THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST TO ST JOHN By W. LEONARD Introduction —The Fourth Gospel has always been regarded as touching the highest peak of Christian revelation, and for this reason John the Apostle, its traditional author, is described as 'the divine.' and is designated by the eagle that soars high into the heavens. St Jerome wrote that John' filled to the full with revelation, indited the heaven-sent preface "In the beginning was the Word. . . ."', Prol. to Comm. in Mt. Indeed it was the unique sublimity of the 'prologue' to St John's Gospel, 1:1-14, that eventually gained it a permanent place in the Mass as 'Last Gospel'. Though it has always been regarded as canonical (see § 776c) nevertheless the startling character of its teaching and style has raised doubts in modern times as to its historical reliability, on which see §§ 779b-780g. Canonicity —That Jn has always been regarded as inspired and canonical Scripture hardly requires proof. It is to be found in the best Greek uncial codices of the 4th to 6th cent. (B, S, A, D, C, W) and considerable portions of it appear in many other uncials. The great mass (over 600) of cursives have it. The Egerton Papyrus (early 2nd cent.) contains parts of it mixed with synoptic texts for popular use, showing that at that early date it was already well known and placed on the same level as the Synoptics; cf. M.-J. Lagrange RB 44 ( 1935) 343. The Chester Beatty papyrus codex of the early 3rd cent. contains portions of it. Jn is likewise found in all ancient NT versions. Allusions to it and quotations from it are found in many 2nd cent. writings, the Epistles of St Ignatius (†115), the Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, the Odes of Solomon (early 2nd cent.), perhaps also Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians, c a.d. 115. Some presbyters mentioned by Irenaeus († a.d. 202) explained the 'many mansions,' John 14:2. Tatian embodied the Gospel in his Diatessaron ( a.d. 175). The Montanists made much of the Paraclete passages, Marcion incorporating pieces in his own arbitrary gospel; Gnostics like Valentine and Ptolemy used it and especially Heracleon who seems to have been the first to write a commentary on this gospel. We may also mention here the fragment of papyrus (rectoJn 18:31-32—versoJn 18:37-38) in the Rylands collection Manchester (P 52 Rylands 457) discovered in Egypt and dated about a.d. 130, apparently showing that the Gospel may well have been circulating at that date in that country. Authorship —If we except the views of the Alogi, obscure 2nd cent. heretics who denied the Johannine authorship, not on historical but on doctrinal grounds, there was never any doubt until modern times, that John, the son of Zebedee and one of the twelve Apostles, wrote the Fourth Gospel. The remarkable differences that exist between the Syn. on the one hand and Jn on the other (see § 778h) are claimed by many moderns as militating against the ascription of the fatter to one of Christ's disciples. These differences, however, were equally well known to the ancients and nevertheless they regarded the son of Zebedee as author. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that a cogent reason for the modern denial is, or at least was, the clear and even startling portrayal in Jn of the divine sonship of Christ. If it could be shown that the gospel was not in fact written by one of our Lord's immediate followers, but by a Christian of later date, the force of the historical evidence would be weakened, thus making it easier to deny its claims. It was felt that time must be allowed for the growth of so clear a belief in Christ's divinity as we see illustrated in Jn, and the Tübingen School, for example, assigned to it the date a.d. 160-70. Today, of course, in the light of recent research and manuscript discoveries (cf. § 77b), it is not possible to date it later than the first quarter of the 2nd cent., and since the traditional date for the gospel is a.d. 100, this motive for denying the Johannine authorship has largely disappeared. John the Son of Zebedee —John and his elder brother James were sons of Zebedee and Salome. Zebedee, living near the Lake of Genesareth (perhaps at Bethsaida), was a prosperous fisherman, who employed paid helpers. Whether we regard Salome as a sister (cousin) of the Mother of Jesus depends on the way we read John 19:26 and combine the text with Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40. In any case, Salome was one of the Galilean women who followed Jesus with their ministrations. She was present at the crucifixion. John was probably still in his teens when he placed himself with Andrew in the school of the Precursor. From the friend of the Bridegroom he passed to the company of the Divine Bridegroom himself. Then, as Andrew brought Simon his brother to Jesus, so, it seems, John brought James. In those earliest days of discipleship he saw the miracle of the marriage feast of Cana and remained with Jesus till after the first Pasch of the public life. Later he and James were called from their father's boat to join Peter and Andrew as future fishers of men. After twelve of the disciples had been chosen as Apostles, the two brothers together with Peter formed a privileged group. Mk notes (from the mouth of Peter) that Christ called the two 'Boanerges' or 'Sons of thunder', to mark their ardent temperament, Mark 3:17. The warmth of their personal attachment, no doubt, prompted the ambitious petition which they made one day through their mother for the places of honour beside Christ in his future kingdom, Matthew 20:20 ff.; Mark 10:35 ff. On an earlier occasion it was chiefly John who, through zeal for his Master's bonour, forbade a Jewish exorcist to use the name of Jesus in driving out a devil, Mark 9:38, and again he wanted Jesus to call down fire from heaven on an inhospitable Samaritan village, Luke 9:54. The privileged three, Peter, James and John, were the only ones chosen to be witnesses of the raising of the daughter of Jairus, of the Transfiguration, and of the Agony in Gethsemani. There is no serious reason to doubt that the anonymous companion of Andrew mentioned in John 1:40 was John himself. Likewise it seems certain that the same Apostle is covered by the appellation 'the disciple whom Jesus loved', otherwise 'this Apostle would remain without mention in the Gospel, an inconceivable omission', Strachan. 'The disciple whom Jesus loved' figures at the Supper, which Peter and he had prepared, as reclining on the breast of Jesus and inquiring who was the traitor, as standing by the cross and receiving the guardianship of the Blessed Virgin, as running with Peter to the tomb on the Sunday of the resurrection, as recognizing the Lord from the boat the morning he appeared on the shore of Lake Tiberias. He is the one whose destiny Peter tried to learn, when he had been told of his own future martyrdom. All things considered, and in spite of Act 4:13, it seems difficult not to identify John with that disciple known to the high-priest, who, after our Lord's arrest, secured Peter's admission to the court of the pontifical residence, John 18:15. John's continued association with Peter is emphasized in the early chh of Ac. In fact, the list of Apostles there given shows interestingly how in the Apostolic College the 'Juda' chosen for primacy and the 'Benjamin' chosen for special predilection by Jesus were brought together. While Mt and Lk have the order: Peter, Andrew, James, John, Mk the disciple of Peter has Peter, James, John (the sons of thunder) and Andrew. Finally Ac has the arrangement: Peter, John, James, Andrew. Peter and John were together at the Beautiful Gate, Acts 3:1, before the Sanhedrin, 4:13, and visited Samaria together, 8:14. Between a.d. 42 and 44 James was put to death at Jerusalem, and Peter, but not John, was arrested. We do not meet John again till a.d. 49, when he was present at the Council of Jerusalem, to which perhaps Paul refers when he mentions John amongst 'the pillars', Galatians 2:9. As Paul and his disciple Timothy took care of the Church of proconsular Asia till the last years of Paul's life (66-7), it does not seem that John came to Ephesus before a.d. 68. Polycarp who was his disciple (perhaps from the beginning) became a Christian in 69. The tradition recorded by Irenaeus and Polycrates of Ephesus (c 190) supposes that the Apostle spent many years in Asia; that he was relegated by Domitian to Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse, that thence he returned to Ephesus under Nerva (96-8), and (if we trust the Syrian chronographer Elias Bar Sinaja) he died in 104, the seventh year of Trajan (98-117). Various other things concerning John are narrated by ancient writers: his flight from the bath-house because Cerinthus the heretic was within (Irenacus), his immersion at Rome in a cauldron of boiling oil (Tertullian), his reclamation of a young brigand (Clem. Al.), his repetition in old age of the precept: 'My little children, love one another' (Jerome). One anecdote actually furnished a symbol of the Apostle, namely, the serpent escaping from the poisoned cup. 'Chosen by Christ as a virgin John remained a virgin for ever', a fitting guardian of the Virgin Mother. External Evidence —The Johannine authorship was in pacific possession until the end of the 18th cent., when the attack was started by the English deist Evanson ( 1792) and continued by the German rationalist Bretschneider ( 1820). The traditional authorship has however found many modern supporters among nonCatholics, as for example Westcott, Zahn, Stanton, Drummond, Sanday , Feine and Büchsel. Catholic exegetes are unanimous in affirming the apostolic authorship. We have only to move backwards from the 4th cent. along the links of the chain of testimony, to realize the strength of the Johannine claim. Eusebius of Caesarea ( HE 3, 24) writing perhaps as early as 312 and not later than 323 says summarily: 'Let us indicate the undoubted writings of this Apostle [John]. Surely his Gospel which is read by all the churches under heaven must be the first to receive recognition'. Threequarters of a century earlier Origen, commenting on Jn, was full of the reverence due to a recognized writing of John, who reclined on the breast of Jesus and received Mary as his mother, apud Euseb. HE 6, 25. And Origen's Master, Clement of Alexandria, in an exegetical work entitled "Hypotyposeis", cited by Eusebius ( HE 6, 14), joins to an account of the origin of Mk the following important testimony: 'But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts (t? s?µat???) had been set forth in the (other) Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel (p?e?µat???? . . . e?a???????). About the same time (c 200) Tertullian at Carthage urges the authority of all four Evangelists by name against Marcion ( Adv. Marc. 4, 2.5). Passing backwards to the 2nd cent. and to the chief churches of the East and West we have Theophilus, a Mesopotamian by birth and sixth Bishop of Syrian Antioch, naming John as author of our Gospel and numbering him amongst the pneumatophoroi or divinely inspired. This was about a.d. 179. A decade later, Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, defending the Quartodecimans in a letter to Pope Victor, appeals to the authority of Philip the Apostle and of John the Apostle, whom they follow in the date of the Pasch 'according to the Gospel' ( Eus., HE 3, 31). He certainly refers to the written Gospel of John which seven of his own kinsmen, who were bishops in Asia before him, had also followed. In speaking of John as 'reclining on the breast' of our Lord, Polycrates clearly refers to John 13:23 and identifies the Apostle with the Beloved Disciple. From the same Asiatic circle and from the school of the venerable Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of John himself, comes Irenaeus, the Asiatic Bishop of Lyons. Polycarp is the immediate link between Irenaeus and John. Now Irenaeus wrote his famous work Adversus Haereses in the pontificate of St Eleutherus (175-89). In this work, at the beginning of that very third book which gives the list of Popes down to Eleutherus, Irenaeus adds to his account of Mt, Mk, Lk the following: 'Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also published the Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia'. The Muratorian fragment (c a.d. 170) shows that Rome at the same time also held the Johannine authorship; see § 17g. It seems, however, that we can invoke even more ancient explicit testimony, though scarcely more authoritative than that of Irenaeus. According to two Prologues prior to the so-called Monarchian Prologues, and found in several Latin MSS of the Bible, notably in Vat. Reginensis 14 and Toletanus, Papias of Hierapolis is a disciple of John the Apostle, and bears witness to the Johannine authorship, saying that 'the Apostle John wrote it against heretics at the request of many bishops'. The value of this is that it quotes Papias, writing c a.d. 130. Papias would be nothing less than an immediate witness since he knew the Apostle himself. The evidence invoked in favour of its canonicity may also be cited as evidence for the Johannine authorship, for even when John is not mentioned by name, there is never any question of any other than the Apostle who is moreover so clearly indicated as such in the Gospel itself. Internal Evidence —Jn is not at all an anonymous writing in the same sense as its predecessors, and bears distinctive marks of its authorship. Though it is written in correct Greek, and there seems to be no sufficient evidence for Burney's theory of an Aramaic original, the thought, the rhythm of the sentences and sometimes the grammatical constructions are obviously the product of a Semitic mind. Belief in the Hebrew Scriptures is everywhere manifest whether in the words put into the mouths of others or in the Evangelist's own comments. As examples of the latter, more significant for our purpose, we may cite the numerous texts in which the author sees the fulfilment of OT prophecy, the cleansing of the temple, 2:17, Christ's entry into Jerusalem, 12:14, 15, the unbelief of the Jews, 12:38, the distribution of Christ's garments and the casting of lots for his tunic, 19:24, the piercing of Christ's side, 19:36 f. The author's familiarity with Jewish customs is equally manifest. He understands the importance of ritual purifications, 2:6, 11:55, the Jews' dread of contacts with Gentiles, 18:28, the widespread impression that physical misfortune was the result of sin, 9:2. The Semitic style of the narrative is unmistakable, e.g. in 3:16-21, 31-36. The author prefers to string together sentences by the use of 'and' rather than to use subordinate clauses. Though not unknown in Greek, this is far more common in Aramaic and Hebrew, and suggests a knowledge of these languages. There is a distinct tendency, too, to record Aramaic names of persons and places and to interpret them for Greek readers, e.g. Messias, 1:41; 4:25, Cephas, 1:42, Rabbi, 1:38, Rabboni, 20:16, Golgotha, 19:17. The writer's familiarity with the country is even more striking. He is familiar in detail with the topography of Jerusalem. He knows that Solomon's Porch is part of the temple, 10:23, that by the Praetorium there is the Pavement called Gabbatha, 19:13, that the Pool of Bethzatha has five porches and is by the Sheep Gate, 5:2. When mentioning places elsewhere he shows detailed knowledge. Cana of Galilee, 2:1, 21:2, Bethany beyond Jordan, 1:28 (to distinguish it from the other Bethany), Aenon near Salim, 3:23. These and man other examples lead inevitably to the conclusion that we have here the record of one who was familiar at first hand with the country and its people. An equal familiarity and direct acquaintanceship is shown with the actual events. Precise references to time, place, distance, remarks and reactions of persons are scattered profusely throughout the Gospel, often for no other discernible reason than that the writer knew that it so happened. Thus at the beginning of the Gospel the author gives us a day by day account and even the very hour of events, 1:29, 35, 39, 43; 2:1. He often mentions the name of the speaker even when the remark is unimportant, 6:7, 8; 11:16. He observes also that Malchus was the name of the highpriest's servant whose car Peter cut off, a fact perhaps of importance only to one who was himself known to the high-priest, 18:15. We are told that the five loaves, 6:9, were of barley and that there was much grass at the place of the miracle, 6:10. Lightfoot has moreover noted that the author mentally crosses the Lake of Tiberias as he writes, now speaking of the eastern side, 6:1, 22, and now of the western side, 6:17, 25, as 'across the lake'. The first-hand information is equally evident in such vivid and detailed narratives as that of the scene by Jacob's Well, ch 4, and the healing of the man born blind, ch 9. The cumulative effect of these and other details is to induce us to conclude that we owe the narrative not merely to an eye-witness of the events but to one who was particularly receptive of impressions and of specially retentive memory. It is not difficult moreover to identify this witness. in the narrative itself. He speaks not infrequently as from the intimate circle of Christ's immediate followers: e.g. in ch 1, when our Lord calls his first disciples, and, even more strikingly, at the Last Supper, chh 12 ff., when, it is certain, there were none present but the twelve Apostles. Moreover he constantly shows himself acquainted with our Lord's inmost thoughts and feelings, 2:21, 24; 11:13, 33, 38. The conclusion is forced upon us that the witness is an Apostle. Which of the Twelve is he? We note the rather singular omission from the Gospel of all mention of the sons of Zebedee by name, whereas in the Synoptics they are frequently so mentioned. Indeed with Peter they are the most favoured disciples of our Lord, cf. § 776e. It is difficult to suggest a reason for this silence in Jn, except that one of them is recording the history, and since James was put to death by Herod Agrippa I in a.d. 42 we are left with his brother John as the author. We may briefly deal here with a pretended discovery that John was martyred together with James by Herod Agrippa, and therefore was dead before Jn was written. Mk's vivid reproduction of Christ's word promising the two ambitious brothers his cup and his baptism is argued to be a 'prophecy after the event', and should be taken to affirm their common martyrdom in a.d. 44. A fragment of Papias cited by Philip of Side, 430, and Georgios Hamartolos, c 867, is produced as confirming this supposition. It says that 'John the Theologian and James were killed by the Jews'. Furthermore a Syriac Martyrology of 411 assigns to James and John a common feast on December 27th. Our first remark is that this assertion demands an impcssible Pauline chronology, since it necessitates the dating of the persecutor's conversion between a.d. 27 and 30. Secondly, with regard to Christ's prophecy, the assumption that it refers to an event (apart from the implied denial of real prophecy) gratuitously supposes that the chalice must mean violent death for both brothers, and that their martyrdom is to be regarded as simultaneous. Thirdly, in this hypothesis the silence of Ac 12 regarding Joh?'s death would be inexplicable. Fourthly, the title 'the Theologian' is an anachronism, as attributed to Papias, for this title dates from the 4th cent. Such an inaccuracy in citing Papias leads us to the reasonable conjecture that the Bishop of Hierapolis most probably coupled the names of John the Baptist and James the Apostle, both killed by the Jews, one by Herod Antipas and the other by Herod Agrippa. Fifthly, the common feast of James and John does not suppose a common martyrdom. At Carthage, according to a Martyrology of 505, it was the Baptist and James who were celebrated on 27 Dec. In the Syriac Martyrology there is an evident preoccupation with the title of Apostle (Dec. 26: Stephen the Apostle (!); Dec 27: John and James Apostles; Dec. 28: Paul the Apostle an Simon Peter chief of the Apostles) which could easily have occasioned the substitution of John the Apostle for John the Precursor. Papias, therefore, and the Syriac Martyrology furnish no solid evidence against the tradition that John drank the chalice without shedding his blood and died a natural death at Ephesus in extreme old age; cf. John 21:23. Recent Non-Catholic Criticism —As stated above it is no longer possible to assign a late 2nd cent. date to the Fourth Gospel and it is now generally recognized to have been written more or less at the time allotted to it by tradition. If the Gospel were written about the end of the 1st cent. and if John the Apostle did indeed survive till then, it might be thought to make little difference to the accuracy of the narrative, whether it was written by him personally or by a contemporary. Nevertheless, though the Apostle is now generally allowed to have had a large part in providing the material of the Gospel, it is still denied by many moderns that he actually wrote it. It is suggested for example that the Gospel clearly distinguishes between the writer and the eyewitness in 19:35 and 21:24, It is allowed that in those passages the eyewitness is the Beloved Disciple, John the son of Zebedee. In 19:35, it is argued, the writer of the Gospel is testifying to the truth of the Beloved Disciple's witness, 'his witness is true'. 'He knoweth that he saith true' is a statement by the writer that the Apostle, now very old, is fully conscious of the truth of his witness (Bernard, in loc.). This interpretation is by no means obvious. Why should one who was ex hypothesi not an eyewitness testify to the truth of the witness of one who was? It would surely be more natural to invoke the eyewitness in corroboration of the writer's own statement. As for Bernard's interpretation of the following statement ('He [??e????] knoweth that he saith true'), he has to admit that it is quite natural to interpret ??e???? as the actual writer of the Gospel (cf. John 9:37 where Christ uses ??e???? of himself). But if it does so refer, then we are more or less obliged to identify witness with writer, for otherwise we should have a needless repetition of the preceding sentence. Why should it be thought unlikely that the writer should refer to himself in the third person? After all, St Paul does so in 2 Corinthians 12:2-5. At the very least John 19:35 may equally well be taken in this way and since tradition has in fact always so taken it, we conclude this is the right interpretation. As for John 21:24, even if it be conceded that others wrote the verse, so far from weakening the Johannine claim, it is an explicit affirmation that the actual writer is the Beloved Disciple who, we have seen, must be identified with Jn the Apostle. It is asked further how we are to account for the strange reticence of the Evangelist regarding the actual name of the Beloved Disciple—Strachan notes the traditional theory that the author, the son of Zebedee, here refers to himself, but that as author, he keeps himself in the background (p 82). 'Yet', he says, 'the terms of such a reference can scarcely be called modest. It is a much simpler interpretation to suppose that the author of the Gospel is referring to someone other than himself. Then the epithet, "whom Jesus loved" becomes intelligible'. But surely Strachan has smoothed out one difficulty only to raise a greater—for while it is easy to understand why the son of Zebedee does not name himself if he is indeed the author of the Gospel, it is by no means easy to see why the son of Zebedee is not mentioned by name if the Gospel were written by someone else. Moreover, is the title 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' in the mouth of that disciple such an offence against modesty? Given that Jesus had in fact a special predilection for the youngest of the Apostles, John would naturally be struck by the wonder of it and might explain it simply on the ground of his being the Benjamin of Christ's immediate followers and not because of any special merits he might possess. It is then, it seems, on such grounds as these that we are asked to distinguish between the witness to whom we owe practically all the information in the Gospel and the writer who records it for us, while at the same time rejecting a constant tradition which identifies the two. 'Speaking generally', says Dr Bernard, 'one cannot distinguish by any features of internal evidence, those parts of the Gospel narrative which plainly rest upon the report of an eyewitness, and those which may be referred to the Evangelist', p lxxviii. One should go further. Even if the evidence of the Gospel were compatible with the theory that the writer, not himself an eyewitness, gathered his information from one who was, it is clearly more intelligible on the assumption that the eyewitness wrote it himself. There are whole pages of the Gospel where it is unthinkable that anyone but the witness wrote them—or at least dictated them word for word, which comes to the same thing, cf.Jn13-17. Indeed Dr Bernard at times seems to allow to the writer' of the Gospel a role hardly greater than that of scribe. But no Catholic would object to the suggestion that John, like Paul, Romans 16:22, used a scribe to write down his compositions. It is further pointed out that the Apocalypse, admitted to be by John the Apostle, has no reticence like the Gospel on this point, but gives the name of John openly and repeatedly—why then not the Gospel also, if indeed the Apostle wrote it? Without pretending to solve every difficulty it may be observed that the Apoc is very different from the Gospel. It is a book of prophecy in which the identity of the prophet has considerable relevance. The Gospel on the other hand is a record of the deeds and words of Jesus Christ in which there is much less need to name the author. Indeed, one may note again (cf. § 777d) that Jn is less anonymous than the other Gospels. The critics have gone further and attempted to identify the writer of the Gospel as distinct from the witness. It is noted that the author of the Gospel also wrote the Johannine epistles. Now 2 and 3 Jn each starts by naming the writer as ? pesß?te???, the Presbyter or Elder. This term, it is argued, is used in Acts 15:4, Acts 15:22 to distinguish the disciples of the Apostles from the Apostles themselves and this is the sense in which Irenaeus uses the term ?? pesß?te??? t?+?? ?p?st???? µaTðta?, Adv. Haer.5, 5, 1; 5, 33, 3; 5, 6, 2. There is no example in 2nd cent. literature, they say, of the term 'Presbyter' being used for an Apostle, cf. Bernard, p xlvii. Who is this 'Presbyter' who wrote the Gospel and epistles? The critics refer us to a statement of Papias who, while describing the sources of his information, says he tried to find out all that the 'presbyters' reported as being said by Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord—and also what Aristion and the presbyter John say. It seems clear that two Johns are indicated here and this is the view of Eusebius himself, HE III, 39; cf. Bardy, DBV(S) 845. Eusebius mentions the fact that there are two tombs at Ephesus bearing the name of John, and suggests that perhaps the John, not the Apostle, wrote the Apocalypse. No one in tradition ever suggested he wrote the Gospel. Yet this is the individual brought in to fill the role of p?esß?te??? in 2 and 3 Jn, and claim authorship of the 4th Gospel, as well as the epistles. Bernard, adopting substantially the view of Harnack, sums up: 'John the presbyter was the writer and editor of the 4th Gospel, although he derived his narrative material from John the son of Zebedee', p lxiv. On what grounds is based the assertion that the term p?esß?te??? is never used of an Apostle? It is necessary of course to exclude, beforehand, its use in 2 and 3 Jn and to interpret Papias' use of the word as 'disciple of an Apostle' though many think he uses it also of Apostles. Moreover the total number of references to 'presbyter' in the literature of the first two centuries is not so large as to warrant any categoric assertion of the kind. Further, the appellation ? p?esß?te??? at the head of 2 and 3 Jn surely singles the author out in a very special way, far too special a way, one might think, for a mere disciple of an Apostle, otherwise practically unknown. Yet on the assumption that it is the Apostle himself, how suitable a name! John, the last survivor of the Twelve, and now no doubt far older than all those he lived with, is surely the Elder par excellence cf. Bardy, 846, and 1 Peter 5:1. One further question arises. If the critics are correct, then the composition of Jn was closely similar to that of Mk. As Mk was the follower of Peter and recorded his memories in Peter's old age, so John the Presbyter, a disciple of the son of Zebedee, would have recorded his memoirs in the Apostle's old age.But if this be so, how can one account for the startling difference in tradition? Whereas the part played by Mk has always been plain in the record of tradition, and the Gospel is under his name, not Peter's, nothing similar is to be found in the tradition of the Fourth Gospel, cf. 'The Replies of the Biblical Commission', §, 51c-e. Purpose and Plan —The Evangelist himself declares his aim, 'These things 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', 20:31. He wrote, not so much to convert as to confirm the belief of those who already believed 'that you may keep believing' (p?ste?