《Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures – John (Ch. 4~Ch. 8》(Johann P. Lange) 04 Chapter 4

Footnotes:

FN#1 - John 5:1.—The reading ἡ ἑορτή is after Codd. C. E. F. L. (also Cod. Sin.). It probably arose from an effort to make the feast the chief feast of the Jews, the passover. [Tischendorf, ed. viii, influenced mainly by א., reads ἡ ἑορτή but Lachm, Alf, Treg, Westcott and Hort omit the definite art. with A. B. D. G. K. Orig. The article has some bearing on the question whether the great feast of the passover, or a subordinate feast is meant; yet it is not absolutely conclusive; for in Hebrew a noun before the genitive is made definitive by prefixing the article, not to the noun itself, but to the genitive, and the same is the case in the Sept. ( Deuteronomy 16:13; 2 Kings 18:15) and in some passages of the N. T, as Matthew 12:24; Luke 2:4; Acts 8:5. Comp. Winer, who quotes also examples from the classics, p119 f. (Thayer’s transl, p126). Tholuck remarks: “Were the article genuine, we would be compelled to regard the chief festival, that is the Passover, as the one meant. If it is not genuine, the Passover may be meant, but so also may some other feast.”—P. S.]

FN#2 - John 5:2.—[Sheep gate is the marginal reading of the E. V. πύλῃ is usually supplied to ἐπὶ τῇ πρωβατικῇ—P. S.]

FN#3 - John 5:2.—[Different spellings of this name—Βηθεσδά, Βηθεσαιδά, Βηθζαθά, There are also different readings for ἐπιλεγομένη, sc. λεγομένη and τὸ λεγόμενον. Tischendorf prefers the last, which is supported by Cod. Sin. The lect. rec. ἐπιλεγομένη, zubenamt, surnamed, would imply that the pool had another proper name, perhaps the Sheep’s Pool. The Vulgate connects κολυμβήθρα (dative) with προβατικῇ and translates: “Est autem Jerosolymis probatica piscina quæ cognominatur hebraice Bethsaida.” ̔Εβραἵστί refers to the prevailing Aramaic which was spoken by the Jews after their return from the exile. It proves incidentally the Greek composition of the Gospel.—P. S.]

FN#4 - John 5:3.—[Πολύ is wanting in B. C. D. L, etc. [and Cod. Sin.]; put in brackets by Lachmann; rejected by Tischendorf.

FN#5 - John 5:3-4.—Omissions: (1) The words: “Waiting for the moving of the water,” and John 5:4, are wanting in B. C.*, etc. [also in the Cod. Sin.—Y.]; (2) the words: “waiting for the moving of the water,” in A. L.; (3) the 4 th verse alone, in D. See further below. [Tischendorf (ad. viii.), Alford (ed. vi.), Tregelles, Westcott and Hort omit the last clause of John 5:3 (ἐκδε χομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν), and the whole of John 5:4 (̓́Αγγελος νοσήματι). Lachmann retains here the text. rec, which is backed by the authority of Tertullian (De Bapt, John 5), an authority much older than the oldest MSS. But it is not easy to account for the omission of the clause (its legendary character was certainly not objectionable to the fathers, translators and transcribers). The large number of ἅπαξ λεγόμενα—κὶνησιν, ταραχή, δήποτε, νόσημα—also speak against it. It was probably a very ancient marginal gloss suggested by the popular belief in order to explain the assemblage of the sick, John 5:4, and the answer in John 5:7, which implies that belief. Its omission saves some trouble to the commentator by relieving John from the superstition of the Jews in regard to the healing water. Comp, however, the Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]

FN#6 - John 5:5.—[The best authorities read αὐτοῦ, after ἐν τῇ ἀσθενεία. The meaning is: he had been sick for38 years. ἔχων belongs to τριάκοντα καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη, (as the accusative of the time, comp. John 8:57; John 11:17), not to ἐν τῇ ἀσθ. αὐτοῦ=ἀσθενῶς ἔχων.—P. S.]

