the +Word. +</p> + +<p> +8. <hi rend='bold'>He was not the light</hi> +(τὸ φῶς), that is, he was not the +great uncreated light which +enlighteneth all men; though, +in his own way, the Baptist +too was a light, nay, as Christ +Himself testified <q>the lamp +that burneth and shineth.</q> +(v. 35). Ἵνα depends on ἦλθεν (he +came), which is to be understood +from the preceding verse. +</p> + +<p> +9. <hi rend='bold'>That was the true light</hi> +(or, there was the true light), +<pb n='026'/><anchor id='Pg026'/> +<hi rend='bold'>which enlighteneth every +man that cometh into this +world</hi>. The Greek of this +verse may be construed and +translated in three different +ways:—1. By connecting ἦν +with ἐρχόμενον: The true light, +which enlighteneth every man, +was coming into this world. +2. By taking ἐρχόμενον as a +nominative agreeing with φῶς: +There was the true light which +<hi rend='italic'>at its coming</hi> into the world, +enlighteneth every man (iii. 19.) +3. By connecting ἐρχόμενον +with ἄνθρωπον, as in the Vulgate +and our English version. This +is far the most probable view. +In favour of it we have all the +Latin Fathers, all the Greek +Fathers except one, and all +the ancient versions. Besides, +ἐρχόμενον is thus connected +with the nearest substantive +with which it agrees in form. +Add to this that the second +opinion, the more probable of +the other two, would seem to +signify that the Word was not +a light to all men before +His coming, but only at His +coming; and this, as we have +explained above on verse 5, is +false. The meaning, then, is +that the Word was the true, +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> the perfect light, and as +far as in Him lies enlighteneth +at all times every man that +cometh into this world, be he +Jew or Gentile. <hi rend='bold'>That cometh +into this world</hi>, is in our view +a Hebrew form of expression +equivalent to: that is born. +It is used only here in the New +Testament, but <q>to be born</q> +was commonly expressed by +Jewish Rabbins by בוא בעולס (to +come into the world). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>10. In mundo erat et mundus +per ipsum factus est, et mundus +eum non cognovit.</cell> +<cell>10. He was in the world, and +the world was made by him, +and the world knew him not.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. <hi rend='bold'>He was in the world.</hi> +The Word, not the light, is +the subject here, as is proved +by the masculine pronoun +αὐτόν towards the end of the +verse. It is disputed to what +presence of the Word in the +world there is reference here. +Almost all the Fathers understood +the reference to be to +the presence of the Word in +the world before the incarnation. +According to this +view, which is held also by +A Lapide, the Word was in the +world, in the universe, conserving +what He had created, +<q>sustaining all things by the +word of His power</q> (Heb. i. 3). +God is everywhere present by +His essence, by His knowledge, +and by His power; but +it is of the latter presence, +which could be known, that +the view we are considering +understands this clause. +</p> + +<p> +Maldonatus, though he admits +that the Fathers are +against him, holds that the +reference is to the mortal life +of the Word Incarnate. He +argues from the fact that the +world is blamed, in the next +clause, for not having known +the Word; but knowledge +of the Word was impossible +<pb n='027'/><anchor id='Pg027'/> +before the incarnation. It was +possible indeed to know there +was a God, but impossible to +know the Second Divine Person, +the Word. Whatever may be +thought of the probability of +this second view, the arguments +ordinarily adduced +against it, from the use of the +imperfect <q>erat</q> (ἦν) and from +the alleged fact that all the preceding +verses refer to the Word +before His incarnation, have +no weight. For the imperfect +may be used not in reference +to Christ's existence before +His incarnation, but to show +that He not merely appeared +among men, but <emph>continued</emph> to +dwell for a time among them; +and the statement that everything +before this verse refers +to the Word before His incarnation, +cannot be sustained. +For the <q>Light</q> to which the +Baptist came to bear witness +(v. 7) was not the Word before +His incarnation, but the Word +Incarnate, as is evident. +According to this second +opinion, verse 11: He came +unto His own, and His own +received Him not, merely +emphasizes the ingratitude of +the world towards the incarnate +Word by showing that +He was rejected even by His +own chosen people. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And the world was made +by him, and the world +knew him not.</hi> Those who +interpret the first clause of +this verse of the existence +of the Word in the world +before the incarnation, understand +the world to be blamed, +in the remainder of the +verse, for its ignorance of +its Creator. The world is not +blamed, they say, for not +knowing the Word as the +Second Divine Person, for +such knowledge it could not +have gathered from the works +of creation, but for not knowing +God (Rom. i. 20), who +is one in nature with the +Word. +</p> + +<p> +Those who interpret the first +part of the verse of the presence +of Christ on earth during His +mortal life, hold that in the +remainder the world is blamed +for not recognising the Word +Incarnate as the Son of God, +and Second Divine Person. +The meaning of the whole verse +then, in this view, is: that +though the Son of God, who +created the world, deigned +to live among men, yet they +refused to recognise Him as +God. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. In propria venit, et sui +eum non receperunt.</cell> +<cell>11. He came unto his own, +and his own received him not.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. <hi rend='bold'>He came unto his own.</hi> +It is clear from what we have +said on the preceding verse, +that some take this to be the +first reference to the presence +on earth of the Word Incarnate; +while others regard it as +merely repeating the idea of +the preceding verse, with the +additional circumstance that +even <hi rend='italic'>His own</hi> refused to recognise +Christ. Some few +have held that the reference +<pb n='028'/><anchor id='Pg028'/> +here is to the transient coming +of the Word in the apparitions +of the Old Testament. But +all the Fathers understood the +verse of the coming of the +Word as man, and the verses +that follow prove their view to +be correct. <hi rend='bold'>His own</hi> is understood +by many of His own +world, which He had created; +but we prefer to take it as +referring to His own chosen +people, the Jews. <q>Verbum +inter Judæos veniens, natumque +ex gente Judæorum, quos +sibi Deus elegerat in populum +peculiarem (Deut. xiv. 2) +percommode dicitur venisse εἰς +τὰ ἴδια atque ipsi Judaei Verbo +ἴδιοι esse dicuntur,</q> Patriz. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And his own received +him not.</hi> That is to say, believed +not in Him, but rejected +Him. This was the general +rule, to which, of course, there +were exceptions, as the following +verse shows. These words +together with the two following +verses, we take to be a parenthetic +reflexion on the reception +Christ met with, and the happy +consequences to some. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_12'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Quotquot autem receperunt +eum, dedit eis potestatem +filios Dei fieri, his qui credunt +in nomine eius.</cell> +<cell>12. But as many as received +him, he gave them power to +be made the sons of God, to +them that believe in his name.</cell></row> +<row><cell>13. Qui non ex sanguinibus, +neque ex voluntate carnis +neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex +Deo nati sunt.</cell> +<cell>13. Who are born, not of +blood, nor of the will of the +flesh, nor of the will of man, +but of God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +12. There were some, however, +who believed in Him, or, +according to the Hebraism, +in His name, and to these, +<emph>whether Jews or Gentiles</emph>, +He gave power to become +adopted children of God. +That is to say, after they had +co-operated with His grace +and believed, He mercifully +gave them further grace +whereby they could be justified, +and thus be God's adopted +children. The last words of +this verse: <hi rend='bold'>To them that +believe in His name</hi>, explain +what is meant in the beginning +of the verse by receiving Him. +</p> + +<p> +13. Some commentators +have found great difficulty in +this verse, because they supposed +that those who in the +preceding verse are said to +have got the power to become +children of God are here said +to have been already born of +God. But the difficulty vanishes, +it seems to us, if +verse 13 be taken as explaining +not what those who believed +were before they became +sons of God, but the <emph>nature +of the filiation</emph>, to which those +who believed got power to +raise themselves. It is not +faith that makes them sons of +God, but through faith (not as +a meritorious cause, but as a +condition) they attained to +charity, which made them +<pb n='029'/><anchor id='Pg029'/> +children of God. This too is +all that is meant in 1 Jn. v. 1. It +is not meant that by believing +they are <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>eo ipso</foreign>, through faith +alone, sons of God. Faith, as +the Council of Trent lays down, +is the root of justification, but +it is not the formal nor even +the meritorious cause of justification; +it is a condition <q>sine +qua non.</q> And just as St. Paul +attributes justification to faith +without meaning that it is of +itself sufficient, so St. John +(1 John v. 1) attributes to faith +Divine sonship without meaning +that it comes from faith +alone. See Decrees of the +Council of Trent, Sess. vi. +Chap. vi. and viii. The meaning +of the two verses, according to +this view, is, that as many as +received Christ by believing in +Him, got power to become +children of God, children who +<emph>were</emph> born (ἐγεννήθησαν) not of +<emph>bloods</emph>,<note place='foot'><q>Pluralis adhibetur ratione habita utrusque parentis.</q>—Beel, <hi rend='italic'>Gr. Gram.</hi> +§ 273, note.</note> nor of the will of the +flesh, nor of the will of man, +but of God. Thus verse 13 +explains that these sons of +God were born not in a carnal +but in a spiritual manner. +<q>Tria hic de generatione +humana sic exponit St. +Thomas: <emph>ex sanguinibus</emph>, ut +ex causa materiali; <emph>ex voluntate +carnis</emph>,<note place='foot'>St. Thomas seems to prefer St. Augustine's peculiar view, that the +woman is here meant by <q>caro.</q> The other opinion given above is given by +him only in the second place as an alternative.</note> ut ex causa efficiente +quantum ad concupiscentiam +(in qua est voluntas +sensitiva); <emph>ex voluntate viri</emph>, +ut ex causa efficiente intellectuali +(libere actum conjugalem +perficiente).</q> Corl. +</p> + +<p> +To be born of God, implies +that we are transferred into a +new life wherein we become in +some sense partakers of the +Divine nature (2 Pet. i. 4). +Through the seed of Divine +grace we are begotten anew +and raised to this higher life. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_14'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Et Verbum caro factum +est, et habitavit in nobis: et +vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam +quasi Unigeniti a Patre, plenum +gratiae et veritatis.</cell> +<cell>14. And the Word was +made flesh, and dwelt among +us (and we saw his glory, the +glory as it were of the only-begotten +of the Father) full of +grace and truth.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. After the reflexion in +verses 12 and 13 on the way +Christ was received by men, +the Evangelist now states the +<emph>manner</emph> in which He came; +namely, by taking human +nature. According to some, +the first <q>and</q> is equivalent +to <q>for.</q> <q>After He had said +that those who received Him +are born of God and sons of +God, He adds the cause of this +unspeakable honour, namely, +that the Word was made flesh.</q> +(St. Chrys.). Others, however, +think that <q>and</q> has merely +its ordinary conjunctive force. +Note that Ὁ λόγος, not mentioned +since verse 1, is again +named, for emphasis, and to +put it beyond doubt or cavil +that it is the same Eternal God +of verse 1 who is declared to +have become man in verse 14. +<hi rend='bold'>Flesh</hi> is a Hebraism for +<pb n='030'/><anchor id='Pg030'/> +man. See also Gen. vi. 12; +Isai. xl. 5; Ps. lv. 5; John +xvii. 2. Probably it is used +here specially against the Docetae, +heretics who denied that +Christ had really taken flesh, +which they contended was essentially +polluted and corrupt. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Docetae discernebant in +homine tria principia τὴν σάρκα, +τὴν ψυχήν, et τὸν νοῦν vel τὸ +πνεῦμα. Duo priora habebant +ut essentialiter polluta, cum +quibus ideo Verbum hypostatice +uniri non posset. St. Joannes +haec tria Verbi hypostasi fuisse +unita docet, τὴν σάρκα hoc loco; +τὴν ψυχήν, John xii. 27; τὸ +πνεῦμα, xi. 33; xiii. 21; xix. +30,</q> Corluy, p. 40, note. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And dwelt.</hi> Many think, with +St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril, +that the Greek verb used is +employed specially to indicate +that the Word did not cease to +be God when He became man, +but <emph>dwelt</emph> in His humanity as +in a tent among men. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And we saw.</hi> The Greek +verb signifies to behold with +attention. We beheld not +merely His human nature present +among us, but we beheld +His glory as in the transfiguration, +Matt. xvii. 1, and +ascension, Acts i. 9, 11. For +glory, the Greek word is δόξα, +the solemn Scriptural term for +the glorious majesty of God. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The glory as it were</hi> (quasi, +Gr. ὡς) of the only-begotten; +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, glory <hi rend='italic'>such as was becoming</hi> +the only-begotten, &c. +Beware of taking the meaning +to be: a glory like that of the +Son of God, but not His. As +St. Chrys. points out, the ὡς +here expresses not similitude, +but the most real identity<note place='foot'>Compare our expression: he acted <emph>like</emph> a man.</note>: +<q>As if he said: We have +seen His glory such as it <emph>was +becoming and right</emph> that the +only begotten and true Son of +God should have.</q> S. Chrys. +on John, Hom. xii. <hi rend='bold'>Of the +Father</hi> should be <hi rend='bold'>from the +Father</hi>, and may be joined +either with <q>glory,</q> or with +<q>only-begotten.</q><note place='foot'>Verba <q>a Patre</q> aeque jungi possunt nomini sive <q>unigeniti,</q> sive +<q>gloriam.</q> Si primum, sensus erit unigeniti, qui est ex Patre, neque enim +Verbum γεννάσθαι, quod continetur in μονογενοῦς constructum reperitur cum +praepositione παρά.—Patriz.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Full of grace and truth.</hi> +(πλήρης, in the nominative, is +the correct reading). This is +to be connected closely with +the beginning of the verse: +<q>The Word was made flesh, +and dwelt among us, full of +grace and truth,</q> and the other +clause, <hi rend='bold'>And we saw His glory</hi>, +&c., is parenthetic, thrown in to +prove the preceding statement. +</p> + +<pb n='031'/><anchor id='Pg031'/> + +<p> +Christ is said to have been +full of grace and truth, not +merely in Himself, but also, as +the following verses prove, in +reference to men with whom +He freely shared them. +Kuinoel, followed by Patrizzi, +understands by <q>grace and +truth</q> true grace or true +benefits. But it is more natural +to take grace and truth as two +distinct things, seeing that they +are again mentioned separately +(ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια) in +verse 17. Grace may be understood +in its widest sense; for +not only had Christ the <q>gratia +unionis,</q> as it is called, whereby +His humanity was hypostatically +united to the Divinity; +but, moreover, His human soul +was replenished to its utmost +capacity with created grace, +which not only sanctified Him, +but was also through Him a +source of sanctification to us. +See St. Thomas, p. 2, sec. 7, 8. +Christ is said to be <q>full of +truth,</q> not only because <q>all +the treasures of wisdom and +knowledge are hidden in Him</q> +(Col. ii. 3), but also because, as +verse 17 states, He gave us the +knowledge of the true faith and +true way of salvation. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_15'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Ioannes testimonium perhibet +de ipso, et clamat, dicens: +Hic erat quem dixi: Qui post +me venturus est, ante me factus +est: quia prior me erat.</cell> +<cell>15. John beareth witness of +him, and crieth out, saying: +This was he of whom I spoke: +He that shall come after me, is +preferred before me: because +he was before me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. <hi rend='bold'>John.</hi> The Baptist (for +it is he who is meant: comp. +with John i. 27; Mark i. 4, 7; +Luke iii. 2, 16) is now referred +to parenthetically, as confirming +what our Evangelist has +said, namely, that the eternal +Word dwelt among men. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Crieth out.</hi> (Gr. perf. with +pres. signif., Beel., <hi rend='italic'>Gr. Gram.</hi>, +§ 41, 4 (B) note); viz., gives +solemn, public testimony. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>This was he of whom I +spoke</hi> (rather, said). Some, +like Patrizzi, think that the +testimony of the Baptist here +referred to is a distinct testimony +not mentioned elsewhere. +Others, and with more probability, +hold that the Evangelist +mentions here by anticipation +the same testimony whose circumstances +he describes in +verses 29 and 30. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>He that shall come after +me</hi>, in His public ministry, <hi rend='bold'>is +preferred before me, because +he was before me</hi>. Some +commentators, as Kuinoel and +Patrizzi, understand <q>before</q> +in both cases of <emph>time</emph>: is +before Me, because He is +eternal; others, as St. Chrys. +and Toletus, in both cases of +dignity: is preferred before Me, +because really preferable; and +others, as our English version, +with St. Augustine, St. Thomas, +Beelen, Alford, in the former +case of dignity in the latter of +time: is preferred before Me, +<pb n='032'/><anchor id='Pg032'/> +because He is eternal. The +last seems the correct interpretation, +and in it the past +tense <q>is preferred</q> (ante me +factus est) is used prophetically +for the future, or may be explained +as a past: has been +preferred in the designs of God.<note place='foot'>Patrizzi, following Kuinoel, contends that ἐμπρόσθεν (before) is never +used of priority in dignity; but see Alford, who cites Gen. xlviii. 20, as well +as Plato and Demosthenes, for this meaning.</note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Et de plenitudine eius +nos omnes accepimus, et +gratiam pro gratia.</cell> +<cell>16. And of his fulness we all +have received, and grace for +grace.</cell></row> +<row><cell>17. Quia lex per Moysen +data est, gratia et veritas per +Iesum Christum facta est.</cell> +<cell>17. For the law was given +by Moses, grace and truth +came by Jesus Christ.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. After the parenthetic +clause contained in verse 15, +the Evangelist, not the Baptist, +continues regarding the Word: +<hi rend='bold'>And of his fulness</hi> (see verse +<ref target='I_14'>14</ref>) <hi rend='bold'>we have all received, and +grace for grace</hi>. The second +<q>and</q> is explanatory. <hi rend='bold'>Grace +for grace</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>—(1) the grace +of eternal life following on the +grace of justification here; or +(2) abundant grace, according +as the grace given to Christ +was abundant: gratia nobis +pro gratia Christi (Rom. v. +15); or (3) the more perfect +grace of the New Law, instead +of that given under the Old +Law (Chrysostom, Cyril, +Patrizzi); or (4), and best, by +a Hebraism, abundant grace. +<q>aντ'i dicitur de successione, +gratiam unam post aliam +(gratiam cumulatam).</q> (Beel., +<hi rend='italic'>Gr. Gram.</hi>, § 51 A.) So also Kuin. +</p> + +<p> +17. The Evangelist confirms +what is stated in verse 16, and +at the same time takes occasion +to prefer Christ to Moses, +as he has already preferred +Him to the Baptist. Moses +was but the medium of <emph>communicating</emph> +to the Jews the +Mosaic Law, which only +pointed out man's duty, +without enabling him to fulfil +it—Rom. vii. 7, 8; but Christ +was the <emph>source</emph> and <emph>author</emph> of +grace and truth to us; of all +the graces whereby we are to +merit heaven, and of the +perfect knowledge of the true +faith. This is, doubtless, +directed against some of the +Judaizers, who held that +sanctification through the +Mosaic Law was at all times +possible, even after the Christian +religion was established. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_18'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Deum nemo vidit +unquam: unigenitus Filius, +qui est in sinu Patris, ipse +enarravit.</cell> +<cell>18. No man hath seen God +at any time: the only-begotten +Son who is in the bosom of the +Father, he hath declared him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. There is considerable +difference of opinion as to the +drift or bearing of this verse. +Some think that a reason is +given why only Christ could +give the truth, because only +He saw God in His essence. +Others, that a reason is given +why the gifts of Christ mentioned +in the preceding verse, +are superior to the Law given +<pb n='033'/><anchor id='Pg033'/> +by Moses, namely, because +Moses never saw God in His +essence. Others, that the +evangelist explains how he +and his fellow-Apostles received +of Christ's fulness, not only +through what Christ did (17), +but through what He taught +(18); and the necessity for +such a Divine teacher is shown +by the fact that no one but He +ever saw God. So St. Thomas. +</p> + +<p> +Others, as Maldonatus and +Patrizzi, hold that the Evangelist +is here adding to his own +testimony, and that of the +Baptist, the testimony of our +Lord Himself, in favour of all +that he has said regarding +our Lord in this sublime +prologue; the meaning being: +What I have said regarding +the eternity, personality, and +Divinity of the Word, regarding +His power as creator and +regenerator, and regarding +His incarnation, I have neither +seen with my own eyes, nor +learned from anyone who saw, +for <q>no man hath seen God +at any time,</q> but Jesus Christ +Himself explained these things +to me. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>No man hath seen God at +any time.</hi> If understood of +the vision of <emph>comprehension</emph> this +is universally true of every +creature, man or angel; if of +seeing God in His essence +without comprehending Him, +it is true of all while they are +here below. The latter is the +sense here, for the Evangelist +wishes to signify that he could +not have learned from any +mere mortal the foregoing +doctrine. The saints in +heaven see God in His essence, +for as our Evangelist tells us +in his First Epistle: <q>We shall +see Him as He is</q> (1 John iii. +2. See also <ref target='XVII_3'>John xvii. 3</ref>). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The only-begotten Son.</hi> +Instead of: <q>The only-begotten +Son,</q> the reading: +<q>God only-begotten</q> is found +in very many ancient authorities, +and is almost equally +probable. Were it certain, it +would be an additional proof +of Christ's Divinity. Christ is +the only-begotten Son of God, +because while He is the natural +Son of God, all others are +but adopted sons. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Who is in the bosom of +the Father</hi> (εἰς τὸν κόλπον +τοῦ πατρός). This means that +the Son is consubstantial +with the Father: <q>In illo ergo +sinu, id est in occultissimo +paternae naturae et essentiae, +quae excedit omnem virtutem +creaturae, est unigenitus Filius, +et ideo consubstantialis est +Patri.</q> St. Thomas on this +verse. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>He hath declared him.</hi> +<q>Him</q> is not represented in +the original; and if our view +of the verse is the correct one, +the object of the verb <q>hath +<pb n='034'/><anchor id='Pg034'/> +declared</q> is not so much the +Word, as the doctrine contained +in this prologue concerning +Him.<note place='foot'>Thus far, the prologue of our Gospel, of which Franzelin truly says:—<q>Singula +doctrinae capita de J. Christo vero Deo, Deique Filio in unum +quodamodo collecta verticem conspiciuntur. Hoc enim loco is qui in tempore +caro factus est, docetur esse Deus, Deus aeternus, Deus creator universi, Deus +auctor gratiae et ordinis supernaturalis, Deus cui supremus cultus debetur.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>De +Verbo Incarn.</hi>, Th. 8.</note> +</p> + +<anchor id='I_19'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Et hoc est testimonium +Ioannis, quando miserunt +Iudaei ab Ierosolymis sacerdotes +et Levitas ad eum, ut interrogarent +eum: Tu quis es?</cell> +<cell>19. And this is the testimony +of John, when the Jews +sent from Jerusalem priests +and Levites to him, to ask him: +Who art thou?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. The Evangelist now +records, with its various circumstances, +one of the most +solemn testimonies borne by +the Baptist to Christ. The +<q>Jews</q> are probably the +Sanhedrim, whose duty it was +to inquire into the credentials +of preachers. The deputation +was, therefore, a most solemn +one, sent by the Sanhedrim, +from the Jewish capital, composed +of Priests and Levites, +to make inquiries regarding a +momentous question. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Et confessus est, et non +negavit: et confessus est: +Quia non sum ego Christus.</cell> +<cell>20. And he confessed, and +did not deny: and he confessed: +I am not the Christ.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +20. The Baptist first confesses +what he is not, and what +many at the time believed +him to be, namely, the Christ +(Luke iii. 15). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Et interrogaverunt eum: +Quid ergo? Elias es tu? Et +dixit: Non sum. Propheta es +tu? Et respondit: Non.</cell> +<cell>21. And they asked him: +What then? Art thou Elias? +And he said: I am not. Art +thou the prophet? And he +answered: No.</cell></row> +<row><cell>22. Dixerunt ergo ei: Quis +es, ut responsum demus his qui +miserunt nos? quid dicis de +teipso?</cell> +<cell>22. They said therefore unto +him: Who art thou, that we +may give an answer to them +that sent us? What sayest +thou of thyself?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +21. <hi rend='bold'>Art thou Elias?</hi> This +question arose from a misunderstanding +of Mal. iv. 5. <hi rend='bold'>Art +thou the prophet?</hi> (ὁ προφήτης), +as foretold by Moses (Deut. +xviii. 15). These interrogators +evidently regarded <q>the prophet</q> +as different from the Messias, +though in reality they were +the same. See Acts iii. 22-24. +</p> + +<pb n='035'/><anchor id='Pg035'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Ait: Ego vox clamantis +in deserto: Dirigite viam +Domini, sicut dixit Isaias +propheta.</cell> +<cell>23. He said: <hi rend='italic'>I am the voice +of one crying in the wilderness, +Make straight the way of the +Lord</hi>, as said the prophet +Isaias.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. The Baptist with striking +humility replies that he is +merely a voice, a passing +sign—yet that voice spoken +of by Isaias, which was to +call upon men to prepare their +hearts to receive Christ. The +Hebrew of Isaias may be +rendered: <q>The voice of one +that crieth in the wilderness: +Prepare ye the way of the +Lord (Jehovah), make straight +in the desert a highway for +our God.</q> Or, as is more +probable from the Hebrew +parallelism: <q>The voice of +one that crieth: Prepare ye +in the wilderness the way of +the Lord, make straight in +the desert a highway for our +God.</q> The Baptist, in applying +to himself this prophetic +passage, which is also applied +to him by the three Synoptic +Evangelists (Matt. iii. 3; Mark +i. 3; Luke iii. 4), gives merely +the substance of the original. +It is disputed whether Isaias +refers in the literal sense to +preparing the roads by which +the people should return from +the Babylonian Captivity, and +only in the mystical sense to +the preparation for the Messias, +or directly and literally to the +preparation for the Messias. +The latter seems the more +probable view. At any rate, +the words as applied here mean +that the Baptist is the voice +to which Isaias referred (in +some sense literal or mystical), +and that the burden of his cry +in the desert of Judea is, that +men who heard him in the +desert should prepare their +hearts for Christ. +</p> + +<p> +The language is metaphorical, +and alludes to the custom prevalent +in those days of sending +forward couriers to get the roads +ready for advancing princes. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_24'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Et qui missi fuerant, +erant ex Pharisaeis.</cell> +<cell>24. And they that were sent +were of the Pharisees.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. The Pharisees were a +sect among the Jews, so called +according to some from their +founder, Pharos, or more probably, +perhaps, from the +Hebrew verb <q>pharash</q> +(פרשׂ) to separate, as though +they were separated from and +above ordinary men, owing +to their strict observance of +the Law. They held many +erroneous tenets: thus—(1) +They relied for God's favour +upon their carnal descent from +Abraham. (2) They taught +that no oath was binding in +which the name of God or the +gold of the temple was not +expressly invoked. (3) That +internal sins were not forbidden; +and (4) some of their +schools admitted the right of +<pb n='036'/><anchor id='Pg036'/> +arbitrary divorce. See Matt. v. +33-36; xix. 3; xxiii. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Et interrogaverunt eum, +et dixerunt ei: Quid ergo baptizas, +si tu non es Christus, +neque Elias, neque propheta?</cell> +<cell>25. And they asked him, +and said to him: Why then +dost thou baptize, if thou be +not Christ, nor Elias, nor the +prophet?</cell></row> +<row><cell>26. Respondit eis Ioannes, +dicens: Ego baptizo in aqua: +medius autem vestrum stetit, +quem vos nescitis.</cell> +<cell>26. John answered them, +saying: I baptize with water; +but there hath stood one in the +midst of you, whom you know +not.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25. Being Pharisees, and +therefore versed in the Law, +they knew from Ezech. xxxvi. +25, and Zach. xiii. 1, that in +the time of the Messias there +was to be a baptism unto the +remission of sins. They concluded, +then, that only the +Messias, or some of those that +were to accompany Him, could +confer this baptism; and, not +understanding the import of +the Baptist's answer, verse 23, +in which he really declared +himself the herald of Christ's +coming, they ask why he presumes +to baptize. +</p> + +<p> +26. The Baptist answers +that his is not the baptism +foretold by the Prophets, which +was to cleanse the sinner, but as +he had declared at the beginning +of his preaching, a baptism +unto penance (Matt. iii. 21). +John's baptism consisted in an +ablution of the body, accompanied +by the profession of a +penitential spirit, preparatory +to the coming of Him who +was to baptize with the Holy +Ghost and fire (Matt. iii. 11). +It could in no sense be said +to remit sin; while the baptism +of Christ really remits sin +(Acts ii. 38). Hence the +Council of Trent defined:—<q>Si +quis dixerit baptismum +Joannis habuisse eamdem vim +cum baptismo Christi anathema +sit.</q> (Sess. vii., Can. i.) +<hi rend='italic'>De Bapt.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>There hath stood</hi> (ἕστηκεν); +rather there <hi rend='bold'>standeth</hi>, the +perfect of this verb having a +present signification. Many +authorities indeed read the +later present στήκει. The meaning +is not that our Lord was +then actually present in the +crowd, else St. John would +probably have pointed him +out, as he did on the following +day (v. 29); but that He was +already present among the +Jewish people, was already +living among them. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Ipse est qui post me venturus +est, qui ante me factus +est: cuius ego non sum dignus +ut solvam eius corrigiam calceamenti.</cell> +<cell>27. The same is he that +shall come after me, who is +preferred before me: the +latchet of whose shoe I am +not worthy to loose.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +27. Many authorities omit +the words: <q>The same is,</q> +and also: <q>who is preferred +before me,</q> and then connect +with the preceding thus: <q>But +there hath stood One in the +midst of you whom you know +not, even He that shall come +(rather, that cometh) after me, +the latchet of whose shoe I am +<pb n='037'/><anchor id='Pg037'/> +not worthy to loose.</q> So +Tisch., Treg., Westcott, and +Hort, and the Rev. Vers. It +is not easy to explain why +the words are wanting in so +many MSS., if they were +written by St. John; certainly +it is easier to believe +that they were inserted by +some scribe to bring the verse +into closer resemblance to 15 +and 30. +</p> + +<p> +In the latter part of the +verse, the Baptist declares +himself unworthy to perform +the lowest menial service for +Christ. To loose the sandals +of their masters was the business +of slaves; yet for even +such service to Christ the +great Prophet confesses himself +unfit. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_28'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>28. Haec in Bethania facta +sunt trans Iordanem, ubi erat +Ioannes baptizans.</cell> +<cell>28. These things were done +in Bethania beyond the Jordan, +where John was baptizing.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +28. <hi rend='bold'>Bethania</hi>, here mentioned, +was situated in Peraea, +east of the Jordan, and must +be carefully distinguished from +the town of the same name, in +which Lazarus lived, about +two miles east of Jerusalem, +but west of the Jordan. Many +ancient authorities read Bethabara, +instead of Bethania. +Origen, though admitting that +nearly all the MSS. of his +time read Bethania, changed +it, on topographical grounds, +for Bethabara, in his edition +of our Gospel. Bethania, +according to some, means the +house of a ship (בית אניה), +while Bethabara means the +house of a ferry-boat (בית עברה); +so that, perhaps, they may +have been different names +for the same place on the +Jordan. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Altera die vidit Ioannes +Iesum venientem ad se, et ait: +Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit +peccatum mundi.</cell> +<cell>29. The next day John saw +Jesus coming to him, and he +saith: Behold the lamb of +God, behold him who taketh +away the sin of the world.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +29. On the day after that +on which the Baptist bore the +preceding testimony, he saw +Jesus coming towards him. +This is the first time that the +mention of the Holy Name +occurs in our Gospel. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus</hi> +(Gr. Ἰησοῦς) is the same as +the Hebrew ישׂוע, which is +itself a contraction for יהושׂוע, +meaning God the Saviour. +That our Lord was so called, +to show that He was to +be the Saviour of men, is +clear from the words of the +angel to St. Joseph: <q>And +she shall bring forth a son; +and thou shalt call His name +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>for</hi> He shall <hi rend='italic'>save</hi> His +people from their sins</q> +(Matt. i. 21). We cannot be +certain whence Jesus was now +coming; but it seems very +probable that He was coming +from the desert after His forty +days' fast. We know from +<pb n='038'/><anchor id='Pg038'/> +St. Mark (i. 12) that as soon +as He was baptized, <q><emph>immediately</emph> +the spirit drove Him +out into the desert, and He +was in the desert forty days +and forty nights.</q> Since, +then, the present occasion +was subsequent to His baptism, +as we learn from a comparison +of verse 33 with +St. Matthew iii. 16 (for the +Baptist alludes, on the present +occasion, to what took place +at the baptism), it follows that +it must have been at least forty +days subsequent. Christ seems +too to have been absent when, +on the day before this, the +Baptist bore witness to Him, +else the Baptist would have +probably pointed Him out as +present, just as he does on +this occasion. All things +considered, then, it is likely +Jesus is now returning, and +that the Baptist here takes +the first opportunity of again +commending Him to the +people. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Behold the lamb</hi> (ὁ ἀμνός) +of God. The Baptist, in these +words, points out Jesus as the +Messias, for there is evident +allusion to Isaias liii. 7-12, +where the Messias is compared +to a lamb before his +shearers, bearing the sins of +many. In referring to Jesus +as a lamb, the Baptist recalled +this prophecy, insinuated +Christ's innocence, and perhaps +suggested that he was +to be sacrificed. <hi rend='bold'>Lamb of +God</hi>, because offered by God +for the sins of men, as we +speak of the sacrifice of Abraham, +meaning the sacrifice +offered by him; or it may +mean simply the Divine Lamb. +But the first opinion seems +more probable. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Who taketh away the +sin of the world.</hi> Every +word is emphatic. Christ not +merely covers up, or abstains +from imputing sin, but He +takes it away altogether, as +far as in Him lies. And it is +not merely legal impurities +that the sacrifice of this Divine +Lamb will remove, but sin; and +not merely the sin of one race, +like the Jewish, but the sin of +the whole world. <q>Sin,</q> in +the singular number, designates +as one collective whole +every sin of every kind. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>30. Hic est de quo dixi: Post +me venit vir qui ante me factus +est, quia prior me erat:</cell> +<cell>30. This is he of whom I +said: After me there cometh a +man, who is preferred before +me: because he was before me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +30. The Baptist goes on to +say that Jesus is that very +Person of whom he had said +<pb n='039'/><anchor id='Pg039'/> +on a previous occasion: <hi rend='bold'>After +me</hi>, &c. Some take the reference +here to be to the testimony +of the preceding day, when the +Baptist bore witnesses in verse +27; others think the reference +is to the occasion spoken of +in verse 15, and regard that +testimony as distinct from the +one recorded in verse 27. We +prefer the latter view, and distinguish +in all six testimonies +of the Baptist recorded in the +Gospels. The first, before +Christ's Baptism, as in Matt. iii. +11; Mark i. 7; Luke iii. 16; +the second, as in John i. 15; +the third, as in John i. 19-27; +the fourth, as in John i. 29-34; +the fifth, as in John i. 35-36; +and the sixth and last, as in +John iii. 27-36. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>31. Et ego nesciebam eum, +sed ut manifestetur in Israel, +propterea veni ego in aqua +baptizans.</cell> +<cell>31. And I knew him not, but +that he may be made manifest +in Israel, therefore am I come +baptizing with water.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +31. <hi rend='bold'>And I knew him not</hi>; +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, <emph>officially</emph>, so as to be able +to bear witness to Him publicly; +or, better: I knew Him +not personally; I was unacquainted +with Him, so that +my testimony in His favour +then and now cannot be the +result of prejudice or partiality +towards Him. The Baptist +was indeed a relative of our +Lord (Luke i. 36), and must +known what his father, +Zachary, had declared, <q>Praeibis +enim ante faciem Domini +parare vias ejus</q> (Luke i. 76), +that he himself was to herald +the public coming of Jesus. +Yet, as Jesus dwelt at Nazareth +in Galilee during His private +life; and John, reared in the hill +country of Juda (Luke i. 39), +spent the years before his +public mission—perhaps from +his very childhood (as Origen, +Mald.) in the deserts (Luke i. +80), it is conceivable how +he might not have known +Christ's appearance. <q>What +wonder,</q> says St. Chrys., <q>if +he who from his childhood +spent his life in the desert, +away from his father's home, +did not know Christ?</q> But +as he had, while still in his +mother's womb, been divinely +moved to recognise Christ +(Luke i. 41, 44); so, immediately +before the baptism of +the latter, he was enabled to +recognise Him (Matt. iii. 14). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. Et testimonium perhibuit +Ioannes, dicens: Quia vidi +Spiritum descendentem quasi +columbam de coelo, et mansit +super eum.</cell> +<cell>32. And John gave testimony, +saying: I saw the +Spirit coming down as a dove +from heaven, and he remained +upon him.</cell></row> +<row><cell>33. Et ego nesciebam eum: +sed qui misit me baptizare in +aqua, ille mihi dixit: Super +quem videris Spiritum descendentem, +et manentem super +eum, hic est qui baptizat in +Spiritu Sancto.</cell> +<cell>33. And I knew him not: +but he, who sent me to baptize +with water, said to me: He +upon whom thou shalt see the +Spirit descending and remaining +upon him, he it is that baptizeth +with the Holy Ghost.</cell></row> +<row><cell>34. Et ego vidi: et testimonium +perhibui quia hic est +Filius Dei.</cell> +<cell>34. And I saw; and I gave +testimony, that this is the Son +of God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +32-34. Some, as Patrizzi, +take this as a new testimony; +others, with more probability, +take it as a continuation of the +preceding, and say that our +Evangelist inserts the words, +<hi rend='bold'>and John gave testimony</hi>, +<pb n='040'/><anchor id='Pg040'/> +in the middle of the Baptist's +words, in order to arrest the +reader's attention. The Baptist +here declares what he had +beheld after the baptism of +Christ (Matt. iii. 16), and how +that sign had been revealed to +him beforehand as one that +was to mark out the Messias, +and <emph>confirm</emph> his own faith: and +how he had accordingly on +that occasion borne witness +that Jesus is the Son of God. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>That baptizeth with the +Holy Ghost</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, who will +<emph>wash</emph> you, not with water, but in +the graces of the Holy Ghost. +There may be special reference +to the graces conferred in +Christian baptism. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>35. Altera die iterum stabat +Ioannes, et ex discipulis eius +duo.</cell> +<cell>35. The next day again +John stood, and two of his +disciples.</cell></row> +<row><cell>36. Et respiciens Iesum ambulantem, +dicit: Ecce Agnus +Dei.</cell> +<cell>36. And beholding Jesus +walking, he saith: Behold the +Lamb of God.</cell></row> +<row><cell>37. Et audierunt eum duo +discipuli loquentem, et secuti +sunt Iesum.</cell> +<cell>37. And the two disciples +heard him speak, and they +followed Jesus.</cell></row> +<row><cell>38. Conversus autem Iesus, +et videns eos sequentes se, +dicit eis: Quid quaeritis? Qui +dixerunt ei: Rabbi (quod dicitur +interpretatum, magister), +ubi habitas?</cell> +<cell>38. And Jesus turning, and +seeing them following him, said +to them: What seek you? Who +said to him: Rabbi (which is to +say, being interpreted, Master), +where dwellest thou?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +35-38. Circumstances in +which the first disciples attached +themselves to Jesus. +The Evangelist interprets the +Syro-Chaldaic word Rabbi (38), +because he is writing for the +Christians of Asia Minor. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_39'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>39. Dicit eis: Venite, et +videte. Venerunt, et viderunt +ubi maneret, et apud eum manserunt +die illo: hora autem erat +quasi decima.</cell> +<cell>39. He saith to them: Come +and see. They came, and +saw where he abode, and they +staid with him that day: now +it was about the tenth hour.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +39. <hi rend='bold'>About the tenth hour.</hi> +According to those who hold +that St. John numbers the +<pb n='041'/><anchor id='Pg041'/> +hours of the day after the +Jewish method, the time here +indicated would be about two +hours before sunset. For the +Jews divided the natural day +or time of light into twelve +equal parts, each part being +one-twelfth of the whole, so +that the length of their hour +varied according to the season +of the year. If we suppose +St. John to number as we do +now, and as the Greeks did +then, the time here indicated +would be about 10 a.m. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>40. Erat autem Andreas frater +Simonis Petri unus ex duobus +qui audierant a Ioanne, et +secuti fuerant eum.</cell> +<cell>40. And Andrew the brother +of Simon Peter was one of the +two who had heard of John, +and followed him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +40. It is extremely probable +that the other who followed, +and whose name is not given, +was our Evangelist himself. +See <ref target='Intro_I_B_2'>Introd. I. B. 2</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>41. Invenit hic primum +fratrem suum Simonem, et +dicit ei: Invenimus Messiam +(quod est interpretatum Christus).</cell> +<cell>41. He findeth first his +brother Simon, and saith to +him: We have found the +Messias, which is, being interpreted, +the Christ.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +41. <hi rend='bold'>First</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, before +the other (our Evangelist) +findeth his brother, James. +<hi rend='bold'>Messias</hi> (from the Hebrew +root <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>Mashàch</foreign> (משׂח), to anoint) += χριστός = anointed. It +was the custom to anoint +Hebrew kings, priests, and +prophets; and Christ, as combining +the three dignities in +Himself, was <hi rend='italic'>the anointed</hi> by +excellence. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_42'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>42. Et adduxit eum ad +Iesum. Intuitus autem eum +Iesus, dixit: Tu es Simon filius Iona: tu vocaberis Cephas, +quod interpretatur Petrus.</cell> +<cell>42. And he brought him to +Jesus. And Jesus looking +upon him said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou +shalt be called Cephas, which +is interpreted Peter.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +42. Christ's omniscience is +left to be inferred from His +knowing Simon<note place='foot'>Simon, vel Symeon (Act xv. 14 sine var. lect. in Gr. codd., 2 Pet. i. 1, +א, A, K, L, P, &c.) שׂמעון (exauditio, Gen. xxix. 33). <q>Nomen Patris aut +Jonas, Ἰωνᾶ (Matt. xvi. 17), aut Ἰωάνες vel Ἰωάννες (Joan xxi. 15) legitur; +Joan i. 43 codd. graeci alii Ἰωνᾶ alii Ἰωάνου vel Ἰωάννου; unde prius nomen non +essi nisi alterius corruptionem nec quidquam cum nomine prophetae Jonae +habere commune elucet.</q>—Corn. iii. § 212, note 1.</note> here at first +sight. <hi rend='bold'>Cephas</hi>, Syro-Chaldaic, +<pb n='042'/><anchor id='Pg042'/> +<foreign rend='italic'>Képha</foreign> (כפא); Hebrew <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>Keph</foreign> +(כפ) = πέτρα (rock), from which +we have πέτρος with the feminine +termination changed into the +masculine. The change of +Simon's name was now predicted, +but was probably not +made till afterwards. See +Mark iii. 16. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_43'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>43. In crastinum voluit exire +in Galilaeam, et invenit +Philippum. Et dicit ei Iesus: +Sequere me.</cell> +<cell>43. On the following day he +would go forth into Galilee, +and he findeth Philip. And +Jesus saith to him: Follow me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +43. <hi rend='bold'>On the following day +he would go forth.</hi> The +sense is: when He was about +to set out; <q>cum in eo esset, +ut e Judaea abiret</q> (Kuin.). +Jesus had come from Nazareth, +the home of His private life in +Galilee, to be baptized by John, +(Matt. iii. 13; Mark i. 9). He +had then spent forty days in the +desert, and been tempted there, +(Matt. iii. 16-iv. 3); had returned +from the desert to the +Jordan, and been witnessed to +again by the Baptist (see above +John i. <ref target='I_15'>15</ref>, <ref target='I_19'>19-36</ref>), and was now +on the point of returning to +Galilee. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Follow me.</hi> Philip to whom +these words were addressed +was afterwards the Apostle of +that name. The call to follow +our Lord on this occasion was +not the formal call to the +<emph>Apostleship</emph>, but rather an invitation +to him to become a +disciple. The same is to be +said regarding the others +referred to in this chapter, +Peter, Andrew, James, John, +and Nathanael. Four of these—Peter, +Andrew, James, and +John, who had in the meantime +returned to Galilee, and were +pursuing their calling of +fishermen, were again called, +Matt. iv. 18-22, Luke v. 1-11; +and on this second occasion +<q>leaving all things they +followed Him,</q> and became +inseparably attached to Him as +disciples. Finally, the solemn +formal call of the twelve to the +Apostleship is narrated, Matt. +x. 2; Luke vi. 13. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_44'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>44. Erat autem Philippus +a Bethsaida, civitate Andreae +et Petri.</cell> +<cell>44. Now Philip was of +Bethsaida, the city of Andrew +and Peter.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +44. <hi rend='bold'>Bethsaida.</hi> In our +view there were two towns +of this name: the one mentioned +here, on the western +shore of the sea of Galilee, +about four miles south of +Capharnaum; the other Bethsaida +Julias, situated to the +north east of the same sea. +The latter was enlarged and +greatly improved by Philip the +Tetrarch, son of Herod the +Great, who gave it the name +Julias, in honour of Julia the +<pb n='043'/><anchor id='Pg043'/> +daughter of the Roman +Emperor Augustus. +</p> + +<anchor id='I_45'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>45. Invenit Philippus Nathanaël, +et dicit ei: Quem +scripsit Moyses in lege, et prophetae, +invenimus Iesum filium +Ioseph a Nazareth.</cell> +<cell>45. Philip findeth Nathanael, +and saith to him: We have +found him of whom Moses in +the law, and the prophets did +write, Jesus the son of Joseph +of Nazareth.</cell></row> +<row><cell>46. Et dixit ei Nathanaël: +A Nazareth potest aliquid boni +esse? Dicit ei Philippus: Veni, +et vide.</cell> +<cell>46. And Nathanael said to +him: Can anything of good +come from Nazareth? Philip +saith to him: Come and see.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +45. Philip not only obeys +the call to become a disciple +himself, but brings another +disciple with him to Jesus. +Nathanael (= <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Deus dedit</foreign>) was +a native of Cana in Galilee +(John xxi. 2), and is most +probably identical with Bartholomew +(= son of Tolmai) +the Apostle, <q>For Nathanael +and Philip are coupled in John +i. 45, as Bartholomew and +Philip are here (Matt. x. 3); +Nathanael is named in the +very <emph>midst</emph> of Apostles, John +xxi. 2. <q>There were together +Simon Peter, and Thomas, who +is called Didymus, and +Nathanael who was of Cana +of Galilee, and the sons of +Zebedee.</q> Would anyone but +an Apostle be so named? +Finally, Matthew, Luke, and +Mark do not allude to +Nathanael, nor does John to +Bartholomew</q> (M'Carthy on +Matt. x. 3). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The son of Joseph.</hi> Doubtless, +he means a son conceived +and born in the ordinary way. +So it was generally thought, +and so thought Philip, ignorant +of the miraculous conception +of Christ, and of His birth at +Bethlehem. It is absurd to +charge our Evangelist, as De +Wette has done, with ignorance +of Christ's miraculous +birth of a virgin, because he +records the ignorance of Philip. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Nazareth</hi>, for ever famous +as the scene of the incarnation, +was a little town in Lower +Galilee, in the tribal territory +of Zabulon. It was the dwelling-place +of our Lord during +His private life. Nazareth, +indeed all Galilee, was held in +contempt (see John <ref target='VII_50'>vii. 52</ref>), +and hence Nathanael's doubt, +(verse 46), though he was +himself a Galilean (John xxi. 2). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>47. Vidit Iesus Nathanaël +venientem ad se, et dicit de eo; Ecce vere Israelita, in quo +dolus non est.</cell> +<cell>47. Jesus saw Nathanael +coming to him, and he saith of him: Behold an Israelite indeed, +in whom there is no guile.</cell></row> +<row><cell>48. Dicit ei Nathanaël: +Unde me nosti? Respondit +Iesus, et dixit ei: Priusquam +te Philippus vocaret, cum esses +sub ficu, vidi te.</cell> +<cell>48. Nathanael saith to him: +Whence knowest thou me? +Jesus answered, and said to +him: Before that Philip called +thee, when thou wast under +the fig-tree, I saw thee.</cell></row> +<row><cell>49. Respondit ei Nathanaël, +et ait: Rabbi, tu es Filius +Dei, tu es rex Israel.</cell> +<cell>49. Nathanael answered +him, and said: Rabbi, thou +art the Son of God, thou art +the King of Israel.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +47-49. When Nathanael +had approached near enough +to be able to hear what was +said, but before he had spoken +anything from which our Lord +might have been thought to +guess at his character, our +Lord said: <hi rend='bold'>Behold an Israelite +<pb n='044'/><anchor id='Pg044'/> +indeed, in whom there is +no guile</hi>; that is to say, one +who, not merely by descent, but +by the simplicity and honesty of +his character, is a true son of +Jacob. See Gen. xxv. 27; +Rom. ix. 6. Jacob's name was +changed into Israel, after he +wrestled with the angel, Gen. +xxxii. 28. +</p> + +<p> +47-49. Nathanael must have +felt convinced that he had been +hidden from Christ's natural +view, otherwise he could not +draw the inference which, aided +by divine grace, he draws. +Whether Nathanael yet recognised +Jesus to be true God, +and professed his belief in Him +as such, in the words of verse +49, is disputed. If we are to +judge from his words (ὁ υἱός), +the affirmative opinion seems +much more probable. The +words are an echo of the +Baptist's testimony (v. 34), but +Nathanael confesses not alone +Christ's Divine origin, but +also His human sovereignty: +Thou art the Son of God, Thou +art the King of Israel. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>50. Respondit Iesus, et dixit +ei: Quia dixi tibi: Vidi te sub +ficu, credis: maius his videbis.</cell> +<cell>50. Jesus answered and said +to him: Because I said unto +thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, +thou believest: greater +things than these shalt thou see.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +50. Jesus promises Nathanael +stronger arguments in proof of +His Divinity. In the words: +<hi rend='bold'>Greater things than these +shalt thou see</hi>, the plural these +seems to point to the class and +not merely the special incident. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>51. Et dicit ei: Amen, amen. dico vobis, videbitis coelum +apertum, et Angelos Dei ascendentes, et descendentes +supra Filium hominis.</cell> +<cell>51. And he saith to him: Amen, amen, I say to you, +you shall see the heaven opened, and the Angels of God +ascending and descending upon the son of man.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +51. <hi rend='bold'>Amen, amen</hi>, is peculiar +to John. The other Evangelists +use <q>Amen</q> only once in +such asseverations. <q>Amen +means verily (at the end of a +prayer, so be it); and when +doubled, strengthens the asseveration, +and points to the +<pb n='045'/><anchor id='Pg045'/> +solemnity of the declaration +about to follow</q> (M'Ev.). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Son of man.</hi> This term, +probably derived in its Messianic +sense from Dan. vii. 13, 14, +was very rarely applied to +Christ, except by Himself, and +we find Him using it very +frequently (though not exclusively; +see, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, Matt. ix. 6; +xxiii. 30; Acts vii. 56) in +connection with His privations, +sufferings, and death (Matt. +viii. 20; xii.40; xvii. 12; xxvi. +21-25; John iii. 14, &c.). +It indicates that Christ was not +only man like Adam; but that, +unlike him, He was <emph>descended</emph> +of man, and therefore our +brother in the truest sense. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>You shall see.</hi> Though +Nathanael is addressed (and +He saith to <emph>him</emph>), yet the plural +(videbitis) shows that the wondrous +sign here promised was +to be seen not by him alone, +but at least by Philip also, and +probably by others. The meaning +of the prediction is obscure. +Evidently some great sign is +promised; but what it is, interpreters +are far from agreed. +Some take the words metaphorically, +others literally. +</p> + +<p> +Of those who understand +them metaphorically, some +take the sense to be: You shall +see numerous miracles, such as +are usually attributed to angels +(or, in the performance of which +angels shall minister to Me) +wrought by Me, the Son of +Man, during My public life. So +Beelen, Maier, &c. We cannot +accept this view, for it seems +highly improbable that our Lord +would speak in language so obscure +to the guileless Nathanael +and his companions on an occasion +like the present, when Nathanael +had only just believed. +</p> + +<p> +Others understand of the +spiritual glories of the whole +period from the commencement +of Christ's public mission till +the end of the world. Alford, +explaining this view (which, by +the way, he calmly claims to +have been <q>the interpretation +of all commentators of any +depth in all times</q>!) says: <q>It +is not the outward visible +opening of the material heavens +nor ascent or descent of angels +in the sight of men, which the +Lord here announces, but the +series of glories which was +about to be unfolded in His +Person and work, from that +time forward.</q> Our difficulty +in regard to this view is the +same as in regard to the preceding. +</p> + +<p> +St. Augustine is generally +supposed to have understood +this text in reference to the +preachers of the New Testament, +<q>ascending</q> when they +preach the more sublime, +<q>descending,</q> when they preach +the more elementary doctrines +of religion. If St. Augustine +meant this as a <emph>literal</emph> interpretation +of the passage, as he +<pb n='046'/><anchor id='Pg046'/> +certainly seems to do in Tract +vii. on this Gospel, we cannot +accept it. Surely, something +stranger and more striking is +promised here, after the opening +of the heavens, than the +sight of preachers! +</p> + +<p> +Others hold that we must +interpret this passage entirely +in the light of Jacob's dream, +Gen. xxviii. 12. Jacob saw a +ladder reaching from earth to +heaven, with angels ascending +and descending upon it. That +vision meant in his regard that +God would make him the object +of His special protection (see +Gen. xxviii. 13-15). And now +Nathanael, who is <hi rend='italic'>an Israelite +indeed</hi>, a true son of Jacob (v. 47), +is told that he and others shall +see that Divine favour and +protection which Jacob's vision +signified, extended in such an +extraordinary manner to Christ, +during His life, that it will be +most manifest He is the Son of +God. +</p> + +<p> +This view we regard as +probable. The Fathers tell us +that Nathanael was particularly +well versed in the Scriptures, +and our Lord's words might +readily recall to his mind +Jacob's dream, with all its +significance of Divine favour +and protection. +</p> + +<p> +Of the opinions that attempt +to explain the words literally, +some may be dismissed at +once. Thus there cannot be +reference to the angels who +appeared at Christ's birth, or +after His temptations (Matt. +iv. 11), for Christ speaks of an +event still to come, whereas +His birth and temptations +were already past. Nor can +there be reference to the transfiguration, +even if we suppose +angels to have been present; +nor to the agony in the garden; +nor to the resurrection; for +on none of these occasions +did Philip and Nathanael see +the angels. Less improbable, +perhaps, is the view that there +is reference to the ascension, +and the two angels that appeared +then (Acts i. 10). But +this opinion too we reject without +hesitation. In the passage +of the Acts referred to, St. Luke +tells us: <q>And while they were +beholding Him going up to +heaven, behold two men <hi rend='italic'>stood +by them</hi> in white garments.</q> +Now, it is clear that angels +who stood by the apostles and +disciples, cannot possibly be +those referred to here as <q>ascending +and descending upon +the Son of Man.</q> +</p> + +<p> +A Lapide refers the prediction +to some miraculous +vision seen by the disciples +during our Lord's life, and +not recorded in the Gospels. +But it seems improbable that +the fulfilment of such a prediction +would be passed over in +silence by all the Evangelists. +</p> + +<p> +Finally, there is the opinion, +which is held by Maldonatus, +that there is reference to the +last judgment, when the +heavens shall be opened, and +Christ shall come riding on +<pb n='047'/><anchor id='Pg047'/> +the clouds of heaven, accompanied +by angels, and all +men shall be forced to confess +Him God. This seems +to us the most probable interpretation. +For, first, it is +likely that our Lord refers to +the clearest and most incontrovertible +proof that shall be +given of His Divinity; and +such will be His coming in +majesty to judge the world. +Secondly, we know that on +another occasion, when he was +challenged by the Jewish High +Priest to say if he was the Son +of God, He appealed to this +same proof of His Divinity: +<q>I adjure thee by the living +God, that thou tell us if thou +be the Christ, the Son of God. +Jesus saith to him: Thou +hast said it. Nevertheless, I +say to you: Hereafter you +shall see the Son of Man sitting +at the right hand of the +power of God, and coming in +the clouds of heaven</q> (Matt. +xxvi. 63-64). Probably the +expression: <hi rend='bold'>ascending and +descending</hi> is to be understood +metaphorically, even in +this opinion, and means merely +that the angels shall be <emph>attendant +upon</emph> the great Judge, +ready to execute His will. +The order is remarkable: they +are said first to ascend, and +then to descend, as was the +case also in Jacob's vision. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='048'/><anchor id='Pg048'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter II.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-11. <hi rend='bold'>Christ at the marriage feast in Cana changes water into wine.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +12. <hi rend='bold'>He goes down to Capharnaum.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +13-17. <hi rend='bold'>At the approach of the Pasch He goes up to Jerusalem, and there +drives the buyers and sellers out of the Temple.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +18-22. <hi rend='bold'>Challenged by the Jews for a sign of His authority, He predicts +His own Resurrection, as the disciples called to mind after He +had risen.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +23-25. <hi rend='bold'>On the occasion of this first Pasch of His public life many believe +in Him because of His miracles.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Et die tertia nuptiae factae +sunt in Cana Galilaeae, et erat +mater Iesu ibi.</cell> +<cell>1. And the third day there was +a marriage in Cana of Galilee: +and the mother of Jesus was +there.</cell></row> +<row><cell>2. Vocatus est autem et +Iesus, et discipuli eius, ad +nuptias.</cell> +<cell>2. And Jesus also was invited, +and his disciples, to +the marriage.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. The Evangelist having +narrated how our Lord was +witnessed to by the Baptist, +and joined by His first disciples, +now proceeds to tell how He +bore testimony of Himself by +His miracles. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The third day.</hi> Naturally +the third from the point of time +last referred to, in verse 43. +</p> + +<p> +The marriage feast was +celebrated for a week among +the Jews, and this custom had +come down from very ancient +times, as we learn from the +book of Judges, xiv. 12. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Cana of Galilee</hi> was situated +most probably in the tribe +of Zabulon near Capharnaum. +There was another Cana in the +tribe of Aser, near Sidon (see +Jos. xix. 28). +</p> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='bold'>And Jesus also was +invited</hi>; that is to say, He +also, <emph>as well as</emph> the Blessed +Virgin, was invited. Mald. +holds that καὶ (et) is explanatory: +on that account, +that is to say, because +she <emph>was</emph> there as a friend +of the family, Jesus was +<emph>invited</emph>. +</p> + +<pb n='049'/><anchor id='Pg049'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Et deficiente vino, dicit +mater Iesu ad eum: Vinum +non habent.</cell> +<cell>3. And the wine failing, the +mother of Jesus saith to him: +They have no wine.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='bold'>And the wine failing</hi> +(Gr. having failed). Either all +the wine was already drunk, +or, at least, there was no +more to be drawn; the last was +on the table. When we take +into account what Mary says +to the servants (v. 5), it is plain +that her object in telling Jesus +that the wine had run short, +was not that He and His +disciples might retire (Bengel), +nor that He might exhort the +company to patience (Calvin), +nor that He might buy wine +(Kuin.), but that He might work +a miracle. <q>The Mother of the +Lord having heard of the testimony +of the Baptist, and seeing +the disciples gathered round +her Son, the circumstances of +whose miraculous birth she +treasured in her heart (Luke ii. +19, 51) must have looked now +at length for the manifestation +of His power, and thought that +an occasion only was wanting. +Yet even so she leaves all to +His will</q> (Westc., in <hi rend='italic'>Speaker's +Comm.</hi>). +</p> + +<anchor id='II_4'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Et dicit ei Iesus: Quid +mihi et tibi est mulier: Nondum venit hora mea.</cell> +<cell>4. And Jesus saith to her: +Woman, what is it to me and +to thee? My hour is not yet come.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +4. <hi rend='bold'>Woman, what is it to +me and to thee?</hi> The Vulgate +has. <q>Quid mihi et tibi <emph>est</emph>, +mulier?</q> But the verb is not in +the Greek text (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ +σοί γύναι?), which would therefore +be better translated: +<q>What to Me and to thee, +woman?</q> The Revised Version +of the Church of England +renders: <q>Woman, what have +I to do with thee?</q> +</p> + +<p> +Most Protestant writers have +held that these words of our +Lord contain a reproof of His +mother. Among Catholics +many have held that the +words contain <emph>the semblance</emph> of +reproof; to teach us, not Mary, +that we are not to be influenced +by motives of flesh and blood +in the service of God. Others +have held (and this is the +general opinion of modern +Catholic commentators) that +the words do not contain even +the appearance of reproof. +</p> + +<p> +(1) It is now generally +acknowledged even by Protestant +commentators that the +term γύναι is not reproachful +or disrespectful. According to +Alford there is no reproach in +the term, but rather respect; +and Trench says: <q>So far from +any harshness, the compellation +has something solemn in +it</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Miracles</hi>, p. 100). Liddell +and Scott's <hi rend='italic'>Lexicon</hi>, says: <q>It +is often used as a term of +respect or affection, mistress, +lady.</q> Yet Calvin impiously +asserts that our Lord does not +deign to call Mary His Mother: +<q>Deinde cur simplici repulsa +non contentus eam in vulgarem +<pb n='050'/><anchor id='Pg050'/> +mulierum ordinem cogit, nec +jam matris nomine dignatur?</q> +<q>Why doubt of the heavenly +origin of a reformation wrought +by such reasoning as this?</q> +(McCarthy). +</p> + +<p> +Father Coleridge thinks that +Mary is addressed here by the +title γύναι because that is <q>what +we may call her official and +theological title ... for she is +the <q>woman</q> of whom our Lord +was born; she is the <q>woman</q> +of whom God spake to our first +parents when He made them +the promise of a Redeemer after +the fall; she is the <q>woman</q> +to whom the whole range of +types look forward, who was +to conceive and compass a man +(Jer. xxxi. 22); she is the +<q>woman,</q> the second Eve, as +our Lord is the Man, and the +Son of Man, the second +Adam.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Publ. Life of our Lord</hi>, vol. i., p. 185.</note> But whatever may +be thought of this view, enough +has been said to show that +the term γύναι does not imply +reproof or disrespect. +</p> + +<p> +(2) Neither does the phrase +<q>What to Me and to thee?</q> +(τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί?). We find +exactly the same phrase +in Judg. xi. 12; 3 Kings +xvii. 18; 4 Kings iii. 13; 2 +Paral. xxxv. 21; Mark v. 7; +Luke viii. 28.<note place='foot'>Consult also, as almost exactly the same, 2 Kings xvi. 10; Josue xxii. 24; +Matthew viii. 29; Matthew xxvii. 29; Mark i. 2.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(A). After a candid examination +of these texts, it must, +we think, appear that the +meaning of the phrase is <emph>not</emph>: +What does this concern you +and Me? for in some, if not all, +of the passages cited the phrase +cannot have that meaning. +Besides, is it likely Jesus would +say that the wants of the poor, +who were His hosts, and +perhaps His relatives, and their +shame consequent upon those +wants, did not concern Him? +</p> + +<p> +(B). Neither is the meaning: +What have I to do with you, or, +what have I in common with +you? (as author of a miracle +such as you suggest); it must +proceed from My Divine nature, +while only My human nature +has been derived from you (so +Augus., Tolet., Patriz.). For— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) This is not the meaning +of the phrase in the parallel +passages. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Christ gives a different +reason: <hi rend='italic'>My hour is not yet come.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) His person hypostatically +united to His human nature, +had that nature in common +with her, and it is of His person +(<foreign rend='italic'>mihi</foreign>), not of His Divine +nature merely that He speaks. +</p> + +<p> +(C). What the precise meaning +of the phrase is, it is difficult +to determine with certainty. +In all the passages where it +occurs, it seems to indicate +some divergence between the +thoughts or wishes of the +persons so brought together. +Most probably it is here a <emph>remonstrance</emph>; +<pb n='051'/><anchor id='Pg051'/> +because the suggestion +that Christ should work a +miracle is <emph>inconvenient or inopportune</emph>, +inasmuch as it brings +moral pressure to bear upon +Him to make Him begin His +miracles before the time at +which, prescinding from this +suggestion, His public miracles +were to begin. Something +similar are the words of God to +Moses: <q><hi rend='italic'>Let Me alone</hi>, that +My wrath may be kindled +against them, and that I may +destroy them</q> (Exod. xxxii. +10). On that occasion God, +after remonstrating, granted the +prayer of Moses, just as on this +occasion, after remonstrating, +He yielded to the suggestion of +His Mother. So St. Cyril of +Alex., St. Amb., Corl, &c. +</p> + +<p> +Whether the above be the +correct meaning of the phrase +or not, one thing is clear, +against Calvin, Alf., Trench, +&c., that the words cannot contain +a rebuke—not a <emph>real</emph> +rebuke; because there was no +fault on Mary's part, not even +venial (Council of Trent, sess. +vi., can. 23). St. Aug., whose +authority Protestants must respect, +whatever they may think +of that of the Council of Trent, +says: <q>De Sancta Maria Virgine, +propter honorem Christi, +nullam prorsus quando de +peccato agitur volo habere +quaestionem</q> (<hi rend='italic'>De Natura et +Gratia</hi>, ch. xxxvi.). Moreover, if +the Blessed Virgin were guilty +of any fault, it would be either +because of the thing suggested, +or of some circumstance of +time, place, motive, &c. Now, +our Lord granted what she +suggested; the object was +therefore, good. The circumstances +were the very same +when the miracle was wrought +as when it was suggested. As +to her motive, it may have been +good—charity for the poor. +Why, then, ascribe a bad +motive, such as vanity, without +convincing proof? That +the suggestion was acceded to, +goes to show that it was made +in circumstances in which it +was not displeasing to God.<note place='foot'>See M'Carthy, <hi rend='italic'>Gospels of the Sundays</hi>, p. 72.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Neither is there in the words a +<emph>feigned</emph> rebuke, that is, feigned +for our instruction, to show +us that we are not to regard +flesh and blood in doing the +work of God (Mald., Tolet., +&c.); for Christ actually did +what was suggested; and, +besides, it is Catholic teaching +that Christ in heaven grants +many requests to His Mother, +<emph>because</emph> she is His Mother. +</p> + +<p> +In vain, then, have Protestants +tried to find, in these +words of our Lord, anything +derogatory to the dignity of +His Blessed Mother. To every +interpretation which would give +such a sense to His words, we +may answer, with St. Justin, +Martyr: <q>Non verbo matrem +objurgavit qui facto honoravit.</q> +<q>He reproved not His +<pb n='052'/><anchor id='Pg052'/> +mother by what He said who +honoured her by what He did.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>My hour is not yet come.</hi> +In our interpretation it is easy +to explain these words. His +hour is not the hour of His +death, nor the time when the +want of wine would be fully felt, +but the time at which, according +to the ordinary providence +of God, and prescinding from +His Mother's suggestion, His +public miracles were to begin. +</p> + +<anchor id='II_5'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Dicit mater eius ministris: Quodcumque dixerit +vobis, facite.</cell> +<cell>5. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall +say to you, do ye.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. <hi rend='bold'>Whatsoever he shall +say to you, do ye.</hi> These +are not the words of one +whose suggestion had been +reproved and rejected. +</p> + +<anchor id='II_6'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Erant autem ibi lapideae +hydriae sex positae secundum +purificationem Iudaeorum, capientes +singulae metretas binas +vel ternas.</cell> +<cell>6. Now there were set there +six waterpots of stone, according +to the manner of the +purifying of the Jews, containing +two or three measures +a-piece.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +6. For the custom of the +Jews in the matter of ablutions, +see Matt. xv. 2; Mark vii. 2-5. +The μετρητής was a Greek liquid +measure, containing about nine +gallons, or, to be accurate, +eight gallons 7.4 pints. There +were six jars, or water-pots, +each containing two or three +measures. If each jar contained +two measures, the whole +quantity of wine miraculously +provided would be = 6 × 2 × +9 = 108 gallons. If each contained +three measures, the whole would be = 6 × 3 × 9 += 162 gallons. The quantity of +wine miraculously produced +was therefore very great, being +at least about 108 gallons. It is +absurd, however, to seek in +this miracle of our Divine Lord +any excuse for intemperance. +As well might God be accused +of conniving at intemperance, +because He fills the grape each +year with the moisture of earth +and heaven, and then transmutes +this into the nobler juices +which He knows man will +convert into wine. He gives +in every case, that we may use, +not that we may abuse. If the +quantity of wine miraculously +provided on this occasion was +large, we ought to remember +that the marriage feast lasted +for a week; that there were +probably many guests present, +whose number was considerably +increased by the invitation, +at the last moment, of Christ +and His disciples on their +arrival from Judea; that others +would probably be attracted +now by the fame of this miracle, +and the desire to see Him who +had wrought it; and, finally, +that the quantity of the wine +made the miracle more striking. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Dicit eis Iesus. Implete +hydrias aqua. Et impleverunt +eas usque ad summum.</cell> +<cell>7. Jesus saith to them: Fill +the waterpots with water. And +they filled them up to the brim.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. <hi rend='bold'>To the brim.</hi> So that +there was no room left to mix +<pb n='053'/><anchor id='Pg053'/> +wine or anything else with the +water; this shows, too, the +quantity of wine that was +miraculously supplied. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Et dicit eis Iesus: Haurite +nunc, et ferte architriclino. Et +tulerunt.</cell> +<cell>8. And Jesus saith to them: +Draw out now, and carry to +the chief steward of the feast. +And they carried it.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8. <hi rend='bold'>Chief steward</hi> (Gr. ἀρχός, +chief, or ruler, and τρίκλινος, +a dining-room, with three +couches, and more generally, +a dining-room). The president +of the feast, according to some, +was <emph>one of the guests</emph> selected +by the host, or by the unanimous +consent of the guests; +according to others, he was +not a guest, but the <emph>chief +servant</emph>. In the first view he +corresponds with the συμποσιάρχης +of the Greeks, and the +<q>magister convivii,</q> or <q>arbiter +bibendi,</q> of the Romans; and +this we take to be correct, for his +familiarity with the bridegroom +(v. 10) bespeaks the friend +rather than the servant. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Ut autem gustavit architriclinus +aquam vinum factam, +et non sciebat unde esset, +ministri autem sciebant qui +hauserant aquam, vocat sponsum +architriclinus.</cell> +<cell>9. And when the chief +steward had tasted the water +made wine, and knew not +whence it was, but the waiters +knew who had drawn the +water; the chief steward +calleth the bridegroom.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +9. St. John mentions that +the president of the feast knew +not whence the wine was, nor +how it had been produced, in +order to show that his testimony +in its favour was not +the result of previous collusion +with Jesus. <hi rend='bold'>Who had drawn +the water.</hi> ἠντληκότες is the +form for the pluperfect, as well +as for the perfect participle, +and is rightly rendered <q>had +drawn.</q> We consider it more +likely that the reference is to +their drawing the water from the +well in order to fill the water-pots. +But if the reference be +to drawing the wine from the +pots (in v. 8 the same Greek +verb is used in reference to that +action), then the wine is called +water because it had been water +so recently, just as the serpent +is called a rod in Exod. vii. 12. +because it had been a rod +immediately before. It is most +likely that the conversion +took place in the water-pots, +and not on the way from them +to the table. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>10. Et dicit ei: Omnis homo +primum bonum vinum ponit: et +cum inebriati fuerint, tunc id, +quod deterius est: Tu autem +servasti bonum vinum usque +adhuc.</cell> +<cell>10. And saith to him: +Every man at first setteth forth +good wine, and when men have +well drank, then that which is +worse. But thou hast kept +the good wine until now.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. Most probably the Greek +word (μεθυσθῶσιν) rendered +in the Vulgate <q>inebriati +fuerint</q> does not here imply +<pb n='054'/><anchor id='Pg054'/> +drunkenness, but only drinking +freely. <q>In classical use +it generally, but not always, +implies intoxication. In the +Hellenistic writers, however, +as Josephus, Philo, and the +LXX., it very often denotes +drinking freely, and the hilarity +consequent, which is probably +the sense here</q> (Bloomf.). In +any case, whatever meaning +we give the word here, the +president of the feast merely +speaks of what was the common +practice, without saying +that the guests at this particular +feast had indulged to the +same extent. +</p> + +<anchor id='II_11'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Hoc fecit initium signorum +Iesus in Cana Galilaeae: +et manifestavit gloriam suam, +et crediderunt in eum discipuli +eius.</cell> +<cell>11. This beginning of miracles +did Jesus in Cana of Galilee: +and manifested his glory, and +his disciples believed in him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. This was Christ's first +miracle, or better perhaps, it +was His first <emph>public</emph> miracle, +the first <emph>sign</emph>, or proof given +in public of His Divine power. +It is worthy of note that our +Lord honoured marriage on +this occasion not only by His +presence, but also by His first +public miracle. The effect of +the miracle is carefully noted +by our Evangelist whose main +object, as we saw, is to prove +Christ's Divinity. And He manifested +His glory, δόξα (see <ref target='I_14'>i. +14</ref>); and the faith of the disciples +was <emph>confirmed</emph>. The fact +that they were disciples, shows +that they had some faith already. +</p> + +<anchor id='II_12'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Post hoc descendit Capharnaum, +ipse, et mater eius, +et fratres eius; et discipuli eius: +et ibi manserunt non multis +diebus.</cell> +<cell>12. After this he went down +to Capharnaum, he and his +mother, and his brethren, and +his disciples: and they remained +there not many days.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +12. <hi rend='bold'>Capharnaum</hi>, the largest +town of Galilee, was situated, +on the western shore of the sea +of Galilee (Matt. iv. 13, John +vi. 24), and the journey to it +from Cana is rightly described +as a descent. During His +public life our Lord seems to +have dwelt chiefly in this town, +which is therefore sometimes +spoken of as His own city (see +Matt. ix. 1, and compare with +Mark ii. 1). It was long thought +to be impossible to identify +the site of Capharnaum, but it +seems now to be practically +certain that the site is that of +<pb n='055'/><anchor id='Pg055'/> +the modern Tell Hûm, about +two and a half miles south-west +of the point where the Jordan +enters the sea of Galilee. Capharnaum +means the village +(נפר) of Nahum. <foreign lang='ar' rend='italic'>Tell</foreign> is the +Arabic for a hillock covered +with ruins, and it is reasonably +conjectured that Hûm is a contraction +for Nahum, the first +syllable, as sometimes happens +in such cases, being dropped. +Thus Tell Hûm would mean +the ruin-clad hillock of Nahum. +A summary of the various +reasons for identifying the two +places is given by Pére Didon, +in his able work: <hi rend='italic'>Jesus +Christ</hi>, vol. ii., Appendix F. The +<hi rend='bold'>brethren</hi> of the Lord here +referred to were His cousins, +but according to the Scriptural +usage any near relations are +called brethren. Thus Abraham +and Lot are <q>brethren</q> (Gen. +xiii. 8), though Abraham was +in reality Lot's uncle (Gen. xi. +27). See also remarks on <ref target='VII_3'>vii. 3</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Et prope erat pascha +Iudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus +Ierosoloymam:</cell> +<cell>13. And the pasch of the +Jews was at hand, and Jesus +went up to Jerusalem.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +13. <hi rend='bold'>And</hi> (= for) <hi rend='bold'>the Pasch</hi>, +&c. This was the first Pasch +of our Lord's public life. The +Evangelist calls it the Pasch +of the Jews, because he is +writing for the inhabitants of +Asia Minor, most of whom +were Greeks. The Pasch (Heb. +<foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>pesach</foreign>, פסח), beginning at +evening on the 14th, and ending +at evening on the 21st of +Nisan,<note place='foot'>Nisan, the first month of the sacred year of the Jews, corresponded to the +latter half of March and the first half of April.</note> was the greatest festival +of the Jews. The word <q>pasch</q> +means the passing over (from +<foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>pasach</foreign>, פסח, to pass or leap +over), and the name was given +to this festival as commemorating +the passing over of the +houses of the Israelites when +the destroying angel slew the +first-born in the land of Egypt +(see Exod xii. 11, 12). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And Jesus went up to +Jerusalem.</hi> At the three +principal feasts: Pasch, Pentecost, +and Tabernacles, all the +male adults were bound to +go up to the temple at Jerusalem. +</p> + +<anchor id='II_14'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Et invenit in templo +vendentes boves, et oves, et +columbas, et numularios sedentes.</cell> +<cell>14. And he found in the +temple them that sold oxen +and sheep and doves, and the +changers of money sitting.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. The animals here mentioned +were sold to be sacrificed. +The money-changers were there +to change foreign money into +Jewish. It was probably in the +Court of the Gentiles that +Christ found them. <hi rend='bold'>In the +temple</hi> (ἐν ἱερώ, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, in +sacro loco). The ἱερόν must +be carefully distinguished +from the ναός (v. 20). The +<pb n='056'/><anchor id='Pg056'/> +former included the temple +proper, and also its courts, +porches, and porticoes; in a +word, all its <emph>sacred</emph> precincts; +the latter was the temple +proper, the house of God, the +place where He <emph>dwelt</emph> (ναίω = +to dwell). We know that +around the temple as rebuilt by +Herod the Great, there were +three courts: the outer, or that +of the Gentiles; the inner, or +that of the Israelites; and +between them, on the eastern +side, the Court of the women. +In the inner court, or that of +the Israelites, there was a +portion next the temple proper +set apart for the priests. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Et cum fecisset quasi +flagellum de funiculis, omnes +eiecit de templo, oves quoque, +et boves, et numulariorum +effudit aes, et mensas subvertit.</cell> +<cell>15. And when he had made +as it were a scourge of little +cords, he drove them all out of +the temple, the sheep also and +the oxen, and the money of +the changers he poured out, +and the tables he overthrew.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. <hi rend='bold'>He drove them all out +of the temple, the sheep also +and the oxen.</hi> These words +of our version mean that He +drove out not only the animals, +but also the sellers, and this is +distinctly stated by S. Aug., and +several other Fathers. The sense +of the Greek is ambiguous: <hi rend='bold'>He +drove all out of the temple, +both the sheep and the oxen.</hi> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Et his qui columbas +vendebant, dixit: Auferte ista +hinc, et nolite facere domum +Patris mei, domum negotiationis.</cell> +<cell>16. And to them that sold +doves he said: Take these +things hence, and make not +the house of my father a house +of traffic.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. Christ deals more leniently +with those who sold the +doves, perhaps because these +were the offerings of the poor. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>A house of traffic.</hi> Our Lord +does not on this occasion say +the traffic was unjust, but implies +that it was sacrilegious, +as being carried on in a holy +place. On another occasion, +three years afterwards, Christ +again drove traders from the +temple, who He says had made +it <q>a den of thieves,</q> adding +the sin of injustice to that of +sacrilege (Matt. xxi. 13). Note +how He calls God His Father. +See <ref target='V_18'>v. 18</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Recordati sunt vero discipuli +eius, quia scriptum est: +Zelus domus tuae comedit +me.</cell> +<cell>17. And his disciples remembered +that it was written: +<hi rend='italic'>The zeal of thy house hath eaten +me up.</hi></cell></row></table> + +<p> +17. Our Evangelist, mindful +of his scope in writing this +Gospel, draws attention to the +fulfilment of this prophecy of +<pb n='057'/><anchor id='Pg057'/> +the Psalmist, inasmuch as this +tends to prove that Jesus was +the Messias and the true God. +καταφάγεται (<emph>will eat</emph> me up) +is the true reading here, though +the Psalm has the prophetic past. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Responderunt ergo Iudaei, +et dixerunt ei: Quod +signum ostendis nobis, quia +haec facis?</cell> +<cell>18. The Jews therefore answered, +and said to him: What +sign dost thou show unto us, +seeing thou dost these things?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. The Jews challenge +(<emph>answered</emph>, meaning here, as +frequently, <emph>went on to speak</emph>) +Christ for a proof of that authority +which He appeared to +claim for Himself in driving +them from the temple, and also +in calling God His Father (see +<ref target='V_17'>v. 17-18</ref>). The incident itself, +with so many men tamely +submitting to His action, was, +as Origen points out, one of +the most wonderful signs He +could have shown them. But +they hoped, as St. Chryst. remarks, +to put Him in a dilemma +by obliging Him either to work +a miracle on the spot, or else +cease to interfere with them. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Respondit Iesus, et dixit +eis: Solvite templum hoc, +et in tribus diebus excitabo +illud.</cell> +<cell>19. Jesus answered, and said +to them: Destroy this temple, +and in three days I will raise +it up.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. Instead of working a +miracle He merely refers darkly +to a future sign that was still +some years off, as He does on +a similar occasion, when dealing +with other unbelievers, +Matt. xii. 38-40. <q>He, however,</q> +says St. Chrys., <q>who even +anticipated men's wishes, and +gave signs when He was not +asked, would not have rejected +here a positive request, had He +not seen a crafty design in it.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Standing as He was beside +Herod's temple, probably in the +Court of the Gentiles or immediately +outside it, His words, +<hi rend='bold'>Destroy this temple, and in +three days I will raise it up</hi>, +were understood by the Jews +(v. 20), and apparently by His +disciples (v. 22), in reference to +Herod's temple. Various views +have been put forward to show +that His words were not +necessarily misleading. +</p> + +<p> +(1) It is said that He may +have pointed with His finger to +His body while He said: Destroy +this temple. But the fact +that He was actually misunderstood +by all seems to exclude +this hypothesis. +</p> + +<p> +(2) It is held by many that He +spoke both of Herod's temple +and of His body. So, apparently, +Origen; and Cardinal +Wiseman says explicitly: +<q>Finally did our Lord speak +altogether of His resurrection +so as to exclude all allusion to +rebuilding the temple which +stood before Him? I must +confess that ... I cannot +read the passage without being +convinced that He spoke of +both</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Lect. on the Euch.