ðte). The Gospel was mainly meant for Christians. These were not Jewish Christians, otherwise it would not have interpreted simple Jewish terms such as Messias and Rabbi. The Jews John has in mind are not readers, but the hostile mass of the Jewish nation who rejected the Messias. It seems clear too that the Evangelist, without expressly saying so, wrote against those who are called Antichrist in 1 and 2 Jn. These are the Docetists, who held that the divine Christ did not really have a human nature, and the Ebionitcs, who claimed that the Word of God dwelt only for a time in the man Jesus, from his baptism to his Passion. Jn demonstrates the reality of Christ's human nature and likewise shows that the Word was made Flesh at the moment of the Annunciation. Finally, Jn's insistence on the Baptist's subordination to Christ ('He was not the light') might be taken as an answer to those followers of the Baptist who were reluctant to transfer their allegiance, 3:25-30. That the Evangelist also wrote to supplement the Synoptics appears from a comparison with them. Indeed the explanation of many difficulties in Jn lies in the fact that the author presupposes a knowledge of the Synoptics. 'Thus he omits many things which would have served his purpose, for no other reason apparently than because they were already well known from the earlier Gospels', MacRory, p xlv. He makes no mention, e.g., of the Transfiguration, or of Christ's confession of divinity before Caiaphas. Again Jn's remark 'For John was not yet cast into prison', 3:24, surely refers to the mention of this event in the Synoptics as indicating the start of the Galilean ministry; and its purpose is to inform the reader that Christ's Judaean Ministry took place before the Galilean. Further, there is no account of the Institution of the Eucharist in Jn. In view of the elaborate Eucharistic discourse of Jn 6 and the whole tone of the account of the Last Supper which presueposes the Sacrament of Love, it is clear that John omits the description of its institution for no other reason than that four accounts of it existed already (Mt, Mk, Lk and 1 Cor). We see then how an examination of the Gospel corroborates the testimony of early writers. Eusebius says Jn expressly records the events before the Baptist's imprisonment, which had been left out by the Synoptics ( HE 3, 24) ; Irenaeus notes that John had in mind 'the error sown by Cerinthus and earlier still by those called Nicolaites', Adv. Haer. 3, 1. The Gospel seems to fall into the following divisions 1:1-18 Prologue 1:19-6:72 The Public Ministry, Part I 1:19-2:12 The Messias prepares for his Mission 2:13-3:36 First Judaean Ministry 4:1-54 Through Samaria to Galilee 5:1-47 A Feast at Jerusalem 6:1-72 The Bread of Life 7:I-12:50 The Public Ministry, Part II 7:1-52 The Breach widens 7:53-9:41 The Light of the World 10:1-11:56 The Good Shepherd 12:1-5 End of the Public Ministry 13:1-17:26 The Last Supper 13:1-38 Events in the Supper Room 14:1-31 Consolation 15:1-16:33 Exhortation.and Encouragement 17:1-26 Christ's Sacerdotal Prayer for Unity 18:1-21:25 The Passion and Resurrection 18:1-19:42 The Passion 20:1-21:25 The Risen Saviour Characteristics —The Fourth Gospel is an historical book with a dogmatic purpose—things as reconcilable with one another as the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth is with the stupendous truth of his Godhead. To show that Jesus is the Messias and Son of God, John did not try to write a complete biography—he knew that was impossible, 21:25. His method was to select some of the acts which particularly revealed the divine glory of Jesus, and some of the words in which he revealed himself. The Prologue stands like a divine vestibule exhibiting a synthesis of all that the interior palace of selected history reveals. From beginning to end John sees the glory of the Only-Begotten—the glory of his life, the glory of his passion, the glory of his resurrection, a glory all full of grace and truth. Augustine constantly has recourse to two key-sentences: 'In the beginning was the Word . . . and the Word was made flesh'. Without this key Jn is an enigma. Since the portrait of Christ in Jn differs apparently from that in the Syn. (on account of notable differences in the discourses and the Evangelist's elaborate use of symbolism) there have been constant attempts to maintain that Jn is in fact not a work of history at all but largely an allegorical composition designed to portray Christ, not as he actually was in life but as he was believed to be at the beginning of the 2nd cent. 'Such a view', notes MacRory, 'reduces the claim to divinity made by our Lord himself in the discourses of the Gospel to claims set up on his behalf by the Evangclist 70 years or more after his death', p xlix. Before dealing with the difficulties it is well to note first that the Gospel presents itself as a record of fact. This is stated categorically in 20:30-31. The text of the Gospel bears this out. We find the same historical persons, the Apostles, the holy women, mentioned individually by name, Caiaphas, Pilate, Joseph of Arimathea. The events, too, generally speaking are the same, the Baptist's testimony, Christ's many miracles, the feeding of the 5,000 and above all the details of the Passion. That Jn relates many events not in the Syn. (and vice versa) is accounted for by his intention of supplementing, not repeating their account in detail, cf. above § 778h. John wrote a spiritual Gospel, as Clement of Alexandria noted, but its historical guarantees are as concrete as the most critical investigator would wish. The whole is chronologically arranged according to Jewish festivals—at least three Paschs or a period of two full years, John 2:13; John 6:4; John 12:1, the feast of Tabernacles (15-22 Tishri) and the feast of the Dedication (25-22 Casleu). Days and hours are noted precisely, lengths of time are marked exactly, 4:40; 11:9; 12:1; 20:26, or approximately, 2:12. The geographical framework is equally solid, in fact there is more Palestinian geography and topography in the Fourth Gospel than in the other three together; cf. § Events are described not vaguely but with attention to details and with a picturesque realism which falls little short of Mk. Many things omitted by the Synoptics are supplied. Without Jn we should not know of the part played by Philip and Andrew on the day of the first multiplication of bread; neither should we know of the appearance of Christ before Annas, nor the steps that led Pilate to surrender to the enemies of Jesus, nor the part of Nicodemus in the burial of the Lord. Similar things could be said of the dialogue and incidental details in such scenes as that of Jacob's Well and the washing of the feet. Of miracles circumstantially described there are seven, two associated with Cana, the cure of the cripple at Bethzatha, the multiplication of bread, the walking on the water, the cure of the man born blind, the resurrection of Lazarus—to which we might add the miraculous catch of 153 fishes after the resurrection. All are regarded as signs, the first two being related to the faith which they increased or provoked, and the second pair being closely connected with the Eucharistic discourse. The symbolism of three others is declared by Jesus himself. He cures on the Sabbath to show that he is one with the Father in a coequal continuity of operation; he gives sight to the blind, to show that he is the light of the world; he raises Lazarus, after declaring that he is the resurrection and the life. The symbolism of the Fourth Gospel is pronounced and apparently intentional. Nevertheless caution should be used in its investigation lest far more be read into the mind of the Evangelist than was actually there. The opening words of the Gospel 'In the beginning . . .', the reference to the Word as the Light of men, the bringing of new life to men and even the exact arrangement of events into seven days from the Baptist's testimony to the miracle of Cana, reminds us forcibly of the details of Gen ch 1, and can hardly be anything but intentional; cf. Allo, 833. Authors have sought the perfect number seven in many other places in Jn, for example the 7 miracles, but it does not seem that any special significance attaches to it. We find that Jn gives great prominence to the ideas of Light and Life, and these appear to be constantly represented by the symbols of water and blood respectively. The Life was the Light of men, died on the Cross and from his side pierced by the lance there flowed blood and water, in which many have seen figured the Eucharist and Baptism. One should compare this with the water and blood of 1 John 5:5 ff. Allo thinks one may discern a series of 8 events in which these two main ideas are illustrated. Thus: (1) Marriage feast of Cana, water and wine (blood). (2 and 3) Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, faith symbolized by water, proposed to a Jew and a non-Jew. (4) Healing of ruler's son, 4:46 ff. (5) Paralytic at Pool of Bethzatha. (6) Miracle of loaves (Eucharist) implying wine (blood). (7) Man born blind. (8) Raising of Lazarus. Thus 2, 3, 5, 7 refer to Light, and 4, 6, 8 to Life, while 1 refers to both. Granted some symbolism, to a greater or lesser degree, we have now to ask whether this is compatible with an historical work? It should be observed first that we are not here considering parables which are fictitious narratives designed to convey spiritual teaching. The symbolical or typological method is quite distinct and consists in selecting an actual historical event or fact or person and seeing in it or him a spiritual meaning; cf. § 40. Thus Paul in referring to an episode in the life of Abraham in this way, Galatians 4:24, does not imply it did not happen but that it symbolizes a spiritual lesson. As Bernard says, 'It is one thing to spiritualize history: it is quite another to put forth as history a narrative which is not based on fact', p lxxxvi. There cannot be the slightest doubt that it was John's express purpose and intention to record fact. At the same time he does undertake to interpret the facts, as is shown not only by his comments (e.g. 2:21; 4:2; 20:9) but also by his arrangement and selection of material, so as to present his thesis, 20:30, in the most effective way. Different Subject Matter —If we had only the Synoptic Gospels we should conclude that Jesus spent almost all his public life preaching in Galilee—and, on the other hand, Jn concentrates mainly on the events in Judaea and Jerusalem. Yet, as said above, the reference to the Baptist's imprisonment in John 3:24 indicates that the account is meant to supplement the Synoptics. Again, the Syn. accounts suggest a one-year ministry; yet in Jn, at least three Paschs are referred to, cf. § 791b, implying at least two years. But this need cause no special difficulty, because, as Temple has pointed out, 'the Synoptists provide no chronology of the ministry at all until the last week', p xi. The impression of a one-year ministry is due rather to an absence of chronological indications. Jn, on the other hand, is careful to give many notes of time, cf. § 779c. On the apparent difference concerning the day of the Crucifixion, see § 802b. The Fourth Gospel indeed, far from being incompatible with the Syn., is rather their necessary complement, see § 778h. That our Lord should have ignored Jerusalem and Judaca and preached exclusively in Galilee and that he should then have journeyed to Jerusalem, where he was at once put to death, is hardly intelligible. For, seeing that Christ, on his own admission, was not come but to save the lost sheep of the House of Israel, Matthew 15:24, he must surely have offered salvation officially and directly to the leaders of the people and to the inhabitants of the Holy City. Indeed how else can we explain his cry of sorrow over Jerusalem (not just Israel), How often would I have gathered thy children? . . .', Matthew 23:37. The explanation is surely given us in Jn. Moreover Jesus, as an orthodox Jew, would be bound by law to visit Jerusalem at the great feasts, and one can hardly believe he would not take such opportunities to preach to the people. The Discourses —A special feature of the Fourth Gospel is the length of our Lord's discourses. But even more remarkable is the difference between them and those recorded in the Syn. No one can fail to notice, for example, the difference between the Sermon on the Mount or the parables by the lake shore on the one hand, and the discourses of Jesus in the temple on the other. In the former we have elevated moral instruction, homely illustrations from everyday life, an almost complete absence of polemics. In the latter one finds a preoccupation with our Lord's Person and Mission expressed often in difficult language and in a tone of open hostility. The matter and the language are those of crisis—the supreme crisis of acceptance or rejection of his claims. Moreover there seems to be a remarkable similarity in phraseology between what is put into our Lord's mouth and the wording of the rest of the Gospel, so that at times it is not easy to say precisely whether it is our Lord or the Evangelist who speaks, e.g. 3:16 ff. All this has led many to ask whether we have not here the Evangelist's developments of what our Lord originally said, rather than an exact historical record of his utterances. To deal with the last point first. One recognizes of course that our Lord's Aramaic has been put into Greek and that in the translation personal characteristics of the Evangelist appear. It must also be admitted that the discourses are not usually reported verbatim in any gospel, as may be seen by the differences in the records of so solemn an utterance as the Words of Institution of the Eucharist. Again, not all that Christ said on any given occasion is necessarily recorded. It may be no more than a summary. Finally the later date of Jn's Gospel would give further scope for the personal characteristics of the Evangelist to appear: though one might reasonably ask whether it might not rather be a case of John's having absorbed his Master's modes of thought and expression after so many years of profound meditation on them, to a greater extent than the other Evangelists. As regards the different subject-matter—in the first place there is a different audience. In Galilee Jesus was speaking to the simple, unsophisticated fishermen and peasants, who had no vested interests and no malice in their hearts. In Jerusalem it was otherwise. There he came up against the leaders at once, and they from the beginning took their stand against him, John 2:18. This being so, the polemical note could not fail to appear in his dealings with them. Moreover, being learned in the law, the Pharisees would expect to discuss deeper matters than those set before the Galileans. Jesus met and overcame them with their own weapons. It is moreover significant that in the Synoptic Gospels the polemical note is equally prominent when our Lord is speaking directly with the Pharisees; cf.Matthew 23. It is argued further that the 'self-assertiveness' of Jesus in the Johannine discourses is unlike what we should expect of him, indeed unworthy of him. But surely all depends on whether it is true. That Christ speaks of himself is inevitable if his task is to offer himself for acceptance by the leaders. If his claims were false there would of course be intolerable pride. It is often conceded that Jn has entered more deeply into the mind of Christ than the other Evangelists, and that his over-all portrait of the Master may give a truer picture than that of the others. But it is maintained that Jn's account is less historical in detail. 'We may sometimes feel sure that this saying or that was uttered by our Lord as it is recorded; but it would be a mistake to look for original and authentic utterances as each the nucleus of a discourse', Temple, p xvii. It is true of course that Jn does interpret as well as record. He interprets the significance of events, 19:34-37, and also of sayings, 2:21-22. Might he not also expand our Lord's discourses in a similar way? Some think, e.g., that in 3:16-21 we have the reflexions of the Evangelist, though there is no obvious break after our Lord's words in the preceding verses. So also in 3:31-36 we may have Jn's comments on the Baptist's preceding words. But it is surely destructive of the historical character of the Gospel, so well established as the record of an eyewitness, to maintain that, in effect, we cannot be sure that Christ actually pronounced any of the discourses as recorded in Jn. To those who so readily stress John's supposed inability in his old age to distinguish between what our Lord actually said, and what might be deduced (admittedly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) from those sayings, we must point out that such a viewpoint does not well agree with the other evidence of the Gospel. If there is one thing which stands out more than another, it is surely the Evangelist's minute attention to details of time, place and persons (see § 777d-e). Is it likely that the man who remembered what was said by the Baptist, Andrew, Philip and Nathanael, ch 1, and on another occasion by Andrew, Philip and Peter, ch 6, that the narrator of the vivid and circumstantial story of ch 9 or ch 12 (cf. esp. 12:12) would be unable to distinguish between his Master's words and his own reflexions? Moreover, even if for the sake of argument, this were conceded as a possibility, we have other factors to reckon with. The readers of the Gospel were not meeting this teaching for the first time. The Gospel was in fact merely the written record of the Tradition which they had cherished continuously over the years. All the evidence shows that this Tradition was jealously guarded and any deviation would be noticed at once. There was indeed theological development almost from the beginning, as one may see from the epistles, but it was not set down as the utterances of our Lord. St Paul for example makes it perfectly clear when he is quoting the Lord directly and when he is issuing instructions on his own authority. Speaking of the Eucharistic Assemblies he says, 'For I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you', 1 Corinthians 11:23. But 'Concerning virgins I have no precept from the Lord', 1 Corinthians 7:25; and again, 'But for the rest, I speak, not the Lord', 1 Corinthians 7:12. Is it reasonable to suppose that Jn who was more historically minded than Paul should have been so vague as to set down his own reflexions as his Master's sayings? It may of course be granted that in reporting the discourses Jn had in mind contemporary needs and selected and arranged his material in order to provide an answer to heretics. We have already seen that this consideration must have been in his mind when arranging the Gospel as a whole. Strachan, in attempting an explanation of the Johannine discourses, suggests a parallel with the OT prophets. 'When a Hebrew prophet used the expression "Thus saith the Lord", he did not usually mean that the actual words were heard by him with the outward ear, although he may have had "auditions". He meant that he spoke with certainty and authority the mind of God on a particular situation. . . . The Fourth Evangelist feels himself to be in the same relation of communion in the Spirit with the exalted Christ as the OT prophet experienced with God', p 17. It is difficult, however, to see any parallel such as Strachan suggests. The OT prophet is generally concerned with communicating to man the mind of God here and now on a particular situation. He is the p????tð?, the speaker on behalf of God, the mouthpiece of God. But it remains clear, generally speaking, that it is the prophet who speaks. He is used by God to communicate the message, but the people know the man through whom the message comes. His personality is not hidden as is so often the case with that of the inspired writer. When the prophet says, 'Thus saith the Lord' all know that the Lord is then and there speaking through him. The Evangelist is in a very different role. His task is to record what the greatest of prophets actually said in definite historical circumstances. Our Lord, the Incarnate Word, was himself the mouthpiece of God. If Jn puts into his mouth what was in fact communicated to the Evangelist at a later date we have a totally different situation. Jn was indeed also a prophet and we have his book of prophecy, the Apocalypse, where it is clear from the beginning that Jn speaks as the muthpiece of the Risen Lord. Doctrinal Contents —The present slight sketch can only be a rough map to guide explorers on their way of discovery in the really inexhaustible riches of the Fourth Gospel. We give little more than a catalogue of the principal points. Jesus, Messias and Son of God—with the emphasis on the Divine Person—is the theme of John. That Jesus of Nazareth is the Israelite Messias and very God is shown throughout the Gospel in an historical record of Messianic and divine self-revelation consisting of word and work, but all that truth is synthesized in the Prologue. The Prologue presents the Logos as eternal, as distinct from the Father, as himself God, and becoming man to walk amongst men as Jesus of Nazareth. This mystery of the Incarnation is the central message of the Gospel. The divine Person is called the Logos, a term which in this sense is exclusively Johannine, being given to the conquering, bloodstained, royal Rider of the Apocalypse, 19:13, to the visible, audible, tangible 'Word of life' at the beginning of 1 Jn, and to him who is described as life and light in the Prologue, and appears (without the term Logos) as life and light the pages that follow. There is no doubt that John, in presenting Jesus as the Logos, satisfied an age-old groping of the Hellenic mind. As a philosophical term, Logos had first sounded about 500 b.c. at Ephesus on the obscure tongue of Heraclitus. In general it was a principle of organization, order and harmony, and something generically similar occurs in the Nous of Anaxagoras and in the prototype ideas of Plato. Before the Christian era Stoicism had taken the Heraclitean Logos, regarding it as a productive and governing principle in a pantheistic universe. Under the influence of Platonism, but through the Stoic system, the term was 'in the air' of the Hellenic world into which Christianity came. It was associated with whatever men call 'serious, reasonable, beautiful, well-ordered, fitting, lawful, musical, harmonious'. It was Logos that was conceived as making everything just what it should be. But it was neither Stoic thought nor even Judeo-Alexandrian Philonism that directly influenced St John. Between the non-Messianic intermediary abstraction which Philo called Logos and the Logos of St John there is no relationship. The personification of God's creative wisdom in the sapiential books of the OT is the real source of the doctrine of the Logos;cf. Proverbs 8; Wis 7. It was under the influence of these passages that St Paul had already called Christ 'the wisdom of God', 1 Corinthians 1:24, 'the image of the invisible God', Colossians 1:15, 'the effulgence of his glory and the imprint of his substance', Hebrews 1:3. Through his 'wisdom' God created everything, but he also created and conserves and governs everything through his 'word', Psalms 32:6. Thus 'wisdom' and 'word' are interchangeable, and St John chose the second—a happy appellation for the Christ who is the divine light of human intelligences and the divine life of human lives. The term Logos, analytically equivalent to supernatural life and light—grace and truth—is a reminder that in Jesus is the fountain of life, and that in his light we shall see light. The 'Word Incarnate' satisfies the Hellenic and human desire for a force which will act on human minds and wills and make the world what it should be. The Christology of John presents the Messiahship of Jesus in the colours of royalty—King of Israel, 1:50; 12:13, coming as Zachary predicted, 12:15, King of the Jews, 18:33 ff.; 19:19. But his kingship is not of this world; it is a spiritual kingship, to rule those who will become disciples of that truth to which he bore witness, 18:33-37. Jesus professed his Messiahship to the Samaritan woman, 4:26. Repeatedly he affirmed his mission to the Jews, referred them to the testimony of John the Baptist, 5:33 ff., and of Moses, 5:46 f., and especially to the seal with which the Father scaled him, 6:27. But cf. §§ 618d, 627a, 790f. The title 'son of man' occurs a dozen times, but the Gospel shows abundantly that the 'son of man' is also the 'Son of God', the Only-begotten, 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18, who has come down from heaven, who claims unity of operation with the Father, who 'is' before Abraham came to be, who had glory with the Father before the world existed, who even says: 'I and the Father are one'. This transcendence however belongs to a man who on occasion was thirsty and tired, who wept at the tomb of a friend and knew disturbance of soul. His relation to the Father is also frequently mentioned. His task on earth is to glorify the Father, from whom he has divine life, divine knowledge, and—as man—his command to give his life and take it up again for the sheep which the Father has given him. The programme of his life—his food—is to do the Father's will. His one intent is to promote his Father's glory, and therewith is associated his unassailable sanctity. 'Which of you can convict me of sin?' Towards men Jesus is the Saviour, to whom he presents himself as the bread of life, as the light, as the door of the sheepfold, as the Good Shepherd, as the way and the truth and the resurrection and the life, as the true vine, a Saviour in every way, not come to judge but to save, and nevertheless appointed by God to judge men finally, because he is the son or man. The grace of faith given by the Father must draw men to Jesus, to be united to him and live by him. That drawing is very prominent in Jn, the divine attraction being exercised at its utmost by the redeeming sacrifice. 