FN#7 - John 5:6.—[Or, in that condition, or, sick; ὅτι πολὺν ἥδη χρόνον ἔχει sc. ἐν ἀσθενεία, John 5:5. Alford, in his revision, retains the rendering of the A. V. Noyes: “that he had been for a long time diseased.” Version of the Am. Bible Union: “that he had been already a long time thus.”—P. S.]

FN#8 - John 5:7.—[Κύριε is here, as in4:11, simply a title of courtesy to a stranger, and hence correctly translated, Sirach, instead of Lord.—P. S.]

FN#9 - John 5:10.—[ῆ̓ν δὲ σάββατον ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρα. Alford: “Now on that day was the sabbath.” Noyes: “And that day was the sabbath.” Young: “It was a sabbath on that day.”—P. S.]

FN#10 - John 5:12.—[The οῦ̓ν of the text. rec. after ἠρώτησαν is sustained by A. C, bracketed by Tregelles, omitted by א. B. D. Alf, Tischend.—P. S.]

FN#11 - John 5:12.—Τὸν κράββατόν σου is wanting in א. B. C.* L, omitted by Tischendorf. With the omission the expression is more significant, as the addition contains something palliative.

FN#12 - John 5:13.—[Tischend. reads ὁ δὲ ἀσθενῶν, the diseased Prayer of Manasseh, (from John 5:7), but ἰαθείς, the healed man is supported by א. A. B. C, et al, Vulg. (curatus), Lachm, Treg, Alf.—P. S.]

FN#13 - John 5:15,—Waverings between ἀνήγγειλε, A. B, Recepta, Lachmann; ἀπήγγειλε, D. K, etc.; εῖ̓πεν C. L, etc. [Cod. Sin.—Y.]. The first reading is at once the most exact and the most suitable. [Tischend. reads εῖ̓πεν, Treg, Alf, Westcott and Hort.: ἀνήγγειλεν.—P. S.]

FN#14 - John 5:16.—The words [of the text. rec.]: καὶ ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι, are wanting in א. B. C. D. L, etc, the Vulgate, etc. Probably occasioned by the μᾶλλον, etc, John 5:18.

FN#15 - John 5:20.—[Μείζονα is emphatically put first.—P. S.]

FN#16 - John 5:24.—[So μεταβέβηκε ἐκ is translated by Alford, Noyes, and Conant. Luther: hindurchgedrungen; Lange: hinübergegangen.—P. S.]

FN#17 - John 5:27.—[The καὶ before κρίσιν is omitted by Tischend, Alf, etc.—P. S.]

FN#18 - John 5:27.—[Here υὶὸς ἀνθρώπου, without the article, as also Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14 (with reference to Daniel 7:13); but in other passages where it is applied to Christ in the full, ideal sense, we have ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. See the Exeg. Notes, and Excursus on1:52, p93.—P. S.]

FN#19 - John 5:30.—The addition of πατρός is feebly supported. John 5:34.—[Or, Yet the witness which I receive is not from Prayer of Manasseh, ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ παρα ἀνθρωπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω.—P. S.]

FN#20 - John 5:34.—[Or, Yet the witness which I receive is not from Prayer of Manasseh, ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρωπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνων.—P. S.]

FN#21 - John 5:35.—[ὁ λύχνος (not φῶς, comp1:8) ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων. Alford: He was the lamp that burneth and shineth. Lange inserts the gloss: “the signal-light of the Messiah, illuminating also the Messiah and the way to Him.”—P. S.]

FN#22 - John 5:35.—[Lange inserts these comments; Ye were willing (ye liked) for a little while to rejoice (exult, revel) in his (own) light (as summer flies).—P. S.]

FN#23 - John 5:36.—[Alford: But the testimony I have is greater than John.—P. S.]

FN#24 - So also the Cod. Sin.—Y.]

FN#25 - Ibid.—Cod. D,, μαρτυρεῖ.

FN#26 - John 5:39.—Ἐρευνᾶτε is taken as the indicative mood by Cyril, Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Olsh, De Wette, Meyer, Godet, Lange; as the imperative by Chrysostom, Augustin, Grotius, Tholuck, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Alford. See Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]

FN#27 - John 5:41.—A. K, et al, ἀνθρώπου, a man; B. D. [Cod. Sin.—Y.], and many others, ἀνθρώπων.