</hi>, +<pb n='058'/><anchor id='Pg058'/> +p. 135, No. 4). We, however, +cannot bring ourselves to adopt +this view against what seems to +be the clear sense according to +the interpretation of the inspired +Evangelist, who tells us, +(v. 21), <hi rend='italic'>But He spoke of the +temple of His body</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +(3) There is the common +answer, that He spoke ambiguously +and allowed them to +be deceived, because they were +unworthy of plainer speech. +They were not, however, necessarily +deceived, for ναός (a +temple) was used frequently +in reference to the human body +(see, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; +vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16), and our +Lord's language might have +given them some reason for +suspecting that it was of His +body He spoke. For the two +verbs, which he used λύσατε +and ἐγερῶ though they could +be understood in reference to +the temple of stone, applied +more appropriately to His +body; the former signifying +the breaking up or <emph>loosing</emph> of +the union between His soul +and body; the latter, the raising +of the body to life, as so +often in St. Paul. See, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, +1 Cor. xv. 4, 12, 14, &c. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Destroy this temple</hi>, is +not, of course, a command to +put Him to death, but a permission +like what He said to +Judas: <hi rend='italic'>That which thou dost, +do quickly</hi> (John xiii. 27). It +was usual with the Prophets +to announce their predictions +in the form of a command; as, +for instance, Isaias (xlvii. 1): +<q>Come down, sit in the dust, +O virgin daughter of Babylon.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: +Quadraginta et sex annis aedificatum +est templum hoc, et tu +in tribus diebus excitabis illud?</cell> +<cell>20. The Jews then said: +Six and forty years was this +temple in building, and wilt +thou raise it up in three days?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +20. The rebuilding of the +temple by Herod the Great is +said by Josephus, in Antiq. xv. +11, 1, to have been begun in the +eighteenth year of his reign; +in B. Jud. i. 21, 1, in the +fifteenth; the difference arising +from the fact that in one case +Josephus counts from the death +of Antigonus, in the other from +Herod's appointment by the +Romans. (See Antiq. xvii. 8, 1.) +Reckoning from the latter, we +have twenty years till the birth +of Christ, and thirty years +since that event, making fifty, +from which, however, four must +be subtracted, because our era +is four years too late. This +gives forty-six years. The +mere building of the temple +took only nine years and a +half, but during the remainder +of the time it was decorated. +These decorations were still +going on, and were not completed +till 64 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>, so that the +Greek verb ought to get its proper +sense: <hi rend='italic'>has been</hi> in building. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Ille autem dicebat de +templo corporis sui.</cell> +<cell>21. But he spoke of the +temple of his body.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +21. The inspired Evangelist +here tells us that it was of His +body Christ spoke. He adds +the explanation to show, perhaps, +how utterly devoid of +all foundation in fact was the +<pb n='059'/><anchor id='Pg059'/> +distorted testimony of the false +witnesses, who on the night +before His death charged our +Lord with having threatened +to destroy the temple <hi rend='italic'>made +with hands</hi> (Matt. xxvi. 61; +Mark xiv. 58). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Cum ergo resurrexisset +a mortuis, recordati sunt discipuli +eius, quia hoc dicebat, +et crediderunt scripturae, et +sermoni quem dixit Iesus.</cell> +<cell>22. When therefore he was +risen again from the dead, his +disciples remembered that he +had said this, and they believed +the scripture, and the word +that Jesus had said.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. When Christ had risen His +disciples understood the Scriptures, +or rather they believed that +they (see, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, Psalms iii. 6; xv. +10), and Christ's present words, +referred to His resurrection. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Cum autem esset Ierosolymis +in pascha in die festo, +multi crediderunt in nomine +eius, videntes signa eius, quae +faciebat.</cell> +<cell>23. Now when he was at +Jerusalem at the pasch, upon +the festival day, many believed +in his name, seeing his signs +which he did.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. <hi rend='bold'>Upon the festival day.</hi> +Rather during the festal time, +which, at the Pasch, lasted a +week, many believed in His +name, that is to say, in Him, +seeing the miracles which he +wrought, and which were +<emph>proofs</emph> of His divine power. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Ipse autem Iesus non +credebat semetipsum eis, eo +quod ipse nosset omnes.</cell> +<cell>24. But Jesus did not trust +himself unto them, for that he +knew all men.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. <hi rend='bold'>Unto them</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, all the +Jews, or perhaps those very +persons who believed in Him; +because, as searcher of hearts +(verse 25), He foresaw that +they would not remain faithful +followers. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Et quia opus ei non erat +ut quis testimonium perhiberet +de homine: ipse enim sciebat +quid esset in homine.</cell> +<cell>25. And because he needed +not that any should give testimony +of man: for he knew +what was in man.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25. He knew this, not by +any external indications, but +because He is the searcher of +hearts. This is noted as +another proof of Christ's +Divinity, because this knowledge +of the secrets of the +hearts of all men belongs to +God alone. See 3 Kings viii. +39; 1 Paral. xxviii. 9; Job +xlii. 2; Ps. vii. 10; Acts xv. 8. +Some of the saints in special +cases were able to read the +hearts of certain individuals, +but no one save God knows +the hearts of all. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='060'/><anchor id='Pg060'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter III.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-21. <hi rend='bold'>Nicodemus comes to Christ; their discourse.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +22-36. <hi rend='bold'>Christ begins to baptize; complaints of the Baptist's disciples, +and testimony of the Baptist to Christ's divine origin, and to +the necessity of faith in Him.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<anchor id='III_1'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Erat autem homo ex +pharisaeis, Nicodemus nomine, +princeps Iudaeorum.</cell> +<cell>1. And there was a man of the +Pharisees, named Nicodemus, +a ruler of the Jews.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. This chapter is closely +connected with the end of the +preceding. Among the many +who believed (ii. 23) was <hi rend='bold'>a +man of the Pharisees</hi> (see +<ref target='I_24'>i. 24</ref>). The sect, name, +and dignity of the man are +mentioned, because of his importance, +and because of the +importance of the discourse +about to be narrated. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>A ruler of the Jews</hi>; that +is to say, as we gather from +vii. 45, 50, he was a member +of the Sanhedrim. +</p> + +<anchor id='III_2'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Hic venit ad Iesum nocte, +et dixit ei: Rabbi, scimus quia +a Deo venisti magister: nemo +enim potest haec signa facere +quae tu facis, nisi fuerit Deus +cum eo.</cell> +<cell>2. This man came to Jesus +by night, and said to him: +Rabbi, we know that thou art +come a teacher from God: for +no man can do these signs +which thou dost, unless God +be with him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. Because he believed in +Jesus, he came; but because +he feared the Jews, he came by +night. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>We know.</hi> Nicodemus may +have come in the name of +several, to learn more about +Jesus, or he may be merely +alluding to the fact that some +others were of the same belief. +He professed his faith in Jesus +as a heaven-sent teacher, stating +the nature of his belief. +<q>Nicodemus estimates accurately, +we may almost say with +theological precision, the force +of the evidence of the miracles +of our Lord, if they were to be +taken apart from other considerations +which belonged to +the same subject-matter. The +miracles <emph>in themselves</emph> proved +exactly that God was with +<pb n='061'/><anchor id='Pg061'/> +Him; but if they were taken +in conjunction with the witness +of St. John the Baptist, with +our Lord's manner of working +them, that is, <emph>as one who was +using His own power</emph>, and with +His way of speaking of Himself, +and of God as His Father, +they might have been enough +to form the ground of a still +higher faith concerning our +Blessed Lord</q> (Coleridge, <hi rend='italic'>Life +of our Lord</hi>, vol. i., page 256). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Respondit Iesus, et dixit +ei: Amen, amen, dico tibi, +nisi quis renatus fuerit denuo, +non potest videre regnum +Dei.</cell> +<cell>3. Jesus answered and said +to him: Amen, amen, I say to +thee, unless a man be born +again, he cannot see the kingdom +of God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus answered.</hi> This +might merely mean that He +went on to speak, the verb to +answer being again and again +found in this sense in the New +Testament. Here, however, it +may be used in its strict sense +of replying to a question, for it +seems to us extremely probable +that a portion of the discourse +leading up to the statement +made in verse 3 is omitted by +the Evangelist. It is highly +improbable that the whole discourse +between Christ and +Nicodemus is here recorded, as +it seems very unlikely that +Nicodemus, after the trouble +of coming specially to Christ +by night, left Him, or would +be allowed to leave, after the +two or three minutes in which +the discourse here reported was +spoken. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Born again.</hi> The Greek +word ἄνωθενα, which is rendered +<q>again,</q> may mean—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) from +above, or (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) again. The latter +meaning, however, is more +probable here, for so Nicodemus +understood our Lord's words +(see verse 4): so, also S. +Chrysostom, and nearly all the +Latin fathers. Compare, too, +Tit. iii. 5; 1 Pet. i. 23. The +truth expressed in this verse is +universal; whoever is born +needs to be reborn in order to +see (= <q>to enter into,</q> verse 5) +the kingdom of God in Christ's +Church here, and in heaven +hereafter. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Dicit ad eum Nicodemus: +Quomodo potest homo nasci, +cum sit senex? numquid +potest in ventrem matris suae +iterato introire, et renasci?</cell> +<cell>4. Nicodemus saith to him: +How can a man be born when +he is old? can he enter a +second time into his mother's +womb, and be born again?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +4. Nicodemus either understood +our Lord to speak of a +second carnal birth; or perhaps, +not understanding the words at +all, he may have pretended to +misunderstand, in order to get +Christ to explain. His motive, +at all events, was good—to +obtain light and instruction. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Respondit Iesus: Amen, +amen dico tibi, nisi quis renatus +fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, +non potest intriore in regnum +Dei.</cell> +<cell>5. Jesus answered: Amen +amen, I say to thee, unless a +man be born again of water +and the Holy Ghost, he cannot +enter into the kingdom of God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. Hence Christ goes on to +give a more precise statement +<pb n='062'/><anchor id='Pg062'/> +of the truth contained in verse +3, with an additional explanation +regarding the means of +regeneration under the new +dispensation. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Amen, Amen.</hi> This formula +indicates the importance of the +pronouncement. It has been +defined by the Council of +Trent—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) that there is question +in this fifth verse of natural +water, and (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) of that natural +water as necessary for Baptism. +<q>Si quis dixerit aquam veram +et naturalem non esse de necessitate +baptismi, atque ideo verba +illa D. N. J. C.: <q>Nisi quis renatus +fuerit ex aqua, et Spiritu +Sancto,</q> ad metaphoram aliquam +detorserit, anathema sit</q> +(Sess. vii. Can. 2. De bapt.). +</p> + +<p> +This solemn declaration of the +infallible Church settles, for +Catholics, the question as to +whether there is reference here +to Christian Baptism. But even +against heretics, for whom the +Council of Trent speaks in vain, +it is not difficult to show that +there must be reference here to +<emph>Christian Baptism</emph>. For (1) it +cannot be denied that Christ inaugurated +some external rite of +baptism (John iii. 25, 26; iv. +11). (2) Christ and His disciples +are represented (verse 22) as +beginning to baptize after this +discourse with Nicodemus. +(3) Every circumstance of this +second birth spoken of to +Nicodemus is found in Christian +Baptism. (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Here we are said +to be born again; so, too, are +we in Baptism:—<q>According to +His mercy He saved us by the +laver of <emph>regeneration</emph> and renovation +of the Holy Ghost</q> (Tit. +iii. 5). (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) This second birth is +necessary that we may be saved +and enter the kingdom of God; +so is Christian Baptism (Mark +xvi. 16; Acts iii. 37, 38), (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) +This second birth is through +water and the Holy Ghost; so +is Baptism. See Acts viii. 36-47; +Tit. iii. 5. +</p> + +<p> +Seeing that there is reference +in the text to Christian Baptism, +the word <q>water</q> in the text, +as the Council of Trent defined, +is to be understood, not +metaphorically, but literally. +Moreover, since this new birth +is attributed to the water as to +the Holy Ghost <q>(ex aqua et +Spiritu Sancto</q>), water is not +merely an empty symbol in the +sacrament, but an efficient +cause of grace like the Holy +Ghost; He being the principal, +the water the instrumental, +efficient cause. +</p> + +<pb n='063'/><anchor id='Pg063'/> + +<p> +This new birth in Baptism +implies—(1) that we die to the +old man of sin, <q>for we are +buried together with Him by +Baptism into death</q> (Rom. vi. +4). It implies (2) that we are +born through the divine gift of +God's grace to a new and +spiritual life, in which we are +His adopted children. <q>So do +you also reckon that you are +dead to sin, but <emph>alive</emph> unto God +in Christ Jesus our Lord</q> +(Rom. vi. 11). +</p> + +<p> +We may remark, before +passing from this text—(1) +against the Pelagians and Anabaptists, +that Baptism is here +declared necessary for all who +have been born, and therefore +for infants before the use of +reason; (2) against the Calvinists +and Socinians, who hold +that children of Christian +parents need not be baptized, +that no exception is here made +in favour of the children of +Christians; (3) against Protestants, +that water in Baptism +is not a mere symbol of regeneration, +but is as truly its +efficient cause as the Holy Ghost +Himself; with this difference, +however, that whereas the water +is the instrumental, the Holy +Ghost is the principal, cause. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Quod natum est ex carne, +caro est: et quod natum est +ex spiritu, spiritus est.</cell> +<cell>6. That which is born of the +flesh, is flesh: and that which +is born of the Spirit, is spirit.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +6. Christ explains why the +agent of the regeneration of +which He speaks must be the +Holy Ghost. What is born of +man (flesh here is taken +for human nature without +grace), is merely human; what +is born of the Holy Ghost, is +spiritual, and partakes of the +Divine (2 Pet. i. 4). Since, +then, the new life to which a +man must be born again is +spiritual, a spiritual and supernatural +principle is required. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Non mireris quia dixi +tibi: Oportet vos nasci denuo.</cell> +<cell>7. Wonder not, that I said to +thee, you must be born again.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. Wonder not, therefore, +that I said to you: ye must be +born again, for if that which is +born of the flesh is flesh, certainly +you need a new birth to +be born to a life which is so +far above the flesh. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Spiritus ubi vult spirat: +et vocen eius audis, sed nescis +unde veniat, aut quo vadat: +sic est omnis qui natus est ex +spiritu.</cell> +<cell>8. The Spirit breatheth +where he will: and thou +hearest his voice, but thou +knowest not whence he cometh, +and whither he goeth: so is +every one that is born of the +Spirit.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8. Christ goes on to show +how a difficulty in knowing the +way in which the regeneration +takes place is no proof of its +impossibility, nor a reason for +incredulity regarding its possibility. +The sense of this verse +depends upon the meaning +given to the first <q>spirit,</q> τὸ +πνεῦμα. Some understand this +of the Holy Ghost. The Holy +<pb n='064'/><anchor id='Pg064'/> +Ghost acts in men according to +His own good pleasure; <q>you +hear His voice that cannot be +mistaken—its power, its sweetness, +the peace which it breathes, +the light which it pours on you; +but you cannot tell that He is +approaching, or when He will +come, or how He will work on +your soul; <emph>in such manner</emph> is +it that everyone is born of the +Spirit who is so born</q> +(Coleridge, <hi rend='italic'>Public Life of our +Lord</hi>, vol. i., page 262). Others +understand the first spirit here +of the wind; and this is the +more common opinion among +commentators. In this view, +by means of a simple and +obvious illustration from +nature, Christ shows Nicodemus +that he must believe in +the possibility of this second +birth, even though he know +not the manner in which it +takes place. The wind bloweth +where it listeth, and you know +not whence it cometh or whither +it goeth: <emph>so is it</emph> in regeneration; +you are regenerated, +though you cannot comprehend +the process. That πνεῦμα +sometimes means wind in +Biblical Greek, is undeniable +(see, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, Gen. vii. 1; Ps. civ. +4; Matt. xxiv. 31; Heb. i. 7), +and the use of the word here in +different senses is plain from +the comparison (<hi rend='bold'>so is it</hi>, &c.), +according to the patrons of +this second opinion. Nor does +the fact that it is preceded by +the article here oblige us, +according to these, to refer it +to the Holy Ghost; for, just as +in verse 5, without the article, +it refers to the Holy Ghost, so +here, with the article, it may +not refer to Him. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Respondit Nicodemus, et +dixit ei: Quomodo possunt +haec fieri?</cell> +<cell>9. Nicodemus answered, and +said to him: How can these +things be done?</cell></row> +<row><cell>10. Respondit Iesus, et dixit +ei: Tu es magister in Israel, +et haec ignoras?</cell> +<cell>10. Jesus answered, and +said to him: Art thou a master +in Israel, and knowest not +these things?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +9, 10. Nicodemus again asks +how these things can come to +pass, and Jesus gently upbraids +him for his ignorance. As one +of the chief teachers of Israel +ὁ διδάσκαλος<note place='foot'><q>Additus ibi voci διδάσκαλος articulus Nicodemum exhibet tanquam ex +Israelis doctoribus <emph>excellentibus unum</emph>.</q>—Beel., <hi rend='italic'>Gr. Gram.</hi>, § 17, 4, adnot 3.</note> (see also <ref target='VII_45'>vii. +45-50</ref>), one of the seventy-one +members of the Sanhedrim, or +supreme Council of the Jews, +he should be familiar with the +Sacred Scriptures, and ought +to have read in them the +promise of a spiritual regeneration. +See Ezech. xxxvi. 25; +Zach. xiii. 1. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Amen, amen, dico tibi, +quia quod scimus loquimur, et +quod vidimus testamur, et +testimonium nostrum non accipitis.</cell> +<cell>11. Amen, amen I say to +thee, that we speak what we +know, and we testify what we +have seen, and you receive not +our testimony.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. Christ continues using +the solemn form of asseveration. +<pb n='065'/><anchor id='Pg065'/> +<hi rend='bold'>What we know.</hi> The +plural is used not of Himself +and the Holy Spirit, nor of +Himself and the Prophets, nor +of all born of the Spirit, nor +of the Three Persons of the +Trinity, but simply as a plural +of majesty. <hi rend='bold'>What we have +seen.</hi> Sight, says St. Chrys. +on this verse, we consider the +most certain of all the senses, +so that when we say we saw such +a thing with our eyes, we seem +to compel men to believe us. +In like manner, Christ, speaking +after the manner of men, +does not indeed mean that He +has seen actually with the +bodily eye the mysteries He +reveals, but it is manifest that +He means He has the most +certain and absolute (and we +may add, immediate: see above +on <ref target='I_18'>i. 18</ref>) knowledge of them. +In these words, then, Christ +insists upon His authority to +teach, and His claim to be +believed. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Si terrena dixi vobis, et +non creditis: quomodo, si +dixero vobis coelestia, credetis?</cell> +<cell>12. If I have spoken to you +earthly things, and you believe +not: how will you believe if I +shall speak to you heavenly +things?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +12. If you will not believe +Me when I teach you the comparatively +elementary doctrine +of Baptism, which regards the +regeneration of man here on +earth, how shall you believe if +I go on to speak of truths more +sublime, more removed from +the realms of sense and human +comprehension? The spiritual +vision of Nicodemus was hardly +able to bear the first ray of +truth; how then was it to bear +the full flood of the light of +higher revelation? +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Et nemo ascendit in +coelum, nisi qui descendit de +coelo, Filius hominis, qui est +in coelo.</cell> +<cell>13. And no man hath +ascended into heaven, but he +that descended from heaven, the +son of man who is in heaven.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +13. The meaning is: No one +was in heaven except Him who +has descended from heaven, +and now speaks to you; namely, +the Son of Man, who still +remains in heaven. In this +view, which is that of St. +Thomas, Toletus, and Beelen, +Christ speaks of Himself as +<emph>having ascended</emph> into heaven +only to accommodate His language +to human ideas, which +conceive of <emph>ascent</emph> to heaven as +necessary, in order to our being +there. The Son of Man, <hi rend='bold'>as +Son of God</hi>, had, of course, +been there from all eternity +<pb n='066'/><anchor id='Pg066'/> +and needed not to ascend. Some +think that Christ here begins +to explain the <q>heavenly +things</q> referred to in the preceding +verse; but a more +probable connection is the following:—He +had said: how +shall you believe heavenly things +from Me since you question +even the elementary truths +which I tell you? And yet from +Me alone you must learn such +things, for no one else has been +in heaven, so as to know and +be able to teach you the +mysteries of God. +</p> + +<anchor id='III_14'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Et sicut Moyses exaltavit +serpentem in deserto, ita +exaltarioportet Filium hominis:</cell> +<cell>14. And as Moses lifted up the +serpent in the desert, so must +the son of man be lifted up:</cell></row> +<row><cell>15. Ut omnis, qui credit in +ipsum, non pereat, sed habeat +vitam aeternam.</cell> +<cell>15. That whosoever believeth +in him, may not perish, but +may have life everlasting.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14, 15. Christ now goes on +to speak of some of the more +sublime doctrines. As Moses +raised up the serpent, upon +which whosoever looked was +healed (Numbers xxi. 4-9), so +must Christ be lifted up on the +cross (see John <ref target='VIII_28'>viii. 28</ref>; <ref target='XII_32'>xii. +32-34</ref>), to save those who believe +in Him. The best supported +Greek reading of verse +15 would be rendered:—<hi rend='bold'>That +everyone who believes may, +through him, have eternal +life</hi>; μὴ ἀπόληται αλλ᾽ (may not +perish, but) not being genuine, +and ἐν αὐτώ standing instead +of εἰς αὐτόν. Though faith +is the only condition to salvation +which is mentioned in verse 15, +others are supposed, as is +evident from verse 5:—<q>Unless +a man be born again.</q> &c. +Faith, however, is often +specially referred to, because +as the Council of Trent (Sess. +vi., c. 8) says:—<q>Fides est +humanae salutis initium, fundamentum, +et radix omnis +justificationis.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Sic enim Deus dilexit +mundum, ut Filium suum +unigenitum daret: ut omnis, +qui credit in eum, non pereat, +sed habeat vitam aeternam.</cell> +<cell>16. For God so loved the +world, as to give his only +begotten Son; that whosoever +believeth in him, may not +perish, but may have life everlasting.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. Some commentators, following +Erasmus, hold that +what follows to the end of verse +21, is not the language of +Christ, but a comment of the +Evangelist; but more probably +Christ still continues. The +boundless love of God for the +world, and not merely for the +elect, is declared to be the +cause of the incarnation, and +the world's salvation its object. +It was this love that made +God give His <hi rend='italic'>only-begotten +Son</hi> to suffer for men and save +them. +</p> + +<pb n='067'/><anchor id='Pg067'/> + +<anchor id='III_17'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Non enim misit Deus +Filium suum in mundum, ut +iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur +mundus per ipsum.</cell> +<cell>17. For God sent not his +Son, into the world, to judge +the world, but that the world +may be saved by him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17. For it was to save, not to +judge the world, that the Son +of God came at His first coming. +Hereafter in His second coming +He will come to judge +and to condemn (the context +proves there is question of the +judgment of condemnation). +</p> + +<anchor id='III_18'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Qui credit in eum, non +iudicatur: qui autem non +credit, iam iudicatus est, quia +non credit in nomine unigeniti +Filii Dei.</cell> +<cell>18. He that believeth in +him is not judged. But he +that doth not believe is already +judged: because he believeth +not in the name of the only +begotten Son of God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. He who believeth in Christ +escapes the judgment of condemnation; +but he who +believeth not is already condemned, +because, inasmuch as +he has not believed, <q>the +wrath of God,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, original sin +(Eph. ii. 3) and its effects in +actual sin, remain upon him +(verse 36); and he has rejected +the only means whereby he +could be delivered from them. +It is as it a physician were sent +to the sick, says St. Augustine, +they who come to him are +cured; they who come not, +perish; not through him, however, +but because of their +disease. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Hoc est autem iudicium: +quia lux venit in mundum, et +dilexerunt homines magis +tenebras quam lucem: erant +enim eorum mala opera.</cell> +<cell>19. And this is the judgment: +because the light is +come into the world, and men +loved darkness rather than the +light: for their works were evil.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. This is the <emph>reason</emph> of the +condemnation, namely, that men +do not come to the light, but +rather shrink from it, through +the fear of being forced by an +awakened conscience to abandon +sin. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Omnis enim qui male +agit, odit lucem, et non venit +ad lucem, ut non arguantur +opera eius:</cell> +<cell>20. For every one that doth +evil hateth the light, and +cometh not to the light, that +his works may not be reproved:</cell></row></table> + +<p> +20. <hi rend='bold'>For every one that doth +evil</hi>, and, as St. Chrys. explains +determines to <hi rend='italic'>remain</hi> in his +wickedness, <hi rend='bold'>hateth the light, +and cometh not to the light, +that his works may not be +reproved</hi>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Qui autem facit veritatem, venit ad lucem, ut +manifestentur opera eius, quia +in Deo sunt facta.</cell> +<cell>21. But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his +works may be made manifest, +because they are done in God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +21. <hi rend='bold'>But he that doth the +<pb n='068'/><anchor id='Pg068'/> +truth</hi>; that is to say, what +truth directs, or rather the +practical truth of good works, +for right action is the realization +of true thought, <hi rend='bold'>cometh +to the light</hi>, by accepting the +faith of Christ, by believing +(v. 18). <hi rend='bold'>That his works may +be made manifest.</hi> Just as he +who does evil, and intends to +persist in it, shuns the light, in +order that his works may not +be reproved (v. 20), so he who +does good, and means to persevere +in it, comes to the light +and believes, in order that his +works may be approved. The +antithesis between this and the +preceding verse, shows that +the manifestation of which +there is question here is equivalent +to approval; and indeed, +from the nature of the case, +the manifestation of such +works in the light of Christian +truth would be necessarily +followed by their approval, not +only by God, but also by the +enlightened judgment of him +who wrought them. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Because</hi> (ὅτι) <hi rend='bold'>they are done</hi> +(Gr. <hi rend='italic'>have been done</hi>) <hi rend='bold'>in God</hi>. +These words may be differently +connected. They may give the +reason why he who does +good, readily comes to +the light, namely, because +his works have been good, +and he is not afraid to have +them tested. Or, they might +be understood to give the +reason why such a one's +works are approved, namely +because they are done in God. +Or again, ὅτι may be taken +to mean not, <q>because,</q> but +<q>that;</q> and then the sense +will be, that he who does good +comes to the light and believes, +that his works may be made +manifest as having been (that +they have been) done in God. +The last is perhaps the simplest +and most natural interpretation, +but the first also is probable. +</p> + +<p> +But in any of these interpretations, +the question arises—how +can the works of a man +who has not yet believed, be +said to have been <q>done in +God.</q> Various answers have +been given. We cannot agree +with those commentators who +reply that there is question of +future works to be performed +after the reception of faith; +for the whole context, and the +Greek text (<hi rend='italic'>have been</hi> done), +show that there is question of +past works done before their +author has come to the light. +Nor do we think that there is +question merely of natural +works done in the past with +the aid of medicinal grace, for +such works would scarcely be +said to have been <q>done in +God.</q> We hold, then, that +there is reference to the <q>initium +fidei,</q> that is to say, to +all those works that sprang +from supernatural grace, were +salutary in themselves, and +led up to faith. These are the +<pb n='069'/><anchor id='Pg069'/> +only works of one who has +not yet believed, that can be +properly said to have been +done in God, done according +to His will and pleasure. That +there are such works antecedent +to faith, cannot be denied; +for the proposition: <q>Faith +is the first grace,</q> put forward +in the schismatical Council of +Pistoia, was condemned by +Pius VI., in the Bull <hi rend='italic'>Auctorem +Fidei</hi>. Besides, it is <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>de fide</foreign>, +against the Semipelagians, +that supernatural grace is +necessary for the <q>initium +fidei,</q> from which it follows +that the works included in the +<q>initium fidei,</q> are salutary, +and <q>done in God.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Post haec venit Iesus, +et discipuli eius, in terram +Iudaeam: et illic demorabatur +cum eis, et baptizabat.</cell> +<cell>22. After these things Jesus +and his disciples came into +the land of Judea; and there +he abode with them and +baptized.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. <hi rend='bold'>After these things</hi>; that +is to say, after this discourse with +Nicodemus. How long our +Lord remained in Jerusalem on +the occasion of this first Pasch, +we know not. By <hi rend='bold'>the land of +Judea</hi>, is meant the country +parts of that province, as distinguished +from the city of +Jerusalem, where the discourse +with Nicodemus had taken +place. In these country parts, +then, Jesus baptized through +His disciples (iv. 2), the baptism +most probably being sacramental. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Erat autem et Ioannes +baptizans in Aennon, iuxta +Salim: quia aquae multae +erant illic, et veniebant, et +baptizabantur.</cell> +<cell>23. And John also was +baptizing in Ennon near Salim; +because there was much water +there, and they came, and +were baptized.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. <hi rend='bold'>Ennon, near Salim.</hi> +The site of Aennon (Gr. Αἰνών, +from a Chaldaic word meaning +springs) is difficult to determine. +If we compare verse 26 +of this chapter with John i. 28, +it would seem that Aennon was +west of the Jordan. Eusebius +and Jerome place it eight +miles south of Scythopolis, +<q>juxta Salim et Jordanem;</q> +and the latter states that the +ruins of Melchizedek's palace +existed in his day at Salim. +These statements are so positive +that they cannot lightly +be set aside. In the Jordan +valley, about seven and a-half +miles from Beisan (Scythopolis), +there is a remarkable +group of seven springs, all +lying within a radius of a +quarter of a mile, which answers +well to the description +<q>many waters.</q><note place='foot'>Smith's <hi rend='italic'>Dictionary of the Bible</hi>, 2nd edition, 1893.</note> According +to this view, Aennon was +<pb n='070'/><anchor id='Pg070'/> +situated in the north-east +corner of Samaria. Others, +however, think, from the connection +between this verse and +verse 22, in which Jesus is said +to baptize in Judea, that Aennon +also was in Judea, and refer to +Josue xv. 32, where the cities +of Selim and <foreign rend='italic'>Aen</foreign> are mentioned +as in the tribe of Juda. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Nondum enim missus +fuerat Ioannes in carcerem.</cell> +<cell>24. For John was not yet +cast into prison.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. The Evangelist notes +that the Baptist had not yet +been imprisoned, probably lest +it should be thought, from +Matt. iv. 11, 12, that the +imprisonment of the Baptist +followed at once upon the +return of Christ from the forty +days' fast in the desert. This +verse, therefore, affords a strong +proof that our Evangelist was +acquainted with the Gospel of +St. Matthew. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Facta est autem quaestio +ex discipulis Ioannis cum +Iudaeis de purificatione.</cell> +<cell>25. And there arose a +question between some of +John's disciples and the Jews +concerning purification:</cell></row> +<row><cell>26. Et venerunt ad Ioannem, +et dixerunt ei: Rabbi, qui erat +tecum trans Iordanem, cui tu +testimonium perhibuisti, ecce +hic baptizat, et omnes veniunt +ad eum.</cell> +<cell>26. And they came to John, +and said to him: Rabbi, he +that was with thee beyond the +Jordan, to whom thou gavest +testimony, behold he baptizeth, +and all men come to him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25, 26. A question arose +between (ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν Ἰωάννου +μετα Ἰονδαίου, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, <q>cujus auctores +extitere discipuli Joannis,</q> +Beel, <hi rend='italic'>Gr. Gram.</hi>, § 51, B. 2, 8) +John's disciples and <hi rend='italic'>the Jews</hi>, +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, some leading Jews, perhaps +members of the Sanhedrim, +concerning the relative merits +of John's baptism and Christ's; +and John's disciples come to +their master, jealous that his +fame is being eclipsed by that +of Him whom he had been the +means of bringing before the +public notice. The best supported +reading is <hi rend='italic'>a Jew</hi>, not +the Jews. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Respondit Ioannes, et +dixit: Non potest homo accipere +quidquam, nisi fuerit ei +datum de coelo.</cell> +<cell>27. John answered and said: +A man cannot receive anything, +unless it be given him from +heaven.</cell></row> +<row><cell>28. Ipsi vos mihi testimonium +perhibetis, quod dixerim: Non +sum ego Christus, sed quia +missus sum ante illum.</cell> +<cell>28. You yourselves do bear +me witness, that I said, I am +not Christ, but that I am sent +before him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +27, 28. John's answer to his +disciples is his last recorded +testimony to Christ. It is to +the effect that a man may not +arrogate to himself power or +<pb n='071'/><anchor id='Pg071'/> +office unless he have authority +from God, and that his own +office is merely that of precursor +to the Messias. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Qui habet sponsam, +sponsus est: amicus autem +sponsi, qui stat, et audit eum, +gaudio gaudet propter vocem +sponsi. Hoc ergo gaudium +meum impletum est.</cell> +<cell>29. He that hath the bride, +is the bridegroom: but the +friend of the bridegroom, who +standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth +with joy because of the +bridegroom's voice. This my +joy therefore is fulfilled.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +29. By a familiar example +the Baptist illustrates the difference +between himself and +Christ. On the occasion of a +Jewish marriage it was usual +for the bridegroom to have a +friend (<q>amicus sponsi,</q> corresponding +to the παράνυμφος +of the Greeks), whose duty it +was to arrange the preliminaries +to the marriage, and at +the marriage feast to minister +to the bridegroom. The sense +of the Baptist's words then is, +that though many are present +to a wedding, only one, he +who hath the bride, is the +bridegroom. His friend, who +has helped to bring about the +marriage, is satisfied to stand +and minister to him, rejoicing +exceedingly to hear the bridegroom +speaking with his bride, +nor jealous of the happy relations +which subsist between +them. <hi rend='bold'>This, my joy, therefore, +is fulfilled.</hi> In these +words the Baptist points the +application of the comparison +to Christ and himself. The +Baptist is the <q>amicus sponsi,</q> +who prepared the disciples for +Christ; Christ is the bridegroom, +and the disciples flocking +to Christ (verse 26) were +to constitute the Church, which +is His spouse. See 2 Cor. xi. 2; +Eph. v. 25, 27. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>30. Illum oportet crescere, +me autem minui.</cell> +<cell>30. He must increase, but I +must decrease.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +30. John had fulfilled his +mission; thenceforward, therefore, +whereas Christ, in virtue +of His nature, and His office of +Messias, should increase, the +Baptist himself should decrease, +in influence and fame. +</p> + +<anchor id='III_31'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>31. Qui desursum venit, +super omnes est. Qui est de +terra, de terra est, et de terra +loquitur. Qui de coelo venit, +super omnes est.</cell> +<cell>31. He that cometh from +above, is above all. He that +is of the earth, of the earth he +is, and of the earth he speaketh. +He that cometh from heaven, +is above all.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +31. He that hath a divine +origin is above all men, and so +above me; but He that is of +the earth by origin, of the +earth he is in nature, and of +the earth He speaks (compare +verse 6). This is true of all +men, in comparison with Christ: +their thoughts are earthly, +<pb n='072'/><anchor id='Pg072'/> +weak, and limited; His divine +and inexhaustible; but it is +also true absolutely, if we +consider them apart from faith +and grace. <q>Hoc autem in +Joanne verum est primo, si +ejus nudam naturam spectes, +et seclusa Dei gratia, vocatione, +et revelatione: sic enim +Joannes non nisi terreus et +terrenus erat, nec nisi terrena +sapiebat; quia <q>si quid divinum +audisti a Joanne illuminantis +est, non recipientis,</q> ait +St. Augustinus, quasi dicat, id +accepit a Deo, non habet a +se</q> (A Lap.). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. Et quod vidit, et audivit, +hoc testatur: et testimonium, +eius nemo accipit.</cell> +<cell>32. And what he hath seen +and heard, that he testifieth: +and no man receiveth his testimony.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +32. What Christ knoweth of +His own <emph>immediate</emph> divine +knowledge, as being <q>in the +bosom of the Father</q> (i. 18), +this He testifieth; and yet +hardly anyone (<q>no man</q> +being an hyperbole) receiveth +His testimony. Christ is metaphorically +spoken of here as +seeing and hearing, to indicate +His direct and <emph>immediate</emph> +knowledge of things divine. +Compare v. 19; vi. 46; viii. 38; +xv. 15; xvi. 13. +</p> + +<p> +According to Patrizzi and +others, this and the following +verses are the words of the +Evangelist; but more probably +the Baptist continues to the +end of the chapter, developing +the reason why Christ must +increase. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>33. Qui accepit eius testimonium, +signavit quia Deus +verax est.</cell> +<cell>33. He that hath received +his testimony, hath set to his +seal that God is true.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +33. He who has believed in +Christ has thereby testified +solemnly (as though he set his +<emph>seal</emph> to the testimony) that God +is truthful. <hi rend='bold'>God</hi> here refers to +the Father; and the meaning +is, that by believing what Christ +teaches, we believe Him to be +truthful, and therefore believe +the Father also, from whom He +has received His divine nature +and knowledge, and His mission +as Messias, to be truthful. +This is better than to refer God +here to the Son (Christ), as +Maldonatus does; for in the +next verse, which proves this, +God plainly refers to the +Father. +</p> + +<pb n='073'/><anchor id='Pg073'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>34. Quem enim misit Deus, +verba Dei loquitur: non enim +ad mensuram dat Deus spiritum.</cell> +<cell>34. For he whom God hath +sent, speaketh the words of +God: for God doth not give +the spirit by measure.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +34. <hi rend='bold'>For he whom God</hi> +(the Father) <hi rend='bold'>hath sent</hi> (<hi rend='bold'>as +His Son</hi>, verse 35), as the +Messias, <hi rend='bold'>speaketh the words +of God, for God doth not +give the spirit by measure</hi>. +The contrast is between the +abundant gift of the Spirit to +Christ, as man, and the stinted +participation of the same Spirit +by those who are merely of the +earth (Rom. xii. 3; 1 Cor. xii. +14). The sense, then, is, that +the gifts of the Holy Spirit +were poured out in abundance +on Christ as man; that <q>He +unceasingly possessed them all +at once to the greatest extent +of which human nature is +capable</q> (M'Ev.); and this +plenitude of the gifts of the +Holy Ghost within Him is the +reason why He speaks the +words of God. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>35. Pater diligit Filium: et +omnia dedit in manu eius.</cell> +<cell>35. The Father loveth the +Son: and he hath given all +things into his hand.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +35. This plenitude of the +Spirit in Christ, this fulness of +grace and truth (i. 16, 17), in +Christ as man, is the effect of +the love of the Father for His +Incarnate Son, which love has +also caused the Father to +grant to Christ, as <emph>man</emph>, the +<emph>bestowal</emph> (He hath given all +things <hi rend='bold'>into His hand</hi>) of all +the gifts of the Spirit required +for the salvation of men. +</p> + +<anchor id='III_36'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>36. Qui credit in Filium habet +vitam aeternam: qui autem +incredulus est Filio, non +videbit vitam, sed ira Dei +manet super eum.</cell> +<cell>36. He that believeth in the +Son, hath life everlasting: but +he that believeth not the Son, +shall not see life, but the +wrath of God abideth on him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +36. Since, then, Jesus Christ +has been constituted our help +unto salvation, he that believes +<emph>in Him</emph> as Son of God (and acts +accordingly) hath eternal life +begun in him by justification; +he that believeth not, &c. See +<ref target='III_18'>verse 18</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +This splendid testimony of +the Baptist in favour of Christ +was intended to detach his +disciples from himself, and +win them to Christ, of whom, +as we learn from verse 26, +they had shown themselves +jealous. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='074'/><anchor id='Pg074'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter IV.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-4. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus sets out from Judea to Galilee.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +5-26. <hi rend='bold'>Arrival in Sichar, and discourse with the Samaritan woman.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +27-38. <hi rend='bold'>Discourse with the disciples.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +39-42. <hi rend='bold'>Stay with the people of Sichar.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +43-54. Continuation of the journey into Galilee, and healing of the +ruler's son. +</p> + +</quote> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Ut ergo cognovit Iesus +quia audierunt pharisaei quod +Iesus plures discipulos facit, +et baptizat, quam Ioannes,</cell> +<cell>1. When Jesus therefore +understood that the Pharisees +had heard that Jesus maketh +more disciples, and baptizeth +<hi rend='italic'>more</hi> than John,</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='bold'>When Jesus therefore +understood</hi>, &c. Christ is +spoken of as if on this occasion +He gained knowledge of which +He had been ignorant, because +though, as God, He knew all +things, every inmost thought of +the Pharisees, yet, <emph>as man</emph>, +like other men, He gathered +knowledge from His fellow-men. +See Mald. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>That Jesus.</hi> Not that He +Himself; because the report +which the Pharisees had heard +is given verbatim, <q>that</q> +(ὅτι) merely introducing it. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. (Quamquam Iesus non +baptizaret sed discipuli eius,)</cell> +<cell>2. (Though Jesus <emph>himself</emph> did +not baptize, but his disciples,)</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. Jesus Himself did not +usually baptize; probably +because, like St. Paul (1 Cor. +i. 14-16), His mission was to +preach and teach. It by no +means follows from this verse +that He never baptized anyone; +and many writers are of +opinion that He baptized some +Himself. +</p> + +<anchor id='IV_3'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Reliquit Iudaeam, et abiit +iterum in Galilaeam;</cell> +<cell>3. He left Judea, and went +again into Galilee.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. Because His time to suffer +had not yet come, and much of +the work of His public mission +still remained to be accomplished, +He left Judea, the +headquarters of the Pharisees, +<pb n='075'/><anchor id='Pg075'/> +whose jealousy He knew would +be aroused by the report mentioned +in verse 1, and went +again (see John <ref target='I_43'>i. 43</ref>) into +Galilee. +</p> + +<anchor id='IV_4'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Oportebat autem eum +transire per Samariam.</cell> +<cell>4. And he was of necessity +to pass through Samaria.</cell></row> +<row><cell>5. Venit ergo in civitatem +Samariae, quae dicitur Sichar: +iuxta praedium quod dedit Iacob +Ioseph filio suo.</cell> +<cell>5. He cometh therefore to a +city of Samaria which is called +Sichar; near the land which +Jacob gave to his son Joseph.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +4, 5. Not choosing to cross +to the east of the Jordan, and +go up through Peraea, as some +of the stricter Jews did, who +wished to avoid all possible +contact with the Samaritans, +He was obliged to pass through +Samaria. Of the three provinces +of Palestine west of the +Jordan, Samaria was in the +centre, with Judea to the south, +and Galilee to the north. <q>St. +John is thus careful to note that +this was no mission to the +Samaritans which the Lord +undertook. On the contrary, +the law which He imposed on +His disciples: <q>And into any +city of the Samaritans enter +ye not</q> (Matt. x. 5), this, during +the days of His flesh, He imposed +also on Himself. He was +not sent <q>but to the lost sheep +of the house of Israel</q> (Matt. +xv. 24; Acts xiii. 46); and if +any grace reached Samaritan +or heathen, it was, so to speak, +but by accident, a crumb falling +from the children's table.</q><note place='foot'>Trench, <hi rend='italic'>Studies in the Gospels</hi>, p. 84.</note> +Samaria had been the portion of +the tribe of Ephraim and of +half the tribe of Manasses. +The province derived its name +from its chief city, Samaria, +which, in turn, got its name +from Mount Somer (or Semer), +on which it was built (3 Kings +xvi. 24). See A Lap. The +city called Sichar<note place='foot'>The name Sichar is derived by some from <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>shikkor</foreign> (שׂכר), a drunkard; by +others <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>sheqquer</foreign> (שׂקר), a liar; the city of liars, perhaps of <emph>false</emph> worship.</note> (the modern +Nabulus) by St. John is the +ancient Sichem, where Abram +built an altar to the Lord (Gen. +xii. 7), under the turpentine +tree behind which Jacob buried +the idols of his household (Gen. +xxxv. 4), and where the bones +of the twelve patriarchs were +laid to rest (Acts vii. 16). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Near the land which Jacob +gave to his son Joseph.</hi> See +Gen. xxxviii. 18, 19; Josue +xxiv. 32. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Erat autem ibi fons Iacob, +Iesus ergo fatigatus ex itinere, sedebat sic supra fontem. Hora +erat quasi sexta.</cell> +<cell>6. Now Jacob's well was +there. Jesus therefore being wearied with his journey, sat +thus on the well. It was +about the sixth hour.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +6. <hi rend='bold'>Jacob's well</hi>, which he +had dug or bought, was there; +and Jesus, weary because of His +<pb n='076'/><anchor id='Pg076'/> +journey, sat <emph>thus</emph> (<hi rend='italic'>sic.</hi>, <q>hoc +est, fatigatus ut erat,</q> Beel.) by +the well. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>It was about the sixth +hour.</hi> See on <ref target='I_39'>i. 39</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Venit mulier de Samaria +haurire aquam. Dicit ei Iesus: +Da mihi bibere.</cell> +<cell>7. There cometh a woman of +Samaria to draw water. Jesus +saith to her: Give me to drink.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. There cometh a woman of +Samaria, not of the city of +Samaria, for that was six miles +distant, but of the country of +Samaria, a Samaritan woman, +to draw water.<note place='foot'><q>Venit mulier ad puteum et fontem quem non speravit invenit.</q>—St. +Aug.</note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. (Discipuli enim eius +abierant in civitatem ut cibos +emerent.)</cell> +<cell>8. For his disciples were +gone into the city to buy +meats.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8. Because He had no one +else to give Him to drink, He +asks her to do so, and thus +leads up naturally to the following +discourse. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Dicit ergo ei mulier illa +Samaritana: Quomodo tu +Iudaeus cum sis, bibere a me +poscis, quae sum mulier Samaritana? +non enim coutuntur +Iudaei Samaritanis.</cell> +<cell>9. Then that Samaritan +woman saith to him: How +dost thou, being a Jew, ask +of me to drink, who am a +Samaritan woman? For the +Jews do not communicate +with the Samaritans.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +9. The Samaritans, with +whom, as here stated, the Jews +avoided all intercourse, were +either pure Assyrians or a +mixture of Jews and Assyrians, +at best a mongrel race. Very +probably some Jews were left +behind in Samaria at the time +of the Assyrian captivity, under +Salmanassar, 721 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi>; and from +these intermarrying with the +imported Easterns sprang the +Samaritans. The Jews regarded +the Samaritans with +special aversion for many +reasons. They were the descendants +of the Assyrian +conquerors; they held what +was the rightful inheritance of +the Jews; they corrupted Jewish +worship; they endeavoured to +prevent the rebuilding of the +Temple under Zorobabel (1 +Esd. iv. 2, 7, 8), and were +always prepared to harbour the +false friends or open enemies of +the Jews. Hence this woman, +recognising in Christ's dress +and accent His Jewish origin, +wonders that He would speak +<pb n='077'/><anchor id='Pg077'/> +to, much less drink from, a +Samaritan. The last clause: +<hi rend='bold'>For the Jews do not communicate +with the Samaritans</hi>, +is added by the Evangelist as +an explanation of the woman's +question for Gentile readers. +</p> + +<anchor id='IV_10'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>10. Respondit Iesus, et dixit +ei: Si scires donum Dei, et +quis est qui dicit tibi, Da mihi +bibere; tu forsitan petisses ab +eo, et dedisset tibi aquam +vivam.</cell> +<cell>10. Jesus answered and said +to her: If thou didst know the +gift of God, and who he is +that saith to thee, Give me to +drink; thou perhaps wouldst +have asked of him, and he +would have given thee living +water.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. <hi rend='bold'>The gift of God</hi> is not +the Holy Ghost, nor Christ +Himself, nor the opportunity +now offered her, but most +probably the gift of grace, the +<q>living water</q> spoken of in +the end of the verse. Hence +Christ's words mean: If you +knew that there is a spiritual +water which slakes the thirst of +man in the desert of this world, +and that He who can bestow it +speaks to you, <hi rend='bold'>thou perhaps +wouldst have asked</hi>, &c. +<hi rend='bold'>Perhaps</hi> (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>forsitan</foreign>) is not represented +in the Greek, in which +we have an ordinary conditional +sentence; and certainly Christ +knew without doubt what +would have been the result. +The Vulgate translator, probably +added <q>forsitan</q> to +indicate that she would still be +<emph>free</emph> to reject the grace offered. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Living water.</hi> There is +the same diversity of opinion +here as in regard to the <q>gift +of God,</q> with the addition that +some have held the reference +here to be to the waters of +baptism. We take it that the +reference again is to grace. +Living water properly signifies +<emph>running water</emph>, in opposition +to the stagnant water of pools +or cisterns. Here, however +the words seem to be used in +their highest sense, of waters +which come from God and +bestow <emph>life</emph> upon all who drink +of them. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Dicit ei mulier: Domine, +neque in quo haurias habes, +et puteus altus est: unde ergo +habes aquam vivam?</cell> +<cell>11. The woman saith to +him: Sir, thou hast nothing +wherein to draw, and the well +is deep: from whence then +hast thou living water?</cell></row> +<row><cell>12. Numquid tu maior es +patre nostro Iacob, qui dedit +nobis puteum, et ipse ex eo +bibit, et filii eius, et pecora +eius?</cell> +<cell>12. Art thou greater than +our father Jacob, who gave us +the well, and drank thereof +himself, and his children, and +his cattle?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11, 12. She understands Him +to speak of natural water, +which He seemed to think +superior to that of Jacob's well; +and, concluding that He must +refer to the water of some other +<pb n='078'/><anchor id='Pg078'/> +well, since indeed He had no +bucket, no means of drawing +from the deep well at which +she stood, she asks Him: Art +Thou greater than our father +Jacob, so as to be able to provide +a better water than he +provided for us in this well? +That its waters were good +enough for him and his sons, +is a proof of their excellence; +that they sufficed for all +his household and cattle, is +evidence of their abundance. +There is a tinge of resentment +in the words of verse 12, for +the Samaritans claimed descent +from Jacob (<hi rend='bold'>our father, +Jacob</hi>), through Joseph and +Joseph's sons, Ephraim and +Manasses, whose tribal territory +they possessed, and this +Jewish Stranger seemed to the +woman to set Himself above +the great Patriarch of her +race. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Respondit Iesus, et dixit +ei: Omnis qui bibit ex aqua +hac, sitiet iterum: qui autem +biberit ex aqua quam ego +dabo ei, non sitiet in aeternum:</cell> +<cell>13. Jesus answered, and +said to her: Whosoever +drinketh of this water, shall +thirst again: but he that shall +drink of the water that I will +give him, shall not thirst for +ever.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +13. Without replying explicitly +that He was indeed greater +than Jacob, Christ implies this +by declaring that the water +which He will give is superior +to that of Jacob's well. For +while the latter only satisfies +present wants, that which He +will give will quench present +and prevent future thirst. What +is said in Eccl. xxiv. 29: <q>They +that drink Me shall yet thirst,</q> +is not opposed to our Lord's +words here; for in Ecclesiasticus +there is question of +desire springing from love, +here of a craving arising from +want. These words of our +Lord show, then, that sanctifying +grace is of its own nature +perennial in the soul. Time +does not wear it away; use does +not consume it; unless it be +expelled, it never departs: +<q>He that drinks ... shall +not thirst for ever.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Sed aqua, quam ego +dabo ei, fiet in eo fons aquae +salientis in vitam aeternam.</cell> +<cell>14. But the water that I will +give him, shall become in him +a fountain of water springing +up into life everlasting.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. But so far from thirsting, +he shall have that within +him, that is, the Holy Ghost +and His graces, which will conduct +him to eternal life. In +this beautiful metaphor, the +spiritual water of grace is +represented as finding its own +level; coming from heaven, it +will return thither in those +<pb n='079'/><anchor id='Pg079'/> +whom it has saved. The mention +of <hi rend='bold'>eternal life</hi> ought to +have made it clear that Christ +spoke of supernatural and +spiritual water. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Dicit ad eum mulier: +Domine, da mihi hanc aquam, +ut non sitiam, neque veniam +huc haurire.</cell> +<cell>15. The woman saith to +him: Sir, give me this water, +that I may not thirst, nor +come hither to draw.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. Yet she probably still +understands of Him merely +natural water, <q>Adhuc carnalis +est mulier</q> (Mald.): and anticipates +only relief from having +come to Jacob's well in +future. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Dicit ei Iesus: Vade, +voca virum tuum, et veni huc.</cell> +<cell>16. Jesus saith to her: Go, +call thy husband, and come +hither.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. Christ, of course, knew +she had no husband; but He +knew also what answer she +would give, and He wished to +get a natural opportunity of +disclosing to her the secrets of +her wicked life, that He might +manifest His supernatural +knowledge. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Respondit mulier, et +dixit: Non habeo virum. Dicit +ei Iesus: Bene dixisti, quia +non habeo virum:</cell> +<cell>17. The woman answered, +and said: I have no husband. +Jesus said to her: Thou hast +said well, I have no husband:</cell></row> +<row><cell>18. Quinque enim viros +habuisti: et nunc quem habes, +non est tuus vir: hoc vere +dixisti.</cell> +<cell>18. For thou hast had five +husbands: and he whom thou +now hast, is not thy husband. +This thou hast said truly.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17, 18. <hi rend='bold'>Thou hast well said, +I have no husband</hi>, or rather, +<emph>husband</emph> I have not, with an +emphasis on husband, which is +marked in the Greek by its +position in the sentence, as +reproduced by Christ. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Thou hast had five husbands.</hi> +Though St. Chrys. +and Mald. think that there is +question, not of husbands, but +of paramours, the common +opinion, and certainly the +obvious one, is that husbands +are spoken of. It is not necessary +to suppose that the husbands +made room for one +another by death, for she may +have been divorced by several +of them. See Deut. xxiv. 1, 2; +Matt. xix. 3. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Dicit ei mulier: Domine, video quia propheta es +tu.</cell> +<cell>19. The woman saith to him: +Sir, I perceive that thou art a +prophet.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. <hi rend='bold'>A prophet</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, here, +as elsewhere frequently, one +<pb n='080'/><anchor id='Pg080'/> +who has supernatural knowledge, +who knows things which +are naturally hidden from him. +In these words the poor woman +confesses her own guilt and +the exalted character of Christ, +whom, however, she does not +yet recognise as <q><emph>The</emph> Prophet,</q> +the Messias, but only as a +prophet. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Patres nostri in monte +hoc adoraverunt, et vos dicitis, +quia Ierosolymis est locus ubi +adorare oportet.</cell> +<cell>20. Our fathers adored on +this mountain, and you say +that at Jerusalem is the place +where men must adore.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +20. Not so much for the +purpose of turning the conversation +from the unpleasant +subject of her own character,<note place='foot'>Massillon, in a beautiful Lenten Sermon on this subject, says: <q>Nouvelle +artifice, dont elle s'avise pour détourner la question de ses mœurs, qui lui +déplait, et qui l'embarasse, elle se jette habiliment sur une question de +doctrine.</q></note> +as in order to have the opinion +of a prophet upon an important +question, she adds: <hi rend='bold'>Our +fathers</hi>, &c. +</p> + +<p> +She says that her Samaritan +ancestors had worshipped on +that mountain. She evidently +refers to public worship, public +ceremonies appointed by God, +especially the worship of <hi rend='bold'>sacrifice</hi>; +for the Jews never held +that private worship, as of +prayer, should be restricted to +Jerusalem. The mountain to +which she refers, and beneath +the shadow of which Christ +and she were standing, is +Mount Garizim, which overhangs +the town of Sichar. In +the time of Alexander the +Great, Manasses, a Jewish +priest, was excluded from the +exercise of his ministry for +marrying the daughter of the +king of Sichem. The king +accordingly built for Manasses +a temple on Mount Garizim, +where he offered sacrifice to +the true God. This temple was +built about 330 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi>, and stood +for two hundred years. After +it was destroyed, about 130 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi>, +the Samaritans erected an altar +upon Garizim, and continued +to offer sacrifice there; so that +from the time of Manasses the +true God was worshipped, +though imperfectly, among +them. There still remain a +few families of Samaritans, +under the shadow of Mount +Garizim, in the modern city of +Nabulus, or Naplouse. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Dicit ei Iesus: Mulier +crede mihi, quia venit hora +quando neque in monte hoc, +neque Ierosolymis adorabitis +Patrem.</cell> +<cell>21. Jesus saith to her: +Woman, believe me, that the +hour cometh, when you shall +neither on this mountain, nor +in Jerusalem adore the Father.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +21. Christ declares with all +solemnity that the time is at +hand—nay, already come (see +<pb n='081'/><anchor id='Pg081'/> +verse <ref target='IV_23'>23</ref>), when true worship +<emph>shall be restricted</emph> neither to +Jerusalem nor to Garizim; and +hence her question is practically +unimportant. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Vos adoratis quod +nescitis: nos adoramus quod +scimus, quia salus ex Iudaeis +est.</cell> +<cell>22. You adore that which +you know not: we adore that +which we know; for salvation +is of the Jews.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. <hi rend='bold'>You adore that which</hi> +(ὅ) <hi rend='bold'>you know not</hi>. As the +woman's inquiry regarded not +the object, but the place of +worship, some have understood +these words of our +Lord in reference to the place, +as if He said: You adore in a +place for worshipping in which +you have no Divine sanction, +we in a place pointed out by +the finger of God. But it is difficult +to reconcile this view with +our Lord's words: <q>You adore +<emph>that which</emph> you know not.</q> +Hence it is more probable, +that in replying to her inquiry, +He takes occasion to refer to +the imperfect knowledge of +God, possessed by Samaritans. +The neuter (ὅ) seems +to be used in the first instance, +to show the want of personality +and definiteness in the +Samaritan idea of God,<note place='foot'>Compare Acts xvii. 23, where the true reading is ὃ οὖν, agreeing with the +Vulgate.</note> and +in the second instance merely +for the sake of correspondence +between the two members of +the sentence. <hi rend='bold'>We adore.</hi> +That Christ numbers Himself +among those who adore, +merely proves that He had a +human nature. +</p> + +<anchor id='IV_23'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Sed venit hora, et nunc +est, quando veri adoratores +adorabunt Patrem in spiritu et +veritate. Nam et Pater tales +quaerit, qui adorent eum.</cell> +<cell>23. But the hour cometh, +and now is, when the true +adorers shall adore the Father +in spirit and in truth. For +the Father also seeketh such +to adore him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. Still, though this is so, +not even to Jerusalem, shall +worship be restricted in the +future; <hi rend='bold'>but the hour cometh</hi>, +&c. +</p> + +<p> +What is the adoration <hi rend='bold'>in +spirit and in truth</hi>, here foretold? +Evidently the worship +of the new dispensation, as +contrasted with that of the +old; this is plain from the +whole context. What, then, +is meant by saying that the +worship of the new dispensation +is to be <hi rend='bold'>in spirit and in +truth</hi>? Various interpretations +<pb n='082'/><anchor id='Pg082'/> +of the words have been +given. +</p> + +<p> +(1) <q>In spirit</q> is opposed +to the worship of the Jews; +<q>in truth</q> to that of the +Samaritans. Hence the worship +of the new dispensation +is to be, <emph>not merely external</emph>, +as was the Jewish (unless it +was accompanied by faith in +the Redeemer to come, in which +case it was not merely Jewish, +but Christian), nor <emph>false</emph>, as +was the Samaritan. (Toletus.) +</p> + +<p> +(2) <q>In spirit</q> is opposed +to all merely external and local +worship, whether of <emph>Jews</emph> or +<emph>Samaritans</emph>; <q>in truth</q> to the +<emph>typical</emph> and imperfect worship +of the Jews. For the Jewish +sacrifices and ceremonies were +only shadows and types of the +realities in the New Law. <q>For +the law having a shadow of +the good things to come, not +the very image (reality) of the +things: by the selfsame sacrifices +which they offer continually +every year, can never +make the comers thereunto +perfect</q> (Heb. x. 1), Mald., who +favours next opinion also. +</p> + +<p> +(3) <q>In spirit</q> and <q>in +truth</q> are synonymous, and +signify true supernatural worship, +springing from faith and +grace, and hence opposed to +all imperfect or false worship. +This opinion, considered equally +probable with the preceding by +Maldonatus, and held by Beelen +and Corluy, we prefer; for in +verse 24, the fact that God is a +Spirit (it is not stated that He +is also Truth) is given as the +reason why He should be worshipped +in <emph>both</emph> spirit and truth. +</p> + +<p> +The distinguishing features +of true Christian worship, indicated +in verses 21, 23, are that +it is to be <emph>universal</emph>, not restricted, +like the Jewish or +Samaritan, to Jerusalem or +Garizim; and <emph>spiritual</emph>, offered +with hearts animated by faith +and grace, and not consisting +merely in external rites. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Spiritus est Deus: et +eos, qui adorant eum, in spiritu +et veritate oportet adorare.</cell> +<cell>24. God is a Spirit, and they +that adore him, must adore +him in spirit and in truth.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. In the end of verse 23 +and in this verse Christ +goes on to give the reasons +why this worship, which is +primarily spiritual, is to exist +in the new and more perfect +dispensation—(1). It is the +Father's will. (2) It is meet +that such should be the worship +paid to Him who is Himself a +Spirit. It is hardly necessary +to point out that Calvin's interpretation +of adoration by faith +alone cannot be admitted. +Were that sufficient, the devils +themselves would be true +adorers, for <q>the devils also +believe and tremble</q> (James ii. +19). Neither does Christ here +imply that all <emph>external</emph> worship, +external rites and ceremonies, +were to cease, but only that +they were to cease to be <emph>merely +external</emph>; else (1) His acts +would contradict His words, +Luke xxii. 41; xxiv. 50; (2) +His Apostles would distinctly +<pb n='083'/><anchor id='Pg083'/> +disobey Him: see Acts xvi. 25; +ix. 40: Eph. iii. 14; (3) His +Church <emph>in every age</emph> has misunderstood +Him. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Dicit ei mulier: Scio +quia Messias venit (qui dicitur +Christus): cum ergo venerit +ille, nobis annuntiabit omnia.</cell> +<cell>25. The woman saith to +him: I know that the Messias +cometh (who is called Christ), +therefore when he is come, he +will tell us all things.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25. The poor woman, apparently +bewildered by what Christ +had just said, is satisfied to +wait in confidence till Messias +(here without the article, used +as a proper name) shall come, +who, she believes, will make +known all that it is necessary to +know regarding the place and +character of the worship of the +true God. As the Samaritans +admitted only the Pentateuch, +where the term Messias is not +used (though His coming is +foretold, Deut. xviii. 18); as, +moreover, she could not have +gathered from the Pentateuch +the <emph>time</emph> of His coming, she must +have learned by rumour that +the Jews were <emph>at this time</emph> expecting +the Messias; her words, +<q>He will tell <emph>us</emph> all things,</q> +showed that she hoped for His +coming in her own day. +</p> + +<p> +It is difficult to say whether +the words explanatory of +Messias, <hi rend='bold'>who is called Christ</hi>, +are the woman's or our Evangelist's. +That the Evangelist +explained the term before (i. 41), +is not a proof that he does not +do so again, for see John <ref target='XI_16'>xi. +16</ref>; <ref target='XII_24'>xx. 24</ref>; <ref target='XXI_2'>xxi. 2</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>26. Dicit ei Iesus: Ego +sum, qui loquor tecum.</cell> +<cell>26. Jesus saith to her: I am +he who am speaking with thee.</cell></row> +<row><cell>27. Et continuo venerunt +discipuli eius: et mirabantur, +quia cum muliere loquebatur. +Nemo tamen dixit: Quid +quaeris, aut quid loqueris cum +ea?</cell> +<cell>27. And immediately his +disciples came: and they +wondered that he talked with +the woman. Yet no man said: +What seekest thou, or why +talkest thou with her?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +26, 27. At length Christ reveals +Himself; and now that +He has excited her interest and +awakened her faith, the disciples +return from Sichar, and are +astonished to find Him speaking +publicly with a woman—a thing +not usually done by Jewish +doctors. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>28. Reliquit ergo hydriam +suam mulier, et abiit in civitatem, +et dicit illis hominibus:</cell> +<cell>28. The woman therefore +left her waterpot, and went +her way into the city, and +saith to the men there:</cell></row> +<row><cell>29. Venite, et videte hominem +qui dixit mihi omnia quaecumque +feci: numquid ipse +est Christus?</cell> +<cell>29. Come, and see a man +who has told me all things +whatsoever I have done. Is +not he the Christ?</cell></row> +<row><cell>30. Exierunt ergo de civitate, +et veniebant ad eum.</cell> +<cell>30. They went therefore out +of the city, and came unto him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +28-30. The discourse being +interrupted by the arrival of the +disciples, the woman, forgetful or +indifferent regarding the errand +<pb n='084'/><anchor id='Pg084'/> +which had brought her to the +well, <hi rend='bold'>went her way into the +city</hi>, and soon returned with a +number of her fellow-citizens. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>31. Interea rogabant eum +discipuli, dicentes: Rabbi, +manduca.</cell> +<cell>31. In the meantime the +disciples prayed him, saying: +Rabbi, eat.</cell></row> +<row><cell>32. Ille autem dicit eis: Ego +cibum habeo manducare, quem +vos nescitis.</cell> +<cell>32. But he said to them: +I have meat to eat which you +know not.</cell></row> +<row><cell>33. Dicebant ergo discipuli +ad invicem: Numquid aliquis +attulit ei manducare?</cell> +<cell>33. The disciples therefore +said one to another: Hath +any man brought him to eat?</cell></row> +<row><cell>34. Dicit eis Iesus: Meus +cibus est ut faciam voluntatem +eius qui misit me, ut perficiam +opus eius.</cell> +<cell>34. Jesus saith to them: +My meat is to do the will of +him that sent me, that I may +perfect his work.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +31-34. Meanwhile the disciples +invite Jesus to eat, to +whom He replies that He has +meat to eat which they know +not, that meat being, as He +explains in verse 34, to do the +will of Him that sent Him. It +was no time for attending to +the wants of His human nature; +He had more serious work in +hand in the conversion of the +Samaritans. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>35. Nonne vos dicitis quod +adhuc quatuor menses sunt, +et messis venit? Ecce dico +vobis: Levate oculos vestros, +et videte regiones, quia albae +sunt iam ad messem.</cell> +<cell>35. Do not you say, there +are yet four months, and then +the harvest cometh? Behold +I say to you, lift up your eyes, +and see the countries, for they +are white already to harvest.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +35. <hi rend='bold'>There are yet four +months, and then the harvest +cometh.</hi> Maldonatus, followed +by Father Coleridge, takes this +to be a proverb<note place='foot'>Compare the saying, common in parts of Ireland: <q>It is long till +Hallow-day.</q></note> meaning that +there is no need of hurry—that +the matter in question is still +far off. As, however, there is +<pb n='085'/><anchor id='Pg085'/> +no evidence that such a proverb +was current among the Jews, +it is much better to understand +the verse thus: You say what +is true, that it is still four +months till the harvest of +nature; but lift up your eyes, +and behold the harvest of grace +in the men of Sichar who are +approaching. +</p> + +<p> +As the barley harvest in +Palestine came in about the +middle of April, this time, four +months earlier, was the middle +of December, the end of the first +year of our Lord's public life.<note place='foot'>Our Lord was probably baptized by John between the middle of October +and the 25th December: <q>Quae quum ita sint, dies baptismi fuerit oportet +inter medium Octobrem interque viii. Kal., Januar,</q> Patrizzi, <hi rend='italic'>Diss.</hi> xlvii., +c. i. 11.</note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>36. Et qui metit, mercedem +accipit, et congregat fructum +in vitam aeternam: ut, et qui +seminat, simul gaudeat, et qui +metit.</cell> +<cell>36. And he that reapeth +receiveth wages, and gathereth +fruit unto life everlasting: that +both he that soweth, and he +that reapeth, may rejoice +together.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +36. He encourages His disciples +to the work; in saving +others they save themselves. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>37. In hoc enim est verbum +verum: quia alius est qui +seminat, et alius est qui metit.</cell> +<cell>37. For in this is the saying +true: that it is one man that +soweth, and it is another that +reapeth.</cell></row> +<row><cell>38. Ego misi vos metere +quod vos non laborastis: alii +laboraverunt, et vos in labores: +eorum introistis.</cell> +<cell>38. I have sent you to reap +that in which you did not +labour: others have laboured, +and you have entered into +their labours.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +37-38. The Prophets and +Doctors of the old Law had +prepared the way for the +Apostles and disciples of +Christ; had ploughed and sown +where they were now to reap. +<hi rend='bold'>I have sent you.</hi> Mald., who +holds that this is not the same +journey with that referred to +in Matt. iv. 12, Mark i. 14, and +that the Apostles were already +formally called by Christ, +understands <q>I have sent</q> of +an action already completed +by Christ. As, however, it is +more probable that the Apostles +were not yet formally called +(see Matt. iv. 12, 18; x. 1), it +is better to understand this, +with A Lap., of the Divine +decree to send the Apostles on +their mission afterwards. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>39. Ex civitate autem illa +multi crediderunt in eum Samaritanorum, propter verbum +mulieris testimonium perhibentis: +Quia dixit mihi omnia +quaecumque feci.</cell> +<cell>39. Now of that city many +of the Samaritans believed in +him, for the word of the +woman giving testimony: He +told me all things whatsoever +I have done.</cell></row> +<row><cell>40. Cum venissent ergo ad +illum Samaritani, rogaverunt +eum ut ibi maneret. Et mansit +ibi duos dies.</cell> +<cell>40. So when the Samaritans +were come to him, they desired +him that he would tarry there. +And he abode there two days.</cell></row> +<row><cell>41. Et multo plures crediderunt +in eum propter sermonem +eius.</cell> +<cell>41. And many more believed +in him because of his own +word.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +39-41. Many believed in Him +<pb n='086'/><anchor id='Pg086'/> +on account of what the woman +told them, and, after He had +remained two days in Sichar, +many more on account of His +discourses. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>42. Et mulieri dicebant: +Quia iam non propter tuam +loquelam credimus: ipsi enim +audivimus, et scimus, quia hic +est vere Salvator mundi.</cell> +<cell>42. And they said to the +woman: we now believe, not +for thy saying: for we ourselves +have heard him, and +know that this is indeed the +Saviour of the world.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +42. This is the Hebrew way +of expressing that it was not <emph>so +much</emph> on account of the woman's +saying, as because they had +heard Him themselves. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>43. Post duos autem dies +exiit inde: et abiit in Galilaeam.</cell> +<cell>43. Now after two days he +departed thence: and went +into Galilee.</cell></row> +<row><cell>44. Ipse enim Iesus testimonium +perhibuit, quia propheta +in sua patria honorem +non habet.</cell> +<cell>44. For Jesus himself gave +testimony that a prophet hath +no honour in his own country.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +43-44. The connection between +these two verses is +obscure. (1) Verse 44 gives +the reason why He had <emph>left +Galilee</emph>, to which He now +returns; or (2) the reason why +He <emph>passes Nazareth</emph>, and goes +on to Capharnaum (Matt. iv. +13), Tolet, A Lap., Corl.; or +(3) the reason why He proceeded +on His way from <emph>Judea, +His birthplace</emph>, into Galilee, +Mald., Patriz. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>45. Cum ergo venisset in +Galilaeam, exceperunt eum +Galilaei, cum omnia vidissent +quae fecerat Ierosolymis in +die festo: et ipsi enim venerant +ad diem festum.</cell> +<cell>45. And when he was come +into Galilee, the Galileans received +him, having seen all +the things he had done at +Jerusalem on the festival day: +for they also went to the +festival day.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +45. He is well received by +the Galileans, because the +remembrance of His exercise of +authority and of His miracles, +on the occasion of the previous +Pasch (ii. 15, 23), is still fresh +in their memories. +</p> + +<pb n='087'/><anchor id='Pg087'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>46. Venit ergo iterum in +Cana Galilaeae ubi fecit aquam +vinum. Et erat quidam regulus, +cuius filius infirmabatur +Capharnaum.</cell> +<cell>46. He came again therefore +into Cana of Galilee, where he +made the water wine. And +there was a certain ruler whose +son was sick at Capharnaum.</cell></row> +<row><cell>47. Hic cum audisset quia +Iesus adveniret a Iudaea in +Galilaeam, abiit ad eum, et +rogabat eum ut descenderet, +et sanaret filium eius: incipiebat +enim mori.</cell> +<cell>47. He having heard that +Jesus was come from Judea +into Galilee, went to him, and +prayed him to come down and +heal his son: for he was at the +point of death.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +46. <hi rend='bold'>A certain ruler whose +son was sick at Capharnaum</hi>, +on hearing that Jesus was in +Cana, came and asked Him to +<emph>come down</emph> and heal his son, +who was on the point of death. +Origen thinks this ruler may +have belonged to the household +of Cæsar, and been on duty in +Palestine at this time. But +Josephus uses the word +(βασιλικός) to designate the +courtiers or officers of the +Herods (see B. J. vii. 5, 2; +Antt. xv. 8, 4); so that this +ruler of Capharnaum may have +been an officer of Herod +Antipas, the Tetrarch of +Galilee. Doubtless the ruler +had heard of the miracle at the +marriage feast in Cana (ii. 7, +11); and perhaps he had witnessed +the evidence of Christ's +miraculous power at the feast +of the Pasch (ii. 23). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>48. Dixit ergo Iesus ad +eum: Nisi signa et prodigia +videritis, non creditis.</cell> +<cell>48. Jesus therefore said to +him: Unless you see signs +and wonders, you believe not.</cell></row> +<row><cell>49. Dicit ad eum regulus: +Domine, descende prius quam +moriatur filius meus.</cell> +<cell>49. The ruler saith to him: +Lord, come down before that +my son die.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +48. Christ upbraids the ruler +for his imperfect faith. The +ruler is blamed either because +he was waiting to <emph>see</emph> a miracle +before he would believe, or +because he foolishly considered +that it was <emph>necessary</emph> for Christ +to go down to Capharnaum in +order to heal his son. +</p> + +<pb n='088'/><anchor id='Pg088'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>50. Dicit ei Iesus: Vade, +filius tuus vivit. Credidit +homo sermoni quem dixit ei +Iesus, et ibat.</cell> +<cell>50. Jesus saith to him: Go +thy way, thy son liveth. The +man believed the word which +Jesus said to him, and went +his way.</cell></row> +<row><cell>51. Iam autem eo descendente, +servi occurrerunt ei, +et nuntiaverunt dicentes, quia +filius eius viveret.</cell> +<cell>51. And as he was going +down, his servants met him: +and they brought word, saying +that his son lived.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +50. Jesus said to him, <hi rend='bold'>Go +thy way; thy son liveth</hi>. +It is plain, from all the circumstances, +that this miracle is +quite distinct from that +recorded in Matt. viii. 5 and +foll.; Luke vii. 2 and foll., +though some of the Rationalists +have sought to identify the +two. There it is the centurion's +servant, here the ruler's son, +who is ill; there the illness is +paralysis, here fever; there, +though asked not to go, Christ +goes to the sick person; here, +though asked to go, he goes +not. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>52. Interrogabat ergo horam +ab eis in qua melius habuerit. +Et dixerunt ei: Quia heri hora +septima reliquit eum febris.</cell> +<cell>52. He asked therefore of +them the hour, wherein he +grew better. And they said +to him: Yesterday at the +seventh hour the fever left him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +52. <hi rend='bold'>The seventh hour;</hi> <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, +about an hour after noon, +1 p.m., or 7 p.m. See <ref target='I_39'>i. 39</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>53. Cognovit ergo pater, +quia illa hora erat, in qua +dixit ei Iesus: Filius tuus +vivit: et credidit ipse, et +domus eius tota.</cell> +<cell>53. The father therefore +knew that it was at the same +hour, that Jesus said to him, +Thy son liveth; and himself +believed and his whole house.</cell></row> +<row><cell>54. Hoc iterum secundum +signum fecit Iesus, cum venisset +a Iudaea in Galilaeam.</cell> +<cell>54. This <hi rend='italic'>is</hi> again the second +miracle that Jesus did, when +he was come out of Judea into +Galilee.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +54. It is not said that this +was the second miracle He +performed, but that it was +the second He performed +on coming out of Judea +into Galilee. For the first, +see ii. <ref target='II_6'>6</ref>, <ref target='II_11'>11</ref>, and compare +<ref target='I_43'>i. 43</ref>. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='089'/><anchor id='Pg089'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter V.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-9. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus goes up to Jerusalem on the occasion of a festival, and +there cures a man on the Sabbath day.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +10-16. <hi rend='bold'>The Jews first challenge him who was healed, and then persecute +Christ for violating the Sabbath.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +17. <hi rend='bold'>Christ's answer and defence.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +18. <hi rend='bold'>They are still more exasperated, and seek to kill Him.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +19-39. <hi rend='bold'>Christ's discourse, in which He proves, by various arguments, +that He is justified in calling God HIS Father, and in making +Himself equal to God.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +40-47. <hi rend='bold'>He upbraids their incredulity, and points out its cause.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Post haec erat dies festus +Iudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus +Ierosolymam.</cell> +<cell>1. After these things was a +festival day of the Jews, and +Jesus went up to Jerusalem.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. The interval to be admitted +between the events now +about to be narrated and the +preceding, depends upon the +answer to be given to the +question: what festival is here +referred to? On this question +a great diversity of opinion has +always existed among commentators. +The more common +opinion is that it is the festival +of the <foreign rend='italic'>Pasch</foreign>; others, however, +hold that it is the festival of +<hi rend='italic'>Pentecost</hi>, or of <hi rend='italic'>Tabernacles</hi>, or +of the <hi rend='italic'>Purification</hi> of the +Temple, or of <hi rend='italic'>Lots</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +The Pasch was celebrated +from the evening of the 14th +till that of the 21st of Nisan, +the first month of the Jewish +sacred year. Pentecost was +the fiftieth day from the second +day of the Pasch. The feast of +Tabernacles was celebrated +from the evening of the 14th +till that of the 22nd of Tisri, the +seventh month of the sacred +year. The feast of Purification +lasted eight days, beginning +with the 25th Casleu, the ninth +month of the sacred year. The +feast of Lots lasted two days, +the 14th and 15th of Adar, the +twelfth month of the sacred +year. +</p> + +<p> +The three feasts of Pasch, +Pentecost, and Tabernacles +were the great Jewish feasts, +on which, and on which alone, +all adult males were bound to +<pb n='090'/><anchor id='Pg090'/> +go up to Jerusalem to worship. +See Exod. xxiii. 14-17; xxxiv. +18, 22, 23. Many have held +that the approach of the feast +is mentioned (verse 1), as giving +the reason why Christ went up, +like the other adult Jewish men, +to Jerusalem (ii. 13). Others, +however, hold that the text +merely states a fact, that Christ +went up on the occasion of a +festival, without implying at all +that the festival was such as +ought to be celebrated at Jerusalem. +</p> + +<p> +It is difficult, if not impossible, +to definitely decide which +feast is meant; but it seems to +us extremely probable that it is +either Pasch or Lots. In favour +of the Pasch it is argued—(1) +(ἑορτὴ) even without the +article<note place='foot'>It is not certain which is the correct reading, whether ἑορτὴ or +ἡ ἑορτὴ (a feast, or <emph>the</emph> feast). Nearly all the critics are against reading +the article. So Lachmann, Tisch, Westc., and Hort; and, so too, the +Protestant Revised Version. Still, there are a great many ancient authorities, +among them the Codex א (Sinait.) in favour of reading the article. But even +if the reading were certain, it would still be doubtful what feast is meant.