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth shall draw all men to myself'. It is, however, the Holy Spirit who is to realize and continue the work of Jesus in souls. The fullest theology of the Holy Ghost and therefore the greatest revelation of the mystery of the Blessed Trinity is given by John, especially in recording our Lord's last words in the Supper-room, which promise another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, proceeding from the Father, sent by Jesus, and therefore proceeding from both Father and Son. This spirit is to be the perpetual Guide of the Apostolic Church into all truth. The Church also is strongly outlined by Jn. The 'Spiritual Gospel' does indeed insist on the interior working of grace in the individual soul, but it clearly postulates incorporation into a hierarchical organism. It is only necessary to recall the allegory of the flock and the Good Shepherd, the privileges of the Apostolic College of twelve, the primacy conferred on Simon Peter to prove that Jn proclaims a hierarchical Church. St John is also—and this is quite in keeping with the doctrine of the Incarnation—a great sacramentalist. The sacraments of baptismal regeneration, of the bread of life, of the remission of sins are vividly set before us, and even apart from these institutionally effective sacraments, the most obvious things of the material world—light, water, wind, the shepherd, the flock, the vine—are all signs of things that belong to the supernatural order of grace, cf. § 779e. Eschatology is not a marked feature of the Fourth Gospel. The final judgement and the resurrection of the dead are indeed there, but the judgement that discerns the good from the bad is rather represented as taking place here through the attitude which men take towards the truth. In Jn truth is imperious. There can be no neutrality towards it; one is either for or against, and this attitude decides whether a man is a child of light or a child of the devil, the father of lying. The final judgement will only manifest the response which men have given to the voice of Christ. The moral teaching of Jn is centred in the inculcation of the precept of charity. Its whole code could be summed up in the Pauline phrase: 'Doing the truth in charity'. In all respects the Evangelist is true to his beloved Master, utterly intransigent in regard to the truth of God and with a heart full of pity towards human misery—shedding tears at the tomb of Lazarus. The two stories told by St Irenacus and St Jerome sum up St John admirably: his horror of Cerinthus the enemy of truth', and his insistence on the precept My little children, love one another'—because this is the precept of the Lord. Integrity —There are only three passages of the Gospel which need discussion under this heading, but it has been considered preferable to deal sufficiently with two of them (5:3b, 4, and ch 20) in the commentary. The passage of the Adulteress, 7:53-8-11, remains. Is it by St John? The case is briefly as follows. Most important MSS and versions omit this passage from Jn. They are B, S, A, C, W, T, etc., many minuscules, the Syriac, Sahidic and Armenian versions, many Latin MSS prior to St Jerome. The Greek Fathers do not comment on it, and it seems to have been unknown to Tertullian and Cyprian. Many MSS note it with an asterisk or insert it after John 21:24 or Luke 21:38 ( Ferrar Group). Moreover, it seems strangely thrown in between our Lord's discourses and has features of vocabulary and style more like the Synoptics. On the other hand D and six other uncials have it as well as the great majority of cursivcs, about 100 Evangeliaria, the Egyptian Bohairic, several Old Latin texts and Vg. It was known to many Greek writers who did not comment on it, even, it seems, to Papias ( Eus., HE III39). The Latin Fathers Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine give it full recognition. Jerome says 'in multis graecis et latinis codicibus invenitur de adultera' ( Adv. Pelag. ii. 19), and Augustine supposes it was omitted from some texts because Christ's conduct seemed too lenient ( De Conj. Adult. ii. 6). It is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 24 ( 4th cent.). The difference of style is not conclusive against its, Johannine origin, for it is permissible to any writer when dealing with an unusual subject to use words he does not employ elsewhere. Renan even maintained that there is nothing in the passage at variance with the style of the Fourth Gospel. It seems however impossible to prove the point one way or the other. Is the passage a genuine part of the Gospel tradition? On the assumption that it is not, no adequate reason can be found to account for its insertion in so many texts, which show that it was widely current at least by the 3rd cent. and known in the 2nd (Papias). But in an age when sins of the flesh were punished with severity by the Christian church, as a reaction against pagan licence, the pericope may well have caused surprise and even scandal (as Augustine suggests), and then have been omitted from many texts. With the milder discipline of the 4th cent. the passage would gradually have re-established itself as authentic. The decree of the Council of Trent declaring the Books of the Bible with all their parts as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be inspired and canonical is always regarded as including this passage. Time and Place of Composition —It is clear from John 21:23 that the last chapter was written when the Apostle was very old; and presumably chh 1-20 were not very much prior to it. St Peter was dead, and the old Jewish world was no more. The Gospel must in fact have been written a long time after the destruction of Jerusalem. The old Prologue already mentioned, § 777c, and also the Monarchian Prologues ( 3rd or 4th cent.) assign priority of date to the Apocalypse, and as Irenaeus seems decisive on the place of writing, namely, Ephesus, we should conclude that the Gospel was written some time after 96, the year of John's return from Patmos. It seems also posterior to the first Johannine Epistle. Suggested Dislocations of the Text —Many modern writers have pointed out that a number of difficulties are to be observed in the text of chh 4-7, which however disappear if chapters 5 and 6 are transposed. The opening words of ch 6 'after these things Jesus went away to the other side of the sea' are oddly chosen if a journey from Jerusalem is meant, which must be so if ch 6 follows ch 5. Which side in this case would be the 'other'? But if ch 6 follows ch 4 there is no difficulty, for Jesus is at Capharnaum, on the west shore at the end of that ch, and amongst the signs referred to is the one recorded in ch 4. Again the words that begin ch 7 'After these things Jesus walked in Galilee' etc, do not seem to follow naturally on ch 6 for throughout the whole of ch 6 Jesus is in Galilee. Nor is there any suggestion in ch 6 that the Jews sought to kill him. But if ch 7 follows ch 5 the retirement from Jerusalem to Galilee in 7:1 fits in perfectly after the hostility shown Christ in Jerusalem in ch 15. Thus we have a smooth succession of events if we adopt the order 4, 6, 5, 7. Further, the order of chapters has an important bearing on the identity of the unnamed feast in 5:1 (see commentary). In view of the harmonious sequence effected by the arrangement chh 4, 6, 5, 7, it is surprising that there is no textual evidence whatever that this was in fact the original order, with the exception of Tatian's Diatessaron which can hardly be regarded as proving more than that he also found the story ran more smoothly in the order chh 4, 6, 5, 7. The transposition was also adopted by Ludolph of Saxony in the 14th cent. The second decade of the present century has rallied scholars like Meinertz, Lagrange, Olivieri, Joflon, Prat, Grandmaison, Lebreton, Bernard, Braun, Sutcliffe. Others retain the order attested by all MSS I 1-18 I 1-18 —On the doctrinal importance of the Prologue and on the concept and term Logos, see § 781 a,b,c. The most convenient division seems to be: The Word as God and Creator, 1-5; the role of the Baptist and the Advent of the Word, 6-13; the Word Incarnate, whose glory, as fount of grace and truth, is witnessed by the Apostles, by the Baptist, by the Church, 14-18. 1, 2. The phrase 'In the beginning' brings us up to the anterior verge of time from which creation descends, Genesis 1:1; when the genesis of things began, the Word already was. This substantive verb was denotes existence and, in the context, pre-existence, selfexistence. The Word is, therefore, eternal; and its name denotes that it is a Wisdom-Being, the Offspring of intelligence. The chain-linking of subjects and predicates in 1a, b, c should be noted; Logos links with Logos and Theos with Theos, the order of words in Gk being Predicate-Subject, SP, PS. The Challoner revision of DV had (almost perforce) partially to abandon this order which had been stubbornly retained by the original Rhemish translators. In 1b the preposition 'with' (p???) marks the Word as distinct from Another called God, but here God has the Gk definite article, to show that the relation is that of person to person. The preposition p??? is actually the one chosen by Aristotle to express the category of relation; it means 'towardness', but in several passages of the NT it is used with the accusative in the same sense as with the dative, namely, of being or dwelling together but perhaps denotes greater intimacy, Matthew 13:56. 'The Word was with God' means two not one; but the unity of the divine essence is safe; for 'the Word was God',Theos here (without the Gk article) being a predicate and a noun of essence. This first verse of the Prologue, therefore, attributes to the Word eternity, distinct personality, Godhead. 2. The emphatic Rhemish 'this', changed to 'the same' by Challoner, stands for the Logos of the last stichos, that is, the Logos-Theos—'He was in the beginning with God' is a résumé of his Divinity, his Eternity, and his Personal distinction from him who in vv 14 and 18 is called the Father. The term 'Son', which pervades the whole subsequent Gospel, does not occur in the best Gk MSS of the Prologue except equivalently, for the Word is called 'Only-Begotten', 14, and even 'Only-begotten God', 18. 3-5. The relation of the Word to all creation in general and to mankind in particular is the theme of these three verses. We pass at once from one pivotal verb, that of being to another pivotal verb, that of coming to be or becoming (e??a? and ???esTa?). 3. 'All things'— p??ta without the article meaning all and each— 'through him came to be'. Our translation uses by, to exclude the suggestion of instrumental agency conveyed by through. The context, however, sufficiently excludes it, for the Word, being God, cannot be an instrument. Besides, 'Coming to be' here means creation, and creation is an act immediately divine in which no secondary agent can be a partner. The same preposition is used of God the Creator elsewhere ( Romans 11:36; cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16). The Word is not an instrument of creation, but since the Word is the Wisdom-Person in the Godhead, the quasiinstrumental expression 'through him' is quite appropriate. The next group of words brings us to a problem of punctuation. The absolute universality of the creative action of the Word is emphasized by negative repetition in Semitic fashion: 'Without him nothing came to be'. Many ancient authorities placed a full stop here and began the next sentence: 'What has come to be in him was life'. This reading is traceable from the 2nd cent. through the early Gnostics and their adversary Irenaeus, through most of the Alexandrian, Syrian, Palestinian and Latin writers, in very authoritative uncial codices (except B and S which show no punctuation), in ancient versions and in the MS transmission of Vg. St Augustine, to whom its Platonic touch undoubtedly appealed, seems to have made its fortune in the Latin Church. The Clementine edition of Vg remains indecisive (using a comma only between 3 and 4), but the Roman Missal and Ritual are clearly in favour of beginning the new sentence with the words: 'In him was life'. Mainly through St John Chrysostom (it seems) this latter mode of dividing became almost universal in the Greek Church and in later Gk MSS. It had the support of St Jerome amongst Latins, and is adopted by the vast majority of NT editors and commentators. We translate, therefore (noting the change of tense in the verb ?????e? from aorist to perfect and also the emphasis secured by resolving into its components a Gk negative substantive—'not-one-thing' instead of 'nothing'): 'Without him came to be not-one-thing that has come to be'. The. reading: 'Whatever has come to be, in him was life', though orthodox and beautiful, seems alien to the Evangelist's mind and possibly has its origin in a construe of St John's words by Gnostic commentators. This is a text-critical case in which the authority of the most ancient MS testimony does not prevail against other criteria. 4. The Evangelist next descends from creatures in general to man in particular. 'In him (the Word) was life'. The term life is, of course, to be taken causatively in the sense of Ps 35(36):10—'With thee is the fountain of life, and in thy light we shall see light'. St John is certainly not thinking of plants and beasts, but of man only. Whether 'life' here has the specialized meaning 'spiritual or supernatural life' which it has throughout the whole Gospel (see Bi 1 [ 1920] 38-58, 213-39) has been doubted, because of the absence of the article. In any case grace does not supplant, but elevates nature, and consequently spiritual life diffused by the Word as a supernatural gift supposes the life of intelligence and free will. However, the rule of context and the opposition between light and darkness seem decisive in favour of supernatural life. Precisely because man is an intelligent creature, supernatural life for him is primarily light illuminating his mind. Hence baptism was called photismos or illumination.5. The present tense 'shineth' denotes habitual efficacy extending to past, present and future. The light is there, powerful to illuminate at all times. The metaphor 'darkness' has a moral meaning in St John. It is not merely privation of light but opposition to it (cf. 3:19). 'The darkness did not take it'. 'Comprehend' is a good translation, in as much as it conveys the ambiguity of the Gk compound verb ?at??aße?. The Greek Fathers (Cyril of Alexandria excepted) understood this verb in the sense of 'hostile seizure and suppression' (cf. Mark 9:17). Still, although it is true that the darkness did not overcome the light, this idea does not seem to belong to the sequence of the Evangelist's thought. Therefore, we understand the verb as parallel to the verbs in 10c, 11b, 12a— ????, pa???aß??, ??a??? in the sense of 'take, receive, welcome'. The darkness was unreceptive (cf. Phi 3:12 f.). 6-8. To what extent St John has the pre-Christian activity of the illuminative Word in mind, is very difficult to assess. Although indeed the mystery of the Incarnation is first announced in 14, all that runs from 6 to 12 seems nevertheless to refer primarily to the historical appearance of the Word in human form. This is apparently the reason why the Precursor is introduced here, before a series of verses, 9-13, which at first sight seem to refer to the pre-Incarnation manifestations of the Word—to his prophetic advent, as we should say. It is true that from the time of the first promise in Eden the attitude of mankind towards God's plan is implicitly or explicitly an attitude towards the mystery of the Word Incarnate, so that all rejections of the Light in earlier days were only anticipations of the rejection of the Word made flesh. The Precursor is described as a man who appeared on the historical scene ('There came' rather than 'There was'). That he was 'sent from God' marks his prophetic mission; his name denoted the gracious purpose of God, and his whole office was that of a witness to the Light— an office. virtually as universal as that of Christ—in order that all might be brought to belief. The negative sentence, 8, emphasizes the role of witness, recapitulates, and prepares what follows—John was a lamp, not the Light (cf. 5:35). 9-13. In spite of a strongly seductive temptation (on grounds of apparent ease and of rhythm) to make 'cometh' refer back to 'light' we stand for the Vg interpretation of 9, with all the older interpreters, Greek and Latin (except Theodore of Mopsuestia), and against most moderns (except Knabenbauer, Médebielle, Lebreton). Challoner supplies the demonstrative 'That'. It is perhaps too much like popular speech to translate: 'There it was—the very Light which enlightens every man coming into the world', but this is really the effect of the emphatic 'was' at the head of the sentence. The redundant adjectival phrase coming into the world, found nowhere else in the NT, is a hebraic pleonasm common in rabbinical writings. The 'shining' of the Word (5) is here 'illumination', but the verb in the habitual present must be understood, as above, of the power to illuminate. The word kosmos means the created universe. 10. It (the light) was in the world and the world came to exist through him (through the Logosphôs), but the world (here with its moral nuance, meaning corrupt mankind) did not recognize him. The tragic note is stronger in 9 and 10 than in 5, and recurs frequently in chh 1-12. With the reservation already made concerning the central place of the Incarnation in the Evangelist's thought, it is difficult not to see pre-Incarnation rejection of the Light in these words. 11. 'He came into his own (domain) — Israel, his specially chosen people—and his own did not receive him'. Here we may still admit some implied reference to continued Jewish rejection of the Christ of prophecy throughout the ages of preparation, but there seems no doubt that St John already presents the historical advent of the Incarnate Word, and the great refusal of the Jewish people to receive him. It has been remarked that the stylistic motion of the Prologue is peculiarly 'tidal' and difficult of analysis, but it seems that full tide comes here in 11. The deep tragedy of the Prologue also ends here, 12 being introduced by an adversative d?, a comparatively rare particle in this Gospel. Here begin the glories of the Incarnation. 12. The power given to those who received the Logos-phôs, whereby they were enabled to become children of God, is the grace of faith. Reception of the Word is itself an act of faith, and faith is the means of appropriating the dignity of divine sonship. Faith is not itself filiation, but the foundation and root of filiation. Hence the phrase (explanatory of the act of voluntary acceptance): 'to them that believe in his name'—that is, adhere to him and all that his name (Messias and Son of God) signifies. 13. These 'sons', t??a? ('offspring' in a very real sense), were not generated from material elements— the blood-products of man and woman—nor from that will of the flesh which is the concupiscence of human sexual life—nor from the deliberate will of man (??d???, a human father) rationally desiring human propagation, but were born from God. The reading 'was born', referring to Christ, though found in Tertullian, St Irenaeus and (possibly) St Justin has only negligible authority from MSS (Latin and Syriac) and is defended only by a few non-Catholic critics. The supernatural birth of Children of God is a very Johannine idea (cf. 3:3-6; 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:18). 14-18. The manifestation of the Word now shows itself in all its splendid historical fullness. The term Logos, 1, appears again (and also for the last time in the Gospel) in a sentence that means more for mankind than any sentence ever written by a human pen: 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us'. The enunciation seems to come with a sudden shock, but the implied connexion between 13 and 14 is unmistakable. Men can become children of God, because the Word became man and entered our family. Borrowing a thought from St Augustine, we may say, that the wonder of 13 merges into the greater wonder of 14. It belongs to theology to explain the depth of these eight words. The exegetical facts are that the Eternal Divine Person, very God of very God, here called the Word, became, at an historical moment a man amongst men, sharing (apart from sin) the whole frailty of mortal nature signified by the word 'flesh'. Thus he took up his dwelling amongst us, the Gk word literally meaning: 'He fixed his tent amongst us', with allusion to the presence of God amongst his people, this being manifested in their Sanctuary by the symbol of a white cloud. St John could not have been insensible to the similarity of sound (especially perceptible to a Semitic ear) between the word ?a?ð??se? ('he tented') and the Shekinah which is the Hebrew term for the dwelling of God in the Israelite sanctuary. This ancient manifestation of the glory of God's Majesty is also before his mind, as he proceeds to tell of the glory of the Word made man. 14c. Using the first person plural and a verb of ocular vision he places himself amongst those who saw with their eyes (cf. 1 John 1:1) the glory of the Word Incarnate—that is, the external evidences of his divine majesty in words miracles, Transfiguration, Resurrection—a glory such as belongs to an Only-begotten (who came) from the Father. The Gk ?? (Lat. quasi) simply designates the quality or status (of Only-begotten)—the glory which he has as being the Only-begotten. 'From the Father' may be construed with glory or with Onlybegotten, but the latter seems more natural, cf. 16:27. 'Full of grace and truth', as far as the adjective goes (for it is indeclinable in the Koiné) may be attached to 'glory' or to 'Only-begotten', but Vg and commentators generally read the second distich as a parenthesis and make 'full' an epithet of the Logos dwelling Incarnate amongst us. Psalms 84(85):11 speaks of 'mercy and fidelity meeting each other'. This OT phrase is here found in surpassing fullness, but St John has taken the expression beyond its OT meaning. 'Grace' (a word which only occurs in the Prologue) means something more interior and unlimited than ?esed (cf. 16, 17), and 'truth' is not merely the faithful fulfilment of all God's promises but the new revelation of God's majesty and mysterious purpose formerly hidden in the inaccessible light of his divinity. 'Truth' especially stands in contrast to the umbratic revelation and regime of the Old Dispensation. It is a capital concept in St John's Gospel (cf. particularly 4:23; 8:32-46; 17:17; 18:37). 15 seems a surprising insertion, for 16 is the logical continuation of 14, but the Precursor's testimony is of paramount importance in the mind of the Evangelist. As the fact of the Baptist's testimony has been already announced in 6-8, its content is given here. Note the solemnity of the introduction; the perfect form of the Gk verb with present meaning renders, as it were, the ermanent proclamation of the great herald's voice: This is he of whom I said: He who comes after me [by reason of the time of his ministry] has taken rank before me [in dignity], for he was before me' [by reason of his eternal pre-existence]. 16 adds a third testimony from the experience of the Christian community ('we' standing for Christians, not merely for Apostles as in 14). The grace residing in the Word Incarnate was a plenitude, and not merely a derived but an essential plenitude springing from the fountain of the Word. Of that fullness 'we have all received, that is, grace for grace' ('and' is epexegetic). This phrase, according to a common meaning of the Greek ??t?, means a succession of graces, and has been variously interpreted—Gospel succeeding Law (St Chrysostom, but improbable, for Law was not grace) —Christian life succeeding faith—better, a continuous succession of graces showing their cumulative abundance. 17. The reason of this abundance is that a new economy has begun. The Law was given as an external ordinance through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ. The interior and real has taken the place of the exterior and the figurative. The proper name of the Saviour Messias occurs here for the first time, and thereby the Logos, 1, and the Incarnate, 14, is identified with Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ promised to Israel. 'Truth' means the revelation of God's intimate secrets. 18. No man could have brought such a revelation, for no man has ever seen God (except mediately, like Abraham, Moses and some of the Prophets). 'The Only-Begotteri God'—this reading of codices B, S, C, L, the Sahidic, Bohairic, Peshitta versions, and several Greek Fathers is preferred by most modern editors to the reading 'Onlybegotten Son' of other Gk codices, some Greek Fathers, the Vg and the Latin Fathers generally— that Only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father, conscious of all divine secrets with the consciousness of consubstantiality, he (??e?+????) has revealed (lit. told [it] forth, declared [the true nature of God]). Thus ends this sublime prologue. We now descend to historical narrative and follow almost a whole week of events, which, if the marriage of Cana took place on Wednesday (cf. § 786a), may be plausibly arranged between a Friday and a Wednesday in late February or early March. If we read p??? for p??+?t?? in 41, we should have a full week—from Thursday to Wednesday. It is the 'Holy Week' of the dawn of salvation. 1:19-6:72 THE PUBLIC , PART I I 19-2:12 The Messiah prepares for his Mission — In Jn official Israel is called 'the Jews'; these form a hostile body from the beginning. The movement of the whole Gospel is manifest in these early pages: an opposition developing into national apostasy, chh 1-12, a few faithful who will ultimately gather round Jesus to hear the last secrets of his heart in the Supper-room, chh 13-17, and after the momentary consternation of the Passion, chh 18-19, will rally again around the victorious Master whom they have not ceased to love, chh 20-21. I 19-34 The Precursor's Testimony before the Jews — Points to remember are: Jn supposes the synoptic gospels and their account of Christ's baptism; when he wrote, Judaism had fully declared over a period of sixty years and more its hostility to Jesus of Nazareth and his Church. Of the two testimonies here given before Judaism by the Precursor, one, 19-28, is spoken to a delegation from Jerusalem in the absence of Jesus, the other, 29-34, to a crowd [which also included the Delegation—Gen. Ed.] while the Precursor's index finger points to Jesus actually present on the scene. 19-28. We know that the Jerusalemitc attitude to John was superficial, 5:35, and quickly unsympathetic, Matthew 3:7; Matthew 11:18; Matthew 21:24-26. Some evidence of hostility may be gathered from the present section, but it is mainly a record of John's answer to an inquisitorial commission. The delegation is a highly official one, coming from Jerusalem, the centre of religious government, and composed of Priests and Levites—the former competent religious experts, the latter probably a sort of escort of temple police. 20. The Delegates refrain from asking the pointed question: 'Art thou the Messias?' but John answers the general question: 'Who art thou?' very pointedly, and with an emphasis and solemnity which is set in evidence by an introductory formula first solemnly positive, then solemnly negative, and once again solemnly positive, saying: 'I am not the Christ'—a categoric negative which provoked another question. 21. Words of Malachias, 4:5 [3:23], and Ben Sira, Ecclus 48:10 f., had given rise to the popular persuasion that Elias should come to anoint the Messias and manifest him ( Justin, Dial. 8, 4). The Baptist partly fulfilled the prophecy of Malachias (cf. Christ's words, Matthew 17:10 ff.; Mark 9:11 ff.), for he was Elias in spirit, but to the question of the Jews: 'Art thou Elias?' John answered even more briefly than before: 'I am not'. The question may not have been very serious, for John, in spite of his long stay in the desert, and in spite of his resemblance to Elias in garb and manner of life and fiery zeal, must have been publicly known as the son of Zachary and Elizabeth. Still we cannot be very positive regarding the forgetfulness which a lapse of 30 years can cause. There is, of course, no contradiction between Truth and the Prophet of Truth, for although John was the spiritual Elias of the first advent, he only denied that he was Elias in person. Another question remained. The Jews vaguely believed that some prophet, Enoch or Jeremias, would reappear as Precursor of the Messias, and they especially built on an imperfect interpretation of Deu 11:15: 'The Lord thy God shall raise up for thee from the midst of thee, from amongst thy brethren, a Prophet like to me: him you shall hear'. Moses' words were a prophecy of prophetism in Israel culminating in the Messias himself (cf. Acts 3:22; Acts 7:37); the Jews, however, thought confusedly that Moses foretold one whom they called 'the prophet', 6:14, whoever he might be, generally making him a Samuel or an Isaias or some other prophet redivivus. John's answer was categoric: 'No'. St Gregory and other Fathers have admired the Precursor's solid and curt adherence to the humility which is truth. 22. Pressed for a positive answer, the Baptist—never so styled, however, in Jn —applied to himself the words of Isaias, 40:3, concerning the herald of Israel's deliverance from Babylonian captivity. God's return at the head of a redeemed people was a figure of Messianic redemption, and the Precursor is the herald who calls for the preparation of a highway of penance. Coming from the mouth of the Baptist there is a very touching solemnity in the words: 'I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness . . .'. The voice sounds and vanishes, and John realized his role to be just that (cf. 3:30)—to fade before One greater than himself. 24. Some of those sent (?pesta?µ???? most probably without the article) were Pharisees and were particularly interested in ritual ablutions. 25. They asked why he baptized. 26. John explained. His was a simple baptism of water, with no inherent spiritual efficacy beyond its symbolic power of exciting repentance. Hereupon the Baptist turns the minds of his hearers from his own preparatory baptism to the One whose advent he was preparing, and who was already in the midst of Israel, unknown to Israel. 27. He was coming after his Precursor, but as the Perfect after the imperfect, as the Lord after the servant. In the matter of menial service John declares that he is not worthy to perform the lowliest office towards him, even that of loosing the strap of his sandals. It is noteworthy that John speaking to the delegates from Jerusalem does not mention the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but only draws their attention to the Person who is already in their midst. 28. The place is indicated, but Bethania (Bethany) beyond the Jordan has not been identified with certainty. It is, of course, to be distinguished from Bethany on Mount Olivet, less than two miles from Jerusalem. The name of this Trans-Jordanic Bethania seems to have disappeared before the 3rd cent., for when Origen visited the sacred places c a.d. 215 he found only a Bethabara, which, owing to his influence, but rather against his text-critical judgement, supplanted Bethania in some codices. The two places may have been near each other, for the etymological difference between Bethania and Bethabara is that between Ship-ham and Fordham. The place was probably near a ford or ferry of the Jordan and (we should surmise) not very far from the eastern head of the present Allenby Bridge. 29-34. —On the morrow Jesus appeared while John was surrounded by a number of disciples; cf. Orchard, "The Rejection of Christ", DR 56 ( 1938) 410-26. Recently returned from his fast in the wilderness and probably staying for the time being in some hut near the Jordan, the Saviour comes to John to receive testimony. The Matins hymn of St John's Nativity (24 June), the Liturgy, as well as Catholic devotion, and Christian art have emphasized the importance of this scene of 'the pointing finger', John's words designate Jesus as a Lamb belonging to God and therefore evidently sent by God and to be disposed of according to God's will. The lamb is a symbol of innocence, but whether John at this early stage of manifestation directly indicates that Jesus is a victim cannot be so easily decided—'a sinless Lamb taking away the sin of the world' may be the surface meaning of this word to the crowd, but the fullness of its meaning must include victimhood, for only thus did Jesus actually take away sin. There is an allusion to Isaiah 53:7, but whether John had the paschal lamb or the lamb of daily sacrifice in mind is disputable. 