FN#28 - John 5:44.—[τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρα τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ the only God, in exclusion of all the idols of the natural heart; comp. John 17:3 : ὁ μόνος ἀληθινὸς θεός. The rendering of the A. V. would require μόυον, or μόυον after θεοῦ, Matthew 4:4; Matthew 12:4; Matthew 17:8. Alford: “The words from the only God, are very important because they form the point of passage to the next verses, in which the Jews are accused of not believing the writings of Moses, the very pith and kernel of which was the unity of God and the having no other gods but Him.”—P. S.]

FN#29 - John 5:47.—D. G. S. Δ., Origen [Lange]: πιστεύσητε [credatis, א. A. L, etc, Vulg, Treg, Tischend, Alf.: πιστεύσητε credetis. B. V. Iren. etc, Westcott and Hort. πιστεύστηετε creditis.—P. S.]

FN#30 - Lücke makes μ. τοῦτο (2:12; 11:7, 11; 19:28) to signify the immediate, μ. ταῦτα (3:22; 6:1; 7:1) the mediate succession. Tholuck and Alford assent, Meyer and Hengstenberg object. The latter occurs uniformly in the Apocalypse, usually in the Gospel of John, comp. John 5:14, which speaks rather against the distinction. But in this case at all events some interval must have elapsed since the last verse of John 4, and much matter must be inserted from the Synoptists between John 4, 5.—P. S.]

FN#31 - Neander (Leben Jesu, 6 ed, 1862, p280), upon the whole, decides rather in favor of the passover, and should be transferred.—P. S.]

FN#32 - So also Stier, Bäumlein, Godet.—P. S.]

FN#33 - Who makes it the second passover of our Lord’s ministry, Adv. hær. ii22, 3 (I:357 ed. Stieren): “Et post hæc iterum secunda vice ascendit in diem festum paschæ in Hierusalem, quando paralyticum curavit.” But Irenæus had an interest to lengthen Christ’s ministry, for two reasons which he brings out in this very connection1. Because he believed that Christ passed through all stages of human life to save them all, consequently He became also “senior in senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum secundum expositionem veritatis, sed et secundum ætatem, sanctificans simul et seniores” (II. John 22, § 4, p358); 2. Because he inferred from the question of the Jews, John 8:57, that Jesus was not yet, but nearly fifty years of age at the time (II:22, 6, p360). This somewhat weakens this testimony, which is pressed too much by Robinson and others.—P. S.]

FN#34 - So also Grotius, Lightfoot, Hengstenberg, Neander, and Robinson.—P. S.]

FN#35 - Alford also, after giving, from Lücke, a brief statement of the different views on this much controverted point, expresses his opinion that “we cannot with any probability gather what feast it was.” In this case, of course, the elaborate chronological argument based upon a definite view of the feast here spoken of, falls to the ground. On the chronological bearing of the interpretation see Robinson, Gr. Harmony of the Gospels, p190 ff.—P. S.]

FN#36 - Comp. on the force of the article may addition to the first Text. Note.—P. S.]

FN#37 - שַׁעַר הַצֹּאן, porta gregis, mentioned Nehemiah 3:1; Nehemiah 3:32; Nehemiah 12:39. Meyer, however, with the Vulgate, Theodore of Mopsu. and Nonnus, connect προβατικῇ with κολυμβήθρᾳ (reading this as dative): “There was at the sheep pool the so called Bethesda.” Eusebius and Jerome speak of a προβατικὴ κολυμβήτρα, probatica piscina. Comp. the Text, Notes.—P. S.]

FN#38 - Robinson, I:330, says that there is not the slightest evidence that can identify the present Bethesda, or Sheep Pool, or, as the natives call it, Birket Israîl, with the Bethesda of the N. T. Eusebius and Jerome indeed speak of a Piscina Probatica shown in their day as Bethesda, but give no hint as to its situation. Robinson derives the tradition from the fact that St. Stephen’s gate, owing to its proximity, was erroneously held to be the ancient Sheep gate.—P. S.]