</note> <emph>may</emph> designate the +Pasch (Matt. xxvii. 15; Mark +xv. 6); and it is to be believed +that it does in the present instance, +because ten verses before +(iv. 45) the same word is used to +designate the Pasch (compare +John ii. 13, 23). (2) From iv. 35 +we learn that Jesus was on His +way, through Samaria, to +Galilee, in December; that is, +about the <emph>close</emph> of the first year +of His public life. Hence it +cannot be to any of the three +great feasts of that <emph>first</emph> year +that our text refers. Naturally, +then, it is to the Pasch of the +second year, which was the first +great feast to occur in the course +of the year, and for which, if +Christ had not gone to Jerusalem, +St. John would probably +have explained His absence, as +He does (vii. 1) in reference to +the Pasch mentioned vi. 4. +(3) Were it any other feast than +that of the Pasch, which was +by excellence <emph>the</emph> feast of the +Jews, St. John, according to +his custom (vii. 2; x. 22), would +have named it. (4) This is the +opinion of St. Irenæus, who +was a disciple of Polycarp, himself +a disciple of our Evangelist. +</p> + +<p> +In favour of the feast of +Lots—(1) The absence of the +article in the more probable +reading points to one of the +minor feasts of the Jews. (2) +From John iv. 35, and vi. 4, +it would seem to be clear that +this feast fell between December +and the Pasch; but only +the feast of Lots occurred at +that time. (3) If this be the +second Pasch of our Lord's +public life, and that in vi. 4 +the third, then the events of a +whole year are passed over by +our Evangelist, who proceeds, +<pb n='091'/><anchor id='Pg091'/> +in vi. 1: <q>After these things +Jesus went,</q> &c., affording no +hint that he has passed over the +events of a year. (4). Were +this the Pasch, St. John would +have named it, as he does on +the other three occasions (ii. +13; vi. 4; xi. 55). But as it +was only a minor feast of the +Jews, and probably unheard-of +by the Christians of Asia Minor, +the Evangelist thinks it unnecessary +to name it, and +contents himself with referring +to it as <hi rend='bold'>a feast of the Jews</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +It is perhaps impossible, as +we have said already, to decide +with certainty which feast is +meant, but we shall follow the +more common opinion and hold +that there is question of the +Pasch. Thus, we hold that +St. John mentions four Paschs +as having occurred during our +Lord's public life: the first in +ii. 13; the second here; the +third in vi. 4; and the fourth +and last in xii. 1 and xiii. 1, +when our Lord was put to +death. He passes over the +events that occurred between +the second and third Pasch, +because they were already +narrated by the Synoptic Evangelists. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Est autem Ierosolymis +probatica piscina, quae cognominatur +hebraice Bethsaida, +quinque porticus habens.</cell> +<cell>2. Now there is at Jerusalem +a pond, <hi rend='italic'>called</hi> Probatica, which +in Hebrew is named Bethsaida, +having five porches.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. The best supported Greek +reading would be rendered, +<q>Now there is in Jerusalem +<hi rend='italic'>by the sheep-gate</hi> (πύλη being +understood) a pond which is +called in Hebrew <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>Bethesda</foreign>,</q> &c. +</p> + +<p> +Bethesda, in Syro-Chaldaic, +which was the language of +Palestine at this time, means +the house (place) of mercy; +and the name was given in the +present instance on account of +the merciful cures wrought +there. For the building of +this sheep-gate by the priests, +see 2 Esd. iii. 1. The site of +either gate or pond cannot be +determined with certainty; but +the pond seems to have been +close to the Temple, near the +gate through which the sheep +to be sacrificed entered within +the outer enclosure of the +temple. The <hi rend='bold'>porches</hi>, which +served to shelter the sick from +sun and rain, were open on +the sides, but covered with a +roof supported on pillars. +</p> + +<p> +The Vulgate reading, <hi rend='bold'>a +sheep-pond</hi>, has been variously +explained. Some say +the pond might be so called +because the sheep were washed +there before they were sacrificed; +others, because their +entrails were brought there to +be washed. <hi rend='bold'>Bethsaida</hi>, read +by the Vulgate, means the +house (place) for fishing. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. In his iacebat multitudo +magna languentium, caecorum, +claudorum, aridorum, expectantium +aquae motum.</cell> +<cell>3. In these lay a great +multitude of sick, of blind, of +lame, of withered, waiting for +the moving of the water.</cell></row> +<row><cell>4. Angelus autem Domini +descendebat secundum tempus +in piscinam: et movebatur +aqua. Et qui prior descendisset +in piscinam post +motionem aquae, sanus fiebat +a quacumque detinebatur infirmitate.</cell> +<cell>4. And an Angel of the +Lord descended at certain +times into the pond; and the +water was moved. And he +that went down first into the +pond after the motion of the +water, was made whole of whatsoever +infirmity he lay under.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3, 4. The genuineness of +the passage, beginning with +<hi rend='bold'>waiting for the moving of +the water</hi>, and comprising +<pb n='092'/><anchor id='Pg092'/> +the whole of verse 4, is disputed. +The Council of Trent, +indeed, defined <q>libros singulos +cum omnibus suis partibus +... prout in vulgata Latina +Editione habentur ... pro +sacris et canonicis esse suscipiendos:</q> +but it is not thereby +defined that every tittle (<hi rend='italic'>particula</hi>) +or every verse, is canonical +Scripture. It would seem, +therefore, that Catholics are +free to reject this passage, and +it is a question for criticism +to decide whether we are to +receive or reject it. +</p> + +<p> +After an examination of the +evidence for and against, we +believe that the passage is +more probably genuine. It +stands in codex A (Alexandrinus), +and in at least ten other +uncial and very many <emph>cursive</emph> +MSS. It is read in the <q>Vetus +Itala</q> and in the Vulgate; in +the <emph>plain</emph> and <emph>figured</emph> Syriac +versions, and in the Persian, +Coptic, and Arabian versions. +It is read by Cyril of Alexandria, +Chrys., Theophy., Euthy., +Tertull., Ambr., and August. +Finally, the context, especially +the reply of the sick man +(verse 7), supposes it. Why +it came to be wanting in so +many MSS. it is difficult to +explain.<note place='foot'>The passage is regarded as spurious by Tisch., Tregell., Westc., and Hort, +and by the Rev. Vers.</note> +</p> + +<p> +That the wonderful efficacy +here attributed to the water of +this pond was miraculous, and +not merely, as the Rationalists +would have us believe, the +effect of salubrious natural +properties in the water, seems +clear. For—(1) there is the +intervention of an angel which +disturbed (ἐτάρασσε) the water; +(2) only the first person entering +the pond was cured; (3) he +was cured not gradually, but +at once, and completely: +<q>he was immediately made +whole;</q> (4) he was cured no +matter what his disease. When +the Rationalists find for us +an intermittent spring whose +waters possess the properties +here attributed to Bethesda, +<pb n='093'/><anchor id='Pg093'/> +we shall be prepared to listen +to them. +</p> + +<p> +The waters of Bethesda, in +their wonderful efficacy to cure +every disease, were a striking +though imperfect type of the +waters of Penance, which heal +every spiritual malady of everyone, +be he first or last who +bathes in them. +</p> + +<anchor id='V_5'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Erat autem quidam homo +ibi triginta et octo annos +habens in infirmitate sua.</cell> +<cell>5. And there was a certain +man there, that had been eight +and thirty years under his +infirmity.</cell></row> +<row><cell>6. Hunc cum vidisset Iesus +iacentem, et cognovisset quia +iam multum tempus haberet, +dicit ei: Vis sanus fieri?</cell> +<cell>6. Him when Jesus had +seen lying, and knew that he +had been now a long time, he +saith to him: Wilt thou be +made whole?</cell></row> +<row><cell>7. Respondit ei languidus: +Domini, hominem non habeo, +ut, cum turbata fuerit aqua, +mittat me in piscinam: dum +venio enim ego, alius ante me +descendit.</cell> +<cell>7. The infirm man answered +him: Sir, I have no man, +when the water is troubled, to +put me into the pond. For +whilst I am coming, another +goeth down before me.</cell></row> +<row><cell>8. Dicit ei Iesus: Surge, tolle +grabatum tuum, et ambula.</cell> +<cell>8. Jesus saith to him: Arise, +take up thy bed, and walk.</cell></row> +<row><cell>9. Et statim sanus factus +est homo ille: et sustulit grabatum +suum, et ambulabat. +Erat autem sabbatum in die +illo.</cell> +<cell>9. And immediately the man +was made whole: and he +took up his bed and walked. +And it was the sabbath that +day.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5-9. Christ speaks with and +heals a man who had been +thirty-eight years ill (of paralysis +or some similar disease, as +would appear from verses 7-8); +and, to show how complete the +cure was, perhaps also to give +an occasion for the discourse +which follows, He orders the +man who has been cured to +take up his bed and walk. It +would be a rather severe trial +of recovered strength to have +to carry some of the beds of +modern times; but that on +which the poor paralytic had +been resting was not cumbrous. +It was probably only a carpet +or mattress, or at most there +was but a very light framework. +In Acts v. 15, we find +the term used in our text +distinguished from κλίνη, +which was rather the bed of +the rich, more expensive and +cumbrous. +</p> + +<pb n='094'/><anchor id='Pg094'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>10. Dicebant ergo Iudaei +illi qui sanatus fuerat: Sabbatum +est, non licet tibi tollere +grabatum tuum.</cell> +<cell>10. The Jews therefore said +to him that was healed: It is +the sabbath, it is not lawful +for thee to take up thy bed.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. <hi rend='bold'>It is not lawful.</hi> See +Exod. xx. 8; Jer. xvii. 21, 22. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Respondit eis: Qui me +sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit: +Tolle grabatum tuum, et +ambula.</cell> +<cell>11. He answered them: He +that made me whole, he said +to me: Take up my bed, and +walk.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. The man appeals to the +authority of Him who had +cured him, who surely must be +from God, and able to dispense +in the Sabbath law. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Interrogaverunt ergo +eum: Quis est ille homo qui +dixit tibi, Tolle grabatum +tuum, et ambula?</cell> +<cell>12. They asked him, therefore: +Who is that man who +said to thee: Take up thy bed +and walk?</cell></row> +<row><cell>13. Is autem qui sanus +fuerat effectus, nesciebat quis +esset. Iesus enim declinavit +a turba constituta in loco.</cell> +<cell>13. But he who was healed, +knew not who it was. For +Jesus went aside from the +multitude standing in the place.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +13. Christ had gone aside to +escape the envy of the evil-minded +as well as the admiration +of the well-disposed. See +<ref target='VI_15'>vi. 15</ref>. A more correct rendering +of the Greek would be: <hi rend='bold'>For +Jesus had gone aside, there +being a crowd in the place.</hi> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Postea invenit eum Iesus +in templo, et dixit illi: Ecce +sanus factus es: iam noli +peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid +contingat.</cell> +<cell>14. Afterwards Jesus findeth +him in the temple, and saith +to him: Behold thou art made +whole: sin no more, lest some +worse thing happen to thee.</cell></row> +<row><cell>15. Abiit ille homo, et nuntiavit +Iudaeis quia Iesus esset, +quia fecit eum sanum.</cell> +<cell>15. And the man went his +way, and told the Jews that it +was Jesus who had made him +whole.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. Christ's words, <hi rend='bold'>Sin no +more</hi>, insinuate that the man's +previous illness had been the +result of sin; and he is warned +that if he provoke God further, +something worse may happen +to him; worse, perhaps, even +on this side, and infinitely worse +beyond, the grave. <q>Some +say, indeed,</q> says St. Chrys., +<q>because we have corrupted +ourselves for a short time, shall +we be tormented eternally? +But see how long this man was +tormented for his sins. Sin is +<pb n='095'/><anchor id='Pg095'/> +not to be measured by length +of time, but by the nature of +sin itself.</q> +</p> + +<anchor id='V_16'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Propterea persequebantur +Iudaei Iesum, quia haec +faciebat in sabbato.</cell> +<cell>16. Therefore did the Jews +persecute Jesus, because he did +these things on the sabbath.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. Therefore the Jews, +especially the Scribes and +Pharisees, persecuted, or +rather, perhaps, accused<note place='foot'><q>δίωκειν haud raro est verbum forense, atque significat accusare.</q>—Kuin.</note> +Jesus for healing a man on +the Sabbath (comp. vii. 23; +Luke vi. 7), and for authorizing +him who was healed to +violate the Sabbath. +</p> + +<anchor id='V_17'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Iesus autem respondit +eis: Pater meus usque modo +operatur, et ego operor.</cell> +<cell>17. But Jesus answered +them: My Father worketh +until now; and I work.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17. Christ's reply is, that as +<emph>His</emph> (not <emph>our</emph>, for He was the +natural Son of God, we are +only adopted sons) Father +worketh continually, and therefore +even on the Sabbath, conserving +and governing all +things; so, too, He Himself, +He being consubstantial with +the Father. Thus He tells +them that equally with the +Father He is exempt from the +law of the Sabbath. +</p> + +<anchor id='V_18'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Propterea ergo magis +quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, +quia non solum solvebat +sabbatum, sed et patrem suum +dicebat Deum, aequalem se +faciens Deo. Respondit itaque +Iesus, et dixit eis:</cell> +<cell>18. Hereupon therefore the +Jews sought the more to kill +him, because he did not only +break the sabbath, but also +said God was his Father, +making himself equal to God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. They understand Him, +so far at least as to see that +He makes Himself equal to +God; and as they now consider +Him to be not merely a Sabbath-breaker, +but also a blasphemer, +they become more +exasperated, and seek to kill +Him. See Deut. xiii. 5. +</p> + +<anchor id='V_19'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Amen, amen dico vobis: +non potest Filius a se facere +quidquam, nisi quod viderit +Patrem facientem: quaecumque +enim ille fecerit, haec et +Filius similter facit.</cell> +<cell>19. Then Jesus answered +and said to them: Amen, amen, +I say unto you: the Son cannot +do anything of himself, but +what he seeth the Father +doing: for what things soever +he doth, these the Son also +doth in like manner.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. The remainder of the +chapter is taken up with +Christ's discourse, in which +He asserts His Divinity, and +proves it by various arguments. +(1) By His own testimony +(19-30), which the Jews might +be excused for rejecting, were +it alone and unsupported (31); +(2) by the testimony of the +Baptist (32-35); (3) by the +testimony of His miracles (36); +(4) by the testimony of His +Father which is contained in +the Sacred Scriptures (37-39). +</p> + +<p> +The Jews had understood +<pb n='096'/><anchor id='Pg096'/> +Him to make Himself equal to +God, and He goes on not to +withdraw, but to reiterate and +expand what He had said. +He declares His operation as +God to be identical with that of +the Father; in a word, His +works to be the works of God. +He had received, in His eternal +generation, His Divine nature +and operation identical with the +Father's, and as God He does +nothing except what the Father +does, and the Father does +nothing except what He +does. This inability to work of +Himself, that is to say, alone, +without the Father (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>a seipso</foreign>), +proceeds not from any defect of +power, but from His inseparable +union with the Father in +nature and operation. The +Son's <q>seeing,</q> and the Father's +<q>showing</q> (v. 20), are both +metaphorical expressions, and +signify that the Son derives +His divine nature and operation +from the Father.<note place='foot'><q>Unde secundum Augustinum, demonstrare Patrem Filio, nihil aliud +est quam Patrem generare Filium. Et Filium videre quae Pater facit, nihil +aliud est quam Filium esse et naturam a Patre recipere.</q>—St. Thom. on +verse 20.</note> The +Arians appealed to this verse +to prove the inferiority of the +Son to the Father, because, they +said, Christ here declares Himself +merely an imitator of the +works of the Father, just as a +pupil or apprentice imitates +his master. But Christ's +words, <q>I and the Father are +one</q> (x. 30), show that there +can be no question here of +inferiority; and, moreover, +since <emph>all</emph> things were made by +the Son (i. 3), it was impossible +for Him to copy from anything +made beforehand. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>But what he seeth</hi> (βλέπει) +<hi rend='bold'>the Father doing</hi>. <q>But what,</q> +that is, not by Himself, <emph>but</emph> +together with the Father, +<q>nisi</q> of the Vulgate being +here equal to <q>sed.</q> See Matt. +xii. 4; Gal. ii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>For what things soever He +doth, these the Son also doth +in like manner.</hi> St. Thomas on +this verse says:—<q>Excludit in +his tria circa potestatem suam: +scilicet particularitatem (<emph>quaecumque</emph>), +diversitatem (<emph>haec</emph>), +et imperfectionem (<emph>similiter</emph>).</q> +And St. Augustine on this verse +says beautifully: <q>He does +not say whatsoever the Father +doeth, the Son does <emph>other</emph> things +like them, but the very same +things. The Father made the +world, the Son made the world, +the Holy Ghost made the +world. If the Father, Son +<pb n='097'/><anchor id='Pg097'/> +and Holy Ghost, are one, it +follows that one and the same +world was made by the Father, +through the Son, in the Holy +Ghost. Thus it is the very +same thing that the Son +doth. He adds <emph>likewise</emph>, to +prevent another error arising. +For the body seems to do the +same things with the mind, but +it does not do them in a like +way, inasmuch as the body is +subject, the soul governing; +the body visible, the soul invisible. +When a slave does a +thing at the command of his +master, the same thing is +done by both; but is it in a +like way? Now in the Father +and Son there is not this difference; +they do the same things, +and in a like way. Father and +Son act with the same power; +so that the Son is equal to the +Father.</q> Since then the works +of the Son as God are the works +of the Father, if they blamed +the Son for violating the Sabbath, +they thereby blamed the +Father also. And it is of the +Son <emph>as God</emph> there is question +here; for as man, or as God-man +He could do many things +<q>of Himself,</q> such as eating, +walking on the waters, &c., +which, of course, the Father +never did; and, moreover, it +would not be true to say that +the Son as man does all that the +Father does. +</p> + +<anchor id='V_20'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Pater enim diligit Filium, +et omnia demonstrat ei quae +ipse facit: et maiora his demonstrabit +ei opera, ut vos +miremini.</cell> +<cell>20. For the Father loveth +the Son, and showeth him all +things which himself doth: +and greater works than these +will he show him, that you +may wonder.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +20. Here is given the reason +for the Son's identity of operation +with the Father. <hi rend='bold'>For the +Father loveth the Son</hi>, and +from all eternity communicateth +to Him the one Divine power +and operation, whereby He +Himself doth all things; and +that Divine power shall yet be +<emph>manifested</emph> by the Son in +greater works than the healing +of the paralytic, that you +may wonder. +</p> + +<p> +We are not to conclude from +this verse that the love of the +Father is the cause of the communication +of the Divine nature +to the Son, as if the Son proceeded +from the Father through +love, and therefore through the +Will. The common teaching +of theologians is that the Son +proceeds not through the Divine +will, but through the Divine +intellect. See Perr. De. Trin., +§ 401. Hence the meaning is not, +that the Father loves the Son, +and <emph>therefore</emph> communicates +His Divine nature to Him. +Toletus, however, thinks that +this form of expression is +purposely used here by Christ +to show men that the Father +shares His nature and power +with the Son, since among +men, those who love share +<pb n='098'/><anchor id='Pg098'/> +their goods with each +other.<note place='foot'><q>Est argumentum ab humano modo sumptum, respectu hominum illorum, +qui se amant, hi enim mutuo sibi omnia communicant, nihil sibi occultant, et +cum revera Pater summe diligat Filium, utitur hoc argumento ut signo, et +probatione propter nos, non autem quod causa sit cur omnia demonstret,</q>—Tolet. +For other explanations, Corl., page 118, may be consulted.</note> +</p> + +<p> +As already indicated, the +future, <q>will show,</q> is used in +this verse in reference to the +<emph>manifestation</emph> in time of that +power which was given from +eternity. <hi rend='bold'>That you may +wonder.</hi> Some take <q>that</q> +(ἵνα) here as introducing a consequence; +others, and rightly, +in its usual sense as introducing +a purpose. The purpose of God +was that they might wonder +and believe. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Sicut enim Pater suscitat +mortuos, et vivificat: sic et +Filius, quos vult, vivificat.</cell> +<cell>21. For as the Father raiseth +up the dead, and giveth life: +so the Son also giveth life to +whom he will.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +21. The connection here +shows that the raising of the +dead is one of the <q>greater +works</q> just referred to, as is +also the judgment by Christ +mentioned in the next verse. But +who are the dead, and what is +the resurrection of which there +is question? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Those who were <emph>corporally</emph> +dead like Lazarus, and +were raised by Christ, to the +wonder of the Jews.<note place='foot'>Mald. thinks that the principal reference in verses 21 and 25 is to the +<emph>general</emph> resurrection.</note> For—(1) +This view suits the context. +Christ had cured a paralytic; +He now promises greater miracles; +hitherto he had only +healed bodies that were sick; +now He would raise to life +bodies that were dead. (2) In +verse 28 there is certainly +question of a corporal resurrection; +therefore also here. +(3) This raising of the dead was +to excite the wonder of the +Jews; therefore there must be +question of the raising of the +body, since a spiritual resurrection +could not be known, and +hence could not be a matter of +wonder. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Those <emph>spiritually</emph> dead, +who were to be raised through +the preaching of Christ and +His Apostles from the death of +sin to the life of grace. For—(1) +It is more probable that there +is question of spiritual death +and resurrection in verse 24; +therefore also in verse 21. (2) The +words <q>And now is</q> of verse +25 point to a resurrection then +present, therefore to a <emph>spiritual</emph>. +(3) This view suits the context. +The spiritual resurrection +brought about by Christ, though +in itself invisible, produced in +the world effects <emph>more wonderful</emph> +than the curing of the paralytic, +and it is as a proof that Christ +can raise those spiritually dead, +<pb n='099'/><anchor id='Pg099'/> +that He refers in verse 28 to +the fact that He will raise those +corporally dead. +</p> + +<p> +We prefer the latter view; +but whichever view we may +hold, we must bear in mind +that the sense is not that the +Father raises some, and the +Son others, from the dead. As +God, Christ's will is <emph>identical</emph> +with the Father's, and what +one does the other does. +Christ then is here said to raise +<q>whom He will</q> in order to +show us His absolute equality +with the Father. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Neque enim Pater iudicat +quemquam: sed omne iudicium +dedit Filio.</cell> +<cell>22. For neither doth the +Father judge any man: but +hath given all judgment to the +Son.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. Another greater work +than the curing of the paralytic +is the judging of men. Some +think it is the judgment of discussion, +the trial which awaits +all (Heb. ix. 27), that is referred +to; others that (as in verses 24, +29, and iii. 19) it is the judgment +of condemnation passed +upon the reprobate, the Greek +word which is used being generally +(if not always) used by +St. John of the judgment of +condemnation. When it is said +here that <hi rend='bold'>neither doth the +Father judge any man</hi>, the +meaning is that although the +Father and the Holy Ghost +pass the same identical judgment +as the Son, yet they do +not do this <emph>visibly</emph>, so as to be +seen and heard like the God-man +Jesus Christ. This is particularly +true in regard to the +judgment of the wicked; Christ +alone, in His humanity, appears +to them; for as St. Augustine +says: <q>Si mali Deum in propria +natura viderent jam essent +beati.</q> The Father gave all +power to judge to Christ as God +in the eternal generation, to +Christ as man at the incarnation; +and it is as God and man +that Christ judges: as God +authoritatively, and as man +visibly.<note place='foot'><q>Deus eam (potestatem judiciariam) communicare noluit nec congrue +potuit puro homini, sed Christo soli, qui Deus est et homo. Ipse enim ut +Deus, summam habet auctoritatem judicandi; ut homo vero habet facultatem +judicium hoc visibiliter coram hominibus salvandis et damnandis exercendi.</q>—A +Lap.</note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Ut omnes honorificent +Filium, sicut honorificant +Patrem; qui non honorificat +Filium, non honorificat Patrem +qui misit illum.</cell> +<cell>23. That all men may honour +the Son, as they honour the +Father. He who honoureth +not the Son, honoureth not +the Father who hath sent him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. Here is declared the end +that God had in view in conferring +the supreme judiciary +power upon the Son, namely, +that men might honour Him +<emph>equally</emph> with the Father. He +that honoureth not the Son, +<pb n='100'/><anchor id='Pg100'/> +honoureth not the Father who +sent Him in the Incarnation +equal in all things to Himself. +In dishonouring Jesus Christ, +the Jews were dishonouring +that Divine nature and majesty +which is one with the Father's, +and they were, moreover, spurning +the testimony which the +Father had already given to +the Divinity of His Son, as well +after Christ's baptism (Matt. iii. +17), as in the miracles which +He had given Christ to perform +(verse 36). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Amen, amen dico vobis, +quia qui verbum meum audit, et +credit ei qui misit me, habet +vitam aeternam, et in iudicium +non venit, sed transiit a morte +in vitam.</cell> +<cell>24. Amen, amen, I say unto +you, that he who heareth my +word, and believeth him that +sent me, hath life everlasting; +and cometh not into judgment +but is passed from death to life.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. We believe the connection +with the preceding to be +this. In speaking of the end +God had in view in conferring +the supreme judiciary power +upon the God-man, our Lord +had noted parenthetically the +effect of not honouring the Son +(verse 23); here He adds what +the effect of honouring Him is. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Amen, amen.</hi> The repeated +asseveration indicates the +solemn importance of the +declaration about to be +made, namely, that he who +accepts the teaching of Christ, +and thereby the testimony of the +Father testifying to Christ as +His Son, has eternal life. We +take <q>death</q> and <q>life</q> of +this verse of the death of sin +and the life of grace, and understand +<q>has passed</q> in reference +to the justification of the +sinner. See 1 John iii. 14, and +what we have said on <ref target='I_12'>i. 13</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Amen, amen dico vobis, +quia venit hora, et nunc est, +quando mortui audient vocem +Filii Dei: et qui audierint, +vivent.</cell> +<cell>25. Amen, amen, I say unto +you, that the hour cometh +and now is, when the dead +shall hear the voice of the Son +of God, and they that hear +shall live.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25. Having stated parenthetically +the effect of dishonouring +and honouring Himself, +Christ returns to the proof of +His divine power. There is the +same difference of opinion here +regarding the life and death +meant, as in verse 21. +</p> + +<p> +The words, <hi rend='bold'>And now is</hi>, +favour the view that there is +question of a spiritual resurrection +that had already begun. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And they that hear, shall +live.</hi> These words, too, suggest +that there is question of a +spiritual resurrection, a resurrection +in which all those that +hear and believe are to share. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>26. Sicut enim Pater habet +vitam in semetipso: sic dedit +et Filio habere vitam in semetipso:</cell> +<cell>26. For as the Father hath +life in himself; so he hath +given to the Son also to have +life in himself:</cell></row></table> + +<p> +26. For the Son is essential +<pb n='101'/><anchor id='Pg101'/> +Life like the Father, and being +in Himself the source of life +can therefore impart it to +others. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Et potestatem dedit ei +iudicium facere, quia Filius +hominis est.</cell> +<cell>27. And he hath given him +power to do judgment, because +he is the son of man.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +27. The meaning is, that as +it was ordained from all +eternity, that the Second +Person of the Blessed Trinity +should become man, so it was +ordained that He, as God-man +should judge all men without +exception in the general judgment, +and all who die after the +incarnation, in the particular +judgment. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>28. Nolite mirari hoc, quia +venit hora in qua omnes qui +in monumentis sunt, audient +vocem Filii Dei:</cell> +<cell>28. Wonder not at this, for +the hour cometh wherein all +that are in the graves shall hear +the voice of the Son of God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +28. <hi rend='bold'>This</hi> at which they are +not to wonder, is His power of +raising the dead, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, the few +whom He raised corporally +during His public life, or, as +we prefer, the many whom He +raised spiritually; and His +power of judging. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>For the hour cometh +wherein all that are in the +graves shall hear the voice of +the Son of God.</hi> It is admitted +by all that the reference in these +words is to the general resurrection, +and the Jews are told not +to be surprised at the spiritual +resurrection, inasmuch as the +resurrection of all flesh shall +come to pass at the word of the +same Son of God. The words +of this verse imply that the +spiritual resurrection excites +less wonder than the corporal; +and this indeed is true, for though +the spiritual resurrection is, in +fact, the greater miracle, and in +itself more wonderful, yet it is +not sensible, and cannot excite +our wonder so much as the raising +of even one dead body to life. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Et procedent qui bona +fecerunt, in resurrectionem +vitae: qui vero mala egerunt, +in resurrectionem iudicii.</cell> +<cell>29. And they that have done +good things, shall come forth +unto the resurrection of life; but +they that have done evil, unto +the resurrection of judgment.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +29. This verse affords a +clear proof that we are not +justified by faith alone, but +that according to our works +we shall be rewarded or condemned. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>30. Non possum ego a +meipso facere quidquam. Sicut +audio, iudico: et iudicium +meum iustum est, quia non +quaero voluntatem meam, sed +voluntatem eius qui misit me.</cell> +<cell>30. I cannot of myself do +anything. As I hear, so I +judge: and my judgment is +just: because I seek not my +own will, but the will of him +that sent me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +30. What Christ said in verse +<pb n='102'/><anchor id='Pg102'/> +19 of every operation of His, +He now repeats and applies in +particular to this judgment. +Since He judges as God-man, +the words <q>As I hear,</q> probably +refer both to His Divine +nature, which, like His judgment +was identical with that +of the Father, and to His +human nature, in which, on +account of the plenitude of +grace within Him, He can +think or will nothing contrary +to the Father.<note place='foot'><q>Nam ipse, qua Deus, idem numero habet judicium, eandem numero +mentem et voluntatem divinam quam habet Pater; qua homo vero, totus +regitur a deitate et verbo inhabitante, ut aliud judicare et velle nequeat quam +id quod ejus deitas, quasi praeses, judicat et vult.</q>—A Lap.</note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>31. Si ego testimonium +perhibeo de meipso, testimonium +meum non est verum.</cell> +<cell>31. If I bear witness of myself, +my witness is not true.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +31. From verse 19 Christ +has borne witness to Himself, +to His Divine power and +equality with the Father, and +now He says that if He were +<emph>alone</emph> in bearing such witness +of Himself, His witness would +not be such as men would be +bound to receive. Of course, +even though a man were alone +and unsupported in testifying +regarding himself, still it is +plain his witness <emph>might be true</emph>; +but it would not be trustworthy, +such as ought to be +received, because it <emph>might be +false</emph>, and would be reasonably +suspected. No doubt, Christ's +testimony of Himself though +unsupported would be more +than enough to those who +believed in His Divinity; but +He is here addressing those +who had no such belief. +Comp. viii. 14-16. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. Alius est qui testimonium +perhibet de me: et scio quia +verum est testimonium quod +perhibet de me.</cell> +<cell>32. There is another that +beareth witness of me: and I +know that the witness which +he witnesseth of me is true.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +32. Christ's witness of Himself +is supported by that of the +<emph>Father</emph> (some think, by that of +the Baptist), to which He can +confidently appeal. But before +mentioning how the Father's +testimony is given, He turns +aside for a moment to appeal +to the Baptist's testimony. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>33. Vos misistis ad Ioannem: +et testimonium perhibuit +veritati.</cell> +<cell>33. You sent to John; and +he gave testimony to the truth.</cell></row> +<row><cell>34. Ego autem non ab +homine testimonium accipio: +sed haec dico ut vos salvi +sitis.</cell> +<cell>34. But I receive not testimony +from man: but I say +these things that you may be +saved.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +34. He now tells them that +He has invoked the testimony +of the Baptist, not that +He needs any testimony of +<pb n='103'/><anchor id='Pg103'/> +men, but in the hope that they, +who had regarded the Baptist +as a prophet, might perchance +accept his testimony to Christ. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>35. Ille erat lucerna ardens, +et lucens: Vos autem voluistis +ad horam exultare in luce +eius.</cell> +<cell>35. He was a burning and +a shining light. And you +were willing for a time to +rejoice in his light.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +35. The Greek is: <hi rend='italic'>He was +the lamp that burneth and +shineth</hi>. From the use of the +word <emph>was</emph> here, it is fairly concluded +that the Baptist had been +already put to death by Herod +Antipas (Mark vi. 17-28). The +Baptist was a bright <emph>lamp</emph> +λύχνος of truth, but not <emph>the +light</emph> (τὸ φῶς i. 8, 9), which was +Christ Himself. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>36. Ego autem habeo testimonium +maius Ioanne. Opera +enim quae dedit mihi Pater ut +perficiam ea, ipsa opera quae +ego facio, testimonium perhibent +de me, quia Pater misit +me:</cell> +<cell>36. But I have a greater +testimony than that of John. +For the works which the +Father hath given me to +perfect: the works themselves, +which I do, give testimony of +me, that the Father hath sent +me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +36. A third testimony is +now invoked in the miracles +which the Father gave Christ +to perform. See x. <ref target='X_37'>37</ref>, <ref target='X_37'>38</ref>, +and what was said above on +<ref target='III_2'>iii. 2</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>37. Et qui misit me Pater, +ipse testimonium perhibuit de +me: neque vocem eius unquam +audistis, neque speciem eius +vidistis:</cell> +<cell>37. And the Father himself +who hath sent me, hath given +testimony of me: neither have +you heard his voice at any +time, nor seen his shape.</cell></row> +<row><cell>38. Et verbum eius non +habetis in vobis manens: quia +quem misit ille, huic vos non +creditis.</cell> +<cell>38. And you have not his +word abiding in you: for +whom he hath sent, him you +believe not.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +37, 38. Besides the indirect +testimony of the Father through +Christ's miracles, another testimony +of His is now appealed +to. Some understand this of +the testimony of the Father on +the occasion of Christ's baptism, +(Matt. iii. 17). So Chrys., +A Lap., M'Ev. But if there +were reference to that past and +definite occasion, the Greek +<pb n='104'/><anchor id='Pg104'/> +aorist, not the perfect, would be +used. Others, as Mald., connect +this verse closely with the preceding, +and hold the reference +is still to the Father's testimony +given through Christ's +miracles. But the form of +words: <q>And the Father Himself, +who hath sent Me, hath +given testimony of Me,</q> seems +to add another distinct testimony +to those already mentioned. +Others, therefore, +hold that the reference is to +the Father's testimony conveyed +through the oracles of +the prophets. So St. Cyril, +Theoph., Euthy., Kuin., Corl.; +and this opinion seems to be +the correct one. +</p> + +<p> +About the meaning and connection +of the words which follow +in this verse and the next, +there is a great variety of view. +</p> + +<p> +(1) Some thus: But you +have never listened to His voice +speaking to you through the +Sacred Scriptures, nor recognised +Him as speaking in +them, nor do you believe in +His inspired word; and the +reason of this is, because you +do not believe in Me whom He +has sent. (Patriz.) +</p> + +<p> +(2) Others thus: But though +the Father has testified of Me, +<q>neither have you heard His +voice ... abiding in you;</q> +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, you have been excluded +from familiarity with Him, and +from belief in His testimony, +because you refuse to believe +in Me. (Hengstenberg.) +</p> + +<p> +(3) Others take the words to +refer to the covenant entered +into by God with the Jews +(Deut. xviii. 15-19), that He +should terrify them no more +by His awful presence, as +when He gave the law on +Sinai (Exod. xx. 19-21), but +should speak to them through +a prophet. Hence Christ's +words signify: The Father +has borne testimony of Me, +nor has He broken His word +to you, that you should hear +and see no more the terrifying +sounds and sights of Sinai; +and yet you refuse to keep +your part of the compact +(<q>you have not His word +abiding in you</q>), inasmuch as +you refuse to believe in Me, +the Prophet whom He promised. +(Tolet., Beel.) +</p> + +<p> +(4) Others again thus: The +Father has borne unquestionable +testimony of Me, though +not, I admit, in such a manner +as that He could be seen, or +His voice heard by you. But +that testimony you accept not +(you have not His word abiding +in you), as is plain from the fact +that you refuse to believe in Me. +See the note to A Lap., in +Migne's Ed., which agrees with +Kuinoel. +</p> + +<p> +Whatever view be adopted, +<pb n='105'/><anchor id='Pg105'/> +we understand the testimony +referred to in verse 37, to be +that which is explicitly mentioned +in verse 39; viz., the +testimony of God given +through the Scriptures in +the writings of Moses and +the prophets.<note place='foot'>The inspiration of the prophets, though usually attributed to the Holy +Ghost, is, like every work that is not terminated in God Himself, common to +the three divine Persons, and is here referred to the Father, since Christ is +addressing the Jews, who knew nothing of the Holy Ghost, and would not value +His testimony.</note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>39. Scrutamini scripturas, +quia vos putatis in ipsis vitam +aeternam habere: et illae sunt, +quae testimonium perhibent de +me:</cell> +<cell>39. Search the scriptures, +for you think in them to have +life everlasting; and the same +are they that give testimony +of me:</cell></row></table> + +<p> +39. Here our Lord distinctly +mentions the testimony to +which He had already alluded +(verse 37). <hi rend='bold'>Search the +Scriptures</hi>, or rather, <hi rend='bold'>Ye +search the Scriptures</hi>. In both +the Greek and Latin texts the +form of the verb leaves it doubtful +whether it is to be understood +as an indicative or an imperative. +But the context, in which +all the verbs are in the indicative, +and the course of the argument, +render it much more probable +that the form is to be understood +as an indicative. So, +too, all the best modern commentators, +even among the +Protestants; <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, Kuin., Alf., +Bloomf., Westc., and the Revised +Version, which renders: +<q>Ye search the Scriptures.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It is unnecessary then to delay +long in refuting the argument +which used to be drawn by +Protestants from this text in +favour of the <emph>indiscriminate</emph> +reading of the Bible by all the +faithful. A few words will +suffice. (1) It is much more +probable that the words do +not contain a precept, but +merely state a fact. (2) Even +if they did contain a precept, +they are addressed very probably +only to the Jewish +<emph>teachers</emph> (see verse <ref target='V_44'>44</ref>). (3) Even +if we admitted that the words +contain a precept, and are addressed +to all the Jews, still it +would not follow that all the +faithful now are bound to read +the Bible, nor that the Church +may not sometimes, for grave +reasons restrict the liberty to +read it. For we must bear in +mind that our Lord is here +referring to the Sacred Scriptures +in connection with one +particular point, namely, the +fulfilment of prophecy in Himself. +Even if the Jews were +authorized or commanded to +read the Sacred Scriptures in +regard to a particular question, +it by no means follows that +Protestants are commanded or +even authorized to read them in +order to form by the aid of +private judgment an opinion on +<pb n='106'/><anchor id='Pg106'/> +all questions of faith and +morals. +</p> + +<p> +The Catholic Church freely +admits, of course, and insists +that the reading of the Bible is +in itself good and useful; but +since the Bible contains <q>certain +things hard to be understood, +which the unlearned and unstable +wrest ... to their own +destruction</q> (2 Pet. iii. 16), +hence she knows it is possible +that, like all God's best gifts, +the Bible may in certain circumstances +be abused. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>40. Et non vultis venire ad +me ut vitam habeatis.</cell> +<cell>40. And you will not come +to me that you may have life.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +40. <hi rend='bold'>And</hi> is equivalent to +<q>and yet.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>41. Claritatem ab hominibus +non accipio.</cell> +<cell>41. I receive not glory from +men.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +41. Not through a desire to +gain glory from them has He +borne the preceding testimony +to Himself. This is said parenthetically, +and the next verse is +to be connected with verse 40. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>42. Sed cognovi vos, quia +dilectionem Dei non habetis in +vobis.</cell> +<cell>42. But I know you, that +you have not the love of God +in you.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +42. <hi rend='bold'>But I know you, that</hi> +&c. Their unbelief in Christ was +due to the fact that they did not +love God. Had they loved God, +they would have corresponded +with grace, and recognised +the Messias whom God had +sent. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>43. Ego veni in nomine +Patris mei, et non accipitis +me: si alius venerit in nomine +suo, illum accipietis.</cell> +<cell>43. I am come in the name +of my Father, and you receive +me not: if another shall come +in his own name, him you will +receive.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +43. The sense is: I am +come in the name, and with the +power of My Father manifested +in My works. If another come +to you, and without giving +any evidence that He is from +God, say that he is the Messias, +you will believe him, and +believe in him. We know that +this actually happened. Many +false Christs arose before the +destruction of Jerusalem (70 +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>); and obtained a following +among the people. A person +named Barchochebas was the +most successful of those impostors. +</p> + +<anchor id='V_44'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>44. Quomodo vos potestis +credere, qui gloriam ab invicem +accipitis: et gloriam, +quae a solo Deo est, non +quaeritis?</cell> +<cell>44. How can you believe, +who receive glory one from +another: and the glory which +is from God alone, you do not +seek?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +44. Another cause of their +unbelief is their empty vanity +<pb n='107'/><anchor id='Pg107'/> +which sought, and was satisfied +with, the praise of men. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>45. Nolite putare quia ego +accusaturus sim vos apud +Patrem: est qui accusat vos +Moyses, in quo vos speratis.</cell> +<cell>45. Think not that I will +accuse you to the Father. +There is one that accuseth +you, Moses, in whom you trust.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +45. It will not be necessary +for Christ to accuse them before +God, because Moses, their own +great prophet, will accuse +them. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>46. Si enim crederetis Moysi, +crederetis forsitan et mihi: de +me enim ille scripsit.</cell> +<cell>46. For if you did believe +Moses, you would perhaps +believe me also. For he wrote +of me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +46. <hi rend='bold'>You would perhaps.</hi> +See above on <ref target='IV_10'>iv. 10</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>47. Si autem illius litteris +non creditis, quomodo verbis +meis credetis?</cell> +<cell>47. But if you do not believe +his writings: how will you +believe my words?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +47. This is said because +Moses far surpassed Him in +their estimation; and with the +telling thought, that their own +Scriptures, even Moses himself, +pointed Him out as their +Messias, this weighty discourse +ends. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='108'/><anchor id='Pg108'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter VI.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> +<p> +1-13. <hi rend='bold'>Christ crosses with His disciples to the eastern shore of the sea +of Galilee, where He miraculously feeds a multitude with five +loaves and two fishes.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +14-15. <hi rend='bold'>The multitude, moved by the miracle, wish to make Him +King, but He withdraws.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +16-21. <hi rend='bold'>On the night of that same day, as the disciples are crossing to +the western side of the lake, a storm rises, and He comes to +them, walking upon the waters.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +22-25. <hi rend='bold'>The following day the multitude also cross to the western +side of the lake, enter Capharnaum, and find Him there before +them.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +26-59. <hi rend='bold'>Christ's discourse to the multitude, in which He promises the +Blessed Eucharist.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +60. <hi rend='bold'>The place where the discourse was delivered.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +61-67. <hi rend='bold'>Effect of the discourse—murmuring of many of the disciples; His +explanation, and their departure from Him.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +68-70. <hi rend='bold'>St. Peter's noble confession in reply to a question of Christ.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +71-72. <hi rend='bold'>Christ refers to the wickedness of one of the Apostles, and the +Evangelist states to whom He refers.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<anchor id='VI_1'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Post haec abiit Iesus trans +mare Galilaeae, quod est +Tiberiadis:</cell> +<cell>1. After these things, Jesus +went over the sea of Galilee, +which is that of Tiberias:</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. The interval to be admitted +between what is recorded in +this chapter and in the preceding +depends upon the view +we adopt as to what feast is +referred to in the first verse +of the preceding. If that +was the Feast of Pasch, almost +a year has elapsed, for we +are told here, in verse 4, that +the pasch is again at hand. If +that was the Feast of Lots, +and this the Pasch following, +then the interval to be admitted +<pb n='109'/><anchor id='Pg109'/> +is much less, only a month. +Those who, like us, admit +the longer interval say that +St. John here passes over the +events of that year, because +they were already related by +the Synoptic Evangelists. +</p> + +<p> +In the last chapter we left +Jesus at Jerusalem in Judea, +the southern province of +Palestine, and now, soon after +the death of the Baptist (Matt. +xiv. 3, Mark vi. 17, Luke iii. 20) +and the return of the Apostles +from their first mission (Mark +vi. 30; Luke ix. 10), we find +Him in the northern province, +by the shores of the Sea of Galilee. +This sea or lake (the Jews +called every large body of water +a sea), which lay to the east +of the province of Galilee, was +called also the Sea of Tiberias, +because of the town built by +Herod Antipas, on its western +shore, and named after the +Roman Emperor Tiberius. It +was also called sometimes the +Lake of Gennesareth, from the +fertile plain of that name on +its N.W. shore. It is almost +heart-shaped, with the narrow +end towards the south, and its +extent at present is 12-½ miles +from north to south, by 8 miles +at its widest part east to west. +(Smith's <hi rend='italic'>B. D.</hi>, 2nd Ed.) +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Et sequebatur eum multitudo +magna, quia videbant +signa quae faciebat super his +qui infirmabantur.</cell> +<cell>2. And a great multitude +followed him, because they +saw the miracles which he did +on them that were diseased.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. Jesus, accompanied by +His disciples, having crossed +the lake, a great multitude +follows Him. Comparing the +Synoptic Evangelists (Matt. +xiv. 13, and foll.; Mark vi. 32, +and foll.; Luke ix. 10, and +foll.), we find that the desert +near Bethsaida (Julias) on the +north-eastern side of the lake +was the place to which Jesus +repaired (Luke); that the multitude +followed by land (πέζη += on foot, Matt., Mark); that +they arrived before Him (Mark), +and that He taught them for a +considerable time. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Subiit ergo in montem +Iesus: et ibi sedebat cum +discipulis suis.</cell> +<cell>3. Jesus went therefore up +into a mountain, and there he +sat with his disciples.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus therefore went up +into a mountain</hi> (Gr., <emph>the</emph> +mountain); <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, the well-known +mountain range on that side of +the lake. See too in verse <ref target='VI_15'>15</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Erat autem proximum +pascha, dies festus Iudaeorum.</cell> +<cell>4. Now the Pasch, the +festival day of the Jews, was +near at hand.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +4. In the view we follow this +was the third Pasch of our +Lord's public life. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Cum sublevasset ergo +oculos Iesus, et vidisset quia +multitudo maxima venit ad +eum, dixit ad Philippum: Unde +ememus panes, ut manducent +hi?</cell> +<cell>5. When Jesus therefore +had lifted up his eyes, and +seen that a very great multitude +cometh to him, he said +to Philip: Whence shall we +buy bread that these may eat?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. In the Synoptic Evangelists +the disciples are +<pb n='110'/><anchor id='Pg110'/> +represented as asking our Lord +to dismiss the multitude, that +they may go and procure food. +We may reconcile with St. +John's account thus. They +make a suggestion, as in the +Synoptic Evangelists. He then +turns to Philip, as in St. John. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Hoc autem dicebat tentans +eum: ipse enim sciebat +quid esset facturus.</cell> +<cell>6. And this he said to try +him: for he himself knew +what he would do.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +6. <hi rend='bold'>To try him.</hi> <q>One kind +of temptation leads to sin, with +which God never tempts anyone; +and there is another kind +by which faith is tried. In this +sense it is said that Christ +proved His disciples. This is +not meant to imply that He did +not know what Philip would +say, but is an accommodation +to man's way of speaking. For +as the expression: <hi rend='italic'>Who +searcheth the hearts of men</hi>, +does not mean the searching +of ignorance, but of absolute +knowledge; so here, when it +is said that our Lord proved +Philip, we must understand that +He knew him perfectly, but +that He tried him in order to +confirm his faith. The Evangelist +himself guards against +the mistake which this imperfect +mode of speaking might +occasion, by adding <hi rend='italic'>For He +Himself knew what He would +do</hi></q> (St. Aug.). +</p> + +<anchor id='VI_7'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Respondit ei Philippus: +Ducentorum denariorum panes +non sufficiunt eis, ut unusquisque +modicum quid accipiat.</cell> +<cell>7. Philip answered him: +Two hundred pennyworth of +bread is not sufficient for +them, that every one may take +a little.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. The denarius was a Roman +silver coin, whose value differed +at different times. From the +year 217 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi> till the reign of +Augustus (30 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi> to 14 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>) it +was worth 8-½<hi rend='italic'>d.</hi>; afterwards, +and, therefore, in the time of +Christ, it was worth about 7-½<hi rend='italic'>d.</hi> +See Smith's <hi rend='italic'>Lat. Dict. Calendarium</hi>, +Tables viii. and ix. +Two hundred denarii, then +would be equal to about £6 5<hi rend='italic'>s.</hi>, +and yet what bread this would +<pb n='111'/><anchor id='Pg111'/> +purchase would not suffice to +give even a little to each, so +great was the multitude. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Dicit ei unus ex discipulis +eius, Andreas frater Simonis +Petri.</cell> +<cell>8. One of his disciples, +Andrew, the brother of Simon +Peter, saith to him:</cell></row> +<row><cell>9. Est puer unus hic, qui +habet quinque panes hordeaceos, +et duos pisces: sed +haec quid sunt inter tantos?</cell> +<cell>9. There is a boy here that +hath five barley loaves and +two fishes: but what are +these among so many?</cell></row> +<row><cell>10. Dixit ergo Iesus: Facite +homines discumbere. Erat +autem foenum multum in loco. +Discubuerunt ergo viri, numero +quasi quinque millia.</cell> +<cell>10. Then Jesus said: Make +the men sit down. Now there +was much grass in the place. +The men therefore sat down +in number about five thousand.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. Christ tells the disciples +to bid the multitude be seated +<q>on the green grass</q> (Mark +vi. 39); and about 5,000 men +(<q>not reckoning women and +children,</q> Matt. xiv. 21) sat +down in companies <q>by hundreds +and by fifties</q> (Mark +vi. 40). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Accepit ergo Iesus panes: +et cum gratias egisset, distribuit +discumbentibus: similiter +et ex piscibus quantum +volebant.</cell> +<cell>11. And Jesus took the +loaves: and when he had +given thanks, he distributed +to them that were set down. +In like manner also of the +fishes as much as they would.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. Having returned thanks +for all the benefits of God, and +particularly for that which He +was now about to bestow, Christ +took and blessed the loaves and +fishes, and through His disciples +distributed them to the multitude +(Matt., Mark, Luke). It +is not said at what precise time +the loaves were multiplied or +enlarged, whether in the hands +of Christ, or of the disciples. It +may be, as Mald. supposes, that +the increase began in our Lord's +hands, and continued as far as +necessary during the distribution +by the disciples. That it +at least began in our Lord's +hands, we think extremely probable, +for thus He was more +clearly shown to be the author +of the miracle. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Ut autem impleti sunt, +dixit discipulis suis: Colligite +quae superaverunt fragmenta, +ne pereant.</cell> +<cell>12. And when they were +filled, he said to his disciples: +Gather up the fragments that +remain, lest they be lost.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +12. The disciples are told to +gather up the fragments—(1) to +teach us not to neglect the gifts +of God; (2) that the fragments +might serve as a proof and a +memorial of the miracle which +had been wrought. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Collegerunt ergo, et +impleverunt duodecim cophinos +fragmentorum ex quinque +panibus hordeaceis, quae +superfuerunt his qui manducaverant.</cell> +<cell>13. They gathered up therefore, +and filled twelve baskets +with the fragments of the five +barley loaves, which remained +over and above to them that +had eaten.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +13. <q>Observe how the four +Evangelists use the word κοφίνους, +<hi rend='italic'>baskets</hi>, in narrating this +<pb n='112'/><anchor id='Pg112'/> +miracle, thus distinguishing it +from a like one recorded elsewhere +by Matthew and Mark, in +which there were seven loaves, +and 4,000 men, and seven <emph>panniers</emph> +(σπυρίδας) of fragments. +It is difficult perhaps to +point out distinctly how σπυρίς +differed from κόφινος, but certain +it is that they did differ, else +they would never have been so +nicely discriminated by the +sacred writers in every instance</q> +(M'Carthy: Gosp. of the Sundays, +fourth Sunday of Lent).<note place='foot'>From Juvenal we learn that in Rome the cophinus was carried about +with them by the Jews: <q>Judaeis Quorum cophinus foenumque supellex.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Sat.</hi> +iii. 14.</note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Illi ergo homines cum +vidissent quod Iesus fecerat +signum, dicebant: Quia hic +est vere propheta, qui venturus +est in mundum.</cell> +<cell>14. Now these men, when +they had seen what a miracle +Jesus had done, said: This is +of a truth the prophet that is +to come into the world.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. <hi rend='bold'>The prophet</hi>, the Messiah, +for whom their fathers and they +had yearned so long (Luke vii. +19). +</p> + +<anchor id='VI_15'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Iesus ergo cum cognovisset, +quia venturi essent ut +raperent eum, et facerent eum +regem, fugit iterum in montem +ipse solus.</cell> +<cell>15. Jesus therefore when he +knew that they would come to +take him by force and make +him king, fled again into the +mountain himself alone.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. Jesus, knowing their +thoughts and intentions, withdrew +to <emph>the</emph> mountain, where +He had already been earlier in +the day (verse 3). And He withdrew +all alone, a circumstance +which makes it extremely probable +that He rendered Himself +invisible, else some of the crowd +would have followed. +</p> + +<p> +It may seem strange at first +sight, how differently Christ +treats the Jews, on their recognising +Him as the Messias, +from the way He treated the +Samaritans in similar circumstances +(iv. 42, 43). And yet +His action in the two cases is +intelligible enough. The Jews +looked for a Messias who +would improve their external +condition, free them from subjection +to any foreign power, +and set them up as a powerful +nation. But the Samaritans +<pb n='113'/><anchor id='Pg113'/> +could have, and had, no such +hope from the advent of a +Jewish Messias. With the +Jews, as we see in the present +instance, the intention was to +declare the Messias their King, +and thus to throw off their +allegiance to Rome. The consequence, +of course, would +have been great political excitement +and rebellion, ending, +doubtless, in the triumph of +the Roman arms. But no +matter what the success of +such a rebellion, it would have +prejudiced the Roman world +against the teachings of Christ, +and rendered more difficult the +recognition of the spiritual +character of Christ's kingdom. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Ut autem sero factum +est descenderunt discipuli eius +ad mare.</cell> +<cell>16. And when evening was +come, his disciples went down +to the sea.</cell></row> +<row><cell>17. Et cum ascendissent +navim, venerunt trans mare in +Capharnaum: et tenebrae iam +factae erant: et non venerat +ad eos Iesus.</cell> +<cell>17. And when they had +gone up into a ship, they went +over the sea to Capharnaum: +and it was now dark, and Jesus +was not come unto them.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17. <hi rend='bold'>They went over the +sea.</hi> Rather, <hi rend='bold'>they were +going</hi>. From St. Matthew +we learn that Christ had told +the disciples immediately after +the miracle, to go before Him +across the lake, whilst He +dismissed the crowd. St. +Mark adds that they were told +to cross to Bethsaida; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, to +the town of this name, which +was near Capharnaum. See +above, <ref target='I_44'>i. 44</ref>. The direction of +the wind or some other motive +may have induced them to go +towards Capharnaum, as St. +John here tells us they did. +</p> + +<anchor id='VI_18'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Mare autem, vento +magno flante, exurgebat.</cell> +<cell>18. And the sea arose by +reason of a great wind that +blew.</cell></row> +<row><cell>19. Cum remigassent ergo +quasi stadia viginti quinque +aut triginta, vident Iesum +ambulantem supra mare, et +proximum navi fieri, et timuerunt.</cell> +<cell>19. When they had rowed +therefore about five and +twenty or thirty furlongs, they +see Jesus walking upon the +sea, and drawing nigh to the +ship, and they were afraid.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. The stadium, a Greek +measure, was nearly equal to +an English furlong, so that +the distance here indicated +was, at the least, almost three +miles. The exact length of +the stadium was 625 feet, that +<pb n='114'/><anchor id='Pg114'/> +of the English furlong is 660 +feet. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Ille autem dicit eis: +Ego sum, nolite timere.</cell> +<cell>20. But he saith to them: +It is I: be not afraid.</cell></row> +<row><cell>21. Voluerunt ergo accipere +eum in navim: et statim +navis fuit ad terram, in quam +ibant.</cell> +<cell>21. They were willing therefore +to take him into the ship: +and presently the ship was at +the land, to which they were +going.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +21. <hi rend='bold'>They were willing +therefore to take him into +the ship.</hi> ἤθελον here is +equivalent to an adverb (Kuin.), +and the sense is: <q>They +gladly took Him into the ship</q> +(boat), as St. Mark indeed +tells us they did (Mark vi. 51). +Or, if, with Winer, <hi rend='italic'>Gr. Gram.</hi>, +p. 586, it be admitted that θέλω +never has an adverbial force, +except in the participle, then we +would explain that though at +first afraid (verse 19), they were +afterwards willing to take Him +into the ship, and took Him in. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Altera die, turba quae +stabat trans mare, vidit quia +navicula alia non erat ibi nisi +una, et quia non introisset +cum discipulis suis Iesus in +navim, sed soli discipuli eius +abiissent:</cell> +<cell>22. The next day, the multitude +that stood on the other +side of the sea, saw that there +was no other ship there but +one, and that Jesus had not +entered into the ship with his +disciples, but that his disciples +were gone away alone.</cell></row> +<row><cell>23. Aliae vero supervenerunt +naves a Tiberiade, iuxta locum +ubi manducaverant panem, +gratias agente Domino.</cell> +<cell>23. But other ships came in +from Tiberias, nigh unto the +place where they had eaten the +bread, the Lord giving thanks.</cell></row> +<row><cell>24. Cum ergo vidisset turba +quia Iesus non esset ibi, neque +discipuli eius, ascenderunt in +naviculas, et venerunt Capharnaum +quaerentes Iesum.</cell> +<cell>24. When therefore the +multitude saw that Jesus was +not there, nor his disciples, +they took shipping, and came +to Capharnaum seeking for +Jesus.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22-24. On the following +day, the crowd on the eastern +shore seek for Jesus (verse 24), +thinking Him to be still on +that side of the lake, inasmuch +as He had not left by the only +boat that was there on the +preceding evening (verse 22). +Not finding Him, they take +boats which had just arrived +on the eastern shore, and cross +to the western shore to seek +Jesus in Capharnaum, where +He usually abode at this time. +</p> + +<pb n='115'/><anchor id='Pg115'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Et cum invenissent eum +trans mare, dixerunt ei: Rabbi, +quando huc venisti?</cell> +<cell>25. And when they had +found him on the other side of +the sea, they said to him: Rabbi, +when camest thou hither?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25. When they found Jesus, +they asked Him when He had +come to Capharnaum, being +equally anxious, no doubt, to +know <emph>how</emph> He had come. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>26. Respondit eis Iesus, et +dixit: Amen, amen dico vobis: +quaeritis me, non quia vidistis +signa, sed quia manducastis +ex panibus, et saturati estis.</cell> +<cell>26. Jesus answered them +and said: Amen, amen, I say +to you, you seek me, not +because you have seen miracles, +but because you did eat of the +loaves, and were filled.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +26. Without answering their +question, our Lord takes occasion +from the miracle of the +preceding day to raise their +thoughts to a higher and more +precious bread than that which +He had miraculously given +them. But first He tells them +that they followed Him, not +because they had realized the +spiritual significance of His +miracles, and believed Him +to be God, but merely, He +implies, because they hoped +for a gross material satisfaction, +such as they had experienced +the preceding day. +The Greek word, rendered: +<emph>and were filled</emph>, means literally; +were satisfied with food, as +animals with fodder. +</p> + +<p> +Having thus made known +to them, that He knew their +motive in following Him, He +goes on to tell them to labour +not, that is to say, not so +much, for the food that +perisheth as for that which +endureth unto eternal life. +This food enduring unto +eternal life (verse 27) we understand +to be the Blessed +Eucharist. +</p> + +<p> +But before giving our +reasons for holding that reference +to the Blessed Eucharist +begins here, and not merely +at verses 48, 51, or 52, it is +desirable to indicate the Protestant +interpretations of this +discourse of our Lord, and +prove that they are untenable. +</p> + +<p> +Most Protestants deny that +there is any reference to the +Blessed Eucharist in this +chapter; they hold that it +refers merely to the reception +of Christ through faith; and +through faith especially in the +atoning efficacy of His passion +and death. It is of this faith +in His passion that they interpret +the words: <q>Except you +eat the flesh of the Son of +Man, and drink His blood, +you shall not have life in you,</q> +(verse 54). Indeed they are +logically constrained either to +deny that there is reference +here to the sacrament of the +Eucharist, or else to abandon +their teaching regarding the +nature and efficacy of the +sacraments. On the one hand, +if they admit reference to the +Eucharist, they see the difficulty +of denying the real and substantial +presence of Christ in +the sacrament; on the other +hand, holding, as they do, +that the few sacraments which +<pb n='116'/><anchor id='Pg116'/> +they retain,<note place='foot'>Calvin retained Baptism, Eucharist, and Holy Orders; Zwingli, Baptism, +Eucharist, and Matrimony; Luther, in the Confession of Augsburg, Baptism, +Eucharist, and Penance; and the Anglican Church, in the 25th of the Thirty-nine +Articles, Baptism and the Eucharist.</note> are not <emph>causes</emph> of +grace, as the Catholic Church +teaches, but merely signs or +pledges of grace, and external +notes of the Church, they find +themselves in direct conflict +with our Lord, if His words +are to be understood of the +sacrament of the Eucharist. +For again and again throughout +this discourse He attributes +salvation and grace to the +eating of His flesh and the +drinking of His blood, in such +a way as to leave no room for +doubt that whatever it is He +speaks of, whether faith or the +sacrament of the Eucharist, it +is the cause of grace. See, +<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, 27, 52, 55, 57, 59. +</p> + +<p> +But besides those who deny +that there is any reference to +the Blessed Eucharist in this +chapter, there is a considerable +number of Protestants who +take up even a more indefensible +position. These admit +the reference, but contend that +nothing more can be concluded +from this or any other part of +Scripture than that Christ is +<emph>spiritually</emph> present in the Sacrament. +They will not admit +that Christ is really and substantially +present, much less +that the sacrament causes +grace. Against the first class +we shall show that Christ +refers, in this discourse, to the +Blessed Eucharist; and against +the second, that His words +prove that He is really and +substantially received in the +sacrament. +</p> + +<p> +I. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ refers in this Discourse +to the Blessed +Eucharist.</hi><note place='foot'>Though it is not <emph>defined</emph> that there is reference to the Blessed Eucharist +in any part of the 6th chapter of St. John, still, since the Council of Trent +understood the passage (52-59) in this sense (Sess. xiii., cap. 2), as did nearly all +the fathers who commented on the chapter, it would be rash for a Catholic to +deny that the Blessed Eucharist is promised in the passage 52-59.</note> +</p> + +<p> +We may premise that no +more appropriate occasion +could have been chosen by +Christ for promising this +heavenly bread than the day +following that on which He had +multiplied the bread in the +desert; and we know that it +was Christ's practice to +explain His doctrines as they +were suggested by circumstances. +Thus, after curing +the <emph>centurion's</emph> servant, He foretells +the vocation of the <emph>Gentiles</emph> +(Matt. viii. 6-13); after +expelling the unclean spirit, He +describes the power of Satan +(Matt. xii. 22-45); after asking +for water, He speaks of the +water of life to the Samaritan +woman (John iv. 10, and foll.); +<pb n='117'/><anchor id='Pg117'/> +after healing the paralytic, He +predicts the general resurrection +(John v. 28); and after +curing the man born blind, +He denounces the blindness of +the Pharisees (John ix. 41). It +was quite in accordance with +Christ's practice, then, to predict +the Blessed Eucharist on +the present occasion: and that +He did so is proved by the +following arguments:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) If St. John did not mean +to record here a reference to +the Blessed Eucharist, then he +does not mention that sacrament +at all, for he does not +allude, unless perhaps very +obscurely (xiii. 1) to its institution. +But it is very improbable +that our Evangelist omits all +mention of this sacrament in +his Gospel. For if, as we shall +prove, this sacrament contains +the body and blood of Christ, +there was a reason why +St. John should mention it in +order to confirm the faithful +against the Docetae who +denied the reality of Christ's +human nature. Nor does it at +all weaken this argument to +say that the Docetae who +denied the reality of the body +in which Christ had walked +and talked, would not be likely +to be convinced by a reference +to His body present in the +Eucharist. For St. John wrote, +not to convert heretics, but to +confirm against heresy Christians +who believed in the real +presence. +</p> + +<p> +(2) Christ's words (27, 52) +can refer only to the Eucharist. +For He speaks of a food which +was still to be given <emph>in the +future</emph>, whereas His <emph>doctrines</emph>, +and His <emph>Person</emph> as the object of +faith, had been given already. +</p> + +<p> +(3) His words: <q>Amen, +amen, I say unto you: Except +you eat the flesh of the Son +of Man, and drink His blood, +you shall not have life in you</q> +(verse 54), could be understood +only in a literal sense, and so +understood, they must refer to +the Blessed Eucharist. For, if +Christ had spoken in a figurative +sense, it should be in that +figurative sense which was +known and recognised among +the Jews. Now, the recognised +figurative sense of eating a +man's flesh was to do him some +serious injury, especially by +calumny.<note place='foot'><q>De hac significatione inter philologos nulla est dubitatio, confer Psal. +xxvi. (<hi rend='italic'>Hebr.</hi> 27) 2; Job xix. 22; Mich. iii. 3.</q>—Franz., <hi rend='italic'>De Euch.</hi>, Thes. iii., +p. 22, note.</note> Such a figurative +sense, however, would be +absurd here; and hence Christ +must have been understood, and +must have spoken, in the literal +sense. See Wiseman's <hi rend='italic'>Lect. on +the Euch.</hi>, pp. 77-91. +</p> + +<p> +(4) The disciples understood +our Lord to speak of a real +eating of His flesh and blood, +such as takes place only in the +Eucharist, and understood Him +correctly. Their words (verse +<pb n='118'/><anchor id='Pg118'/> +61), and their departure for ever +from Him (verse 67), show that +they understood Him of a real +eating; otherwise why should +they be offended or desert Him? +What had He said that was +new, or hard to take in, if He +merely spoke of the necessity of +faith in Himself or His doctrines? +Their action, then, +shows in what sense the disciples +understood Him; and +His action in permitting them +to depart, shows they understood +Him correctly. +</p> + +<p> +(5) The Jews understood +Him of a real eating, which was +quite different from belief in +His doctrines or in Himself, and +which has no meaning unless +in reference to the Eucharist. +<q><emph>How</emph> can this man give us <hi rend='italic'>His +flesh</hi> to eat?</q> they said (verse 53); +and His solemn asseveration, +negatively (verse 54), and positively +(verse 55), shows that +He is inculcating the very truth +which they had questioned, and +which they were bound to +accept on His testimony, even +though they could not see <emph>how</emph> +it was to come to pass. +</p> + +<p> +II. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ speaks of a real, +oral reception of His +body and blood, and not +merely of a spiritual +reception through faith +excited by the Sacrament.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +(1) The manna with which +Christ compares the bread that +He will give (verses 49, 50, 59) +was really eaten; therefore, +also the bread, which is His +flesh (verse 52), is to be <emph>really</emph> +received. +</p> + +<p> +(2) After the Jews had murmured, +Christ declared His +flesh to be <emph>truly</emph> meat, and His +blood to be <emph>truly</emph> drink (verse +56), and therefore it must be +truly and really received. +</p> + +<p> +(3) In any sense other than +the literal, Christ's meaning +would be obscure, and His +words misleading; and our +Evangelist, according to his +ordinary practice (i. 41, 42; ii. +21; iv. 2; xii. 33), would explain. +But he does not explain; +therefore the language is not +obscure, and therefore the +literal sense was meant. +</p> + +<p> +(4) See arguments (3), (4), +and (5) for the preceding proposition. +</p> + +<p> +And now, having satisfied +ourselves that there is reference +to the Blessed Eucharist +in this chapter, and to a real, +oral reception of Christ in the +sacrament, let us try to decide +where that reference begins. +Some (as Wiseman, <hi rend='italic'>Lect. on +Euch.</hi>, p. 51, and foll.) say at +verse 48; others, at 51; and +others, at 52. But it seems much +more probable that the reference +begins before any of these +points; and Wiseman is certainly +mistaken when he states, +on page 48: <q>That Protestants +and Catholics are equally +agreed that the discourse, as +far as the 48th or 51st verse +refers entirely to believing +Christ. St. Cyril of Alex., +Theophy., Toletus, Lucas of +<pb n='119'/><anchor id='Pg119'/> +Bruges, had held, before +Wiseman's time, that the reference +to the Blessed Eucharist +begins in verse 27</q>; and since +his time, Beelen, Perrone, +Corluy, Franzelin,<note place='foot'>Though Franz. holds that the discourse from verse 35-47 regards <emph>faith</emph> +in Christ, yet he holds that the Blessed Eucharist is referred to in verse 27.—<hi rend='italic'>De +Euch. Thes.</hi>, iii., p. 15.</note> and others +have held the same. +</p> + +<p> +The most probable view +seems to be that from verse 27, +wherever there is question of +the bread (verses 27, 32, 33, 35, +... 59), the Blessed Eucharist +is meant. Christ began in verse +27 to promise the Blessed Eucharist, +but the Jews interrupted +Him (verse 28), and their interruption +raised the question +of faith in Him, so that He +digressed for a time from His +main purpose to explain the +necessity of faith, in order to ensure a +fruitful reception of the Eucharist. +But though we admit +this digression, we hold that +wherever Christ refers to the +bread to be given, He means +the Blessed Eucharist, and that +the reference to it begins in +verse 27. For— +</p> + +<p> +(1) In verse 27 He speaks of +a food that was still <emph>to be given +in the future</emph>, just as in verse +52, where all Catholics admit +there is question of the +Eucharist. +</p> + +<p> +(2) This food was to be given +by the Son of Man, Christ +Himself; and though in verse +32 the Father is said to give it, +this is naturally explained by +saying that the Father gives +us in the Incarnation what +Christ gives in a sacramental +form in the Eucharist. +</p> + +<p> +(3) The food in verse 27, is +a food for which, as we shall +see, faith is a <emph>preparation</emph>; +therefore, not itself faith. +</p> + +<p> +(4) In verses 32, 33, there is +question of a bread that cometh +down from heaven, and giveth +life to the world, and in verse +59, of a bread to which the +very same properties are attributed; +and in both cases this +heaven-descended, life-giving +bread is contrasted with the +manna. Is it not natural, +then, to conclude, remembering +that both passages belong +to the same discourse, that +the same bread is meant in +both instances? +</p> + +<p> +And now we have seen—(1) +that there is reference to +the Blessed Eucharist in this +discourse; (2) to a real reception +of Christ in it; and (3) that +the reference most probably +begins in verse 27. Having +got so far, it will not be very +difficult to interpret the discourse, +and to this we proceed +at once. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Operamini non cibum +qui perit, sed qui permanet in +vitam aeternam, quem Filius +hominis dabit vobis. Hunc +enim Pater signavit Deus.</cell> +<cell>27. Labour not for the meat +which perisheth, but for that +which endureth unto life everlasting, +which the son of man +will give you. For him hath +God, the Father, sealed.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +27. <hi rend='bold'>Labour not for the meat +which perisheth, but for that +<pb n='120'/><anchor id='Pg120'/> +which endureth unto life +everlasting.</hi> As our Version +indicates, the meat is the object +for the attainment of which +they are exhorted to do their +part. The meaning cannot be +that they are to <emph>make</emph> the food +by believing, as if the food +were faith; for they had not +<emph>made</emph> the bread in the desert +the previous day, nor were +they thinking of making it +now, but they were trying, +<emph>striving to obtain it</emph>. This +sacramental food will endure +<emph>in its effects</emph> unto eternal life. +This food <hi rend='bold'>the Son of Man will +give</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, Christ as man will +give us His flesh; but since +the food is to endure in its +effects unto <emph>eternal life</emph>, mere +man could not give such; and +hence it is added that the +Father who is God has sealed +with the impress of Divinity +(August., Tolet.) the Son of +Man, who therefore, being God +as well as man, can give a +food that will endure unto +eternal life. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>28. Dixerunt ergo ad eum: +Quid faciemus ut operemur +opera Dei?</cell> +<cell>28. They said therefore unto +him: What shall we do that +we may work the works of +God?</cell></row> +<row><cell>29. Respondit Iesus, et +dixit eis: Hoc est opus Dei, +ut credatis in eum quem misit +ille.</cell> +<cell>29. Jesus answered, and said +to them: This is the work of +God, that you believe in him +whom he hath sent.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +28-29. Some of His hearers +now interrupt Christ, not however +to inquire what this food +was, but to ask what they must +do on their part in order to +perform the works which they +take it for granted <emph>God requires</emph>, +before they may receive such +food. Christ's answer is, that +in order to obtain it, so that it +may remain unto eternal life, +they must believe in Himself. +So too is it even now; the +sinner may sacrilegiously +receive the Lord into his +breast, but it is only for Him +who believes (and acts accordingly) +that the Sacrament endureth +unto eternal life. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>30. Dixerunt ergo ei: Quod +ergo tu facis signum ut videamus, +et credamus tibi? quid +operaris!</cell> +<cell>30. They said therefore to +him: What sign therefore +dost thou show that we may +see, and may believe thee? +what dost thou work?</cell></row> +<row><cell>31. Patres nostri manducaverunt +manna in deserto, +sicut scriptum est: Panem de +coelo dedit eis manducare.</cell> +<cell>31. Our fathers did eat +manna in the desert, as it is +written, <hi rend='italic'>He gave them bread +from heaven to eat</hi>.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +30-31. Christ having declared +the necessity of faith in Himself, +they now ask for motives +of credibility, and point to the +great standing miracle wrought +for their fathers in the desert. +But whereas He had demanded +<pb n='121'/><anchor id='Pg121'/> +faith in Himself: <q>That you +believe <emph>in Him</emph> whom He hath +sent</q> (verse 29), they seem to +miss the point, and speak not of +believing in Him, but merely of +believing Him, believing what +He may have to say to them. +They did not mention Moses, +nor was the manna given by +Moses; but our Lord's reply +shows that the comparison +between Himself and Moses +was in their minds. It is as if +they said: You call upon us +to believe you on the strength +of the miracle wrought yesterday +in the desert, whereas +Moses fed our <emph>whole race</emph> for +<emph>forty</emph> years with a bread <emph>from +heaven</emph>. These people who speak +thus, are probably different persons +from those who on the preceding +day recognised Christ as +the Messias (verse 14). +</p> + +<anchor id='VI_32'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: +Amen, amen dico vobis: Non +Moyses dedit vobis panem de +coelo, sed Pater meus dat +vobis panem de coelo verum.</cell> +<cell>32. Then Jesus said to them: +Amen, amen, I say to you: +Moses gave you not bread +from heaven, but my Father +giveth you the true bread +from heaven.</cell></row> +<row><cell>33. Panis enim Dei est qui +de coelo descendit, et dat +vitam mundo.</cell> +<cell>33. For the bread of God is +that which cometh down from +heaven, and giveth life to the +world.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +32-33. They had asked for +some great miracle (comp. +Matt. xii. 38), but since they had +already had sufficient evidence +to enable them to believe, +Christ does not gratify their +desire, but proceeds to declare +that it was not Moses who +gave the manna, but God (see +Ps. lxxvii. 21-24); so that their +tacit comparison of Moses with +Himself is baseless. He then +goes on to declare that His +Father giveth them the true +<pb n='122'/><anchor id='Pg122'/> +bread from heaven. This means, +as we have already explained, +that the Father gave us in the +Incarnation what Christ gives +us in the Eucharist, namely, +the Person of the God-man. +That it is true or perfect bread, +He proves from the fact that it +comes, not like the manna from +the clouds, but from heaven +itself, and that it not merely +<emph>sustains</emph> the life of <emph>one people</emph>, +but <emph>gives</emph> life to the <emph>world</emph>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>34. Dixerunt ergo ad eum: +Domine, semper da nobis +panem hunc.</cell> +<cell>34. They said therefore unto +him: Lord, give us always +this bread.</cell></row> +<row><cell>35. Dixit autem eis Iesus: +Ego sam panis vitae, qui venit +ad me, non esuriet: et qui +credit in me, non sitiet unquam.</cell> +<cell>35. And Jesus said to them: +I am the bread of life: he that +cometh to me shall not hunger; +he that believeth in me, +shall never thirst.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +34, 35. They at once ask +that He would give them this +bread always. They evidently +think that He speaks of some +excellent food like the manna, +which would support their +corporal existence, and they +desire to be constantly supplied +with it. But as they +know not <emph>what</emph> they ask, nor +<emph>how</emph> they should be disposed to +receive it, He tells them—(1) +What the bread is, namely, +Himself; and (2) what is required +for a proper and fruitful +reception of it, namely, faith in +Himself. The words: <hi rend='bold'>He that +cometh to Me</hi>, mean the same +thing as: <hi rend='bold'>He that believeth in +Me</hi>. The believer shall <hi rend='bold'>never +thirst</hi>; because, if he act +upon his belief, he will receive +Christ in the Eucharist, and be +spiritually filled, never again to +thirst, except through his own +fault. +</p> + +<anchor id='VI_36'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>36. Sed dixi vobis, quia et +vidistis me, et non creditis.</cell> +<cell>36. But I said unto you, that +you also have seen me, and +you believe not.</cell></row> +<row><cell>37. Omne quod dat mihi +Pater, ad me veniet: et eum +qui venit ad me, non ejiciam +foras:</cell> +<cell>37. All that the Father giveth +me shall come to me; and him +that cometh to me, I will not +cast out.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +36, 37. Christ again, as in verse +26, reproves their want of faith, +and declares that those who believe +in Him, do so through the +grace of the Father; and all +such He receives and rejects +not. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>38. Quia descendi de coelo, +non ut faciam voluntatem +meam sed voluntatem eius qui +misit me.</cell> +<cell>38. Because I came down +from heaven, not to do my +own will, but the will of him +that sent me.</cell></row> +<row><cell>39. Hac est autem voluntas +eius qui misit me, Patris: ut +omne quod dedit mihi, non +perdam ex eo, sed resuscitem +illud in novissimo die.</cell> +<cell>39. Now this is the will of +the Father who sent me; that +of all that he hath given me, I +should lose nothing, but should +raise it up again in the last day.</cell></row> +<row><cell>40. Haec est autem voluntas +Patris mei, qui misit me: ut +omnis qui videt Filium, et +credit in eum, habeat vitam +aeternam, et ego resuscitabo +eum in novissimo die.</cell> +<cell>40. And this is the will of +my Father that sent me; that +every one who seeth the Son, +and believeth in him, may +have life everlasting, and I will +raise him up in the last day.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +38-40. He declares the reason +why He does not reject such: +<pb n='123'/><anchor id='Pg123'/> +because He came down on +earth to do His father's will; +and that will is that all who +recognize in Him the Son of +God and believe in Him as +such (acting according to that +belief), should be raised up to +a glorious life on the last day. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>41. Murmurabant ergo Iudaei +de illo, quia dixisset: +Ego sum panis vivus, qui de +coelo descendi.</cell> +<cell>41. The Jews therefore +murmured at him, because he +had said, I am the living bread +which came down from heaven.</cell></row> +<row><cell>42. Et dicebant: Nonne hic +est Iesus filius Ioseph, cuius +nos novimus patrem et matrem? +Quomodo ergo dicit hic: Quia +de coelo descendi?</cell> +<cell>42. And they said: Is not +this Jesus the son of Joseph, +whose father and mother we +know? How than saith he, I +came down from heaven?</cell></row> +<row><cell>43. Respondit ergo Iesus, +et dixit eis: Nolite murmurare +in invicem:</cell> +<cell>43. Jesus therefore answered +and said to them: Murmur +not among yourselves.