'Sin' is generic and includes all sin original or personal. The next verse, 30, marking Jesus as later than the Baptist in time, but prior in dignity, because of the priority of pre-existence, has been already explained. [It is also the answer to the delegation's question.—Gen. Ed.] 31. John's statement that he did not know Jesus before the day he baptized him is easily understood of a knowledge of visual recognition. John had been in the wilderness for about 20 years. 32 f. Though by divine inspiration he recognized Jesus before he baptized him. Matthew 3:14, the definite divinelyrevealed sign by which he knew him, so as to manifest him to Israel, was the dove, for thus only the giver of the baptism of water recognized the One who should baptize with fire—the reference here being not only to the thorough purification symbolized by fire, but also (prophetically) to Pentecost. 34. The sentence: This is the Son of God', has its plenary sense in the mouth of the Baptist: 'not revealed to him by flesh and blood' but by the voice at the Jordan and the illumination that went with his office of Precursor. 35-51 First Diselples —That this 'morrow', 35, is the first great day in the autobiography of John the Evangelist is unmistakable. It was also the day on which the Church began to find its Saviour. The solemnity and grace of the simple narrative are equal to the occasion: John the Baptist standing, two disciples near by, a loving look cast by the Precursor on Jesus walking by, the repetition of the great words: 'Behold the Lamb of God. . .'. 37. The two disciples followed Jesus. The heavenly attraction of which Jesus was to speak later, 6:44; 12:32, had begun to exercise its mysterious power. 38. Everything is vivid. Jesus turned and gazed on the two men following him. 'What is it you seek?' is perhaps a better rendering of the tone of Jesus' question, which is memorable as being the first word from the lips of the Saviour in Jn. The disciples' answer shows some embarrassment, but it beautifully and delicately expresses respect (Rabbi) and the desire to spend a while 'at home' with the new-found Master. 39. 'Come and you shall see' is the form which Jesus' gracious invitation has in the best MSS. The writer's precision is to be noted: 'They came, they saw . . . they stayed . . .' from about the tenth hour—from 4 p.m. till dark and (according to the laws of oriental hospitality) that night also. St Augustine's comment cannot be omitted: 'They wished to see where he stayed and to do what is written: "The threshold of his door let thy foot wear: rise and come to him assiduously, and be instructed by his precepts". He showed them where he stayed: They came and they were with him. What a happy day they spent, what a happy night! Let us also build in our heart and make a house for him to visit. Let him teach us, let him converse with us' (Tract. in Joann. in loc.). 40-42. Andrew (etymologically Manly) was one of the two; the other is not named, but the narrative is too intimate not to reveal him as the disciple whom Jesus loved; cf. chh 13-21. 41. The remark that Andrew first found his own brother Simon seems to suggest that John later found his own brother James; an implied reference to Philip and Nathanael, 45, seems improbable. The joy of an ancient sage made Heureka an enchanting word, but Andrew's assurance: 'We have found the Messias' was a more momentous heurekamen than any cry of a scientific discoverer. Messias is, of course, a Grecized Hebrew word meaning 'The Anointed (King of Israel)'. 42. John alone records the original circumstances of the change of Simon's name to Kêpha, which is Aramaic for Rock. Jesus looked fixedly upon him and, as it were, penetrated his soul, Ps138, before giving him the name, which designated him as foundation-elect of the Church, Matthew 16:18. 43-51. The fourth day of Jn's chronological sequence marks the beginning of Jesus' return journey to Galilee. The allusion to Jacob's Ladder in 51 justifies the conjecture that the route was westwards to Bethel and then along the chief northern highway through Samaria. 43. Philip ('lover of horses'), Greeknamed like his friend Andrew, 6:5, 8; 12:22, was, like him, from Bethsaida, a much Hellenized town on the east bank of the Jordan not far from its junction with the Lake of Genesareth. 44. He was probably predisposed by what he heard from his fellow-townsmen, but, in any case, he promptly followed a single word of invitation from Jesus, and communicated his enthusiasm to Nathanael. 45. This Nathanael (the name being equivalent to Theodore-Deusdedit) is now commonly identified with the Bar-Tolmai or Bartholomew who is closely associated with Philip in the synoptic lists of Apostles. He was from Cana, 21:2, 4 miles NE. of Nazareth. The wording of Philip's announcement to Nathanael would seem to indicate that the latter was a man of some scriptural learning, if not a scribe. Philip's description of Jesus from his putative father, Joseph, is not surprising, and its retention by St John is a guarantee of the historical fidelity of an Evangelist who knew Jesus to be the Son of God. 46. The uncomplimentary reference to Nazareth is almost proverbial. St Matthew saw verified, 2:23, the prophetic description of a lowly, despised Messias, when Jesus became a Nazarene. What we know of Nazareth from the Gospels, Luke 4:29; Matthew 13:54-58, does not give us a high opinion of its people. The sceptical question of Nathanael may, however, have had some local jealousy in it, but he loyally adopted the good method proposed by Philip: 'Come and see'. 47. 'Truly an Israelite' was a eulogy that had religious sacredness in it (since God himself had given the name ' Israel' to Jacob), and the compliment of guilelessness asserted Nathanael's sincerity. Jesus struck the very point of the newcomer's character as a religious man splendidly sincere. 48. There was no lack of humility in the question: 'Whence comes thy knowledge of me?' What Jesus then revealed about a crisis of thought or feeling experienced by Nathanael was clearly an example of the reading hearts (cf. Acts 1:24). It seems the event referred to was not recent, for, as we are some weeks from the Pasch (cf. 2:13), fig-trees were not yet in foliage. 49. In calling Jesus 'Son of God', Nathanael may indeed have vaguely confessed his divine origin, but our Lord's subsequent words show that he could not have realized its full import. He certainly confessed his Messiahship, for St John regards 'King of Israel' (cf. 12;13, 15) as a Messianic title. 50. Nathanael's act of faith was based on the manifestation of divine knowledge by Jesus. 51. The Master assured him that he should see greater things. The double Amen of solemn asseveration occurs here for the first of two dozen times in Jn. Jesus also used the single Amen, which the Synoptists retained throughout. The vision of heaven open and angels ascending and descending does not refer specially to any definite apparitions of angels between the end of Christ's desert fast (which was gone by) and the day of the Ascension. It alludes to Jacob's dream-vision, Genesis 28:12, of a ladder at Bethel (near which place our Lord probably was at the moment), and asserts that the Son of Man in his earthly ministry shall be the centre of communications between heaven and earth —these communications being conceived as angelic goings and comings. The order: 'ascent and descent' is not that of angelic motion but of a ladder the primary purpose of which is ascent. In this sentence the title 'Son of Man' occurs for the first time on the lips of Jesus (31 times in Mt, 13 in Jn). Here it is only necessary to repeat: (a) that the name carried a suggestion of human lowliness and poetic rareness; (b) that in our Lord's time it was not in use either as a substitute for the first singular personal pronoun nor as a Messianic name; (c) that (notwithstanding) it carried a thinking mind to the Messianic vision of Dan 7:13.; (d) that Jesus used it of himself with a variety of pointedness which was very suggestive (most often before his disciples, less often before Pharisees and scribes, seldom before the people, and most solemnly of all at his trial before the Sanhedrin); (e)that it had the fascination of mystery; (f) and lastly that being a humble title of the Messias, it did not continue to be used in the Church, being found only once in Ac, 7:55, on the lips of St Stephen, but in this case with deliberate allusion to Christ's solemn answer, when adjured by Caiphas to say who he was. No one who meditates these 33 verses (which follow the sublime Prologue) can remain insensible to the exquisite charm of the narrative. The voice of the great humble Precursor does its work, and the rally of these early disciples to a greater Master than John is the beautiful introduction to the history of Christianity. II 1-11 The Marriage Feast at Cana —1. The third day should be reckoned from the beginning of the Galilean journey which covered a distance of some 70 or 80 miles. It may have been a Wednesday, the usual day for the 'marriage of a maiden. The bridegroom and bride are unknown, and the identifications: Simon the Zealot, John the Evangelist, Susanna, etc., are mere romancing. Cana is not Qana 8 miles from Tyre, probably not Kirbet Qana near Sepphoris, but rather Kefr Kenna four miles NE. of Nazareth, for which there is a reasonably solid tradition. If, as is likely, Mary was present as a relative, the invitation to Jesus and his disciples would have been on her account, although Nathanael may have had something to do with it. St Joseph evidently was dead. 2. Nuptial festivities lasted a week and were called in Aramaic mištî?â (drink-festival) with which accords the rabbinical dictum: 'Where there is no wine, there is no joy'. 3. As wine supplies (especially when the family was poor) partly depended on gifts from those invited, the advent of Jesus and five disciples may well have contributed to the imminent (or already complete, Codex S) shortage, quickly noted by the charitable eye of the Blessed Virgin. Her brief announcement of the situation to Jesus is meant as a petition. 4. His answer has created three difficulties: (1) The term of address sounds severe, if not belittling; (2) the answer seems a refusal; (3) the reason given admits more than one interpretation. As regards the first: 'Woman' both in Gk and Semitic is a title not indeed of domestic intimacy (our Lord would not have used it at Nazareth) but of solemn honour. This honorific solemnity of the word on the lips of Jesus himself may be tested in John 4:21; John 20:15, but most of all in 19:26, when he addressed his mother from the cross. Concerning the second: the Master's question which literally reads: 'What to me and to thee?' has to be understood from biblical and not modern usage. Therefore it does not mean: 'What concern is it of ours?' or 'There is no need for you to tell me'. In all the biblical passages where it occurs, Judges 11:12; 2 Kg 16:10, 19:22; 4 Kg 3:13; 2 Par 35:21; Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24, the phrase signifies, according to circumstances, a great or lesser divergence of viewpoint between the two parties concerned. In 2 Kg 16:10 it means total dissent; in Judges 11:12 it voices a complaint against an invader. In our passage, also, divergence must be admitted. In a sense our Lord's answer is a refusal, but not an absolute refusal, rather a refusal ad mentem, as a Roman Congregation would say, and the Blessed Virgin understood her Son's mind from the tone of his voice. His first public miracle belonged to the divine programme of his Messianic mission into which flesh and blood could not enter. His answer is therefore an assertion of independence of his Mother, similar to the word he spoke in the temple about his Father's business. The Blessed Virgin's subsequent action shows that the tone of our Lord's protest on this occasion was neither a curt nor an unqualified refusal. On the third point, namely the sentence: 'My hour is not yet come', it is obvious that we cannot read the words as a question: 'Is not My hour already come?' Although the view has the support of Tatian, St Gregory of Nyssa and Knabenbauer, neither the context nor the Gk seem to admit interrogation. 'My hour' has been variously understood as the hour of my Passion when I shall recognize the mother of my mortality (St Aug), or (more probably) the hour fixed for my public manifestation through the working of miracles. 5. Mary, understanding perfectly that our Lord's action would not be a family business, but would nevertheless follow the course of charity, gave orders to the servants with all confidence. 6. The water-pots (perhaps mostly borrowed) were large, for water had to be taken from them and poured on hands and vessels according to the rules of Jewish purification. Stone and not earthenware was proof against legal defilement. Six pots, containing 2 or 3 attic metretae each, would give a total capacity between 6 x 2 x 8 1/2 = 102 and 6 x 3 x 8 1/2 = 153 gallons. 7. 'Filled . . . to the brim' shows the water, as it were, peeping out of the vessels and, no doubt, suggested Crashaw's beautiful pentameter: 'Nympha pudica Deum viditet erubuit—the bashful maiden water saw its God and blushed'. 8. The architrichlinus, to whom the servants were ordered to bring the wine in a smaller vessel, probably in a cup, was to be the first witness of the unexpected provision. He would have been a local expert in convivial arrangements, not a symposiarch of the classic type (cf.Ecclus 32:1). 9. He did not know whence the wine was. 10. But once he had testified to-its excellence, the servants could tell the facts. The custom: 'Good wine to fresh palates, and less good afterwards' is not otherwise known from contemporary writings, but we cannot deny its local authenticity—possibly it reflects Galilean parsimony—and it is certainly an outspoken testimony that would have called attention to the miracle, so that this would very soon have become known to all present. 11. This first of Christ's miracles is, like all others, a sign of his divine power showing the 'glory of the Only-begotten'. His disciples had already believed in him, but now they believed more strongly. Catholic piety finds almost inexhaustible riches in these 11 verses (Gospel of 2nd Sunday after Epiphany). The passage shows the sanctity of marriage, the Wisdom of God approving domestic joy, the power of the Blessed Virgin's intercession, and even the law of her mediation. Besides, it suggests the thought that Christ's own nuptials with his Church have begun, the water of the old dispensation is becoming the good wine of the new, and an image is offered of the Eucharistic wine which is to gladden the heart of man. 12 Descent to Capharnaum —Not long after the marriage at Cana Jesus went to Capharnaum—a descent of some 1,550 feet, from 870 above Mediterranean level to 680 below, in a distance of less than 20 miles. Not now but later he made Capharnaum his own city, Matthew 9:1, by adopting it as the centre of his Galilean ministry. The more probable and common identification is Tell Hum, but the site of Capharnaum has also been sought at 'Ain Tabigha, Kirbet Minych and even Kheraze—all of which are within a radius of a few miles. Capharnaum was a very Jewish city, and Peter and Andrew had a house there. It was a natural rendezvous for pilgrims forming into caravans for the Paschal journey to Jerusalem. The present stay, being for this purpose, lasted 'not many clays'. 'His brethren' were the cousins or other relatives of our Lord, and were certainly neither full nor half-brothers or sisters (cf. art. 'Brethren of the Lord' for discussion of the evidence). 2:13-3:36 First Judean Ministry. 13-22 Cleansing of the Temple —This cleansing is probably to be distinguished from that which took place on Monday before the Passion, Matthew 21:12f. That such a vindication by Jesus of the majesty of his Father's house occurred twice—at the beginning and at the end of the public life—is not improbable; the differences of detail are not favourable to identification; moreover. Jn and the Synoptists show enough chronological intention in the matter to exclude the hypothesis of one and the same event. [There are however weighty arguments for holding that there was only one Cleansing of the Temple and that it did indeed occur at the beginning of the public life of our Lord where Jn places it. The reason why the synoptic gospels place it at the end may be that Mk and Lk in general follow the arrangement of Mt which is logical rather than chronological, and which accordingly groups all incidents connected with Jerusalem' under the last Jerusalem visit.—Gen. Ed.] 13. The 'Pasch of the Jews' marks the feast as belonging to the old order. 'Ascent' was almost a technical term for the festal pilgrimage. 14. The sale of sacrificial animals (oxen, sheep, doves) and the setting up of tables of exchange in the court of the Gentiles, within the sacred enclosure (?e???) meant not only unbecoming noise and movement, Mark 11:16, but also avarice in which not the salesmen and changers only but the temple authorities also had their share. Foreign money had to be changed into the ancient half-shekel (called Tyrian, approximately Isaiah 6d) payable as annual capitation tax to the temple by every Israelite over twenty (cf. Matthew 17:24). 15. Cords were easily picked up in what had really become a market. Christ made a scourge ('as it were' is not represented in the best MSS). The text does not say clearly whether the scourge was used on both men and animals; presumably so, in keeping with the drastic action of spilling the coins (???µa) and overturning the tables of the bankers. 16. Though they sold the offerings of the poor, there is no sufficient reason for supposing that the dove-sellers were less guilty than the others. Christ's action stopped short of dispossessing the culprits, and birds in cages could not be driven out. Moreover, the word addressed to the dove-sellers is really addressed to all. 'My Father's house' involves the claim of divine Sonship. 17. This assertion of authority was so striking that the disciples thought of a verse from a Messianic Psalm, 68:10—quoted from LXX with its verb in the future. The verse is not merely accommodated, for in the Psalm the Just One is eaten up by his own zeal, not by the jealousy of persecutors. 18. Although the uneasy authorities had already received the witness of John the Baptist they now demanded further sign to authenticate Jesus' personal authority to act thus. 19. The answer is like that given later to similar demands made in bad faith (cf. Matthew 16:4): 'Destroy this Temple'—rather 'sanctuary' (µa??)—'and in three days I will raise it up'. The sign is the Resurrection. Consequently, our Lord's words refer in no sense to the material inner sanctuary of the Zorobabelian-Herodian temple. The concessive imperative 'Destroy' is prophetic, and shows clearly enough that the Jewish hostility which was to kill Jesus had begun that day. Such a saying from a Master, whose majestic zeal had just vindicated his Father's house, should have provoked attentive thought, and the history of our Lord's trial and crucifixion shows how it impressed itself; but actually it was now turned to ridicule. 20. A sanctuary 46 years in buildiftg to be destroyed and rebuilt in 3 days!—this is the sarcasm, which will be repeated on Calvary. The reference cannot be to the original Zorobabelian temple finished in 516 b.c. and not begun much earlier than 536. The Herodian reconstruction of Zorobabel's edifice is meant. This had begun in the 18th year of Herod's reign ( 20-19 b.c.) and is generally considered to have been finished only in a.d. 64. If the total includes the 18th year of Herod and counts 46 complete years up to the present Pasch (the aorist ????d?µ?T? with ?a?? not ?e??µ as subject, raises a doubt) we can fix with some confidence of probability the spring of a.d. 27 as the date of this event. [On the other hand Fr Sutcliffe (in A Two Year Public Ministry) has verified the contention of Fr Power Bi 9 ( 1928) 257 ff. that v 20 is to be rendered: 'This sanctuary has been built forty-six years', i.e. was completed 46 years before, in 9 b.c.—Gen. Ed.] 21. Jesus spoke, however, about the sanctuary of his body, the most holy of all temples. 22. After the resurrection the disciples entered fully into the resurrection texts of the Scripture and this word of Jesus. 23-25 Imperfect Converts —The feast lasted 8 days, during which time many believed on account of the miracles worked by Jesus. Miracles are strong arguments of credibility. They prepare the mind for faith, but faith and especially deep faith is not the mere impression of miracles. These new adherents of Jesus at Jerusalem 'believed in his name'—accepted him as a divinely-sent Master. 24. St John's double use of the verb p?steú? cannot easily be rendered in English. Those men trusted Jesus as a Master accredited by heaven, but Jesus did not trust himself to them. 25. The reason is that he had immediate and intimate knowledge of their dispositions—the 'searcher of hearts' had no need to be told what depth of faith these believers had. He did not communicate himself entirely to them. St Augustine's application to Catechumens is well known, but is only an accommodated sense. III 1-21 Nicodemus—The name is Greek (victorious people), but the Talmud also attests its Jewish adoption. Pharisee and Sanhedrist of the order of scribes (cf. 10) were the religious titles of Nicodemus. 2. His nocturnal visit shows timidity but not cowardice (cf. 7:15; 19:39), and he was also probably moved by a desire to have a quiet talk with Jesus. His approach is respectful (Rabbi) and shows a certain conviction, based on the miracles, regarding the divine mission of Jesus. Nicodemus associates himself with others (probably Pharisees or even Sanhedrists—cf. 12:42, though the Pharisees as a body were hostile). 3. The question of the kingdom of God is what is in the visitor's mind, and it is to this that the solemn answer of Jesus refers: 'Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God'. With the possible exception of Gal 4:9, NT and even Johannine usage stand for 'from above' rather than 'again' as a rendering of ???Te?. So also the Greek Fathers and many moderns. However, unless there is a similarly ambiguous word in Aramaic, our Lord, as interpreted by Nicodemus himself, spoke of second birth, other than one's first natural birth. This justifies our 'again', which represents not only the Latin version but also the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian. Without this second birth (which in any case must be 'from above') a man cannot belong to the kingdom of God ('see' has the sense of experience, enjoy). Kingdom of God occurs only here, 3, 5, in 'Jn. This term, familiar from the Synoptics, is broadly equivalent to life in Jn and to justice in St Paul. There is no real distinction between seeing the kingdom of God and seeing life, life, 3:36. 4. Nicodemus, probably an old man himself, reduces our Lord's words to the absurdity of an elder entering his mother's womb to be born again. 5. The answer of Jesus seems to attach itself closely to the impossibility thus crudely imagined. Water is like the material element giving the new birth, the fecundating power being the Spirit (many MSS of Vg have Holy Spirit). This concept is beautifully expressed in the Roman Rite of Elessing the Baptismal Font; 'From the immaculate womb of the divine font comes forth a heavenly offspring, born as a new creature'. Water, as the Council of Trent defined (Sess. 7, can. 2), is not to be understood in the metaphorical sense. There is no difference (except one of aspect) between seeing the Kingdom of God, 3, and entering into it, 5. 6. Like begets like. 'What is born of the flesh is flesh'—in the physical (not Paulinemoral) sense of the term—'What is born of the Spirit is spirit', that is, a spiritual being. 7. Jesus forestalls a second expression of wonder from Nicodemus on the subject of re-birth. It is mysterious, but one must not deny its reality because one does not know the whence, and the how and the whither of it. 8. The wind is taken as an analogy or parable. It comes apparently as it wills, and its whisper or growl or howl is heard, but one cannot say where it rises or where is dies away. So, the man born of the Spirit shows effects that are perceptible, but the vital processes of the Spirit are invisible. St Augustine supposes that the Holy Spirit is the subject throughout. If so, there may be a reference to the phenomena of Pentecost. 9. Nicodemus is still puzzled. 10. In view of Scriptural passages like Ez 36:25 f.; Isaiah 44:3, Jesus points to the anomaly of the ignorance of one who (of the two speaking) is the 'master of Israel', i.e. teacher and interpreter of the Law and Tradition. 11. Then to 'the master of Israel' and all like him Jesus asserts his own competence as a divine teacher. Ranging himself for a moment with all competent witnesses in any sphere—or using the plural of majesty (?) —he says: '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'. 12. Then, resuming the first singular, he refers to the incredulity provoked by his revelations on things (like regeneration) actualized here on earth, and argues (a minori ad maius) that the revelation of heavenly things—the mysteries of the divine being—will encounter still greater incredulity. 13. The Word Incarnate—for he is the real subject of this sentence—is the only witness of heavenly things. No one has ascended to heaven, so as to be there and know the things of heaven, but he that descended from heaven. Coming to be visibly on earth in human flesh—this is the metaphor of descent —he who is the Son of Man has not ceased to be in heaven. As the last phrase: 'Who is in heaven' is absent from some of the best MSS, including SB, it may be a gloss, but it is an excellent one, giving splendid prominence to the communicatio idiomatum, or interchange of divine and human predicates. 'Above' and 'below' are spoken of the one Person; the Son of God was on earth, the Son of Man was in Heaven. This last sentence, 13, really refers to the Incarnation rather than to the beatific vision, which Christ's soul possessed. 14 f. With the Incarnation the thought of Redemption is closely connected. Faith in the Word Incarnate must also be faith in the Redeemer. 14. 'Necessity' is a dominant idea in the whole passage, 7, 14. Here it is the necessity of Christ's redeeming death that is proclaimed. 'Exaltation' is crucifixion, 8:28; 12:32, 34. The brazen serpent raised by Moses as a divine remedy for poisonous serpent bite, Numbers 21:49; Wis 16:6 f., was a figure of salvation through Christ crucified. The non-poisonous likeness of a serpent looked upon with faith healed poisoned wounds and preserved, temporal life: the sinless Saviour in the likeness of sinful flesh heals the poison wounds of sin and gives life everlasting. 15. The negative side of salvation, namely, escape from perdition, is not mentioned in the best MSS, and probably comes from 16. 16-21. The arguments for regarding these lines not as words spoken to Nicodemus but as reflexions of the Evangelist, seem strong enough to establish a serious probability. It is pointed out that dialogue ceases, the verbs are in the past tense, several expressions occur which are Johannine but are not heard elsewhere from the lips of Jesus (e.g. 'Only-begotten', 'believe in the name', 'do the truth'). The last of these arguments is impressive, but on the other hand the language is extremely like that of the Johannine discourses of Jesus; no clear notice of a change of speaker is given; and the things said are very closely connected with the ideas of Incarnation and Redemption, to the consideration of which Jesus had led Nicodemus. 16. The motive and fount of salvation is God's love for the world—that is, for mankind. Love made God give and deliver to death his Son (co-equal with himself), his Only-begotten (infinitely beloved), with a view to the salvation of every believer from perdition into eternal life. 17. Salvation not judgement is the direct purpose of the mission of the Son of God. 18. Men make their own judgement by their attitude to him, 3:36; 5:24; 12:48. He who believes incurs no damnation. The unbeliever is already in the state of damnation (?????ta?), for he has established himself as an unbeliever (perfect tense) in the name—that is, in the mission and Godhead—of the Only-begotten Son of God. Note again the insistence on this double title of love and dignity, the order of words being the inverse of 16. The making of one's individual judgement in this actual terrestrial present is powerfully put in terms of light and darkness. The working of grace is supposed, but the accent is on the dispositions of men in regard to the light. St Augustine's application is justly celebrated: 'Many loved their sins, and many confessed their sins. He who confesses and accuses his sins is already on God's side. God (that is the light) accuses your sins: and if you also accuse, you are joined to God. There are, as it were, two things: the man and the sinner. God made man, and man made himself a sinner. Destroy what you made, that God may save what he made. You must hate your own work in you, and love God's work in you. When that which you made begins, to displease you, then your good works are beginning, in as much as you are accusing your bad works. The beginning of good works is the confession of bad works. You do truth, and you come to the light. What is it—to do truth? You do not fondle yourself, you do not caress yourself, you do not flatter yourself, do not say: I am just, when you are really not—then you are beginning to do truth', Tr. 12 in Jn. The same saint said: 'Sore eyes hate the light, which healthy eyes love 21. ' He who does the truth', that is, he who has the disposition that co-operates with truth, 'comes to the light, that his works may be made manifest as being done in God', that is, according to God's pleasure. 