FN#39 - So called because the Virgin Mary is said to have frequented this fountain before her purification in order to wash the linen of the infant Saviour. See Robinson, I:337. According to another explanation, mentioned by Porter (Handbook of Syria and Pal. I, p139), the water of this fountain was a grand test for women accused of adultery; the innocent drank harmlessly; hut the guilty no sooner tasted than they died. When the Virgin Mary was accused, she submitted to the ordeal, and thus established her innocence. Hence a name it was long known by—the fountain of accused women.—P. S.]

FN#40 - Since that time Lieutenant Charles Warren, of the Palestine Exploration Society, in Dec1867, likewise made his way with great difficulty through that winding rock-cut passage, entering from the Siloam end. His measurements differ 42 ft. from those of Dr. Robinson, but, considering the length of the Virgin’s Fount, they nearly agree.—P. S.]

FN#41 - The recent excavations of the Palestine Exploration Society have not yet established such a connection, but make it very probable. In Oct1867 they discovered a sloping rock-cut passage above the Fountain of the Virgin leading N. E. by E8 ft. wide and from10 to 12 ft. deep. See the account of Lieut. Warren at a meeting of the Society held at London, June11,1868, in the Reports of the Society, and the maps published with them.—P. S.]

FN#42 - Porter, Handbook of Syria and Palestine, I. p140, likewise doubts Robinson’s theory, and supposes that the Fountain of the Virgin is identical with the King’s Pool mentioned by Nehemiah 2:14-15, and called by Josephus Solomon’s Reservoir, situated between the Fountain of Siloam and the Southern side of the Temple. Robinson suggests the identity of the Fountain of the Virgin with the King’s Pool (I. p343). Grove (Art. Bethesda in Smith’s Bible Dictionary), urges against Robinson’s view the confined size of the Fountain of the Virgin, and the difficulty of finding room for the five porches. But there might have been some artificially constructed basin in connection with this spring which has perished. Grove defends the traditional view of the identity of Bethesda with the large reservoir called the Birket Israil, within the walls of the city, close by the St. Stephen’s gate, and under the North-East wall of the Haram area. But there is not the slightest indication that this dry fosse, full of weeds and rubbish, ever could have been an intermittent spring. So far the greater probability is in favor of Robinson’s conjecture. It is to be hoped that the labors of the Exploration Society will before long settle this disputed point.—P. S.]

FN#43 - Meyer (p220) writes אַשָׁדָא. The word does not occur in the O. T, but אשׁד does, Numbers 21:15, “at the effusion of the brooks.”—P. S.]

FN#44 -

[To these must be added the testimony of Cod. Sinaiticus, which reads thus:

(Joh 5:3) τωνασθενουντων

τυφλων

χωλων

ξηρεν

(Joh 5:5) ηνδετισανθρωπος.

The chasm here does not indicate an omission, but probably the co-ordination of τυφλῶν, χωλῶν and ξηρῶν, as specifications of the various classes of disease implied in the general term τῶν ἀσθενούντων—P. S.]

FN#45 - De baptismo, John 5, ed. Œhler, vol. I, p615: “Piscinam Bethsaidam angelus interveniens commovebat: observabant qui valetudinem querebantur. Nam si quis prævenerat de illuc, queri post lavacrum desinebat.” But Tertullian does not give this as a quotation from John. He may have found it as a gloss on the margin of a copy of the Text.—P. S.]

FN#46 - Formerly, but in the last edition of De Wette, Brückner rejects the whole passage.—P. S.]

FN#47 - But comp. the preceding footnote, p182 f.—P. S.]