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +41-43. The Jews, by whom +the Scribes and Pharisees +perhaps are meant, now murmur +because He claims celestial +origin, whereas they fancy they +know Him to be an ordinary +man, born in the ordinary way +of an earthly father and mother. +He merely reproves their murmuring +without replying to +their difficulty, and proceeds to +declare the necessity of grace. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>44. Nemo potest venire ad +me, nisi Pater qui misit me +traxerit eum: et ego resuscitabo +eum in novissimo die.</cell> +<cell>44. No man can come to +me, except the Father, who +hath sent me, draw him, and +I will raise him up in the last +day.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +44. No one can believe in +Him, unless the Father draw +him; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, by preventing and +assisting grace. We have here +<pb n='124'/><anchor id='Pg124'/> +a clear proof against the Pelagians, +for the necessity of +grace in order to faith. It +must be borne in mind that, +though we are drawn by God, +we are drawn by impulses of +grace which we are free to +resist.<note place='foot'><q>Noli te cogitare invitum trahi; trahitur animus et amore ... Ramum +viridem ostendis ovi, et trahis illam. Nuces puero demonstrantur et trahitur.</q>—St. +August.</note> +</p> + +<anchor id='VI_45'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>45. Est scriptum in prophetis: +Et erunt omnes docibiles +Dei. Omnis qui audivit +a Patre, et didicit, venit ad +me.</cell> +<cell>45. It is written in the +prophets: <hi rend='italic'>And they all shall be +taught of God</hi>. Every one +that hath heard of the Father +and hath learned, cometh to me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +45. Christ declares <emph>how</emph> we +are drawn by the Father, namely, +by an illumination of the intellect +and motion of the will, +so that we hear (<q>audivit</q>) +and obey (<q>didicit</q>). <hi rend='bold'>It is +written in the Prophets: +And they shall all be taught +of God.</hi> The Jewish Scriptures +were divided into the Law, +the Prophets, and the Hagiographers, +and the reference +here is to the portion written +by the Prophets. The phrase: +<hi rend='bold'>They shall all be taught of +God</hi>, which is found substantially +in Isaias, liv. 13, +implies direct Divine teaching +through the influence of the +Spirit upon the mind and heart, +and indicates not merely one +Divine communication, but an +established relationship, for the +faithful who allow themselves +to be drawn, are life-long pupils +in the school of God. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>46. Non quia Patrem vidit +quisquam, nisi is qui est a +Deo, hic vidit Patrem.</cell> +<cell>46. Not that any man hath +seen the Father, but he who +is of God, he hath seen the +Father.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +46. <hi rend='bold'>Not that any man hath +seen the Father.</hi> It is, says +St. Augustine, <q>as if He said: +Do not when I tell you: Every +man that hath heard and +learned of the Father, say to +yourselves: We have never +seen the Father, and how then +can we have learned from +Him? Hear Him then in Me, I +know the Father, and am from +Him.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>47. Amen, amen dico vobis: +Qui credit in me, habet vitam +aeternam.</cell> +<cell>47. Amen, amen, I say unto +you: He that believeth in me +hath everlasting life.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +47. Having pointed out the +necessity of faith (verse 29), its +sufficiency (verse 35), and the necessary +condition to it, namely, +the grace of God and correspondence +therewith (verses 44, +45), He now solemnly repeats +what He had declared in verses +<pb n='125'/><anchor id='Pg125'/> +35 and 37, that he who believes +in Him shall have eternal life. +The present tense, <hi rend='bold'>hath everlasting +life</hi>, need create no +difficulty here: for he who +believes will receive the Blessed +Eucharist, the food <q>that endureth +unto everlasting life,</q> +(verse 57); and the present +tense is so used to indicate +the certainty with which the +result will follow. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>48. Ego sum panis vitae.</cell> +<cell>48. I am the bread of life.</cell></row> +<row><cell>49. Patres vestri manducaverunt +manna in deserto, et +mortui sunt.</cell> +<cell>49. Your fathers did eat +manna in the desert, and are +dead.</cell></row> +<row><cell>50. Hic est panis de coelo +descendens: ut si quis ex +ipso manducaverit, non moriatur.</cell> +<cell>50. This is the bread which +cometh down from heaven: +that if any man eat of it, he +may not die.</cell></row> +<row><cell>51. Ego sum panis vivus, +qui de coelo descendi.</cell> +<cell>51. I am the living bread, +which came down from heaven.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +48-51. Before quitting this +portion of His discourse, and +going on to declare <emph>how</emph> He is +the bread of life, Christ sums +up what He has said, repeating +again the proposition laid down +in verse 35: <q>I am the bread +of life;</q> again comparing and +preferring the Blessed Eucharist +to the manna (49, 50 compared +with 32, 35); and combining in +one the two propositions contained +in verses 35 and 38, +namely, that He is the bread, +and that He came down from +heaven. In verse 50 where it +is declared that he who eats +this bread shall not die, the +meaning is, that the Blessed +Eucharist, <emph>of its own nature</emph>, is +calculated to save us from the +death of the soul, and to secure +even for our bodies a glorious +resurrection. Sin, of course, +may rob it of its glorious effects. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>52. Si quis manducaverit ex +hoc pane, vivet in aeternuum: +et panis, quem ego dabo, caro +mea est pro mundi vita.</cell> +<cell>52. If any man eat of this +bread, he shall live for ever: +and the bread that I will give, +is my flesh for the life of the +world.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +52. Having summed up the +preceding portion of His discourse, +Christ now proceeds to +declare <emph>how</emph> He is the bread of +life. Till now He had contented +Himself with declaring that He +is that bread, and with pointing +out the chief disposition necessary +to receive Him worthily; +now He goes further, and points +out <emph>how</emph> He will be the bread +of life; namely, by giving His +flesh, that is, His whole human +nature (i. 14), to which the +Divine nature is inseparably +united, to be received in the +Blessed Eucharist. Thus He +<pb n='126'/><anchor id='Pg126'/> +gradually unfolds the mystery, +reserving till the last supper the +further knowledge, that this +reception of His body and blood +was to take place in a sacramental +manner. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And the bread that I will +give is my flesh, for the life +of the world.</hi> Many Greek +MSS. read: <q>And the bread +that I will give is My flesh, +<emph>which I will give</emph> for the life +of the world.</q> If the words +<q>which I will give</q> be genuine, +we would explain them not in +reference to the sacrifice of the +cross, but in reference to the +sacrifice of the Eucharist, in +which Christ is given for us +and to us. Compare St. Luke: +<q>This is My body, which is <emph>given +for you</emph></q> (Luke, xxii. 19), and +especially Luke xxii. 20, where +the Greek text shows that it is +the blood <emph>as in the chalice</emph> +(and not as on Calvary) that is +said to be offered in sacrifice. +But the words more probably +are not genuine; they are +omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, +Tregelles, Westcott, and +Hort, and by the Revised Version, +as well as by the Vulgate. +</p> + +<p> +Though not merely Christ's +flesh, that is, His humanity +(i. 14), but also His Divinity, +is received in the Blessed +Eucharist, His human nature +is specially mentioned, lest it +should be thought that He is +the living bread only as God, +or merely spiritually. <q>Dixerat +enim,</q> says St. Thomas on this +verse. <q>Quod erat panis vivus; +et ne intelligatur quod hoc ei +esset in quantum est Verbum, +vel secundum animam tantum, +ideo ostendit quod etiam caro +sua vivificativa est: est enim +organum divinitatis suae: unde, +cum instrumentum agat virtute +agentis, sicut divinitas +Christi vivificativa est, ita et +caro virtute Verbi adjuncti vivificat; +unde Christus tactu suo +sanabat infirmos.</q> Besides, as +St. Thomas adds, since this +Sacrament is commemorative +of our Lord's Passion (<q>For +as often as you shall eat this +bread, and drink the chalice, +you shall show the death of +the Lord,</q> 1 Cor. xi. 26), His +<q>flesh</q> is mentioned to remind +us of the weakness of that +human nature wherein it was +<pb n='127'/><anchor id='Pg127'/> +possible for Him who was God +to suffer. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>53. Litigabant ergo Iudaei +ad invicem, dicentes: Quomodo +potest hic nobis carnem +suam suam dare ad manducandum?</cell> +<cell>53. The Jews therefore +strove among themselves +saying: How can this man +give us his flesh to eat?</cell></row> +<row><cell>54. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: +Amen, amen dico vobis: Nisi +manducaveritis carnem Filii +hominis, et biberitis eius sanguinem, +non habebitis vitam in +vobis.</cell> +<cell>54. Then Jesus said to them: +Amen, amen, I say unto you; +Except you eat the flesh of the +son of man, and drink his +blood, you shall not have life +in you.</cell></row> +<row><cell>55. Qui manducat meam +carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, +habet vitam aeternam: +et ego resuscitabo eum in +novissimo die.</cell> +<cell>55. He that eateth my flesh, +and drinketh my blood, hath +everlasting life: and I will +raise him up in the last day.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +53-55. The Jews <hi rend='bold'>therefore</hi> +(<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ergo</foreign>, not enim), because of +what He had now said, disputed +among themselves, evidently +taking different views of what +He had said; but Jesus, far +from retracting, solemnly insists +upon what He had just +said, and declares negatively +(verse 54), and positively (verse +55), not only the possibility, but +the <emph>necessity</emph> of receiving His +body and blood. It does not +follow from verse 54, as the +Utraquists falsely contended, +that Communion under both +kinds is necessary; for Christ +is received whole and entire +under either species. Under the +species of bread only the body +is present <emph>in virtue of the words +of consecration</emph>, and similarly +under the species of wine only +the blood; but since Christ's +body is now a <emph>living</emph> body, it +follows that in the Blessed +Eucharist, where the body is, +there also are the blood and +the soul <emph>in virtue of the natural +connection</emph> between the parts +of a living body, and there, +too, the Divinity, <emph>in virtue of the +hypostatic union</emph>. See Decrees +of the Council of Trent, sess. +xiii., ch. 3. The precept is to +receive both body and blood, +but not necessarily under both +species. For, as the Council +of Trent (sess. xxi., cap. 1) +points out, Christ attributes the +same effects to eating in verses +55, 58, 59, as He does here to +eating and drinking. See also +1 Cor. xi. 26, where he who eats +<emph>or</emph> drinks unworthily, is said +to be guilty of <emph>both</emph> body and +blood. The precept of Christ, +then, is obeyed whether one +or both species be received, +and it is a disciplinary matter +entrusted to the care of the +Church, whether the faithful +are to receive under one or +both species. +</p> + +<p> +Seeing, then, that there is +no obligation for the faithful to +receive the Blessed Eucharist +under both species, it may be +asked why does Christ mention +both species? We reply, that +He does so to signify that in +the Blessed Eucharist there is +a perfect repast, which ordinarily +supposes the presence +of both meat and drink; and, +perhaps, also to indicate that +this sacrament is commemorative +of His death, in which His +body and blood were separated. +</p> + +<p> +Nor do verses 54 and 55 +afford any proof that the +Blessed Eucharist is necessary, +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>necessitate medii</foreign> unto salvation, +like Baptism (John iii. 5). +For—(1) Baptism is declared +to be absolutely necessary for +<pb n='128'/><anchor id='Pg128'/> +all, <q>unless a man be born +again;</q> here the Blessed +Eucharist is declared necessary +only for those who +are capable of receiving a +precept, <q>Unless you eat,</q> &c. +(2) From the nature of the +case, Baptism, being a new +<emph>birth</emph>, is absolutely necessary +for all who are to live the new +spiritual life; and as many as +are born, must be <emph>born again</emph> +in order to live the higher life; +but the Blessed Eucharist is +not the introduction to a new +life, but a means of nourishing +the life already acquired. +Hence for children who have +already acquired that spiritual +life in Baptism, and cannot +lose it because incapable of +sinning, the Blessed Eucharist +cannot be necessary to salvation, +nor even for adults can it +be absolutely necessary as a +means, if there be, as there +are, other means of retaining +the life already acquired. +</p> + +<anchor id='VI_56'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>56. Caro enim mea, vere est +cibus: et sanguis meus, vere +est potus.</cell> +<cell>56. For my flesh is meat +indeed: and my blood is drink +indeed;</cell></row> +<row><cell>57. Qui manducat meam +carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, +in me manet, et ego in +illo.</cell> +<cell>57. He that eateth my flesh +and drinketh my blood, abideth +in me, and I in him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +57. In the Blessed Eucharist +we are united to Christ, and +His humanity remains in us +until the sacred species become +corrupted; His divinity, until +mortal sin is committed, and He +is expelled. +</p> + +<anchor id='VI_58'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>58. Sicut misit me vivens +Pater, et ego vivo propter +Patrem: et qui manducat me, +et ipse vivet propter me.</cell> +<cell>58. As the living Father +hath sent me, and I live by +the Father: so he that eateth +me, the same also shall live by +me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +58. The sacred union between +Christ and the communicant is +compared to the ineffable union +between Him and His heavenly +Father. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The living Father.</hi> This is +a unique instance of this title, +but we frequently find: <hi rend='italic'>The +Living God</hi>, Matt. xvi. 16; +2 Cor. vi. 16, &c. <hi rend='bold'>And I live +by</hi> (διὰ τὸν παπέρα) <hi rend='bold'>the Father</hi>. +It is to be noted that διὰ is +followed by the accusative, not +the genitive. If, then, we are +to regard it as meaning here +what it ordinarily means when +followed by the accusative, and +as the Vulgate seems to take it, +the sense would rather be: As +the living Father hath sent Me, +and I live <emph>on account</emph> of the +Father, so he that eateth Me, +the same also shall live <emph>on +account</emph> of Me. This would +mean that as complete devotion +to the Father is the object of +the life of the Incarnate Son +<pb n='129'/><anchor id='Pg129'/> +(the Son <emph>as sent</emph>), so complete +devotion to the Son shall be +the object of the life of him to +whom Christ shall have united +Himself in the Blessed Eucharist. +Others, however, think +that διὰ is here equivalent to +<emph>through</emph>, or <emph>by</emph>, as in our Rheims +Version. The sense then is: +as Christ lives through the +eternal life communicated to +Him in His eternal generation +by the Father; so, in some +way, the communicant shall live +in virtue of the spiritual life +communicated to him or sustained +in him because of his +union with Christ in the Blessed +Eucharist. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>59. Hic est panis qui de +coelo descendit. Non sicut +manducaverunt patres vestri +manna, et mortui sunt. Qui +manducat hunc panem, vivet +in aeternum.</cell> +<cell>59. This is the bread that +came down from heaven. +Not as your fathers did eat +manna, and are dead. He +that eateth this bread shall +live for ever.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +59. This verse concludes and +unites the principal points of +the discourse. Compare verses +32, 41, 49, 50, 52, 55. Hence +it confirms the view we have +followed regarding the unity +of subject throughout the discourse. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>He that eateth this bread +shall live for ever.</hi> With this +encouraging and glorious promise, +made not to any one +people, nor to any class as +such, not even to all believers, +but to each one (note the change +from the plural to the singular: +<hi rend='italic'>your fathers ... He that eateth</hi>) +who shall worthily receive, +and duly profit by the Blessed +Eucharist, the discourse ends. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>60. Haec dixit in synagoga +docens, in Capharnaum.</cell> +<cell>60. These things he said +teaching in the synagogue, in +Capharnaum.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +60. Because of the solemn +importance of the discourse, the +place where it was delivered is +noted. At Tell Hûm (see above +on <ref target='II_12'>ii. 12</ref>) the ruins of a large +synagogue are still to be seen. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>61. Multi ergo audientes +ex discipulis eius, dixerunt: +Durus est hic sermo, et quis +potest eum audire?</cell> +<cell>61. Many therefore of his +disciples hearing it, said: +This saying is hard, and who +can hear it?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +61. The effect of the <emph>discourse</emph> +upon many of the +disciples is recorded. <hi rend='bold'>Hard</hi> +(σκληρός), <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, harsh, hard to +accept. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>62. Sciens autem Iesus apud +semetipsum quia murmurarent +de hoc discipuli eius, dixit +eis: Hoc vos scandalizat?</cell> +<cell>62. But Jesus knowing in +himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: +Doth this scandalize you?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +62. The Evangelist notes, +according to his custom, that +their thoughts were known to +Christ. +</p> + +<pb n='130'/><anchor id='Pg130'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>63. Si ergo videritis Filium +hominis ascendentem ubi erat +prius?</cell> +<cell>63. If then you shall see the +son of man ascend up where +he was before?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +63. <hi rend='bold'>If then you shall see the +son of man ascend up where +he was before?</hi> The sense +according to some, is: If you +shall see Me ascending into +heaven, it will then be easier to +believe My doctrine, seeing I +am Divine; and you shall at +the same time understand, that +it is not in a bloody manner (as +you suppose) that you are to eat +My body. Thus He would +correct their too carnal interpretation +of His words, and +point at the same time to a +reason why the true sense, however +difficult, was to be +accepted. Others think that +Christ's words increase the +difficulty, the sense being, if you +are scandalized now, because I +say, <emph>while present with you</emph>, that +I will give My body, how much +more will you be scandalized +when you see that body taken +away into heaven, and are yet +asked to believe that it is to be +eaten on earth? It is argued in +favour of this opinion, that the +form of Christ's reply: <q>Does +this scandalize you? If <emph>therefore</emph>,</q> +&c., indicates that their +difficulty would then be greater. +So Mald., Tolet., Beel., Corl. +We may remark, as against +the Nestorians, that language +could not signify more clearly +than this verse signifies the +unity of Person in Christ. The +Son of Man will ascend to +heaven where as Son of God +He is from all eternity. <q>Filius +Dei et hominis unus Christus +... Filius Dei in terra suscepta +carne, Filius hominis in +coelo in unitate personae.</q> St. +Aug. on this verse. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>64. Spiritus est, qui vivificat: +caro non prodest quidquam: +verba quae ego locutus +sum vobis, spiritus et vita +sunt.</cell> +<cell>64. It is the spirit that +quickeneth: the flesh profiteth +nothing. The words that I +have spoken to you, are spirit +and life.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +64. Many interpretations of +this verse have been advanced. +The following two are the most +probable, intrinsically and extrinsically:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) <hi rend='bold'>The spirit</hi> is the spirit +of man elevated and ennobled +by grace; <hi rend='bold'>the flesh</hi>, the +corrupt dispositions and weak +thoughts of human nature unaided +by grace (see Rom. viii. +5, 6); and the meaning of the +verse is; it is the mind illumined +by grace that quickeneth to +faith and to a proper understanding +of My words; the +mind or human nature by itself +is of no avail in such matters; +the words which I have spoken +to you are <emph>to be understood by</emph> +the mind quickened and illumined +by grace. So St. Chrys., +Teoph., Wisem., Perr., M'Ev. +But there are serious difficulties +against this view—(1) <q>caro</q> +is then taken metaphorically in +this verse, while throughout the +<pb n='131'/><anchor id='Pg131'/> +context it has been taken literally +of the flesh of Christ; (2) the +explanation of the words <q>are +spirit and life</q> is unnatural. +</p> + +<p> +(2) Others take <hi rend='bold'>the Spirit</hi> +of the Divinity of Christ, <hi rend='bold'>the +flesh</hi> of His humanity considered +apart from the Divinity; +and the meaning of the verse +then is: it is My Divinity that +quickeneth, and maketh My +flesh a meat enduring unto +eternal life; the flesh if separated +from the Divinity would +profit nothing; the words +which I have spoken to you +regard My life-giving Divinity +as united to My humanity. In +this view, as Mald. explains it, +<q>life,</q> by a Hebraism, is equivalent +to an adjective signifying +<emph>life-giving</emph>, as may be +inferred from the beginning of +the verse, where it is said +that it is the Spirit <emph>that giveth +life</emph>.<note place='foot'>See, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, above iii. 6: What is born of the spirit is spirit; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, spiritual.</note> Hence <q>Spirit and life</q> +is equivalent to <emph>life-giving</emph> +Spirit, and the latter part of +the verse means that Christ's +words have reference to His +life-giving Divinity in union +with His humanity. So, too, +St. Cyril of Alex., Beel., Corl. +We prefer this view, and hold +that Christ here gives the key +to the solution of the difficulty +on account of which His disciples +had murmured (verse 62). +He had closed His discourse +with words attributing eternal +life to the eating of His flesh +(verse 59); they murmured accordingly, +thinking it absurd or +incredible that such effect could +follow from such a cause as the +eating of a man's flesh; and +in verse 64 He explains that +His flesh is the flesh of the +Man-God, which therefore +through the quickening influence +of the Divinity with +which it is united, is capable +of producing such marvellous +effects. +</p> + +<p> +There is not a shadow of +probability in the interpretation +put upon this verse by the +Sacramentarians. They explained +the verse to mean: that +the <emph>figurative</emph> sense of what He +had said regarding the necessity +of eating His flesh and +blood profits, but that the +<emph>literal</emph> sense would profit +nothing. Thus they professed +to find in these words an assurance +that Christ had not +spoken of a real eating of His +flesh in the Eucharist, but only +of a spiritual reception of Himself +through faith. In reply to +this we say—(1) that throughout +the rest of the Bible +<q>spiritus</q> and <q>caro</q> are +not even once used of a figurative +and literal sense; (2) if +<pb n='132'/><anchor id='Pg132'/> +Christ here gave the explanation +which our adversaries +suppose, how is it that, as we +learn from verse 67, many of His +disciples retired notwithstanding, +and walked with Him no +more? In such an explanation +all their difficulty would be +removed, and they would be +taught that it was only of a +figurative eating by faith that +Christ had been speaking. How +then account for their departure? +But it was different in the explanation +we have given above. +In our view, Christ, still insisting +on a real reception of His +flesh, merely explains how it is +that such real reception can +lead to such glorious results. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>65. Sed sunt quidam ex +vobis, qui non credunt. +Sciebat enim ab initio Iesus +qui essent non credentes, et +quis traditurus esset eum.</cell> +<cell>65. But there are some of +you that believe not. For +Jesus knew from the beginning +who they were that did not +believe, and who he was that +would betray him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +65. In the view we hold +regarding verse 64, the connection +of this verse with it is: the +fact that I am God explains +what you find difficult in My +words (verse 64); but some of you +do not believe Me to be God; +and hence your difficulty (verse +65). To indicate Christ's Divine +knowledge, the Evangelist +adds that He knew <emph>from the +beginning</emph>, &c. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>66. Et dicebat: Propterea +dixi vobis, quia nemo potest +venire ad me, nisi fuerit ei +datum a Patre meo.</cell> +<cell>66. And he said: Therefore +did I say to you, that no man +can come to me, unless it be +given him by my Father.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +66. Christ's words in this +verse are to be connected +closely with the beginning of +the preceding, the intervening +words of the Evangelist being +parenthetical. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Therefore did I say to you.</hi> +The allusion is to what was +said above (verse 44), which is +substantially the same as what +is said here, since to be drawn +to Christ by the Father is +nothing else than to be given +grace by the Father to come to +Christ. It might seem at first +sight that these words excuse +the incredulity of those whom +Christ addresses; but it is not +so. For, the reason they had +not been drawn by the Father +was because they <emph>would</emph> not, +because they had not followed +the promptings of grace. See +above on verse <ref target='VI_45'>45</ref>. <q>Peccabant +tamen qui nolebant venire, +id est credere in Christum, tum +quia habebant gratiam sufficientem, +qua possent credere +si vellent, etsi non haberent +efficacem, qua reipsa et actu +crederent; tum quia humiliter +non petebant a Deo gratiam +<pb n='133'/><anchor id='Pg133'/> +efficacem, qua actu crederent: +tum quia sua superbia aliisque +peccatis illa gratia se fecerant +indignos, imo pervicaces Dei +gratiam et fidem repellebant et +refutabant</q> (A Lap. on this +verse). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>67. Ex hoc multi discipulorum +eius abierunt retro: et +iam non cum illo ambulabant.</cell> +<cell>67. After this many of his +disciples went back; and +walked no more with him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +67. Had Christ in the preceding +discourse spoken only +of faith, surely, all-merciful and +loving as He is, He would have +made His meaning clear, before +allowing many of His disciples +to depart from Him for ever. +It was only, then, because they +understood Him correctly, and +refused to believe Him, that He +allowed them to depart. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>68. Dixit ergo Iesus ad +duodecim: Numquid et vos +vultis abire?</cell> +<cell>68. Then Jesus said to the +twelve: will you also go +away?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +68. <hi rend='bold'>The twelve.</hi> These +are spoken of as well known, +though this is the first +mention made of their number +in this Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Will you also go away?</hi> +While the question implies that +such desertion was to be feared, +its form implies a negative +answer, and suggests that in +the case of the chosen twelve +such conduct ought to be impossible. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>69. Respondit ergo ei Simon +Petrus: Domine, ad quem +ibimus? verba vitae aeternae +habes:</cell> +<cell>69. And Simon Peter +answered him: Lord, to +whom shall we go? thou hast +the words of eternal life.</cell></row> +<row><cell>70. Et nos credidimus, et +cognovimus quia tu es Christus +Filius Dei.</cell> +<cell>70. And we have believed +and have known that thou art +the Christ the Son of God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +69-70. Peter replies for all +the Apostles (not knowing the +unbelief of Judas), and confesses +the truth of Christ's doctrine, +and, according to the +Vulgate reading, the Divinity +of Christ. It is very doubtful, +however, whether the Vulgate +reading here is correct. The +oldest Greek MSS. read: +<q>And we have believed and +know that Thou art the <emph>Holy One</emph> +(ὁ ἅγιος) of God.</q> Whether in +the mind of St. Peter this latter +form of the words meant a full +confession of Christ's Divinity, +or only that He was the Messias, +it is difficult to say. It would +seem indeed from the praise +bestowed upon Peter by our +Lord (Matt. xvi. 16) on an +occasion subsequent to this, +that then for the first time +Peter fully confessed Christ's +Divinity. +</p> + +<pb n='134'/><anchor id='Pg134'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>71. Respondit eis Iesus: +Nonne ego vos duodecim +elegi, et ex vobis unus diabolus +est?</cell> +<cell>71. Jesus answered them: +Have not I chosen you twelve; +and one of you is a devil?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +71. Peter had answered as +he thought for all the Apostles, +but Christ shows that He knows +to the contrary. <hi rend='bold'>A devil</hi>, +that is to say a sinner inspired +by the devil (viii. 44), Judas +was (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>est</foreign>) even then. +</p> + +<anchor id='VI_72'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>72. Dicebat autem Iudam +Simonis Iscariotem: hic enim +erat traditurus eum, cum esset +unus ex duodecim.</cell> +<cell>72. Now he meant Judas +Iscariot, the son of Simon: +for this same was about to +betray him, whereas he was +one of the twelve.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +72. The Evangelist explains +who was meant. <q>The name +Iscariot has received many +interpretations, more or less +conjectural, but it is now universally +agreed that it is to be +derived from Kerioth (Josh. +xv. 25) a city in the tribe of +Judah, the Hebrew אישׂ קרִות 'īsh +Kerīyoth passing into Ἰσκαριώτης</q> +(Smith's <hi rend='italic'>B. D.</hi>, 2nd Ed.). +In this view, Judas, unlike the +other Apostles (Acts ii. 7), +was from the Province of +Judea. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='135'/><anchor id='Pg135'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter VII.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='bold'>Christ remains in Galilee.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +2-10. <hi rend='bold'>His brethren urge Him to go up to Jerusalem to the Feast of +Tabernacles with them; this He declines to do, but goes afterwards +privately.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +11-13. <hi rend='bold'>The chief men among the Jews look out for Him at the Feast, +and express different opinions regarding Him.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +14-24. <hi rend='bold'>In the middle of the festival Christ goes up to the temple and teaches.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +25-29. <hi rend='bold'>Comments of some of the people of Jerusalem; Christ's reply.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +30, 31. <hi rend='bold'>Different opinions of the people regarding Him.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +32-36. <hi rend='bold'>Jealously of the Sanhedrim, which sends officers to arrest Him.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +37-39. <hi rend='bold'>Christ's words on the eighth day of the feast, and St. John's +authentic interpretation.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +40, 41. <hi rend='bold'>Different opinions among the people regarding Him.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +44-49. <hi rend='bold'>Though some were anxious to arrest Him, no one durst, not even +the officers who had been sent for that purpose; consequent +indignation of the Priests and Pharisees.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +50-52. <hi rend='bold'>Nicodemus interposes in Christ's favour; reply of the other +members of the Sanhedrim.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<anchor id='VII_1'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Post haec autem ambulabat +Iesus in Galilaeam, non +enim volebat in Iudaeam +ambulare, quia quaerebant +eum Iudaei interficere.</cell> +<cell>1. After these things Jesus +walked in Galilee, for he +would not walk in Judea, +because the Jews sought to +kill him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. Instead of <q>Galilaeam,</q> +<q>Judaeam,</q> read <q>Galilea,</q> +<q>Judaea</q> (Abl.) in the Vulgate. +The sense is that Christ +continues to remain in Galilee. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Erat autem in proximo dies +festus Iudaeorum scenopegia.</cell> +<cell>2. Now the Jews' feast of +tabernacles was at hand.</cell></row></table> + +<anchor id='VII_2'/> +<p> +2. See note on verse <ref target='VII_1'>1</ref>. +</p> + +<anchor id='VII_3'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Dixerunt autem ad eum +fratres eius: Transi hinc, et +vade in Iudaeam, ut et discipuli +tui videant opera tua, +quae facis.</cell> +<cell>3. And his brethren said to +him: Pass from hence and go +into Judea: that thy disciples +also may see thy works which +thou dost.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='bold'>His brethren said to +him: Pass from hence, and +go into Judea, that thy +disciples also may see thy +works which thou dost.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +Who are these brethren of +Jesus? +</p> + +<p> +(1) Not the children of +<pb n='136'/><anchor id='Pg136'/> +Joseph and Mary, born to them +after the birth of our Lord, for +this opinion of Helvidius was +condemned as <emph>heretical</emph> in the +Council of Lateran (649 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>), +and is opposed to the universal +and constant tradition of the +Church.<note place='foot'>Even Renan, who had held this view in the <hi rend='italic'>Vie de Jesus</hi> abandoned it in +a later work: <hi rend='italic'>Les Evangiles</hi>, Appendix, page 542.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(2) Not the children of +Joseph by a previous marriage; +for this opinion too, though +not heretical, and though held +by some of the fathers, is +opposed to the common opinion +of Catholics, according to +which St. Joseph lived and died +a virgin. +</p> + +<p> +(3) These brethren were +<emph>cousins</emph> of our Lord. The term +<q>fratres</q> (ἀδελφοὶ) is used +in the Sacred Scriptures of +many who are not children of +the same parents. Thus it is +used of fellow-countrymen, +Rom. ix. 3, 4; (2) of co-religionists, +Rom. i. 13; (3) of +relations who were not, however, +members of the same +family, Gen. xiii. 8, xiv. 4. +In these verses of Genesis, +Abraham and Lot are referred +to as <emph>brethren</emph>, though the +former was uncle to the latter +(Gen. xii. 5). +</p> + +<p> +In Matthew xiii. 55, Mark +vi. 3, James, Joseph, Simon, +and Jude, are named as +brethren of our Lord; but +whether they are the same +cousins who are referred to +here by St. John, is disputed. +Of those mentioned by SS. +Matthew and Mark, James, +Jude, and probably Simon, +were Apostles;<note place='foot'>That James the brother of the Lord was an Apostle, is proved from +Gal. i. 19. See also Acts ix. 27, 28. Now Jude, the author of the short +Epistle which bears his name, who is commonly referred to as identical with +Jude the Apostle, calls himself a brother of James (only James the Less, the +brother of the Lord, and well-known bishop of Jerusalem can be meant). +Jude 1; hence, two at least, of the brothers of the Lord mentioned by +Matthew (xiii. 55), Mark (vi. 3), were Apostles: and since the Apostle Simon is +mentioned side by side with them in the four lists of the Apostles, it is fairly +concluded that he was their brother Simon; hence three of these brethren +of the Lord were Apostles.</note> and hence, on +account of verse 5, some say it +is not these, but other cousins +of our Lord, who are here referred +to by St. John. However, +there need be no difficulty +about admitting that the faith +of the Apostles was still imperfect, +especially if we adopt +what seems the more probable +<pb n='137'/><anchor id='Pg137'/> +reading in vi. 70. See Matthew +xvii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15. +</p> + +<p> +These brethren of the Lord +say to Him, that He ought to +go up to Jerusalem, where there +would be a concourse of people +to witness His miracles. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Nemo quippe in occulto +quid facit, et quaerit ipse in +palam esse: si haec facis, +manifesta teipsum mundo.</cell> +<cell>4. For there is no man that +doth anything in secret, and +he himself seeketh to be +known openly. If thou do +these things, manifest thyself +to the world.</cell></row> +<row><cell>5. Neque enim fratres eius +credebant in eum.</cell> +<cell>5. For neither did his +brethren believe in him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. As already explained, if +we regard the three Apostles +as included among the +brethren, we may understand +here that their faith was still +<emph>imperfect</emph>; if other cousins of +our Lord are meant, they may +have been wholly without faith. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Dicit ergo eis Iesus: +Tempus meum nondum +advenit: tempus autem +vestrum semper est paratum.</cell> +<cell>6. Then Jesus said to them: +My time is not yet come; but +your time is always ready.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +6. There are many opinions +as to what is meant by <emph>His +time</emph>, here referred to by Christ. +Some say it is the time of His +passion; others, the time for +manifesting Himself to the +world; and others, the time +for going up to Jerusalem. +The latter opinion seems to us +the most natural and most +probable. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Non potest mundus +odisse vos: me autem odit, +quia ego testimonium perhibeo +de illo quod opera eius mala +sunt.</cell> +<cell>7. The world cannot hate +you; but me it hateth: +because I give testimony of it, +that the works thereof are +evil.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. His brethren might go up +to Jerusalem at any time, for +they, even if some of them +were Apostles, had not yet +incurred the odium of the +<emph>wicked</emph> world (John xv. 18, 19). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Vos ascendite ad diem +festum hunc: ego autem non +ascendo ad diem festum istum, +quia meum tempus nondum +impletum est.</cell> +<cell>8. Go you up to this festival +day, but I go not up to this +festival day: because my time +is not accomplished.</cell></row> +<row><cell>9. Haec cum dixisset, ipse +mansit in Galilaea.</cell> +<cell>9. When he had said these +things, he himself staid in +Galilee.</cell></row> +<row><cell>10. Ut autem ascenderunt +fratres eius, tunc et ipse +ascendit ad diem festum non +manifeste, sed quasi in occulto.</cell> +<cell>10. But after his brethren +were gone up, then he also +went up to the feast, not +openly, but as it were in secret.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8-10. Christ here seems to +say that He will not go up +to Jerusalem for the feast, +and yet He went. Various +answers to this difficulty have +been given:—(1) Many ancient +MSS. and versions, instead of +<q>Non (οὐκ) ascendo</q> read +<q><emph>Nondum</emph> (οὔπω) ascendo;</q> +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, I go not up <emph>yet</emph>. However, +as this is the easier +reading to explain, and as the +<pb n='138'/><anchor id='Pg138'/> +other is equally well supported +by ancient authority, we are +inclined to believe that the +more difficult (οὐκ) is the true +reading. Hence (2) others say +that our Lord used an ambiguous +phrase: I go not up, +meaning I go not up <emph>now</emph> (but +shall go afterwards). (3) The +correct explanation seems to +be that insinuated by our Evangelist. +Christ said: I go not +up (as you desire, in your +company, and publicly); then +when He went up, it was not +publicly, but, as it were, in +secret. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Iudaei ergo quaerebant +eum in die festo, et dicebant: +Ubi est ille?</cell> +<cell>11. The Jews therefore +sought him on the festival day +and said: Where is he?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. The leaders of the Jews +seek Him at the feast, but, +through contempt, do not name +Him. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Et murmur multum erat +in turba de eo. Quidam enim +dicebant: Quia bonus est. +Alii autem dicebant: Non, +sed seducit turbas.</cell> +<cell>12. And there was much +murmuring among the multitude +concerning him. For +some said: He is a good man. +And others said: No, but he +seduceth the people.</cell></row> +<row><cell>13. Nemo tamen palam +loquebatur de illo, propter +metum Iudaeorum.</cell> +<cell>13. Yet no man spoke +openly of him, for fear of the +Jews.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +13. <hi rend='bold'>Openly</hi> (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>palam</foreign>) does +not fully express the force of +the Greek word, which seems +to mean here <emph>with open approval</emph>. +</p> + +<anchor id='VII_14'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Iam autem die festo +mediante, ascendit Iesus in +templum, et docebat.</cell> +<cell>14. Now about the midst of +the feast, Jesus went up into +the temple, and taught.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. The festival lasted for +eight days, so that this would +be the fourth or fifth day. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Et mirabantur Iudaei, +dicentes: Quomodo hic litteras +scit, cum non didicerit?</cell> +<cell>15. And the Jews wondered, +saying: How doth this man +know letters, having never +learned?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. From this verse it is +plain that Christ had never +attended any of the Jewish +schools, where the <emph>Scriptures</emph> +(γράμματα) were explained. +</p> + +<pb n='139'/><anchor id='Pg139'/> + +<anchor id='VII_16'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Respondit eis Iesus, et +dixit: Mea doctrina non est +mea, sed eius qui misit me.</cell> +<cell>16. Jesus answered them +and said: My doctrine is not +mine, but his that sent me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. The sense is: The doctrine +I preach has not been +excogitated by Me; I have +received it from My Father. +As man, Christ had received +His knowledge through the +beatific vision, and by infusion +into His human soul, and as +God, He had received it from +the Father from all eternity. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Si quis voluerit voluntatem +eius facere, cognoscet de +doctrina utrum ex Deo sit, an +ego a meipso loquar.</cell> +<cell>17. If any man will do the +will of him: he shall know of +the doctrine, whether it be of +God, or whether I speak of +myself.</cell></row> +<row><cell>18. Qui a semetipso loquitur, +gloriam propriam quaerit: qui +autem quaerit gloriam eius qui +misit eum, hic verax est, et +iniustitia in illo non est.</cell> +<cell>18. He that speaketh of +himself, seeketh his own +glory: but he that seeketh the +glory of him that sent him, he +is true, and there is no +injustice in him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17, 18. In proof that His +doctrine is from God, He +appeals to two arguments:—(1) +If they will only follow the +will of God, and believe, <emph>experience</emph> +will teach them that +His doctrine is divine. (2) The +fact that He seeks not His own +glory, but the glory of the +Father, is a proof that His +doctrine is the doctrine of the +Father, and, therefore a proof +that He is veracious, and does +not deceive (<emph>injustitia</emph> in illo non +est). This second argument, +as Mald. points out, is based +upon what does, not upon what +should, happen among men. +When men preach doctrines +of their own invention, they +generally seek their own +glory. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Nonne Moyses dedit +vobis legem: et nemo ex +vobis facit legem?</cell> +<cell>19. Did not Moses give you +the law, and <hi rend='italic'>yet</hi> none of you +keepeth the law?</cell></row> +<row><cell>20. Quid me quaeritis interficere? +Respondit turba, et +dixit: Daemonium habes: +quis te quaerit interficere?</cell> +<cell>20. Why seek you to kill +me? The multitude answered +and said: Thou hast a devil; +who seeketh to kill thee?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19, 20. Most probably Christ +begins here to defend Himself +against the charge of violating +the Sabbath, which the Jews +had brought against Him on a +former occasion (v. 16, 18), +<pb n='140'/><anchor id='Pg140'/> +and which they still remembered +against Him. +</p> + +<p> +He uses an <q>argumentum +ad hominem</q>: You do not +keep the law yourselves, why +then seek to kill Me, even for +what you allege to be a +violation of it? Some among +the crowd were even then +anxious to kill Jesus, as His +words prove, and to these He +directs His words; but there +were many present who had +no such intention, and some of +these reply, <hi rend='bold'>Thou hast a devil</hi>. +They may have meant that He +was possessed, or simply that +He was raving, out of His +senses. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Respondit Iesus, et dixit +eis: Unum opus feci, et +omnes miramini.</cell> +<cell>21. Jesus answered and +said to them: One work I +have done; and you all +wonder:</cell></row> +<row><cell>22. Propterea Moyses dedit +vobis circumcisionem: (non +quia ex Moyse est, sed ex +patribus) et in sabbato circumciditis +hominem.</cell> +<cell>22. Therefore Moses gave +you circumcision (not because +it is of Moses, but of the +fathers); and on the sabbath-day +you circumcise a man.</cell></row> +<row><cell>23. Si circumcisionem accipit +homo in sabbato, ut non +solvatur lex Moysi: mihi +indignamini quia totum hominem +sanum feci in sabbato?</cell> +<cell>23. If a man receive circumcision +on the sabbath-day, +that the law of Moses may +not be broken; are you angry +at me because I have healed +the whole man on the sabbath-day?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +21-23. He proceeds to show +by sober reasoning, that they +ought not to blame Him for +having healed the man on the +Sabbath. +</p> + +<p> +The <hi rend='bold'>one work</hi> of verse +21 is the healing of the man +on the Sabbath day (v. 9, +16). Some prefer to connect +<q>propterea</q> with verse 21: +<q>and you all wonder on account +of it.</q> But it is better +to connect it, as in the +Vulgate, with what follows. +The sense is: it was on this +account Moses gave you circumcision; +namely, because +it had been handed down from +the Patriarchs (Gen. xvii. 10), +not because it was properly a +part of the law. If then a +man may receive circumcision +on the Sabbath, <emph>and yet</emph> the +law regarding the observance +of the Sabbath is not violated +thereby, are you angry with +Me because, doing the will of +God, I made a man whole, +both body and soul, on the +Sabbath? In this explanation, +<q>ut</q> (ἵνα) is ecbatic, denoting +a consequence. See Gen. xxii. +14; John <ref target='X_17'>x. 17</ref>; Apoc. xiii. +<pb n='141'/><anchor id='Pg141'/> +13. Others, however, give +the particle its ordinary telic +force, and explain thus: If +then a man may receive circumcision +on the Sabbath, <emph>in +order that</emph> the law commanding +circumcision to be performed on +the eighth day be not violated, +are you angry, &c.? Both +explanations are probable, and +leave the argument unchanged. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Nolite iudicare secundum +faciem, sed iustum iudicium +iudicate.</cell> +<cell>24. Judge not according to +the appearance, but judge +just judgment.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. <hi rend='bold'>According to the +appearance</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, take no +account of persons, but judge +according to the merits of the +case. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Dicebant ergo quidam +ex Ierosolymis: Nonne hic est +quem quaerunt interficere?</cell> +<cell>25. Some therefore of Jerusalem +said: Is not this he +whom they seek to kill?</cell></row> +<row><cell>26. Et ecce palam loquitur, +et nihil ei dicunt. Numquid +vere cognoverunt principes +quia hic est Christus?</cell> +<cell>26. And behold he speaketh +openly, and they say nothing +to him. Have the rulers +known for a truth that this is +the Christ?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25, 26. Some of the people +of Jerusalem (the correct +reading is Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν) said: +can it be that they have discovered +that He is really +Christ? +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Sed hunc scimus unde +sit: Christus autem cum +venerit, nemo scit unde scit.</cell> +<cell>27. But we know this man +whence he is: but when the +Christ cometh, no man +knoweth whence he is.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +27. And yet this cannot be, +for we know this man whence +he is; but when the Christ +cometh no man knoweth +whence He is. This erroneous +opinion of theirs may have +arisen from Micheas, v. 2: +<q>His going forth is from the +beginning from the days of +eternity;</q> and Mal. iii. 2: +<q>And who shall be able to +think of the day of His +coming?</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>28. Clamabat ergo Iesus in +templo docens, et dicens: Et +me scitis, et unde sim scitis: +et a meipso non veni, sed est +verus qui misit me, quem vos +nescitis.</cell> +<cell>28. Jesus therefore cried +out in the temple, teaching +and saying: You both +know me, and you know +whence I am, and I am not +come of myself; but he that +sent me is true, whom you +know not.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +28. The meaning is: You +<pb n='142'/><anchor id='Pg142'/> +know Me as man, and you +know My parents, and yet I +come not of My own authority, +but sent by My Father, who +therein shows Himself true to +His promises. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Ego scio eum: quia ab +ipso sum, et ipse me misit.</cell> +<cell>29. I know him, because I +am from him, and he hath +sent me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +29. He declares His Divine +knowledge of the Father, His +eternal generation, and mission +in time. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>30. Quaerebant ergo eum +apprehendere: et nemo misit +in illum manus, quia nondum +venerat hora eius.</cell> +<cell>30. They sought therefore +to apprehend him: and no +man laid hands on him, +because his hour was not yet +come.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +30. They rightly understand +Him to claim to be Divine, +and as a consequence seek to +apprehend Him; but the time +for His sufferings had not yet +arrived, and so they were +powerless. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>31. De turba autem multi +crediderunt in eum, et dicebant: +Christus cum venerit, +numquid plura signa faciet +quam quae hic facit?</cell> +<cell>31. But of the people many +believed in him, and said: +When the Christ cometh, shall +he do more miracles than these +which this man doth?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +31. Many of the multitude—in +contrast with their leaders—believed +in Him. <hi rend='bold'>When the +Christ cometh, shall he</hi>, &c. +The question, expecting, as it +does, a negative answer (numquid), +suggests that Jesus must +be the Christ. +</p> + +<anchor id='VII_32'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. Audierunt pharisaei +turbam murmurantem de illo +haec: et miserunt principes et +pharisaei ministros, ut apprehenderent +eum.</cell> +<cell>32. The Pharisees heard the +people murmuring these things +concerning him: and the +rulers and Pharisees sent +ministers to apprehend him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +32. <hi rend='bold'>Rulers</hi>, rather chief +priests (ἀρχιερεῖς). The +<hi rend='bold'>ministers</hi> were officers attendant +upon the Sanhedrim, or +engaged about the temple. +See verses <ref target='VII_45'>45, 46</ref>; xiii. <ref target='XIII_3'>3</ref>, <ref target='XIII_18'>18</ref>, <ref target='XIII_22'>22</ref>; +<ref target='XIX_6'>xix. 6</ref>; Acts v. 22, 26. As +the Sanhedrim was made up of +chief priests, Pharisees, and +Scribes, probably it was the +Sanhedrim that sent these +ministers to apprehend Christ. +</p> + +<anchor id='VII_33'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>33. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: +Adhuc modicum tempus vobiscum +sum: et vado ad eum qui +me misit.</cell> +<cell>33. Jesus therefore said to +them: Yet a little while I am +with you: and <hi rend='italic'>then</hi> I go to +him that sent me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +33. Omit <q>eis</q> (to them). +<pb n='143'/><anchor id='Pg143'/> +Christ's words were probably +directed not merely to the +ministers, but to all the people. +<hi rend='bold'>Yet a little while I am with +you</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, almost six months +more after this feast of Tabernacles, +and then He would go +to the Father. +</p> + +<anchor id='VII_34'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>34. Quaeretis me, et non +invenietis: et ubi ego sum vos +non potestis venire.</cell> +<cell>34. You shall seek me, and +shall not find me: and where +I am, <hi rend='italic'>thither</hi> you cannot come.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +34. <hi rend='bold'>You shall seek me, and +shall not find me.</hi> Some +think these words were fulfilled +at the siege of Jerusalem, when +many of the Jews must have +looked in vain for help from +Him whom they had put to +death. +</p> + +<p> +Others, like Maldonatus, +say the statement is conditional: +even if you sought me, +you should not find me, after a +little while. +</p> + +<p> +Since the same words: +<q>You shall seek me,</q> were +afterwards addressed to the +Apostles (xiii. 33), it is not +likely that the reference is to +seeking Him at the destruction +of Jerusalem, for the Apostles +did not seek Him then. It +would also seem from xiii. 33 +that the view of Maldonatus +just stated is not probable, for +in xiii. 33 there is not a conditional +statement, but simply +a prediction that the Apostles +would seek Him. Hence we +take it that in the text before +us also, there is a prediction +that the Jews after His departure +would, when in distress +and tribulation, desire to see +Him once more among them. +Doubtless, many Jews afterwards +had such a desire, but it +was in vain, for He had gone +to Him that sent Him. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And where I am</hi> (= shall +be) <hi rend='bold'>thither you cannot come</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +These words too were afterwards +addressed to the Apostles +(xiii. 33), and we believe in the +same sense as here. The meaning +is that until death at least +the separation would be complete, +for He would be no longer +here, and where He would be +they could not join Him. Some +take the words: <q>You cannot +come,</q> as meaning here that +the Jews on account of their +sins could <emph>never</emph> enter heaven. +But since, as we have said, the +same words were afterwards +addressed to the Apostles, the +view we have adopted seems +more probable. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>35. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad +semetipsos: Quo hic iturus +est, quia non inveniemus eum? +numquid in dispersionem gentium +iturus est, et docturus +gentes?</cell> +<cell>35. The Jews therefore said, +among themselves: Whither +will he go, that we shall not +find him? will he go unto the +dispersed among the gentiles, +and teach the gentiles?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +35. <hi rend='bold'>The dispersed among +the Gentiles</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, the Jews +scattered among the Gentiles, +or more probably the Gentiles +<pb n='144'/><anchor id='Pg144'/> +themselves (Ἑλλήνων, not Ἑλληνιστῶν) +scattered over the world. +The concluding words of the +verse: <q>and teach the Gentiles</q> +render the latter view +the more probable. +</p> + +<anchor id='VII_36'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>36. Quis est hic sermo, +quem dixit: Quaeretis me, et +non invenietis: et ubi sum +ego, vos non potestis venire?</cell> +<cell>36. What is this saying +that he hath said: You shall +seek me, and shall not find +me; and where I am, you +cannot come?</cell></row> +<row><cell>37. In novissimo autem die +magno festivitatis, stabat +Iesus, et clamabat, dicens: Si +quis sitit, veniat ad me, et +bibat.</cell> +<cell>37. And on the last <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> +great day of the festivity, +Jesus stood and cried, saying: +If any man thirst, let him +come to me, and drink.</cell></row> +<row><cell>38. Qui credit in me, sicut +dicit scriptura, flumina de +ventre eius fluent aquae vivae.</cell> +<cell>38. He that believeth in me, +as the scripture saith, <hi rend='italic'>Out of +his belly shall flow rivers of +living water</hi>.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +37, 38. On the last day, the +great day of the feast, that is, the +eighth day, Jesus cried aloud to +the people assembled at the +temple. His words mean: If +anyone thirst spiritually, let him +come to Me by faith, and grace +shall be abundantly poured into +his soul. The words: <hi rend='bold'>Out of +his belly</hi>, &c., are nowhere +to be found in the Old Testament; +but, as signifying the +abundance of grace in the new +dispensation, they convey the +sense of many passages of the +Old Testament. See Is. xli. +18, xliv. 3.; Ezech. xxxvi. 25; +Joel ii. 28. +</p> + +<anchor id='VII_39'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>39. Hoc autem dixit de +Spiritu, quem accepturi erant +credentes in eum: nondum +enim erat Spiritus datus, quia +Iesus nondum erat glorificatus.</cell> +<cell>39. Now this he said of the +Spirit which they should receive +who believed in him: for as +yet the Spirit was not given, +because Jesus was not yet +glorified.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +39. The Evangelist gives an +authentic interpretation of our +Lord's words: <hi rend='bold'>For as yet +the Spirit was not given</hi>. +These words explain why our +Lord spoke of the abundant +outpouring of the Spirit as +<emph>still to come</emph>, for the Holy Ghost +was not yet given, inasmuch as +Christ was not yet glorified (xvi. +7). When it is said that the +Holy Ghost was not yet given, +the meaning is, that He was +not yet given so <emph>abundantly</emph>, so +<emph>manifestly</emph>, or so <emph>universally</emph>, +as He has been since the first +Pentecost. It is not meant +that the Holy Ghost had not +been given to the just of the +Old Testament. They, as well +<pb n='145'/><anchor id='Pg145'/> +as we, had the grace of the +Holy Ghost in their souls; +moreover, according to the +common teaching of the fathers +and theologians, they, like the +just now, had the Holy Ghost +united to their souls, not merely +by His grace, but also by a +substantial union. This union +is not, however, peculiar +to the Holy Ghost, but is +common to the Three Divine +Persons, by reason of their +unity of nature, and is only by +appropriation attributed to the +Holy Ghost. See Franz., <hi rend='italic'>De +Trin., last Disp.</hi>; Corl., pp. 198, +199. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>40. Ex illa ergo turba cum +audissent hos sermones eius, +dicebant: Hic est vere propheta.</cell> +<cell>40. Of that multitude therefore, +when they had heard +these words of his, some said: +This is the prophet indeed.</cell></row> +<row><cell>41. Alii dicebant: Hic est +Christus. Quidam autem +dicebant: Numquid a Galilaea +venit Christus?</cell> +<cell>41. Others said: This is the +Christ. But some said: Doth +the Christ come out of Galilee?</cell></row> +<row><cell>42. Nonne scriptura dicit: +Quia ex semine David, et de +Bethlehem castello, ubi erat +David, venit Christus?</cell> +<cell>42. Doth not the scripture +say: That Christ cometh out +of the seed of David, and from +Bethlehem the town where +David was?</cell></row> +<row><cell>43. Dissensio itaqua facta +est in turba propter eum.</cell> +<cell>43. So there arose a dissension +among the people because +of him.</cell></row> +<row><cell>44. Quidam autem ex ipsis +volebant apprehendere eum: +sed nemo misit super eum +manus.</cell> +<cell>44. And some of them +would have apprehended him: +but no man laid hands upon +him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +40-44. The Evangelist notes +the difference of opinion among +the crowd. Some believed +Him to be <emph>the Prophet</emph> promised +to Moses (Deut. xviii. 18); +others (wrongly distinguishing +between the Prophet and the +Messias) held Him to be the +Messias; others doubted (verse +41); others remained wholly +incredulous (verse 44). In verse +42, three different passages of +Sacred Scripture are combined: +<q>of the seed of David</q> (Is. xi. +1); <q>from Bethlehem</q> (Mich. +v. 2); <q>the town where David +was</q> (1 Kings xvii. 12). +</p> + +<anchor id='VII_45'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>45. Venerunt ergo ministri +ad pontifices et pharisaeos. +Et dixerunt eis illi: Quare non +adduxistis illum?</cell> +<cell>45. The ministers therefore +came to the chief priests and +the Pharisees. And they said +to them: Why have you not +brought him?</cell></row> +<row><cell>46. Responderunt ministri: +Numquam sic locutus est +homo, sicut hic homo.</cell> +<cell>46. The ministers answered: +Never did man speak like this +man.</cell></row> +<row><cell>47. Responderunt ergo eis +pharisaei; numquid et vos +seducti estis?</cell> +<cell>47. The Pharisees therefore +answered them: Are you also +seduced?</cell></row> +<row><cell>48. Numquid ex principibus +aliquis credidit in eum, aut ex +pharisaeis?</cell> +<cell>48. Hath any one of the +rulers believed in him, or of +the Pharisees?</cell></row> +<row><cell>49. Sed turba haec, quae +non novit legem maledicti sunt.</cell> +<cell>49. But this multitude that +knoweth not the law, are +accursed.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +45-49. The officers, who had +been sent a few days before to +apprehend Christ (see above, <ref target='VII_14'>14</ref>, +<ref target='VII_32'>32</ref>), or perhaps other officers, return +and bear favourable testimony +to Him, for which they +are rebuked by the Pharisees. +</p> + +<pb n='146'/><anchor id='Pg146'/> + +<anchor id='VII_50'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>50. Dixit Nicodemus ad eos, +ille qui venit ad eum nocte, +qui unus erat ex ipsis.</cell> +<cell>50. Nicodemus said to them, +he that came to him by night, +who was one of them.</cell></row> +<row><cell>51. Numquid lex nostra +iudicat hominem nisi prius +audierit ab ipso, et cognoverit +quid faciat?</cell> +<cell>51. Doth our law judge any +man, unless it first hear him, +and know what he doth?</cell></row> +<row><cell>52. Responderunt, et dixerunt +ei: Numquid et tu +Galilaeus es? Scrutare scripturas, +et vide quia a Galilaea +propheta non surgit.</cell> +<cell>52. They answered and said +to him: Art thou also a Galilean? +Search the scriptures, +and see that out of Galilee a +prophet riseth not.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +50-52. Nicodemus (iii. 1, 2) +interposes in Christ's favour; +to whom the members of the +Sanhedrim impatiently reply +that no prophet had ever arisen +in Galilee, thus disposing, as +they thought, of Christ's claim +to be a prophet. But they +were wrong in their assumption +that Christ had been +born in Galilee (see Luke ii. +4-7), and equally wrong in +the conclusion they drew that, +being a Galilean, He could not +be a prophet. For the Sacred +Scriptures had nowhere said +that a prophet could not arise +in Galilee; nay, they prove +that the prophet Jonas was a +Galilean, 4 Kings, xiv. 25. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>53. Et reversi sunt unusquisque +in domum suam.</cell> +<cell>53. And every man returned +to his own house.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +53. See next chapter. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='147'/><anchor id='Pg147'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter VIII.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-2. <hi rend='bold'>Christ having spent the night on the Mount of Olives, returns +in the morning to the temple and teaches.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +3-11. <hi rend='bold'>The story of the woman taken in adultery.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +12-20. <hi rend='bold'>Discourse of Christ with the Pharisees in the treasury.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +21-29. <hi rend='bold'>He upbraids them for their incredulity, and foretells His own +crucifixion.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +30-50. <hi rend='bold'>Many believed in Him, but others remained incredulous (33), and +to these He says that they are not the children of Abraham, +but of the devil.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +51-59. <hi rend='bold'>Challenged by the Jews, He declares Himself greater than +Abraham; and when they were about to stone Him for this +declaration, He hides Himself.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Authenticity of John vii. 53-viii. 11.</head> + +<p> +This is the second of the +three passages in our Gospel, +whose authenticity has been +seriously questioned. See +<ref target='Intro_VI'>Introd. VI</ref>. We shall sum up +the evidence by which the +critical question must be +decided, and then say what +we think as to the genuineness +of the passage. +</p> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Evidence against Authenticity.</head> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='italic'>Manuscripts.</hi>—The passage +is wanting in the four +oldest Greek MSS. that we +possess, viz., in B, א, A, C; +the two former of which are +thought by critics to belong +to the fourth, and the +two latter, to the fifth century; +also in four other <emph>uncial</emph> MSS., +in more than sixty <emph>cursives</emph>, +and in thirty-three Evangelistaries.<note place='foot'>Evangelistaries are selections from the Gospels for the purpose of +liturgical reading.</note> +In about fifty +other MSS., though read, it is +marked as doubtful. +</p> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='italic'>Versions.</hi>—It is wanting +in the best MSS. of the <q>Vetus +Itala;</q> in the <q>Simple</q> and +<q>Figured</q> Syriac; in most +MSS. of the Coptic; in all of +Gothic, and in some of the +Armenian. +</p> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='italic'>Fathers.</hi>—The passage is +<pb n='148'/><anchor id='Pg148'/> +not commented upon by any +of the Greek fathers that +wrote upon this Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +4. <hi rend='italic'>Internal evidence</hi> is said +to prove the passage spurious, +because of the use of many +words and phrases not elsewhere +used by St. John.<note place='foot'><q>Relate ad stylum haec praesertim notantur; pro particala οὖν quam +amat Joannes, semper adhibetur δέ; deinde occurunt vocabula (vel phrases), +quibus Joannes nullibi utitur: ὄρθρον, πᾶς ὁ λαός, καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς, οἱ +γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαίοι, ἐπιμενεῖν, ἀναμάρτητος, καταλείπεσθαι, κατακρίνειν, +et πλήν.</q>—Corn., Introd., iii., p. 235, n. 3.</note> +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Evidence in favour of Authenticity.</head> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='italic'>Manuscripts.</hi>—The passage +is found in seven <emph>uncial</emph> +MSS. (one of which, D, though +itself only of the sixth century, +is thought to represent the +text of the Gospels as it stood +in the second century); in +more than three hundred cursives, +and in six Evangelistaries. +</p> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='italic'>Versions.</hi>—The passage +is found in the Latin Vulgate, +in the Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, +Syriac of Jerusalem, Slavic, +and Anglo-Saxon. +</p> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='italic'>Fathers.</hi>—<emph>The passage</emph> is +read by nearly all the Latin +fathers—Ambrose, Augustine, +Jerome, Leo the Great, Chrysologus, +Sedulius, Cassiodorus, +&c.; and in the <hi rend='italic'>Apostolic +Constitutions</hi>, a work of the +third, or, at the latest, the +fourth century. +</p> + +<p> +4. <hi rend='italic'>Internal Evidence</hi>—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) +Christ's merciful treatment of +the adulteress harmonizes +beautifully with His declaration +immediately after (viii. 15), +that at His first coming He +condemned no man. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) It is +inconceivable how a passage +<emph>of this nature</emph> could ever have +found its way into so many +MSS., unless it was written +by St. John. On the other +hand, it is easy to see how, +though genuine, it came to be +omitted in many MSS., through +the fear that Christ's merciful +treatment of the adulteress +might encourage sinners. +This is exactly what St. Augustine +says:—<q>Nonnulli modicae +fidei, vel potius inimici verae +fidei, credo metuentes peccandi +impunitatem dari mulieribus +suis, illud quod de adulterae +indulgentia Dominus fecit, +abstulerunt de codicibus suis, +quasi permissionem peccandi +tribuerit qui dixit: <q>Jam +deinceps noli peccare</q></q> (St. +Aug., <hi rend='italic'>De Conj. Adult.</hi>, 2, 7). +</p> + +<p> +As regards the arguments +<emph>against</emph> the passage, we believe +that the reason given by +St. Augustine in the words +just quoted, explains the +absence of the passage in so +many MSS., versions, and +fathers. As to the internal +arguments against the passage, +it must be admitted that a +number of words are used here +which are not met with elsewhere +in the writings of +St. John; but then the subject +is peculiar, and besides in +many other passages which +<pb n='149'/><anchor id='Pg149'/> +are unquestioned, we meet +with several words not used +elsewhere by the Evangelist.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, ix. 21-28, ἡλικίαν ἕχειν; συντίθεσθαι; λοιδορείν.</note> +Even Renan admits that there +is nothing in the passage that +is at variance with the style of +the fourth Gospel.<note place='foot'><q>Rien dans le morceau ne fait disparate avec le style du quatrième +Evangile.</q>—Renan, <hi rend='italic'>Vie de Jesus</hi>, ed. 18, page 500.</note> +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Conclusion.</head> + +<p> +From the evidence, which +has been impartially laid before +the reader, we hold we are +justified in concluding that +even on mere critical grounds +the passage is more probably +genuine. Some, as Franzelin +(<hi rend='italic'>De Sacra. Script.</hi>, Thes. xix., +pp. 466, 467), go farther, and +hold, that since the decree of +the Council of Trent (Sess. iv.), +which defined all the sacred +books of the Bible, and <emph>all their +parts</emph>, as found in the Latin +Vulgate, to be canonical, it is +not lawful for any Catholic to +question the authenticity of +this passage. They argue that +this passage constitutes a <emph>part</emph> +(not merely a <q>particula</q>) of +the Gospel of St. John, and is, +therefore, covered by the +decree of Trent. Nor can +it be said in reply that +the Council, in the words +<q>cum omnibus suis partibus,</q> +meant to define the +authenticity of the Deuterocanonical +fragments of the +<emph>Old</emph> Testament only, for the +Acts<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Theiner</hi>, i., pp. 71-77.</note> of the Council show +that these words were intended +to refer especially to the +fragments of the Gospels. +</p> + +<p> +To conclude, then, we hold +that we are not only critically +justified in accepting John vii. +53-viii. 11, as authentic, but +that it is extremely probable +that as Catholics we are <emph>bound</emph> +to accept it. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Text.</head> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Iesus autem perrexit in +montem Oliveti:</cell> +<cell>1. And Jesus went unto +mount Olivet.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Et diluculo iterum venit in +templum, et omnis populus +venit ad eum, et sedens +docebat eos.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. Early on the morning +that followed the eight days +of the Feast of Tabernacles +(see <ref target='VII_36'>vii. 37</ref>), He came again +to the temple, and all the +<pb n='150'/><anchor id='Pg150'/> +people who were assembled in +the City from the various parts +of Palestine, came to Him, +and He was teaching them. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Adducunt autem scribae +et pharisaei mulierem in adulterio +deprehensam: et statuerunt +eam in medio.</cell> +<cell>3. And the scribes and +Pharisees bring unto him a +woman taken in adultery; +and they set her in the midst,</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. While Jesus was engaged +in teaching the people, the +Pharisees bring to him a +woman who had been caught +in adultery, <hi rend='bold'>in the very act</hi>, +as we learn from the Greek of +verse 4. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Et dixerunt ei: Magister, +haec mulier modo deprehensa +est in adulterio.</cell> +<cell>4. And said to him: Master, +this woman was even now +taken in adultery.</cell></row> +<row><cell>5. In lege autem Moyses +mandavit nobis huiusmodi +lapidare. Tu ergo quid dicis?</cell> +<cell>5. Now Moses in the law +commanded us to stone such +a one. But what sayest thou?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. It is not stated anywhere +in the Pentateuch that the +adulterer and adulteress should +be <emph>stoned</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Hoc autem dicebant +tentantes eum, ut possent +accusare eum. Iesus autem +inclinans se deorsum, digito +scribebat in terra.</cell> +<cell>6. And this they said, +tempting him, that they might +accuse him. But Jesus bowing +himself down, wrote with his +finger on the ground.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Cum ergo perseverarent +interrogantes eum, erexit se, +et dixit eis: Qui sine peccato +est vestrum, primus in illam +lapidem mittat.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. <hi rend='bold'>Let him first cast a +stone at her.</hi> The deep +wisdom of this answer gave +them no ground for charging +<pb n='151'/><anchor id='Pg151'/> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Et iterum se inclinans, +scribebat in terra.</cell> +<cell>8. And again stooping down, +he wrote on the ground.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Audientes autem unus +post unum exibant, incipientes +a senioribus: et remansit solus +Iesus, et mulier in medio +stans.</cell> +<cell>9. But they hearing <hi rend='italic'>this</hi> +went out one by one, beginning +at the eldest. And Jesus +alone remained, and the +woman standing in the midst.</cell></row> +<row><cell>10. Erigens autem se Iesus, +dixit ei: Mulier, ubi sunt qui +te accusabant? nemo te condemnavit?</cell> +<cell>10. Then Jesus lifting up +himself, said to her: Woman, +where are they that accused +thee? Hath no man condemned +thee?</cell></row> +<row><cell>11. Quae dixit: Nemo, +Domine. Dixit autem Iesus: +Nec ego te condemnabo: vade, +et iam amplius noli peccare.</cell> +<cell>11. Who said: No man, +Lord. And Jesus said: +Neither will I condemn thee. +Go, and now sin no more.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. <hi rend='bold'>Neither will I condemn +thee. Go, and now sin no +more.</hi> 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 +<pb n='152'/><anchor id='Pg152'/> +it, Christ's Divine power to +forgive sin. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Iterum ergo locutus est +eis Iesus, dicens. Ego sum +lux mundi: qui sequitur me +non ambulat in tenebris, sed +habebit lumen vitae.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <ref target='I_5'>i. 5</ref>. They follow +Christ, who believe in Him, +and obey Him. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Dixerunt ergo ei pharisaei: +Tu de teipso testimonium +perhibes: testimonium +tuum non est verum.</cell> +<cell>13. The Pharisees therefore +said to him: Thou givest +testimony of thyself: thy +testimony is not true.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +13. <hi rend='bold'>Thy testimony is not +true</hi>; that is to say, is not +juridical, such as ought to be +accepted. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='VIII_15'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Vos secundum carnem +iudicatis: ego non iudico +quemquam:</cell> +<cell>15. You judge according to +the flesh: I judge not any +man.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. <hi rend='bold'>You judge according +to the flesh</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, 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. <hi rend='bold'>I judge not any +man.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='153'/><anchor id='Pg153'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Et si iudico ego, iudicium +meum verum est, quia solus +non sum: sed ego, et qui +misit me, Pater.</cell> +<cell>16. And if I do judge, my +judgment is true: because +I am not alone, but I and the +Father that sent me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <ref target='X_29'>x. 30</ref>; +<ref target='XIV_10'>xiv. 10</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Et in lege vestra scriptum +est, quia duorum hominum +testimonium verum est.</cell> +<cell>17. And in your law it is +written, that the testimony of +two men is true.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17. Καὶ ... δὲ, indicate the +transition in which He passes +from speaking of condemnation +to speak of His testimony. +Your law, He says, requires +and is satisfied with two +Witnesses (Deut. xvii. 6). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Ego sum qui testimonium +perhibeo de meipso: et +testimonium perhibet de me, +qui misit me, Pater.</cell> +<cell>18. I am one that give testimony +of myself: and the +Father that sent me, giveth +testimony of me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. Now, two bear testimony +to Me. Two <emph>Persons</emph> 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). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Dicebant ergo ei: Ubi +est Pater tuus? Respondit +Iesus: Neque me scitis, neque +Patrem meum: si me sciretis +forsitan et Patrem meum sciretis.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. To their question Jesus +answers: <hi rend='bold'>Neither me do you +know, nor my Father</hi>. The +sense is: You know not who +I am, <emph>that I am God</emph>; 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 <q>forsitan,</q> see above +on <ref target='IV_10'>iv. 10</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Haec verba locutus est +Iesus in gazophylacio, docens +in templo: et nemo apprehendit +eum, quia necdum venerat +hora eius.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +20. The Greek word translated +by <q>treasury</q> is γαζοφυλακίῳ, +derived from the Persian +<foreign rend='italic'>gaza</foreign> (money), and φυλάσσω (to +guard). This treasury was +a chest or safe for holding +<pb n='154'/><anchor id='Pg154'/> +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 <ref target='II_14'>ii. 14</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Dixit ergo iterum eis +Iesus: Ego vado, et quaeretis +me, et in peccato vestro moriemini. +Quo ego vado, vos non +potestis venire?</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <ref target='VII_34'>vii. 34</ref>. The +particular <emph>sin</emph> referred to here +is infidelity; but dying in +infidelity, meant dying in +many sins besides; and hence +the plural <emph>sins</emph>, is used in +verse 24. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Dicebant ergo Iudaei: +Numquid interficiet semetipsum, +quia dixit: Quo ego +vado, vos non potestis venire?</cell> +<cell>22. The Jews therefore said: +Will he kill himself, because +he said: Whither I go, you +cannot come?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. Josephus (<hi rend='italic'>De Bello Jud.</hi>, +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? +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Et dicebat eis: Vos de +deorsum estis, ego de supernis +sum. Vos de mundo hoc estis, +ego non sum de hoc mundo.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. Taking no notice of +what had just been said, Jesus +proceeds in His discourse. +<hi rend='bold'>You</hi>, He says, <hi rend='bold'>are from +beneath, I am from above</hi> +(see <ref target='III_31'>iii. 31</ref>); <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, you are +earthly in origin and nature, I +am of heaven; moreover, you +are earthly in sentiment, you +belong to the <emph>wicked</emph> world +(see <ref target='XV_19'>xv. 19</ref>), 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 +<pb n='155'/><anchor id='Pg155'/> +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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>peccato</foreign> +(Vulg.) in the end of verse 24, +read <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>peccatis</foreign>. <hi rend='bold'>For if you believe +not that I am he.</hi> <q>He</q> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Dixi ergo vobis quia +moriemini in peccatis vestris: +si enim non credideritis quia +ego sum, moriemini in peccato +vestro.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>25. Dicebant ergo ei: Tu +quis es? Dixit eis Iesus: +Principium, qui et loquor vobis.</cell> +<cell>25. They said therefore to +him: Who art thou? Jesus +said to them: The beginning, +who also speak unto you.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25. This is a very obscure +verse. Christ had just spoken +of faith in Himself; but in +Himself <emph>under what aspect</emph> He +had not defined; and now in +the hope of evoking an answer +for which they could punish +Him, they ask: <hi rend='bold'>Who art +thou?</hi> His answer is purposely +obscure. It is according to +the Greek text, τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι +(or ὅ τι) καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; which +is rendered in the Vulgate: +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Principium qui et loquor vobis</foreign>, +and in our Rheims version: +<hi rend='bold'>The beginning, who also +speak unto you</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +About the meaning of this +answer there is a great diversity +opinion. Some take the +words affirmatively, others +interrogatively; some understand +τὴν ἀρχήν as a substantive, +others as an adverb; +some regard ὅ τι as a relative +(that which), others as an +interrogative = τί (how or +why?) and others again as a +conjunction, ὅτι (for, or, +because). The Vulgate translator +may have read ὅστις +(who) instead of ὅ τι, or ὅτι; +or possibly <q>Qui et</q> of our +Vulgate is a corruption of +<q>quia,</q> which is found in the +oldest Vulgate MSS. The +objection against the Vulgate +and English translations is +that while τῆν ἀρχήν is an +accusative, they <emph>seem</emph> 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: +<q>Believe Me to be,</q> before +the sentence, thus making +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>principium</foreign> the accusative after +<pb n='156'/><anchor id='Pg156'/> +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>esse</foreign>: Believe Me to be the +beginning, &c. +</p> + +<p> +(2) Others, understanding +τὴν ἀρχήν in the same way +as the preceding opinion, take +ὁ τι as a relative, and render: +I am the beginning, that which +I also declare unto you. +Here there is room for attraction, +since the relative is now +taken as an accusative; but +against such attraction is the +usage of St. John, as already +stated. +</p> + +<p> +(3) Others, taking τὴν ἀρχήν +as an adverb (from the beginning), +render: I am from the +beginning, from eternity, what +I even declare unto you. But it +is objected to this view that τὴν +ἀρχήν is not found elsewhere in +Sacred Scripture in this sense, +and moreover that the verb +λαλῶ (to discuss with, to converse) +is wrongly taken to be +equivalent to λέγω (to declare). +To this latter point, however, +it is replied that the two verbs +are frequently interchanged in +later Greek. +</p> + +<p> +(4) Others thus: Even that +which I have also spoken to +you from the beginning.<note place='foot'>So the Protestant Revised Version, which in the margin gives as an +alternative: How is it that I even speak to you at all?</note> +But this view is open to the +same objections as the preceding. +</p> + +<p> +(5) Others again: Essentially +(or, in very deed) that which I +speak unto you. So Alford. +</p> + +<p> +(6) Others: On the whole, +why do I even speak with you? +So St. Chrys., Corluy, &c. +</p> + +<p> +(7) Others: Absolutely, or +most certainly, that which I +also tell you. So Beel., Kuin, +&c. Τὴν ἀρχήν is thus taken as +equivalent to <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>omnino</foreign>, for which +sense Beelen quotes several +classical writers. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>26. Multa habeo de vobis +loqui, et iudicare: sed qui me +misit, verax est: et ego quae +audivi ab eo, haec loquor in +mundo.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +26. Some explain thus: I +have many things to say of +you, and to condemn in you, +<pb n='157'/><anchor id='Pg157'/> +<emph>but with this only will I charge +you now</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Et non cognoverunt quia +Patrem eius dicebat Deum.</cell> +<cell>27. And they understood +not that he called God his +father.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +27. The Greek is: <hi rend='italic'>They +knew not that He spoke to them +of the Father</hi>. +</p> + +<anchor id='VIII_28'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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:</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +28. <hi rend='bold'>Lifted up.</hi> 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. <ref target='V_19'>19</ref>, <ref target='V_20'>20</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Et qui me misit, mecum +est et non reliquit me solum, +quia ego quae placita sunt ei, +facio semper.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +29. <hi rend='bold'>For.</hi> <q>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</q> (Westc.). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>30. Haec illo loquente, multi +crediderunt in eum.</cell> +<cell>30. When he spoke these +things, many believed in him.</cell></row> +<row><cell>31. Dicebat ergo Iesus ad +eos, qui crediderunt ei Iudaeos: +Si vos manseritis in sermone +meo, vere discipuli mei eritis:</cell> +<cell>31. Then Jesus said to those +Jews who believed him: If +you continue in my word, you +shall be my disciples indeed.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +31. Christ here lays down +the test by which His disciples +are to be known. It is only +when we accept His words, +<pb n='158'/><anchor id='Pg158'/> +and conform our works thereto, +that we can be truly said to be +His disciples. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. Et cognoscetis veritatem, +et veritas liberabit vos.</cell> +<cell>32. And you shall know the +truth, and the truth shall +make you free.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +32. <hi rend='bold'>The truth</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, the +whole body of revelation. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>33. Responderunt ei: Semen +Abrahae sumus, et nemini +servivimus unquam: quomodo +tu dicis: Liberi eritis?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row> +<row><cell>34. Respondit eis Iesus: +Amen, amen dico vobis: quia +omnis qui facit peccatum, servus +est peccati:</cell> +<cell>34. Jesus answered them: +Amen, amen, I say unto you, +that whosoever committeth +sin, is the servant of sin.</cell></row> +<row><cell>35. Servus autem non manet +in domo in aeternum: filius +autem manet in aeternum:</cell> +<cell>35. Now the servant abideth +not in the house for ever: but +the son abideth for ever:</cell></row> +<row><cell>36. Si ergo vos filius liberaverit, +vere liberi eritis.</cell> +<cell>36. If therefore the son shall +make you free, you shall be +free indeed.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>37. Scio quia filii Abrahae +estis: sed quaeritis me interficere, +quia sermo meus non +capit in vobis.</cell> +<cell>37. I know that you are the +children of Abraham: but you +seek to kill me, because my +word hath no place in you.</cell></row> +<row><cell>38. Ego quod vidi apud +Patrem meum loquor, et vos +quae vidistis apud patrem vestrum, +facitis.</cell> +<cell>38. I speak that which I +have seen with my Father: +and you do the things that +you have seen with your father.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +38. <hi rend='bold'>Your father</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, the +devil (see verse <ref target='VIII_44'>44</ref>). Others +understand ποιεῖτε as an imperative; +do then the works which +<pb n='159'/><anchor id='Pg159'/> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>39. Responderunt, et dixerunt +ei: Pater noster Abraham +est. Dicit eis Iesus: Si filii +Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae +facite.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +39. <hi rend='bold'>If you be the children +of Abraham, do the works of +Abraham.</hi> The Greek is: If +you <emph>were</emph> the (true) children of +Abraham, you would do the +works of Abraham. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>40. Nunc autem quaeritis +me interficere, hominem qui +veritatem vobis locutus sum, +quam audivi a Deo: hoc +Abraham non fecit.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>41. Vos facitis opera patris +vestri. Dixerunt itaque ei: +Nos ex fornicatione non sumus +nati: unum patrem habemus +Deum.</cell> +<cell>41. You do the works of +your father. They said therefore +to him: We are not born +of fornication: we have one +Father <hi rend='italic'>even</hi> God.</cell></row> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +41, 42. Understanding Christ +to mean that they were not +true Jews, but idolaters (πορνέια +being frequently used of idolatry +in the Bible; <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, Ezech. xvi. +15, foll.; see ii. <ref target='II_4'>4</ref>, <ref target='II_5'>5</ref>,), 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. <hi rend='bold'>I proceeded +and came</hi>, denote +respectively the eternal generation, +and mission in +time. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>43. Quare loquelam meam +non cognoscitis? Quia non +potestis audire sermonem +meum.</cell> +<cell>43. Why do you not know +my speech? Because you +cannot hear my word.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +43. The sense is: why do +<pb n='160'/><anchor id='Pg160'/> +you not understand My discourses +(λαλιάν) on this and on +other occasions? The reason +is, because you cannot, you +<emph>will not</emph>, receive My doctrine +(λόγος). What we do not +desire to hear, we are slow to +understand. Christ's teaching, +so opposed to flesh and blood, +so much at variance with all +that the Jews had hoped for +from their Messias, they were +very unwilling to accept. +<q>Ideo audire non poterant, +quia corrigi credendo nolebant</q> +(St. August.). +</p> + +<anchor id='VIII_44'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>44. You are of <hi rend='italic'>your</hi> 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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +44. At last He plainly tells +them who their father is. <hi rend='bold'>He +was a murderer from the +beginning</hi>, for he tempted +Eve, and thus brought death +upon the human race, and he +prompted Cain to slay Abel. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And he stood not in the +truth</hi>; or rather, he <emph>standeth</emph> +not in the truth (the perfect of +this verb having a present signification. +See Winer, <hi rend='italic'>Gr. +Gram. N. T.</hi>, p. 342<note place='foot'>It is hardly necessary to remind the reader that the present of this verb +means to place, and hence the perfect means, I have placed myself, or stand.</note>), because +there is no truth in his nature. +St. Augustine argued from this +verse to prove the fall of the +rebel angels: <q>Ergo in veritate +fuit, sed non stando cecidit, +et de veritate lapsus est.</q> But +the conclusion is not warranted +by this verse, for the true +meaning of ἕστηκεν, and the +reason given by our Lord for +the devil's not standing in the +truth—namely, <hi rend='italic'>because truth is +not in him</hi>, show that there is +no reference to the devil as he +was before the fall, but only +to his nature and methods +since. <hi rend='bold'>Of his own</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, in +accordance with his nature. +<hi rend='bold'>The father thereof</hi>, namely, of +<emph>lying</emph>. We thus, with Beelen, +refer αὐτοῦ (ejus) to ψεύδους +<pb n='161'/><anchor id='Pg161'/> +(understood). <q>Αὐτοῦ, scil. +ψεύδους quae vox sumi debet +ex antegressa ψεύστης in qua +veluti continetur</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gr. Gram. +N. T.</hi>, page 104). +</p> + +<anchor id='VIII_45'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>45. Ego autem si veritatem +dico, non creditis mihi.</cell> +<cell>45. But if I say the truth, +you believe me not.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +45. Instead of <q>si</q> (Vulg.) +the Greek has ὅτι (quia): because +I speak the truth. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>46. Quis ex vobis arguet me +de peccato? Si veritatem dico +vobis, quare non creditis mihi?</cell> +<cell>46. Which of you shall convince +me of sin? If I say the +truth to you, why do you not +believe me?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>47. Qui ex Deo est, verba +Dei audit. Propterea vos non +auditis, quia ex Deo non estis.</cell> +<cell>47. He that is of God, +heareth the words of God. +Therefore you hear them not, +because you are not of God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +47. <q>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</q> (M'Evilly). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>48. Responderunt ergo Iudaei, +et dixerunt ei: Nonne +bene dicimus nos quia Samaritanus +es tu, et daemonium +habes?</cell> +<cell>48. The Jews therefore answered +and said to him: Do +not we say well that thou art +a Samaritan, and hast a devil?</cell></row> +<row><cell>49. Respondit Iesus: Ego +daemonium non habeo: sed +honorifico Patrem meum, et +vos inhonorastis me.</cell> +<cell>49. Jesus answered: I have +not a devil; but I honour my +Father, and you have dishonoured +me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='VIII_50'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>50. Ego autem non quaero +gloriam meam: est qui quaerat, +et iudicet.</cell> +<cell>50. But I seek not my own +glory: there is one that seeketh +and judgeth.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +50. But though <emph>you dishonour</emph> +(the Greek has the +present in end of 49) <emph>Me</emph>, I +<pb n='162'/><anchor id='Pg162'/> +will not seek to avenge the +dishonour; the Father will +avenge it. See Deut. xviii. 19. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>51. Amen, amen dico vobis: +si quis sermonem meum servaverit, +mortem non videbit in +aeternum.</cell> +<cell>51. Amen, amen, I say to +you: If any man keep my +word, he shall not see death +for ever.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +51. In verse 32, He promised +freedom, now He promises immortality, +to those that hearken +to His words. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>53. Numquid tu maior es +patre nostro Abraham, qui +mortuus est? et prophetae +mortui sunt. Quem teipsum +facis?</cell> +<cell>53. Art thou greater than +our father Abraham, who is +dead? and the prophets are +dead. Whom dost thou make +thyself?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +52, 53. The Jews accuse +Him of preferring Himself to +Abraham and the prophets, to +which He replies— +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>54. Respondit Iesus: Si ego +glorifico, meipsum, gloria mea +nihil est: est Pater meus, qui +glorificat me, quem vos dicitis +quia Deus vester est.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +54. If I glorify Myself, <emph>let it go +for nought</emph>; it is My Father, &c. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<pb n='163'/><anchor id='Pg163'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>56. Abraham pater vester +exultavit ut videret diem +meum: vidit, et gavisus est.</cell> +<cell>56. Abraham your father +rejoiced that he might see my +day: he saw it, and was glad.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +56. <hi rend='bold'>Abraham your father +rejoiced</hi>, &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 <emph>day</emph> 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>drop down dew, +ye heavens, from above, and let +the clouds rain the just</hi></q> (Is. +xlv. 8), the day or time of +Christ's mortal life on earth. +<hi rend='bold'>Rejoiced that he might see</hi> (ἵνα +ἴδη). Most probably the meaning +is, that Abraham, after +God had revealed to him that +the Messias was to be born of +his seed, hoped and yearned +in joyful confidence that he +might see Christ on earth. +<hi rend='bold'>He saw it, and was glad.</hi> It +would seem from these words +that Abraham saw in the way +in which he had yearned to +see. And since he cannot have +yearned to see Christ's day +merely by faith, for he already +saw it by faith; hence there +must be question here of some +other vision. Mald., A Lap., +and most commentators hold +that Abraham's mental vision +was elevated by God, so that +from limbo he saw and knew +that Christ was on earth just +as the angels and saints in +heaven know what happens +on earth and in hell. The aorist +tenses in the Greek (εἶδεν καὶ +ἐχάρη), with their past definite +signification, are not easily +reconciled with this view, and +hence others prefer to suppose +that there is reference to some +very special revelation made +to Abraham during his life on +earth, in which he saw with +something more than the +vision of ordinary faith the +time and various circumstances +of Christ's mortal life (compare +Heb. xi. 13). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>57. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei +ad eum: Quinquaginta annos +nondum habes, et Abraham +vidisti?</cell> +<cell>57. The Jews therefore said +to him: Thou art not yet +fifty years old, and hast thou +seen Abraham?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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., +<hi rend='italic'>Adv. Haer.</hi>, ii. 39, 40.) +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>58. Dixit eis Iesus: Amen, +amen dico vobis, antequam +Abraham fieret, ego sum.</cell> +<cell>58. Jesus said to them: +Amen, amen, I say to you, +before Abraham was made, I +am.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +58. In verse 56, He spoke +of the day of His mortal life, +<pb n='164'/><anchor id='Pg164'/> +now He declares His eternity. +<hi rend='bold'>Amen, amen, I say to you, +before Abraham was made</hi> +(γενέσθαι, came into being), <hi rend='bold'>I +am</hi> (ἐγώ εἴμι). +</p> + +<anchor id='VIII_59'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>59. Tulerunt ergo lapides, +ut iacerent in eum. Iesus +autem abscondit se, et exivit +de templo.</cell> +<cell>59. They took up stones +therefore to cast at him. But +Jesus hid himself, and went +out of the temple.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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: <q>And +going through the midst of +them went His way, and +so passed by;</q> but more +probably the words are a +gloss. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<pb n='165'/><anchor id='Pg165'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<anchor id='Chapter_IX'/> +<head>Chapter IX.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-7. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus cures a man born blind.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +8-13. <hi rend='bold'>Comments of the man's neighbours, who bring him to the +Pharisees.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +14. <hi rend='bold'>It was on the Sabbath day the cure was wrought.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +15-23. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +24-34. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +35-38. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus finds him, and now illumines the darkness of his soul.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +39-41. <hi rend='bold'>The blindness of the Pharisees.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Et praeteriens Iesus vidit +hominem caecum a nativitate:</cell> +<cell>1. And Jesus passing by, +saw a man who was blind +from his birth.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='bold'>Jesus</hi> should not +be read in this verse, being +spurious according to all critics, +but must be supplied from the +preceding chapter. +</p> + +<p> +The man was <hi rend='bold'>blind from +his birth</hi>, so that it was no +mere passing affection of the +eyes, from which he suffered; +and thus the miracle was the +more striking. +</p> + +<pb n='166'/><anchor id='Pg166'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Et interrogaverunt eum +discipuli eius: Rabbi, quis +peccavit, hic, aut parentes eius, +ut caecus nasceretur?</cell> +<cell>2. And his disciples asked +him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, +this man, or his parents, that +he should be born blind?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. How the disciples knew +the man had been <hi rend='bold'>born blind</hi>, +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 <q>jealous, +visiting the iniquities of the +fathers upon the children unto +the third and fourth generation</q> +(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 <emph>his +own</emph> 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.<note place='foot'>Besides the Pharisees believed that only the <emph>good</emph> souls passed into other +bodies. See Josephus, <hi rend='italic'>Ant.</hi>, viii. 1, 3; <hi rend='italic'>B. Jud.</hi>, ii. 8, 14.</note> +Others think that the +question means: was he born +blind for some sin which it <emph>was +foreseen</emph> 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, <emph>since +that is out of the question</emph>, was +it for the sin of his parents that +this man was born blind? +</p> + +<anchor id='IX_3'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Respondit Iesus: Neque +hic peccavit, neque parentes +eius: sed ut manifestentur +opera Dei in illo.</cell> +<cell>3. Jesus answered: Neither +hath this man sinned, nor his +parents; but that the works +of God should be made +manifest in him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. Christ replies that neither +the man himself nor his parents +had sinned, so as to explain his +blindness—ἵνα, as a <emph>cause</emph> 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='IX_4'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Me oportet operari opera +eius qui misit me, donec dies +est: venit nox, quando nemo +potest operari.</cell> +<cell>4. I must work the works +of him that sent me, whilst it +is day: the night cometh +when no man can work.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +4. <hi rend='bold'>Day</hi> is here the span of +Christ's mortal life: <hi rend='bold'>night</hi> +<pb n='167'/><anchor id='Pg167'/> +the time after death, when +Christ was no longer to perform +works visibly before men. +Of course, as God, Christ still +works, <q>sustaining all things by +the word of His power</q> (Heb. +i. 3), but of this Divine operation +there is no question here. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Quamdiu sum in mundo, +lux sum mundi.</cell> +<cell>5. As long as I am in the +world, I am the light of the +world.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. <hi rend='bold'>The light.</hi> See i. <ref target='I_3'>4</ref>, <ref target='I_5'>5</ref>. +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Haec cum dixisset, exspuit +in terram, et fecit lutum ex +sputo, et linivit lutum super +oculos eius.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +6. <hi rend='bold'>He spat on the ground.</hi> +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. <q>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).</q> (McEvilly). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Et dixit ei: Vade, lava in +natatoria Siloe (quod interpretatur +Missus). Abiit ergo, et +lavit, et venit videns.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. St. John interprets for his +readers the Hebrew name +(שׂלוח) of the pool. Some +have regarded the interpretation +as the gloss of a copyist +or interpreter; but there is +practically no authority for +doubting that it was written +by St. John. Doubtless the +pool bore this name for some +mystic reason; by the natural +salubrity of its waters, or by +a supernatural virtue, like +Bethesda (v. 2), it may have +typified <emph>Him who was sent</emph> from +God to heal men. The pool +which still retains its old name +<hi rend='italic'>Birket Silwan</hi>, is one of the +few undisputed sites at Jerusalem. +St. Jerome speaks of +<pb n='168'/><anchor id='Pg168'/> +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 <q>the +foot of Mount Moria,</q> 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 +<hi rend='italic'>Birket Silwan</hi> is still to be seen. +See also Josephus, <hi rend='italic'>Bella Jud.</hi>, +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Itaque vicini, et qui viderant +eum prius quia mendicus +erat, dicebant: Nonne hic est +qui sedebat et mendicabat? +Alii dicebant: Quia hic est.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>9. Alii autem: Nequaquam, +sed similis est ei. Ille vero +dicebat: Quia ego sum.</cell> +<cell>9. But others <hi rend='italic'>said</hi>: No, but +he is like him. But he said: +I am he.</cell></row> +<row><cell>10. Dicebant ergo ei: Quomodo +aperti sunt tibi oculi?</cell> +<cell>10. They said therefore to +him: How were thy eyes +opened?</cell></row> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. <hi rend='bold'>He answered: That +man</hi> (ὁ ἄνθρωπος is the true +reading) <hi rend='bold'>that is called Jesus.</hi> +He yet recognises in Christ +only a holy man, but refers +to Him as one who was +well known and much spoken +of. +</p> + +<pb n='169'/><anchor id='Pg169'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Et dixerunt ei: Ubi est +ille? Ait: Nescio.</cell> +<cell> +12. And they said to him: +Where is he? He saith: I +know not.</cell></row> +<row><cell>13. Adducunt eum ad pharisaeos +qui caecus fuerat.</cell> +<cell>13. They bring him that +had been blind to the Pharisees.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Erat autem sabbatum, +quando lutum fecit Iesus, et +aperuit oculos eius.</cell> +<cell>14. Now it was the sabbath +when Jesus made the clay and +opened his eyes.</cell></row> +<row><cell>15. Iterum ergo interrogabant +eum pharisaei quomodo +vidisset. Ille autem dixit eis: +Lutum mihi posuit super +oculos, et lavi, et video.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>17. Dicunt ergo caeco iterum: +Tu quid dicis de illo qui +aperuit oculos tuos? Ille autem +dixit: Quia propheta est.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16, 17. The Pharisees themselves +disagree as to the +character of Christ, and ask +the man who had been cured +(note how he is still spoken of +as blind, just as in the Blessed +Eucharist (vi. 52) the flesh of +Christ is spoken of as bread, +not because it is any longer +bread, but because of what it +is known to have been shortly +before) what he thought of Him +who cured him. His reply +is that Christ is a prophet +(προφητής without the article), a +man sent by God; not <emph>the</emph> +Prophet, for he did not yet recognise +Christ as the Messias. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Non crediderunt ergo +Iudaei de illo quia caecus +fuisset et vidisset, donec vocaverunt +parentes eius qui +viderat:</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. The Pharisees now doubt +the <emph>fact</emph> of the cure, and send +<pb n='170'/><anchor id='Pg170'/> +for the man's parents to inquire +if he had indeed been +born blind. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Et interrogaverunt eos, +dicentes: Hic est filius vester, +quem vos dicitis quia caecus +natus est? Quomodo ergo nunc +videt?</cell> +<cell>19. And asked them, saying: +Is this your son, who you say +was born blind? How then +doth he now see?</cell></row> +<row><cell>20. Responderunt eis parentes +eius, et dixerunt: Scimus +quia hic est filius noster, et +quia caecus natus est:</cell> +<cell>20. His parents answered +them and said: We know +that this is our son, and that +he was born blind.</cell></row> +<row><cell>21. Quomodo autem nunc +videat, nescimus: aut quis +eius aperuit oculos, nos nescimus: +ipsum interrogate: +aetatem habet, ipse de se +loquatur.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='IX_22'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Haec dixerunt parentes +eius, quoniam timebant Iudaeos: +iam enim conspiraverant +Iudaei, ut si quis eum confiteretur +esse Christum, extra +synagogam fieret.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. <hi rend='bold'>Put out of the synagogue</hi>; +that is to say, deprived +of all religious intercourse +by a sort of excommunication. +</p> + +<pb n='171'/><anchor id='Pg171'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Propterea parentes eius +dixerunt: Quia aetatem habet, +ipsum interrogate.</cell> +<cell>23. Therefore did his parents +say: He is of age, ask him.</cell></row> +<row><cell>24. Vocaverunt ergo rursum +hominem qui fuerat caecus, et +dixerunt ei: Da gloriam Deo: +nos scimus quia hic homo +peccator est.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. The man himself is again +interrogated. The words: <hi rend='bold'>Give +glory to God</hi> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Dixit ergo eis ille: Si +peccator est, nescio: unum +scio, quia caecus cum essem, +modo video.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25. <hi rend='bold'>Being blind</hi>, τυφλὸς ὤν. +The <emph>present</emph> part. is used relatively +to the time when he +blind. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>26. Dixerunt ergo illi: Quid +fecit tibi: Quomodo aperuit +tibi oculos?</cell> +<cell>26. They said then to him: +What did he to thee? How +did he open thy eyes?</cell></row> +<row><cell>27. Respondit eis: Dixi vobis +iam, et audistis: quid iterum +vultis audire? numquid et vos +vultis discipuli eius fieri?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +27. <hi rend='bold'>You have heard</hi> (Gr. καὶ +οὐκ ἠκούσατε, <hi rend='italic'>You did not heed</hi>). +<hi rend='bold'>Will you also become his +disciples?</hi> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>28. Maledixerunt ergo ei, et +dixerunt: Tu discipulus illius +sis: nos autem Moysi discipuli +sumus.</cell> +<cell>28. They reviled him therefore, +and said: Be thou his +disciple; but we are the +disciples of Moses.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +28. <hi rend='bold'>They reviled him</hi> +(ἐλοιδόρησαν) <hi rend='bold'>therefore, and +said: Be thou that man's +disciple</hi>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Nos scimus quia Moysi +locutus est Deus: hunc autem +nescimus unde sit.</cell> +<cell>29. We know that God +spoke to Moses: but as to +this man, we know not from +whence he is.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +29. The meaning is: We +know not whether this man is +sent by God or the devil. +</p> + +<pb n='172'/><anchor id='Pg172'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>30. Respondit ille homo, et +dixit eis: In hoc enim mirabile +est quia vos nescitis unde sit, +et aperuit meos oculos:</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +30. <hi rend='bold'>You</hi> is emphatic; you +the teachers of God's people! +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>31. Scimus autem quia peccatores +Deus non audit: sed +si quis Dei cultor est, et voluntatem +eius facit, hunc exaudit.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +31. <hi rend='bold'>Now we know that +God doth not hear sinners.</hi> +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 +<emph>fact</emph> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. A saeculo non est auditum +quia quis aperuit oculos +caeci nati.</cell> +<cell>32. From the beginning of +the world it hath not been +heard, that any man hath +opened the eyes of one born +blind.</cell></row> +<row><cell>33. Nisi esset hic a Deo, +non poterat facere quidquam.</cell> +<cell>33. Unless this man were of +God, he could not do anything.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +33. <hi rend='bold'>Anything</hi>; that is to +say, such as the miracle performed +upon me. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>34. Responderunt, et dixerunt +ei: In peccatis natus es +totus, et tu doces nos? Et +eiecerunt eum foras.</cell> +<cell>34. They answered, and +said to him: Thou wast wholly +born in sins, and dost thou +teach us? And they cast him +out.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +34. <hi rend='bold'>Thou wast wholly born +in sins</hi>, ὅλος (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>totus</foreign>); 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 +<pb n='173'/><anchor id='Pg173'/> +doctors of the Law? <hi rend='bold'>And +they cast him out.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>35. Audivit Iesus quia eiecerunt +eum foras: et cum invenisset +eum, dixit ei: Tu credis +in Filium Dei?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<hi rend='bold'>Son of God</hi>, some manuscripts +of great authority read +<hi rend='italic'>Son of Man</hi>; 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. +<q>Qui fecit te sine te, non justificat +te sine te; fecit nescientem, +justificat volentem</q> +(St. Aug., Serm. 15, <hi rend='italic'>de verbis +Apost.</hi>). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>36. Respondit ille, et dixit: +Quis est, Domine, ut credam +in eum?</cell> +<cell>36. He answered, and said: +Who is he, Lord, that I may +believe in him?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +36. Probably the man recognised +the voice of his benefactor, +whom he had not seen +until now, and he at once +shows himself prepared to do +what he understands Christ's +question to suggest. He believed +that Christ who had +cured him, and whom he regarded +as a prophet, would +not deceive him as to who was +really the Son of God. Lord +(Gr. κύριε) ought rather to be +rendered <q>Sir.</q> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>37. Et dixit ei Iesus: Et +vidisti eum, et qui loquitur +tecum, ipse est.</cell> +<cell>37. And Jesus said to him: +Thou hast both seen him; +and it is he that talketh with +thee.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +37. <hi rend='bold'>Thou hast both seen.</hi> +The meaning is: Thou <emph>seest</emph> +Him, the Greek perfect having +here the force of a present. +See 1 John iii. 6. Christ's reference +to the man's <emph>seeing</emph>, +was doubtless designed to +stimulate his gratitude, and +help him to faith. +</p> + +<pb n='174'/><anchor id='Pg174'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>38. At ille ait: Credo Domine. +Et procidens adoravit +eum.</cell> +<cell>38. And he said: I believe, +Lord. And falling down he +adored him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +38. He <hi rend='bold'>adored</hi> Christ as God. +Though the word προσεκύνησεν, +which is here rendered +<q>adored,</q> does not, in our +opinion, necessarily imply +supreme worship in the +Greek of either the Old or +New Testament,<note place='foot'>That προσκύνεω is often used of merely civil worship in the Old Testament +is not denied by anyone; and that it is so used in the New Testament also, see +Matt. xviii. 26, where it is far more probable that προσεκύνει (<q>adorabat,</q> not +<q>orabat,</q> as Vulg.) is the correct reading.</note> still the +context here determines it to +that meaning. For Christ had +just declared Himself to be the +Son of God, and it is <emph>as such</emph> +the man worships Him. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>39. Et dixit Iesus: In iudicium +ego in hunc mundum +veni: ut qui non vident videant, +et qui vident caeci fiant.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +39. <hi rend='bold'>For judgment I am +come into this world.</hi> 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 <emph>condemnation</emph>, for which +Christ did not come at His +first coming; here there is +question of the judgment of +<emph>discernment</emph> (κρίμα, not κρίσις), +and for this He had come at +His first coming. The sense +of the present passage then is: +I am come to separate the +good from the bad; to make +known who love God, and who +do not; to show and to effect +that those who have been regarded +as spiritually blind, and +who, indeed, in many cases, +have been so, may have the +eyes of their souls opened to +the light of truth, while those +who have been thought, and +who think themselves, to see +(such as you Pharisees), may +be shown to be indeed spiritually +blind, and may really <emph>become +more blind</emph>, 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: +<q>That they who see may become +<pb n='175'/><anchor id='Pg175'/> +blind.</q> Compare Rom. +v. 20: <q>Now the law entered +in that sin might abound.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>40. Et audierunt quidam ex +pharisaeis qui cum ipso erant +et dixerunt ei: Numquid et nos +caeci sumus?</cell> +<cell>40. And some of the Pharisees, +who were with him, +heard; and they said unto +him: Are we also blind?</cell></row> +<row><cell>41. Dixit eis Iesus: Si caeci +essetis, non haberetis peccatum: +nunc vero dicitis: Quia +videmus. Peccatum vestrum +manet.</cell> +<cell>41. Jesus said to them: If +you were blind, you should +not have sin: but now you +say: We see. Your sin remaineth.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +40, 41. The Pharisees ask: +<hi rend='bold'>Are we also blind?</hi> and Jesus +replies: <hi rend='bold'>If you were blind, +you should not have sin</hi>; +that is to say, if you were +blind through invincible ignorance, +or, as we prefer to hold, +if you were blind <emph>in your own +estimation</emph>, if you <emph>recognised</emph> +your spiritual blindness, you +should not have sin, because I +would wipe it out; but now +that you <emph>say</emph> you see, and rely +upon yourselves, your sin remaineth. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='176'/><anchor id='Pg176'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter X.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-5. <hi rend='bold'>The parable (or rather allegory, see below on verse 1), of the +door of the sheepfold.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +6. <hi rend='bold'>The Pharisees understood not the parable.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +7-10. <hi rend='bold'>Christ, therefore, applies it.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +11-18. <hi rend='bold'>The parable of the Good Shepherd.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +19-21. <hi rend='bold'>There was a difference of opinion among the Pharisees regarding +Christ.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +22-30. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +31. <hi rend='bold'>Thereupon they took up stones to stone Him.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +32-38. <hi rend='bold'>He defends his language by a quotation from their own Psaltery.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +39-42. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<anchor id='X_1'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Amen, amen dico vobis: +qui non intrat per ostium in +ovile ovium, sed ascendit aliunde, +ille fur est, et latro.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <emph>blind</emph>, else they +would recognise Him as the +<emph>door</emph> through which the true +fold must be entered, and as +the <emph>true Shepherd</emph>. 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. +</p> + +<p> +The parable, taken strictly, +is a narrative of a probable +but fictitious <emph>event</emph>, like that +relating to the Prodigal Son +(Luke xv. 11-32). Where, as +<pb n='177'/><anchor id='Pg177'/> +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 <q>the parable of the +good Shepherd.</q> It will be +noted that we speak of parables, +and not merely of one +parable, for we hold that the +parable of Christ as <emph>door</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +(<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ostiarius</foreign>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>He that entereth not by +the door into the sheepfold.</hi> +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 <ref target='X_7'>7</ref>); 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 +<pb n='178'/><anchor id='Pg178'/> +thieves, sometimes with open +violence like robbers. That +Christ is signified by <q>the +door,</q> 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 <q>the door</q> in +verse 1 to be different from +that in verse 7; the latter, +they say, being the door of +the <emph>sheep</emph>, Christ Himself; the +former the door of the shepherds, +which Mald. understands +of <emph>legitimate authority</emph> +to teach. We have no doubt +that the door in both verses +is the same, because Christ +begins to explain, in verse 7: +<q>Jesus <emph>therefore</emph> said to them +again</q> what He had said in +verses 1-5. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Qui autem intrat per +ostium, pastor est ovium.</cell> +<cell>2. But he that entereth in by +the door, is the shepherd of +the sheep.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. The sense is that he who +entereth by faith in Christ, and +by Christ's authority, is <emph>a</emph> true +shepherd (ποιμήν, without the +article). Such a pastor is contrasted +with the Pharisees who +blindly refused to enter by the +only gate. +</p> + +<anchor id='X_3'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Huic ostiarius aperit, et +oves vocem eius audiunt, et +proprias oves vocat nominatim, +et educit eas.</cell> +<cell>3. To him the porter openeth; +and the sheep hear his voice: +and he calleth his own sheep +by name, and leadeth them out.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='bold'>To him the porter openeth.</hi> +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 <q>openeth,</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And leadeth them out.</hi> +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 <hi rend='italic'>led outside the +Church</hi> 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 +<pb n='179'/><anchor id='Pg179'/> +provides them with proper +nourishment. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Et cum proprias oves +emiserit, ante eas vadit: et oves +illum sequuntur, quia sciunt +vocem eius.</cell> +<cell>4. And when he hath let out +his own sheep, he goeth before +them: and the sheep follow +him, because they know his +voice.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <q>the sheep +follow him,</q> and tread in his +footsteps. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Alienum autem non sequuntur, +sed fugiunt ab eo: quia +non noverunt vocem alienorum.</cell> +<cell>5. But a stranger they follow +not, but fly from him, because +they know not the voice of +strangers.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. The true reading is μη +ἀκολουθήσουσιν ἀλλὰ φεύξονται, +(<emph>will</emph> not follow, but <emph>will</emph> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Hoc proverbium dixit eis +Iesus. Illi autem non cognoverunt +quid loqueretur eis.</cell> +<cell>6. This proverb Jesus spoke +to them. But they understood +not what he spoke to them.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +6. <hi rend='bold'>Proverb.</hi> The Greek +word (παροιμίαν) suggests the +notion of a saying that is deep +and mysterious and not merely +metaphorical. See John xvi. +<ref target='XVI_25'>25</ref>, <ref target='XVI_29'>29</ref>. +</p> + +<anchor id='X_7'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Dixit ergo eis iterum +Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis, +quia ego sum ostium ovium.</cell> +<cell>7. Jesus therefore said to +them again: Amen, amen, I +say to you, I am the door of +the sheep.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus therefore said +to them again</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, <emph>because</emph> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Omnes quotquot venerunt, fures sunt et latrones, et +non audierunt eos oves.</cell> +<cell>8. All <hi rend='italic'>others</hi>, as many as +have come, are thieves and +robbers: and the sheep heard +them not.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8. <hi rend='bold'>All others, as many as +<pb n='180'/><anchor id='Pg180'/> +have come</hi> (many ancient +authorities add <q>before Me</q>). +The sense is: all others who +have come forward before +now, pretending to be the +door, the Messias, <emph>are</emph> thieves +and robbers. The present +<q><emph>are</emph></q> is used to denote the +essential character of their +nature. <hi rend='bold'>But</hi> (ἀλλ᾽, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>at</foreign> not <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>et</foreign>) +<hi rend='bold'>the sheep heard them not</hi>; +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Ego sum ostium. Per me +si quis introierit, salvabitur: +et ingredietur, et egredietur, et +pascua inveniet.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +<hi rend='bold'>Shall go in and go out</hi> +is a Hebraism (1 Kings xxix. +6; 2 Paral. i. 10; Psalm. cxx. +8), meaning he shall deal +securely, confidently, and +freely.<note place='foot'><q>Significat enim haec phrasis primo securitatem, secundo fiduciam, +tertio libertatem conversandi ubilibet, suo munere fungendi, et quaelibet +negotia peragendi pro Christo et per Christum.</q>—A Lap.</note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>10. Fur non venit nisi ut +furetur, et mactet, et perdat. +Ego veni ut vitam habeant, et +abundantius habeant.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Ego sum pastor bonus. +Bonus pastor animam suam +dat pro ovibus suis.</cell> +<cell>11. I am the good shepherd. +The good shepherd giveth his +life for his sheep.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. <hi rend='bold'>I am the good shepherd</hi> +(ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός); that particular +shepherd foretold by +<pb n='181'/><anchor id='Pg181'/> +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 <ref target='XV_1'>xv. 1</ref>, where, in +the metaphor of the true vine, +His relations with the faithful +are set forth under yet another +aspect. <hi rend='bold'>The good shepherd +giveth his life for his sheep.</hi> +This is to be understood, of +Christ, and is the first note of +this great Shepherd. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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:</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +12. <hi rend='bold'>The hireling</hi> 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 <emph>any danger</emph>, the +particular danger from the +wolf being put to represent +danger in general. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Mercenarius autem fugit, +quia mercenarius est, et non +pertinet ad eum de ovibus.</cell> +<cell>13. And the hireling flieth, +because he is a hireling; and +he hath no care for the sheep.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +13. The last word of verse +12 and the first three words of +verse 13 in the Vulgate: +<q>Oves: Mercenarius autem +fugit,</q> are regarded by many +as not genuine; the remaining +portion of verse 13 is to be +connected with <q>flieth</q> of +verse 12, in case they are +omitted. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Ego sum pastor bonus: +et cognosco meas, et cognoscunt +me meae.</cell> +<cell>14. I am the good shepherd; +and I know mine, and mine +know me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. Here we have another +note of our great Shepherd, +Jesus Christ. He knows <emph>every +member</emph> of His flock; not +merely the <emph>just</emph>, or the <emph>elect</emph> (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 +<pb n='182'/><anchor id='Pg182'/> +the next verse between this +knowledge and Christ's. If it +be objected that all Christians +do not love Christ, we reply +that, <emph>as far as in Him lies</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Sicut novit me Pater, et +ego agnosco Patrem: et animam +meam pono pro ovibus +meis.</cell> +<cell>15. As the Father knoweth +me, and I know the Father: +and I lay down my life for my +sheep.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. Connect with 14: <hi rend='bold'>I +know mine, and mine know +me, as the Father knoweth +me, and I know the Father.</hi> +The knowledge is similar, but +not, of course, equal; just as +our perfection can never equal +the infinite perfection of God, +though Christ says: <q>Be ye +therefore perfect, as your +heavenly Father is perfect.</q> +Matt. v. 48. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And I lay down my life for +my sheep.</hi> 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 <q>I lay down My life</q> +show that Christ gave up His +life freely and voluntarily (see +verse <ref target='X_18'>18</ref>); while the closing words +of the verse prove the vicarious +character of Christ's sacrifice. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='bold'>And +other sheep I have, that are +not of this fold.</hi> 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 +<emph>flock</emph>), 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 +<pb n='183'/><anchor id='Pg183'/> +because in the designs of God +it was decreed that they should +be efficaciously called to the +faith. <hi rend='bold'>And there shall be one +fold and one shepherd.</hi> The +<q>one fold,</q> or rather <q>one +flock</q> (ποίμνη), distinctly implies +the unity of Christ's +Church, and the <q>one shepherd,</q> +is Jesus Christ Himself +as invisible head, with the Pope +His representative as visible +head.<note place='foot'><q>Patres omnes ... intelligunt de uno pastore <emph>in terris existente</emph> qui +<emph>visibiliter</emph> pascat et regat.</q>—Suarez, <hi rend='italic'>De Fide</hi>, Tract. 1, Disp. 9, Sect. 6, n. 3.</note> 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 <q><emph>this</emph> +fold</q> 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='X_17'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Propterea me diligit +Pater: quia ego pono animam +meam, ut iterum sumam eam.</cell> +<cell>17. Therefore doth the Father +love me: because I lay down +my life that I may take it again.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='bold'>Therefore</hi>: +that is to say, because I lay +down My life, and so obey +Him, the Father loveth Me. +<hi rend='bold'>That I may take it again.</hi> +<q>Ut</q> (ἱνα) cannot be taken to +express a purpose here, but +means either <emph>so as</emph>, as Mald. +holds, or, <emph>on the condition that</emph>, +as Patrizzi. The supreme +dominion which Christ here +claims over His own life and +death, is a proof of His Divinity. +</p> + +<anchor id='X_18'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. <hi rend='bold'>No man taketh it away +from me; but I lay it down +of myself.</hi> Christ declares that +His death would be voluntary, +because He would lay down +His life <emph>freely</emph>. 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. +</p> + +<p> +(1) The command of the +Father was not really a command +<pb n='184'/><anchor id='Pg184'/> +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:— +</p> + +<p> +(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 <hi rend='italic'>obedient even unto +death</hi> (Phil. ii. 8), thereby implying +that His death was +commanded. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <q>He was obedient +unto death, even the <hi rend='italic'>death of +the cross</hi></q> (Phil. ii. 8). +</p> + +<p> +(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. +</p> + +<p> +(5) Franzelin inclines to the +view that the will of the Father +was merely a <q>beneplacitum,</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(6) Lastly, there is the +opinion of Suarez, who explains +thus: Christ's human +will had, strictly speaking, the +<emph>power</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<q>On account of this perpetual +watchfulness on the part +of the Second Divine Person,</q> +says A Lap., who adopts this +opinion, <q>the humanity of +Christ is said to be extrinsically +impeccable; not that the +Divinity took away the <emph>power</emph> +<pb n='185'/><anchor id='Pg185'/> +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.</q> +This view we prefer; +and hence we hold—(1) that +Christ had a <emph>strict command</emph> +from His Father to die; (2) +that His human will had the +<emph>power</emph> to disobey this command, +and was consequently free in +accepting death; (3) that the +Second Divine Person provided +that this power to disobey +could <emph>never be reduced to act</emph>, +and hence Christ was always +extrinsically impeccable. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Dissensio iterum facta +est inter Iudaeos propter sermones +hos.</cell> +<cell>19. A dissension rose again +among the Jews for these +words.</cell></row> +<row><cell>20. Dicebant autem multi ex +ipsis: Daemonium habet, et +insanit: quid eum auditis?</cell> +<cell>20. And many of them said: +He hath a devil, and is mad: +why hear you him?</cell></row> +<row><cell>21. Alii dicebant: Haec verba +non sunt daemonium habentis; +numquid daemonium potest +caecorum oculos aperire?</cell> +<cell>21. Others said: These are +not the words of one that hath +a devil: Can a devil open the +eyes of the blind?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19-21. Again, as on previous +occasions there was a +difference of opinion among +the leaders of the Jews. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Facta sunt autem encaenia +in Ierosoylmis: et hiems +erat.</cell> +<cell>22. And it was the feast of +the dedication at Jerusalem; +and it was winter.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. <ref target='X_1'>1</ref>), +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 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<pb n='186'/><anchor id='Pg186'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Et ambulabat Iesus in +templo, in porticu Salomonis.</cell> +<cell>23. And Jesus walked in +the temple in Solomon's porch.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Circumdederunt ergo +eum Iudaei, et dicebant ei: +Quousque animam nostram +tollis? si tu es Christus, dic +nobis palam.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. <hi rend='bold'>How long dost thou +hold our souls in suspense?</hi> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Respondit eis Iesus. +Loquor vobis, et non creditis: +opera quae ego facio in nomine +Patris mei, haec testimonium +perhibent de me:</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>26. Sed vos non creditis, +quia non estis ex ovibus meis.</cell> +<cell>26. But you do not believe: +because you are not of my +sheep.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25, 26. He again appeals to +His miracles, and upbraids +their incredulity. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Oves meae vocem meam +audiunt: et ego cognosco eas, +et sequntur me:</cell> +<cell>27. My sheep hear my +voice: and I know them, and +they follow me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +27. We prefer to understand +the <hi rend='bold'>sheep</hi> 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 +<emph>believe</emph>, and in this they are +contrasted with those addressed +in the preceding verse, who +believe not; and all too follow +<pb n='187'/><anchor id='Pg187'/> +Christ so as to imitate His +example, <emph>as far as lies in +Him</emph>. +</p> + +<anchor id='X_28'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>28. Et ego vitam aeternam +do eis: et non peribunt in +aeternum, et non rapiet eas +quisquam de manu mea.</cell> +<cell>28. And I give them life +everlasting; and they shall +not perish for ever, and no +man shall pluck them out of +my hand.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='X_29'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Pater meus quod dedit +mihi, maius omnibus est: et +nemo potest rapere de manu +Patris mei.</cell> +<cell>29. That which my Father +hath given me is greater than +all: and no one can snatch +<hi rend='italic'>them</hi> out of the hand of my +Father.</cell></row> +<row><cell>30. Ego et Pater unum +sumus.</cell> +<cell>30. I and the Father are +one.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +29, 30. He proves that no +one shall snatch them from +Him. No one shall snatch +them from the Father (<emph>who</emph> 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: +<q>Pater meus <emph>qui</emph> dedit mihi +<emph>major</emph> omnibus est,</q> &c.<note place='foot'><q>Lectio Vulgatae ita foret exponenda: Pater <emph>quod</emph> dedit mihi, divinam +naturam secum identicam, id <emph>majus</emph> est rebus omnibus, adeoque omnibus +creaturis potentius; ideoque nemo potest oves rapere de manu mea, sicut nec +de manu Patris, nam <emph>Ego et Pater unum sumus</emph>.... 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 <emph>dogmatice</emph> concordant substantialiter.</q>—Corl.</note> Note +that the unity with the Father +to which Christ here lays claim +is not a <emph>moral</emph> union, but a +unity of <emph>nature and power</emph>, else +the proof of His statement that +no one could snatch His sheep +from His hands would not be +valid. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>31. Sustulerunt ergo lapides +Iudaei, ut lapidarent eum.</cell> +<cell>31. The Jews then took up +stones to stone him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +31. See above on <ref target='VIII_59'>viii. 59</ref>. +</p> + +<pb n='188'/><anchor id='Pg188'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. Respondit eis Iesus: +Multa bona opera ostendi vobis +ex Patre meo, propter quod +eorum opus me lapidatis?</cell> +<cell>32. Jesus answered them: +Many good works I have +shewed you from my Father; +for which of those works do +you stone me?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +32. <hi rend='bold'>For which of those +works do you stone me?</hi> <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, +wish to stone Me.<note place='foot'><q>Praesens adhibetur ad significandum id quod <emph>jam jam</emph> eventurum est, +aut quod quis jam in eo est ut faciat.</q>—Beel., <hi rend='italic'>G. G.</hi>, 41, 2, a.</note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>33. Responderunt ei Iudaei: +De bono opere non lapidamus +te, sed de blasphemia; et quia +tu homo cum sis, facis teipsum +Deum.</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row> +<row><cell>34. Respondit eis Iesus: +Nonne scriptum est in lege +vestra quia: Ego dixi, dii +estis?</cell> +<cell>34. Jesus answered them: +Is it not written in your law: +<hi rend='italic'>I said you are gods</hi>?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +The sense of verse 34 is: +men are called gods in your +own law, the reference being +to Psalm lxxxi. 6. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>35. Si illos dixit deos, ad +quos sermo Dei factus est, et +non potest solvi scriptura:</cell> +<cell>35. If he called them gods, +to whom the word of God was +spoken, and the scripture +cannot be broken;</cell></row> +<row><cell>36. Quem Pater sanctificavit, +et misit in mundum, vos dicitis: +Quia blasphemas, quia dixi, +Filius Dei sum.</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(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, +<pb n='189'/><anchor id='Pg189'/> +even in an improper sense, +how much more <emph>in the strictest +sense</emph> can He be called and +is He God, whom the Father +generated <emph>holy with His own +holiness</emph>, and sent into the +world? +</p> + +<p> +(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: <q>Arise, <emph>O God</emph>, judge +Thou the earth, for Thou shalt +inherit among the nations</q>? +</p> + +<p> +(3) Others hold that Christ +in these two verses does not +insist upon the <emph>nature</emph> of His +Sonship, but contents Himself +with showing that He has a +right to <emph>call</emph> 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 <emph>in +some sense</emph>, 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 <q>Son of God,</q> He +means to justify his original +statement: <q>I and the Father +are one</q> (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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<emph>call</emph> Himself God, and then +goes on to show in what sense +He is God. +</p> + +<anchor id='X_37'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>37. Si non facio opera Patris +mei, nolite credere mihi.</cell> +<cell>37. If I do not the works of +my Father, believe me not.</cell></row> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +37, 38. He appeals to His +miracles as a proof that He is +God in the strictest sense. +See notes on <ref target='III_2'>iii. 2</ref>. <hi rend='bold'>That the +Father is in me, and I in the +Father.</hi> According to the +<pb n='190'/><anchor id='Pg190'/> +fathers, this is a statement +in other words of what He +said above: <q>I and the Father +are one.</q> <q>The Son,</q> says +St. Augustine on this verse, +does not say: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<anchor id='X_39'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>39. Quaerebant ergo eum +apprehendere: et exivit de +manibus eorum.</cell> +<cell>39. They sought therefore +to take him; and he escaped +out of their hands.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +39. <hi rend='bold'>They sought therefore +to take him.</hi> These words +prove that His hearers did not +understand Christ to retract +what He had said. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>40. Et abiit iterum trans +Iordanem, in eum locum ubi +erat Ioannes baptizans primum: +et mansit illic.</cell> +<cell>40. And he went again +beyond the Jordan into that +place where John was baptizing +first: and there he abode.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +40. He went again to +Bethania beyond the Jordan. +See above on <ref target='I_28'>i. 28</ref>. 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>41. Et multi venerunt ad +eum, et dicebant: Quia Ioannes +quidem signum fecit nullum.</cell> +<cell>41. And many resorted to +him, and they said: John +indeed did no sign.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +41. <hi rend='bold'>John indeed did no +sign.</hi> 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! +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>42. Omnia autem quaecumque +dixit Ioannes de hoc, vera +erant. Et multi crediderunt in +eum.</cell> +<cell>42. But all things whatsoever +John said of this man +were true. And many believed +in him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +42. <hi rend='bold'>And many believed in +him.</hi> Most authorities add +the note of place <emph>there</emph> (ἐκεῖ), +as if the Evangelist wished to +bring out into bolder relief the +incredulity of the Jews (verse +39), by contrasting it with the +faith of those beyond the +Jordan. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='191'/><anchor id='Pg191'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter XI.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-3. <hi rend='bold'>The illness of Lazarus is made known to Christ.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +4-10. <hi rend='bold'>After the lapse of two days, Christ proposes to return to Judea; +the disciples try to dissuade Him.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +11-16. <hi rend='bold'>Before setting out, He declares that Lazarus is dead.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +17-32. <hi rend='bold'>On Christ's approach He is met by the sisters of Lazarus, and +many Jews.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +33-44. <hi rend='bold'>Having groaned in the spirit, wept, and returned thanks to His +Father, He raises Lazarus from the dead.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +45-53. <hi rend='bold'>Many believed in Him on account of the miracle, but the chief +priests and Pharisees forthwith resolved on putting Him to +death.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +54-56. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<anchor id='XI_1'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Erat autem quidam languens +Lazarus a Bethania, de +castello Mariae et Marthae sororis +eius.</cell> +<cell>1. Now there was a certain +man sick named Lazarus, of +Bethania, of the town of Mary +and of Martha her sister.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. <q>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)</q> (Westcott in +the Speakers Comm.). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Bethania.</hi> This <emph>village</emph> lay +nearly two miles east of Jerusalem; +see verse <ref target='XI_18'>18</ref>, and our +remarks on <ref target='VI_18'>vi. 19</ref>. To prevent +the reader from confounding +it with Bethania beyond the +Jordan (<ref target='I_28'>i. 28</ref>), 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. +<pb n='192'/><anchor id='Pg192'/> +See, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, 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 <emph>seriously</emph> ill +(ἀσθενῶν; see James v. 14). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. (Maria autem erat, quae +unxit Dominum unguento, et +extersit pedes eius capillis suis: +cuius frater Lazarus infirmabatur.)</cell> +<cell>2. (And Mary was she that +anointed the Lord with ointment +and wiped his feet with +her hair: whose brother Lazarus +was sick.)</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. The Greek aorist (ἡ ἀλέιψασα) +shows that the reference +is to some unction that had +already taken place, and not +to that which happened subsequently, +and which is narrated +by our Evangelist (xii. 3; +Matt. xxvi. 7; Mark xiv. 3). +The unction here referred to +we take to be that recorded by +St. Luke (vii. 37, 38); and hence, +notwithstanding their apparently +different characters, we +regard Mary the sister of +Lazarus (xi. 2) as identical with +<q>the woman who was a sinner +in the city</q> (Luke vii. 37). For +St. John in the words: <q>Mary +was she that anointed the +Lord,</q> &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 <emph>twice</emph> +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 <emph>two</emph> +different occasions. Thus, as +already stated, we identify +Luke's <q>sinner in the city</q> +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 <q>a +sinner in the city,</q> 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 +<pb n='193'/><anchor id='Pg193'/> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Comm. +on Matt. Quaes.</hi> 678, <hi rend='italic'>conclusio</hi>), +have <q>a deep-rooted repugnance</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Thus far we have spoken +only of <q>the sinner,</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>the sinner</q> 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, +<q>the sinner,</q> 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 +<pb n='194'/><anchor id='Pg194'/> +for the three women, <emph>seems</emph> +(we say <emph>seems</emph>, 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., <hi rend='italic'>Dissert.</hi>, +p. 263 and foll.; Mald. on +Matt. xxvi. 6, 7, and xxvii. 56; +Steenk. on Matt. <hi rend='italic'>Quaes.</hi> 678. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Miserunt ergo sorores eius +ad eum, dicentes: Domine, +ecce quem amas infirmatur.</cell> +<cell>3. His sisters therefore sent +to him, saying: Lord, behold, +he whom thou lovest is sick.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. They merely announce +their trouble through a messenger, +and in hopeful confidence +leave the remedy to +Jesus. <q>Sufficit ut noveris: +non enim amas et deseris</q> (St. +Aug. on this verse). +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_4'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Audiens autem Iesus dixit +eis: Infirmitas haec non est ad +mortem, sed pro gloria Dei, ut +glorificetur Filius Dei per eam.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +4. <hi rend='bold'>And Jesus hearing it, +said to them</hi> (<q>to them</q> +(<foreign rend='italic'>eis</foreign>) is not genuine): <hi rend='bold'>This +sickness is not unto death, +but for the glory of God: +that the Son of God may be +glorified by it.</hi> 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 +<emph>ordinary</emph> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Diligebat autem Iesus +Martham, et sororem eius +Mariam, et Lazarum.</cell> +<cell>5. Now Jesus loved Martha +and her sister Mary, and +Lazarus.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='195'/><anchor id='Pg195'/> +motive of faith. See below on +verse <ref target='XI_15'>15</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +The passing notice here of +a friendship that must have +been the result of long and +intimate intercourse shows us +how incomplete are the Gospel +records. It is very interesting +to notice how in this verse St. +John refers to the love of Jesus +for Lazarus and his sisters by +a different word from that used +by the sisters in verse 3. Instead +of φιλεῖς, which expresses +the affection of personal attachment, +St. John, now that there +is question of the love of Jesus +not only for Lazarus but also +for his sisters, uses Ἠγάπα, +which expresses rather esteem +than love, rather a reasoning +appreciation than a heartfelt +attachment. See below on <ref target='XXI_15'>xxi. +15-17</ref>, where the contrast between +the two words is most +marked. +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_6'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Ut ergo audivit quia, infirmabatur, +tunc quidem mansit +in eodem loco duobus diebus.</cell> +<cell>6. When he had heard therefore +that he was sick, he still +remained in the same place two +days.</cell></row> +<row><cell>7. Deinde post haec dixit +discipulis suis: Eamus in Iudaeam +iterum.</cell> +<cell>7. Then after that he said to +his disciples: Let us go into +Judea again.</cell></row> +<row><cell>8. Dicunt ei discipuli: +Rabbi, nunc quaerebant te +Iudaei lapidare, et iterum vadis +illuc?</cell> +<cell>8. The disciples say to him: +Rabbi, the Jews but now sought +to stone thee: and goest thou +thither again?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8. The disciples, fearing for +His safety and for their own +(see verse <ref target='XI_16'>16</ref>, where Thomas +takes it for granted that return +to Judea meant death to Him +and them), try to dissuade Him +from returning. +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_9'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Respondit Iesus: Nonne +duodecim sunt horae diei? Si +quis ambulaverit in die, non +offendit, quia lucem huius +mundi videt:</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_10'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>10. Si autem ambulaverit in +nocte offendit, quia lux non est +in eo.</cell> +<cell>10. But if he walk in the +night he stumbleth, because the +light is not in him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. But after the time of My +mortal life, then, indeed, <emph>you</emph> +may expect persecution and +<pb n='196'/><anchor id='Pg196'/> +suffering; for when I am gone, +you shall be as men walking +after the sun's light has gone +down. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Haec, ait, et post haec +dixit eis: Lazarus amicus noster +dormit: sed vado ut a +somno excitem eum.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>12. Dixerunt ergo discipuli +eius: Domine, si dormit, salvus +erit.</cell> +<cell>12. His disciples therefore +said: Lord, if he sleep, he shall +do well.</cell></row> +<row><cell>13. Dixerat autem Iesus de +morte ejus: illi autem putaverunt +quia de dormitione somni +diceret.</cell> +<cell>13. But Jesus spoke of his +death; and they thought that +he spoke of the repose of sleep.</cell></row> +<row><cell>14. Tunc ergo Iesus dixit eis +manifeste: Lazarus mortuus +est:</cell> +<cell>14. Then therefore Jesus +said to them plainly: Lazarus +is dead;</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_15'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Et gaudeo propter vos, +ut credatis, quoniam non eram +ibi; sed eamus ad eum.</cell> +<cell>15. And I am glad for your +sakes, that I was not there, that +you may believe: but let us go +to him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<emph>strengthen</emph> their faith would +now be afforded them in the +miracle to be wrought. +</p> + + +<anchor id='XI_16'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Dixit ergo Thomas, +qui dicitur Didymus, ad condiscipulos: +Eamus et nos, ut +moriamur cum eo.</cell> +<cell>16. Thomas therefore, who is +called Didymus, said to his +fellow-disciples: Let us also go, +that we may die with him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. See verse <ref target='XI_6'>8</ref>. <hi rend='bold'>Thomas</hi>, +Aramaic תאמא, means a twin, +the Greek equivalent being +Didymus. The Greek equivalent +is again mentioned after +the name in <ref target='XX_24'>xx. 24</ref>, <ref target='XXI_2'>xxi. 2</ref>. +Possibly Thomas was commonly +known in Asia Minor as +Didymus. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Venit itaque Iesus: et +invenit eum quatuor dies iam +in monumento habentem.</cell> +<cell>17. Jesus therefore came and +found that he had been four +days already in the grave.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17. <hi rend='bold'>Four days.</hi> The day of +the messenger's arrival would +<pb n='197'/><anchor id='Pg197'/> +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, +<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, Acts v. 6, 10), had been +buried on that same day, as a +comparison of this verse with +39 clearly proves. +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_18'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. (Erat autem Bethania +iuxta Ierosolyman quasi stadiis +quindecim.)</cell> +<cell>18. (Now Bethania was near +Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs +off.)</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. See above on verse <ref target='XI_1'>1</ref>, +and especially on <ref target='VI_18'>vi. 19</ref>. +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_19'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Multi autem ex Iudaeis +venerant ad Martham et Mariam, +ut consolarentur eas de +fratre suo.</cell> +<cell>19. And many of the Jews +were come to Martha and +Mary, to comfort them concerning +their brother.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. <hi rend='bold'>The Jews</hi>, whom our +Evangelist always carefully +distinguishes from the <q>turba,</q> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_20'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Martha ergo ut audivit +quia Iesus venit, occurrit illi: +Maria, autem domi sedebat.</cell> +<cell>20. Martha therefore, as soon +as she heard that Jesus was +come, went to meet him; but +Mary sat at home.</cell></row> +<row><cell>21. Dixit ergo Martha ad +Iesum: Domine si fuisses hic, +frater meus non fuisset mortuus:</cell> +<cell>21. Martha therefore said to +Jesus: Lord, if thou hadst been +here, my brother had not died.</cell></row> +<row><cell>22. Sed et nunc scio quia +quaecumque poposceris a Deo, +dabit tibi Deus.</cell> +<cell>22. But now also I know +that whatsoever thou wilt ask +of God, God will give it thee.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. Even still she has hope +that He may intercede with +God to restore life to her +brother. +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_23'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Dicit illi Iesus: Resurget +frater tuus.</cell> +<cell>23. Jesus saith to her: Thy +brother shall rise again.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. In words, purposely ambiguous, +and meant to try her +faith, Jesus assures her that +her brother shall rise again. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Dicit ei Martha: Scio +quia resurget in resurrectione +in novissimo die.</cell> +<cell>24. Martha saith to him: +I know that he shall rise again +in the resurrection at the last +day.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. Understanding Him to +speak of the final resurrection, +<pb n='198'/><anchor id='Pg198'/> +or at least wishing to force +Him to explain, she says: +<hi rend='bold'>I know</hi>, &c. Note how +Martha's words prove the faith +of the Jews of that time in the +resurrection of the body. +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_25'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Dixit ei Iesus: Ego sum +resurrectio et vita: qui credit +in me, etiam si mortuus fuerit, +vivet:</cell> +<cell>25. Jesus said to her: I am +the resurrection and the life: +he that believeth in me +although he be dead, shall +live.</cell></row> +<row><cell>26. Et omnis qui vivit et +credit in me, non morietur in +aeternum. Credis hoc?</cell> +<cell>26. And every one that +liveth, and believeth in me +shall not die for ever. Believest +thou this?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Benedictus</hi> +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 <ref target='XI_20'>22</ref>), 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 <emph>corporally</emph> dead, +like Lazarus, shall live again a +glorious life, even in his body; +and everyone who is living <emph>in +the body</emph>, 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.<note place='foot'>The bodies of the wicked also shall be raised on the last day, but, as +A Lap. says: <q>Quia resurgent ad tormenta Gehennae, hinc vita eorum potius +mors dicenda est, quam vita.</q></note> +If this interpretation of the +words, <q>shall never die,</q> 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 <emph>body</emph> 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 <emph>dead</emph>, the +enduring life of the <emph>living</emph>. 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. +</p> + +<pb n='199'/><anchor id='Pg199'/> + +<anchor id='XI_27'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Ait illi: Utique Domine, +ego credidi quia tu es Christus +Filius Dei vivi, qui in hunc +mundum venisti.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>28. Et cum haec dixisset, +abiit, et vocavit Mariam, sororem +suam silentio, dicens: +Magister ad est, et vocat te.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>29. Illa ut audivit, surgit +cito, et venit ad eum.</cell> +<cell>29. She, as soon as she +heard <hi rend='italic'>this</hi>, riseth quickly and +cometh to him.</cell></row> +<row><cell>30. Nondum enim venerat +Iesus in castellum: sed erat +adhuc in illo loco ubi occurrerat +ei Martha.</cell> +<cell>30. For Jesus was not yet +come into the town; but he +was still in that place where +Martha had met him.</cell></row> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +27-32. To Christ's question, +if she believed what He had +said of Himself as the resurrection +and the life, she replies +that she believes<note place='foot'>The Perfect here has a Present signification. <q>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.</q>—Beel., +<hi rend='italic'>Gr. Gram.</hi>, § 41, 4 a.</note> 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, +<pb n='200'/><anchor id='Pg200'/> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>33. Iesus ergo, ut vidit eam +plorantem, et Iudaeos qui +venerant cum ea, plorantes, +infremuit spiritu, et turbavit +seipsum.</cell> +<cell>33. Jesus therefore, when he +saw her weeping, and the +Jews that were come with her, +weeping, groaned in the spirit, +and troubled himself.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +33. The word ἐνεβριμήσατο +which we translate <hi rend='bold'>groaned</hi>, +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Troubled himself.</hi> These +words imply Christ's supreme +control over the passions of +His human nature. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>34. Et dixit: Ubi posuistis +eum? Dicunt ei: Domine, +veni, et vide.</cell> +<cell>34. And said: Where have +you laid him? They say to +him: Lord, come and see.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +34. He knew well, but probably +wished to excite their +faith and hope by the question. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>35. Et lacrymatus est Iesus.</cell> +<cell>35. And Jesus wept.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>36. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: +Ecce quomodo amabat eum.</cell> +<cell>36. The Jews therefore said: +Behold how he loved him.</cell></row> +<row><cell>37. Quidam autem ex ipsis +dixerunt: Non poterat hic, qui +aperuit oculos caeci nati, facere +ut hic non moreretur?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row> +<row><cell>38. Iesus ergo rursum fremens +in semetipso, venit ad +monumentum: erat autem +spelunca: et lapis superpositus +erat ei.</cell> +<cell>38. Jesus therefore again +groaning in himself, cometh +to the sepulchre: Now it was +a cave; and a stone was laid +over it.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +38. Caves were the usual +<pb n='201'/><anchor id='Pg201'/> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>39. Ait Iesus: Tollite lapidem: +Dicit ei Martha, soror +eius qui mortuus fuerat: Domine, +iam foetet, quatriduanus +est enim.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <emph>now</emph> hope that Jesus could +raise her brother who was four +days dead. +</p> + +<p> +A little before indeed she +had hoped for even this (verse +22); but now her faith began +to waver. <q>Habuit ergo +alternantes motus gratiae et +naturae, fidei et diffidentiae, +spei et desperationis de resurrectione +Lazari</q> (A Lap.). +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>40. Dicit ei Iesus: Nonne +dixi tibi quoniam si credideris, +videbis gloriam Dei?</cell> +<cell>40. Jesus saith to her: Did +not I say to thee, that if thou +believe, thou shalt see the +glory of God?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +40. Christ's reply shows that +Martha's faith was now imperfect. +<hi rend='bold'>Did I not say to thee, +that if thou believe, thou +shalt see the glory of God?</hi> +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 <q>glory of God</q> is meant +the glorious power of God. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>41. Tulerunt ergo lapidem: +Iesus autem elevatis sursum +oculis, dixit: Pater gratias ago +tibi quoniam audisti me:</cell> +<cell>41. They took therefore the +stone away. And Jesus lifting +up his eyes said: Father, I +give thee thanks that thou hast +heard me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='202'/><anchor id='Pg202'/> +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, <q>Come +forth,</q> 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_42'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>42. Ego autem sciebam quia +semper me audis: sed propter +populum qui circumstat, dixi, +ut credant quia tu me misisti.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <ref target='XI_19'>19</ref>, <ref target='XI_27'>31</ref>, <ref target='XI_43'>45</ref>), performed to +prove that Christ had come +from the Father (verse <ref target='XI_42'>42</ref>); +that He was the resurrection +and the life (verses <ref target='XI_25'>25, 26</ref>); +that He was the Son of God +(verse <ref target='XI_4'>4</ref>); that, in fact, He +was all that which, a short +<pb n='203'/><anchor id='Pg203'/> +time previously, and in Jerusalem +itself, He had claimed +to be, namely, the Lord of life, +one with the Father (x. <ref target='X_28'>28</ref>, <ref target='X_29'>30</ref>). +Such a miracle in such circumstances +God could never have +permitted, had Christ not been +in truth all that He claimed to +be. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <ref target='V_5'>v. 5-9</ref>), +nor of the man born blind +(John <ref target='Chapter_IX'>ix.</ref>), nor, for the same +reason, the raising of Lazarus, +all these miracles having +occurred in Judea. +</p> + +<p> +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). +</p> + +<pb n='204'/><anchor id='Pg204'/> + +<anchor id='XI_43'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>43. Haec cum dixisset, voce +magna clamavit: Lazare veni +foras.</cell> +<cell>43. When he had said these +things, he cried with a loud +voice: Lazarus, come forth.</cell></row> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>45. Multi ergo ex Iudaeis +qui venerant ad Mariam et +Martham; et viderant quae +fecit Iesus, crediderunt in eum.</cell> +<cell>45. Many therefore of the +Jews who were come to Mary +and Martha, and had seen the +things that Jesus did, believed +in him.</cell></row> +<row><cell>46. Quidam autem ex ipsis +abierunt ad pharisaeos, et +dixerunt eis quae fecit Iesus.</cell> +<cell>46. But some of them went +to the Pharisees, and told +them the things that Jesus had +done.</cell></row> +<row><cell>47. Collegerunt ergo pontifices +et pharisaei concilium et +dicebant: Quid facimus, quia +hic homo multa signa facit?</cell> +<cell>47. The chief priests therefore +and the Pharisees gathered +a council, and said: What do +we, for this man doth many +miracles?</cell></row> +<row><cell>48. Si dimittimus eum sic, +omnes credent in eum: et +venient Romani, et tollent nostrum +locum, et gentem.</cell> +<cell>48. If we let him alone so, +all will believe in him, and the +Romans will come, and take +away our place and nation.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +48. They dreaded lest the +Romans, fearing He should +become king, should come and +destroy their temple and nation. +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_49'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>49. Unus autem ex ipsis +Caiphas nomine, cum esset +pontifex anni illius, dixit eis: +Vos nescitis quidquam.</cell> +<cell>49. But one of them named +Caiphas, being the high-priest +that year, said to them: You +know nothing.</cell></row> +<row><cell>50. Nec cogitatis quia expedit +vobis ut unus moriatur +homo pro populo, et non tota +gens pereat.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>51. Hoc autem a semetipso +non dixit: sed cum esset pontifex +anni illius, prophetavit +quod Iesus moriturus erat pro +gente.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>52. Et non tantum pro gente, +sed ut filios Dei, qui erant +dispersi, congregaret in unum.</cell> +<cell>52. And not only for the +nation, but to gather together +in one the children of God, +that were dispersed.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +49-52. Then Caiphas, the +High-priest for that year said: +<hi rend='bold'>You know nothing</hi>, &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 +<pb n='205'/><anchor id='Pg205'/> +thing, the Prophet himself +something quite different. It +is the common opinion, too, +that even the <emph>inspired writers</emph> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<ref target='XI_49'>xi. 49</ref>, +<ref target='XVIII_13'>xviii. 13</ref>). 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 +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 14) by Valerius Gratus, +the Roman Governor of Judea, +he was still regarded by the +Jews as the lawful High-priest.<note place='foot'>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. <q>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.</q>—Josephus, <hi rend='italic'>Antiq.</hi>, xviii. 2, 2.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Or it may be that, as <hi rend='italic'>President +of the Sanhedrim</hi>, a position +which Annas filled, after +he had been deposed from that +of High-priest, he is styled +ἀρχιερεύς by St. Luke. This +latter is the view of Cornely, +<pb n='206'/><anchor id='Pg206'/> +iii., § 76, n. 18. See Acts vii. +1; ix. 1, 2. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>53. Ab illo ergo die cogitaverunt +ut interficerent eum.</cell> +<cell>53. From that day therefore +they devised to put him to +death.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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: <ref target='V_16'>v. 16 ff.</ref>; +vii. <ref target='VII_32'>32</ref>, <ref target='VII_45'>45</ref> ff.; <ref target='VIII_45'>viii. 45 ff.</ref>; <ref target='VIII_59'>viii. +59</ref>; <ref target='IX_22'>ix. 22</ref>; <ref target='X_39'>x. 39</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +54. The city of Ephrem (Gr. +ἐφαίμ) is probably the same +to which Josephus refers (<hi rend='italic'>Bell. +Jud.</hi>, 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 <hi rend='italic'>B. D.</hi> +</p> + +<anchor id='XI_55'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>55. Proximum autem erat +pascha Iudaeorum: et ascenderunt +multi Ierosolymam de +regione ante pascha, ut sanctificarent +seipsos.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +55. This was the fourth and +last Pasch of our Lord's public +life, and during it He was put +to death. <hi rend='bold'>To purify themselves</hi>; +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +56. Whether those who +sought Jesus were His friends +or enemies, is disputed. But +from what follows in this verse, +<pb n='207'/><anchor id='Pg207'/> +we believe they were His +enemies, who were looking for +Him, in order to deliver Him +up to the Sanhedrim. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>What think you, that he +is not come to the festival +day?</hi> We much prefer to understand +here two questions—<hi rend='bold'>What +think you?</hi> Do you +think <hi rend='bold'>that he will not come +to the feast</hi>? For our +Rhemish translation gives ὅτι +οὐ μη ἔλθῃ a past, whereas it +ought to have a future sense. +Hence the Revised Version +translates with two questions. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='208'/><anchor id='Pg208'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter XII.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-8. <hi rend='bold'>The Supper in Bethania six days before the Pasch.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +9-11. <hi rend='bold'>The chief priests think of killing Lazarus.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +12-19. <hi rend='bold'>On the day after the supper Christ enters Jerusalem in triumph, +to the disgust of the Pharisees.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +20-22. <hi rend='bold'>Some Gentile Proselytes wish to see Him.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +23-33. <hi rend='bold'>Christ (at the temple) foretells the near approach of His passion, +and a voice from heaven is heard.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +34-36. <hi rend='bold'>He continues to refer to His approaching death, and exhorts +the people to faith.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +37-43. <hi rend='bold'>Yet though they had witnessed many miracles, most of them +refused to believe, as the prophets had foretold.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +44-50. <hi rend='bold'>Christ's testimony regarding the object of the Incarnation, and +the necessity of faith in Him.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<anchor id='XII_1'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Iesus ergo ante sex dies +paschae venit Bethaniam, ubi +Lazarus fuerat mortuus, quem +suscitavit Iesus.</cell> +<cell>1. Jesus therefore six days +before the pasch came to +Bethania, where Lazarus had +been dead, whom Jesus raised +to life.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. Maldonatus connects with +<ref target='XI_55'>xi. 55</ref>: since the Pasch was +near, Jesus on His way to Jerusalem +to celebrate it, came to +Bethania. <hi rend='bold'>Six days before +the pasch.</hi> This peculiar +Greek construction would be +better rendered in Latin; <q>sex +diebus ante pascha.</q> 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:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) Arrival at Bethania on +Friday; the supper (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) on the +same evening, or (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) according +to others, on Saturday evening; +the triumphal entry on Sunday. +</p> + +<p> +(2) Arrival at Bethania on +Saturday evening; the supper +<pb n='209'/><anchor id='Pg209'/> +on the same evening; the +entry into Jerusalem (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) on +Sunday, or (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) according to +others, on Monday. +</p> + +<p> +(3) Arrival on Sunday; +supper on the same evening; +the entry into Jerusalem on +Monday. +</p> + +<anchor id='XII_2'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Fecerunt autem ei coenam +ibi: et Martha ministrabat, +Lazarus vero, unus erat ex +discumbentibus cum eo.</cell> +<cell>2. And they made him a +supper there: and Martha +served, but Lazarus was one +of them that were at table with +him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<emph>two</emph> days before the Pasch +(Matt. xxvi. 2; Mark xiv. 1), +while St. John refers to an +occasion <emph>six</emph> 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.<note place='foot'><q>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.</q>—Corn., +iii., p. 296, note n. So too Coleridge, <hi rend='italic'>Life of our Life</hi>, vol. ii., p. 46: <q>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.</q></note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Mary therefore took a +pound of ointment of right +spikenard.</hi> 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 +<pb n='210'/><anchor id='Pg210'/> +from Alabastron, a town in +Egypt, near which it was found +in large quantities. The term +<q>alabaster box</q> came in time +to be applied to any box for +holding perfumes. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Spikenard</hi>, 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 <hi rend='bold'>right</hi> spikenard. The +Greek adjective thus translated +is πιστικῆς, which may +mean <emph>genuine</emph>, from πίστις; or +<emph>liquid</emph>, from πίστος (πίνω, to +drink); or, as St. Augustine +says, the nard may have been +so called from the place in +which it was obtained. St. +John tells us that Mary +anointed the <emph>feet</emph> 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: <q>Vidimus etiam +vestigia pedum tingi.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Dixit ergo unus ex discipulis +eius, Iudas Iscariotes, +qui erat eum traditurus:</cell> +<cell>4. Then one of his disciples, +Judas Iscariot, he that was +about to betray him, said:</cell></row> +<row><cell>5. Quare hoc unguentum non +veniit trecentis denariis, et +datum est egenis?</cell> +<cell>5. Why was not this ointment +sold for three hundred +pence, and given to the poor?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +4, 5. From SS. Matt. and +Mark, it would seem that at +least two of the disciples must +have murmured, for St. Matt. +says: <q>And the disciples seeing +it, had indignation;</q> and +St. Mark: <q>Now there were +some that had indignation +within themselves, and said: +Why was this waste of the +ointment made?</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Judas Iscariot</hi> (Gr. Judas +Iscariot, <hi rend='italic'>son of Simon</hi>: see +notes on <ref target='VI_72'>vi. 72</ref>) spoke out, asking +why this ointment was not +sold at 300 pence, and the price +given to the poor? We discussed +above on <ref target='VI_7'>vi. 7</ref>, the +value of the Roman silver +penny at this time current in +<pb n='211'/><anchor id='Pg211'/> +Palestine, from which it appears +that this box of ointment +was thought to be worth nearly +£10 of our money. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Dixit autem hoc, non quia +de egenis pertinebat ad eum, +sed quia fur erat, et loculos +habens, ea quae mittebantur +portabat.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +6. St. John here declares the +motive of Judas. It was not +love for the poor, as he pretended, +but because, being +purse-bearer, for our Lord and +the disciples, he was always +anxious to receive money, that +he might have an opportunity +of filching some of it for +himself. Whether with our +Rhemish Version we give +ἐβάσταζεν the meaning of +<q>carried,</q> or, as others prefer, +<q>made away with,</q> 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: <q>Nemo repente +fit turpissimus.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Dixit ergo Iesus: Sinite +illam ut in diem sepulturae +meae servet illud.</cell> +<cell>7. Jesus therefore said: Let +her alone, that she may keep it +against the day of my burial.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. There is a difference of +reading in this verse. Many +ancient authorities read: <hi rend='bold'>She +has kept it</hi> (τετήρηκεν) +<hi rend='bold'>against the day of my +burial</hi>; and the meaning of +this reading is plain. The +more probable<note place='foot'>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.</note> Greek reading, +however, is: <q><hi rend='italic'>That she might +keep it</hi> (ἱνα ... τηρήσῃ) +<hi rend='italic'>against the day of My burial</hi>.</q> +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 <q>servaret</q> instead of +<q>servet</q> in the Vulgate; and +we take <q>ut</q> to depend not +on <q>sinite,</q> but on some +words such as <q>non veniit</q> +(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: +<q>She is come beforehand to +anoint My body for the burial</q> +(Mark xiv. 8); and both accounts, +as well as that of St. +Matt. (xxvi. 12), <q>She hath +done it for My burial,</q> 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 +<pb n='212'/><anchor id='Pg212'/> +honours were usually paid to +bodies before burial. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Pauperes enim semper +habetis vobiscum: me autem +non semper habetis.</cell> +<cell>8. For the poor you have +always with you; but me you +have not always.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8. <hi rend='bold'>But me you have not +always.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Cognovit ergo turba multa +ex Iudaeis quia illic est: et +venerunt, non propter Iesum +tantum, sed ut Lazarum viderent, +quem suscitavit a mortuis.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>10. Cogitaverunt autem principes +sacerdotum ut et Lazarum +interficerent.</cell> +<cell>10. But the chief priests +thought to kill Lazarus also:</cell></row> +<row><cell>11. Quia multi propter illum +abibant ex Iudaeis, et credebant +in Iesum.</cell> +<cell>11. Because many of the +Jews by reason of him went +away, and believed in Jesus.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. In crastinum autem turba +multa, quae venerat ad diem +festum, cum audissent quia +venit Iesus Ierosolymam.</cell> +<cell>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,</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='213'/><anchor id='Pg213'/> +already arrived. Doubtless +many of the inhabitants of +Jerusalem were also among +the crowd on this occasion. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Acceperunt ramos palmarum, +et processerunt obviam +ei, et clamabant: Hosanna, +benedictus qui venit in nomine +Domini, rex Israel.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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), <hi rend='bold'>Hosanna</hi> +(הושׂענא, which is contracted +for הושׂיעה נא) means: <emph>pray</emph>, +<emph>save</emph>, or: <emph>save, I beseech</emph>. 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 <q>vivat,</q> <q>vive +le roi,</q> and the like, are sometimes +used at the present day. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Et invenit Iesus asellum, +et sedit super eum, sicut scriptum +est:</cell> +<cell>14. And Jesus found a young +ass, and sat upon it, as it is +written:</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. From the Synoptic Evangelists +we learn that Jesus sent +His disciples telling them where +they should find the colt, and +St. Matthew tells us that they +brought the colt and its mother, +and spread their garments upon +both (ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν, Matt. xxi. 7). +They spread their garments +upon both, because they did +not know upon which He +would choose to sit. And +St. Matthew adds that Jesus +sat <emph>upon them</emph> (ἑπάνω αὐτῶν); +that is, as we take it, upon +the garments that had been +spread upon the colt. In this +way the accounts of the four +Evangelists are reconciled. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<emph>between</emph> Bethania, where Christ +had supped on the preceding +night (xii. <ref target='XII_1'>1</ref>, <ref target='XII_2'>2</ref>) and Jerusalem, +St. Luke, on the other hand, +says: <q>And it came to pass +<emph>when He was come nigh to +Bethphage and Bethania</emph>, unto +the mount called Olivet, He +sent two of His disciples, saying, +Go into the town which +is over against you, at your +<pb n='214'/><anchor id='Pg214'/> +entering into which you shall +find the colt of an ass tied,</q> +&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 +<emph>approaching</emph> 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 <ref target='XXI_24'>xxi. 25</ref>), and it enables +us to reconcile two accounts, +which are not easily reconciled +otherwise. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Noli timere filia Sion: +ecce rex tuus venit sedens +super pullum asinae.</cell> +<cell>15. <hi rend='italic'>Fear not, daughter of +Sion: behold, thy king cometh, +sitting on an ass's colt.</hi></cell></row></table> + +<p> +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: <q>Rejoice greatly +(<q>fear not,</q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Testimonium ergo perhibebat +turba quae erat cum eo +quando Lazarum vocavit de +monumento, et suscitavit eum +a mortuis.</cell> +<cell>17. The multitude therefore +gave testimony, which was with +him when he called Lazarus out +of the grave, and raised him +from the dead.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17. <hi rend='bold'>When he called Lazarus +out of the grave.</hi> It is +<pb n='215'/><anchor id='Pg215'/> +doubtful, and authorities are +much divided, whether the +true reading here is <emph>when</emph> (ὅτε), +or <emph>that</emph> (ὅτι). In the former +reading, eye-witnesses of the +miracle now bore testimony of +it; in the latter, the crowd +that was now with Him having +heard and believed that the +miracle had been wrought, now +bore witness <emph>that</emph> Jesus had +raised Lazarus from the dead. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Propterea et obviam venit +ei turba, quia audierunt eum +fecisse hoc signum.</cell> +<cell>18. For which reason also +the people came to meet him: +because they heard that he had +done this miracle.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. It was on account of +this miracle too that the crowd +had come out to meet Him. +We take <q>the multitude</q> in +this verse to be the same as +that referred to in the preceding +(ὁ ὄχλος); and what St. John +tells us is, that their coming +out to meet Him, and their +testimony regarding Him, both +proceeded from the fact that +He had raised Lazarus from +the dead. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Pharisaei ergo dixerunt +ad semetipsos: Videtis quia +nihil proficimus? ecce mundus +totus post eum abiit.</cell> +<cell>19. The Pharisees therefore +said among themselves: Do +you see that we prevail nothing? +behold, the whole +world is gone after him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Our Lord moved on towards +Jerusalem, riding upon the +ass,<note place='foot'>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, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, 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.</note> 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: +<q>I say to you, if these shall +hold their peace, the stones will +cry out</q> (Luke xix. 40). Then +when He had mounted the +summit of Olivet, and the city +and temple burst upon His +view, He wept, and <q>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.</q> +<pb n='216'/><anchor id='Pg216'/> +(Coleridge, <hi rend='italic'>Life of our Life</hi>, +vol. ii., p. 187). See Luke +xix. 41-44. +</p> + +<p> +When the procession entered +Jerusalem, the <q>whole city was +moved, saying, Who is this?</q> +And the people said, <q>This is +Jesus the Prophet from Nazareth +of Galilee</q> (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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Erant autem quidam gentiles, +ex his qui ascenderant ut +adorarent in die festo.</cell> +<cell>20. Now there were certain +gentiles among them who came +up to adore on the festival day.</cell></row> +<row><cell>21. Hi ergo accesserunt ad +Philippum, qui erat a Bethsaida +Galilaeae, et rogabant eum, +dicentes: Domine volumus +Iesum videre.</cell> +<cell>21. These therefore came to +Philip, who was of Bethsaida +of Galilee, and desired him, +saying: Sir, we would see +Jesus.</cell></row> +<row><cell>22. Venit Philippus, et dicit +Andreae: Andreas rursum et +Philippus dixerunt Iesu.</cell> +<cell>22. Philip cometh and telleth +Andrew. Again Andrew and +Philip told Jesus.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <ref target='I_44'>i. 44</ref>), 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 <ref target='II_14'>ii. 14</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Iesus autem respondit eis, +dicens: Venit hora, ut clarificetur +Filius hominis.</cell> +<cell>23. But Jesus answered them +saying: The hour is come, that +the son of man should be glorified.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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: <hi rend='bold'>The hour is +come that the son of man +should be glorified</hi>: <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XII_24'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Amen, amen dico vobis, +nisi granum frumenti cadens in +terram, mortuum fuerit,</cell> +<cell>24. Amen, amen, I say to +you, unless the grain of wheat +falling into the ground die;</cell></row> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24, 25. In a beautiful comparison +our Lord points out +that as the grain of wheat dies +in order that it may fructify, so +<pb n='217'/><anchor id='Pg217'/> +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 <hi rend='italic'>loveth less</hi>) his +life in this world, keepeth it +unto life eternal. +</p> + +<anchor id='XII_26'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>26. Si quis mihi ministrat, +me sequatur: et ubi sum ego, +illic et minister meus erit. Si +quis mihi ministraverit, honorificabit +eum Pater meus.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +26. <hi rend='bold'>If any man minister to +me, let him follow me.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Nunc anima mea turbata +est. Et quid dicam? Pater, +salvifica me ex hac hora. Sed +propterea veni in horem hanc.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='218'/><anchor id='Pg218'/> +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 <ref target='I_14'>i. 14</ref>, and <ref target='Intro_IX'>Introd. IX</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Father save me from this +hour.</hi> 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: <q>Father, if Thou wilt, +remove this chalice from Me; +but not My will, but Thine be +done.</q> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>28. Pater, clarifica nomen +tuum. Venit ergo vox de +coelo: Et clarificavi, et iterum +clarificabo.</cell> +<cell>28. Father, glorify thy name. +A voice therefore came from +heaven: I have both glorified +it, and will glorify it again.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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: <hi rend='bold'>I have +both glorified (it), and will +glorify (it) again</hi>. 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: +<q>And now glorify Thou Me, +O Father, with Thyself, with +the glory which I had before +the world was, with Thee</q> +(John <ref target='XVII_5'>xvii. 5</ref>). 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 <emph>direct</emph> object +<pb n='219'/><anchor id='Pg219'/> +of glorification in both instances +is the Father's name. For when +Christ prays: <q>Glorify Thy +name,</q> and the Father +answers: <q>I have glorified, +and will again glorify,</q> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Turba ergo quae stabat +et audierat, dicebat tonitruum +esse factum. Alii dicebant: +Angelus ei locutus est.</cell> +<cell>29. The multitude therefore +that stood and heard, said that +it thundered. Others said, An +Angel spoke to him.</cell></row> +<row><cell>30. Respondit Iesus, et dixit: +Non propter me haec vox +venit, sed propter vos.</cell> +<cell>30. Jesus answered and said: +This voice came not because of +me, but for your sakes.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XII_31'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>31. Nunc iudicium est mundi: +nunc princeps huius mundi +eiicietur foras.</cell> +<cell>31. Now is the judgment of +the world: now shall the prince +of this world be cast out.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +31. <hi rend='bold'>Now is the judgment +of the world.</hi> 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 <emph>wicked</emph> +world. In favour of the +former, it is argued—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) +that since Satan was to be +cast out, or deprived of his +dominion over the world, therefore +the world was to be liberated; +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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; +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +In favour of the latter view, +which is held by St. Chrysostom +and most of the Greek fathers, it +is argued—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) that St. John always +uses κρίσις of the judgment +of condemnation; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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; +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) that in the discourse after +the Last Supper, Christ always +means by the world, the <emph>wicked</emph> +world, opposed to Himself +(John xiv. <ref target='XIV_17'>17</ref>, <ref target='XIV_22'>22</ref>, <ref target='XIV_30'>30</ref>; xv. <ref target='XV_18'>18</ref>, +<ref target='XV_19'>19</ref>; xviii. <ref target='XVIII_9'>9</ref>, <ref target='XVIII_16'>16</ref>, <ref target='XVIII_25'>25</ref>); therefore, +also here, and hence there must +be question of the judgment of +condemnation. +<pb n='220'/><anchor id='Pg220'/> +<hi rend='bold'>The prince of this world</hi> 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. <q>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</q> (Mald. on +this verse). +</p> + +<anchor id='XII_32'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. Et ego si exaltatus fuero +a terra, omnia traham ad +meipsum:</cell> +<cell>32. And I, if I be lifted up +from the earth, will draw all +things to myself.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +32. <hi rend='bold'>And I, if I be lifted up +from the earth.</hi> Christ here +predicted that after His death +on the cross (see next verse) +He should become a centre of +attraction, and draw all men +(πάντας is the more probable +reading, not πάντα), both Jews +and <emph>Gentiles</emph> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>33. Hoc autem dicebat, significans +qua morte esset moriturus.</cell> +<cell>33. (Now this he said, signifying +what death he should +die.)</cell></row></table> + +<p> +33. St. John here gives us an +authentic interpretation. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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; <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, +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 +<pb n='221'/><anchor id='Pg221'/> +minds, for there the power of +the <hi rend='italic'>Son of Man</hi> is described as +<q>an everlasting power that +shall not be taken away, and +His kingdom (a kingdom) that +shall not be destroyed.</q> Hence, +they argued, if Christ was to +die, He could not be the +Messias, but must be some +other <hi rend='italic'>Son of Man</hi> than he +spoken of by Daniel. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +35. Christ might have easily +replied, showing them from the +same Scriptures that the +Messias was to suffer and die +(see, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Yet a little while</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And</hi> (καί = γάρ) <hi rend='bold'>he that +walketh in darkness knoweth +not whither he goeth</hi>. 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, <q>darkness,</q> 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 +<ref target='IX_4'>ix. 4</ref>; xi. <ref target='XI_9'>9</ref>, <ref target='XI_10'>10</ref>. +</p> + +<anchor id='XII_36'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>36. Dum lucem habetis, credite +in lucem, ut filii lucis sitis. +Haec locutus est Iesus: et +abiit, et abscondit se ab eis.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +36. He now explains what +He means by telling them to +walk. It is that they should +believe. <hi rend='bold'>That you may be</hi> +(become) <hi rend='bold'>the children of light</hi>. +The phrase <q>children of light</q> +is a Hebraism, meaning those +who are to possess the light, +<pb n='222'/><anchor id='Pg222'/> +who are destined for it. Compare +Luke xvi. 8; Eph. v. 8. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And he went away, and +hid himself from them.</hi> +SS. Matt. and Mark tell us +that He went to Bethania with +the twelve and remained there +(Matt. xxi. 17; Mark xi. 11). +</p> + +<anchor id='XII_37'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>37. Cum autem tanta signa +fecisset coram eis, non credebant +in eum:</cell> +<cell>37. And whereas he had +done so many miracles before +them, they believed not in +him.</cell></row> +<row><cell>38. Ut sermo Isaiae prophetae +impleretur, quem dixit: +Domine, quis credidit auditui +nostro? et brachium Domini +cui revelatum est?</cell> +<cell>38. That the saying of Isaias +the prophet might be fulfilled, +which he said: <hi rend='italic'>Lord, who hath +believed our hearing? and to +whom hath the arm of the Lord +been revealed?</hi></cell></row> +<row><cell>39. Propterea non poterant +credere, quia iterum dixit Isaias:</cell> +<cell>39. Therefore they could not +believe, because Isaias said +again.</cell></row> +<row><cell>40. Excaecavit oculos eorum, +et induravit cor eorum: ut non +videant oculis, et non intelligant +corde, et convertantur, et +sanem eos.</cell> +<cell>40. <hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></cell></row></table> + +<p> +37-40. Before closing this +first part of the <emph>narrative</emph> portion +of the Gospel (see <ref target='Intro_IV'>Introd. +iv.</ref>), St. John pauses in the +history to note the hard-hearted +incredulity of the Jews, notwithstanding +the fact that Christ +had wrought <emph>so many</emph> miracles; +an incredulity, however, which +had been foretold by Isaias, +which, therefore, came to pass +now <emph>in order that</emph> (ἱνα) +the prediction of the Prophet +should be fulfilled (verses 37, 38); +and which came to pass necessarily +(<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>necessitate consequente</foreign>), +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 <emph>necessary</emph> 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. +<pb n='223'/><anchor id='Pg223'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Note, in verse 38, that <hi rend='bold'>our +hearing</hi> means what has been +heard <emph>from</emph> us, for the preachers +of the Gospel are represented in +Isaias as complaining of the +small number of those who +listened to them. <hi rend='bold'>The arm of +the Lord</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<emph>positively</emph>, but only negatively, +by the withdrawal of His more +abundant graces. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>41. Haec dixit Isaias, quando +vidit gloriam eius, et locutus +est de eo.</cell> +<cell>41. These things said Isaias +when he saw his glory, and +spoke of him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +41. See Isaias vi. 1, 9, 10, +where the Prophet says: <q>I +saw the Lord</q> (אדני = the +Supreme God), words which +are here referred by St. John +to the Prophet's having seen +Christ; therefore, according +to St. John, Christ is the +Supreme God. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And spoke of him</hi>, rather, +<q>and he spoke of Him,</q> for +this clause does not depend +upon the preceding <q>when.</q> +It is a statement that it was +of Christ Isaias spoke the +words just quoted. +</p> + +<anchor id='XII_42'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>42. Verumtamen et ex principibus +multi crediderunt in +eum: sed propter pharisaeos +non confitebantur, ut e synagoga +non eiicerentur:</cell> +<cell>42. However many of the +chief men also believed in him: +but because of the Pharisees +they did not confess <hi rend='italic'>him</hi>, that +they might not be cast out of +the synagogue.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +42. See above on <ref target='IX_22'>ix. 22</ref>. +</p> + +<pb n='224'/><anchor id='Pg224'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>43. Dilexerunt enim gloriam +hominum magis quam gloriam +Dei.</cell> +<cell>43. For they loved the glory +of men, more than the glory +of God.</cell></row> +<row><cell>44. Iesus autem clamavit, +et dixit: Qui credit in me, non +credit in me sed in eum qui +misit me.</cell> +<cell>44. But Jesus cried, and +said: He that believeth in me, +doth not believe in me, but in +him that sent me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='bold'>Doth not +believe in me</hi> is the Hebrew +way of saying: doth not <emph>so +much</emph> believe in Me, as in Him +that sent Me. Compare Mark +ix. 36. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>45. Et qui videt me, videt +eum qui misit me.</cell> +<cell>45. And he that seeth me, +seeth him that sent me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +45. In these words Christ +declares His unity of nature +with the Father. <q>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</q> (Tolet.). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>46. Ego lux in mundum +veni: ut omnis qui credit in +me, in tenebris non maneat.</cell> +<cell>46. I am come a light into +the world; that whosoever +believeth in me, may not +remain in darkness.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +46. <hi rend='bold'>Darkness</hi> here means +unbelief and sin. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>47. Et si quis audierit verba +mea, et non custodierit, ego +non iudico eum, non enim veni +ut iudicem mundum, sed ut +salvificem mundum.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +47. <hi rend='bold'>I do not judge him</hi>; +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, I do not <emph>condemn</emph> him. +Compare <ref target='III_17'>iii. 17</ref>; viii. <ref target='VIII_15'>15</ref>, <ref target='VIII_50'>50</ref>. +At his <emph>first</emph> coming Christ did +not come to condemn, but to +save. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>48. Qui spernit me, et non +accipit verba mea, habet qui +iudicet eum: sermo quem locutus +sum, ille iudicabit eum in +novissimo die.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +48. <hi rend='bold'>Hath one that judgeth +him</hi>; namely, the Father +(<ref target='VIII_50'>viii. 50</ref>). Hence the sense of +the verse is that he that despiseth +Me ... hath one that +<pb n='225'/><anchor id='Pg225'/> +judgeth him <emph>even now</emph>; and +moreover, on the last day My +words shall rise in judgment +against him. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>49. Quia ego ex meipso non +sum locutus, sed qui misit me +Pater, ipse mihi mandatum +dedit quid dicam, et quid +loquar.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +If <hi rend='bold'>say</hi> and <hi rend='bold'>speak</hi> are to +be distinguished, then <q>say</q> +(εἴπω) refers to the formal discourses, +<q>speak</q> (λαλήσω) +to the ordinary conversations; +so that in all His words Christ +had spoken to them the words +of God. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>50. Et scio quia mandatum +eius vita aeterna est. Quae +ergo ego loquor, sicut dixit +mihi Pater, sic loquor.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The things therefore that +I speak; even as the Father +said unto me, so do I speak.</hi> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='226'/><anchor id='Pg226'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter XIII.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-20. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +21-30. <hi rend='bold'>He reveals the traitor, who then leaves the supper-room.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +31-39. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +With this chapter the second +part of the narrative of our +Gospel commences. See <ref target='Intro_IV'>Introd. +IV</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIII_1'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='bold'>Before the festival day +of the pasch.</hi> 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—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) that our Lord +and His Apostles ate the +Paschal Supper on the night +<pb n='227'/><anchor id='Pg227'/> +before He died; and (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) that +the Jews that year eat it on +the same night. For St. +Matthew tells us: <q>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</q> (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: <q>Now on +the first day of the unleavened +bread, <emph>when they sacrificed the +pasch</emph>, the disciples say to +him,</q> &c.; and St. Luke: +<q>And the day of the unleavened +bread came, on which +<emph>it was necessary</emph> that the pasch +should be killed.</q> 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; <q><emph>Before</emph> the +festival day of the pasch.</q> +Moreover, in subsequent passages<note place='foot'>See, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, John xviii. 28, where we are told that the Jews, on the morning +of the crucifixion, abstained from entering the hall of Pilate, <q>that they might +not be defiled, but that they might <emph>eat the pasch</emph>.</q></note> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <q>first +day of the Azymes,</q> 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. +<pb n='228'/><anchor id='Pg228'/> +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 <q>before the festival +day of the pasch.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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.<note place='foot'>Matt. xxvi. 17-20; Mark xiv. 12-17; Luke xxii. 7-14.</note> Moreover, St. +Luke tells us that after they +sat down, Christ said: <q>With +desire I have desired to eat +this pasch with you before I +suffer</q> (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.<note place='foot'>See Coleridge, <hi rend='italic'>Passiontide</hi>, Part ii., p. 33.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +<q>Now, on the first day of the +unleavened bread, when they +sacrificed (ἔθυον, the Imperf. +denoting what was <emph>customary</emph>) +the pasch, the disciples say to +<pb n='229'/><anchor id='Pg229'/> +Him: Whither wilt thou that +we go, and prepare for thee +to eat the pasch?</q> (Mark xiv. +12). And St. Luke: <q>And +the day of the unleavened +bread came, on which it was +<emph>necessary</emph> (ἔδει) that the pasch +should be killed</q> (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. +</p> + +<p> +(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. +</p> + +<p> +(4) Others, as Petav., Mald., +Kuin., Coleridge,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Passiontide</hi>, Part ii., pp. 40-42.</note> 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 <emph>before</emph> 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.<note place='foot'>Since the Jews removed all leaven from their houses on the 14th Nisan, +that day seems to have been called the first day of Azymes. It was <emph>during</emph> +that day that the last supper was <emph>prepared</emph>, but it was during the following +<emph>night</emph> (Exod. xii. 8), and therefore when the next Jewish day had already +commenced, that it was eaten.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='230'/><anchor id='Pg230'/> +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: +<q>Tam ex Mischna quam ex +Talmude probatur Pascha in +secundam, quartam, et <emph>sextam</emph> +feriam quandoque incidisse.</q> +Since, then, the hypothesis on +which this opinion rests seems +doubtful, the opinion itself +appears to us less satisfactory +than that which follows. +</p> + +<p> +(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,<note place='foot'>The following are the passages from which the objections are drawn:—John +xiii. 1; xiii. 29; xviii. 28; xix. 14, 31.</note> can all be answered +satisfactorily, as we +shall show when discussing +the passages on which they +are founded. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>Before the festival +day of the pasch.</q> 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 +<q>before the festival day of the +pasch</q>? To this difficulty +various answers have been +given. (1) Some have replied +that St. John means by <q>day</q> +the natural day, or time of +light; and then it is plain that +<pb n='231'/><anchor id='Pg231'/> +a supper celebrated on the +night following the 14th was +before the festival <emph>day</emph> of the +15th. This explanation is unsatisfactory, +for in the original +St. John does not merely say +<q>Before the festal day,</q> but +<q>Before the festal period</q> +(πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς; comp., <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, vii. +<ref target='VII_2'>2</ref>, <ref target='VII_14'>14</ref>, <ref target='VII_36'>37</ref>). +</p> + +<p> +(2) Others say that the +words πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς are +equivalent to ἐν τῷ προεορτίῳ; +<q>quod ita praecedit festum, +ut tamen sit pars festi</q> are +the words of Bochart, with +whom Stier agrees. See +Smith's <hi rend='italic'>B. D.</hi>, Art. <q>Passover.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(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.<note place='foot'>See the able article, by Dr. Molloy, in <hi rend='italic'>I. E. Record</hi>, vol. ix., pp. 445-464.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Jesus, knowing that his +hour was come, that he +should pass out of this +world to the Father.</hi> 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 <emph>in an extraordinary +manner</emph>. Εἰς τέλος +which in our Rhemish Version +is translated <q>unto the end,</q> +we understand, with the Greek +fathers, who ought to be the +best judges of the meaning of +the phrase, as equivalent to +<emph>excessively</emph>, or <emph>in a surpassing +manner</emph>. 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Et coena facta, cum diabolus +iam misisset in cor ut +traderet eum Iudas Simonis +Iscariotae:</cell> +<cell>2. And when supper was +done (the devil having now +put into the heart of Judas +Iscariot, the son of Simon, to +betray him),</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='bold'>And when supper was +done.</hi> We have taken for +granted that the supper here +<pb n='232'/><anchor id='Pg232'/> +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.<note place='foot'>The reader may consult with profit <hi rend='italic'>I. E. Record</hi>, vol. x., pp. 110-114.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<q>There are good grounds for +questioning the correctness of +the Greek reading, which in the +Vulgate is translated <q>coena +facta</q>; for the <emph>present</emph> participle +(γινομένου) and not the +past (γενομένου) is found in +many MSS. of the highest +authority. Finally, it is +obvious that, considering the +special signification of the +Greek verb employed (γίνομαι +<hi rend='italic'>to be, to come into being</hi>), even +the <emph>past</emph> 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: <q>When +morning <emph>was come</emph>;</q> in Mark +vi. 2, <q><emph>during</emph> the Sabbath;</q> +Matt. xxvi. 6, <q>Jesus <emph>being</emph> now +at Bethany,</q> and in many other +passages</q> (Dr. Walsh, <hi rend='italic'>Harmony +of the Gospel Narratives</hi>, +note 19.) The meaning, then, +is that supper was proceeding. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The devil having now put +into the heart of Judas +Iscariot, the son of Simon, +to betray him.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIII_3'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Sciens quia omnia dedit +ei Pater in manus, et quia a +Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit.</cell> +<cell>3. Knowing that the Father +had given him all things into +his hands, and that he came +from God, and goeth to God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<pb n='233'/><anchor id='Pg233'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Surgit a coena, et ponit +vestimenta sua: et cum accepisset +linteum, praecinxit se.</cell> +<cell>4. He riseth from supper, +and layeth aside his garments, +and having taken a towel, +girded himself.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +4. <hi rend='bold'>He riseth from supper.</hi> +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 +(<q>being sat down again</q>) we +hold that it was <emph>not over</emph>; +so that we adhere to the traditional +view that the washing +of the feet took place +during the supper.<note place='foot'><q>Adhuc coenabatur quum Dominus surrexit et pedes lavit discipulis +suis.</q>—St. Aug.</note> 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. <q>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 <hi rend='italic'>proclaimer of the +feast</hi>.</q><note place='foot'>Anyone who desires fuller information on the rites of the Paschal Supper +will find it in Maclean's account given by Dr. Walsh in the note referred to +above.</note> (See Dr. Walsh, <hi rend='italic'>Harmony +of the Gospel Narratives</hi>, +note 16.) +</p> + +<p> +Christ having risen from the +supper <hi rend='bold'>layeth aside his garments</hi>. +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;<note place='foot'><q>Quam enim Romani togam aut pallium, id est summan vestem, +Graeci, ui ex Plutarcho discimus, το ἱμάτίον appellabant.</q>—Mald, <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>.</note> 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. +<q>Quid mirum,</q> says St. Augustine, +si <q>praecinxit se linteo qui +formam servi accipiens habitu +inventus est ut homo?</q> Note +how the Evangelist narrates +every little circumstance connected +with this act of marvellous +condescension. +</p> + +<pb n='234'/><anchor id='Pg234'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Deinde mittit aquam in +pelvim, et coepit lavare pedes +discipulorum, et extergere linteo +quo erat praecinctus.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. <hi rend='bold'>After that, he putteth +water into a basin.</hi> In the +Greek we have <emph>the</emph> basin (τὸν +νιπτῆρα), probably denoting a +vessel ordinarily used for the +washing of feet, or that had +been provided for the ceremony +of the washing of hands, which +was portion of the ritual of the +Paschal Supper. We take it +that the fourth and fifth verses +describe in a general way how +our Lord set about washing +the disciples' feet. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Venit ergo ad Simonem +Petrum. Et dicet ei Petrus: +Domine, tu mihi lavas pedes?</cell> +<cell>6. He cometh therefore to +Simon Peter. And Peter said +to him: Lord, dost thou wash +my feet?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<q>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</q> (Westc. +in <hi rend='italic'>The Speaker's Commentary</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Dost thou wash my feet?</hi> +The position of the pronouns +in the Greek brings out sharply +the contrast of the persons. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Respondit Iesus, et dixit +ei: Quod ego facio, tu nescis +modo, scies autem postea.</cell> +<cell>7. Jesus answered, and said +to him: What I do, thou +knowest not now, but thou +shalt know hereafter.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Dicit ei Petrus: Non +lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum. +Respondit ei Iesus: Si +non lavero te, non habebis +partem mecum.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8. Strong in faith, and mindful +of the dignity of his Master, +with that impetuosity which +displayed itself on other +<pb n='235'/><anchor id='Pg235'/> +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: <hi rend='bold'>If I +wash thee not, thou shalt +have no part with me.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>clean</emph>; +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Dicit ei Simon Petrus: +Domine, non tantum pedes +meos, sed et manus, et caput.</cell> +<cell>9. Simon Peter saith to him: +Lord, not only my feet, but also +my hands and my head.</cell></row> +<row><cell>10. Dicit ei Iesus: Qui lotus +est, non indiget nisi ut pedes +lavet, sed est mundus totus. +Et vos mundi estis, sed non +omnes.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus saith to him: He +that is washed</hi> (rather <emph>bathed</emph>), +<hi rend='bold'>needeth not but to wash his +feet, but is clean wholly</hi>. +Some ancient authorities omit +the words <q>but</q> and <q>his +feet,</q> 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 +<pb n='236'/><anchor id='Pg236'/> +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 <ref target='II_6'>ii. 6</ref>), +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: <q>And you are clean, +but not all</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +The meaning, then, seems +<pb n='237'/><anchor id='Pg237'/> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIII_11'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Sciebat enim quisnam +esset qui traderet eum: propterea +dixit: Non estis mundi +omnes.</cell> +<cell>11. For he knew who he was +that would betray him; therefore +he said: You are not all +clean.</cell></row> +<row><cell>12. Postquam ergo lavit +pedes eorum, et accepit vestimenta +sua: cum recubuisset +iterum, dixit eis: Scitis quid +fecerim vobis?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row> +<row><cell>13. Vos vocatis me, Magister +et Domine: et benedicitis: +sum etenim.</cell> +<cell>13. You call me Master, and +Lord: and you say well, for +so I am.</cell></row> +<row><cell>14. Si ergo ego lavi pedes +vestros, Dominus et Magister: +et vos debetis alter alterius +lavare pedes.</cell> +<cell>14. If then I, being <hi rend='italic'>your</hi> +Lord and Master, have washed +your feet; you also ought to +wash one another's feet.</cell></row> +<row><cell>15. Exemplum enim dedi +vobis, ut quemadmodum ego +feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis.</cell> +<cell>15. For I have given you an +example, that as I have done +to you, so you do also.</cell></row> +<row><cell>16. Amen, amen dico vobis: +Non est servus maior domino +suo: neque apostolus maior +est eo qui misit illum.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +12-16. Having concluded the +washing of the feet, and <emph>again +reclined</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Si haec scitis, beati eritis +si feceritis ea.</cell> +<cell>17. If you know these things, +you shall be blessed if you do +them.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIII_18'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Non de omnibus vobis +dico: ego scio quos elegerim: +sed ut adimpleatur scriptura: +Qui manducat mecum panem, +levabit contra me calcaneum +suum.</cell> +<cell>18. I speak not of you all: I +know whom I have chosen: +but that the scripture may be +fulfilled, <hi rend='italic'>He that eateth bread +with me, shall lift up his heel +against me</hi>.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <q>blessed,</q> +which He had used, He proceeds +to say that not all of +them are, or shall be, blessed. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>I know whom I have +<pb n='238'/><anchor id='Pg238'/> +chosen.</hi> SS. Aug. and Bede +understand Christ to speak of +the choice or election by which +He had predestined some to +<emph>glory</emph>; 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. <hi rend='bold'>But that the Scripture +may be fulfilled.</hi> 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 <ref target='XII_37'>xii. 38</ref>. 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 <hi rend='bold'>shall lift</hi> (or rather <q>has +lifted,</q> for <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>levabit</foreign> ought to be +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>levavit</foreign>) <hi rend='bold'>up his heel against +me</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIII_19'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Amodo dico vobis, priusquam +fiat: ut cum factum +fuerit, credatis quia ego sum.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Amen, amen dico vobis: +qui accipit si quem misero, me +accipit: qui autem me accipit, +accipit eum qui me misit.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='239'/><anchor id='Pg239'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Cum haec dixisset Iesus, +turbatus est spiritu: et protestatus +est, et dixit: Amen, +amen dico vobis: quia unus ex +vobis tradet me.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +21. <hi rend='bold'>He was troubled in +spirit.</hi> As we said above +on <ref target='XI_23'>xi. 23</ref>, 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: <q>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</q> (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. +</p> + +<p> +<q>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 +<pb n='240'/><anchor id='Pg240'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>We may, indeed, regard +them as conveying an intimation +to <emph>Judas himself</emph>, 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 +<emph>altogether indefinite</emph>, 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, <q><emph>Unus vestrum</emph> me +traditurus est,</q> of St. Matthew +(xxvi. 21), or the <q><emph>Unus ex +vobis</emph> tradet me, qui manducat +mecum</q> 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), <q><emph>Qui +manducat mecum panem</emph>, +levabit contra me calcaneum +suum.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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 <emph>in the eyes +of his fellow-Apostles</emph>.<note place='foot'>Matt. xxvi. 25: <q>And Judas that betrayed him, answering said: Is it I, +Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said <hi rend='italic'>it</hi>,</q> presents considerable difficulty, +as Judas appears to be there distinctly pointed out. Some have held that +only the traitor himself heard Christ's reply; but it is difficult to see how +some of the others close to Jesus should not also hear it. Hence we prefer to +hold that these words, though recorded by St. Matt. before his account of +the institution of the Blessed Eucharist were in reality not spoken till after +the dipped bread had been given to the traitor.</note> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>The incident recorded by +St. John (xiii. 21, 30) is +of an essentially different +character. There our Lord, +after announcing in general +terms, <q>Unus ex vobis tradet +me,</q> 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, <q>Ille est, cui ego +intinctum panem porrexero;</q> +and the traitor is immediately +pointed out by the signal thus +selected by our Lord: <q>Et +<pb n='241'/><anchor id='Pg241'/> +quum intinxisset panem, dedit +Judae Simonis Iscariotae.</q></q><note place='foot'>Dr. Walsh, <hi rend='italic'>Harmony of the Gospel Narratives</hi>, pp. 137, 138.</note> +</p> + +<anchor id='XIII_22'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Aspiciebant ergo ad invicem +discipuli, haesitantes de +quo diceret.</cell> +<cell>22. The disciples therefore +looked one upon another, +doubting of whom he spoke.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. <hi rend='bold'>The disciples therefore +looked</hi> (rather, <emph>were +looking</emph>, as in the original and +Vulgate) <hi rend='bold'>one upon another, +doubting of whom he spoke</hi>. +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 <emph>whom</emph> He spoke, +for though the original might +mean, of <emph>what</emph> He spoke, +Peter's question immediately +afterwards: <q>Who is it of +whom he speaketh?</q> (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 <emph>what</emph> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Erat ergo recumbens +unus ex discipulis eius in sinu +Iesu, quem diligebat Iesus.</cell> +<cell>23. Now there was leaning +on Jesus' bosom one of his +disciples whom Jesus loved.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. <hi rend='bold'>Now there was leaning +on Jesus' bosom.</hi> Rather: +<q>Now there was reclining at +the table <emph>in</emph> (ἀνακείμενος ... ἐν) +Jesus' bosom.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>One of his disciples whom +Jesus loved.</hi> 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, <ref target='XIX_26'>xix. 26</ref>; xxi. <ref target='XXI_7'>7</ref>, <ref target='XXI_20'>20</ref>. +Comp. also <ref target='XX_2'>xx. 2</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Innuit ergo huic Simon +Petrus, et dixit ei: Quis est, +de quo dicit?</cell> +<cell>24. Simon Peter therefore +beckoned to him, and said to +him: Who is it of whom he +speaketh?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. The best-supported +Greek reading agrees substantially +with the Vulgate: +<q>Simon Peter therefore +beckoneth to him, and saith +unto him, Tell who it is of +<pb n='242'/><anchor id='Pg242'/> +whom he speaketh.</q> 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 <emph>to +inquire</emph> (πυθέσθαι) who the +traitor is. It might seem +more in accordance with St. +Peter's character, that he +should directly ask our Lord +to point out the traitor, but +it is possible that Christ's +threat, recorded in verse 8, +may have made him less confident +than usual. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIII_25'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Itaque cum recubuisset +ille supra pectus Iesu, dicit ei: +Domine quis est!</cell> +<cell>25. He therefore leaning on +the breast of Jesus saith to him: +Lord, who is it?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25. If St. Peter supposed +that St. John already knew +who the traitor was, he was +mistaken, as we see by this +verse. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>He therefore leaning on.</hi> +The best-supported Greek +reading would be rendered +thus: <hi rend='italic'>He leaning back, as he +was, on</hi> &c. (ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος +οὕτως ἐπί). +</p> + +<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 <q>as +he was,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, without changing +his position at table, by +merely leaning back, he was +not only close to the <emph>bosom</emph> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>26. Respondit Iesus: Ille est +cui ego intinctum panem porrexero. +Et cum intinxisset +panem, dedit Iudae Simonis +Iscariotae.</cell> +<cell>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, <hi rend='italic'>the son</hi> of +Simon.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +26. If we suppose the bread +which was handed to Judas +to have been dipped in the +Charoseth (חרוסת) a kind of +sauce used at the Paschal +Supper, then the meats of the +Paschal Supper must have +been still upon the table. +This there is no difficulty in +admitting, even if the ordinary +supper, following upon the +Paschal Supper, had already +been partaken of. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Et post buccellam, introivit +in eim Satanas. Et dixit +ei Iesus; Quod facis, fac citius.</cell> +<cell>27. And after the morsel, +Satan entered into him. And +Jesus said to him: That which +thou dost, do quickly.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +27. After the morsel had +been given to Judas, <q>Satan +<pb n='243'/><anchor id='Pg243'/> +entered into him;</q> 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. +<hi rend='bold'>And Jesus said to +him: That which thou dost, +do quickly</hi>, 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 +<q>That which thou +dost,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, hast determined to +do, they show Christ's readiness +and eagerness to begin to drink +of the chalice that awaited Him. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>28. Hoc autem nemo scivit +discumbentium ad quid dixerit +ei.</cell> +<cell>28. Now no man at the table +knew to what purpose he said +this unto him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +29. <hi rend='bold'>For some thought ... +for the festival day</hi>. +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—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) +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 (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) that +on the night of the 14th of Nisan +<pb n='244'/><anchor id='Pg244'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +But to (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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 +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. <hi rend='bold'>To the poor.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>30. Cum ergo accepisset ille +buccellam, exivit continuo. Erat +autem nox.</cell> +<cell>30. He therefore having received +the morsel, went out +immediately. And it was night.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +30. When Judas found himself +revealed as the traitor, he +immediately left the supper-room. +The Evangelist adds: +<hi rend='bold'>And it was night</hi>, 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. <q>Erat autem +nox,</q> says St. Aug., <q>Et ipse +qui exivit erat nox.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: +<q>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</q> (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 +<pb n='245'/><anchor id='Pg245'/> +Eucharist with the treachery +of <emph>one who was present</emph>. <q>This +is the chalice, the New Testament +in My blood, which shall +be shed for you. <hi rend='italic'>But yet</hi> behold, +the hand of him that betrayeth +Me is with Me on the table</q> +(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: <q>And they all drank +of it</q> (xiv. 23). +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>Cum plerisque modernis</q> +(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 <emph>before</emph> 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 <emph>only on +the last occasion</emph> definitely disclosed +who the traitor was. +</p> + +<p> +(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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>31. Cum ergo exisset, dixit +Iesus: Nunc clarificatus est +Filius hominis: et Deus clarificatus +est in eo.</cell> +<cell>31. When he therefore was +gone out, Jesus said: Now is +the son of man glorified, and +God is glorified in him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='246'/><anchor id='Pg246'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>When he therefore was +gone out Jesus said.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Now is the son of man +glorified.</hi> 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: <q>is ... glorified.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And God is glorified in +him.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. Si Deus clarificatus est +in eo, et Deus clarificabit eum +in semetipso: et continuo clarificabit +eum.</cell> +<cell>32. If God be glorified in +him, God also will glorify him +in himself: and immediately +will he glorify him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +32. Many authorities omit +the words: <q>If God be glorified +in him.</q> <hi rend='bold'>In himself.</hi> +The meaning seems to be: <emph>with</emph> +Himself, as in xvii. 5: <q>And +now glorify thou me, O Father, +with thyself.</q> <hi rend='bold'>Immediately</hi>, +we refer to the time of the +crucifixion. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIII_33'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>33. Filioli, adhuc modicum +vobiscum sum quaeretis me: +et sicut dixi Iudaeis: Quo ego +vado, vos non potestis venire: +et vobis dico modo.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +<ref target='VII_33'>33</ref>, <ref target='VII_34'>34</ref>), 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 +<pb n='247'/><anchor id='Pg247'/> +motive seems rather to be to +forearm the Apostles by forewarning +them and putting +before them various motives +of consolation. +</p> + +<p> +The term (τεκνία) occurs +only here in the Gospels, but +is found six (or seven) times +in St. John's First Epistle. The +diminutive form is expressive +of tender affection, and perhaps +of anxiety for those who were +still immature. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Little children you shall +seek me</hi>, &c. See above on +<ref target='VII_34'>vii. 34</ref>. The declaration is +somewhat different in form on +this second occasion. The +words: <q>and shall not find +me</q> (<ref target='VII_34'>vii. 34</ref>) are omitted, and +instead of: <q>where I am</q> the +present text has: <q>whither I +go.</q> 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: +<q>and shall not find me;</q> +though in the sense of not +finding Him any longer visibly +present among them, the +words were true even in reference +to the Apostles. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIII_34'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>34. Mandatum novum do +vobis: ut diligatis invicem, +sicut dilexi vos, ut et vos diligatis +invicem.</cell> +<cell>34. A new commandment I +give unto you: That you love +one another, as I have loved +you, that you also love one +another.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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: <hi rend='bold'>As I have +loved you</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>35. In hoc cognoscent omnes +quia discipuli mei estis, si dilectionem +habueritis ad invicem.</cell> +<cell>35. By this shall all men +know that you are my disciples, +if you have love one for another.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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: <q>See +how these Christians love one +another</q>!... <q>and how they +are ready to die for one +another</q>! (Apol. 39). +</p> + +<anchor id='XIII_36'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>36. Dicit et Simon Petrus: +Domine, quo vadis? Respondit +Iesus: Quo ego vado, non potes +me modo sequi: sequeris autem +postea.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +36. St. Peter, all absorbed +in Christ's words, (verse 33), +which signified that he was to +be separated from his Divine +Master, asks: <hi rend='bold'>Lord, whither +<pb n='248'/><anchor id='Pg248'/> +goest thou?</hi> Christ's reply +means that He was going +to His Father, whither Peter +should one day follow, though +he could not follow then. <hi rend='bold'>Thou +shalt follow hereafter.</hi> These +words implied Peter's final +perseverance and salvation. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIII_37'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>37. Dicit ei Petrus: Quare +non possum te sequi modo? +animam meam pro te ponam.</cell> +<cell>37. Peter saith to him: Why +cannot I follow thee now? I +will lay down my life for thee.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIII_38'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>38. Respondit ei Iesus: Animam +tuam pro me pones? +Amen, amen dico tibi: non +cantabit gallus, donec ter me +neges.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +We believe that our Lord +<emph>twice</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +<q>Before the cock crow <emph>twice</emph>, +thou shalt deny me thrice</q> +(Mark xiv. 30). There is, +however, no contradiction +between St. Mark and the +others, even if all refer to +the same prediction; for the +<emph>second</emph> 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 <q><emph>the</emph> +cockcrowing.</q> 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. +<pb n='249'/><anchor id='Pg249'/> +Thus, in St. Mark (xiii. 35), +our Lord says: <q>Watch ye +therefore (for you know not +when the lord of the house +cometh; at even, or at midnight, +<emph>or at the cockcrowing</emph>, or +in the morning).</q> Thus, then, +although the cock crew after +Peter's <emph>first</emph> 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 +<emph>second</emph> crowing of the cock +referred to by St. Mark +was <emph>the</emph> cock-crowing mentioned +by the other three +Evangelists. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(1) There was the Paschal +Supper. +</p> + +<p> +(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). +</p> + +<p> +(3) The ordinary supper, +during which +</p> + +<p> +(4) Another reference to the +traitor (Matt. xxvi. 21 <hi rend='italic'>ff.</hi>; and +Mark xiv. 18 <hi rend='italic'>ff.</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +(5) The Eucharistic Supper. +</p> + +<p> +(6) A third reference to the +traitor (Luke xxii. 21). +</p> + +<p> +(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. +</p> + +<p> +(8) The question of St. John +(John xiii. 25), and the final +disclosure of the traitor, who +quits the supper room. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='250'/><anchor id='Pg250'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter XIV.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-4. <hi rend='bold'>Christ bids the Apostles not to be troubled in heart, and puts +before them three motives of consolation.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +5-7. <hi rend='bold'>Interrupted by Thomas He declares Himself to be</hi> <hi rend='italic'>the way</hi>, <hi rend='bold'>and +His Father</hi> <hi rend='italic'>the term</hi> <hi rend='bold'>whither He goeth</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +8-12<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>. <hi rend='bold'>Philip's request, and Christ's reply containing a fourth motive +of consolation.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +12<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>-14. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +15-17. <hi rend='bold'>As a fifth motive of consolation, He promises to send them the +Holy Ghost.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +18-21. <hi rend='bold'>As a sixth motive, He promises to come to them Himself.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +22-24. <hi rend='bold'>Not only to them but to all the faithful shall He come together +with the Father and the Holy Ghost.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +25-26. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +27. <hi rend='bold'>As an eighth motive, He bequeathes them His peace.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +28. <hi rend='bold'>Finally, as a ninth, He tells them that to leave them and go to +the Father is for His greater glory.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +29. <hi rend='bold'>His object in foretelling His departure and return.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +30-31. <hi rend='bold'>He declares the approach of Satan, and invites the Apostles to +quit the Supper-room.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<anchor id='XIV_1'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Non turbetur cor vestrum. +Creditis in Deum, et in me +credite.</cell> +<cell>1. Let not your heart be +troubled. You believe in God, +believe also in me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='bold'>Let not your heart be +troubled.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>You believe in God, believe +<pb n='251'/><anchor id='Pg251'/> +also in me</hi>; that is, believe Me +also to be God, who can therefore +overcome all My enemies, +and make you victorious over +yours. Instead of <q>you believe</q> +we have in the Greek πιστεύετε, +which by its form might be +either an indicative or imperative, +but is more probably an +indicative, because it is not +likely that Christ thought it +necessary to exhort the Apostles +to believe in God, a thing that +every Jew did. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. In domo Patris mei mansiones +multae sunt; si quo +minus, dixissem vobis: quia +vado parare vobis locum.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='bold'>In my Father's house +there are many mansions.</hi> +Here He puts before them the +<emph>first</emph> 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. <q>Mansions</q> renders +the Vulgate <q>mansiones,</q> which +were resting-places or stations +along the highways, where +travellers found refreshments. +The Greek word μονή is found +in the New Testament only +here and in verse 23. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>If not, I would have told +you that I go to prepare a +place for you.</hi> <emph>That</emph> (ὅτι, +Vulg., quia) is almost certainly +genuine,<note place='foot'>It is read by Lachm., Tisch., Tregel., Westc., and Hort, and by the +Revised Version as well as the Vulgate.</note> and hence we must +explain the text, retaining it, +though its presence creates +difficulty. +</p> + +<p> +(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 +<emph>hypothetical</emph>, whereas from the +text it seems to be real: <q>And +if I shall go ... I will +come again.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(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. +</p> + +<p> +(3) Others thus: If not, I +would have told you <emph>so. But, +in fact, there are many mansions</emph>, +for I go to prepare +a place for you. Against +<pb n='252'/><anchor id='Pg252'/> +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: <q>If +not, I would have told you</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>To prepare a place.</hi> Christ +by his death, resurrection, and +ascension opened heaven, and +made ready a place for man. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Et si abiero, et praeparavero +vobis locum: iterum venio, +et accipiam vos ad meipsum, +ut ubi sum ego, et vos sitis.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='bold'>I will come again.</hi> This +is a <emph>second</emph> 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: <q>And will take,</q> &c. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Et quo ego vado scitis, et +viam scitis.</cell> +<cell>4. And whither I go you +know, and the way you know.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<emph>third</emph> motive of consolation. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_5'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Dicit ei Thomas: Domine, +nescimus quo vadis: et +quomodo possumus viam scire?</cell> +<cell>5. Thomas saith to him: +Lord, we know not whither +thou goest, and how can we +know the way?</cell></row> +<row><cell>6. Dicit ei Iesus: Ego sum +via, et veritas, et vita, nemo +venit ad Patrem, nisi per me.</cell> +<cell>6. Jesus saith to him, I am +the way, and the truth, and +the life, no man cometh to the +Father but by me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5, 6. St. Thomas interrupts, +and Jesus explains, pointing out +that He Himself is the way to +the Father. +</p> + +<pb n='253'/><anchor id='Pg253'/> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>I am the way, and the +truth, and the life.</hi> Many +interpretations of these words +have been given. We believe +that the first clause: <q>I +am the way,</q> answers +Thomas' difficulty; but as +such a statement itself needed +explanation, the remaining +words <q>and the truth, and +the life,</q> are added to explain +how Christ is the way +namely, inasmuch as He is the +Truth, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> the author of faith; +and the Life, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> the author of +grace and of the supernatural +life of the soul. In this view +the phrase hebraizes, the first +<q>and</q> being explanatory: I +am the way, <emph>inasmuch as</emph> I am +the truth and the life. This +seems better than to hold with +SS. Augustine and Thomas +that Christ declares Himself +the way <emph>as man</emph>, the truth and +the life as God. St. Augustine's +words are: <q>Ipse igitur (vadit) +ad seipsum per seipsum.</q> But +the words that follow in this +verse: <q>No man cometh to +the Father but by me,</q> show +that the Father, and not Christ +as God, is the term to which +the way in question leads. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_7'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Si cognovissetis me, et +Patrem meum utique cognovissetis: +et amodo cognoscetis +eum, et vidistis eum.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <ref target='X_29'>x. +30</ref>). 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: <hi rend='bold'>If you +had known me</hi>, 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. <hi rend='bold'>And from +henceforth you shall know +him, and you have seen him.</hi> +We would render the Greek +thus: <q>And <emph>even now</emph> (see John +<ref target='XIII_19'>xiii. 19</ref>) you know Him, and +you have seen Him.</q> The sense +is, that even now they knew the +Father in some way through +<pb n='254'/><anchor id='Pg254'/> +their imperfect knowledge of +Christ, and they had seen Him +in seeing Christ, because, as +Christ adds in verse 9: <q>He +who seeth me, seeth the Father +also.</q> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Dicit ei Philippus: Domine, +ostende nobis Patrem, et +sufficit nobis.</cell> +<cell>8. Philip saith to him: Lord +show us the Father, and it is +enough for us.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_9'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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?</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +9. Christ replies, again insisting +on His consubstantiality +with the Father: <hi rend='bold'>He that seeth +me, seeth the Father also</hi> +(<q>also</q> 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 <q>No man cometh to +the Father but by me;</q> and +again in verse 13, where He +says that He goes to the +Father. There is, then, identity +of nature, but distinction of +Persons. <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Cognovistis</foreign> of the +Vulgate ought to be <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>cognovisti</foreign>, +Philip being addressed. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_10'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. <hi rend='bold'>Do you not believe</hi> (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>creditis</foreign> +ought to be <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>credis</foreign>) <hi rend='bold'>that +I am in the Father and the +Father in me</hi>? He who saw +Christ saw the Father implicitly, +in virtue of the unity of nature. +The words, and the connection +<pb n='255'/><anchor id='Pg255'/> +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. <q>Hoc autem quod dicit,</q> +says St. Thomas on this verse, +<q><q>Ego in Patre et Pater in me +est,</q> dicitur propter essentiae +unitatem, de qua dicitur supra +x. 30. <q>Ego et Pater unum +sumus.</q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>the works</q> +many authorities read <q>His +works;</q> but the sense is the +same, for the works were both +Christ's and the Father's. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Non creditis quia ego in +Patre, et Pater in me est?</cell> +<cell>11. Believe you not that I +am in the Father, and the +Father in me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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; <q>Believe me that I +am in the Father, and the +Father in me.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>fourth</emph> motive opens with +the solemn <q>Amen, amen;</q> +and the Apostles are told that +<pb n='256'/><anchor id='Pg256'/> +whoever believeth in Him shall +perform even greater miracles +than His (<q>majora horum</q> is +a Graecism for <q>majora his</q>), +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Greater than these.</hi> The +miracles of Christ's followers +were greater than His in +their visible effects. <q>Evangelizantibus +discipulis ... gentes +etiam crediderunt; +haec sunt sine dubitatione +majora</q> (St. Aug. <hi rend='italic'>ad loc.</hi>). We +think it very probable that +the charism of miracles is here +promised not merely to the +Apostles, but <emph>to the Church</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_13'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Et quodcumque petieritis +Patrem in nomine meo, +hoc faciam: ut glorificetur +Pater in Filio.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +13. In the Vulgate the +words: <q>Because I go to the +Father,</q> are rightly connected +with the preceding, and form +portion of verse 12. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And whatsoever you shall +ask the Father.</hi> The words +<q>the Father</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>In my name</hi> (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί +μου). This phrase occurs here +for the first time in this Gospel. +Compare the phrase <q>in the +name of my Father,</q> 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: <emph>while invoking +with faith the name of +Christ</emph>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Si quid petieritis me in +nomine meo, hoc faciam.</cell> +<cell>14. If you shall ask me anything +in my name, that I will +do.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <emph>primarily</emph> of miracles; +but the expression <q>si quid</q> +(ἐάν τι) is so general, that we +<pb n='257'/><anchor id='Pg257'/> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Si diligitis me, mandata +mea servate.</cell> +<cell>15. If you love me keep my +commandments.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. Now begins the promise +of the Holy Ghost—the <emph>fifth</emph> +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, +<q>Love is proved by deeds.</q> +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_16'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Et ego rogabo Patrem, +et alium Paraclitum dabit +vobis, ut maneat vobiscum +in aeternum.</cell> +<cell>16. And I will ask the +Father, and he shall give you +another Paraclete, that he +may abide with you for ever.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. <q>Paraclitus</q><note place='foot'>The quantity of the third syllable in this word varies. Strictly it +ought to be long, the word being derived from the Greek παράκλητος; but in +ecclesiastical Latin it is generally short, and spelled with <hi rend='italic'>i</hi> instead of <hi rend='italic'>e</hi>, as +in the <hi rend='italic'>Veni Creator</hi>: Qui diceris Paraclitus.</note> 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, <q>for ever,</q> +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 <q>for +ever</q> 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 <ref target='XVI_13'>xvi. 13</ref>); why, except +in order that they through +themselves <emph>and their successors</emph> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Ecclesia +docens</hi>, represented by the +Apostles, to abide with her for +ever. +</p> + +<p> +In either interpretation it +cannot be proved from this +text that the Apostles were to +be confirmed in grace after the +<pb n='258'/><anchor id='Pg258'/> +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 +<emph>another</emph> 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.<note place='foot'><q>Ex dictis colligitur duo ad missionem proprie dictam concurrere, +alterum, sempiternam processionem personae, quae mittitur; alterum, +externam aliquam efficientiam, sive sub sensus incidat, ut cum, homine +suscepto. Verbum hominibus apparuit, aut sub columbae specie Spiritus +Sanctus, sive interius sit nec aspectabile quod agitur, ut cum Spiritus S. ad +fidelium quemque demittitur.</q>—Perrone, <hi rend='italic'>De Trin.</hi>, cap. vi., Scholion 4, note 3.</note> 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_17'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17. <hi rend='bold'>The Spirit of truth.</hi> +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). +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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</q> +(1 Cor. ii. 14). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>It seeth him not, nor +knoweth him.</hi> 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 +<pb n='259'/><anchor id='Pg259'/> +receiving Him at His coming. +Want of vision shall be a +hindrance to possession. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>But you shall know him; +because he shall abide with +you, and shall be in you.</hi> +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 +<q>shall know</q> and <q>shall +abide,</q> we have in both +instances the present tense in +the Greek, and many authorities +also read the present +instead of <q>shall be.</q> The +clause would then run: <q>but +you know him because he +abides with you and is in you.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But even in this reading the +present may stand for the +future, and the meaning will +be the same as in the Vulgate. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Non relinquam vos orphanos: +veniam ad vos.</cell> +<cell>18. I will not leave you +orphans, I will come to you.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. As a <emph>sixth</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>I will come</hi> (ἔρχομαί) <hi rend='bold'>to you</hi>. +There are various views as to +what coming of Christ is here +promised. +</p> + +<p> +(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. +</p> + +<p> +(2) Others hold that there is +question of the coming at the +Day of Judgment. As the +years are measured before +God, only <q>a little while</q> +shall elapse till then, and it is +only after the Day of Judgment +that the promise of verse 20: +<q>In that day you shall know +that I am in my Father, and +you in me, and I in you</q> +shall be fully realized. So St. +Aug., Mald., &c. +</p> + +<p> +(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 +<pb n='260'/><anchor id='Pg260'/> +implying and including the +coming of Christ Himself (18-20). +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Adhuc modicum, et mundus +me iam non videt. Vos +autem videtis me, quia ego +vivo, et vos vivetis.</cell> +<cell>19. Yet a little while: and +the world seeth me no more. +But you see me: because I +live, and you shall live.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. <hi rend='bold'>Yet a little while.</hi> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Thus he tells them that they +shall live a spiritual life, a +kind of participation in His +own glorious life (<ref target='VI_56'>vi. 57</ref>), 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. In illo die vos cognoscetis +quia ego sum in Patre +meo, et vos in me, et ego in +vobis.</cell> +<cell>20. In that day you shall +know that I am in my Father, +and you in me, and I in you.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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, <ref target='XV_2'>xv. 2</ref>), deriving all your +spiritual life from Me, and I in +you by a <emph>special indwelling</emph> +enjoyed only by the just. See +above on <ref target='VII_39'>vii. 39</ref>. 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 +<pb n='261'/><anchor id='Pg261'/> +analogical. Yet such texts as +this (see also <ref target='VI_58'>vi. 58</ref>; xvii. <ref target='XVII_21'>21</ref>, +<ref target='XVII_23'>23</ref>), 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +21. <hi rend='bold'>He that hath</hi> (ὁ ἔχων) +<hi rend='bold'>my commandments, and +keepeth them</hi>, &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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_22'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Dicit ei Iudas, non ille +Iscariotes: Domine, quid factum +est quia manifestaturus es +nobis teipsum, et non mundo?</cell> +<cell>22. Judas saith to him, not +the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, +that thou wilt manifest thyself +to us, and not to the world?</cell></row> +<row><cell>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:</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Qui non diligit me, sermones +meos non servat. Et +sermonem quem audistis, non +est meus: sed ejus qui misit +me, Patris.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='262'/><anchor id='Pg262'/> +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). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And the word which you +have heard</hi>, &c. <q>Sermonem</q> +(Vulg.) ought to be <q>sermo,</q> +and the verb in the original is +in the present (ἀκούετε). The +sense, therefore, is: the words +which you are <emph>wont to hear</emph> +from Me are not Mine alone, +but the Father's also who sent +Me. <hi rend='bold'>Is not mine, but the +Father's who sent me.</hi> 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 <ref target='VII_16'>vii. 16</ref>. +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_25'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Haec locutus sum vobis, +apud vos manens.</cell> +<cell>25. These things have I +spoken to you, abiding with you.</cell></row> +<row><cell>26. Paraclitus autem Spiritus +sanctus, quem mittet Pater in +nomine meo, ille vos docebit +omnia, et suggeret vobis vobis +omnia, quaecumque dixero +vobis.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <emph>recall to your minds</emph> +(ὑπομνήσει) all that I <emph>said</emph> (εἰπον) +to you. This may be regarded +as the <emph>seventh</emph> motive of consolation. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +The Holy Ghost is said to be +sent <emph>in Christ's name</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +The infallible teaching authority +of the <emph>Apostles</emph> follows from +the fact that they were to be +<pb n='263'/><anchor id='Pg263'/> +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 <emph>Church</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +Hence, to use Christ's own +words: <q>The gates of hell +shall not prevail against her</q> +(Matt. xvi. 18), because in her +<emph>office of teacher</emph> she has Christ +with her, all days, even, to the +consummation of the world. +<q>Euntes ... <emph>docete ... et +ecce</emph> ego vobiscum sum omnibus +diebus usque ad consummationem +saeculi</q> (Matt. +xxviii. 19, 20). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Pacem relinquo vobis, +pacem meam do vobis: non +quomodo mundus dat, ego do +vobis. Non turbetur cor vestrum, +neque formidet.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +27. As the <emph>eighth</emph> 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_28'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +28. <hi rend='bold'>You would indeed be +glad, because I go to the +Father.</hi> <q>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.</q> (St. Aug. <hi rend='italic'>in +loc.</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>For the Father is greater +than I.</hi> These words have been +variously explained. We would +interpret either with St. Chrys.: +For the Father is greater than +<pb n='264'/><anchor id='Pg264'/> +I, <emph>in your estimation</emph>; or better +still: For the Father is greater +than I <emph>as man</emph>. 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 +<emph>ninth</emph> motive proposed for their +consolation. +</p> + +<p> +The Arians triumphantly +pointed to the words: <q>The +Father is greater than I,</q> 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 <emph>as God</emph> 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 <ref target='X_29'>x. 30</ref>). +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_29'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Et nunc dixi vobis priusquam +fiat: ut cum factum +fuerit, credatis.</cell> +<cell>29. And now I have told +you before it come to pass: +that when it shall come to +pass you may believe.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<emph>of His going away and returning</emph> +(verse 28). +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_30'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>30. Iam non multa loquar +vobiscum: venit enim princeps +mundi huius, et in me non +habet quidquam.</cell> +<cell>30. I will not now speak +many things with you. For +the prince of this world cometh, +and in me he hath not anything.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +30. Satan who is here called +<hi rend='bold'>the prince of this</hi> (rather <emph>the</emph>) +<hi rend='bold'>world</hi> (see also <ref target='XII_31'>xii. 31</ref>, <ref target='XVI_8'>xvi. 11</ref>; +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>In me he hath not anything.</hi> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIV_31'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>31. Sed ut cognoscat mundus +quia diligo Patrem et sicut +mandatum dedit mihi Pater, +sic facio. Surgite, eamus hinc.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='265'/><anchor id='Pg265'/> +opening words (comp. <ref target='IX_3'>ix. 3</ref>; +<ref target='XIII_18'>xiii. 18</ref>), the sense being: but +<emph>I deliver Myself to death</emph> that +the world, &c. For explanation +of the words, <q>As the Father +hath given me commandment,</q> +see above on <ref target='X_18'>x. 18</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Arise, let us go hence.</hi> +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 <ref target='XVIII_1'>xviii. 1</ref>), 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='266'/><anchor id='Pg266'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter XV.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-11. <hi rend='bold'>In a beautiful allegory, Christ declares the necessity of union +with Himself in order to a supernatural life.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +12-17. <hi rend='bold'>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).</hi> +</p> + +<p> +18-25. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +26-27. <hi rend='bold'>He again promises the Holy Ghost, who together with the +Apostles, will bear testimony of Him.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<anchor id='XV_1'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Ego sum vitis vera: +et Pater meus agricola est.</cell> +<cell>1. I am the true vine; and +my Father is the husbandman.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='267'/><anchor id='Pg267'/> +to speak of the pruning of +His mystical branches by the +Father.<note place='foot'>See also A Lap. <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>. Some who hold that this was spoken <emph>on the +way</emph> to Gethsemane, think that the mention of the vine was suggested by the +sight of a vine as Christ and the Apostles passed along.</note> He is <emph>the true</emph>, 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 <ref target='I_7'>i. 9</ref>), and the true bread +(John <ref target='VI_32'>vi. 32</ref>). +</p> + +<p> +<q>He is the <q>vine</q> in His +<emph>humanity</emph>, in which the branches +of the same nature are united +with Him. But it is from His +<emph>Divinity</emph> the branches derive +the spiritual and life-giving +influence that leads to eternal +happiness</q> (MacEv.) +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And my Father is the +husbandman.</hi> 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 <ref target='X_3'>x. 3</ref>. 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 +<emph>nature</emph> and the Father's. In +reality, Christ, <emph>as God</emph>, was +husbandman, as well as the +Father; but as it would not +suit the comparison to call +<pb n='268'/><anchor id='Pg268'/> +Himself both vine and husbandman, +He attributes the +office of husbandman to the +Father. <q>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.</q> (St. Aug.)<note place='foot'>See Less. of Thir. Noct. Comm. Marty. (Temp. Pasch.)</note> +</p> + +<anchor id='XV_2'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Omnem palmitem in me +non ferentem fructum, tollet +eum: et omnem qui fert fructum, +purgabit eum, ut fructum +plus afferat.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='bold'>Every branch in me, +that beareth not fruit.</hi> 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 <emph>takes</emph> 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 +<emph>prunes</emph> their hearts, removing +therefrom all impediments to +perfection, taking away everything +that would hinder or +impede the vital power in the +production of spiritual fruit. +As even the best branches are +improved by judicious pruning, +so the just are rendered more +perfect by the purifying action +of the Divine Husbandman. +Αὐτο in both cases is redundant. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Iam vos mundi estis +propter sermonem, quem locutus +sum vobis.</cell> +<cell>3. Now you are clean by +reason of the word which I +have spoken to you.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='bold'>Now</hi> (already) <hi rend='bold'>you are +clean</hi>. 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 <emph>special</emph> +reference to the discourse of +that last night. For He had +that night perfected their knowledge +(<ref target='XIV_5'>xiv. 6-11</ref>); guarded +them against an unavailing +sorrow (<ref target='XIV_1'>xiv. 1-2, &c.</ref>); checked +the presumption of some (<ref target='XIII_38'>xiii. +38</ref>), and supplied motives to +confirm the faith of all (<ref target='XIV_29'>xiv. 29</ref>). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +4. <hi rend='bold'>Abide in me, and I in you.</hi> +The meaning is: take care that +ye abide in Me by faith and +love, and I will abide in you by +<pb n='269'/><anchor id='Pg269'/> +love and grace.<note place='foot'><q>Non eo modo illi in ipso, sicut ipse in illis. Utrumque autem prodest, +non ipsi, sed illis. Ita quippe in vite sunt palmites, ut viti non conferant, sed +inde accipiant unde vivant, ita vero vitis est in palmitibus, ut vitale alimentum +subministret eis, non sumat ab eis. Ac per hoc, et manentem in se habere +Christum et manere in Christo, discipulis prodest utrumque, non Christo. +Nam praeciso palmite potest de viva radice alius pullulare; qui autem praecisus +est, sine radice non potest vivere.</q>—St. Aug. <hi rend='italic'>in loc.</hi></note> 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. <hi rend='bold'>Of itself</hi>—that is, as +the source of its vital energy. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Ego sum vitis, vos palmites: +qui manet in me et ego +in eo, hic fert fructum multum: +quia sine me nihil potestis facere.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. The theme (verse 1) is +again repeated, and now there +is added the clause: <hi rend='bold'>Ye are +the branches</hi>, which definitely +sums up what was already +implied in the preceding +verses. <hi rend='bold'>For without me you +can do nothing.</hi> 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. +<q>Sive ergo parum, sive multum, +sine illo fieri non potest, sine +quo nihil fieri potest</q> (St. +Aug. <hi rend='italic'>in loc.</hi>). It would be +difficult, we think, to prove +from this text by itself that +even where <emph>habitual</emph> grace is +present, <emph>actual</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +There is no question in this +text of the necessity of God's +concurrence in our <emph>natural</emph> +acts; the question is of Christ's +influx as mystic vine upon the +<pb n='270'/><anchor id='Pg270'/> +faithful who remain united to +Him as branches. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Si quis in me non manserit, +mittetur foras sicut palmes: +et arescet et colligent +eum, et in ignem mittent, et +ardet.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +6. Observe the variety of +tense in the verbs of this verse +in the Greek text. <q>Sensus +est: Si quis in me non +manserit, jam eo ipso <emph>ejectus +est</emph> foras sicut palmes et <emph>exaruit</emph></q> +(Beel., <hi rend='italic'>Gr. Gram.</hi>, § 41, +5, b). The casting forth and +withering happen simultaneously +with the separation from +Christ. The words of the +verse indicate the punishment +which is in store for those who +die separated from Christ. In +the Greek we have αῦτὰ (ea) +instead of <q>eum</q> of the +Vulgate; and the sense, is +that as men usually gather up +the <emph>withered branches</emph> (αὐτα), +and fling them into the fire, +where they burn, so shall the +angels of God do to the sinner. +See Matt. xiii. 41. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Si manseritis in me, et +verba mea in vobis manserint: +quodcumque volueritis petetis, +et fiet vobis.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +<q>Whatsoever we shall ask according +to His will He heareth +us</q> (1 John v. 14). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. In hoc clarificatus est +Pater meus, ut fructum plurimum +afferatis, et efficiamini +mei discipuli.</cell> +<cell>8. In this is my Father +glorified; that you bring forth +very much fruit, and become +my disciples.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8. It is clear from these +words that the good works of +the just give glory to God. +Instead of <q>efficiamini,</q> the +more probable Greek reading +is γενήσεσθε (efficiemini), and +the meaning is; And so you +shall become more and more +My disciples. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Sicut dilexit me Pater, et +ego dilexi vos. Manete in dilectione +mea.</cell> +<cell>9. As the Father hath loved +me, I also have loved you. +Abide in my love.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +9. As (καθώς) expresses not +equality, but resemblance. The +resemblance consists in this, +<pb n='271'/><anchor id='Pg271'/> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>10. Si praecepta mea servaveritis, +manebitis in dilectione +mea, sicut et ego Patris mei +praecepta servavi, et maneo in +eius dilectione.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. Here he points out how +they are to continue to enjoy +His love: it is by keeping His +commandments. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Haec locutus sum vobis, +ut gaudium meum in vobis sit, +et gaudium vestrum impleatur.</cell> +<cell>11. These things I have +spoken to you, that my joy +may be in you, and your joy +may be filled.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. The meaning is: these +things, namely, that you should +keep My commandments and +continue to retain My love, +I have spoken in order that +My joy on account of you +may continue (the true reading +is ᾖ, not μείνῃ, but does not +alter the sense), and your joy +may be perfected. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Hoc est præceptum meum +ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi +vos.</cell> +<cell>12. This is my commandment, +that you love one +another, as I have loved you.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <emph>His</emph>, the <q>new commandment</q> +(<ref target='XIII_34'>xiii. 34</ref>), to which +they must attend. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Maiorem hac dilectionem +nemo habet, ut animam suam +ponat quis pro amicis suis.</cell> +<cell>13. Greater love than this +no man hath, that a man lay +down his life for his friends.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +<pb n='272'/><anchor id='Pg272'/> +The comparison is not between +dying for a <emph>friend</emph> and dying +for an <emph>enemy</emph>, but between the +different proofs of love for a +friend. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Vos amici mei estis, si +feceritis quae ego praecipio +vobis.</cell> +<cell>14. You are my friends, if +you do the things that I command +you.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. Here He shows that in +speaking of laying down His +life for His friends, He means +laying it down for the +Apostles. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <ref target='XII_26'>xii. 26</ref>, <ref target='XIII_11'>xiii. +16</ref>), but now after He has +taken them so fully into His +confidence, told them of His +speedy departure from them +(<ref target='XIII_33'>xiii. 33</ref>), pointed out to them +His consubstantiality with the +Father (<ref target='XIV_7'>xiv. 7-11</ref>), and instructed +them that the Holy +Ghost was to come to them +(xiv. <ref target='XIV_16'>16</ref>, <ref target='XIV_17'>17</ref>), He will no longer +speak of them as servants, but +as friends. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>All things whatsoever I +have heard of my Father, I +have made known to you.</hi> +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 <ref target='XVI_12'>xvi. 12</ref>), and it was +useful for them, He had communicated +to them. +</p> + +<anchor id='XV_16'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. <hi rend='bold'>You have not chosen +me: but I have chosen you.</hi> +Or more exactly; <q>it was not +you that chose Me, but I chose +you,</q> 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 <emph>gratuitous</emph>, 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; +<pb n='273'/><anchor id='Pg273'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>That</hi> (ἵνα) <hi rend='bold'>whatsoever you +shall ask of the Father in my +name, he may give it you</hi>. +Some as Mald. and A Lap. +take ἵνα here to denote a consequence: +if you bring forth +the fruit for which I have +chosen you, <emph>it will come to pass</emph> +that whatsoever, &c. Others +think ἵνα may retain its usual +telic force: I appointed you +in order that ... your fruit +should remain, and that whatsoever +<emph>in reference to that fruit</emph> +you shall ask, &c. On what is +meant by asking the Father in +Christ's name, see above on +<ref target='XIV_13'>xiv. 13</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Haec mando vobis, ut +diligatis invicem.</cell> +<cell>17. These things I command +you, that you love one another.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17. Some take the meaning +to be: these things, namely, the +greatness and gratuitousness of +My love for you <emph>I insist upon</emph>, +to the end that you may love +one another. Others as Mald. +and Patriz. take the meaning +to be the same as in verse 11: +this is what I command you, +namely, that you love one another. +The use of ταῦτα (haec) +and not τοῦτο (hoc) is rather +against the latter view, but it is +replied that the plural demonstrative +followed by the single +precept is intended to signify +that charity is the fulfilment of +the whole law. +</p> + +<anchor id='XV_18'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Si mundus vos odit, +scitote quia me priorem vobis +odio habuit.</cell> +<cell>18. If the world hate you, +know you that it hath hated +me before you.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>It hath hated.</hi> The Greek +perfect implies not merely +a passing manifestation of +hatred, but an abiding and +persistent feeling. +</p> + +<anchor id='XV_19'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. <hi rend='bold'>If you had been</hi>, ought +rather to be: if you were. The +five-fold repetition of <q>the +world</q> in this verse brings +vividly before us this great +antagonist of Christ. +</p> + +<pb n='274'/><anchor id='Pg274'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +20. He now reminds them of +what He had told them before +(<ref target='XIII_11'>xiii. 16</ref>) that: <q>a servant is +not greater than his master,</q> +and from this He goes on to +signify what they must expect +to meet with from the world. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>If they have kept my word.</hi> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XV_21'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Sed haec omnia facient +vobis propter nomen meum: +quia nesciunt eum qui misit me.