'In God', 'with God', Genesis 6:9, 'according to God', Romans 8:27, scarcely differ in meaning. The words of 19 ff., as this phrase indicates, are more general than St Augustine's comment and refer to the consciousness of general rectitude of life, which is co-operation with God, rather than to the acknowledgement of sin, which, however, is part of the rectitude or honesty of fallen man, cf. 1 John 1:8. Good will or a right heart prepares a man to welcome truth. 22-36 Last Testimony of the Precursor —No close student of Jn will escape the inclination to join the many modern commentators who regard 31-36 of this section as reflexions of the Evangelist. Still, there is not the slightest external indication of a change of speaker; the thoughts in 31-36 do not go beyond the Prccursor's understanding of the mystery of Christ (although we may admit that the Evangelist gives them something of his own personal style); the phrase 'wrath of God' at the end recalls the stern character of the synoptic accounts of the Precursor's preaching. 22-26. The time is loosely marked as after the visit of Nicodemus—presumably soon after the Paschal Octave, for after the departure of the pilgrims hostility to Jesus would have made itself more felt in Jerusalem. The text shows us the Divine Master in some country part of Judaea—a place of springs or streams, or perhaps near the Jordan. He stayed a considerable time there with his disciples, whom he commissioned (cf. 4:2) to exercise a ministry of baptism, more probably not that baptism which was to give the Spirit, 7:39, but rather a preparatory rite like that of John. 22. The Precursor had come to the west of the Jordan and moved north. Aenon (Ainon, exactly our English Wells) or Salim nearby is situated 8 Roman miles south of Scythopolis (Beisan) by the Onomasticon of Eusebius, by St Jerome ( Ep.73) and Aetheria. There are still five or seven wells within a small radius in this district. Salim 1 1/4 miles nearer the Jordan seems to have left its name in the modern Tell es-Sarem. 24. The indication: 'John not yet imprisoned' is a precious explanatory reference to the Synoptics, who could easily give the impression that Jesus'began his work only after the imprisonment of John. 25. The dispute of some disciples of John with a Jew (S corrected, 3, L, A) or Jews (S, Vg) about purificatory rites excited in the former a jealousy or group-selfishness towards Jesus which was indeed a felix culpa, for it occasioned the Precursor's very striking testimony. (Or was their jealousy really due to the fact that Jesus was now drawing larger crowds than their own master?) 26. The popularity of Jesus was evidently rising, and that of John falling in proportion. This was intimated in the disciples' report to John. 27-30. No wonder the Catholic Church has always given the Precursor a signal place of honour, due not only to his office but to the high dignity of his humility. These words of his are amongst the greatest and most beautiful ever pronounced by human lips. Their gravity, humility, grandeur, and exquisite beauty need to be 'relished interiorly'. 27. John's mission was from heaven, Matthew 21:25; Mark 11:30 f.; Luke 20:4 f., but to pretend to more than was given him would be usurpation. 28. He was not the Christ, but his Precursor. 29. Comparing himself to the chief friend attached to a bridegroom, he says that his role and his joy are just like those of such a sincere friend. When the wedding is being celebrated (Christ was already gathering the bridal body of his disciples; cf. Matthew 9:15), the 'best man' can only rejoice at the joyful voice of the bridegroom already happy in the possession of his bride. In this sense John's joy is full. 30. Jesus must increase in the esteem of a multitude of disciples, John must decrease. Let us recall the quaint but fascinating comment which we read in the Breviary (Aug. 29): 'John dwindled by decapitation, Christ grew on the cross'. 31-36. There seems to be no really cogent reason why we should not attribute these words to the Precursor. All other mortals and all other Prophets including John himself are compared to Christ. 31. The One whose origin is absolutely from above is over everybody. Terrestrial and celestial (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:47) are terms of immense distinction. The earthly has the limitations of earth, the heavenly is supreme. 32. As a witness of the things of God, he who comes from heaven has the authority of One who has seen and heard. No one, however (hyperbole for 'very few'), receives his testimony. 33. To receive his testimony is equivalent to declaring under one's own hand and seal that God speaks the truth. 34. The Divine Envoy's words are the words of God. The total definitive revelation of God is delivered by him, for God does not give the Spirit in limited measure to the Word Incarnate. 35. To the Beloved Son, 'in whom he is well-pleased', God must give and does give the plenitude of all authority. Surrender to him by faith brings life everlasting (begun here, consummated hereafter); on the other hand, unbelief towards the Son means the forfeiture of life and permanence in the state of wrath. IV 1-54 Through Samaria to Galilee —It is only at the beginning of this section that Jn first joins the Synoptists, Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:4; Luke 4:14, who begin the public life of Christ in Galilee. The short mission of two days in Samaria, 4:43, is an episode registered only by Jn. Lke Christ's brief stay in the territory of Tyre and Sidon at a later date, Matthew 15:21 ff.; Mark 7:24 ff., it was intended to show that salvation was not for 'the lost sheep of the House of Israel' only. 1-4 Motive of Journey —The Baptist was already in prison, Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14. 1. 'When the Lord therefore understood . . .' (B, C, A, L against S, D Vg). The Master's ordinary human knowledge of providential events usually determined his actions. At this point he knew that the Pharisees (the chief focus of hostility) were aware of the growing movement towards him and his baptism. 2. The remark that he did not himself baptize may be perhaps a further indication that no sacrament was yet administered. 3. Judaca was henceforth dangerous, and so the Messianic light was to rise in Galilee, Isaiah 9:1 f. 4. Some 'necessity' which Jn does not explain compelled Jesus to go through Samaria. If he was in the Jordan valley (and so it seems) the direct way would have been due north, but the Lord seems to have followed a western road, possibly the less frequented, difficult and fatiguing Wady path that passed by modern Dejân. We may conjecture that the' 'necessity' of journeying through Samaria was in the providential decree, for later ' Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth' was to be the Apostolic programme. 5-30 Meeting with the Samaritan Woman —The narrative is a little sketch of divine pedagogy. It not only shows Jesus thirsting and seeking a soul but reveals his method. 5. The place named Sichar (Sychar) was scarcely the ancient Sichem, replaced since Seleucid days by the city which Titus later rebuilt as Flavia Neapolis (Nablur, nearly a mile WNW. of Sichem). Though excavations of 1914 and 1926-8 have revealed that Sichem was still inhabited in the reign of Tiberius, nevertheless the name Sychar, the Onomasticon, the Madaba Map and many Itineraries rather favour the modern village of El 'Askar. This place, at the foot of Ebal to the south-east, is threequarters of a mile to the north of Jacob's Well, which is close to the foot of Garizim. Joseph's tomb, Joshua 24:32, in Joseph's field, Genesis 48:22, is popularly located about half-way. 6. The 'fountain' of Jacob was really a well supplied from a deep spring. It will be noted that Jesus and the Evangelist keep to the notion of spring (pege), while the Samaritan woman calls it a well (phrear). Tired from the journey—quaerens me sedisti lassus—Jesus sat beside or on the margin of the well. There are two significant details: Jesus sat thus—just as he was in his fatigue (Chrys.) just as a tired man sits—and 'it was the sixth hour', that is, noon, 'the hour of thirst' (Nonnus). 7. A woman of Samaria, not the city founded by Omri, but of the land of Samaria, came with her pitcher and rope to procure water. If she came from the township of Sychar, the distance was fairly considerable, and the hour was not the ordinary time (either morning or evening) for drawing water. And as Sychar ('Askar) has a copious spring of its own, the woman most probably came from the fields, and we may be sure that a special Providence arranged the details of that day. There is no reason to believe that the woman was known in Samaria by the symbolic name Photina (Lightsome like Latin Lucina) given to her in the Greek Menaea (Feb. 26) and the Roman Martyrology (March 20). Without any preliminary address, Jesus asked for a drink. St Augustine notes his double thirst, physical and spiritual, for he really thirsted for the faith of a human soul. 8. They were alone, for the disciples—a half-dozen perhaps—had gone in a body to buy food from Samaritans who could prove hostile. 9. The woman recognizing a Jew by his speech or by his dress, Numbers 15:37 f., called attention to the national hatred between Jews and Samaritans. The descendants of Sargon's and Esarhaddon's colonists from Cutha and other eastern cities were regarded as mixed pagans and schismatics. They had been rejected from partnership in the temple of Zorobabel in the 6th cent. marked as defiant schismatics when the apostate Jewish priest, Manasses, erected a temple on Garizim about 400 b.c., ranked with the hated Edomites and Philistines by Ben Sira, Ecclus 50:28; and their reciprocal animosities had survived the destruction of the Samaritan temple by John Hyrcanus in 129, b.c. Josephus ( Ant. 8, 11 and 20, 6) joins the Gospels, Luke 9:53; John 8:48, in showing that in our Lord's time friendly relations were not to be expected between Jews and Samaritans. 10. From the thought of national hatreds, however, and from regarding him simply as a Jew, Jesus raises the mind of the woman to God's love and to the gift from heaven which his own presence is to her. He has asked for a drink, but he can give her 'living water'—the symbol being that of a beverage like bubbling water from a spring (not dormant water from a cistern) figuring by its freshness a living and life-giving energy. 11 f. The woman now shows the impression made on her fundamentally good heart, for she addresses Jesus as Kyrie (Sir), but shifts the theme to the difficulty of a man with no hauling apparatus getting water from a well 100 ft deep, (this being a fair average from the recorded soundings), and also to the unlikely supposition that the stranger is greater than the Patriarch Jacob. She thought: either he means he can get water from this well—but how could he without a bucket, 11, or else he means he can get it from some other well or spring better than this; in which case he evidently thinks himself superior to Jacob, who made this well. No doubt, she suspects that he might be, after all. 13 f. Jesus turns the comparison of himself and Jacob to a comparison of the two waters. The water of Jacob's well relieves thirst only for a time, the water that Jesus gives is itself a perpetual spring, efficacious for life everlasting. The theological name for it is 'sanctifying grace'. Jesus certainly did not set the physical law of water seeking its own level before the Samaritan woman, but this illustration proposed by Menochius is a good one. 15. The woman is deeply impressed. Her answer should not be regarded as sarcastic, but as expressing the naïveté of imperfect understanding. She wants the water, for she now vaguely believes that Jesus is a worker of wonders. 16 f. There is an obstacle, and Jesus reveals it in the moral disorder of this woman's life. 'Call your husband' would have seemed a very natural remark, for a long public colloquy with a woman was not according to custom. The woman's denial that she had a husband was evasive, equivocal, and perhaps a lie, and it concealed ugly facts which Jesus with merciless mercy unmasked, asserting that her words were literally true. 18. The woman's record of five husbands in the past followed by the state of unlawful concubinage in the present would imply that she had contracted five lawful marriages (beginning probably from her fifteenth year), though we cannot tell for certain. It is possible that she may have been divorced by more than one husband. In any case, she is at present an adulteress. 19 f. In acknowledging Jesus to be a prophet she implicitly admits it, and is already sympathetically meeting the light of truth. She raises the question of the true religion in terms of the rival claims of Garizim and Jerusalem. 21-24. Jesus' answer, introduced by a solemn. 'Believe me' and a respectful title of address 'Woman', says that the time of particularist cults and local sanctuaries is nearing its end. For the first time in the Gospel record Jesus calls God 'Father', to be adored as such even by the Samaritans. These, heretofore accepting as inspired only the Pentateuch which they often misinterpreted as well, have adored 'what (they) know not' (i.e. know very imperfectly); but the Jews, being the people destined to give the world Messianic salvation have been progressively enlightened by Prophets and Psalmists and adore what they know. Worship in spirit and in truth is interior worship (not excluding bodily acts and ceremonies) carried out in the light of a full revelation. The hour of that spiritual, Catholic, perfect worship has come, for the Revealer is present. Such worship 'in spirit and truth' is the only worship proportioned to the pure spirituality of God. 25. The woman remarks that clarification on these points must come from the Messias, known by the Samaritans from the Pentateuch and called Tabeh ('the Returned' or 'the Converter'). 26. Thereupon Jesus pronounces the first great 'I am' of Jn. The Christ is sitting beside Jacob's Well and is revealing himself to a Samaritan woman. The One vaguely apprehended as a miracle-worker, 15, acknowledged as a Prophet, 19, is really the promised Messias. Such a revelation could be made in Samaria where Messianism was not contaminated with nationalistic and political aspirations. 27-30. Jewish custom was strict in regard to a man conversing with a woman in public. 27. Hence the surprise of the disciples, who concluded that some necessity had occasioned the conversation, but out of respect for their Master they asked no question. Meanwhile the woman (in a state of excitement, for she leaves the pitcher behind) has gone to the city. 29. Forthwith she becomes an apostle. Either Jesus had told her other things from her past life, or the expression 'all I ever did' is very natural feminine hyperbole. She does not doubt that Jesus is the Messias, but she invites the inhabitants of Sychar to test it for themselves. Her persuasive tone easily moves a people naturally curious and not indisposed to spend an hour on something new. 31-42 Results—31-34. The disciples expected Jesus to eat. He had been hungry as well as thirsty but had undergone the well-known psychological experience of hunger vanishing before a deeper desire, that of converting a soul. This is the satisfying food that his disciples did not know. They thought that he had received something to eat. He explained that the doing of his Father's will and the accomplishment of his Father's work was the supreme satisfaction of all his desires—it was 'his food'. 35-38. The Father's work, which is Christ's work, is to be also the work of the disciples. It results in the gathering of a spiritual harvest. A remark recently made by the disciples, perhaps at the very moment that they came in view of the Plain of Machneh and the fertile valley between Ebal and Garizim, is taken by Jesus as his introductory sentence; moreover, a sufficient sprinkling of white in the garments of the approaching Samaritans would justify the verb of ocular vision. 35. 'Do not you say', etc. : this remark cited from the mouth of the disciples marks a date— January a.d. 29, four months from the wheat harvest. The suggestion that it is a proverb meaning that 'everything takes time' is not likely, and seems excluded by the assignment of a minimum space of four months between sowing and reaping instead of the ordinary or maximum, namely five or six. Besides, the opposition is between four months hence and this moment; see Bover Bi 3 ( 1922) 442-4. The golden or yellowing harvest of the British Isles is a white harvest under the Palestine sun. From the harvest already in view and represented by the troop of Samaritans Jesus passes to the reapers. 36-38. Let the apostolic reapers have the joy of their work and of their reward, but let them humbly remember the proverb, 'The sower is not always the one who reaps'. The disciples will reap a harvest which Moses and the Prophets and Jesus himself have sown, as laborious tillers of the soil. This thought, while bringing humility in apostolic success, also brings consolation to those who expend apparently sterile labour in what seems an unpromising apostolic field. Cf. 1 Corinthians 3:6-9. 39. The first-fruits of the harvest from that city were those who were convinced by the woman's faith in the 'Searcher of hearts'. 40. Contact with the Master excited the charity of hospitality in them. Christ accepted, but as his mission was to the House of Israel, stayed only two days—St Augustine's 'two days on account of the two precepts of charity' is perhaps not exegesis but is worth recording. 41. No miracles are mentioned; but many more converts surrendered to the power of truth in Jesus' words. Genuine faith —better than the weak miracle-produced conviction of those in Jerusalem, 2:23—seems like the supernaturalization of an innate sympathy for truth. 42. Besides the human touch in the remark to the woman, note the occumenical title given to the Saviour in keeping with that worship which belongs particularly neither to Garizim nor to Jerusalem. 'Saviour of the world' occurs only here, as the fruit of Samaritan lips and under John's own pen, 1 John 4:14; but cf. Genesis 41:45, where the phrase is used of Joseph. For the pagan use of this title, cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p 369. Philip the Deacon was the next preacher in Samaria, Acts 8:5 ff. 43-45 Return to Galilee —It is only by the unlikely supposition that Jn is tacitly alluding to the hostility of Nazareth, Luke 4:24, that our Lord's saying in this context about a prophet in his own country can be referred to any country except his birthplace Judaea, where the proverb had just been verified. Jesus applied the same proverb later to Nazareth, the place of His boyhood, adolescence and hidden life. 45. The enthusiastic welcome of the Galileans is explained by what pilgrims from there had seen Jesus do in Jerusalem—nearly ten months earlier according to our chronology (or two months ago according to those who date these verses June a.d. 28). 46-54 Cure of Officer's Son —46. In Johannine geography Cana of Galilee is the place where Jesus made the water wine. The name naturally became music to St John the Apostle, the guardian of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The man, whose son was sick at Capharnaum, was not a ruler (ßas??ís??? of the group of MSS to which D belongs, represented by Vg regulus) but a royal officer (ßas??????), an official of Herod Antipas, conjectured by some (with fair plausibility) to be the procurator Chusa, husband of Johanna, Luke 8:3. 47. Hearing of Jesus' arrival from Judaea, it seems that he came expressly from Capharnaum, seven hours' journey on foot, though as a royal official he would ride. He must have pressed Jesus to go down to Capharnaum (1,500 feet of descent) that very day, for the boy was dying. 48. Not only did Jesus use reserve towards faith which was mainly the emotional impression produced by miracles, 2:23 f., but he warned against losing the divine significance of miracles by accepting them as merely useful, 6:26, or as feeding the appetite for wonder. Mere wonder-miracles he never worked, Luke 23:8. Hence Jesus combined 'signs and wonders (prodigies)' in the remark addressed in the plural number to the official and meant for others besides him. His faith was, in any case, far below that of the centurion of Capharnaum, Matthew 8:8 f., for he considered that Jesus had to be present to work a miracle. 49. The repeated pleading of the father is respectful and touching, especially when we consider that the best Gk MSS have my little boy' instead of 'my son'. 50. Note the brevity of the assurance of Jesus, the fewness of whose words in working miracles (cf. Matthew 8:3; Mark 5:41; Luke 7:14; John 11:43) reminds us of the Fiat of creation. The text can be taken to imply that the believing father set out on the homeward journey at once, but it would have been more in accord with oriental behaviour for him to have spent the night at Cana and to have begun the descent the following day. 51 f. His servants came up to meet him and reported the cure as having happened yesterday at the seventh hour, between 1 and 2 p.m. 53. The father could thus note the synchronism of the cure at Capharnaum and the words pronounced by Jesus twenty miles away at Cana of Galilee. Not only the official became a believing disciple but his whole household, like the household of Cornelius converted in later days by St Peter at Caesarea and the household of Lydia by St Paul at Philippi. 54. St John, with the obvious intention of supplementing the synoptic gospels, here emphasizes two journeys of Jesus from Judaea into Galilee since the events of the Jordan—each arrival being marked by a miracle, one worked at Cana, the other from Cana. V 1-47 A Feast at Jerusalem —Geographical and also exegetical reasons have led many to suspect that the original order of Jn was chh 4, 6, 5, 7, on which see § 781k,l.Ch 5 shows the opposition of the Jews definitely marshalled—that is, the leaders of the nation at Jerusalem, especially Pharisees. If the time is a Paschal festival, we have the striking sequence that similar opposition asserts itself vigorously in Galilee a little later, and on the same sabbatarian grounds, Mark 2:23 ff.; Luke 6:1 ff.; Matthew 12:1 ff. In Jn, however, which concentrates on the opposition at Jerusalem, the charge against Jesus, though connected with an alleged case of Sabbath-breaking, soon centres on his claim to equality with God—the real reason for their compassing his death. 1-9 Miracle at the Pool of Bezatha —1. In writing 'a festival of the Jews' the Rheims translators assumed the non-authenticity of the Gk definite article before 'festival'. Certainly MSS and versions, numbered and weighed, leave a strong critical doubt. Editors generally vote for the omission of the article, but in this case we here meet the sole instance of Jn speaking vaguely of a festival and the sole instance in his Gospel of the absence of the article before this particular word. The reading has a bearing but not a necessary bearing on chronological calculation. Without prejudice to the very respectable probability of a public evangelical ministry of only two years and some months, we follow the system suggested by our interpretation of 4:35, and give preference to a ministry of three full years and four Paschs of which this festival would be the 2nd. Of those who transpose ch 5 some hold the festival of 5:1 to be the Pasch mentioned as near in 6:4 (Joüon, Braun, Sutcliffe), others hold for Pentecost (Lagrange), while other supporters of a two-year ministry make it a lesser feast—that of Trumpets (Durand) or Purim (Prat). However unlikely it might seem, we cannot, of course, say a priori that Jesus would not have gone up to Jerusalem for what was New Year's Day or even for the very much secularized feast of Purim or 'Lots'. [If Purim be the feast in question, then a two-year Ministry is likely. —Gen. Ed.] 2. The original Rheims version adhered over-literally to the pre-Clementine designation of the Pool, translating 'upon Probatic'. Neither should it be translated 'a Pool (called) Probatic', as the present Vg text has it, but a swimming pond (????µί?T?a) near 'the sheep-gate', that is, at the NE. corner of the Temple Area. The place-name is probably Bezatha (S, Bethzatha), meaning '(Quarter of) the (Rock) Cutting' rather than Bethsaida (B, W, Vg) or Bethesda (A) which last some have favoured with perhaps not sufficient critical detachment from its beautiful symbolic meaning: 'House of mercy'. Excavations made less than 4 yards NW. of the Crusaders' Church of St Anne have brought to light this natatoria, a great oblong with four lateral porches and a fifth central dividing porch. 3b. Here the sick lay 'waiting for the moving of the water'. Critically the participial phrase is very doubtful, being absent from S, B, C, L, A and the doubt is even greater for 4. The Decree of Trent (Sess. iv) does not forbid us to regard the words as a gloss, since the form of 4 varies very much even in the Vg MSS. Neither does the Church in her Liturgy intend to decide the question, when she assigns John 5:1-4 to the feast of the Archangel, St Raphael, precisely on account of this 4th verse. [Since v 7 refers to a moving of the water it would seem that a glossator felt it necessary to insert this explanation of the phenomenon.—Gen. Ed.] 5. Every priest knows St Augustine's ingenious tropological accommodation of the 38 years of infirmity, according to which perfection symbolized by the number 40, when diminished by 2 symbolizing the two precepts of charity, becomes imperfection and infirmity—it should not, however, be presented as exegesis! 6. In reply to Jesus' question, the man expressed his desire to be cured, especially because his malady was connected with personal sin, 14b. 7. The man, who seems to have been a paralytic, was powerless to reach the source of health without a helper. 8. The thaumaturgical words of Jesus are like those spoken to the paralytic of Capharnaum, Matthew 9:2 f.Krabattos (Lat. grabatus) is a Macedonian word denoting a rudimentary bed, generally a simple mat. 9. The cure was immediate. 10-16 Sabbatarian Grievance —10. There are more than twenty, perhaps as many as forty, sabbatarian carrying prohibitions in the Mishnaic treatise Shabbath, the carrying of an empty bier or bed being included by implication—in fact, carrying any material burden in the usual way was regarded as forbidden. 11. The logic of the restored man's answer is that a miracleworker will be ready to answer for himself. 12. The Jews ignore the miracle and concentrate on the violation of the Sabbath. 13. As Jesus had withdrawn, before a demonstration should take place in such a crowded spot (cf. Matthew 12:16-21), the man did not know who had healed him. 14. The good spiritual effect of the miracle is probably to be recognized in the man's visit to the temple. The warning given by Jesus shows that in this case there was personal sin behind the infirmity. It is not always so, 9:1-3, and here we cannot say whether sin was the direct physical cause of the malady or the moral cause of such a particular form of penal retribution (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:30). 15. The man's report to the Jews was not a denunciation but a solemn attestation of the identity of his benefactor. 16. [Both verbs are in the imperfect tense in Gk, and could signify: 'Therefore the Jews began to persecute Jesus because he began to do these things on the sabbath'. Jn would then be noting the first employment of a new technique of persecution subsequently used with effect in Galilee.—Gen. Ed.] The Jewish persecution on account of this cure evidently took the form of a direct reproach. 17-30 Claim to Divine Sonship —17. Jesus' answer, in which he claims identity of activity with his Father, is the key to 19-30. It reads: 'My Father is working (even) till now, and I (too) am working'. 18. As St Augustine acutely remarked: The Jews understood what the Arians did not understand. The Arians denied the equality of the Son with the Father, which those blind Jews, those murderers of Christ understood from the words of Christ himself. 19-30. The subject of these difficult verses is not the Word simply but the Incarnate in his consubstantial oneness with the Father and his authority towards men as the giver of divine life and the judge of those who refuse to believe. There is unity of activity between the Father and the Son and also co-equality of dignity and honour. The Son (and he Incarnate) works miracles and gives life, because his Father works (through the one divine nature) the identical works; it is likewise the Son Incarnate who judges the living and the dead, and precisely because he is man he does so by the final visible judgement which permanently fixes men's voluntary attitude towards him. It is well to keep the concrete circumstances of the discourse in mind, for all the deep theology which this short passage yields is not the immediate object of exegesis, which simply explains the text. 19. When Jesus implied that his action in curing the man was no more Sabbath-breaking than the incessant action of God in the world, the Jews rightly inferred that he made himself equal to God. Jesus does not deny this, but affirms it more strongly. The equality is ineffably real, because it means oneness of action. Jesus is evidently speaking of divine works such as the miracle just wrought. Action depends on knowledge, and there is a perfect communion of knowledge between the Father and the Son, so that the Son cannot do anything except what he 'consubstantially' sees the Father doing. 