FN#48 - Hengstenberg, I:293 ff. defends John 5:4, as being in entire harmony with the Scripture idea of the living God, who clothes the lilies, who feeds the birds, who rides in the storm, and uses winds and flames as messengers ( Psalm 104:4; Hebrews 1:7), He refers especially also to the angel of the Waters, Revelation 16:5, as a parallel to the angel moving the water of Bethesda. Bengel says: Circa balnea frequens θεῖον, aliquid divinæ opis est. Very true, but the Divine power and goodness in the healing waters makes itself felt not supernaturally by angels, but through the laws and agencies of nature, and not exceptionally, but uniformly. I prefer, with Tischendorf, Meyer and the best English critics, to omit the whole passage.—P. S.]

FN#49 - Κράββατος, Lat. grabbatus, used only by late writers, is a small couch, a mat or rug, or a cloak, which might easily be carried about.—P. S.]

FN#50 - Meyer quotes Ast, Lex. Plat. I, p178 for this contemptuous use of ὁ ἄνθρωπος—P. S.]

FN#51 - ἐξένεσεν, not from ἐκνέω, enatavit, emersit, “He emerged from the waves of the crowd and reappeared in the quiet harbor of the Temple,” as Wordsworth fancifully explains, but from ἐκνεύω, turned aside; He spoke the healing words and passed on unobserved.—P. S.]

FN#52 - But the distinction between μετὰ ταῦτα and μετα τοῦτο is made doubtful by this very passage and the uniform use of μετα τοῦτα in the Apocalypse. Comp. note on John 5:1.—P, S.]

FN#53 - This is as striking an instance of the penetrating look of our Lord into the inner recesses of man’s heart, as His knowledge of the history of the Samaritan woman.—P. S.]

FN#54 - Not had done (E. V.). The imperfect ἐποίει seems to imply the malignant charge of repeated or habitual Sabbath-breaking. Comp. Godet in loc,—P. S]

FN#55 - So also Reuss, against whom Godet, ΙΙ., p26, justly remarks that Christ’s condition as a Jew, and His mission as the Jewish Messiah, forbid that He should ever, during His earthly life, have violated any of the Divine commandments, in their proper sense, which it was His sacred duty strictly to fulfil. Ewald, the great oriental scholar, is perfectly correct in saying (on John, p205), that Christ in John 5:17, mortally hit the Sabbath laws as they were then understood and carried out, but not the true sense of the primitive Sabbath and the fourth commandment, which forbid not higher work, but only the ordinary work of week days.—P. S.]

FN#56 - Bengal’s remarks on this verse are worth quoting: “ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν; Hoc gloriæ Esther, non imperfectionis.… Hæc ex intimo sensu unitatis naturalis el amorosæ cum Patre profecta sunt. Defendit Dominus, quod fecerat opus in sabbato, Patris sui exemplo, a quo non discedut. Sic de Spiritu Sancto, 16:13, ubi etiam simillimum huic loco sequitur antitheton. At diabolus ex propriis loquitur, 8:44, et falsi doctoris est in suo nomine, venire et ex suo corde loqui aut facere, 5:43.” Godet directs attention to the naivete of the form of this sentence as contrasted with its sublimity. Jesus speaks of His intimate relation with the infinite Jehovah as of the simplest thing in the world. It is the saying of the child of twelve years: “I must be about my Father’s business,” elevated to the highest key.—P. S.]

FN#57 - Οὐ δύναται is here a moral, not metaphysical, inability, and such an inability which is absolute unwillingness, and hence identical with the highest moral ability. So perfect freedom is the highest ability to do good, or negatively expressed, the absolute inability or unwillingness to do wrong, hence identical with moral necessity. Christ’s assertion, therefore, that He can do nothing independently of the Father, far from indicating imperfection, implies the highest moral perfection. Godet: “Tout est moral dans cette relation. Le non-pouvoir dont il s’agit ici n’est que le côté négatif de íamor filial,”—P. S.]

FN#58 - In the note on the preceding verse, however. Meyer (p226) distinctly asserts that the union of the Son to the Father is metaphysical as well as moral.—P. S.]

FN#59 - Bengel: Qui amat, nil celat.—P. S.]