</cell> +<cell>21. But all these things +they will do to you for my +name's sake: because they +know not him that sent me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Si non venissem, et +locutus fuissem eis, peccatum +non haberent: nunc autem +excusationem non habent de +peccato suo.</cell> +<cell>22. If I had not come, and +spoken to them, they would +not have sin: but now they +have no excuse for their sin.</cell></row> +<row><cell>23. Qui me odit et Patrem +meum odit.</cell> +<cell>23. He that hateth me, +hateth my Father also.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22, 23. That this ignorance +is culpable, He now proves +from the fact that He had +<pb n='275'/><anchor id='Pg275'/> +Himself declared to them His +relations with the Father. +The sin (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>peccatum</foreign>) is that of +incredulity, and in remaining +incredulous and hating Christ, +they thereby showed that they +hated the Father who sent +Him. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. Not only His words +(verse 22), but also His unparalleled +miracles deprived +them of all excuse for their +unbelief. See above on <ref target='III_2'>iii. 2</ref>. +But now they have seen, or +ought to have seen, the Father +in Me (see above on <ref target='XIV_9'>xiv. 9</ref>); +and they have seen Me, and +they have hated Us both. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Sed ut adimpleatur sermo +qui in lege eorum scriptus est: +Quia odio habuerunt me gratis.</cell> +<cell>25. But that the word may +be fulfilled which is written in +their law: <hi rend='italic'>They have hated me +without cause</hi>.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25. Yet, He continues, it is +only what their own Scriptures +(Ps. xxxiv. 19) foretold, that +they would hate Him without +cause. Thus this hatred +of the world, so far from +weakening the faith of the +Apostles in Christ as the +Messias, should confirm it, +since the Messias was to be +hated by the world. In this +verse ἵνα has its usual <emph>telic</emph> +force, and the sense is: but +this has come to pass <emph>in order +that</emph> the Scripture might be +fulfilled. See above on <ref target='XII_37'>xii. +37-40</ref>. The passage of the +Psalm referred to is probably +Messianic in its literal sense. +</p> + +<anchor id='XV_26'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>26. Cum autem venerit Paraclitus, +quem ego mittam vobis +a Patre, spiritum veritatis, qui +a Patre procedit, ille testimonium +perhibebit de me:</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>27. Et vos testimonium perhibebitis, +quia ab initio mecum +estis.</cell> +<cell>27. And you shall give testimony, because you are with +me from the beginning.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. <ref target='XIV_16'>16</ref>, <ref target='XIV_25'>26</ref>. +<pb n='276'/><anchor id='Pg276'/> +Though the Holy Ghost is +not here said to proceed from +the Son as well as from the +Father (<q>ex Patre Filioque</q>), +yet this is implied in His being +sent by the Son (see above on +<ref target='XIV_25'>xiv. 26</ref>), and can be clearly +proved against the schismatical +Greeks from other parts of +Scripture, as from John xvi. +<ref target='XVI_13'>13</ref>, <ref target='XVI_14'>14</ref>. The Greek rendered +<hi rend='bold'>you shall give testimony</hi>, +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='277'/><anchor id='Pg277'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter XVI.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-4. <hi rend='bold'>Christ points out the violence of the persecutions which await +the Apostles, and His object in forewarning them.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +5-7. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +8-15. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +16-22. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +23, 24. <hi rend='bold'>He bids them to pray to the Father in His name, and promises +that such prayer will be heard.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +25-28. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Haec locutus sum vobis, +ut non scandalizemini.</cell> +<cell>1. These things have I spoken +to you, that you may not be +scandalized.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. His object in foretelling +<hi rend='bold'>these things</hi> was that the +Apostles might not be scandalized; +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, might not waver in +the faith amid the trials that +were before them. But what are +<q>these things</q> to which He +refers? Some, as St. Aug., +understand the reference to be +to the promise of the Comforter +(<ref target='XV_26'>xv. 26, 27</ref>). 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 +<pb n='278'/><anchor id='Pg278'/> +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 <emph>unexpected</emph> reverses; on the +other, they would trust in the +Comforter, who had been promised. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Absque synagogis facient +vos: sed venit hora, ut omnis +qui interficit vos, arbitretur +obsequium se praestare Deo:</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='bold'>They will put you out of +the synagogues</hi> (or rather, +synagogue) <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> excommunicate +you. Compare <ref target='IX_22'>ix. 22</ref>; +<ref target='XII_42'>xii. 42</ref>. 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 <emph>Jewish</emph> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Et haec facient vobis, quia +non noverunt Patrem neque me.</cell> +<cell>3. And these things will +they do to you, because they +have not known the Father, +nor me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. See above on <ref target='XV_21'>xv. 21</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Sed haec locutus sum +vobis: ut, cum venerit hora +eorum, reminiscamini quia ego +dixi vobis.</cell> +<cell>4. But these things I have +told you, that when the hour +shall come, you may remember +that I told you of them.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +4. <q>Eorum</q> of the Vulgate +is to be connected with <q>reminiscamini,</q> +on which it depends. +The comma ought to +be before <q>eorum;</q> 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 +<pb n='279'/><anchor id='Pg279'/> +ought to learn from this to bear +them with resignation, inasmuch +as they were not merely +endured for Him, but permitted +by Him. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. <hi rend='bold'>But I told you not these +things from the beginning.</hi> +<q>These things,</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +But had He not already +predicted that the Apostles +were to be persecuted? Had +He not said: <q>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</q>? (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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And</hi> (Gr. δε = <hi rend='italic'>but</hi>) <hi rend='bold'>now I go +to him that sent me</hi>. These +words are to be connected +closely with the preceding. +Before, He had not told them +these things, <emph>but</emph> now He is +about to leave them, and there +is, therefore, a special reason +for His referring to the future. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And none of you asketh +me: Whither goest thou?</hi> +Or: <q>And does none of you +ask Me: Whither goest +thou</q>? 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 +<pb n='280'/><anchor id='Pg280'/> +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: <q>Lord, whither +goest Thou?</q> (John <ref target='XIII_36'>xiii. 36</ref>); +and Thomas had said: <q>Lord, +we know not whither Thou +goest; and how can we know +the way?</q> (John <ref target='XIV_5'>xiv. 5</ref>), 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Sed quia haec locutus sum +vobis: tristitia implevit cor +vestrum.</cell> +<cell>6. But because I have +spoken these things to you +sorrow hath filled your heart.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +6. <hi rend='bold'>These things</hi> 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 +<emph>after His departure</emph>. 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 (<emph>But</emph> 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 <emph>in +Christ's place</emph>. The prediction +of persecution, and of the +coming of the Holy Ghost as +<emph>implying the departure of +Christ</emph>, was what filled their +hearts with sorrow. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. <hi rend='bold'>But.</hi> The meaning is: +notwithstanding your silence +(verse 5), or: notwithstanding +your sorrow (verse 6), <hi rend='bold'>I tell +you the truth: it is expedient +to you that I go</hi>. +This expediency arose from +the free disposition of the +Divine economy that the Son +of God should remove from +among men His visible +<pb n='281'/><anchor id='Pg281'/> +presence before the Holy Ghost +should come. Nothing in the +nature of things necessarily +required this; but God freely +decreed it so. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVI_8'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Et cum venerit ille, arguet +mundum de peccato, et de +iustitia, et de iudicio.</cell> +<cell>8. And when he is come +he will convince the world of +sin, and of justice, and of +judgment.</cell></row> +<row><cell>9. De peccato quidem, quia +non crediderunt in me:</cell> +<cell>9. Of sin: because they +believed not in me.</cell></row> +<row><cell>10. De iustitia vero, quia +ad Patrem vado, et iam non +videbitis me:</cell> +<cell>10. And of justice: because +I go to the Father; and you +shall see me no longer.</cell></row> +<row><cell>11. De iudicio autem, quia +princeps huius mundi iam iudicatus +est.</cell> +<cell>11. And of judgment: because +the prince of this world +is already judged.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='bold'>And when he +is come, he will convince</hi>, +&c. The Greek word for <q>will +convince</q> is ἐλένξει, which +may mean either—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) to rebuke, +or (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>unbelieving</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +If it be objected to our interpretation +that, since there is +question in verses 9 and 11 of +the <emph>world's</emph> 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: +<q>Because I go to the Father, +and you shall see Me no +longer.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='282'/><anchor id='Pg282'/> + +<p> +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; <hi rend='italic'>Oculos habent et non +videbunt</hi>. (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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVI_12'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Adhuc multa habeo vobis +dicere: sed non potestis portare +modo.</cell> +<cell>12. I have yet many things +to say to you: but you cannot +hear them now.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +12. <hi rend='bold'>I have yet many +things.</hi> 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: <q>Lord, wilt +Thou at this time restore again +the kingdom to Israel?</q> (Acts +i. 6). +</p> + +<anchor id='XVI_13'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +13. <hi rend='bold'>But when he, the Spirit +of truth, is come.</hi> Though you +are now unable to bear these +truths, you shall be taught +them all by the Holy Ghost. +The Greek for <hi rend='bold'>will teach</hi> (docebit) +is ὀδηγήσει, which means to +lead on the way, to conduct; +and the sense, therefore, is: +He shall <emph>guide</emph> you into <emph>all the +truth</emph> (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 +<pb n='283'/><anchor id='Pg283'/> +at their death the deposit of +faith was complete.<note place='foot'><q>Non utique ipso die Pentecostes, sed <emph>tempore</emph> adventus Spiritus Sancti +paulatim, ac per gradus inducti sunt in omnem veritatem, ut ex manifestis +factis et ex ipsis verbis constat: <emph>inducet</emph> in omnem veritatem ὀδηγήσει ὑμᾶς.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Franz.</hi> +<hi rend='italic'>De Trad.</hi>, p. 267. note 1.</note> 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 <emph>whole</emph> truth. +</p> + +<p> +The promise here made to the +Apostles, that they should be +taught the whole truth by the +Holy Ghost, while it regarded +them <emph>directly</emph>, regarded the +whole Church indirectly; for +it is to them as Apostles, +appointed to teach the whole +Church, that Christ speaks: +<q>I have chosen you, and have +appointed you, that you should +go, and should bring forth +fruit, and your fruit should +remain</q> (John <ref target='XV_16'>xv. 16</ref>). And +in the solemn prayer to the +Father, with which this discourse +concludes, He prays +the Father: <q>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.</q> So that +the Apostles first, and through +them the Church of Christ, +received the whole truth from +the Holy Ghost.<note place='foot'>See Franz., <hi rend='italic'>De Div. Trad. Thes.</hi>, xxii. 11.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>For he shall not speak of +himself.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>But what things soever +he shall hear, he shall +speak.</hi> A Divine Person +<pb n='284'/><anchor id='Pg284'/> +(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 <emph>heard</emph>, He heard from +all eternity, in proceeding +from the Father and the Son.<note place='foot'><q>Semper itaque audit Spiritus Sanctus quia semper scit: ergo et scivit, +et scit, et sciet; ac per hoc et audivit, et audit, et audiet: quia sicut jam +diximus, hoc est illi audire quod scire, et scire illi hoc est quod esse. Ab illo +igitur audivit, audit, et audiet a quo est: ab illo est a quo procedit.</q>—St. Aug. +on this verse, <hi rend='italic'>Tract.</hi> 99.</note> +Yet, though the Holy Ghost +heard and hears from all +eternity, the <emph>future</emph> tense +<q>shall hear</q> is used because +there is question of knowledge +<emph>to be manifested in the future</emph>.<note place='foot'><q>Uno verbo: Spiritus Sanctus aeternaliter audit et accipit a Filio cum +respectu ad effectum in tempore, qui tum quando Christus loquebatur, promittebatur +adhuc futurus; ideo auditio et acceptio quae aeternaliter et ideo etiam +tunc est, quando existit effectus, potuit propter hanc operationem et propter +effectum futurum ad extra enuntiari in forma temporis futuri.</q>—Franz., <hi rend='italic'>De +Trin. Thes.</hi>, xxxii. i. 4 c.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And the things that are +to come he shall shew you.</hi> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVI_14'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Ille me clarificabit: quia +de meo accipiet, et annuntiabit +vobis.</cell> +<cell>14. He shall glorify me; +because he shall receive of +mine, and shall shew <hi rend='italic'>it</hi> to +you.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. <hi rend='bold'>He shall glorify me. +because he shall receive +of mine</hi> (ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ), <hi rend='bold'>and +shall shew it to you</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +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, <q>He shall receive of +mine,</q> we refer <q>mine</q> to +the Son's knowledge, which, +however, <emph>in reality</emph> does not +differ in a Divine Person from +His essence.<note place='foot'><q>Igitur in <emph>significatione formali</emph> illud <emph>meum</emph>, quod Spiritus veritatis +dicitur accipere communicatum a Filio, est absoluta sapientia cum respectu ad +extra, ad doctrinam scilicet inspirandam et annuntiandam. At profecto +sapientia absoluta <emph>identice ac realiter</emph> est ipsamet essentia divina.</q>—Franz., +<hi rend='italic'>Thes.</hi>, xxxii. i. 4 b.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='285'/><anchor id='Pg285'/> + +<p> +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 <emph>He proceeds from the +Son</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) First, they supplied πατρός +after τοῦ ἐμοῦ, and thus represented +Christ as saying that +the Holy Ghost should receive +from the Father. Hence they +concluded that He proceeds +only from the Father. But we +say in reply—(1) that it is +against the rules of Greek +syntax that the possessive +pronoun τοῦ ἐμοῦ should refer +to a word not expressed in +the phrase. (2) That all the +fathers, Greek as well as Latin, +referred τοῦ ἐμοῦ to <emph>what +is in the Son</emph> and not to the +Father. (3) The context here +Proves that τοῦ ἐμοῦ does not +refer to the Father. For in +verse 15 we have the pronoun +repeated in the plural: <q>All +things whatsoever the Father +hath <emph>are mine</emph> (ἐμά ἐστιν). +Therefore I said, he shall receive +of <emph>mine</emph>,</q> and it is plain +that in both instances <emph>mine</emph> +refers to the same thing; hence +not to the Father, but to what +is in the Son, communicated +from the Father. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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 <emph>from My +Father</emph>, and shall show it to +you. But there is nothing to +justify this insertion of the +words <q>from My Father;</q> +on the contrary, the whole context +points to the fact that the +Holy Ghost is to receive what +is the Son's (of mine) <emph>from the +Son Himself</emph>. 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, <emph>because</emph> 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 <emph>through the Father</emph>, and not +directly of the Son Himself. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='286'/><anchor id='Pg286'/> +Son, just as those of xv. 26 +prove that He proceeds from +the Father. He proceeds, +therefore, as our faith professes, +Ex Patre <hi rend='italic'>Filioque</hi>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Omnia quaecumque habet +Pater, mea sunt. Propterea +dixi: quia de meo accipiet, et +annuntiabit vobis.</cell> +<cell>15. All things whatsoever +the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, he shall receive +of mine, and show <hi rend='italic'>it</hi> to +you.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. <hi rend='bold'>Therefore I said, he +shall receive</hi>, &c. The present +(λαμβάνει) is the more probable +reading, but it is used +for the future, so that the Vulgate +gives the meaning. This +verse is variously connected +with the preceding, even by +Catholic commentators. We +believe that Christ is here proving +what He has just said, +namely, that the Holy Ghost +should receive of Him. The proof +is this: All whatsoever the +Father hath (except, of course, +the relation of Paternity) is the +Son's; but the Father has +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>spiratio activa</foreign>: in other words, +the Holy Ghost proceeds from +Him, therefore He proceeds +from the Son also: <q>All things +whatsoever the Father hath are +mine; <emph>therefore</emph> I said, He shall +receive of mine, and shew it +to you.</q> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Modicum, et iam non +videbitis me: et iterum modicum, +et videbitis me: quia vado +ad Patrem?</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. Instead of ού the best supported +Greek text reads οὐκέτι +(no longer), and omits the words +<q>because I go to the Father.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>A little while.</hi> There are +two probable interpretations +of the two <q>little whiles.</q> According +to one, the first <q>little +while</q> is the short time until +Christ's death, and <emph>after</emph> that they +should not see Him; then another +<q>little while,</q> namely the +three days that His body was +in the grave, and <emph>after</emph> that +they should see Him risen to a +glorious and immortal life. +According to the other, the first +<q>little while</q> is the time until +the ascension, and <emph>after</emph> that +they should see Him no longer +among them on earth; the +second <q>little while</q> is the +time from the ascension until +the day of general judgment, +and <emph>after</emph> that they should see +Him for ever, their joy no man +should take from them (verse +<pb n='287'/><anchor id='Pg287'/> +22), and they would require to +ask Him no questions (verse +23), because all would be clear +in the light of the beatific vision. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>little while</q> (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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Because I go to the Father.</hi> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row> +<row><cell>18. Dicebant ergo: Quid est +hoc quod dicit Modicum: nescimus +quid loquitur.</cell> +<cell>18. They said therefore: +What is this that he saith, A +little while? we know not +what he speaketh.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. Though they had spoken +only among themselves, Jesus +<pb n='288'/><anchor id='Pg288'/> +knew their thoughts, and was +aware of their perplexity. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Amen, amen dico vobis: +quia plorabitis et flebitis vos, +mundus autem gaudebit: vos +autem contristabimini, sed +tristitia vestra vertetur in +gaudium.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Et vosigitur nunc quidem +tristitiam habetis, iterum autem +videbo vos, et gaudebit cor vestrum: +et gaudium vestrum +nemo toilet a vobis?</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Et in illo die me non +rogabitis quidquam. Amen, +amen dico vobis: si quid +petieritis Patrem in nomine +nemo dabit vobis.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. In that time, when you +shall enjoy the vision of God, +you shall not require to put +me any questions<note place='foot'>There is a clear and important difference between the two words for asking +used in this verse. ᾽Ερωτάω always in classical, and generally in Hellenistic +Greek, means to interrogate, to question. In Hellenistic Greek it sometimes +means to request, to petition, as in verse 26 below; but even then there is a +distinction which is carefully observed throughout the New Testament +between it and αἰτέω. ᾽Ερωτάω is used of the request of an equal, or at +least of a familiar friend, αἰτέω of the supplication of an inferior. Hence +Christ never once uses the latter word in reference to His own asking of the +Father.</note> (οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε) +as just now you wished to +do (verse 19), because you +shall know all that you can +<pb n='289'/><anchor id='Pg289'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Amen, amen, I say to +you: if you ask</hi> (αἰτήσητε) <hi rend='bold'>the +Father anything</hi>, &c. These +words ought to begin a new +verse, for a new subject, the +efficacy of prayer, is begun. +The correct Greek reading is +ἄν τι (not ὅτι ὅσα ἄν), and +agrees with the Vulgate, <q>si +quid.</q> Most critics of the +Greek text read the latter part +of this verse thus: <q>If you +ask the Father anything, He +will give it you in my name.</q> +Still we are inclined to believe +that the Vulgate reading, +which connects <q>in my name</q> +with <q>ask</q> and not with +<q>will give,</q> 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: <q>if +you ask the Father anything +in my name, He will give it +you. Hitherto you have not +asked anything in my name,</q> +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: <q>Per +Christum Dominum nostrum,</q> +or <q>Per Dominum nostrum +Jesum Christum,</q> &c. +</p> + +<p> +There could be no clearer +proof than this verse affords of +the wondrous efficacy of prayer. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Usque modo non petistis +quidquam in nomine meo: +petite, et accipietis, ut gaudium +vestrum sit plenum.</cell> +<cell>24. Hitherto you have not +asked anything in my name. +Ask, and you shall receive: +that your joy may be full.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<pb n='290'/><anchor id='Pg290'/> + +<anchor id='XVI_25'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Haec in proverbiis locutus +sum vobis. Venit hora, cum +iam non in proverbiis loquar +vobis, sed palam de Patre annuntiabo +vobis.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25. <hi rend='bold'>In proverbs.</hi> The +word translated <q>proverbs</q> +is παροιμίαις, which signifies +not merely proverbial, but also +obscure or figurative language; +and this is the sense here, as +is proved by the antithesis +between speaking <q>in proverbs</q> +and speaking <q>plainly.</q> +<q>These things,</q> then, concerning +His death, His +resurrection, His return to the +Father, the <q>little whiles,</q> &c., +He had spoken obscurely. +We must hold that the words +of institution of the Blessed +Eucharist are not included +in <q>these things.</q> They did +not belong to this discourse +<emph>after</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The hour cometh when I +will no more speak to you +in proverbs.</hi> <q>Hour</q> 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 +<q>endued with power from on +high</q> (Luke xxvi. 49), that they +were able to bear plain speaking, +or that Christ <emph>through the +Holy Ghost</emph> spoke plainly to +them. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>26. In illo die in nomine meo +petetis: et non dico vobis quia +ego rogabo Patrem de vobis:</cell> +<cell>26. In that day you shall +ask in my name: and I say +not to you, that I will ask +the Father for you:</cell></row></table> + +<p> +26. <hi rend='bold'>I say not to you, that I +will ask the Father for you.</hi> +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 <q>praeteritio,</q> not +<q>exclusio,</q> for we know that +Christ is <q>always living to +intercede for us</q> (Heb. vii. +25). The connection in the following +verse: <q>For the Father +Himself,</q> &c., shows that +Christ also wished to intimate +<pb n='291'/><anchor id='Pg291'/> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Ipse enim Pater amat +vos, quia vos me amastis, et +credidistis quia ego a Deo +exivi.</cell> +<cell>27. For the Father himself +loveth you, because you have +loved me, and have believed +that I came out from God.</cell></row> +<row><cell>28. Exivi a Patre, et veni +in mundum: iterum relinquo +mundum, et vado ad Patrem.</cell> +<cell>28. I came forth from the +Father, and am come into the +world: again I leave the +world, and I go to the Father.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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: <q>I came forth from the +Father</q> 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVI_29'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Dicunt ei discipuli eius: +Ecce nunc palam loqueris, et +proverbium nullum dicis:</cell> +<cell>29. His disciples say to him: +Behold now thou speakest +plainly, and speakest no +proverb.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>30. Nunc scimus quia scis +omnia, et non opus est tibi ut +quis te interroget: in hoc credimus +quia a Deo existi.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<emph>confirmed</emph> and made perfect. +</p> + +<pb n='292'/><anchor id='Pg292'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>31. Respondit eis Iesus: +Modo creditis?</cell> +<cell>31. Jesus answered them: +Do you now believe?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVI_32'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. Ecce venit hora, et iam +venit, ut dispergamini unusquisque +in propria, et me solum +relinquatis: et non sum solus, +quia Pater mecum est.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +32. <hi rend='bold'>Hour</hi> 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 <ref target='XIV_31'>xiv. +31</ref>, 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>33. Haec locutus sum vobis, +ut in me pacem habeatis. In +mundo pressuram habebitis: +sed confidite, ego vici mundum.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. <q>For +whatsoever is born of God overcometh +the world: and this is +<pb n='293'/><anchor id='Pg293'/> +the victory which overcometh +the world, our faith</q> (1 John +v. 4). +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='294'/><anchor id='Pg294'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter XVII.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-5. <hi rend='bold'>As man, Christ prays to the Father for Himself.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +6-19. <hi rend='bold'>He prays for the Apostles.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +20-23. <hi rend='bold'>He prays for all the faithful.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +24-26. <hi rend='bold'>His last prayer for the Apostles.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Haec locutus est Iesus: +et sublevatis oculis in coelum, +dixit: Pater venit hora, clarifica +Filium tuum ut Filius tuus +clarificet te:</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='bold'>These things</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Glorify thy Son, that thy +Son may glorify thee.</hi> +Christ, <emph>as man</emph>, prays to His +Father; and the sense is: +The time of My trial is come; +do not desert Me, but glorify +Me by exalting My humanity +to a participation in the glory +of the Divinity; that so, by My +resurrection and ascension, I +may give glory to Thee, by +giving eternal life to all whom +Thou hast given me<note place='foot'><q>Resuscita me, ut innotescas toti orbi per me.</q>—St. Aug.</note> (verse 2). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Sicut dedisti ei potestatem +omnis carnis, ut omne +quod dedisti ei, det eis vitam +aeternam.</cell> +<cell>2. As thou hast given him +power over all flesh, that he +may give eternal life to all +whom thou hast given him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. These words explain <emph>how</emph> +Christ will glorify the Father, +namely, by giving eternal life +to all whom the Father had +given Him. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>All flesh</hi> is a Hebraism for +all mankind (John <ref target='I_14'>i. 14</ref>); and +by another Hebraism the +nominative <q>omne</q> of the +Vulgate is redundant, the +sense being as in our English +version. +</p> + +<p> +This verse we connect with +the last clause of verse 1, and +take the sense to be: That +<pb n='295'/><anchor id='Pg295'/> +Thy Son may glorify Thee, +<emph>according as</emph> Thou hast given +Him power over all men, <emph>in +order that</emph> in them He may +glorify Thee. In other words, +Christ prays that the Father +may bring about His own +glory, which He had in view +in giving Christ power over +all men. There are various +other interpretations, but the +above seems to us best, as it +connects naturally with the +preceding, and retains the +ordinary signification of καθώς +and ἵνα. +</p> + +<p> +This power over all men, +Christ, as God, possessed +from eternity, and as God-man +He obtained at His incarnation. +</p> + +<p> +Though He has power over +all men, yet He does not give +eternal life to all men, but +only to those <emph>whom God has +given Him</emph> (<ref target='VI_36'>vi. 37</ref>), because +only these correspond with +His grace. This is implied in +Christ's language here, for the +words, <q>to all whom Thou +has given Him,</q> explain the +expression all flesh, and show +that it is only in those who +believe that the universal +Power over <q>all flesh</q> is +efficacious. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVII_3'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Haec est autem vita +aeterna: ut cognoscant te, solum +Deum verum, et quem +misisti Iesum Christum.</cell> +<cell>3. Now this is eternal life: +that they may know thee, the +only true God, and Jesus +Christ, whom thou hast sent.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='bold'>Now this is eternal life</hi>, +&c. The sense is: this is the +pledge, the cause of eternal +life (see John <ref target='III_36'>iii. 36</ref>), that they +know Thee <emph>with the knowledge +of faith</emph>, know Thee to be +the only true God and Jesus +Christ whom Thou hast sent. +The Greek ἵνα γινώσκωσίν σε +τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν shows +that the Father is here said to +be the only God, to the exclusion +of other Gods, but not to +the exclusion of other Persons +who participate in the same +Godhead. It is not meant that +the Father is the only Divine +Person. There are other Persons +in the Godhead, but +there is no other Godhead. +The words mean, then, that +they may know Thee to be +the only true God, to the exclusion +of all other Gods; but +do not mean that they may +know Thee alone to be the +true God, to the exclusion of +the Son and Holy Ghost. +</p> + +<p> +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. +<pb n='296'/><anchor id='Pg296'/> +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: <q>I +and the Father are one</q> (John +x. 30), and who, a few verses +farther down in this prayer, +says to the Father: <q>All my +things are thine, and thine are +mine,</q> cannot reasonably be +supposed to withdraw His +claims to Divinity in the +words before us. +</p> + +<p> +Some of the fathers, and +many of the scholastics, hold +that there is question in verse 3 +not of the knowledge of God +through <emph>faith</emph>, 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 <emph>knowing</emph> +God; in other words, that the +happiness of the blessed consists +in an act of the <emph>intellect</emph>; +namely, the vision of God.<note place='foot'>All theologians admit that the happiness of the blessed consists <emph>radically</emph> +in the vision of God; but while many Thomists hold that it consists <emph>essentially</emph> +in this, other theologians hold that it consists in acts of the will, as of love and +joy, as well as of the intellect.</note> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Ego te clarificavi super +terram: opus consummavi, +quod dedisti mihi ut faciam:</cell> +<cell>4. I have glorified thee on +the earth: I have finished the +work which thou gavest me to +do:</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <emph>redemption</emph> +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 <emph>upon +the earth</emph>. The latter interpretation +seems to us the more +natural, and more suited to the +context, especially to verse 6: +<q>I have manifested thy name +to the men whom thou hast +given me out of the world.</q> +</p> + +<anchor id='XVII_5'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Et nunc clarifica me tu, +Pater, apud temetipsum, claritate, quam habui, prius quam +mundus esset, apud te.</cell> +<cell>5. And now glorify thou me, +O Father, with thyself, with +the glory which I had, before +the world was, with thee.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. In return for His having +given glory to the Father +<emph>upon the earth</emph>, Christ, as +man, prays the Father to +glorify Him in heaven. There +is a difficulty here, arising +from the fact that Christ +<pb n='297'/><anchor id='Pg297'/> +seems to pray that the glory +which as God He possessed +from all eternity may be given +to Him <emph>as man</emph>. 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:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) Some say that Christ, as +man, prays merely for that glory +which, <emph>in the decrees of God, +was given</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +(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. +<q>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</q><note place='foot'>Christ's human soul enjoyed the beatific vision from the first moment +of the incarnation; but the connatural effects of this upon His body were +suspended during His mortal life.</note> (Tolet.) +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Manifestavi nomen tuum +hominibus, quos dedisti mihi de +mundo. Tui erant, et mihi eos +dedisti: et sermonem tuum +servaverunt.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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, +<pb n='298'/><anchor id='Pg298'/> +Thy glory <emph>effectually</emph> (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. +</p> + +<p> +In this verse, as well as in +verses 7 and 8, the correct reading +is ἔδωκας (gavest), not δέδωκάς +(hast given).<note place='foot'><q><emph>Aoristus</emph> ... indicat peractam rem esse aut nunc aut olim, hoc est, +aliqua praeteriti temporis parte, quae <emph>indefinita</emph> relinquitur. <emph>Perfectum</emph> sicut +in classica graecitate, ita et in graecitate N. Testamenti adhiberi solet ad +significandam actionem plane praeteritam, quae aut nunc finita est, aut per +effectus suos durat.</q>—Beel., <hi rend='italic'>G. G.</hi>, § 41.</note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Nunc cognoverunt quia +omnia, quae dedisti mihi: abs +te sunt:</cell> +<cell>7. Now they have known +that all things which thou hast +given me are from thee.</cell></row> +<row><cell>8. Quia verba quae dedisti +mihi, dedi eis: et ipsi acceperunt, +et cognoverunt vere quia +a te exivi, et crediderunt quia +tu me misisti.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>9. Ego pro eis rogo: non +pro mundo rogo, sed pro his +quos dedisti mihi, quia tui +sunt:</cell> +<cell>9. I pray for them: I pray +not for the world, but for them +whom thou hast given me: +because they are thine:</cell></row></table> + +<p> +9. <hi rend='bold'>I pray for them.</hi> 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: <q>Father, forgive them, +for they know not what they +do</q>? (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). +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Because they are thine.</hi> +These words sum up this first +reason, and we take them as +depending upon the phrase: <q>I +pray for them</q> at the commencement +of the verse. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>10. Et mea omnia tua sunt: +et tua mea sunt: et clarificatus +sum in eis.</cell> +<cell>10. And all my things are +thine, and thine are mine: and +I am glorified in them.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. <hi rend='bold'>And all my things are +thine, and thine are mine.</hi> +<pb n='299'/><anchor id='Pg299'/> +Could anyone but God address +God so? These words seem +to be thrown in to give a +reason for the statement: +<q>they are thine,</q> the reason +being that since they were +Christ's (the Father had made +them Christ's), they must be +the Father's also, for <q>all my +things are thine, and thine are +mine.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>I am glorified,</q> may +possibly be proleptic, and mean +that Christ was to be glorified +<emph>afterwards</emph> through the preaching +of the Apostles. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Keep them in thy name, +whom thou hast given me.</hi> +The sense of this reading is +sufficiently evident. The best-supported +Greek reading, however, +is ὧ<note place='foot'>So Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc., Hort, and the Revised Version.</note> (not οὕς), ὧ +being attracted into the dative +case of the preceding noun, +and standing for ὁ. The +most probable meaning of this +Greek reading is: keep them +in the confession of Thy name, +in the knowledge of Thee, +which Thou hast given to Me, +and which I in turn have given +to them; that they may be one +by a union of faith and charity +resembling, though in an +imperfect way, the union +between the Persons of the +Blessed Trinity. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVII_12'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +12. <hi rend='bold'>I kept them.</hi> In the +original, the imperfect tense +ἐτήρουν brings out more +clearly Christ's continuous +care. +</p> + +<pb n='300'/><anchor id='Pg300'/> + +<p> +In this verse, too, there is a +difference of opinion as to +whether οὐς or ὦ is the +correct reading, but the +Vulgate reading is more +strongly supported here than +in verse 11. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And none of them is lost, +but the son of perdition.</hi> +<q>Son of perdition</q> is a +Hebraism, signifying one +devoted to destruction, as +Judas was, through his own +fault. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>in order that</emph> (see +above on <ref target='XII_37'>xii. 37-40</ref>) 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: <q>none of them is lost,</q> +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 <emph>souls</emph> of the Apostles from +spiritual ruin, John xviii. <ref target='XVIII_8'>8</ref>, <ref target='XVIII_9'>9</ref>, +seems to prove, as we shall +there show, that in the words +before us Christ speaks of +having guarded from harm +their bodies also. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Nunc autem ad te venio: +et haec loquor in mundo, ut +habeant gaudium meum impletum +in semetipsis.</cell> +<cell>13. And now I come to thee: +and these things I speak in the +world, that they may have my +joy filled in themselves.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +13. <hi rend='bold'>These things</hi> 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). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>That they may have my +joy filled</hi> (made full) <hi rend='bold'>in +themselves</hi>. <q>My joy</q> +might mean the joy they had +received from Christ, or the +joy they felt <emph>because</emph> of Christ; +but we think the most probable +and most natural meaning is: +that they may have the joy +which <emph>I feel</emph> in going to the +Father, made full in themselves. +Before this time He +had said to them: <q>If you +<pb n='301'/><anchor id='Pg301'/> +loved Me, you would indeed +<emph>be glad</emph>, because I go to the +Father</q> (<ref target='XIV_28'>xiv. 28</ref>); 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Ego dedi eis sermonem +tuum, et mundus eos odio habuit, +quia non sunt de mundo, +sicut et ego non sum de mundo.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. <hi rend='bold'>I have given them +thy word, and the world +hath hated them.</hi> <q>I</q> (ἐγώ) +is emphatic; I, Thy Son. This +is a <emph>fourth</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Though <emph>in</emph> the world, the +Apostles were not <emph>of</emph> the world, +not imbued with its spirit, nor +pandering to its tastes. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVII_15'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Non rogo ut tollas eos +de mundo, sed ut serves eos a +malo.</cell> +<cell>15. I pray not that thou +shouldst take them out of the +world, but that thou shouldst +keep them from evil.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. <hi rend='bold'>From evil</hi> (ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ). +This may refer to the evil +of the wicked world which is sin, +or to the devil, the <emph>evil one</emph>. 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVII_16'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. De mundo non sunt, +sicut et ego non sum de mundo.</cell> +<cell>16. They are not of the +world: as I also am not of the +world.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. The last clause of verse +14 is repeated as the ground of +another petition, namely, that +the Father may <q>sanctify</q> +them. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Sanctifica eos in veritate. +Sermo tuus veritas est.</cell> +<cell>17. Sanctify them in truth. +Thy word is truth.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17. <hi rend='bold'>In the truth</hi>, is the correct +reading; not <q>in <emph>thy</emph> +<pb n='302'/><anchor id='Pg302'/> +truth,</q> nor <q>in truth.</q> 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: <q>Thy +word is truth;</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +In the Gospel, then, and for +the preaching of the Gospel +Christ prays that the Apostles +may be sanctified. But what +does the word <q>sanctify</q> here +mean? Sometimes the word +ἁγιάζειν signifies to make holy, +or to make more holy, or to +keep more holy (1 Cor. vii. 11; +1 Thess. v. 23); at other times, +it means to set apart or destine +for an office; and in this sense +it is generally used throughout +the Old Testament. Both +senses are probably combined +in the word here, for it was by +making and keeping them holy +that the Apostles were to be +efficaciously set apart by the +Father for the sacred mission +to which Christ had already +called them. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Sicut tu me misisti in +mundum, et ego misi eos in +mundum.</cell> +<cell>18. As thou hast sent me +into the world, I also have +sent them into the world.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. This verse shows that +the sanctification is prayed for +especially with a view to their +mission as Apostles. <hi rend='bold'>Have +sent</hi> (Greek <q>did send</q>) is +used proleptically, for the +Apostles had not yet received +their mission to the <emph>Gentile</emph> +world. See John <ref target='XX_21'>xx. 21</ref>; +Matthew xxviii. 18, 19; Mark +xvi. 15. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Et pro eis ego sanctifico +meipsum: ut sint et ipsi sanctificati +in veritate.</cell> +<cell>19. And for them do I +sanctify myself: that they also +may be sanctified in truth.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. <hi rend='bold'>And for them do I +sanctify myself.</hi> St. Aug. +understands of the sanctification +wherewith the Son of God +sanctified the humanity He +assumed. <q>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 <q>et ipsi</q> +nisi quemadmodum ego.</q> (St. +Aug. <hi rend='italic'>in loc.</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>sanctify</q> has +<pb n='303'/><anchor id='Pg303'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>In truth.</hi> (ἐν ἀληθείᾳ). The +absence of the Greek article +distinguishes this clause from +that in verse 17. There the +question is of <q><emph>the</emph> truth,</q> the +word of God; here <q>in truth,</q> +seems to be equivalent to +truly, really—that they also +may be truly sanctified. Compare +2 John 1; 3 John 1. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Non pro eis autem rogo +tantum, sed et pro eis qui +credituri sunt per verbum eorum +in me:</cell> +<cell>20. And not for them only +do I pray, but for them also +who through their word shall +believe in me:</cell></row></table> + +<p> +20. Instead of <hi rend='bold'>shall believe</hi> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVII_21'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <emph>principle</emph> of unity in +the Church; that is to say, a +teaching and ruling authority +by which this marvellous unity +is Divinely secured. +</p> + +<p> +The words <hi rend='bold'>That the world +may believe that thou hast +sent me</hi> show that this unity +was to be a <emph>note</emph> of the true +Church, pointing it out even +to the wicked world as the +Church of God. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Et ego claritatem quam +dedisti mihi, dedi eis: ut sint +unum, sicut et nos unum sumus.</cell> +<cell>22. And the glory which +thou hast given me, I have +given to them: that they may +be one, as we also are one.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. <hi rend='bold'>And the glory which +thou hast given me, I have +<pb n='304'/><anchor id='Pg304'/> +given to them.</hi> Some understand +<q>the glory</q> here mentioned +to be the gift of working +miracles; others, the glory +<emph>about to be enjoyed</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>For +we, being many, are one bread, +one body, all that partake<note place='foot'>Or more correctly: <q>for we all partake of one bread.</q></note> of +one bread</q> (1 Cor. x. 17). +See also John <ref target='VI_56'>vi. 57</ref>. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVII_23'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. <hi rend='bold'>I in them, and thou in +me.</hi> This clause is in apposition +to the last clause of the +preceding verse: <q>that they +may be one, as we also are +one,</q> and explains how the +union there spoken of is +effected, namely, by the +presence of Christ in the +faithful. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. Here, too, as in verses +11, 12, some of the critics +read the neuter pronoun ὃ +(that which) instead of ὁὺς +(they whom). The Vulgate +reading is at least equally +<pb n='305'/><anchor id='Pg305'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>That they may see my +glory</hi>; 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: <hi rend='bold'>Because thou +hast loved me</hi>, do not, in this +view, state the <emph>cause</emph> of the +communication of the eternal +glory of the Father to the Son. +See above on chapter v., verse +<ref target='V_20'>20</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>about to bestow</emph> upon Me +because from all eternity Thou +hast loved Me, and predestined +Me <emph>as man</emph> for this +glory. In this view the love +of the Father for Christ as +man is the reason why He +glorifies Christ's humanity. +</p> + +<p> +The phrase <hi rend='bold'>before the +creation of the world</hi>, +or more accurately, <q>before +the foundation of the world,</q> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Pater iuste, mundus te +non cognovit: ego autem te +cognovi, et hi cognoverunt quia +te me misisti.</cell> +<cell>25. Just Father, the world +hath not known thee: but I +have known thee: and these +have known, that thou hast +sent me.</cell></row> +<row><cell>26. Et notum feci eis nomen +tuum, et notum faciam: ut dilectio, +qua dilexisti me, in +ipsis sit, et ego in ipsis.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25, 26. These verses give a +reason why the Father who is +<emph>just</emph>, and who rewards man's +<pb n='306'/><anchor id='Pg306'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>That the love wherewith +thou hast loved me, may be +in them, and I in them.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='307'/><anchor id='Pg307'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter XVIII.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-7. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +8-11. <hi rend='bold'>He requests that the Apostles be allowed to depart unmolested, +and forbids Peter to defend Him with the sword.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +12-14. <hi rend='bold'>He is seized, bound, and led before Annas.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +15-27. <hi rend='bold'>He is led before Caiphas, followed by Peter and John, and while +being examined there, is thrice denied by Peter.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +28-38. <hi rend='bold'>He is led before Pilate, the Roman Governor, and examined +by him.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +39-40. <hi rend='bold'>Pilate attempts to release Jesus, but the crowd calls for the +release of Barabbas.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<anchor id='XVIII_1'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Haec cum dixisset Iesus, +egressus est cum discipulis suis +trans torrentem Cedron, ubi +erat hortus in quem introivit +ipse, et discipuli eius.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <ref target='XIV_31'>xiv. 31</ref>. Nor are we +to suppose from the words of +this verse, <q>He went forth,</q> +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 (<ref target='XIV_31'>xiv. 31</ref>), St. John +would very probably have noted +the fact, and added some word +of explanation. In the verse +before us, then, there is not +<pb n='308'/><anchor id='Pg308'/> +question of going forth from +the Supper-room but of going +forth from the city. Comp. +Matthew xxvi. 30, 36; Mark +xiv. 26, 32. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Over the brook Cedron.</hi> +Many authorities read <q>over +the brook of the cedars</q> (τῶν +κέδρων). <hi rend='bold'>Where there was a +garden.</hi> SS. Matthew and +Mark say that He came to <q>an +enclosed piece of ground</q> +(χωρίον), called Gethsemani. +<q>Gethsemani—גת, (gath) = a +wine-press, and שׂמן (shemen) += oil—was the spot where the +prediction of Isaias was fulfilled: +<q>I have trodden the wine +press alone</q> (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 (<hi rend='italic'>O. S.</hi>, 2, pp. 248, 18) that +<q>Gethsemane was at the foot +of the Mount of Olives, and +was then a place of prayer for +the faithful</q></q> (Smith's <hi rend='italic'>B. D.</hi>, +<hi rend='italic'>sub voc</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +The Cedron is a small <emph>winter-flowing</emph> +(χειμάῤῥον) stream, +which passes through the +ravine below the eastern wall +of Jerusalem, and separates +the Mount of Olives from the +Temple mount. For mention +of it in the Old Testament see +3 Kings ii. 37; xv. 13; 4 Kings +xxi. ii. 4; Jer. xxxi. 40. +</p> + +<p> +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.) +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Sciebat autem et Iudas qui +tradebat eum, locum: quia frequenter +Iesus convenerant illuc +cum discipulis suis.</cell> +<cell>2. And Judas also, who +betrayed him, knew the place: +because Jesus had often +resorted thither together with +his disciples.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='bold'>Who betrayed him.</hi> In +the original the present participle +marks the process of betrayal +as going on. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus had +often resorted thither with +his disciples.</hi> The original +might be rendered more exactly +<q>Jesus and (with) his disciples +often assembled there.</q> We +know from St. Luke xxi. 37, +<pb n='309'/><anchor id='Pg309'/> +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, <q>going out +he went according to his custom +to the Mount of Olives</q> +(Luke xxii. 39). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Iudas ergo cum accepisset +cohortem, et a pontificibus et +pharisaeis ministros, venit illuc +cum laternis, et facibus, et +armis.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='bold'>A band of soldiers.</hi> If +<q>the band</q> 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 <q>tribune</q> (verse +12), who was the commander +of a cohort, justify the belief +that a whole cohort was present +on this occasion. Very likely +the authorities were afraid that +a strongly-supported attempt +might be made to save or rescue +Christ from them. This +large body of soldiers, strengthened +by servants or officers of +the temple (ὑπηρέτας) who were +sent by the chief-priests and +Pharisees, came furnished with +arms and lights. As it was +now full moon, this being the +night of the 14th of the lunar +month Nisan, it might seem +that the lights were unnecessary, +but probably the garden +was considerably shaded by +trees, and no doubt it was +feared that Jesus might try to +hide in some dark nook or +lurk beneath the shrubs or +trees. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Iesus itaque sciens omnia +quae ventura erant super eum, +processit, et dixit eis: Quem +quaeritis?</cell> +<cell>4. Jesus therefore knowing +all things that should come +upon him, went forth, and said +to them: Whom seek ye?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 (<ref target='VIII_59'>viii. 59</ref>; +<ref target='XII_36'>xii. 36</ref>, &c.), now that His +hour was come, <emph>went forth</emph> +(from the enclosure of the +garden) to meet them. +</p> + +<p> +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: +<pb n='310'/><anchor id='Pg310'/> +<q>Friend, whereto art thou +come?</q> and from St. Luke +(xxii. 48), that He addressed +to him the pathetic words: +<q>Judas, dost thou betray the +Son of Man with a kiss?</q> +After meekly receiving the kiss +from the wretched Apostle, +Jesus addressed the crowd. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Responderunt ei: Iesum +Nazarenum. Dicit eis Iesus: +Ego sum. Stabat autem et +Iudas qui tradebat eum, cum +ipsis.</cell> +<cell>5. They answered him: +Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith +to them: I am he. And +Judas also, who betrayed him, +stood with them.</cell></row> +<row><cell>6. Ut ergo dixit eis, Ego +sum, abierunt retrorsum, et +ceciderunt in terram.</cell> +<cell>6. As soon therefore as he +had said to them: I am he: +they went backward, and fell +to the ground.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5, 6. If our view is correct, +that the traitor's kiss had +preceded Christ's question: +<q>Whom seek ye?</q> 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVIII_8'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Iterum ergo interrogavit +eos: Quem quaeritis? Illi autem +dixerunt: Iesum Nazarenum.</cell> +<cell>7. Again therefore he asked +them: Whom seek ye? And +they said: Jesus of Nazareth.</cell></row> +<row><cell>8. Respondit Iesus: Dixi +vobis quia ego sum: si ergo +me quaeritis, sinite hos abire.</cell> +<cell>8. Jesus answered, I have +told you, that I am he. If +therefore you seek me, let +these go their way.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8. <hi rend='bold'>Let these go their +way.</hi> The meaning obviously +is, do not arrest or molest +these My disciples. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVIII_9'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Ut impleretur sermo quem +dixit; Quia quos dedisti mihi, +non perdidi ex eis quemquam.</cell> +<cell>9. That the word might be +fulfilled, which he said: Of +them whom thou hast given +me, I have not lost any one.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +9. The Evangelist sees in +Christ's care for the safety of +the disciples on this occasion +a fulfilment of His words +recorded in <ref target='XVII_12'>xvii. 12</ref>. 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 +<pb n='311'/><anchor id='Pg311'/> +in <ref target='XVII_12'>xvii. 12</ref>. 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: <q>let these go their +way;</q> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>10. Simon ergo Petrus +habens gladium eduxit eum: +et percussit pontificis servum: +et abscidit auriculam eius dexteram. +Erat autem nomen +servo Malchus.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. The Synoptic Evangelists +merely say that <emph>one</emph> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Dixit ergo Iesus Petro: +Mitte gladium tuum in vaginam. +Calicem, quem dedit mihi Pater, +non bibam illum?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. <hi rend='bold'>Put up thy sword into +the scabbard.</hi> The words are +given more fully by St. Matt. +(xxvi. 52, ff). <hi rend='bold'>The chalice ... +shall I not drink it?</hi> In Matt. +xxvi. 39, we read that on this +same night, and in Gethsemani, +before the arrival of Judas, +Christ had prayed: <q>Father, +if it be possible, let this chalice +pass from me;</q> but now, since +it was not to pass, He accepts +it willingly. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Cohors ergo, et tribunus +et ministri Iudaeorum comprehenderunt +Iesum, et ligaverunt +eum:</cell> +<cell>12. Then the band and the +tribune, and the servants of +the Jews, took Jesus, and +bound him:</cell></row></table> + +<p> +12. The <hi rend='bold'>tribune</hi> was the +commander of the cohort. χιλιάρχος, +<pb n='312'/><anchor id='Pg312'/> +strictly taken, means +the commander of one +thousand men. See above +on verse 3. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVIII_13'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Et adduxerunt eum ad +Annam primum: erat enim socer +Caiphae, qui erat pontifex +anni illius.</cell> +<cell>13. And they led him away +to Annas first, for he was +father-in-law to Caiphas, who +was high-priest of that year.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <ref target='XI_49'>xi. 49</ref>), +and so Jesus was brought +before him in the first instance. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Erat autem Caiphas, qui +consilium dederat Iudaeis: +Quia expedit, unum hominem +mori pro populo.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>15. Sequebatur autem Iesum +Simon Petrus, et alias discipulus. +Discipulus autem ille erat +notus pontifici, et introivit cum +Iesu in atrium pontificis.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. The other disciple was +almost certainly our Evangelist +himself (see <ref target='Intro_I_B_2'>Introd. I. B. 2</ref>); +and the fact that he was +known to the high-priest +makes it probable that he +belonged to a family of some +importance. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>high-priest</q> 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 <q>high-priest</q> 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: <q>Annas (<emph>had</emph>) +sent,</q> &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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<pb n='313'/><anchor id='Pg313'/> + +<p> +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 <emph>Annas</emph> 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 <q>high +priest</q> of verse 19 is Annas, +not Caiphas. See Patriz., Liber +ii. Adnot. clxxvii. +</p> + +<p> +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 <ref target='XVIII_28'>28</ref>. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVIII_16'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Petrus autem stabat ad +ostium foris. Exivit ergo discipulus +alius qui erat notus +pontifici, et dixit ostiariae: et +introduxit Petrum.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. <hi rend='bold'>But Peter stood</hi> (was +standing) <hi rend='bold'>at the door without</hi>. +<q>An oriental house is usually +built round a quadrangular +interior court; into which there +is a passage (sometimes arched) +through the front part of the +house, closed next the street by +a heavy folding gate, with a +small wicket for single persons, +kept by a porter. In the text, +the interior court, often paved +or flagged, and open to the sky, +is the αὐλή, where the attendants +made a fire; and the +passage, beneath the front of +the house, from the street to +this court is the προαύλιον (Mark +xiv. 68), or πυλών (Matt. xxvi. +71). The place where Jesus +<pb n='314'/><anchor id='Pg314'/> +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</q> (Robinson, +<hi rend='italic'>Notes to Harmony</hi>). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Dicit ergo Petro ancilla +ostiaria: Numquid et tu ex +discipulis es hominis istius? +Dicit ille: Non sum.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +To this end we would draw +attention, with Dean Alford,<note place='foot'>Fourth Edition, London, 1859.</note> +to the following points:— +</p> + +<p> +<q>In the first place, we are +not bound to require accordance +... in the <emph>recognition</emph> +of Peter <emph>by different persons</emph>. +These may have been <emph>many</emph> on +<emph>each occasion</emph> of denial, and +independent narrators may +have fixed on different ones +among them.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>Secondly, no reader ... +will require that the <emph>actual words +spoken by Peter</emph> should in each +case be <emph>identically reported</emph>.</q> +In support of this view, Alford +refers to the remarks of +St. Augustine on the words: +<q>Domine, salva nos, perimus</q> +(Matt. viii. 25). <q>What +matters it,</q> says St. Aug., referring +to the different versions +of the words given by the Evangelists, +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>Thirdly, I do not see that +we are obliged to limit the +narrative to <emph>three sentences</emph> from +Peter's mouth, <emph>and no more</emph>. +On <emph>three occasions</emph> during the +night he was <emph>recognised</emph>, on +<emph>three occasions he was a denier</emph> +of his Lord: such a statement +may well embrace <emph>reiterated +expressions of recognition</emph>, and +<emph>reiterated and importunate denials +on each occasion</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>And those remarks being +taken into account, I premise +that all difficulty is removed, +the resulting inference being +that the narratives are <emph>genuine, +truthful accounts of facts underlying +them all</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Similarly, Patrizzi:—<q>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, +<pb n='315'/><anchor id='Pg315'/> +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</q> (Lib. ii. Adnot. +clxxviii.) That the reader may +apply these principles, and +convince himself as to their +sufficiency, we quote from Dr. +Walsh's <hi rend='italic'>Harmony of the Gospel +Narratives</hi>, a tabulated statement +suggesting the chief +points to be attended to in the +four Gospel accounts. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1st Denial: +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>St. Matthew.</hi>: There came to him <emph>a maid servant</emph>: +<q>Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean.</q> <q>I know not what thou sayest.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>St. Mark.</hi>: There cometh to him <emph>one of the maid servants</emph>: +<q>Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.</q> <q>I neither know nor understand what +thou sayest.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>St. Luke.</hi>: There came a <emph>certain maid servant</emph>: +<q>This man was also with him.</q> <q>Woman, I know him not.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>St. John.</hi>: And <emph>the maid that was portress</emph> said +to Peter: <q>Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?</q> <q>I am not.</q> +</p> + +<p> +2nd Denial: +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>St. Matthew.</hi>: <emph>As he went out</emph> to the vestibule, +<emph>another maid</emph> saw him, and she saith to them that were there: <q>This man also +was with Jesus of Nazareth.</q> He denied with an oath: <q>I do not know the man.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>St. Mark.</hi>: And <emph>the maid servant</emph> seeing him, began to +say to the standers by: <q>This is one of them.</q> He denied again. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>St. Luke.</hi>: And <emph>another (Alius)</emph> says: <q>Thou also +art one of them.</q> <q><emph>O man</emph>, I am not.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>St. John.</hi>: Peter was <emph>standing and warming himself</emph>; +and they said to him: <q>Art not thou also one of his disciples?</q> <q>I am not.</q> +</p> + +<p> +3rd Denial: +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>St. Matthew.</hi>: <emph>They that stood by</emph> said: <q>Surely +thou also art one of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.</q> He began to curse and +swear that he knew not the man. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>St. Mark.</hi>: <emph>They that stood by</emph> said: <q>Surely +thou art one of them; for thou also art a Galilean.</q> He began to curse and swear, +saying: <q>I know not this man of whom you speak.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>St. Luke.</hi>: <emph>Another man</emph> said: <q>Surely this man was +with him, for he is a Galilean.</q> <q>Man, I know not what thou sayest.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>St. John.</hi>: <emph>One of the servants of the high priest</emph> +saith: <q>Did I not see thee in the garden with him?</q> Peter then denied again. +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='316'/><anchor id='Pg316'/> + +<p> +Thus, it is plain that there +is no difficulty in regard to the +<emph>first</emph> 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 <emph>substantially</emph> +reported by the four +Evangelists. +</p> + +<p> +In regard to the <emph>second</emph> denial +it is to be noted— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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 (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>alius</foreign>) on the +occasion. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) St. Matthew, in the account +of this denial, speaks +of a <emph>different</emph> maid from her +who brought about the first +denial. St. Mark seems to speak +of the <emph>same</emph> maid, for he has +ἡ παιδίσκη (xiv. 69), which +would seem to refer to <emph>the</emph> maid +already mentioned. There is +nothing improbable, however, +in supposing that <emph>two</emph> maids +spoke to those around on the +occasion of the second denial. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) As to the <emph>place</emph> of the +second denial, St. John says +that it occurred while <q>Peter +was standing and warming +himself,</q> while St. Matthew +says it occurred <q>as he went +out to the vestibule,</q> or more +correctly, according to the +Greek, <q>after he <emph>had gone</emph> out</q> +(ἐξελθόντα) into the vestibule. +But again we may readily explain +by saying that on this +occasion Peter was challenged +in <emph>both places</emph>, and denied in +both. +</p> + +<p> +In regard to the <emph>third</emph> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Stabant autem servi et +ministri ad prunas, quia frigus +erat, et calefaciebant se: erat +autem cum eis et Petrus stans, +et calefaciens se.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. We are not to connect +this verse with the preceding, +as if it indicated that Peter was +<emph>standing</emph> during the first denial. +We know from St. Matthew +(xxvi. 69; Comp. Mark xiv. +54; Luke xxii. 55) that he was +<emph>sitting</emph>, and from St. Mark +(xiv. 68) that after the first +denial he went out into the passage +or vestibule (εἰς τὸ προαύλιον). +Hence what St. John +says here is to be understood +in reference to a time +between the first and second +denial. +</p> + +<p> +The Greek here is somewhat +different from the Vulgate. It +would be rendered: <q>Now the +servants and the officers were +standing, having made a fire +of charcoal, for it was cold, and +<pb n='317'/><anchor id='Pg317'/> +they were warming themselves,</q> +&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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Pontifex ergo interrogavit +Iesum de discipulis suis, +et de doctrina eius.</cell> +<cell>19. The high-priest therefore +asked Jesus of his disciples, +and of his doctrine.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <q>high-priest</q> +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 <emph>disciples</emph> and +<emph>doctrine</emph> here recorded by +St. John is mentioned by no +other Evangelist. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +20. Jesus makes no reply +regarding His disciples, because +it was sufficiently plain that +they followed Him from no +unworthy motive, but for sake +of His doctrine and its fruits. +Of His doctrine, therefore He +speaks. But since He, of all +teachers (the twice-repeated +ἐγώ is in each instance emphatic) +had taught publicly, and +nothing in private <emph>that was different +from</emph> His public teaching +<pb n='318'/><anchor id='Pg318'/> +(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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Quid me interrogas? interroga +eos qui audierunt quid +locutus sim ipsis? ecce hi +sciunt quae dixerim ego.</cell> +<cell>21. Why askest thou me? +ask them who have heard +what I have spoken unto them: +behold they know what things +I have said.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +21. <hi rend='bold'>Behold they</hi> (these, οὗτοι) +<hi rend='bold'>know what things I have +said</hi>. Some think that Christ +here referred, perhaps pointed, +to the Priests and Pharisees +around him, or to the crowd in +the court outside; for we know +from St. Luke (xxii. 61) that +those outside in the court were +visible from the hall where +Christ was being examined. It +may be, however, that οὗτοι +refers simply to all and any +who had at any time heard +His doctrine. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Haec autem cum dixisset, +unus assistens ministrorum +dedit alapam Iesu, dicens: Sic +respondes pontifici?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. <hi rend='bold'>A blow.</hi> <q>Alapa</q> is a +blow on the ear; but the Greek +word (ῥάπισμα) signifies any +blow with the open hand or +with a rod or stick. The blow +was given by one of the Temple +guards. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Respondit ei Iesus: Si +male locutus sum, testimonium +perhibe de malo: si autem +bene, quid me caedis?</cell> +<cell>23. Jesus answered him: +If I have spoken evil, give +testimony of the evil: but if +well, why strikest thou me?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. <hi rend='bold'>If I have spoken</hi> +(rather, spoke) <hi rend='bold'>evil</hi>. 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Et misit eum Annas ligatum +ad Caipham pontificem.</cell> +<cell>24. And Annas sent him +bound to Caiphas the high-priest.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. <q>Et</q> is not genuine; +the true reading is ἀπέστειλεν +οὖν αὐτόν, <q>Jesus, therefore, +<pb n='319'/><anchor id='Pg319'/> +had sent him,</q> &c.<note place='foot'><q>Est autem in Graeco sensus hujus sententiae apertior: non enim +habetur particula copulativa, sed illativa, et non est praeteritum, sed aoristus +primus qui saepe plusquam perfecti significationem habet. Sensus ergo est: +<emph>Miserat</emph> igitur eum Annas ligatum ad Caipham Pontificem, est enim locutio +revertentis ad narrationem praetermissam, et particula illativa indicat quae +relata sunt, fuisse facta postquam missus est Christus ab Anna ad Caipham.</q>—Tol., +<hi rend='italic'>in loc.</hi></note> We take +it that this is added by St. John +to signify that Jesus <emph>had been</emph> +already sent to Caiphas before +the events recorded in verses +15-23. <q>Misit</q> ought, then, +to be <q>miserat,</q> a sense which +the Aorist ἀπέστειλεν admits. +Compare, for this sense of the +aorist, John iv. 45, 46; xi. 30; +xiii. 12; xix. 23. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVIII_25'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>26. Dicit ei unus ex servis +pontificis, cognatus eius, cuius +abscidit Petrus auriculam: +Nonne ego te vidi in horto cum +illo?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>27. Iterum ergo negavit Petrus: +et statim gallus cantavit.</cell> +<cell>27. Again therefore Peter +denied: and immediately the +cock crew.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <emph>first</emph> 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XVIII_28'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>28. Adducunt ergo Iesum a +Caipha in praetorium. Erat +autem mane: et ipsi non introierunt +in praetorium, ut non +contaminarentur, sed ut manducarent +pascha.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='320'/><anchor id='Pg320'/> +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 (<foreign rend='italic'>colaphis</foreign>) +(Mat. xxvi. 67), and with the +open hand or a stick (ῥαπίσμασιν); +and, being blindfolded, was +mockingly asked to tell who it +was that struck him. Thus +He remained, perhaps, till +daybreak,<note place='foot'>We shall not be far from the truth, if we say that the Paschal Supper began +about 7 p.m.; that Jesus retired to Gethsemani about 10; that He was arrested +between 11 and 12; that the midnight trial was over about 2 a.m.; and that +day dawned about 4.30.</note> mocked and abused +by the servants; though some +think that for a part of the +time He was put into prison. +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>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</q> (M'Carthy +on St. Matt. xxvii. 1). +</p> + +<p> +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). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Then they led Jesus.</hi> The +true reading is: <q>they lead +Jesus therefore.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And they went not into +<pb n='321'/><anchor id='Pg321'/> +the hall</hi> (rather, the governor's +residence, πραιτώριον.) The +Roman Governors ordinarily +dwelt at Caesarea, on the sea +coast; but at the more +important Jewish festivals they +resided in Jerusalem, for the +purpose of preventing or +repressing, if necessary, any +uprising of the Jewish people +against Roman authority +(Josephus, <hi rend='italic'>Bell. Jud.</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And it was morning</hi> +(πρωΐ). Just as a condemnation +to death at night was technically +illegal according to Jewish +law, so a Roman court could +not be held till after sunrise. +It is likely that the sun was +not long risen on this morning +till the Jews in their eagerness +appeared with their prisoner at +the residence of Pilate. The +term πρωΐ is, in fact, used in +St. Mark xiii. 35, for the fourth +watch of the night. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>That they might not be +defiled, but that they might +eat the pasch.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +In our note on <ref target='XIII_1'>xiii. 1</ref> 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 <q>the +Pasch</q> 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 +<q>until the evening,</q> and, +therefore, could not be a +hindrance to participation in +the Paschal Supper, which +was eaten <emph>after</emph> the evening, +and when the next Jewish day +had begun.<note place='foot'>Maimonides, <hi rend='italic'>De Pasch.</hi>, vi. 1, says: <q>Qui cadaver reptilis tetigit, aut +reptile, aut <emph>quid aliud simile</emph> die decima quarta, is lavatur, et postquam lotus +est, pro eo pascha mactant, et sub vesperam, quum sol ei occubuit, <emph>pascha +comedit</emph>.</q></note> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='322'/><anchor id='Pg322'/> +known as the Chagigah +(חגיגה).<note place='foot'>We read in the Mishna, which is the oldest portion of the Jewish +Talmud, and was composed about the beginning of the third century: <q>Sacrificium +festi Chagigah (חגיגה) adducebatur ex grege et jumento, agnis et +capris, masculis et feminis; et comedebatur per <emph>duos dies</emph> et unam noctem.</q> +(Mish., <hi rend='italic'>Pesachim</hi>, vi. 4.)</note> +</p> + +<p> +From such a sacrifice, +eaten, as we learn from the +Mishna in the note below, not +only at night, but also <emph>during +the day</emph>, a defilement contracted +in the morning would exclude. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>O impia et stulta +caecitas: habitaculo videlicet +contaminarentur alieno, et non +contaminarentur scelere proprio!</q> +</p> + +<anchor id='XVIII_29'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Exivit ergo Pilatus ad +eos foras, et dixit: Quam accusationem +affertis adversus +hominem hunc?</cell> +<cell>29. Pilate therefore went +out to them, and said: What +accusation bring you against +this man?</cell></row> +<row><cell>30. Responderunt, et dixerunt +ei: Si non esset hic malefactor, +non tibi tradidissemus +eum.</cell> +<cell>30. They answered and said +to him: If he were not a +malefactor, we would not +have delivered him up to thee.</cell></row> +<row><cell>31. Dixit ergo eis Pilatus: +Accipite eum vos, et secundum +legem vestram iudicate eum. +Dixerunt ergo ei Iudaei: Nobis +non licet interficere quemquam. +</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +29-31. As they entered not, +Pilate, now first mentioned by +St. John, went out to them +and asked: <hi rend='bold'>What accusation +bring you against this man?</hi> +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: <q>If he were not a malefactor, +we would not have +delivered him up to thee.</q> +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 +<pb n='323'/><anchor id='Pg323'/> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. Ut sermo Iesu impleretur +quem dixit, significans qua +morte esset moriturus.</cell> +<cell>32. That the word of Jesus +might be fulfilled which he +said, signifying what death he +should die.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +32. <hi rend='bold'>That the word of +Jesus might be fulfilled.</hi> +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 <ref target='III_14'>iii. 14</ref>; <ref target='XII_32'>xii. 32-34</ref>; +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: +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>33. Introivit ergo iterum in +praetorium Pilatus, et vocavit +Iesum, et dixit ei: Tu es rex +Iudaeorum?</cell> +<cell>33. Pilate therefore went +into the hall again, and called +Jesus, and said to him: Art +thou the king of the Jews?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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: <q>We have +found this man perverting our +nation, and forbidding to give +tribute to Caesar, and saying +that He is Christ the king</q> +(Luke xxiii. 2). Upon this, +Pilate returned into the house, +had Jesus called in<note place='foot'>Jesus till now had been outside, for it is well known the Roman law +required that the criminal should be present to hear the charges brought +against him. See Acts xxiv. 2.</note>, 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 +<pb n='324'/><anchor id='Pg324'/> +the sovereignty of Rome, a +Roman governor was bound +to look to. Pilate, therefore, +asked Him: <hi rend='bold'>Art thou the +King of the Jews?</hi> The +words may mean either, <q>Art +thou He who has just now +become notorious under this +title?</q> or, <q>Dost thou claim +the title, as it is said?</q> 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: <q>Art thou the +King of the Jews?</q> (Matt. +xxvii. 11; Mark xv. 2; Luke +xxiii. 3). <q>The form of the +sentence (σὺ εἶ) suggests +a feeling of surprise in the +questioner: <q>Art thou, poor, +and bound, and wearied, the +the King of whom men have +spoken?</q> Comp. iv. 12.</q> +Westc. in <hi rend='italic'>Speaker's Commentary</hi>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>34. Respondit Iesus: A temetipso +hoc dicis, an alii dixerunt +tibi de me?</cell> +<cell>34. Jesus answered: Sayest +thou this thing of thyself, or +have others told it thee of me?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>35. Respondit Pilatus: Numquid +ego Iudaeus sum? Gens +tua et pontifices tradiderunt te +mihi: quid fecisti?</cell> +<cell>35. Pilate answered: Am I +a Jew? Thy own nation and +the chief priests have delivered +thee up to me: what hast +thou done?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +36. In response to Pilate's +question: <q>What hast thou +done?</q> Jesus proceeds to +explain that His is not that +<pb n='325'/><anchor id='Pg325'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>My kingdom is not from +hence</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> is not <emph>of this world</emph>, +not a temporal kingdom. <emph>In</emph> +this world it was, and is; but +<emph>of</emph> this world it is not. See +xvii. <ref target='XVII_15'>15</ref>, <ref target='XVII_16'>16</ref>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +37. <hi rend='bold'>Art thou a king then?</hi> +Pilate asked; to which Jesus +replied: <q>Thou sayest it</q> +(Matt., Mark, Luke); or, as +here, <q>Thou sayest that I am +a king,</q><note place='foot'>We prefer to render: <q>Thou sayest it, <emph>for</emph> (ὅτι) I am a king;</q> and thus +St. John's version of Christ's reply is more like that of the other Evangelists.</note> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>38. Dicit et Pilatus: Quid +est Veritas? Et cum hoc dixisset, iterum exivit ad Iudaeos, +et dicit eis: Ego nullam invenio +in eo causam.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +38. At the mention of <q>the +truth,</q> Pilate asks: <hi rend='bold'>What is +truth?</hi> (ἀλήθεια, without the +article). The question was not +asked for information, for +Pilate went out without waiting +<pb n='326'/><anchor id='Pg326'/> +for an answer, but impatiently +or sneeringly, as if he +said: <q>Yes, but what <emph>is</emph> +truth?</q> Then Pilate went out +again to the Jews, and told +them that he could find in Jesus +no reason for condemning Him. +</p> + +<p> +Then it was, probably, that +as St. Luke tells us: <q>They +were more earnest, saying: He +stirreth up the people, teaching +throughout all Judea, beginning +from Galilee to this place</q> +(Luke xxiii. 5). <q>Amid their +confused and passionate exclamation, +the practised ear of +Pilate caught the name of <q>Galilee,</q> +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</q> +(Farrar). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>39. Est autem consuetudo +vobis, ut unum dimittam vobis +in pascha: vultis ergo dimittam +vobis regem Iudaeorum?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row> +<row><cell>40. Clamaverunt ergo rursum +omnes dicentes: Non +hunc, sed Barabbam. Erat +autem Barabbas latro.</cell> +<cell>40. Then cried they all again, +saying: Not this man, but +Barabbas. Now Barabbas +was a robber.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Will you, therefore, that I +release unto you the king of +the Jews?</hi> or as St. Matt. has: +<q>Whom will you that I release +to you; Barabbas, or Jesus, +that is called Christ?</q> (Matt. +xxvii. 17). Barabbas, as we +learn from the Synoptic Evangelists, +was a <q>notorious +prisoner,</q> <q>who was put in +prison with some seditious men, +who, in the sedition, had committed +murder.</q> 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 +<pb n='327'/><anchor id='Pg327'/> +and elders (Matt. xxvii. 20), +blindly called for the release of +Barabbas. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>A robber.</hi> (λῃιστής), one +who appropriates the goods of +another by open violence, as +opposed to the thief (κλέπτης), +who takes what is not his own, +secretly and by fraud. +</p> + +<p> +We have followed the view +held by Patrizzi and the majority +of commentators, that Pilate +on only <emph>one occasion</emph>, 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 <emph>two</emph> +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—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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: <q>You have a custom +that I should release one unto +you at the Pasch;</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Father Coleridge argues +also from the fact that Pilate, +in St. Matt., says to the Jews: +<q>Whom will you that I release +to you; Barabbas, or Jesus, +that is called Christ?</q> <q>That +he mentions Barabbas along +with our Lord,</q> says Father +Coleridge, <q>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.</q> 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 <q>notorious prisoner;</q> +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. +</p> + +<pb n='328'/><anchor id='Pg328'/> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(1) First, then, He was led +from Gethsemane before Annas. +</p> + +<p> +(2) He was led before +Caiphas. +</p> + +<p> +(3) When day dawned, He +was led before the Sanhedrim. +</p> + +<p> +(4) He was led before +Pilate. +</p> + +<p> +(5) He was led before +Herod Antipas. +</p> + +<p> +(6) On His return from +Herod, He was again led +before Pilate. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='329'/><anchor id='Pg329'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter XIX.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-5. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +6-7. <hi rend='bold'>The people, led on by the Priests and their servants, demand +Christ's death.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>8-12. Pilate becomes still more unwilling to interfere with Jesus, and +again examines Him, and makes known his intention of +releasing Him.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +13-16. <hi rend='bold'>Then the Jews charge him with disloyalty to the Roman +Emperor, and at length Pilate gives way and delivers Jesus to +be crucified.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +17-22. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus is led to Calvary, and crucified between two robbers.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +23-24. <hi rend='bold'>The soldiers divide His other garments among four of them, +but cast lots for His tunic.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +25-27. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus gives John to the Blessed Virgin as her son, and her in +turn to him as his mother.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +28-30. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus, having partaken of the vinegar which was offered to Him +in a soaked sponge, dies.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +31-37. <hi rend='bold'>The legs of the two robbers are broken, and the side of Jesus +pierced with a lance.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +38-42. <hi rend='bold'>Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus embalm and bury the body +of Jesus.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Tunc ergo apprehendit +Pilatus Iesum, et flagellavit.</cell> +<cell>1. Then, therefore Pilate +took Jesus, and scourged him.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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: +<q><hi rend='italic'>I have given my body to the +strikers</hi>, and My cheeks to them +that plucked them: I have not +turned away my face from them +that rebuked me, and spat upon +me</q> (Isaias 1. 6). +</p> + +<pb n='330'/><anchor id='Pg330'/> + +<p> +Had Christ been scourged by +Jewish authority, according to +the Jewish law He should not +have received more than forty +stripes. <q>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</q> +(Deut. xxv. 2, 3). By Jewish +practice the number of stripes +was restricted to thirty-nine +(See 2 Cor. xi. 24). But as the +scourging was ordered by +Pilate, it was, doubtless, inflicted +according to the cruel +Roman method, in which there +was no limit to the number of +stripes that might be inflicted. +The word used by the Greek +translator of St. Matthew and +by St. Mark in reference to this +scourging is φραγελλώσας, +which, like that used by St. +John (ἐμαστίγωσεν), signifies a +scourging with whips or flagella<note place='foot'>φραγελλόω indeed belongs to late Greek, and is derived from the Latin +flagellum.</note> +(not <emph>rods</emph>, which were +sometimes used by the Romans; +Acts xvi. 22. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. +25). The <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>flagellum</foreign> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Sat.</hi> 1, 3, 119) speaks +of it as <q>horribile flagellum.</q> +It was with this brutal instrument +of torture, then, that our +Lord was mangled on this +morning by the fierce Roman +soldiers. +</p> + +<p> +The pillar to which according +to tradition our Lord was tied +while being scourged, was +brought from Jerusalem to +Rome, in 1223 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> <q>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</q> +(Dr. Donovan's <hi rend='italic'>Rome, +Ancient and Modern</hi>). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>2. Et milites plectentes corronam +de spinis, imposuerunt +capiti eius: et veste purpurea +circumdederunt eum.</cell> +<cell>2. And the soldiers platting +a crown of thorns, put it upon +his head: and they put on him +a purple garment.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. There is a difficulty here +when we compare this verse +with Matt. xxvii. 26-29; Mark +xv. 15-18. For, while St. +<pb n='331'/><anchor id='Pg331'/> +John here represents the +crowning with thorns<note place='foot'>We know not what kind of thorns was used for the crown. Benedict +XIV. says that in his time it could not be decided from any relics of the +thorns known to exist to what species they belonged.</note> and the +incident of the cloak as +<emph>preceding</emph> the sentence of +death (see verse 16), SS. +Matthew and Mark seem to +say that they followed it. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.