'To see', says St Thomas, 'is to receive the divine knowledge'; St Augustine had already said that both to hear from the Father and to see was to be from the Father, Deus ex Deo. Following a suggestion of St Cyril of Alexandria we might crystallize the thought in Greek terminology by saying that the homognosis from which the common action comes is really homoousia. There is no divine work that the Son does not do together with the Father, and not merely after the manner that human brain and hand work together in writing, doing the same thing but differently. The Son does every work 'in like manner', that is equally. There is no question of the Son just imitating the Father. 20. The metaphor of 'showing' on the part of the Father corresponds to the metaphor of 'seeing' on the part of the Son, and, as St Thomas points out, the love of the Father for the Son is rather the sign than the cause of this community of knowledge and operation. Greater and more astonishing works of divine power are yet to come from the Word Incarnate. 21. Jesus turns to the idea of life—by which, with St Augustine, we understand supernatural life, which is primarily the life of the soul but also includes the resurrection of the body on the last day. Consequently, the dead whom the Father raises and makes to live are sinners. Of these the Son is equally the free Resuscitator and Vivificator. 22. When it is said that the Father does not judge any man, but has given all judgement to the Son, it seems that, in accordance with the constant signification of ??ís?? in Jn, we must understand not a judgement of discussion but of condemnation, viz. exclusion from eternal life. 23. This communication from Father to Son demands that all men give the Son co-equal honour. In fact, refusal to honour the Son is refusal to honour the Father who sent him. 24. Acceptance of the word of Jesus and belief in his divine mission infallibly gives eternal life (i.e. grace destined to be consummated in glory). The true believer does not incur damnation, but by the act of belief (informed by charity) has definitely passed from the death of sin to the life of supernatural grace. 25. The world is an immense necropolis, but the hour is coming, yea rather now is, when those spiritually dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God calling them to life, and those who hear with the virtue of faith shall have life. 26. The Son's power of giving life comes from his having it. To have life in himself essentially, not participatively, is his prerogative as much as it is the prerogative of the Father. 27. Moreover, the Father has given him power to exercise judgement, for the visible giver of life (Son of Man) must visibly exclude the unworthy. 28 f. This visible function at the termination of human history evokes the thought of the general resurrection. To remember that he is the One who shall call all men from their tombs to different destinies according to their works will make what he has said appear less amazing. It is quite clear in this statement that not faith alone but works rooted in faith shall decide the resurrection of men to life rather than to the judgement of condemnation reserved for those who have done evil things. 30. Using the first person and a device of speech known as inclusion, Jesus applies the word of his exordium, 19, to his office of judge. In this as in other divine works he can do nothing from himself. Note that while he used the verb 'to see' when speaking of himself as operator, he uses the verb 'to hear' when speaking of himself as judge, but when there is question of a condemnation which, as involving executive authority, is particularly a decree of the will, the justice of it is referred to the conformity of Christ's human will with the divine will. Let us remark in conclusion that no one may say that he has understood these 12 verses perfectly, for they are full of the mystery of the Incarnation. 31-47 Jewish Incredulity —All this is both believable and to be believed, and the Jews have ample testimony of it. This Jesus proceeds to show, appealing by condescension to the testimony of the Precursor, 33-35, but chiefly to the testimony of the Father, 32, given in the works that Jesus does, 36-38, and given also in the Scriptures, 39 f., 45-47. He shows at the same time that the cause of the Jews' infidelity was their self-seeking vanity, 41-44. 31. Jesus could and did, 8:14, testify to himself, but here he makes a concession to the legal axiom that no one is to be believed when testifying in his own favour. 32. The true testimony that Jesus can evoke is that of his Father, although he does not yet clearly say so. 33. Meanwhile, ad abundantiam iuris, he refers to the recent and true testimony of one commonly regarded as a Prophet, recalling the declaration made by the Precursor to the solemn delegation sent from Jerusalem. Quite evidently John declared the truth. 34. Not that Jesus needs human testimony, but he will use the impressiveness of John's emphatic words to help the Jews to salvation. 35. Unfortunately they have behaved like children. Before that burning and shining lamp (not yet, it seems, extinguished but hidden behind the walls of Machaerus) they were delighted for a time, but soon turned away on the facile pretext that John was a demoniac, Luke 7:33. 36. His divine works are the greater testimony to which Jesus can appeal. Of the two exceedingly difficult verses, 37, 38, which follow, the best interpretation seems to be that which supposes an allusion to Deuteronomy 18:15-19. It is substantially this: The Father has left testimony (whom your fathers at Sinai asked neither to see nor hear any more save through Moses); and what is more, the word of God you have not abiding in you, because you do not believe the Prophet, Deuteronomy 18:15, whom he has sent. From this Jesus passes to the testimony of the Scriptures. 39 f. The absence of any other exhortatory imperative and the implied contradiction between seeking life in the Scriptures and rejecting the Giver of life, seem to commend the indicative: 'You search' rather than the imperative 'Search'. In writings that contain the words of life and show the Messias the Jews seek what suits their own ideas and consequently they do not come to Jesus, in order to have life. 41 f. Jesus says this, not because he seeks glory from their coming to him, but because he knows that it is through want of genuine love of God that they have gone astray in their quest. 43. The Envoy of God they will not accept, but a pretender they are always ready to receive—a truth only too well demonstrated in the later history of Judaism, which, it is said, records 64 false Messias, 25 of whom are known by name. 44. The real obstacle is what we should call hypocritical respectability—the fundamentally wrong disposition called human respect. The seekers of self and human praise are far from faith, access to which is in the humble desire to please God alone. 45-47. The accuser of the Jews shall not be Jesus but Moses in whom they have set their hope, but whom notwithstanding they refuse to believe. If they believed Moses, they would believe the Christ of whom Moses wrote, when he recorded the words on the Seed of the woman, Genesis 3:15, the blessing of Abraham, 12:3, the heir of the sceptre of Juda, 49:10, the Star arising out of Jacob, Numbers 24:17, the great Prophet, Deuteronomy 18:15. How can disciples of Moses, 9:28, who pride themselves on their knowledge of the written word, 7:49, and yet do not really believe it, have faith in the mere spoken words of Jesus? Let us remember that Jewish Scribes and Pharisees were worshippers of the letter, 2 Corinthians 3. VI 1-72 The Bread of Life —The time interval between chh 5 and 6, according to the chronological system here adopted, is almost a full year [but only two months if Purim is the 'feast' of ch 5.—Gen. Ed.], which may be filled up by a synoptic harmony based on Mark 2:23- Mark 6:29. This episode—the longest Galilean piece in Jn—includes (1) the two miracles of the first multiplication of bread, 1-15, and of Christ walking on the water, 16-21, (2) the Eucharistic discourse at Capllarnaum, 26-59-60, with an introductory prologue giving a composition of circumstances, 22-25, and an epilogue showing 'the discernment of spirits' on the theme of the Bread of Life, 60-61-71-72. The miracles that precede the Promise prepare the way for belief in it, for he who fed more than 5,000 miraculously can feed the world eucharistically, and he who walked on water as on solid ground can command and suspend other conditions of matter, in order to be sacramentally present to feed the souls of men. 1-13 First Multiplication of Bread —The miracle is the only one narrated by all four evangelists, the most vividly picturesque description being that of Mk, to which however Jn adds some precise details, such as the question addressed to Philip individually and the discovery made by Andrew. 1-4. Jn's opening indication of time denotes only sequence, without any chronological precision. What direction the journey across the Lake took is not stated but, unless the context decided otherwise, it should be as obvious as trans Tiberim was to a Roman. The crossing was from the western shore, on the northern curve of which stood Capharnaum, the missionary city of Jesus, to the eastern side dominated on the north by Bethsaida Julias. The Sea of Galilee, also called the Lake of Genesareth, Luke 5:1, is named by Jn only (cf. 21:1) from the city built on its western shore by Herod Antipas, between a.d. 26 and 28, and named Tiberias after the reigning Emperor. This name of the Lake had established itself when Jn was written. The occasion of the journey is gathered from the Synoptists. Matthew 14:12 f. connects it with the Precursor's murder, and thus it may be interpreted as a temporary withdrawal from the murderer's territory to that of Herod Philip. Mk and Luke 9:10 date it after the return of the Apostles from a mission; and the former specifies that the Master wanted to give the Twelve a rest from the exhausting work that followed their return, Mark 6:31.2. Popular enthusiasm had been running very high; and while Herod imagined that the Miracle-worker of Galilee was John returned to life, others were ready to regard him as Elias or the Prophet, Deuteronomy 18:15. The miracles worked on the sick made the crowds (augmented by Paschal pilgrims) observe the departure of Jesus and also urged them to follow him. They flocked to the same destination on foot, Mark 6:33.3. The mountain on which Jesus sat with his disciples looked out on the Plain now called El Bateha. There is an indefinable solemnity in this simple session. 4. The proximity of the Passover is doubtless marked for a special reason. Twelve months hence the festival of the Jews will give place to 'the new Pasch of the new Law'. 5-9 5. Till the afternoon, Lk, and the approach of evening, Mt, Mk, Jesus taught the crowds, Mk, Lk, and healed their sick, Lk. Mk notes his pity for their abandonment and his care for their hunger, which latter Jn epitomizes in the gesture of Jesus surveying the crowd with his eyes and in his question to Philip on the possibility of buying bread to feed them. A dismissal of the crowd, who could scatter and find food in the surrounding villages had already been suggested by the Apostles. 6. The question addressed to Philip was a test put to one who seems to have been a business man. Jesus himself knew what he would do. 7. The contemporary local price of bread is unknown to us, but Philip estimated that the wages of a labourer working six days a week for eight months would not suffice to procure a little for each of the many gathered there. 8 f. Andrew, who like Philip was from Bethsaida, found a boy with five barley loaves (the food of the poor) and two little fishes salted perhaps at Taricheae, the 'Salt Fish City', at the SW. corner of the Lake. As three of those small flat Palestinian loaves were required to give one man a fairly abundant meal, Luke 11:5, the supply discovered would have made a picnic for only two or three, or at most five persons. Hence Andrew's question: What are these among so many? 10-13 10. Mt, Mk and Jn note the grassy verdure of the place where the 'Lord prepared a table in the wilderness'. The grass also marks the springtime. Five thousand men, as well as women and children (not estimated but presumably in inferior numbers) sat down or reclined in companies of 50 or 100, Mark 6:40. Mk's description is exquisitely graphic. They looked like flower-beds on the green. 11. Jesus took the loaves. Jn does not note the gesture of looking to heaven, which owing to the analogy of the situations has passed from Mt, Mk, Lk to the Qui pridie narrative in the Latin Mass, but Jn does use e??a??st?sa? instead of the e?????sa? of the synoptists. This verb deliberately repeated in 23 should be regarded as a distinct allusion to the Eucharistic significance of the miracle. The distribution was made by the Apostles, Mt, Mk, Lk, the bread being multiplied either antecedently, or when passing from the hands of Jesus, or (most probably) in the hands of the Apostles. From the loaves and likewise from the fishes each received not the 'little bit' envisaged by Philip but a full meal. 12. The gathering tip of the fragments was an act of reverential economy towards the gift of God. 13. The place of the Twelve is put in evidence by the 12 baskets—Jewish travelling baskets were almost proverbial ( Juvenal, Sat. III, 15; Martial, Epig. V, 17). Let us take St Augustine's advice and not merely look at the outside of the miracle, like a man who admires calligraphy which he cannot read. Mental comprehension, not mere ocular or imaginative apprehension, should be our endeavour, when we read this miracle on Laetare , Sunday. The same Word, 'by whom are all things', feeds the world from a few grains of corn, and the same also multiplies himself Incarnate on thousands of altars. 14-15 Effect of the Miracle—14. Though the scribes distinguished, the crowds often identified the Prophet of Deu 18:15 with the Messias. The recent death of the Baptist, the growing fame of Jesus, the national fervour of the time shortly before the Pasch worked together with the miracle to precipitate a popular conclusion. In identifying Jesus with the Prophet the crowds also echo the great festal Psalm: 'Blessed is he that cometh', etc. 15. The rising ferment that would have seized Jesus and set him on the throne of David could have been known by our Lord in an ordinary human way, as Jn's aorist participle suggests. He fled again into the mountain himself alone. No doubt his prayer was like that of the night before he chose the Apostles, Luke 6:12, for the great Eucharistic crisis was at hand. 16-21 Christ walks on the Water —16. The embarkation of the Apostles, as darkness was setting in, was not spontaneous. Jesus, wishing to prevent the contagion of popular Messianism from catching them compelled them to depart, Mk, Mt. 17. The journey to Capharnaum, was only some 4 miles almost due west, but Mk indicates, 6:45, that they first turned north-west towards Bethsaida (then much nearer the shore of the Lake than the modern Et-Tell which occupies its site). Some scholars hold without sufficient grounds that there were two Bethsaidas, an eastern and a western. Supposing only one, the Apostles would have expected Jesus to join them there. When he did not do so, they would have turned the boat towards Capharnaum. 18. The adverse wind which stirred the sea against them as they rowed was evidently a north-westerly, strong but not tempestuous. 19. As the stadion is nearly an English furlong, they had only proceeded between three and four miles at the fourth watch, i.e. about 3 a.m., Mt, Lk. Then Jesus appeared walking on the water, drawing near the boat, Jn, but moving as if to pass it by, Mark 6:48. 20. He revealed himself. 'It is I; be not afraid' is given by Mt, Mk and Jn. Mt alone records the incident of St Peter and the growing perception of divine sonship. 'Truly thou art the Son of God'. Jn had no need of recording these, but certainly they prepared St Peter for the magnificent act of steadfast faith that was to come, John 6:69 f. 21. As the verb translated: 'they were willing', is one of desire fulfilled, it means that the Apostles did actually take Jesus into the boat, Mt, Mk. The wind ceased, Mt, Mk, but we cannot say with certainty whether Jn indicates a further miracle (one of velocity) when he tells that 'immediately' the boat reached land. The landing-point broadly indicated by Mt and Mk as being at Gennesaret may have been as far south as Dalmanutha (some place north of Magdala). This and the miracles demanded by local people would explain how Jesus reached Capharnaum only in the evening, when the Sabbath had begun. 22-25 Narrative Introduction to Eucharistic Discourse —22. Jn describes the situation on the east coast next day. The crowd that still remained, having bivouacked at El-Bateha, knew that the only boat had left the evening before, and Jesus had not gone in it. 23. In the course of the morning other boats from Tiberias came near where the miracle preceded by 'the Lord's thanksgiving' (eucharist) had taken place. 24. As Jesus had not appeared and was nowhere to be found, as many as could made the westward journey to Capharnaum on the available boats, seeking Jesus. 25. They found him. Jn does not say when or where, but clearly that same day, and probably in the evening, at the synagogue of Capharnaum, 59-60. In asking when Jesus had come they certainly also wanted to know how he had come. 26-60 The Eucharistic Discourse —The numbering of verses is according to Vg. It is sufficient to note here once for all that 51 of Gk text makes 51, 52 of Vg and DV, and so the latter's 52-72 correspond to 51-71 in Gk test. The Eucharistic character of this discourse is supported by cogent arguments and can claim patristic favour dating most probably from Ignatius of Antioch. Justin and especially Irenaeus can also be cited. The Antiochene Chrysostom, St Gregory of Nyssa, the two Cyrils of Jerusalem and Alexandria not only stand for the Eucharistic interpretation but are pronounced 'realists'. Not merely on account of the allegorism of Origen but for other reasons also, the metaphorical interpretation (eating Christ by faith), which amounts to 'spiritual communion', has had its vogue in the Church. Though St Augustine can be shown to have understood the discourse eucharistically, later theologians failed to understand sacramental realism owing to his strong emphasis of two points, namely, (a) that we must eschew anything like Capharnaite carnalism, and (b) that we must look for the fruits described in John 6:26-58 in the ecclesiastical unity of the mystic body of Christ; cf. de Lubac, Corpus Mysticum, 296. The second emphasis was undoubtedly due to his anti-Donatist preoccupations. His treatment of the matter greatly influenced the Latin Middle Age; and, moreover, 14th and 15th cent. polemics against Greeks giving the Eucharist to infants and against Bohemian utraquists strengthened the 'spiritual' interpretation. In 1551 (Oct. 11) the Council of Trent used 6:58 as a Eucharistic text, but, in view of a controversy that took place and continued during the Council, Session XXI ( 16 July 1562) expressly left the rival interpretations of Jn 6 untouched. Today, however, Catholic unanimity on the Eucharistic interpretation of 6:51-59 is almost absolute, and very few non-catholic interpreters now deny it. It is another case of a tradition being obscured and reasserting itself. If the discourse is not a Promise of the Eucharist, the silence of John the Beloved on the Sacrament of love would be a positive enigma; the bread of the future to be given not by the Father but by the Son of Man, 27, the clear impression made on the crowds and the disciples, the strongly emphatic comparison with manna, the insistence à outrance on Flesh and Blood as food and drink—very food and very drink—all these things in the non-eucharistic hypothesis would be unintelligible. Some commentators have held that 26-58 are two or three discourses united together, and Westcott finds not only distinct themes but also distinct audiences at 26 (crowds), 41 (Jews) and 51 (where the words begin which scandalize disciples). A close examination will, however, show that our Lord from 27 and therefore from the beginning intends to promise the Eucharist. Subsequently his words have the unity of a discourse which is partly a dialogue. Having introduced the subject of a spiritual bread, 27, he identifies it with himself, the One come down from heaven, 35, who can satisfy hunger and thirst, but in believers only. Here unbelief asserts itself in whispered murmuring, and the unbelievers are called by the name 'Jews', which Jn habitually uses for the hostile party. Having explained the necessity of faith, 44-47, Jesus resumes the 'manna' comparison (32 parallel to 49), and by using the verb 'to eat' for the first time shows that 48-59 have reference to a food really or physically eaten. There is gradation of parts, not splicing of pieces. 26-34 Material Bread and the Bread of Life —This piece of dialogue marks the great distinction between the bread of physical sustenance (whether it be that of El-Bateha or the manna of the wilderness) and the Bread that nourishes eternal life. 26. Jesus does not answer a merely curious question, but touches at once the great fundamental fault in the enthusiasm that surrounds him. In the bread of El-Bateha they only saw the temporal blessing of good food, not the spiritual meaning of the miracle. 27. With the same method as that used at the Samaritan Well, Jesus tells them to labour for, that is, to strive to acquire another food, not a perishable food but a food having usefulness for life everlasting. The Son of Man will give this food, empowered as he is to do so by the seal or mark of authentication and approval which the Father—namely God himself—has set upon him. 28. The crowd like true Mosaists interpret the verb 'labour' or 'work' of many works commanded by God. 29. Jesus tells them that the one basic work which God requires of them is belief in himself whom God has sent. 30 f. The Samaritan woman had said: 'Art thou greater than Jacob?'—here also the crowd understand that Jesus claims to be greater than Moses, and they demand a miracle greater than the manna that fed the children of Israel in the desert for forty years. They quote in free form Psalms 77(78):24 characterizing the manna as bread from heaven. 32. Again Jesus follows the same line of thought as at the Well of Samaria. Bread from heaven! Yes, but not the bread from the very heaven of God. Moses did not give that bread but the Father (now) is giving the bread from heaven, that is truly such, or really worthy of the name. 33. The giving is the Incarnation which is for the life not of one people but of the whole world—the life being supernatural life. 34. The reaction of the crowds bearing of this Bread of God . . . coming down from heaven is just like that of the Samaritan woman: 'Sir, give us always this bread'. 35-40 Jesus the Bread of Life for those who believe —Here there is a difference, but the parallelism is not entirely broken. The first great 'I am' came later in the conversation with the Samaritan. At this point Jesus pronounces at once his second great 'I am': 'I am the bread of life'. In Samaria he touched a moral impediment in the life of the woman; here at Capharnaum, the hindrance is a lack of faith. The act of coming to Jesus which attains the satisfaction of hunger is the same as the faith which remedies thirst for ever. 36. Jesus states the tragic fact that the crowds have seen him and still see him (perfect) and yet do not believe. 37. The fault is theirs not his, but Jesus explains the situation in terms cf what we now call efficacious grace. They come who are given to him by the Father and Jesus cannot but welcome all that the Father gives. The use of a global neuter certainly insinuates that the faithful come to Christ in the social unity of a body. 38. It is towards this body that Jesus must carry out the salvific will of his father, which is the programme of his life. 39. That programme or will of his Father is described as Jesus' task, namely, to lose nothing of the 'entrusted all', but to save completely even to the resurrection on the last day. 40. Human liberty, which has not been expressly envisaged in this 'giving' by the Father, is clearly indicated when the salvific will is declared to be this: 'That every one (individually) who seeth the Son and believeth in him may have life everlasting and I will raise him up in the last day'. Belief is a free act. Jesus' work is to save and resurrect; faith leads to eternal life and final resurrection. The language of these verses is remarkable. The Father gives us socially—for we are saved socially—to his Christ, but we come individually. It belongs to Christ the Envoy to lose nothing of what the Sender gives him (cf. 17:12) but to save completely. On our part we have to believe individually in the Son, in order to have the life everlasting and glorious resurrection which the Father wills for us. 41-47 Necessity and Nature of Faith —41 f. Descent from heaven, so emphatically asserted, clearly meant divine origin. Hence the murmur of a hostile group called 'Jews' when such a claim was made by one whom probably they usually called Jesus Bar Joseph (cf. 1:45) and who is elsewhere referred to as 'the carpenter, the son of Mary', Mark 6:3.43 f. The murmur reveals unbelief and rejection of the gift of God. Faith is again spoken of as an act of 'coming' and the cause of this salutary motion is the Father drawing. Faith works as a divine attraction but not a compulsion destroying human liberty. St Augustine's famous comment, which may be read in Tr. 26 in Joannem or in the Breviary ( Feria IV infr. Oct. Pent.) is a most beautiful passage. Whosoever is thus efficaciously attracted, Jesus will raise him up on the last day. 44. Faith is due to the interior action of God mentioned by the Prophets, notably Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33 f. It is 'this interior hearing and learning from the Father that brings a soul to Jesus. Hearing is perception and learning reception, but neither implies immediate vision of the Father. 46. This belongs exclusively to him who is from God. He has seen the Father. 47. Solemnly concluding this part, Jesus says: 'Amen, amen, I say to you: He that believeth (in me) hath everlasting life'. 48-60 The Bread of Life Is the Flesh of Jesus —What has preceded has been on the mystery of the Incarnation, but now he promises the institution of the Blessed Sacrament. So far Jesus has not used the verb to eat, although he has spoken of hunger and thirst satisfied by the Bread of life. His hearers only have spoken of the manna eaten by the fathers in the wilderness, 31. This reference to the Mosaic miracle he now takes up and sets the promise of the Eucharist, in a form which is really the starkest realism, over against the manna. 48. He repeats: 'I am the bread of life'. 49 f. Those who ate the manna as a physical food died. 50-52. This bread from heaven is one that man may eat and not die. The spiritual life which the food confers is eternal, and will not cease because of any limited efficacy in the food. It can only cease through spiritual suicide. He who eats this bread of life has spiritually that posse non mori conferred by the fruit of the tree of life. This is said negatively, but in the next verse the bread of life is emphatically called living bread, and the effect of eating it is declared to be that the participant shall live for ever. To this is added the startling assertion: 'The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world'. This is the future giving by the Son of Man for which 27 has prepared us. It is not immediately the Father's gift as the Son Incarnate is in 32. The Bread is given to be eaten, but it is identified with the flesh of Jesus —his human body—given for the life of the whole world of mankind. The sacrificial character of the phrase seems almost certain and has been admitted even by non-catholic scholars. For centuries the old textus receptus made this sacrificial sense unmistakable by inserting the phrase 'which I will give' after flesh and defining not bread but flesh (cf. Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24). 53. Not merely a murmur but the articulate sound of controversy and dissent made itself heard amongst the Jews, but Jesus only becomes more emphatic, and, if we may say so, more shocking to Jewish feeling. The expressions only grow in solemnity and explicitness and realism. 54. To the eating of flesh, as a condition of life, is added the drinking of blood, which might have been conceived as positively horrible in view of the Noachic, Genesis 9:4, and Levitical blood-prohibitions, Leviticus 7:26; Leviticus 17:14. 