FN#60 - So most of the older expositors, also Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Bäumlein, Ewald, Owen. Against this view Meyer (p223) raises six objections, viz. 1) ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε John 5:20, which represents the hearers as continuous witnesses; 2) οὕς θέλει which must be understood ethically; 3) ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι, 23, which implies the divine purpose of a continuous effect commencing in this world; 4) ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου which cannot be understood of physical death; 5) νῦν ἐστιν and οἱ ἀκούσαντες clearly refer to the present spiritual quickening; 6) the literal resurrection John 5:28 f, is distinguished as something greater and future from the former.—P.S.]

FN#61 - The οὐδέ is generally overlooked by commentators, and entirely omitted by the E. V. Meyer explains: For not even the Father judges any Prayer of Manasseh, to whom by universal consent judgment belongs; consequently it depends entirely upon the Song of Solomon, and the οὓς θέλει is all right. Comp. on οὐδέ 7:5; 8:42; 21:25. Alford explains; As the Father does not Himself, by His own proper Acts, vivify any, but commits all quickening power to the Son; so it is with judgment also.—P.S.]

FN#62 - Bengel observes to τιμῶσι: “vel libenter, judicium effugientes per fidem, vel inviti, judicis iram sentientes.” But a voluntary homage in meant here, as the following ὁ μὴ τιμῶν τὸν υἱόν shows. But those who refuse this honor to the Song of Solomon, will, by their damnation, negatively and reluctantly glorify the Son. Comp. Philippians 2:10-11.—P. S.]

FN#63 - Note the present tense ἔχει, already, not shall have, spiritual life, and the corresponding perfect μεταβέβηκεν, has passed from the death of unbelief and sin to the life of faith and righteousness. Of the unbelievers it is said likewise in the perfect ἤδη κέκριται, he is already judged. Partly from Bengel.—P. S.]

FN#64 - ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in the Synoptists and John 1:51; John 3:13 f.; 6:27, 53, 62; 7:28, etc.; υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου only here, and with ὅμοιον, Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14, in allusion to Daniel 7:13. Comp. the Excursus on this designation of Christ, p98 f.—P. S.]

FN#65 - The false construction, which connects the words with what follows: Because he is Prayer of Manasseh, marvel not, etc. (Peshito, Chrysostom, Paulus, and others), need only be mentioned.

FN#66 - According to the usual rule of law. Chetub. f. xxiii2: Testibus de se ipsis non credunt. Christ argues here hypothetically: If My testimony concerning Myself could be independent and separated from that of the Father, it would be false according to the law of testimony. In John 8:13-16 the other side of the same argument is presented: Christ does in fact bear witness of Himself, hut as He is the Logos of God, the organ of the Father, His testimony is the testimony of the Father in and through Him, and therefore true. “Though I bear witness of Myself, yet My witness is true, for I know whence I came…. Yet if I Judges, My judgment is true, for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.”—P. S.]

FN#67 - λαμβάνειν τ. μαρτυρίαν, as in3:11, 32, to receive, to accept, but here as testimony (not in the sense of believing). See Meyer, p238.—P. S.]

FN#68 - Omitted, as often, in the E. V, which also translates λύχνος light (γῶς), instead of lamp, and thus brings this passage needlessly in conflict with1:8: οὑκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ’ ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός. John was, indeed, a light, but only in a subordinate sense, a derived light, a light lighted, not lighting, and hence ἐν τᾦ φωτι αὐτοῦ is spoken of in the next clause in the sense of the predicate, not the noun.—P. S.]

FN#69 - Καὶ ἀνέστῃ Ἠλίας προφητης ὡς πῦρ, καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ὡς λαμπὰς εκαίετο. Stier and Alford think that this passage may be referred to here, and gave rise to a common way of speaking of Elijah, as certain Rabbis were called “the candle of the law,”—P. S.]

FN#70 - Meyer: The article signifies the particular lamp which was to appear in John as the forerunner of the Messiah whose mission was to teach the people the knowledge of the Messianic salvation, δοῦναι γνῶσιν σωτηρίας τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ, Luke 1:76 f. Lange goes deeper, as usual, where he differs from Meyer. De Wette takes the article as meaning “the lamp which was to lead you.”—P. S.]