<note place='foot'><q>Jesus igitur flagellis caesus spinisque coronatus fuit, ante quam Pilatus +eum capite damnaret. Non ergo est dubium, ordinem in his referendis a +Matthaeo et a Marco minime esse observatum.</q>—Patriz.</note> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>A purple garment.</hi> If it be +objected that while the cloak +according to St. John was +<emph>purple</emph>, according to St. +Matthew it was <emph>scarlet</emph>, we +reply that the same difficulty +occurs on a comparison of St. +Matthew with St. Mark, for +the latter also says the cloak +was <emph>purple</emph>; 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. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Πορφύρα is vaguely used to +signify different shades of red, +and is especially convertible +with crimson = κοκκίνη, Matt.</q> +(Alf. on St. Mark xv. 17). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Et veniebant ad eum, et +dicebant: Ave rex Iudaeorum: +Et dabant ei alapas.</cell> +<cell>3. And they came to him, +and said: Hail, king of the +Jews, and they gave him blows.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='bold'>Hail, king of the Jews.</hi> +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: +<q>And bowing the knee before +him, they mocked him, saying: +Hail, king of the Jews</q> (Matt. +xxvii. 29). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And they gave him blows.</hi> +From St. Matthew we learn, +<pb n='332'/><anchor id='Pg332'/> +too, that <q>spitting upon him, +they took the reed, and struck +his head</q> (Matt. xxvii. 30). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Exivit ergo iterum Pilatus +foras, et dicit eis: Ecce adduco +vobis eum foras, ut cognoscatis +quia nullam invenio in eo +causam.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. (Exivit ergo Iesus portans +coronam spineam, et purpureum +vestimentum). Et dicit +eis: Ecce homo.</cell> +<cell>5. Jesus therefore came +forth bearing the crown of +thorns, and the purple garment. +And he saith to them: Behold +the Man.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. This verse gives us +the graphic description of an eye-witness. +<hi rend='bold'>Behold the Man.</hi> +<q>Behold</q> is an interjection, not +a verb. It it were a verb, <q>man</q> +would be in the accusative +case governed by it. This, +indeed, is what is suggested +by our translation and punctuation: +<q>Behold the Man.</q> +But in the original, <q>man</q> +is in the nominative case +(ὁ ἄνθρωπος), and the meaning +is: Behold, here before you is +<emph>the Man</emph>. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIX_6'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Pilate's words: <hi rend='bold'>Take him, +you, and crucify him</hi>, are +thought by some to be ironical, +as if he said: Take him you, +if you dare. We prefer, however, +to understand the words, +<pb n='333'/><anchor id='Pg333'/> +like the similar words in verse +<ref target='XVIII_29'>xviii. 31</ref>, 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Responderunt ei Iudaei: +Nos legem habemus, et secundum +legem debet mori, quia +Filium Dei se fecit.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. <hi rend='bold'>The Jews answered +him: We have a law.</hi> 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: <q>He that +blasphemeth the name of the +Lord, dying let him die; all +the multitude shall stone him</q> +(Lev. xxiv. 16). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Because he made himself +the Son of God.</hi> Note here +that the Jews understood Christ +to have claimed to be the <emph>natural</emph> +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 <q>Christ, the King;</q> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Cum ergo audisset Pilatus +hunc sermonem, magis timuit.</cell> +<cell>8. When Pilate therefore +had heard this saying, he +feared the more.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8. <hi rend='bold'>He feared the more.</hi> +When Pilate heard that Christ +claimed to be the Son of God, +he became <emph>more</emph> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Et ingressus est praetorium +iterum, et dixit ad Iesum: +Unde es tu? Iesus autem +responsum non dedit ei.</cell> +<cell>9. And he entered into the +hall again, and he said to +Jesus: Whence art thou? +But Jesus gave him no answer.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +9. Again, therefore, he +entered the palace (πραιτώριον). +Jesus, too, was led in, and Pilate +<pb n='334'/><anchor id='Pg334'/> +questioned Him in reference +to the accusation just made +against Him. You have been +charged with claiming to be +the Son of God: <hi rend='bold'>Whence art +thou?</hi> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>10. Dicit ergo ei Pilatus: +Mihi non loqueris? nescis quia +potestatem habeo crucifigere te +et potestatem habeo dimittere +te?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. <hi rend='bold'>Speakest thou not to +me?</hi> In the original the pronoun, +standing at the head of +the clause, is emphatic. Speakest +thou not <emph>to me</emph>, the representative +of Roman power, +who have authority (ἐξουσίαν) +to liberate or crucify thee? +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Knowest thou not that I +have power</hi>, &c. The more +probable order of the clauses +is: <q>I have power to release +thee, and I have power to crucify +thee,</q> the motive of hope +standing before that of fear. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Respondit Iesus: Non +haberes potestatem adversum +me ullam, nisi tibi datum esset +desuper. Propterea qui me +tradidit tibi, maius peccatum +habet.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Unless it were given thee +from above.</hi> From the original, +in which we have ἦν δεδομένον, +not ἦν δεδομένη (datum, +not data), it is clear that the +verb has not <q>power</q> for its +subject, but is to be taken impersonally: +Unless it were +given thee from above <emph>to have +such power</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +<q>From above</q> has been +taken by some to refer to the +Sanhedrim, as if Christ here +referred to it as a higher tribunal +than Pilate's; but this +view cannot be admitted. Not +only is it opposed to the ordinary +sense of ἄνωθεν (iii. 31; James i. +17; iii. 15, 17), but it would +make our Lord say that Pilate +had received his power from +the Sanhedrim—a statement +which would not be correct. +<q>From above</q>, then, means: +from heaven or from God. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Therefore he that hath +delivered</hi> (παραδούς, not παραδιδούς) +<hi rend='bold'>me to thee hath the +greater sin</hi>. Some, as Kuinoel, +hold that διὰ τοῦτο is here +<pb n='335'/><anchor id='Pg335'/> +merely a formula of transition +(like the Hebrew לבן, Judg. viii. +7, &c.), of which no account is +to be taken. The meaning is +then sufficiently clear. But if, +as most commentators take +for granted, we are to give +διὰ τοῦτο its ordinary inferential +force, the connection +is very obscure, and has been +variously explained. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Some thus: Because you +exercise your power <emph>unwillingly</emph> +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 <q>unwillingly,</q> +upon which it turns, +is neither expressed nor suggested +in the text. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Others thus: Since you +have received from God power +over Me, <emph>but have not had +an opportunity of judging of My +character</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +The words <q>he that hath +delivered me to thee</q> refer +primarily to Caiphas, the high-priest, +but include the Sanhedrim +with him in the responsibility +for delivering up Christ. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +12. <hi rend='bold'>And from thenceforth +Pilate sought to release him.</hi> +Pilate, who had hitherto tried +to shirk the trial of Jesus, or to +<pb n='336'/><anchor id='Pg336'/> +induce the Jews to call for His +release, now <q>sought</q> 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 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>), 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: <q>Majestatis +crimen omnium accusationum +complementum erat</q> (Ann. +iii. 38). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Pilatus autem cum audisset +hos sermones, adduxit +foras Iesum: et sedit pro +tribunali, in loco qui dicitur +Lithostrotos, hebraice autem +Gabbatha.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>In the place that is called +Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew +Gabbatha.</hi> The Rev. Vers. +renders: <q>At a place called +the Pavement, but in Hebrew +Gabbatha.</q> The judgment-seat +was usually in front of the +Praetorium, on an elevated +platform. The Syro-Chaldaic +word Gabbatha means <hi rend='italic'>a high +place</hi>, probably from the root +גבה (Gabhah), and such high +places were usually paved with +many-coloured stones, hence +the name <q>Lithostrotos</q> (from +λίθος, a stone, and στρωτός, +covered, or paved). Suetonius +(Caes. 8, 46) says that Julius +Cæsar carried such a pavement +with him on his expeditions. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Erat autem parasceve paschae, hora +quasi sexta, +et dicit Iudaeis: +Ecce rex vester.</cell> +<cell>14. And it was the parasceve +of the pasch, about +the sixth hour, +and he saith to the Jews: +Behold your king.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. <hi rend='bold'>And it was the parasceve +of the Pasch.</hi> <q>Parasceve</q> +(Gr. παρασκευή) means +<emph>preparation</emph>, or <emph>day of preparation</emph>, +and the expression: <q>the +<pb n='337'/><anchor id='Pg337'/> +parasceve of the Pasch</q> <emph>might</emph> +mean the day of preparation +for the Paschal feast, and hence +the day <emph>before</emph> 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.<note place='foot'>See above on <ref target='XIII_1'>xiii. 1</ref>.</note> 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 <q>Parasceve</q> +was another name for +Friday; <q>It was the Parasceve, +that is, the day before the Sabbath</q> +(Mark xv. 42). Friday +naturally enough got this name, +because it was the <emph>day of preparation</emph> +for the Jewish Sabbath. +</p> + +<p> +By <q>the parasceve of the +Pasch,</q> 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 <ref target='XIII_1'>xiii. 1</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>About the sixth hour.</hi> A +very great difficulty arises from +a comparison of this account +with that of St. Mark. For +St. Mark says: <q>And it was +the <emph>third</emph> hour, and they crucified +Him.... And when the sixth +hour was come, there was darkness +over the whole earth until +the ninth hour</q> (Mark xv. +25, 33). +</p> + +<p> +Thus, while St. John represents +our Lord as <emph>condemned</emph> +about the <emph>sixth</emph> hour, St. Mark represents +Him as already <emph>crucified</emph> +at the <emph>third</emph> hour. How, it is +asked, could He be crucified at +the <emph>third</emph> hour, if He was not +condemned till the <emph>sixth</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +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 +<emph>tongues</emph> 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: <q>And +it was the third hour, and they +crucified him. And the inscription +of his cause was +written over, <hi rend='italic'>The King of the +Jews</hi>. 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: +<pb n='338'/><anchor id='Pg338'/> +... save thyself, coming +down from the cross</q> (Mark +xv. 25-30). +</p> + +<p> +But, setting aside the less +probable methods of reconciliation, +we must notice four which +have found favour with commentators. +</p> + +<p> +(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.<note place='foot'>That a division of the night into four watches existed, is proved from the +New Testament. See, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi>, Mark xiii. 35: Luke xii. 38.</note> Thus, at the Pasch, +which occurred about the time +of the vernal equinox, these +four periods, or <q>hours,</q> would +be respectively—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) from 6 to 9 +a.m.; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) from 9 a.m. to noon; +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) from noon to 3 p.m.; and +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) from 3 to 6 p.m. According to +Mald., these periods were called +respectively, the third, sixth, +ninth, and twelfth <q>hour.</q> +He curiously supposes, however, +that sometimes any one +of these <q>hours</q> 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 <emph>third</emph> hour; +while a time within the same +period, but about an hour +earlier is referred to by St. John +as the sixth hour. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>hours</q> were +numbered in so strange and +confusing a fashion. +</p> + +<p> +(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, +<q>about the sixth hour,</q> means +<emph>about noon</emph>. Cornely thinks +that the vagueness of the +phrase: <q><emph>About</emph> the sixth +hour</q> justifies us in supposing +<pb n='339'/><anchor id='Pg339'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>hours,</q> 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 <q>about the +sixth hour.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(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 <q>third hour</q> would +mean about 9 a.m., while St. +John's <q>about the sixth hour</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.<note place='foot'>Whether St. John numbers the hours of the day according to the Jewish +or modern method it is extremely difficult to decide from his Gospel. In +only four passages (i. 39; iv. 6; iv. 52; and xix. 14) does he refer to distinct +hours of the day, and to these passages the patrons of both opinions appeal. +In John iv. 6 we read that it was <q>about the sixth hour</q> when Jesus met the +Samaritan woman at the well, and if we are right in holding that it was then +the month of December (see above on iv. 35), this would go to show that our +Evangelist numbers according to the Jewish method. For at 6 a.m. or 6 p.m. +it would be dark, and it is wholly improbable that Jesus in the darkness would +have held conversation alone with the woman.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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. <q rend='pre'>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 +<pb n='340'/><anchor id='Pg340'/> +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 <q>Ecce Homo,</q> +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, <q>and it was +now about the sixth hour.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +(4) <q rend='pre'>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 +<q>third</q> for <q>sixth.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>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 +<q>about</q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>And it is not to be supposed +that the emendation of +the text is suggested merely +on <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>a priori</foreign> 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. (<hi rend='italic'>Cantabrigiensis</hi> +or <hi rend='italic'>Bezae</hi>): 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 +<hi rend='italic'>Chronicon Paschale</hi> (circ. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> +630), who adopts this reading +on the authority of many +<q>accurate copies,</q> 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.</q> (See Patrizzi, <hi rend='italic'>De +Evangeliis</hi>, lib. ii., n. 195.) +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>But, it may be objected, is +it not a somewhat forced +hypothesis to suppose that an +interchange of two words so +dissimilar as τρίτη and ἕκτη,—the +Greek words for <q>third</q> +and <q>sixth</q> respectively—could +have occurred by an +error of transcription? By no +<pb n='341'/><anchor id='Pg341'/> +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 <foreign rend='italic'>gamma</foreign>, the +<emph>third</emph> letter of the Greek +alphabet, its uncial form was +Γ. The character by which +the numeral 6 was represented +was the now obsolete <foreign rend='italic'>digamma</foreign>, +at one time the <emph>sixth</emph> letter of +the Greek alphabet: its uncial +form was Ϝ.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>Thus then we find that the +error which, it is suggested, +has crept into this verse of the +text of St. John consisted +merely in the interchange of +the characters Ϝ and Γ—a +mistake so easily made that +its very facility constitutes a +strong antecedent probability +in favour of the view that it, +in fact, occurred.</q><note place='foot'><p>Dr. Walsh, <hi rend='italic'>Harmony of the Gospel Narratives</hi>, note 35. +</p> +<p> +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 <q>sixth</q> instead of <q>third</q> in St. Mark xv. 25. For, as Patrizzi well +points out, if St. Mark had written <q>sixth</q> in verse 25, he would not, after +describing the mocking of Christ upon the cross, say in verse 33: <q>And when +the <emph>sixth hour was come</emph> there was darkness over the whole earth until the +ninth hour.</q> If error has crept in, then, it is not in St. Mark.</p></note> +</p> + +<p> +In this view, which seems to +us the most probable, Christ +was condemned <emph>about</emph> the <emph>third</emph> +hour. As the <emph>third</emph> hour at the +season of the Pasch extended +from about 8 till 9 a.m., +St. Mark's <q>third hour</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Behold your king.</hi> This, +like Pilate's words in the next +verse, was probably said to +annoy the Jews because they +had forced him to condemn +Jesus. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>15. Illi autem clamabant: +Tolle, tolle, crucifige eum. +Dicit eis Pilatus: Regem vestrum +crucifigam? Responderunt +pontifices: Non habemus regem, +nisi Caesarem.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. <hi rend='bold'>We have no king but +Caesar.</hi> Though the Jews +were at this time chafing under +the dominion of the Romans, +<pb n='342'/><anchor id='Pg342'/> +the chief priests, blinded by +their hatred of Christ, here proclaimed +their submission to the +Roman yoke. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Tunc ergo tradidit eis +ilium ut crucifigeretur. Susceperunt +autem Iesum, et eduxerunt.</cell> +<cell>16. Then therefore he delivered +him to them to be +crucified. And they took +Jesus, and led him forth.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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! +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>17. Et baiulans sibi crucem, +exivit in eum qui dicitur Calvariae +locum, hebraice autem +Golgotha:</cell> +<cell>17. And bearing his own +cross he went forth to that +place which is called Calvary, +but in Hebrew Golgotha.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17. The words <q>and led +him forth,</q> 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 <emph>went forth</emph> +(comp. <ref target='XVIII_1'>xviii. 1</ref>) 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 <emph>more atque instituto +suo</emph>, crucem fixissent <emph>post +urbem</emph> in via Pompeia, &c. +(Verr. v. 66). Calvary, which is +now within the walls of Jerusalem, +was then outside them, +lying to the west of the city. +A very old tradition represents +Jesus as falling three times beneath +the cross on His way to +Calvary; and the three Synoptic +Evangelists tell us that Simon +of Cyrene<note place='foot'>Cyrene was <q>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.</q>—Smith's <hi rend='italic'>B. D.</hi></note>, 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 +<pb n='343'/><anchor id='Pg343'/> +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. <q>Nota,</q> +says A Lapide, <q>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</q> (A Lap. on +St. Matt. xxvii. 32). +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Calvaria</hi> in the Vulgate is +not a proper name. <q>It is +simply the Latin for κρανίον, a +<emph>bare skull</emph>, and used in Vulgate +only here (Matt.) and in the +parallel passages of Mark, +Luke, and John when describing +the crucifixion—nowhere +else in the Old or New Testament. +Golgotha was the Hebrew +name of the spot where our +Lord was crucified. The pure +Hebrew form of the word גלגלת +(Gulgoleth), meaning a skull +(from גלל (galal) <hi rend='italic'>to roll, to be +round</hi>), 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 <emph>skull</emph>? 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 <emph>hill</emph> of +Calvary, there is little to show +that there was any hill or mound +on the spot named <hi rend='italic'>Golgotha</hi>. +St. Cyril of Jerusalem objects +to the derivation of Calvary +from the mound being skull-shaped, +because he says there +was <emph>no hill</emph> there. In the whole +history of the Passion no +mention is made of the <emph>mount</emph> +or hill of Calvary.... The +traditional spot is simply on a +high ground, like Holborn in +London, or Patrick's-hill in +<pb n='344'/><anchor id='Pg344'/> +Dublin, or the Pantheon in +Paris</q> (Dr. M'Carthy, on St. +Matthew, xxvii. 33). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Ubi crucifixerunt eum, +et cum eo alios duos hinc et +hinc, medium autem Iesum.</cell> +<cell>18. Where they crucified +him, and with him two others, +one on each side, and Jesus in +the midst.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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.<note place='foot'>The following questions also are disputed:—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Whether Christ had the +crown of thorns upon Him while He hung on the cross; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) whether He +was entirely naked; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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.</note> +</p> + +<p> +As to the shape of the cross, +too, on which He was crucified, +there is a slight difference +of opinion. Setting aside the +<foreign rend='italic'>crux simplex</foreign>, which was merely +an upright stake, the <foreign rend='italic'>crux +compacta</foreign>, so called from +the parts being joined together, +was threefold: <q><foreign rend='italic'>decussata</foreign> (cut +into two equal parts), like the +letter X; <foreign rend='italic'>commissa</foreign>, like the +letter T, and <foreign rend='italic'>immissa</foreign>, or +Latin +, which differs from +the <foreign rend='italic'>commissa</foreign>, by having the +long upright beam projecting +over the transverse bar</q> +(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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And with him two others.</hi> +These are described as +<q>robbers</q> (λῃισταί), by St. +Matt. (xxvii. 38), and St. +Mark (xv. 27), and as <q>malefactors</q> +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. +<q>And the Scripture was +fulfilled which saith: <hi rend='italic'>And +with the wicked he was reputed</hi></q> +(Mark xv. 28). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Scripsit autem et titulum +Pilatus: et posuit super crucem, +Erat autem scriptum: <hi rend='smallcaps'>Iesus +Nazarenus, rex Iudaeorum</hi>.</cell> +<cell>19. And Pilate wrote a title +also: and he put it upon the +cross. And the writing was, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus of Nazareth, the King +of the Jews</hi>.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus of Nazareth, the +King of the Jews.</hi> 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 <emph>claimed to be</emph> king of the +Jews. But no, either to annoy +the Jews, or by an over-ruling +Providence, Pilate wrote: +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>King of the Jews</hi>,</q> thus +<pb n='345'/><anchor id='Pg345'/> +proclaiming Christ's royal +dignity even while he crucified +Him. +</p> + +<p> +The title is slightly different +in all four Evangelists. <hi rend='italic'>Hic +est Jesus Rex Judaeorum</hi> +(Matthew); <hi rend='italic'>Rex Judaeorum</hi> +(Mark); <hi rend='italic'>Hic est Rex Judaeorum</hi> +(Luke); <hi rend='italic'>Jesus Nazarenus Rex +Judaeorum</hi> (John). +</p> + +<p> +It is very probable that St. +John gives the precise words +of the title, the others the +substance. For all that is +at present legible<note place='foot'>Darras, <hi rend='italic'>Hist. Eccles.</hi> 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.</note> of the +Hebrew text of the title agrees +exactly with St. John. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Rome, +Ancient and Modern</hi>, vol. i., +p. 508. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Hunc ergo titulum multi +Iudaeorum legerunt: quia +prope civitatem erat locus, ubi +crucifixus est Iesus: et erat +scriptum hebraice, graece, et +latine.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +20. <hi rend='bold'>The place where Jesus +was crucified was nigh to +the city.</hi> 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: <q>in Latin, and in +Greek.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Dicebant ergo Pilato +pontifices Iudaeorum: Noli +scribere, Rex Iudaeorum: sed +quia ipse dixit: Rex sum +Iudaeorum.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +21. <hi rend='bold'>Then the chief priests.</hi> +Rather, <q>the chief priests of +the Jews, <emph>therefore</emph>,</q> &c. +</p> + +<pb n='346'/><anchor id='Pg346'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Respondit Pilatus: +Quod scripsi, scripsi.</cell> +<cell>22. Pilate answered: What +I have written, I have written.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. <hi rend='bold'>What I have written, +I have written.</hi> Pilate, +already tired of the painful +business, and disgusted with +the Jews, refused to make any +change in what he had written. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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: +<hi rend='italic'>They have parted my garments +among them: and upon my +vesture they have cast lots</hi>. And +the soldiers indeed did these +things.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>25. Stabant autem iuxta crucem Iesu mater eius, et soror +matris eius, Maria Cleophae, +et Maria Magdalene.</cell> +<cell>25. Now there stood by the +cross of Jesus, his mother, +and his mother's sister, Mary +of Cleophas, and Mary +Magdalen.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +25. <hi rend='bold'>By the cross.</hi> There +is no contradiction between +this and the Synoptic Evangelists +(Matt. xxvii. 55; Mark +xv. 40; Luke xxiii. 49), who +represent the women as +<pb n='347'/><anchor id='Pg347'/> +standing <q>afar off;</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>His mother's sister.</hi> 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 <q>sister,</q> +because her husband Cleophas +was brother to St. Joseph. +</p> + +<anchor id='XIX_26'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>26. Cum vidisset ergo Iesus +matrem, et discipulum stantem +quem diligebat, dicit matri +suae: Mulier, ecce filius tuus.</cell> +<cell>26. When Jesus therefore +had seen his mother and the +disciple standing, whom he +loved, he saith to his mother: +Woman, behold thy son.</cell></row> +<row><cell>27. Deinde dicit discipulo: +Ecce mater tua. Et ex illa +hora accepit eam discipulus in +sua.</cell> +<cell>27. After that, he saith to +the disciple: Behold thy +mother. And from that hour +the disciple took her to his +own.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +26, 27. <hi rend='bold'>Woman</hi> (γύναι) is +the same term by which Jesus +addressed His mother at the +marriage feast of Cana (John +<ref target='II_4'>ii. 4</ref>). Its use on the present +sad, solemn occasion were +itself sufficient proof that the +term implies no disrespect. +(See above on <ref target='II_4'>ii. 4</ref>.) 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>To his own</hi> (εἰς τὰ ἴδια, +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> δώματα). The meaning +is that he took her to where +he himself abode. He may +have had a house of his own, +for his father seems to have +been a man of some means +(Mark i. 20), and the expression +would most naturally +refer to his own house (Acts +xxi. 6). But it is possible, too, +that he merely lodged in +another's house. In <ref target='XVI_32'>xvi. 32</ref>, +it is predicted that the Apostles +should be scattered every man +to his own (εἰς τὰ ἴδια), +and very few of these poor +Galilean fishermen can have +owned houses in Jerusalem. +</p> + +<p> +Regarding the common +belief that St. John, at the foot +<pb n='348'/><anchor id='Pg348'/> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>28. Postea sciens Iesus quia +omnia consummata sunt, ut +consummaretur scriptura, dixit: +Sitio.</cell> +<cell>28. Afterwards Jesus knowing +that all things were now +accomplished, that the scripture +might be fulfilled, said: I +thirst.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +28. <hi rend='bold'>Afterwards</hi>, 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: +<hi rend='bold'>I thirst</hi>. Sorrow, and +suffering, and the loss of blood +had exhausted the humours of +the body, and naturally produced +thirst. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Vas ergo erat positum +aceto plenum. Illi autem spongiam +plenam aceto, hyssopo +circumponentes, obtulerunt ori +eius.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +29. <hi rend='bold'>Now there was a vessel +set there full of vinegar.</hi> +Some think that the <q>vinegar</q> +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,<note place='foot'>The sponge is still preserved in Rome, in St. John Lateran's.</note> 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 +<pb n='349'/><anchor id='Pg349'/> +mouth that He might suck it. +Thus was the Scripture accomplished: +<q>And in My +thirst they gave Me vinegar to +drink</q> (Ps. lxviii. 22). Many +think that the vinegar was +given to hasten death. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>30. Cum ergo accepisset +Iesus acetum, dixit: Consummatum +est. Et inclinato capite +tradidit spirituum.</cell> +<cell>30. Jesus therefore when he +had taken the vinegar, said: +It is consummated. And +bowing his head, he gave up +the ghost.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +30. <hi rend='bold'>It is consummated</hi>; +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: +<q>Jesus crying with a loud +voice, said: Father into thy +hands I commend my spirit. +And saying this he gave up +the ghost</q> (Luke xxiii. 46). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>He gave up the ghost.</hi> +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. <ref target='X_17'>17</ref>, <ref target='X_18'>18</ref>). <q>Spiritum +cum verbo sponte dimisit, +praevento carnificis officio.</q> +(Tertull. Apol., ch. 21, p. 58.) +And St. Augustine on this verse +says beautifully: <q>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?</q> +</p> + +<p> +It may be useful to set down +here together what are +commonly referred to as the +seven last <q>words</q> of Jesus +on the cross. The Synoptic +Evangelists record four of +them, and St. John the other +three. The first was: <q>Father +forgive them, for they know +not what they do</q> (Luke xxiii. +34); the second, addressed to +the good thief: <q>Amen, I +say to thee, this day thou shalt +be with me in paradise</q> (Luke +xxiii. 43); the third: <q>Woman +behold thy son,</q> together +with the words addressed to +St. John: <q>Behold thy +mother</q> (John xix. 26, 27); +the fourth: <q>My God, my +God, why hast thou forsaken +me?</q> (Matthew xxvii. 46; +Mark xv. 34); the fifth: <q>I +thirst</q> (John xix. 28); the +sixth: <q>It is consummated</q> +(John xix. 30); and the seventh: +<pb n='350'/><anchor id='Pg350'/> +<q>Father into thy hands I commend +my spirit</q> (Luke xxiii. +46). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +31. <hi rend='bold'>(Because it was the +parasceve) that the bodies</hi>, +&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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>For that was a great sabbath +day.</hi> The better-supported +Greek reading would +be rendered: For great was the +day of that sabbath (ἐκεινου τοῦ +σαββάτου). The meaning is +that this Sabbath was specially +solemn, because it was the Sabbath +that fell within the Paschal +week. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And that they might be +taken away.</hi> We read in Deut. +xxi. 22, 23: <q>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 <emph>the +same day</emph>.</q> 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 +<pb n='351'/><anchor id='Pg351'/> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>32. Venerunt ergo milites: +et primi quidem fregerunt +crura, et alterius, qui crucifixus +est cum eo.</cell> +<cell>32. The soldiers therefore +came: and they broke the +legs of the first, and of the +other that was crucified with +him.</cell></row> +<row><cell>33. Ad Iesum autem cum +venissent, ut viderunt eum iam +mortuum, non fregerunt eius +crura:</cell> +<cell>33. But after they were +come to Jesus, when they saw +that he was already dead, they +did not break his legs.</cell></row> +<row><cell>34. Sed unus militum lancea +latus eius aperuit, et continuo +exivit sanguis et aqua.</cell> +<cell>34. But one of the soldiers +with a spear opened his side, +and immediately there came +out blood and water.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +34. <hi rend='bold'>Opened</hi> (Vulg., aperuit) +<hi rend='bold'>his side</hi>. It is very much more +probable that the verb in the +original is ἔνυξεν (pierced) not +ἤνοιξεν (opened). <hi rend='bold'>A spear</hi>; +(λόνχη). This was the long +lance of a horseman. The lance +is now preserved and venerated +in Rome, in St. Peter's. It +wants the point, which is kept +in the holy chapel in Paris. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And immediately there +came out blood and water.</hi> +It is disputed whether this flow +of blood and water was natural +or miraculous. +</p> + +<p> +(1) Some hold that each flow +was miraculous, because in a +<emph>dead</emph> body blood does not flow +and water is not found in the +region of the heart. +</p> + +<p> +(2) Others, on the contrary, +hold that in each case the flow +was quite natural, because in +a dead body the <emph>clot</emph> or red +corpuscles become separated +from the <emph>serum</emph> 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,<note place='foot'>Longet, <hi rend='italic'>Physiologie</hi>, t. ii., p. 701.</note> 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. +</p> + +<p> +(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, +<emph>rapidly</emph> dissolved into its constituent +elements. This view +is held by some writers of +great authority. See Dr. +Stroud's <hi rend='italic'>Treatise on the +Physical Cause of the Death +of Christ</hi>. 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 +<pb n='352'/><anchor id='Pg352'/> +to the common opinion +that Christ took or had a diseased +body, or any diseased +organ. +</p> + +<p> +(4) Hence, with Corluy, we +think the most probable view +is, that the blood flowed +naturally from a body <emph>only a +short time dead</emph>, 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, <emph>insists</emph> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.: <q>Lancea latus ejus perfodiunt, +unde cruor aqua mistus +scaturiit, quod Eulogiae +mysticae et baptismatis imago +quaedam erat atque primitiae.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>35. Et qui vidit, testimonium +perhibuit: et verum est testimonium +eius. Et ille scit quia +vera dicit: ut et vos credatis.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +35. <hi rend='bold'>And he that saw</hi> (hath +seen) <hi rend='bold'>it hath given testimony</hi>. +<q>It</q> 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 <q>hath +seen,</q> to be <emph>all</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>That you also may believe.</hi> +The sense is not that you also +may believe that blood and +water flowed, or that Christ +really died; but, with Beel.; +Bisp., Corl., that you also, as +well as I, may more firmly believe +that Jesus is the Messias +foretold by the prophets. These +words, then, express the full +purpose that our Evangelist +had in view in testifying to the +facts just stated. ἵνα (that) +may be taken to depend upon +the three preceding clauses, or +upon the words immediately +preceding: <q>saith true.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>36. Facta sunt enim haec, ut +scriptura impleretur: Os non +comminuetis ex eo.</cell> +<cell>36. For these things were +done that the scripture might +be fulfilled: <hi rend='italic'>You shall not +break a bone of him</hi>.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +36. <hi rend='bold'>For these things were +done.</hi> <q>For</q> establishes the +connection, and proves, we +<pb n='353'/><anchor id='Pg353'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>You shall not break a bone +of him</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>37. Et iterum alia scriptura +dicit: Videbunt in quem transfixerunt.</cell> +<cell>37. And again another +scripture saith: <hi rend='italic'>They shall +look on him whom they pierced</hi>.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +37. The quotation is from +Zach. xii. 10, according to the +Hebrew text, except that, perhaps, +the correct reading in +Zach. is <q>on me,</q> and not <q>on +him.</q> 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 +<q>all the multitude returned +(from Calvary) striking their +breasts</q> (xxiii. 48). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +38. <hi rend='bold'>After these things.</hi> We +learn from SS. Matthew and +Mark that when Joseph approached +Pilate it was evening +(Matthew xxvii. 57; Mark xv. +42). Joseph was <q>a rich man</q> +(Matthew xxvii. 57), <q>a noble +counsellor</q> (Mark xv. 43), +that is a member of the Sanhedrim, +<q>a good and a just man</q> +(Luke xxiii. 50). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Arimathea.</hi> 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 <q>a city of Judea</q> +(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 <hi rend='italic'>B. D.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>sub voc.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Secretly.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And Pilate gave leave.</hi> +Permission was usually given +to the friends of one who had +been executed to bury his +body. Sometimes, indeed, +<pb n='354'/><anchor id='Pg354'/> +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 (<q><emph>Donavit</emph> +corpus Jesu,</q> Mark xv. 45). +</p> + +<p> +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). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>He came therefore and +took away the body of Jesus.</hi> +We learn from St. Mark (xv. +46), and St. Luke (xxiii. 53), +that he <q>took down</q> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>39. Venit autem et Nicodemus, +qui venerat ad Iesum +nocte primum, ferens mixturam +myrrhae et aloës, quasi libras +centum.</cell> +<cell>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 +<hi rend='italic'>weight</hi>.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +39. <hi rend='bold'>He who at first came +to Jesus by night.</hi> The +reference is to the visit recorded +above in <ref target='III_1'>iii. 1</ref>, ff. St. +John alone makes mention of +Nicodemus on this occasion. +The phrase <q>at first</q> 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 +<q>by night.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Bringing a mixture of +myrrh and aloes, about an +hundred pound weight.</hi> +<pb n='355'/><anchor id='Pg355'/> +<q>The compound was made of +the gum of the myrrh tree, and +a powder of the fragrant aloe +wood. The amount of the +preparation (<q>about a hundred +pound weight,</q> 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.</q> (Westc. in <hi rend='italic'>The +Speaker's Commentary</hi>.) +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>40. Acceperunt ergo corpus +Iesu, et ligaverunt illud linteis +cum aromatibus, sicut mos est +Iudaeis sepelire.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +40. <hi rend='bold'>And bound it in linen +cloths</hi> (ὁθόνια). They bound +the body in swathes of linen +cloth covered with layers of +the aromatic mixture. The +Synoptists speak only of <q>a +linen cloth</q> (σινδών) in which +the body was <q>wrapped.</q> +We may naturally suppose +that the body when embalmed +was wrapped in a large linen +cloth. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>A new sepulchre, wherein +no man yet had been laid.</hi> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>41. Erat autem, in loco ubi +crucifixus est, hortus, et in +horto monumentum novum, in +quo nondum quisquam positus +erat.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row> +<row><cell>42. Ibi ergo propter parasceven +Iudaeorum, quia iuxta +erat monumentum, posuerunt +Iesum.</cell> +<cell>42. There therefore because +of the parasceve of the Jews +they laid Jesus, because the +sepulchre was nigh at hand.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +42. <hi rend='bold'>Because the sepulchre +was nigh at hand.</hi> 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 <q>the +parasceve of the Jews,</q> +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.) +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='356'/><anchor id='Pg356'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter XX.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-10. <hi rend='bold'>On Easter Sunday morning Magdalen comes to the tomb, and +then runs to Peter and John, who also come to the tomb.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +11-17. <hi rend='bold'>Magdalen, having followed Peter and John back to the tomb, +sees first two angels, and then Jesus Himself.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +18. <hi rend='bold'>Then she announces to the disciples that Jesus had appeared +to her.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +19-23. <hi rend='bold'>Appearance of Jesus to the disciples on Easter Sunday evening +when he instituted the Sacrament of Penance.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +24, 25. <hi rend='bold'>Incredulity of Thomas.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +26-29. <hi rend='bold'>Appearance of Jesus again on Low Sunday to Thomas and the +other disciples, when Thomas believes, and confesses his faith.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +30, 31. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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, <q>when it was yet dark,</q> +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 <q>cometh early, +<emph>when it was yet dark</emph>, unto the +sepulchre;</q> St. Matthew says +that she and the other Mary +came to see the sepulchre <q>in +the <emph>end of the Sabbath</emph> (according +to the Vulgate: +<q><emph>Vespere</emph> Sabbati</q>), when it +began to dawn towards the +first day of the week</q> (Matt. +xxviii. 1). And St. Mark +creates still further difficulty +when he says: <q>And when +the Sabbath was past, Mary +Magdalen, and Mary (the +mother) of James, and Salome +bought (not brought; Vulg. +<pb n='357'/><anchor id='Pg357'/> +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, +<emph>the sun being now risen</emph></q> +(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: <q>Vespere +Sabbati,</q> St. Mark represents +her as coming on Sunday +morning, <emph>when the sun was +risen</emph>; and St. John, as coming +on the Sunday morning +<emph>when it was yet dark</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>they saw a +young man <emph>sitting</emph> on the right +side clothed with a white robe</q> +(Mark xvi. 5); and St. Luke, +that after the women entered +the tomb, and found not the +body of the Lord <q>behold <emph>two</emph> +men <emph>stood</emph> by them in shining +apparel</q> (Luke xxiv. 4).<note place='foot'>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 <emph>outside</emph> 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.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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 +(<hi rend='italic'>De Evang.</hi>, 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Harmony of the +Gosp. Narr.</hi>), Cornely (Introd. +III., <hi rend='italic'>Synops. Chron.</hi>, p. 301), +<pb n='358'/><anchor id='Pg358'/> +and Greswell (<hi rend='italic'>Harm. of the +Gosp.</hi>), suppose St. Luke to +refer to the visit of one company, +the other three Evangelists +to that of a different company. +</p> + +<p> +The following seems to us +the most satisfactory method +of reconciling all the accounts. +Very early on Sunday morning, +<q>when it was yet dark</q> +(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: <q>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</q> (Matt. +xxviii. 1).<note place='foot'>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 +<emph>evening</emph> of the Sabbath (Vespere sabbati), disappears, if we admit that the +Vulgate rendering of the Greek phrase, ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων is incorrect, or, at +least, misleading, and should rather be post sabbatum, as the phrase is +explained by Mald., Cornely (iii. p. 301, note S), Kuin., Bloomf., and the +majority of commentators. Certainly we are convinced that Magdalen did +not visit the tomb on Saturday evening; for had she done so, she must +have learned that the tomb was guarded and the stone that closed it sealed, +and she and her companions would not come as they did on Sunday morning, +saying to one another: <q>Who shall roll away the stone for us?</q> 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.</note> Proceeding on their +way they were joined by +Salome and probably by others, +and arrived at the tomb, <q>the +sun being now risen</q> (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). +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='359'/><anchor id='Pg359'/> +upon it, <emph>in the sight of the +guards</emph> (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). +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>on the way</emph> (Mark +xvi. 8), though their hearts +were full of the wonderful and +joyous event. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>sitting</emph> (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: +<q>But He rising early the first +day of the week appeared first +to Mary Magdalen out of whom +he had cast seven devils</q> +(xvi. 9).<note place='foot'>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.</note> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>a priori</foreign> reasoning. +For St. Luke's company +prepared their spices on +Friday evening before the Sabbath: +<q>and returning they prepared +spices and ointments: +and on the Sabbath-day they +rested according to the commandment</q> +(Luke xxiii. 56); +the other company, after the +<pb n='360'/><anchor id='Pg360'/> +Sabbath, when the first day of +the Jewish week had begun: +<q>and when the Sabbath was +past, Mary Magdalen and Mary +<emph>the mother</emph> of James and Salome +bought sweet spices, that coming +they might anoint Jesus.</q> +(Mark xvi. 1). Moreover, the +women of whom St. Luke +speaks seem to have come to +the tomb earlier than any +other company, for they came +ὄρθρου βαθέος (literally, at the +first dawn, Luke xxiv. 1): and +we are not to conclude that +they merely set out for the +tomb at this early hour, for they +seem to have arrived at the +tomb before the sun was risen: +see Luke xxiv. 22: ὄρθριαι ἐπὶ +τό μνημεῖον. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>all</emph> 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. <q>Yea, and certain +women also of our company +affrighted us, who before +it was light (ὄρθριαι) were at +the sepulchre. And not finding +his body, came, saying that +they had also seen a vision of +angels, who say that he is +alive. And some of our people +went to the sepulchre: and +found it so as the women had +said, but him they found not</q> +(Luke xxiv. 22-24). +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>arrived before</emph> her, saw the +two angels <emph>standing</emph> (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 +<emph>running</emph> 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 +<pb n='361'/><anchor id='Pg361'/> +tomb. The events that followed +have been already arranged +above. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Una autem sabbati, Maria +Magdalene venit mane, cum +adhuc tenebrae essent, ad monumentum; et vidit lapidem +sublatum a monumento.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='bold'>The first day of the week.</hi> +The Vulgate reading <q>una</q> +(μιᾶ) is a Hebraism for +<foreign rend='italic'>prima</foreign>; and the week is called +by the name of its principal +day, the Sabbath. Comp. +Luke xviii. 22. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And when it was yet dark.</hi> +She started from Bethany while +it was yet dark, but she did +not arrive at Calvary till the sun +was risen (Mark xvi. 2). +</p> + +<anchor id='XX_2'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And cometh to Simon Peter.</hi> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The other disciple whom +Jesus loved</hi>, 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). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>They have taken away the +Lord.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>We know not.</hi> These words +show that Magdalen had not +come alone to the tomb. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Exiit ergo Petrus, et ille +alius discipulus, et venerunt ad +monumentum.</cell> +<cell>3. Peter therefore went out, +and that other disciple, and +they came to the sepulchre.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='bold'>And they came to the +sepulchre.</hi> The meaning is +that they <q>went towards</q> +(ἤρχοντο εἰς) the sepulchre. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Currebant autem duo +simul, et ille alius discipulus +praecucurrit citius Petro, et +venit primus ad monumentum.</cell> +<cell>4. And they both ran +together, and that other +disciple did outrun Peter, and +came first to the sepulchre.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +4. We have here the vivid +touches of one of the two +actors in the scene. The +incidents of that eventful +<pb n='362'/><anchor id='Pg362'/> +morning must have remained +for ever fresh in his memory. +St. John being the younger +man was able to run more +quickly than Peter. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Et cum se inclinasset, +vidit posita linteamina, non +tamen introivit.</cell> +<cell>5. And when he stooped +down, he saw the linen cloths +lying: but yet he went not in.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Having stooped and looked +in, St. John saw (seeth) the +linen swathes in which the +body of our Saviour had been +bound (xix. 40). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Venit ergo Simon Petrus +sequens eum, et introivit in +monumentum, et vidit linteamina +posita.</cell> +<cell>6. Then cometh Simon +Peter, following him, and went +into the sepulchre, and saw +the linen cloths lying.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And saw (seeth).</hi> In the +original we have here the verb +θεωρέι, denoting an intent and +searching gaze, as distinct +from St. John's simple look +(βλέπει) described in the preceding +verse. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>7. Et sudarium quod fuerat +super caput eius, non cum linteaminibus +positum, sed separatim +involutum in unum locum.</cell> +<cell>7. And the napkin that had +been about his head, not lying +with the linen cloths, but +apart, wrapt up into one place.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. <hi rend='bold'>And the napkin.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='363'/><anchor id='Pg363'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Tunc ergo introivit et ille +discipulus qui venerat primus +ad monumentum, et vidit, et +credidit:</cell> +<cell>8. Then that other disciple +also went in, who came first +to the sepulchre: and he saw +and believed.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8. St. John now followed +Peter into the cave. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And he saw and believed.</hi> +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 +<emph>absolutely</emph>, as here, he usually +means faith. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Nondum enim sciebant +scripturam, quia oportebat eum +a mortuis resurgere.</cell> +<cell>9. For as yet they knew not +the scripture, that he must +rise again from the dead.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +9. <hi rend='bold'>For as yet.</hi> We take +the meaning to be, that as yet +<emph>until now</emph> they knew not the +Scripture, that it was necessary +Jesus should rise from the +dead. Even now St. Peter +<q>went away, wondering in +himself at that which was +come to pass</q> (Luke xxiv. 12). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>10. Abierunt ergo iterum discipuli +ad semetipsos.</cell> +<cell>10. The disciples therefore +departed again to their home.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +10. <hi rend='bold'>The disciples therefore</hi>—thinking +that they could +learn nothing more there—<hi rend='bold'>departed +again to their home</hi>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Maria autem stabat ad +monumentum foris, plorans. +Dum ergo fleret, inclinavit se, +et prospexit in monumentum:</cell> +<cell>11. But Mary stood at the +sepulchre without, weeping. +Now as she was weeping, she +stooped down, and looked into +the sepulchre.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. <hi rend='bold'>But Mary stood at the +sepulchre without, weeping.</hi> +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. <q>A stronger +affection,</q> says St. Augustine, +<q>riveted to the spot one of a +weaker nature.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Et vidit duos angelos in +albis, sedentes, unum ad caput, +et unum ad pedes, ubi positum +fuerat corpus Iesu.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +12. <hi rend='bold'>And she saw two +angels.</hi> The vision of angels +now accorded to Magdalen is +not mentioned by any other +Evangelist. +</p> + +<pb n='364'/><anchor id='Pg364'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Dicunt ei illi: Mulier, +quid ploras? Dicit eis: Quia +tulerunt Dominum meum: et +nescio ubi posuerunt eum.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +13. Magdalen's words here +are the same as in verse 2, +except that <q>my Lord</q> is +substituted for <q>The Lord,</q> +and <q>I know not</q> for <q>we +know not.</q> Both her statement +and her loss are now +more personal. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Haec cum dixisset, conversa +est retrorsum, et vidit +Iesum stantem: et non sciebat +quia Iesus est.</cell> +<cell>14. When she had thus said, +she turned herself back, and +saw Jesus standing; and she +knew not that it was Jesus.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. <hi rend='bold'>She turned herself +back.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. <hi rend='bold'>The gardener</hi>; 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: <hi rend='bold'>Sir, if thou hast taken +him hence.</hi>... As if she +imagined everyone to be filled +like herself with only one +thought, she does not say who +it is she is seeking. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And I will take him away.</hi> +<pb n='365'/><anchor id='Pg365'/> +To her love everything +seemed possible, nor does she +pause to think whether she +could carry the body, nor +whither she would bear it. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Dicit ei Iesus: Maria. +Conversa illa, dicit ei: Rabboni +(quod dicitur magister).</cell> +<cell>16. Jesus saith to her: +Mary. She turning, saith to +him: Rabboni (which is to +say, Master).</cell></row></table> + +<p> +16. Our Lord now calls her +by her name, and she at once +recognises Him. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>She, turning, saith to him</hi> +(very many authorities add <q>in +Hebrew</q>) <hi rend='bold'>Rabboni</hi>. The word +strictly means <q>my Master,</q> +but the pronominal suffix, just +as in Rabbi, gradually became +almost a part of the title. The +Hebrew spoken by Magdalen +was of course Syrochaldaic +The corresponding word in +pure Hebrew would be Rabban +(רבן). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +17. Probably Magdalen had +prostrated herself at His feet, +and was clinging to them, as +did other women that morning +(Matt. xxviii. 9). Christ's +words are variously explained. +The following view seems to be +the most natural: Do not seek +to cling to Me, to remain with +Me now (ἅπτεσθαι is often used +not in the sense of touching, +but of clinging to, hanging on +by. See Lidd. and Scott); you +shall have other opportunities +of satisfying your love, since I +am to remain with you for +forty days, and am not at once +ascending to My Father. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>But go to My brethren and +say to them.</hi> For her consolation +she is made the harbinger +of Christ's further exaltation. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>To My Father and to your +Father.</hi> <q>Non ait Patrem +nostrum, sed <emph>Patrem meum +et Patrem vestrum</emph>. Aliter ergo +meum, aliter vestrum: natura +meum, gratia vestrum. Neque +dixit Deum nostrum, sed <emph>Deum +meum</emph>, sub quo ego homo; et +Deum vestrum, inter quos et +ipsum mediator sum</q> (St. Aug. +on St. John Tr. 121.) +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>18. Venit Maria Magdalene +annuntians discipulis: Quia +vidi Dominum, et haec dixit +mihi.</cell> +<cell>18. Mary Magdalen cometh +and telleth the disciples: I +have seen the Lord, and these +things he said to me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. Magdalen went and +announced to the disciples that +<pb n='366'/><anchor id='Pg366'/> +she had seen the Lord; but, +as St. Mark, xvi. 11, tells us, +they did not believe her. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. <hi rend='bold'>Now when it was late +that same day.</hi> 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 <emph>fifth</emph> 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 <q>and those who were +with them</q> (Luke xxiv. 33-36) +with the usual Jewish salutation. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>towards evening,</q> and the day +was <q>far spent</q> (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 <q>when it +was late that same day</q> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>20. Et cum hoc dixisset, +ostendit eis manus et latus. +Gavisi sunt ergo discipuli, viso +Domino.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='367'/><anchor id='Pg367'/> +xxiv. 39), and side, and said +to them, as St. Luke tells us: +<q>Handle and see, for a spirit +hath not flesh and bones as +you see me to have</q> (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.<note place='foot'><q>Unde secundum naturam suam palpabile est corpus gloriosum, sed ex +virtute supernaturali hoc ei competit ut cum vult non palpetur a corpore non +glorioso.</q>—St. Thomas, <hi rend='italic'>Summ. Theol.</hi>, Suppl., q. 83, art. 6.</note> 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XX_21'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Dixit ergo eis iterum: +Pax vobis. Sicut misit me +Pater, et ego mitto vos.</cell> +<cell>21. He said therefore to +them again: Peace be to you. +As the Father hath sent me, +I also send you.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +<hi rend='bold'>As the Father hath sent me</hi>, +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Haec cum dixisset, insufflavit: +et dixit eis: Accipite +Spiritum sanctum:</cell> +<cell>22. When he had said this, +he breathed on them; and he +said to them: Receive ye the +Holy Ghost:</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. <hi rend='bold'>He breathed on them.</hi> +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 <emph>visible</emph> and fuller +manner on the day of Pentecost. +<pb n='368'/><anchor id='Pg368'/> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>23. Quorum remiseritis peccata, +remittuntur eis: et quorum +retinueritis, retenta sunt.</cell> +<cell>23. Whose sins you shall +forgive, they are forgiven +them: and whose <hi rend='italic'>sins</hi> you +shall retain, they are retained.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. The Council of Trent has +defined that there is question +here of the remission of sins in +the Sacrament of Penance.<note place='foot'><q>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.</q>—Sess. xiv., +Can. 2, <hi rend='italic'>De Poen.</hi></note> +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 +<emph>judicial sentence</emph> of the persons +here addressed. For the words +are: <hi rend='italic'>If you remit</hi> the sins of +some (Greek, ἄν τινων), that is +if you <emph>decide</emph> to remit the sins +of some, and to retain the sins +of others, &c. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>after</emph> Baptism. +</p> + +<p> +Upon the words of this text +note—(1) That the persons to +whom this wondrous power +is given are to <emph>forgive</emph> (remiseritis) +sins, not merely to +<emph>declare</emph> them forgiven by God. +</p> + +<p> +(2) That there is no +restriction as to the sins that +may be forgiven; so that there +is no such thing as an irremissible +sin, if only the minister +can decide that the penitent is +worthy to receive the Sacrament, +and the penitent have +the proper dispositions. (3) +That instead of the present +tense (remittuntur eis) which +stands in the first member<note place='foot'>This reading, however, is not certain, some critics read the perfect +ἀφεώνται (remissa sunt). So Tisch., Treg., Westc. & Hort., and Lachm.</note>, we +have the perfect (retenta sunt) +in the second member, implying +that the sins <emph>remain</emph> as +they were. (4) That in the +second member the words are +not: Whose sins you shall not +forgive, but whose sins you +shall <emph>retain</emph>; implying, in the +minister, a <emph>positive</emph> judgment +adverse to the penitent. For +other questions arising out of +this text, consult works on +Dogmatic Theology. +</p> + +<p> +It appears from St. Luke, +xxiv. 33, that there were other +<pb n='369'/><anchor id='Pg369'/> +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 <ref target='XVI_13'>xvi. 13</ref>), has +decided that the power was +given only to these. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XX_24'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Thomas autem unus ex +duodecim, qui dicitur Didymus, +non erat cum eis quando venit +Iesus.</cell> +<cell>24. Now Thomas, one of +the twelve, who is called +Didymus, was not with them +when Jesus came.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +24. <hi rend='bold'>Thomas.</hi> See above on +xi. 16. <hi rend='bold'>One of the twelve</hi> <q>He +says one of the twelve, although +the Apostolic College was <emph>now</emph> +reduced to <emph>eleven</emph>, because +<q>twelve</q> was the original number, +just as in the case of the +<q>Decemvirs,</q> they would be +thus termed, although only <emph>nine</emph> +out of the <emph>ten</emph> were present on +a particular occasion</q> (M'Ev.). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 <q>handle and +see</q> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +26. <hi rend='bold'>And after eight days</hi>, +that is to say, on Low Sunday, +<pb n='370'/><anchor id='Pg370'/> +Christ again appeared to the +Apostles, Thomas being +present; and this was His <emph>sixth</emph> +appearance. Thomas, though +still without faith, had remained +in the company of the +Apostles. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>28. Respondit Thomas, et +dixit ei: Dominus meus et +Deus meus.</cell> +<cell>28. Thomas answered, and +said to him: My Lord, and +my God.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +28. <hi rend='bold'>My Lord, and my God</hi> +(ὁ κύρίος μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου). +As often in the New Testament +(Mark ix. 25; Luke viii. +54; John viii. 10), the nominative +is here used for the vocative +(see Beel., <hi rend='italic'>Gr. Gram.</hi>, § 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: <q>Haec verba +a Thoma non dicta fuisse de +Christo, sed miraculo resurrectionis +perculsum, Thomam +laudasse Deum qui Christum +resuscitasset.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +In confessing Jesus to be his +Lord, Thomas acknowledges +Him to be <q>the master</q> who had +been crucified; while, in the remaining +words, he clearly confesses +Christ's Divinity. And +<pb n='371'/><anchor id='Pg371'/> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>29. Dixit ei Iesus: Quia +vidisti me Thoma, credidisti: +beati qui non viderunt et crediderunt.</cell> +<cell>29. Jesus saith to him: +Because thou hast seen me, +Thomas, thou hast believed: +blessed are they that have not +seen, and have believed.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +29. <hi rend='bold'>Because thou hast +seen Me, Thomas thou hast +believed.</hi> <q>Aliud vidit, et +aliud credidit. Vidit hominem +et cicatrices, et ex hoc credidit +divinitatem resurgentis</q> (St. +Thomas Aquin). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Blessed are they that have +not seen, and have believed.</hi> +Rather: <q>Blessed are they +that <emph>saw not</emph> (ἱδόντες), and +believed.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>30. Multa quidem et alia +signa fecit Iesus in conspectu +discipulorum suorum, quae non +sunt scripta in libro hoc.</cell> +<cell>30. Many other signs also +did Jesus in the sight of his +disciples, which are not written +in this book.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +30. <hi rend='bold'>Many other signs.</hi> We +understand not of the various +other miracles of Christ's mortal +and risen life, but of the +other <emph>proofs</emph> (σημεῖα, literally +signs) of His resurrection and +Divinity, which he afforded +during His risen life. For, the +miracles of His mortal life were +wrought in the sight of all the +people; but the <emph>proofs</emph> of His +resurrection were given only +<q>in the sight of His disciples.</q> +So Mald., Tol., Corn., &c. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>31. Haec autem scripta sunt +ut credatis quia Iesus est +Christus Filius Dei: et ut credentes, +vitam habeatis in nomine +eius.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +31. But what is here written +<emph>in evidence of His resurrection</emph> +is written in order that you +may believe that Jesus is the +Messias (ὁ Χριστός), the Son +of God; and that believing you +may have life, the life of grace +here, and of glory hereafter, +through His name; that is, +through faith in Him. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='372'/><anchor id='Pg372'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter XXI.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +1-14. <hi rend='bold'>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.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +15-17. <hi rend='bold'>Peter's triple confession of his love for his master; he is +constituted by Jesus visible head of the whole Church.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +18-19. <hi rend='bold'>Jesus predicts the manner of Peter's death, as St. John explains.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +20-23. <hi rend='bold'>He reproves Peter's curiosity regarding the end in store for +St. John.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +24-25. <hi rend='bold'>The conclusion.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +The authenticity of this last +chapter of our Gospel has +been questioned (see <ref target='Intro_V'>Introd. v</ref>.), +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.<note place='foot'>Some, who admit the authenticity of verses 1-23, deny that of verses 24 +and 25.</note> Both those who +deny the authenticity of the +chapter, and those who hold it +to be an authentic <hi rend='italic'>appendix, +written at a later date</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +We may begin by remarking +that no Catholic is free to doubt +the <emph>inspiration</emph> of the chapter, +so that whoever wrote it must +<pb n='373'/><anchor id='Pg373'/> +have been inspired. This follows +from the decree of Trent, +which defined the <emph>entire books</emph> +of the Vulgate with all their +<emph>parts</emph> (and this is certainly a +part, not merely a <q>particula</q> +of this Gospel) to be canonical +Scripture. See above on iv. <ref target='IV_3'>3</ref>, <ref target='IV_4'>4</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +Hence, the only questions +remaining are: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) whether +St. John or <emph>some other inspired +writer</emph> wrote the chapter; and +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +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.<note place='foot'>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.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>Omnino probari +nequit, scribendi genus, +in hoc capite, si clausulam<note place='foot'>By <q>clausulam</q> he means the last two verses of the chapter.</note> +ejus exceperis, diversum esse +a scribendi genere, quod in +reliquo Evangelio deprehenditur.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>1. Postea manifestavit se +iterum Iesus discipulis ad mare +Tiberiadis. Manifestavit autem +sic:</cell> +<cell>1. After this Jesus shewed +himself again to the disciples +at the sea of Tiberias. And +he shewed <hi rend='italic'>himself</hi> after this +manner.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='bold'>After this.</hi> 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). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>The sea of Tiberias.</hi> See +above on <ref target='VI_1'>vi. i</ref>. +</p> + +<pb n='374'/><anchor id='Pg374'/> + +<anchor id='XXI_2'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='bold'>Nathanael</hi> is most probably +the same with Bartholomew, +the Apostle. See above +on <ref target='I_45'>i. 45</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And two others of his +disciples.</hi> Who they were we +cannot tell. Had <q>the sons +of Zebedee</q> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>3. Dicit eis Simon Petrus: +Vado piscari, Dicunt ei: Venimus +et nos tecum. Et exierunt, +et ascenderunt in navim: et +illa nocte nihil prendiderunt.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<q>go a fishing.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And they went forth</hi> from +the house where they were, +<hi rend='bold'>and entered into the ship</hi> +(τὸ πλοῖον), which was there, +lent or hired for their use; +<hi rend='bold'>and that night they caught +nothing</hi>, God having so arranged, +no doubt, in order to +make the miracle of the following +morning more remarkable. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>4. Mane autem facto stetit +Iesus in littore: non tamen +cognoverunt discipuli quia +Iesus est.</cell> +<cell>4. But when the morning +was come, Jesus stood on the +shore: yet the disciples knew +not that it was Jesus.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +4. <hi rend='bold'>But when the morning +was come.</hi> The better supported +Greek reading (γινομένης +not γενομένης) gives the +meaning: <q>When the morning +was breaking.</q> 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 +<pb n='375'/><anchor id='Pg375'/> +of their eyes. Comp. +Luke xxiv. 16. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>5. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: +Pueri numquid pulmentarium +habetis? Responderunt ei: +Non.</cell> +<cell>5. Jesus therefore said to +them: Children, have you any +meat? They answered him: +No.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +5. Jesus called to them from +the shore: <q>Have you any +meat?</q> The Revised Version +renders: <q>Have you aught to +eat?</q> The Hellenistic Greek +word (προσφάγιον), which is +here used, meant primarily +something that was eaten as +relish with other food, but it +came to mean food generally, +and so the meaning here probably +is: <q>have you anything +to eat?</q> See Lidd. and Scott, +<hi rend='italic'>sub voce</hi>. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>6. Dicit eis: mittite in dexteram +navigii rete: et invenietis. +Miserunt ergo: et iam non +valebant illud trahere prae +multitudine piscium.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +6. <hi rend='bold'>On the right side of the +ship.</hi> 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 <emph>know</emph> 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 +<emph>suspected</emph> that perhaps it was +He who now called to them +from the shore. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>To draw it</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, into the +boat. In verse 11 we are told +that they <q>drew</q> it to land. +It will be noticed that a +different word is used in verse +8 of dragging the net after +the boat. +</p> + +<anchor id='XXI_7'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +7. The beloved disciple +infers from the miraculous +draught that it is the Lord +who stands upon the shore. +<pb n='376'/><anchor id='Pg376'/> +<hi rend='bold'>Simon Peter</hi> (add <q>therefore,</q> +οὖν) <hi rend='bold'>when he heard that it +was the Lord, girt his coat +about him (for he was naked)</hi>. +The virgin disciple was the +first to recognise his master, +but Peter as usual was the +leader in action. The <q>coat</q> +was some garment usually +<emph>worn over another</emph> (ἐπενδύτην), +perhaps an outer and looser +tunic, which Peter had laid +aside while fishing. As he +was about to swim to his +Master, and foresaw that his +garments should necessarily +be wet, he probably thought it +decorous to have some other +garment on him besides the +tight-fitting inner tunic. We +suppose therefore that he was +already clothed in the inner +tunic. He girded himself in +order that the garment might +not impede him when swimming. +The Greek word, which, +in our Version, is rendered +<q>naked,</q> 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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>8. Alii autem discipuli navigio +venerunt (non enim longe erant +a terra, sed quasi cubitis ducentis), +trahentes rete piscium.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +8. <hi rend='bold'>In the ship.</hi> Rather: +<q>in the boat</q> (τῷ πλοιαρίω). +It may be that the reference +is to a small boat that was +attached to the larger vessel +(τὸ πλοῖον) mentioned in +verse 3. As the cubit was +eighteen inches, the distance of +the boat from the shore was +100 yards. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>9. Ut ergo descenderunt in +terram, viderunt prunas positas, +et piscem superpositum, +et panem.</cell> +<cell>9. As soon then as they +came to land, they saw hot +coals lying, and a fish laid +thereon, and bread.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +9. <hi rend='bold'>They saw hot coals +lying.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='377'/><anchor id='Pg377'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>10. Dicit eis Iesus: Afferte +de piscibus, quos prendidistis +nunc.</cell> +<cell>10. Jesus saith to them: +Bring hither of the fishes +which you have now caught.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>11. Ascendit Simon Petrus, +et traxit rete in terrain, plenum +magnis piscibus centum quinquaginta +tribus. Et cum tanti +essent, non est scissum rete.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +11. <hi rend='bold'>Simon Peter went up.</hi> +Peter went <emph>aboard</emph>, 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: <q>From +henceforth thou shalt catch +men</q>), 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). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>12. Dicit eis Iesus: Venite, +prendete. Et nemo audebat +discumbentium interrogare +eum: Tu quis es? scientes +quia Dominus est.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +12. <hi rend='bold'>Come, and dine</hi> (ἀριστήσατε). +The <emph>primary</emph> meaning of +the Greek word used, has reference +to breakfast, and since it +was early morning (verse 4), +that is the meaning here. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And none of them that +were at meat durst ask him.</hi> +The best supported Greek +reading has: <q>And none <emph>of +the disciples</emph> durst ask him.</q> +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; +<pb n='378'/><anchor id='Pg378'/> +yet that because of the miracles +they were convinced that it +was He. Some, as Kuinoel, +think that ἐτόλμα (durst) is +redundant. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>13. Et venit Iesus, et accipit +panem, et dat eis, et piscem +similiter.</cell> +<cell>13. And Jesus cometh and +taketh bread, and giveth them, +and fish in like manner.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>And taketh bread</hi> (τὸν ἄρτον). +The article points back to the +bread mentioned in verse 9, +which Christ Himself had +provided. So, too, in the case +of the fish (τὸ ὀψάριον). +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>14. Hoc iam tertio manifestatus +est Iesus discipulis suis, +cum resurrexisset a mortuis.</cell> +<cell>14. This is now the third +time that Jesus was manifested +to his disciples, after he was +risen from the dead.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +14. <hi rend='bold'>This is now the third +time</hi>, &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 <emph>considerable +number</emph> of the disciples. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XXI_15'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>15. When therefore they +had dined, Jesus saith to +Simon Peter: Simon <hi rend='italic'>son</hi> 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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +15. <hi rend='bold'>When, therefore.</hi> When +they had breakfasted, and +were, therefore, free from distractions, +so that they could +attend to what was said, Jesus +addressed Peter. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Simon, son of John</hi> (see +above on <ref target='I_42'>i. 42</ref>). It was certainly +not without a reason +that Jesus here addressed Peter +by his former name of Simon. +<pb n='379'/><anchor id='Pg379'/> +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 +<emph>rock</emph> 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 +<emph>promised</emph> authority and pre-eminence +(Matt. xvi. 17, 19), +which that change implied. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>More than these.</hi> 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 <emph>these fish</emph>. 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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <hi rend='bold'>Yea, +Lord, thou knowest that I +love thee</hi>. It is worthy of +note that the word which Peter +uses to express his love, is not +that which Christ had just used +in His question. Christ had +asked: Lovest thou (ἀγαπᾷς) +Me? Peter replies: Yea, +Lord, Thou knowest that I +love (φιλῶ) Thee. Many +commentators think the distinction +is not to be pressed, +but we cannot believe that +Peter changed the word without +a reason, especially as he +does so again in his second +reply (verse 16), and Christ, in +His third question, adopts the +word that Peter insists upon +using. Whatever the distinction +be, it is lost in our +English version; but the +reader will see that an effort is +made to preserve it in the +<pb n='380'/><anchor id='Pg380'/> +Vulgate, which in each case +renders ἀγαπάω, by <q>diligo,</q> +and φιλέω by <q>amo.</q> We +think that Trench properly +appreciates the difference between +the two words. <q>On +occasion,</q> he says, <q>of that +threefold Lovest thou Me,</q> +which the risen Lord addresses +to Peter, He asks him first, +ἀγαπᾷ με. At that moment, +when all the pulses in the +heart of the now penitent +Apostle are beating with an +earnest affection towards his +Lord, this word on that Lord's +lips sounds too cold; not sufficiently +expressing the warmth +of his personal affection toward +Him. Besides the question +itself, which grieves and hurts +Peter (verse 17), there is an +additional pang in the form +which the question takes, +sounding as though it were intended +to put him at a comparative +distance from his +Lord, and to keep him there; +or at least as not permitting +him to approach so near to +Him as he fain would. He, +therefore, in his answer substitutes +for it the word of a +more <emph>personal</emph> love, φιλῶ σε +(verse 15). When Christ repeats +the question in the same +words as at the first, Peter in +his reply again substitutes his +φιλῶ for the ἀγαπᾷς of his +Lord (verse 16). And now at +length he has conquered; for +when for the third time his +Master puts the question to +him, He does it with the word +which Peter feels will alone express +all that is in his heart, +and instead of the twice-repeated +ἀγαπαᾷς, His word is +φιλεῖς, now (verse 17). (Trench, +<hi rend='italic'>Syn. of the New Testament</hi>, pp. +48, 49).<note place='foot'>So, too, Hesych. and Lidd. and Scott take φιλέω as stronger than +ἀγαπᾷω, so that the two words correspond to <q>amare</q> and <q>diligere</q> 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: <q>Ut scires illum a me non <emph>diligi</emph> solum verum +etiam <emph>amari</emph>.</q></note> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>16. Dicit ei iterum: Simon +Ioannis, diligis me? Ait illi: +Etiam, Domine, tu scis quia +amo te. Dicit ei: Pasce agnos +meos.</cell> +<cell>16. He saith to him again: +Simon <hi rend='italic'>son</hi> of John, lovest thou +me? He saith to him: Yea +Lord, thou knowest that I love +thee. He saith to him: Feed +my lambs.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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: +<emph>Feed</emph> My <emph>lambs</emph> (Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία +μου): now it is: <emph>Tend</emph> (or rule) +My <emph>sheep</emph> (ποίμανε τὰ πρόβατά +μου). Among Uncial MSS., B +and C read προβάτια (little sheep) +here. But A, D, X, and nearly +<pb n='381'/><anchor id='Pg381'/> +all others read πρόβατά; and +while the Vulg. (agnos) favours +the former, the Vetus Itala +(oves) supports the latter. It +is difficult, then, to decide between +the two readings. +</p> + +<p> +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, +<emph>the whole flock</emph>, matters little as +to the sense of the passage; for +in either case the whole flock of +Christ is committed to Peter's +care. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>He said to him: Feed my +sheep.</hi> Here, too, as in the +preceding verse it is doubtful +whether <q>little sheep</q> or +<q>sheep</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>Docemus itaque et +declaramus, Juxta Evangelii +testimonia primatum <emph>jurisdictionis</emph> +in <emph>universam</emph> Dei +Ecclesiam <emph>immediate</emph> et directe +beato Petro Apostolo promissum +atque collatum a Christo +Domino fuisse.... Atque uni +<pb n='382'/><anchor id='Pg382'/> +Simoni Petro contulit Jesus +post suam resurrectionem +summi pastoris et rectoris jurisdictionem +in totum suum ovile, +dicendo: Pasce agnos meos: +Pasce oves meas</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Decr. +Vat.</hi>, cap. 1, <hi rend='italic'>De Apost. Prim. +Instit.</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<emph>whole flock</emph> 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 <ref target='X_1'>x. 1</ref>), and in various +other ways promotes their good. +<q>Wherefore the primacy conferred +upon Peter in this metaphor +is an <emph>ordinary</emph><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>I.e.</hi>, belonging to him in virtue of his office.</note>, <emph>immediate</emph><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>I.e.</hi>, extending <emph>directly</emph> over all the faithful, and not merely mediately +through their several bishops. (See Franz., <hi rend='italic'>De. Eccl. Thes.</hi>, x. iii. 2 c.)</note>, +<emph>universal</emph>, <emph>supreme</emph>, power to +<emph>teach</emph> men the doctrine of Christ, +to furnish them with the <emph>pastures</emph> +of salvation, through the +Sacraments, evangelical counsels, +&c.; to <emph>make laws</emph> by +which the sheep may be directed +to the eternal pastures; to <emph>appoint +subordinate pastors</emph>; to +<emph>secure that the laws be observed</emph>; +to <emph>punish</emph> disobedient sheep, +and to <emph>bring back erring sheep</emph> +to the fold. It is, therefore, the +fullest power of <emph>Episcopal jurisdiction</emph>. +Wherefore St. Peter +himself (1 Peter ii. 25) calls +Christ <q>the <emph>shepherd</emph> and bishop +of souls</q></q> (Corl.). +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +18. We are told by St. John +in the following verse that, in +the words recorded in this, +Christ signified by <emph>what kind</emph> +(ποὶῳ) of death Peter should +glorify God. Why the Lord +chose this particular time, +immediately after he had appointed +Peter supreme head +of the Church, to foretell for +<pb n='383'/><anchor id='Pg383'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>When thou wast younger</hi>, +opposed here to: <q>When +thou shalt be old,</q> probably +includes Peter's life up to the +time to which the prediction +refers. It is as if Christ had +said: Whilst thou <emph>art</emph> young; +for as Kuinoel on this verse +says: <q>Praeterita de re +praesente in oraculis adhibentur.</q> +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. +<hi rend='bold'>Thou didst gird thyself</hi>, &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,<note place='foot'><q>Crux enim solebat ita a cruciariis portari, ut brachia ligno transverso +funibus extensa alligarentur.</q>—Corl.</note> and another shall gird +you (with a cloth round your +loins), and shall lead you away +to death—to death, from which +human nature <emph>naturally</emph> recoils. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>19. Hoc autem dixit, significans +qua morte clarificaturus +esset Deum. Et cum hoc dixisset, +dicit ei: Sequere me.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +19. <hi rend='bold'>And this he said, signifying +by what death he +should glorify God.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Follow me.</hi> Most of the +fathers take these words to +<pb n='384'/><anchor id='Pg384'/> +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. <ref target='XIII_36'>36</ref>, <ref target='XIII_37'>37</ref>. +</p> + +<anchor id='XXI_20'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +20. <hi rend='bold'>Peter turning about, +saw that disciple whom +Jesus loved following.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Who also leaned.</hi> Rather, +<q>who also leaned back</q> (ἀνέπεσεν). +The reference is to the +incident recorded in <ref target='XIII_25'>xiii. 25</ref>, +not to the position John occupied +at table. +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>21. Hunc ergo cum vidisset +Petrus, dixit Iesu: Domine hic +autem quid?</cell> +<cell>21. Him therefore when +Peter had seen, he saith to +Jesus: Lord, and what <hi rend='italic'>shall</hi> +this man <hi rend='italic'>do</hi>?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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: <q>And what shall this man +do?</q> or rather as the +Greek has it; <q>And this man, +what?</q> that is to say, what +end awaits him? +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>22. Dicit ei Iesus: Sic eum +volo manere donec veniam, +quid ad te? tu me sequere.</cell> +<cell>22. Jesus saith to him: So +I will have him to remain till +I come, what is it to thee? +follow thou me.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +22. <hi rend='bold'>So I will</hi>, &c. <q>So</q> +translates the Vulgate <q>sic,</q> +which is a misprint for <foreign rend='italic'>si</foreign> (ἐαν). +Hence the true reading is: If I +will have him to remain till I +come, what is it to thee? +Follow <emph>thou</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>Follow thou me.</hi> <q>Thou</q> is +emphatic. Peter's question regarding +the end that awaited +John; and our Lord's reply, +contrasting as it does the two +Apostles (<q>If I will have <emph>him</emph></q> +... Follow <emph>thou</emph>), justifies us in +taking the words <q>Follow thou +me</q> in reference to Peter's death +by crucifixion. +</p> + +<pb n='385'/><anchor id='Pg385'/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>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?</cell> +<cell>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?</cell></row></table> + +<p> +23. Our Evangelist tells us +here what was <emph>not</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +There is a difference of +opinion as to what our Lord +meant by the words: <q>If I +will have him to remain till I +come, what is it to thee?</q> +Some have taken the meaning +to be: If I will have him to +remain till I come for him in a +<emph>natural</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Others thus: If I will have +him to remain till My coming +at the destruction of Jerusalem, +what is it to thee? +</p> + +<p> +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: +<emph>If I were</emph> 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. +</p> + +<anchor id='XXI_24'/> +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>24. Hic est discipulus ille qui +testimonium perhibet de his, et +scripsit haec: et scimus quia +verum est testimonium eius.</cell> +<cell>24. This is that disciple who +giveth testimony of these +things, and hath written these +things: and we know that his +testimony is true.</cell></row> +<row><cell>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.</cell> +<cell>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.</cell></row></table> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='386'/><anchor id='Pg386'/> +plural number (as here in verse +24: <q><emph>we</emph> know</q>), 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 <emph>inspiration</emph>. +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 <ref target='Intro_III'>Introd. +iii.</ref>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>And we +saw his glory.</q> 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 (<q>every +one</q>) of Christ's human life +would be practically infinite. +<q>Hunc loquendi modum,</q> says +St. Aug. on this passage, +<q>Graeco nomine hyperbolem +vocant: qui modus, sicut hoc +loco, ita in nonnullis aliis divinis +Literis invenitur ... et +multa hujusmodi, sicut <emph>alii +tropi</emph>, Scripturis S. non desunt.</q> +</p> + +</div> + +</body> +<back rend="page-break-before: right"> + <div id="footnotes"> + <index index="toc" /> + <index index="pdf" /> + <head>Footnotes</head> + <divGen type="footnotes"/> + </div> + <div rend="page-break-before: right"> + <divGen type="pgfooter" /> + </div> +</back> +</text> +</TEI.2> diff --git a/46337-tei/images/cover.jpg b/46337-tei/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..50a2a4a --- /dev/null +++ b/46337-tei/images/cover.jpg |