55. The negative assertion of 54 is now emphasized by a positive pronouncement which sums up the whole strength of the discourse: 'He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up on the last day'—here eternal life and resurrection are both mentioned for the third time. No better comment could be sought than the words of Ignatius of Antioch who wrote some ten years after St John. He called the Eucharist: 'the medicine of immortality, an antidote that we should not die, but live for ever in Christ Jesus', Ephesians 20. 56. The word for eating used in 55, namely t????, is even more surprisingly physical than before. Though it cannot be translated by the crude words 'munch' or 'crunch', it really has some of their realistic strength. Jesus therefore says: 'My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink'. True or very represent the best attested Gk reading preferable to truly or indeed. 57. The effect of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood is mutual vital immanence by the mixing of vital give and take. It is the sacrament of fellowship in the divine nature and of actual charity. St Cyril of Alexandria's illustration from two pieces of wax melted together is classical, and St Thérèse of Lisieux gave us a living commentary on this verse when she described her first communion not as a meeting with Jesus but a fusion. 58. It seems that it is the flow of life from Christ in the proportional analogy of the communication of life from Father to Son that is guaranteed in the words: 'he who eats me shall also live by me', although the translation for me is possible and is modelled on Jesus' fidelity as an ambassador of God. 59. The discourse ends in a repetition (figure called 'inclusion') of the comparison with manna: 'This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as (your) fathers did eat manna and died. He that eateth (t????? for the fourth time—cf. Gk text 54, 56, 57 = Vg 55, 57, 58) this bread shall live for ever'. A supplementary word must be said on the necessity of the Eucharist as enunciated in the nisi pronouncement addressed directly to the sceptical Jews in 54. That necessity is absolute, in the sense that without the 'thing' or grace of the Eucharist there is no salvation, for the Eucharist signifies, effects, and perfects the unity of Christ's mystic body, outside of which no one can be saved. Total deliberate refusal to eat the flesh of Christ would exclude from supernatural life and entail damnation. But the grace of union can be obtained by desire—personal desire, in the case of adults, and the maternal desire of the Church in the case of baptized infants. For infants the sacrament of faith, which is baptism, is necessary in every way, since the actual sacrament is for them, who cannot yet have desire, the only gate to salvation, but the Church incorporating them baptismally thereby desires the Eucharist for them, and, if we may use figurative language, the baptized infant immediately opens his little mouth for the Bread of life—in other words, the recipient of the sacrament of faith is already hungry for the sacrament of charity, which is the Eucharist. The Church has never regarded sacramental communion as necessary for infants; yet the Council of Trent (Sess. 21) did not condemn 'antiquity' for giving the Eucharist to infants, the custom being local and justified by some circumstances of the times, under the approval of holy bishops. The same Session of Trent also declared that no argument to establish a general precept of communion in both kinds can be drawn from this chapter 'however it be understood according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors' 60. 'These things (Jesus) said, teaching in the synagogue in Capharnaum'. Codex D as well as Aug and several codices of Vg add 'on a Sabbath'. Most probably the Eucharistic Promise was made in a Sabbath discourse, delivered on Friday evening or Saturday morning. If so, the multiplication of bread took place on Thursday—another link with the Eucharistic institution. The place was probably the synagogue built by the centurion, Luke 7:5, whose words of humility we use before Holy Communion. The ruins of a synagogue of later date, built possibly on the same site, now stand splendidly restored at Tell Hum A lintel of the edifice represents a pot of manna surrounded by vine-leaves and grapes. Surely a providential reminder from Jewish hands! 61-67 Effect on Disciples —The Jews, who had never believed, doubtless remained in their unbelief. The discourse proved a test for the faith of certain disciples. 61. Interpreting our Lord's words like Capharnaites— a name coined by exegetes for those who misunderstand through materialistic or even a cannibalistic imagining—many of his disciples declared the promise hard, that is, offensive and unbearable. 62. Their comments were only whispered, but Jesus knew in himself what they were, and said: 'Is this a stumblingblock to you?'63. He knows the scandal caused by his words, but he neither revokes nor dilutes anything of what he has said. The elliptic question: 'If then you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before . . . ?' is intended, not as Maldonatus thought, to increase the scandal, but to rectify what was simply a cannibalistic interpretation. The ascension will perhaps surprise the recalcitrants more, but it will eliminate their chief difficulty about eating the flesh of One who in celestial glory takes his place where he was from eternity. 64. The words which follow are variously understood. St Cyril of Alexandria, one of the greatest of all expositors of this chapter, has rallied many. He equates 'the spirit that quickeneth' with the divinity of Christ, and 'the flesh that profiteth nothing' with the mere human nature of Christ. It is, however, an interpretation which a rigorous application of the law of context would seem to exclude. Taken with what goes before and comes after, the words rather refer to the unspiritual, carnal-minded disciples. It is the spiritual view given by faith which gives life; carnal understanding is profitless. The words spoken by Jesus are the object of spiritual understanding, and in this way only are life-giving; cf. 8:15. 65. Hence Jesus shows his knowledge of their unbelieving minds, a thing he knew from the beginning as he also knew the one who was to betray him. 66. That, he explained, was the reason why he had insisted that no man can come to him unless it be given to him from the Father. In humility of Spirit we may recall the words of St Augustine: Nondum traheris?Ora ut traharis. Pray that the Father may draw you to his Son. 67. Here another tragic word of the Evangelist sounds over the first schism. The Eucharistic bond of unity divided many disciples from Jesus. 'They walked no more with him'. The fault was not in Jesus; it is not in the Bread of life. So it happened also in the 16th cent. 68-72. Attitude of the Twelve —God will not compel human freedom. Free choice must rule the life of man. In that day of defections the test question is put to the Twelve, 68, 'Will you also go away?' 69. We must be perpetually devoted to Simon Peter for the magnificence of his answer: 'Go away, to whom?' Jesus could do without them, but they cannot do without him who has the words of eternal life—words that lead to everlasting life and give it. 70. Peter's profession of faith is certainly less full of heavenly inspiration than that made later near Caesarea Philippi, but scarcely less full of human emotion: 'We have believed (faith comes first) and we have known (intelligence follows belief) that thou art the Christ, the Holy One of God'. Copyists conformed the last phrase to the confession of Caesarea Philippi, but the better MSS are decisive. 71. Peter spoke for the Twelve, but Jesus announced that of the Twelve whom he had chosen one was a devil. It was a lesson of fear and humility for the whole company, who did not then know who the secret apostate was. 72. St John names him here, interpreting the word of Jesus in the light of events. He was the only Judaean in the apostolic college: Judas, the son of a certain Simon of Qerioth, a place which is, perhaps, to be identified with Carioth Hesron, Joshua 15:25, the modern Khirbet-el-Qureitein, 13 m. S. of Hebron. VII-XII THE PUBLIC , PART II In the Fourth Gospel, which is the history of light and darkness engaged in a tremendous duel, chh 7-12 form a distinct block. They tell of the supreme combat which Jesus joined with the hostile leaders of his nation at Jerusalem in revealing himself as the Envoy and very Son of God. The two great dominant ideas of light and life partition this section between them. After ch 7, which is a first general sketch of the conflict, Jesus reveals himself as the Light of the World, 8:1-9:41 This revelation takes place at the joyful festival of Tabernacles and is illustrated by the cure of a man born blind. With the parable—allegory of the Good Shepherd—Jesus comes forward more particularly as the Giver of Life. This revelation of the Good Shepherd, giving his life that his sheep may live, continues through the festival of the Dedication and the raising of Lazarus and closes with the decision to put him to death, 10:1-11:56. What remains, 12:1-12:50, tells of the approach of the Paschal festival and the coming of Jesus to meet the hour of which he had so often spoken, the hour appointed by his Father, an hour not of defeat but triumph. He enters Bethany and Jerusalem. The favourite ideas of life and light (in the reverse order to that of the Prologue) occur again at the end of this section, where also figure some reflexions of St John on the tragic blindness of the Jewish people. VII:1-52 The Breach widens. 7:1-13 Circumstances of the Ascent to Jerusaleln — 1. In refusing to transpose ch 5 (cf. § 781l) into what seems illuminating proximity to ch 7, and in following the probability that the time of the miracle of Bezatha was a Paschal feast, we committed ourselves to a gap of nearly 12 months between the first declaration of deadly hostility to Jesus at Jerusalem and the Eucharistic crisis close to another Pasch which marked the decline of his popularity in Galilee. Then six months separated the proximity of this spring festival of the Jews, 6:4, from the approach of the autumnal festival of Tabernacles, 7:2. [This gap of 18 months is of course a serious objection to the view that the feast of Jn 5 was the second Passover of the public life, for John 7:11-24 makes it clear that the miracle of 5:8 was still fresh in the minds of the Jews. The difficulty disappears if we can assume that the feast in question was the feast of Purim. It would also disappear if the original order of the chapters was chh 4, 6, 5, 7, the present order being the result of a dislocation occurring probably before the publication of the Gospel.—Gen. Ed.] Jn seems to insinuate (in spite of 7:11) that Jesus did not go to Jerusalem for the second last Pasch of his life. He went from place to place in Galilee, because of the set design on his life on the part of the Jews in Judea. Chh 15-18 of Mt with their parallels help to fill the void. It was a time of withdrawal from the synagogue and concentration on the training of the Apostles, important events being a circuit which brought Jesus into Phoenicia and then eastwards into Decapolis; then from the eastern side of the Lake to Dalmanutha; thence north for the famous day of Caesarea Philippi, after which occurred the Transfiguration on Thabor and what seems to have been the last visit to his missionary city of Capharnaum. The sentence, 7:1, in which Jn notes these journeys in Galilee (and about it) also marks the end of the Galilean ministry. Events described in Luke 9:51- Luke 19:28 are connected by that Evangelist with journeyings towards Jerusalem (9:51; 13:22; 17:11, cf. 19:28), but it seems almost impossible to assign them a convincing chronological order. 2. The feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth, more properly booths or huts) was a harvest festival celebrated at the middle of the seventh month (determined by the moon of the autumnal equinox and therefore often coinciding with the beginning of the Roman October). The feast lasted a week (15-21 Tishri) to which a supplementary day of high festival was added, Leviticus 23:34 ff. Its characteristics were vintage joy, the joy of living in improvised huts of leafy branches erected everywhere in and around Jerusalem in memory of Israel's pilgrimage in the wilderness, waving of branches (lulab of palm, willow, myrtle, and ethrog of citron), many sacrifices, sounding of trumpets, illuminations in the court of the women, libations of water from Siloe mixed with wine. The ceremonies underlined seem to have special bearing on Christ's reference to the outpouring of the Spirit, 37 ff., and to himself as the light of the world, 8:12. 3. The 'brethren' of Jesus—his cousins—were those who had once tried to restrain him when he seemed over-zealous, Mark 3:21. Now they want him to appear more in public by passing to Judaea—an apparent indication that he had not been to Jerusalem for the last Pasch, nor perhaps for 9 months (Dedication feast) or 12 (Tabernacles of last year) or even 18 (the Pasch of Bezatha). 4. The brethren emphasize the apparent contradiction of working miracles and thereby wishing to be a public personage in obscure Galilee. They want him to show himself to the great world in the centre of Judaism. 5. They had but an imperfect idea of his Messianic mission, since he was bringing no worldly glory to himself and them. 6. Christ's answer means that the right time for a public ascent to Jerusalem involving a triumphant manifestation had not yet come—there were yet six months to Palm Sunday. The right time for the brethren is any time. 7. They have the peace of the worldly with the world; not so Jesus who has the hatred of the world for condemning its badness. 8. Although the text-critical balance between the reading ??, 'not,' and ??p?, 'not yet', is rather even, it seems that Jesus really said he was 'not' going up to this festival, meaning that he was not going with his brethren in the public manner they desired. A scribal change from ?? to ??p?, in order to avoid the appearance of dissimulation, is more probable than the reverse. The reason given is the same as before. The appointed time for the public encounter with the full hatred of Jewry has not come. 9. When the caravan set out, Jesus remained in Galilee. 10. Not more than 4 or 5 days later he set out for Jerusalem, but as an unknown pilgrim—probably even without the company of the Twelve. 11. The enemies in Jerusalem were on the look-out. 12. There was much whispered talk in the groups that gathered in the city. Those who considered his way of life said he was good, those ruled by human respect agreed with the hostile verdict that he was an impostor (cf. Matthew 27:63, on which Aug. makes the touching comment: 'This name was given to our Lord Jesus Christ, for the consolation of his servants'). 13. The friends were not brave enough to speak openly 'for fear of the Jews'. 14-24 Jesus teaching In the Temple —14. Mid-festival would be the fourth day. Jesus teaches in the temple for the first time. 15. The Jews who, in this context, would be chiefly Pharisee scribes, could not deny his knowledge of Scripture, whereas they knew for certain that he had never frequented a rabbinical school. Hence their outspoken surprise. 16. Jesus' learning is not that of a self-taught man. What he teaches (as man) has a higher source, namely the One who sent him. St Augustine's beautiful comment which is read in the Breviary (Tuesday after 4th Sunday of Lent) referring the words to eternal generation rather than temporal mission is true theological interpretation rather than literal exposition. It amounts to this: His doctrine is himself and he is the Word of the Father—his own personal self and yet not his own. In this place, however, it is rather as an Envoy that Jesus speaks. 17. Discernment of the divine origin of the teaching belongs to those who have the sympathy of an obedient will towards God and his truth. 18. Another test—a moral one—is in the conduct of the Speaker. To seek only the glory of Another who has sent him is not the conduct of a self-constituted philosopher, but of One whose very disinterestedness commends him as truthful and free from the injustice (impiety) that is opposed to truth. 19. As hostility to Jesus parades under the mantle of Mosaism, he takes up the charge of the event at Bezatha and unmasks the retended loyalty to the Law of Moses which masqueraded as its justification. To all whose intentions towards him were murderous Jesus can say: 'None of you keepeth the law'. 20. 'Why seek you to kill me?' The crowd, part of which at least may not have been aware of the real situation, set this down as persecution mania. Thou hast a demon' was a common expression for, 'Thou art mad'. 21 ff. Jesus, ignoring the remark, turns to the case which occasioned the murderous intention of the Jews. The cure of Bezatha was no violation of the Law of Moses. The introductory 'therefore', 22, seems to cover the whole process of reasoning but belongs logically to the conclusion, namely, that the Law of Moses was higher and more human than mere sabbatarianism. The law of circumcision on the eighth day—really preMosaic or patriarchal, as the parenthesis says—was such as to include those infants whose eighth day from birth was a Sabbath. So plain was it, that these were to be circumcised and cared for on the Sabbath, that the rabbis formulated the maxim: 'Circumcision ousts the sabbath'. One of them (about a.d. 100) even argued that since allowance was made for circumcision which affected only one of the 248 members of the body, much more consideration should be had for the whole body. Our Lord's argument is rather this: If a beneficial operation like circumcision carried out on the Sabbath only fulfils the law of Moses, why be angry with One who healed a whole man (perhaps both body and soul are meant) on the Sabbath? 24. Just judgement according to properly legal and impartial weights and measures must be deeper than superficial appearances. 25-30 Jewish Comment on Christ's Origin —25. The miscellaneous and changing character of the crowds or of prominent elements in them throughout these vivid chapters should be kept well in mind. In the last section Jesus had addressed a hostile group, probably Pharisees, mixed with pilgrims or others who knew nothing of a set design to kill him; here a more indifferent group of Jerusalemites appear amidst a crowd somewhat favourably disposed. 26. These Jerusalemites think that the apparent explanation of our Lord's freedom of speech is a change in the national leaders. Have they turned from homicidal enmity to recognition that he is really the Christ? 27. But like Trypho about a.d. 130( Justin, Dial. 8) they hold that a man known to be from Galilee does not fulfil the common Jewish conception of a Messias who should be of unknown or mysterious origin. 28 f. Jesus fixed on this matter of origin. 'Crying out'— which means not shouting but taking a higher and more solemn tone—he told them that he who came from Nazareth (as they thought) was not a selfappointed Prophet but an Envoy sent by, One who was a true Sender. The adjective 'true' (???T????) does not mean 'veraciòus' but 'really such'. The Sender is not known to them, but the Envoy does know the One from whom he has his embassy. 30. Thereupon a move was made in the crowd to arrest him but the arrest did not take place. The immediate reason is not given, but Jn indicates the higher providential reason: 'His hour was not yet come'. 31-36 Believers and Emissaries of the Sanhedrin — 31. The many who believed under the impression of this word of Jesus were persons who had heard of the many miracles worked in Galilee. The text affords no evidence that Jesus had recently worked many miracles in Jerusalem. 32. On the hostile side, the Pharisees are the prime movers. Here we have the first official measure taken against Jesus by two Orders of the Sanhedrin. 'The chief priests (now mentioned for the first time in Jn) and the Pharisees (scribes) sent guards (Levitical police officers) to arrest him'. No doubt, the guards were instructed to act with caution, for the crowd was divided in its sympathies. 33-36. Jesus, knowing that there could be no arrest, till his hour was come, warns his audience that the time is short. Of the three things that he declares, namely, the shortness of his stay, his speedy return to him who sent him, the subsequent frustration of Jewish desire to find him or come to where he is— of these three they seize only on the last. With a disdain which Palestinian Jews commonly nourished, they thought of him as going to the Diaspora or Jews dispersed amongst Greeks, especially in such places as Alexandria and Rome, and even as teaching the Greeks themselves. The repetition in 36 shows that they were particularly puzzled by the words: 'You shall seek me and shall not find me: and where I am, you cannot come'. The words are best understood of Jewry's continually frustrated quest for a true Messias, ever since Jesus of Nazareth, whom they rejected and continue to reject, ascended into heaven. The teaching of Jesus has really gone to the Gentiles, and the irony of their remark, 35, has fallen on the Jews themselves. 37-39 Promise of Living Water —37f. It seems that the last great day of the festivity was not the supplementary eighth day (22 Tišri) but the seventh—a day of processions, hosannas = special libations. The water of Siloc poured from a golden vessel may have been the occasion of our Lord's words, pronounced by him standing and with the solemnity of a 'proclamation. Two variant punctuations involve variety of interpretation. Irenaeus, Cyprian, and some other ancient authorities read: 'If any one thirst, let him come to me. And let him who believes in me drink. As the Scripture says: From within him rivers of living water shall flow'. In this case, the source of living water indicated by the Scripture would be Christ himself symbolized by the Rock, of which special mention was made in the liturgical chant of Ps 104(105):41 accompanying the libations: 'He rent the rock and water flowed—it ran in the wilderness like a river'. This interpretation, depending on what is really the earliest known punctuation, has in its favour that there is reference to a particular Scripture; it supposes that Christ, already symbolized in Jn by the Temple, the Brazen Serpent, the Manna, now appears as the Spiritual Rock from which believers must drink the profusion of the Holy Spirit; cf. 1 Corinthians 10:4. Nevertheless, however desirous we might be to adopt this grammatically defensible interpretation, which would make the words of Christ an echo of the beautiful promise of Isaias: 'You shall draw waters in joy from the fountains of salvation', 12:3, and which would also supply a theological argument for the Filioque, the natural and obvious connexion of the whole passage seems to favour the punctuation commonly received, and adopted by DV. In this case, it is from the heart of the believer that the rivers of living water shall flow. The scriptural reference would be to many passages of the OT, for instance, the effusion of water (and spirit) in Isaiah 44:3 (cf. 55:1; 58:11), the pure water of Ez 36:25 and especially the water from the temple in 47:1-12, the irrigating fountain of Joe 3:18, the open fountain and living waters of Zach 13:1; 14:8. It is not one river but many rivers that shall flow, for the gifts of the Spirit are various, 1 Corinthians 12. 29. Jn explains that the water did signify the Spirit. The realization of this promise came at Pentecost. Jn says in language commonly employed when comparing the very little to the very great, that the Spirit was not yet given. Its effusion in such abundance, as a widely distributed gift, and with such every-day frequency was to be consequent on the glorification of Jesus; 40-44 For and Against —The effect on the crowd takes four different forms. Some declare Jesus to be the Prophet of Deu 18:15; some say he is the Christ; others object that he came from Galilee and was, as they thought, neither a descendent of David nor a Bethlehemite by birth—both scriptural marks of the Messias, Psalms 131(132):11; Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Mich 5:2; others wished to end the matter by arresting him, but again no one laid hands on him. 45-52 Sanhedrin Scene —45 f. Amongst those most favourably impressed were the guards who returned to the Chief Priests and Pharisees empty-handed. They could not arrest One who 'spoke as no man ever spoke'. 47 ff. The Pharisees dub them as victims of imposture, try to confound them with the example of the religious and intellectual aristocracy, and pour their scorn on the crowd whose ignorance of the law makes them nothing less than a 'cursed crew'. The words were pronounced in anger, but the habitual contempt of the Pharisees for the common people was very great. 50 f. The brave stand of Nicodemus— for it was really such—showed that a Sanhedrite, a Pharisee, and a distinguished doctor of the law shared in the sympathy of the benighted guards towards Jesus. Nicoodemus simply insisted in the name of the Law, Deuteronomy 1:16 ff., that no man should be condemned 'unheard'. 52. They abuse Nicodemus as if he were a Galilean—which to Judaeans ordinarily meant stupid, as Boeotian did to Athenians. 'Search (the Scriptures is a gloss even in Vg) and see that out of Galilee a prophet riseth not'. They forgot that Jonas was from Gethhepher and that Isaias had foretold the rising of a great light in Galilee. 7:53-9:41 The Light of the World. VII 53-VIII 11 Forgiveness of an Adulteress —This pericope is certainly canonical Scripture. If it is also part of Jn (see § 781h,i, Integrity) its place here is easily understood. The 'most joyful feast' of Tabernacles with its circumstances of camping out and crowding was not always exempt from moral disorder VIII 1. The Mount of Olives from which Jesus came to the temple at dawn is not elsewhere so named by Jn; cf. 18:1. 2. The people came early (cf. Luke 21:38; Acts 5:21) and Jesus sitting—as in Galilee—began to teach them. 3. Scribes and Pharisees—there is no other example of the combination in Jn—i.e. lawyers and legal zealots, bring a woman taken in adultery and set her well in view. 4. There is no need of an inquiry, for they attest that she was taken fiagrante delicto.5 f. The Law, as they combine its statutes, appointed the death penalty for adultery, Leviticus 20:10, and stoning was specified for the infidelity of a betrothed woman, Deuteronomy 22:24. The question: 'What sayest thou?' was meant to destroy the ascendancy of Jesus over the people. What the party expected was a sentence of mercy which would publicly brand Jesus as one who flouted the Law of Moses. Even a rigorous sentence would make him lose in the eyes of the crowds. To embroil him with the Roman authorities is not an intention that clearly manifests itself yet. Most probably Jesus, in writing with his finger on the ground, wrote neither the sins nor the names, Jeremiah 17:13, of those spiritual adulterers who were seeking to embarrass him. It was simply the gesture of a man not attending to their captious question but absorbed in something else. 7. In his divine response to their persistence Jesus carries the matter into the secret tribunal of their own consciences: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her'. Jesus did not thereby announce a principle that sinful persons may not judge or punish a criminal, but he gave the accusers the discomfort of feeling their hypocrisy. 8 f. As he turned again to the silence of writing (that is meditatively making figures on the ground) they retired one by one, the oldest first, because quicker to take in the situation, and on account of their dignity more fearful of further possible embarrassment before the people. All accusers gone, there was only Jesus and the woman standing before him in the midst of the crowd. 10. Looking up he said, 'Woman, where are they . . .? Has no man condemned thee?' 11. Her simple, respectful answer shows that she felt in some way that she had found not a Judge but a Saviour. The absolution given by 'him who had power on earth to forgive sins' is here negative in form: 'Neither do I condemn thee' (present rather than future). He does, of course, condemn the sin which he remits. Hence the admonition: 'Go and (from) now sin no more'. 12-20 Discourse at the Treasury —The place is the gazophylacium or place of the collection boxes within the court of the women, where stood the great candelabra for the illuminations of the feast of Tabernacles, now perhaps already terminated but fresh in the memory of everybody. The light recalled the pillar of fire which had guided the Israelites through the wilderness. This is the third great 'I am'. 12. As the Word of God and universal Revealer of heavenly truth Jesus is the light not of one nation but of the world. The image is probably from the column of fire, but God, Psalms 26(27):1, and the Messias, Isaiah 49:6, are called light in the OT. To 'follow' the light means discipleship consisting in active faith, which delivers from the darkness of human ignorance, error, and sin. 'The light of life' is light coming from the living God (the Word 1:4) and leading to life everlasting. 13. The Jewish objection is: Self-testimony is legally worthless—presumed not true, as not being receivable. 