FN#71 - Meyer quotes in support, Luke 12:35 : οἱ λύχνοι καιόμενοι; Revelation 4:5; λαμπάδες πυρὸς καιόμεναι, but in both cases φαινόμενοι is omitted. According to Alford φαίνων sets forth the derived and transitory nature of John’s light.—P. S.]

FN#72 - This interpretation is excluded by the addition, at any time.—P. S.]

FN#73 - Meyer puts only a comma after John 5:37. John might have continued: οὔτε τὸν λόγον, etc., but by using καί, and connecting the negation with the verb (οὐκ ἔχετε) instead of the particle (οὔτε), he lays greater stress on the new charge against the Jews.—P. S.]

FN#74 - Olshausen: According to John the word of the eternal God speaks or sounds in the mind of every man. Sin has diminished, but not destroyed his susceptibility to truth. Without something analogous in the mind, man cannot perceive the things of God. It is the same as the “light in thee,” Matthew 6:13. But Lange’s interpretation (the same as Meyer’s) is preferable.—P. S.]

FN#75 - Also Henry, Doddridge, Barnes, Brückner, and Godet.—P.S.]

FN#76 - The imperative is also preferred by Maldonatus (R. C.), Cornelius a Lap. (R. C.), Grotius, and, among recent commentators, by Stier, Tholuck, Ewald (p218), Hengstenberg (who refers to Isaiah 34:16), Bäumlein, Alford, Wordsworth (wavering), Owen, Jacobus.—P. S.]

FN#77 - Hence Luthardt is all wrong in ascribing to ἐρευνᾶτε here a profounder meaning.—P. S.]

FN#78 - Rothe (Studien und Kritkem,1860, p67), and Weiss (Johan. Lehrbegriff, p106), likewise maintain that δοκεῖτε implies a censure of the excessive Rabbinical over-estimate of the letter of the Bible. This view is strengthened by the emphatic ὑμεις, ye on your part, and the obvious sense of δοκεῖτε in John 5:45. I suggest also that ἐν αὐταϊς is significantly chosen instead of δι’ αὐτῶν, as if the written Scriptures were the eternal life itself, while they are only the record of life and the witness of Christ. Meyer rejects this interpretation, as being inconsistent with the high veneration of Christ for the Scriptures; but he is simply protesting (and that in the wisest and most guarded manner) against the abuse and perversion of the Scriptures, just as He protests against the Jewish perversion of the Sabbath. Meyer admits, however, that there is an opposition here to real ἔχειν ζωήν which Christ could not say of the Jews, as they rejected the Christ of the Scriptures.—P. S.]

FN#79 - Ewald reads this as a question. But it is stronger as an assertion.—P. S.]

FN#80 - Alford: “The words ye are not willing to come, here set forth strikingly the freedom of the will, on which the unbeliever’s condemnation rests: see John 3:19.”—P. S.]

FN#81 - Some of the fathers, and recently also Alford, refer the passage to the anti-Christ who shall appear in the latter days, 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12.—P. S.]

FN#82 - Bengel: “Maxime aptus ad condusionem.” Godet: “Sa parole prend une forme dramatique et saisissante.… Il se trouvera que celui dont vous me reproche de transgresser la loi, témoignera pour moi, tandis qu’ il s’élevera contre vous, seszélateurs. Quel renversement de toutes leurs notions.”—P. S.]

FN#83 - Alford insists on the antithesis of γράμματα and ῥήματα. “Men give greater weight to what is written and published than to mere words of mouth;—and ye in particular give greater honor to Moses than Me: if then ye believe not what he has written, which comes down to you hallowed by the reverence of ages,—how can you believe the words uttered by Me, to whom you are hostile? But this is not all: Moses loads to Christ; if then ye reject the means, how shall ye roach the end?”—P.S.]

FN#84 - The inquisitorial “acts of the faith,” it will be remembered, were usually celebrated on some church festival.—E.D.Y.]

FN#85 - This observation is truly German, and scarcely applicable to America where church festivals are little esteemed, while the weekly Lord’s Day is the more strictly observed. Of late, however, the observance of Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter has made much progress.—P. S.]