14 f. Jesus who condescendingly had let this axiom pass after Bezatha, 5:31, does not do so now, when the light of his self-revelation has grown stronger. Thorough knowledge is a guarantee of testimony, and Jesus knows himself thoroughly—is fully conscious of his origin and his destiny. Hence his testimony has inherent value. The Jews, ignorant both of his origin and his destiny, condemn with a prejudice based on mere appearances, or fleshly, human views, such, for instance, as would exclude a Nazarene carpenter without a moment's consideration. With such a superficial condemnatory judgement Jesus judges no one. 16. As there is now question of judgement not testimony, Jesus seems to say here: If I judge (when the time comes) my judgement is all that a judgement should be (a?????ó?), 'for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me'. He reminds them that, although he has come to save, he will be their judge one day 'since the Father has given all judgement to the Son', 5:22. Then he passes to the twofold testimony which fulfils all legal requirements. 17. Deuteronomy 19:15 was constantly quoted to show the legal sufficiency of the testimony of two witnesses. 18. Here the condition is fulfilled, for Jesus witnesses by his words and the Father by miraculous works and the prophetic Scriptures. 19. The question: 'Where is thy Father?' is not a reference to Joseph of whom the thought could not occur in this context; rather it is the sneer of unbelievers at appeal to the testimony of one who dwells in light inaccessible— calling a witness from the clouds, as it were. Hence the answer: 'Neither me do you know, nor my Father; if you did know me, you would also know my Father'. 'Perhaps' derives from forsitan, a misleading Latin rendering of the Greek particle ?aí. 20. The place of this discourse is given as indicated above. It is because the arrest of Jesus was sought at every moment, that Jn notes so often that it did not take place, 'because his hour was not yet come'. 21-30 Christ's approaching Departure and Passion — This discourse repeats the warning that the time for decision is short; it strongly asserts that Jesus is the divine Envoy he claims to be; and it declares that his claim will be recognized in the light of the cross. 21. Since this first word is repeated, with an insertion, from a former occasion, 7:34, and is again referred to at the Last Supper, 13:33, it is clear that Jesus meant it to be very solemn. After he shall have gone (six months from now) the Jews shall seek him—that is, shall seek the Messias that he is, although their unbelief rejected him—and they shall die in their sin of unbelief. Their responsibility, therefore, is personal and so great as to lead to obduracy. 'Whither I go, you cannot come'. 22. With more odious mockery than before, 7:35, they think of Jesus committing suicide and thus signalizing himself as one of the great failures of the world. 23. 'From beneath' and from above' as also 'of this world' and 'not of this world' are descriptions that mark the Jews and Jesus as belonging to different spheres. The natural man who lives by his five senses and has his heart fixed in the earth cannot receive the spiritual things that are apprehended by faith. 24. On account of their terrestrial blindness, Jesus says twice that the Jews shall die not only in their sin of unbelief but in all the sins (Gk text) from which faith justifies. To the phrase: 'Unless you believe that I am'—supply what I claim to be' (cf. 28; 13:19). 25. They ask the question: 'Who art thou?' as if he had not been telling them. The first words of our Lord's answer are difficult and have received many interpretations. DV 'The beginning, who also speak to you' is as clear as Vg seems to be, but what St Jerome left to the Latin Church was not qui et loquitur but quia et loquitur, which is anything but clear. It is to the Gk and to the Greek Fathers that we must turn. The words t?? Á???? ö t? (or öt?) ?aì ?a?? ?µמ? may be translated: 'At the beginning [i.e. absolutely] what I say to you'. The meaning will then substantially be: '(I am) just what I say I am'. Considering, however, the depth of incomprehension which the Jewish question supposed, it seems better to follow the exposition, wholly or partly given by the Greek interpreters and most satisfactorily worded by St Chrysostom and his school: 'Indeed, why do I continue to speak to you at all?' Such a rebuke, similar to Mark 9:18, is not alien to the context, and, it has the advantage of doing justice to the verb ?a?? and to the particle ?aí. 26. The sequence of thought seems to be: rather than say more about myself as you expect me, 'many things I have to speak and to judge of you'. But (I content myself with affirming once more that I speak the truth), he that sent me is true and I speak nothing in the world except the things I heard from him'. 27. 'And they understood not that he spoke to them of the Father'. We must, therefore, suppose a different audience from that at the gazophylacium, 18 f. 28. When they shall have crucified the Son of Man —lifting up is a veiled but sufficiently intelligible expression for crucifixion probably quite as clear in Aramaic as our 'swing' for 'hanging' but more dignified, 3:14; 12:32—then they shall know, to their loss and pain and not to their gain, that he was what he said, and that he had only acted and taught as an Envoy of the Father. 29. There is perpetual unity of action between the two, for the whole programme Jesus is the will of the Father—'I do always the things that please him'. 30. Many began to believe at this first mention of the mystery of the cross—intelligite gloriam crucis ipsius—genuinely, indeed, but not with full freedom from the trammels of human respect, 12:42. 31-47 Matters of Spiritual Paternity —31 f. Initially the words are addressed to the convinced believers (pep?ste??óta?), but the strong mixture of hostility in the audience soon appears. Perseverance is the mark of true discipleship, and the truth of Christ known and practised is the great emancioative power. 33. The perverted pride of Abrahamite blood (racereligion) was conspicuous in the Jews and had been denounced from the beginning by the Precursor, Matthew 3:9. It asserts itself here. Children of Abraham were never slaves (at least by voluntary submission to an alien yoke), they said, and therefore needed no emancipation. 34. Jesus solemnly points to the spiritual slavery of sin. 35. Whereas the slave has no permanent rights in a house, the son has. 36. Therefore emancipation by the Son will be true emancipation. Thus far, on the question of freedom from slavery. 27. With regard to their Abrahamitic dignity, it does not show itself in practice. 'You seek to kill me, because my word takes no hold, does not root itself in you'. 38. Knowledge in terms of 'seeing' is reserved to Jesus in Jn. He speaks what he has seen with (i.e. in the bosom of) his Father; the Jews do what they have heard from their father. 39. They indignantly raise the cry of their Abrahamite paternity. Jesus tells them that their works show them to be no true children of Abraham. 40. Homicidal intentions and voluntary resistance to heavenly truth is not the mark of Abraham. 41. There is another father whom they imitate—neither God nor Abraham. They understand this at once (in terms of their Scriptures, e.g. Jeremiah 2:20) as meaning that they are the children of a people that has spiritually prostituted itself to the service of a false divinity. 'We were not born of fornication, we have one Father, God' (original Rheims Tr.). 42. Their conduct gives them the lie, for they do not love the Son and the Envoy of God. 43. They do not know his language, because their dispositions make them incapable of understanding his word. 44. Then comes the fearful sentence: 'You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer and an enemy of truth from the beginning'. His original pride was untruth, so that the truth is not in him; by lying deceit, Genesis 3, he brought death into the world, Wis 2:24. In this place Christ does not mention the envy of the devil which, however, belonged to his murderous hatred of mankind. That he is a liar and the father of lying has special prominence. Falsehood has, as it were, become his second nature. 45. Hence the Jews, in resisting the truth spoken by Jesus, have ranged themselves in the family of the devil. In the words of Apoc 2:9 'they are the synagogue of Satan'. 46. Jesus is supremely worthy of credence, for no one can convict him of sin: 'If I (the unassailably holy) speak the truth, why do you not believe me?' 47. He concludes with a declaration meaning the same as his solemn assertion before Pilate, 18:37, but here the form of words is: 'He that is of God heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God'. It is to be remarked that Jesus, at a moment when he is convicting the Jews and their father, the devil, of sin, openly challenges them to convict himself of any sin whatever. True, they accused him of breaking the Sabbath, of associating with sinners, of drinking wine, but these were charges launched by hypocrisy. They do not hear him because by moral disposition they are of the devil; their lives are not dominated by the spirit of obedience to God. 48-59 Insult and a Great Climax —In this series of discourses the great climax occurs in 58: 'Amen, Amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am'. No thoughtful Israelite could hear such a saying without thinking of the words: 'I am who am', Exodus 3:14, spoken from the burning bush by him who called himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob . The gentle and strong Saviour brings this climax out of an atrocious affront. 48. Those whom truth exasperates easily turn to insult. 'Samaritan' was as opprobrious as apostate (cf.Ecclus 50:28), and 'thou hast a devil' meant in this context impious madman'.49. Jesus, who had found faith in Samaria and who was later to speak the parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:30 ff., and to praise the grateful Samaritan, Luke 17:18, took no notice of this national term of insult. 49. The sons of the devil who treated him as demoniacally insane he answered with a simple denial, adding: '(Rather) I honour my Father, and you dishonour me'. 50. It belongs not to Jesus himself but to the Father to vindicate his Son's honour, which he does by a judgement of condemnation—an allusion to the vengeance that was to fall in a.d. 70. 51. Turning doubtless once more to the group of believers he said: 'Amen, amen, I say to you, if any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever'. He meant spiritual death, which primarily strikes the soul but also excludes the body from a glorious resurrection. 52 f. The Jews, with the malice inherent in their unbelief, twist the words to mean escape from corporal death, experience of which was not so much 'seeing' as bitterly 'tasting'. Jesus was thus making himself greater than all the great dead, including Abraham and the Prophets. That was the utmost arrogance of self-glorification. 54. Again Jesus remits his glory to the care of the Father whom the Jews called their God. 55. In reality they did not know God. They lied in pretending they did, but on the contrary, if Jesus should say he did not know him, he would be like the Jews themselves—a liar. To know is to obey, for truth is lived in charity, Ephesians 4:15. 56. What follows is stupendous. 'Abraham your father rejoiced (in the hope and desire) of seeing my day: he saw it and was glad'. The day is the whole time of the Incarnation rather than any single day. Abraham could only have seen it by supernatural vision, either by prophetic light in the revelation concerning his seed, Gen12-3, or in the theophany of Gen 15:8 f., or in the theophanies which many Fathers held to be apparitions, of the Logos, Genesis 18:2, or in the joy and divine consolations of the birth of Isaac, the child of promise, Genesis 21:1-5. The last of these seems the most probable. That day was Abraham's Christmas. The hypothesis of the Patriarch's spirit seeing the actual day of Christ from Limbo may be considered less tenable. 57 f. The Jews, inverting our Lord's words, proclaim the absurdity of a man under 50 claiming to have seen Abraham. Jesus was probably between 35 and 40 at the time. St Irenaeus thought he was near 50 ( Haer. II, 22, 5 f.). We need not suppose that he looked older than his age. The Jews used the round number of a half-century—hundreds and fifties being common reckonings even then, Mk6-40. 58. The solemnity of the words: 'Before Abraham came to exist, I am' defies comment. 59. In the ears of the Jews it was horrible blasphemy. They wished to stone him then and there. Jesus hid (by calmly mixing in the crowd) and left the temple. IX 1-41 Sight is given to the Man born Blind —Much comment would only serve to blunt the fine edge of this graphic, animated and fascinating page. It is the finest description of varying attitudes and reactions in the Gospels. Closely connected with the foregoing revelation of Jesus as the Light of the World, it tells of a miracle of physical illumination, 1-7, its public confirmation, 8:12, its victorious emergence from a triple inquiry, 13-18, 19-23, 24-34, its sequel in the spiritual illumination of the healed man, 35-38, its significance as indicated by Jesus himself, 39-41. The following points are to be noted. 1. Some time probably elapsed between the attempt to stone Jesus and this miracle. 2-4. The question of the disciples (first mention since 6:68) does not suppose belief in metempsychosis but a popular unphilosophic notion of disease being a punishment of prenatal or parental sin. The providential purpose of this man's congenital blindness was really a manifestation of Jesus through one of the works which he must work till the day of his mortality ends in the night of death. 5. As long as ever he is in the world, he must visibly be the 'light of the world'. It is to emphasize this that he works the miracle. 6-7. The dust moistened with spittle may be reminiscent of the creation of Adam, or symbolic of the Word made flesh, but the washing in the pool of Siloam (SE. of Jerusalem) etymologically denoting the water sent from Gihon through the tunnel of Ezechias more clearly symbolizes the baptism by which the divine Envoy illuminates. The man went home from the pool with sight restored. 8-12. The discussion raised amongst neighbours and others who had known the blind beggar results in evidence which has the vigorous brevity of three very positive verbs: I went, I washed, I (looked and) saw. 13-17. The fine matter-of-fact positiveness of the healed man appears also in the first inquiry, for while the Pharisees dispute on the case of a Sabbath-breaking miracle-worker, he affirms his belief that the man is a Prophet. 18-23. The fear of the parents to involve themselves in a statement that could be construed as a confession that Jesus was the Messias is easily understood, for any Jews, especially poor people like these would quail before the threat of excommunication—not apparently the nezipha (or one week's ostracism under reprimand), nor the niddui (like a Lent of public penance) but the ?erem (a major ban which made its subject a pariah). 24-34. The second citation of the healed man or rather attempt to bully him into false testimony under adjuration—'give glory to God' meant: 'Tell the truth', Joshua 7:19—leads to a fine duel between hypocrisy and simple truth. The native humour of the brave respondent gives his answers a caustic turn. Abuse —the arm of the defeated—becomes the resource of the Pharisees. Against their 'we know that God spoke to Moses; but as to this man: we know not whence he is', the man speaks a 'we know' of common sense justified in every particular by the concrete circumstances of the case. The Pharisees proceed to a final fury of arrogant abuse and excommunicate him for the crime of being miraculously cured on the Sabbath. 35-38. Jesus (sought and) found the outcast. Now he only saw the light of day, but, by his courageous confession that his benefactor must be from God, was also coming to the light of truth. That further spiritual illumination Jesus also gave him 'Dost thou believe in the Son of Man?' is the better attested reading. The man certainly believed there and then that Jesus was the Messias, and probably in the full divine sense of the term, for adoration in Jn seems to mean latria only. Certainly the synagogue that had cast him out was already the blindfolded institution which we see represented by St Paul, 2 Corinthians 3:15, and by medieval art. The city of Saint-Paul-TroisChâteaux in the valley of the Rhône claims that its first bishop St Restitutus was the man born blind. Whatever the historical verdict may be, the claim deserves to be mentioned. Provence also boasts that he succeeded St Maximin as Bishop of Aix. 39-41. The judgement of discrimination which Jesus came to exercise in the world is shown by this narrative (cf. Luke 2:34). The little ones, with no pretence to be learned or seers, come to see, and those who have 'the key of knowledge' become blind (cf. Matthew 11:25; Matthew 23:16 ff.). When the Pharisees ask if they also are blind, Jesus answers that theirs is not the blindness which takes away responsibility. X 1-XI 56 The Good Shepherd. X 1-21 The Parable of the Door and the Good Shepherd —This piece is often called an allegory. It is really not such, but a parable, which our Lord applies to himself according to two terms of comparison, namely, the Door of the sheepfold and the Shepherd of the flock. As the application itself is allegory or extended metaphor, the whole may be called a parable-allegory. We can find in it a rather complete definition of the Church charmingly conveyed through a description taken from Palestinian pastoral life. It is no wonder, then, that the fulfilment of the promise made to Simon Peter, Matthew 16:18, is expressed in the same language as this, parable, John 21:15-17. The parable is connected with the foregoing by a certain association of ideas. A sheep (the man born blind) expelled from the synagogue by the false shepherds of Israel is received by the Good Shepherd. In those who heard the parable, it also evokes that miracle of illumination, 21. Nevertheless, it is the beginning of a new series, and is connected by a common basic idea with the revelations of the Feast of Dedication, 26. It is clear that Jesus, the Light of the World, here shows himself as the Giver of life—a qualification which is sealed, some weeks after the Dedication, by the resuscitation of Lazarus at Bethany, less than two miles from the gates of Jerusalem. This event occasioned that fateful conciliar pronouncement of Joseph Caiphas, 11:50, in which Jn sees a divinely-ordained prophecy that Christ will realize his own parable of the Good Shepherd, 52. 1-6. The picture of the sheep-pen contains all the necessary elements of the instruction to be conveyed —the walled or palisaded enclosure protecting the sheep brought back from their pastures for the night, the door which is open to shepherds but not to thieves who enter in some other way, the scene of the morning, when the shepherd comes from his home or his camp to lead out his sheep to pasture, the pastoral call and its recognition by his own sheep, the familiar solicitude which shows itself in calling the sheep individually by name, the docility with which the flock, ready to fly from a stranger, throng on the heels of their true shepherd. Though the picture was evidently a 'proverb' from everyday life (which is St John's word for the Hebrew mašal, which the Synoptists call a parable or similitude) the audience did not understand its purpose. 7-10. Jesus therefore makes the first application and explains: 'I am the door of the sheep' (and of the shepherds). 8. 'All others as many as came before me (p?ò eµ?û probably authentic) are thieves and robbers'. St Chrysostom and many commentators have thought that false Messiahs like Judas the Galilean or Theudas, Acts 5:36 f., are chiefly meant, but the verb 'are' in the present tense seems to refer it to those immediate false shepherds who are the scribes and Pharisees. The sheep did not hear them; cf. Matthew 9:36; Mark 6:34. In the prophecies of Ezechiel, 34:1-24, God had manifested his intention of taking over the shepherding of his people from selfseeking shepherds and handing it to a Davidic Prince. 9. When Jesus declares himself the door of safety for all who enter by him, he means primarily shepherds, but thereby he is also the door of the sheep who through him enter to safety and go out to wholesome pastures. 10. Whereas the thief's intention is destructive, the purpose of Jesus is life-giving. He came that his sheep may have life and have an abundance (of it)—grace, glory, resurrection from the dead. 11-18. In the application of the idea of shepherd, the contrast is not with thieves but with hirelings, and anyone who is presumed' not to have an owner's devotedness towards his own sheep. The allegorical description of that devotedness is carried to hyperbole, in order to fit the reality in Jesus. No shepherd could reasonably make a voluntary sacrifice of his life, that his sheep might be safe, but the Good Shepherd has actually done this. 11. The single sentence 'I am the good shepherd' has a whole world of biblical and ecclesiastical souvenirs clustering about it ( Psalms 22(23) and 79(80); Isaiah 40; Jeremiah 23; Ez 34; Zach 13; Luke 15; the shepherd of Hermas, the inscription of Abercius, the famous sculptured type of the Roman catacombs). Here Jesus says at once that the excellence of 'the (great) shepherd of the sheep', Hebrews 13:20, is to be found in his self-immolation on behalf of his sheep. 12 f. The hireling, whose interest is salary, has no such devotedness. We can easily find an interpretation of the 'wolf', although it belongs to the literary plenitude rather than to the essence of the parable. 14 f. He repeats 'I am the good shepherd' ad incrementum orationis, and in order to introduce a new trait, that of intimate mutual knowledge of affection between Shepherd and sheep, and also in order to affirm that he fulfils the sublime ideal of pastoral self-devotedness by giving his life for his sheep. The reciprocal knowledge of charity between Shepherd and sheep is proportionately analogous to that between the Father and the Son. The Gk word translated 'lay down' (my life) may represent either the metaphor of total giving, or of depositing a price, or putting off life (like a garment). 16. The sheep of the Good Shepherd are not all to be found within the enclosure of Israel hitherto the only pen established by God himself— but other sheep Jesus must bring from outside, and they shall hear the voice of the Good Shepherd, and there shall be one flock (not 'fold', which, however, is no real distortion of the sense) and one shepherd (cf. Ephesians 2:13-16). [There is no doubt that p?ם?? (grex) 'flock' is the correct reading in 16b, though 'Fold' (ovile) appears in the Vg and thenceforth universally in mediaeval Latin writers. 'This fold'— the contrast 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 'flock' of the Christian Church which was to include them. 'Other sheep'—here signify simply the Gentiles. MacRory (op. cit. 7th ed) comments: 'We have 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'.—Gen. Ed.] 17. Jesus returns to the idea of self-immolation. For the reason (because he is obedient unto death) the Father loves the Word Incarnate, laying down his life on the cross, in order to take it up again in the resurrection of the third day. 18. His is an entirely free oblation of his life 'No man taketh it away from me'—if we read took (with S, B and papyrus 45) there would be reference to the attempts to stone or arrest him—'but I lay it down of myself'. It is as God that he says this, and adds moreover 'I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again'. But it is as man that the Word Incarnate received a command from the Father— according to NT usage a precept not a more intimation of good-pleasure usually called a beneplacitum. 19-21. Once again the result in the audience was disagreement. Some said these were the words of a demoniac and a madman; others said that neither those noble words nor the miracle on the man born blind could come from a demoniac. As the parable of the Good Shepherd is a Sunday Gospel (2nd after Easter) it will be useful to sum up the doctrine of this whole section very briefly. The sheep come from the Jewish and the Gentile world. Unity is maintained by pastoral authority and care, that of the one Shepherd Christ and of the shepherds that rule in his name—those that come in by the door. There is union of mind and heart between sheep and shepherd. The flock feeds on the wholesome pastures of truth, the sheep individually are consoled by the compassionate solicitude of the Shepherd and they follow him with affectionate docility. The whole flock finds life in the death of the Shepherd and his resurrection. That great sacrifice willed by the Father, freely offered by Jesus, crowned with life after three days, centres the love of the Father on the Shepherd—and, let us add, should centre the love of the sheep on their Good Shepherd. Gratitude, one of the greatest human motive powers, should grow out of the consciousness that he came that we may have life and an abundance of it. 22-39 The Great Discussion at the Dedication Festival —This festival called in Hebrew ?nukkah was instituted by Judas Maccabeus, 1 Mac 4:52; 2 Mac 10:5, as an eight-day solemnity beginning on 25 Casleu (Kislev), the ninth month of the Jewish year —therefore opening approximately about the third week of December. As commemorating the renewal of worship in the temple in 165 b.c., after the profanations of Antiochus Ephiphanes, it held an important place in the festal calendar. Having presumably occupied the time between Tabernacles and Dedication in the Judaean and Transjordanian ministry which Luke 9:15- Luke 11:13 probably records in the main, Jesus came to Jerusalem for this feast. 22 f. The occasion is marked in a short historical introduction. The season (winter) is mentioned for the sake of Greek readers and to explain wily Jesus walked in Solomon's Porch, the eastern side of the temple running along the western verge of Cedron and sheltered from desert winds. St Augustine could not resist referring the words to the human atmosphere: 'It was winter, and they were frigid'. 24. They gathered around him and pressed him to declare himself. Their question is really a demand that he should finish this suspense of uncertainty for them and say plainly whether he was the Christ. Hitherto Jesus had proved that he was, but had not expressly said so. 25. He had said so sufficiently, however, and they did not believe, but now as before it is to the proofs, namely the works he has been doing in the name of his Father, that he refers them. His words are going to take them higher than his Messianic title up to his dignity of Son of God, consubstantial with the Father. 26. In terms of the Good Shepherd parable he tells them the reason of their unbelief. Because of their bad dispositions they are not of his sheep—the Father does not draw them, 6:44. As St Augustine is strongly predestinationist in commenting on this verse, it should be emphasized that the Jews do not receive the grace of faith, because they are voluntarily as blind as a man who shuts his eyes and refuses to open them. That they are not 'of his sheep' is their own fault. 27. The description of the sheep as those who hear the Shepherd's voice, those whom Jesus knows, those who follow him, reproduces the thought of the parable, 3 f., 14. 28. 'Everlasting life' which occurs just a dozen times in chh 3-6 recurs here, Jesus gives it to his sheep and they shall (as long as they are his sheep) never fall to destruction. No one (either with the stealth of the thief or the violence of the robber) shall snatch them from his hand. It is the power exercised by the violent that is particularly envisaged, and this notion of the Shepherd's unconquerable power to keep his sheep from every adverse force is the point of connexion with the difficult verse that follows. 29. DV gives the reading of Vg which has the support of the Greek B (Vaticanus) and the Latin Fathers. Translated literally (with the original Rheims) this form of the text says: 'My Father, that which he hath given me, is greater than all'. Both the relative pronoun (?) and the comparative adjective (µeÎ???) are neuter gender. The rival reading followed by the Greek Fathers Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, makes both words masculine and says: 'My Father, who gave to me is greater than all'. There is no need to refer to the mixture of the two readings in many MSS. The second reading, asserting that the Father who gives the sheep to Jesus is greater (in power) than all makes an easy sense, but for that very reason may be suspect. The grammatically neuter reading is more difficult. The thing given has been understood by St Augustine and St Thomas of the divine nature (and power) given in eternal generation by the Father to the Son; others understand the thing given as the sheep, not simply as sheep but as something given by an omnipotent giver to an omnipotent keeper, as the context demands. The words that follow will fit any of these three senses: 'No one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father'. It is evident that the hand of Jesus is equally omnipotent, for no one can snatch the sheep out of his hand. 30. 'I and the Father are one'. St Cyril who follows the easier reading of 29a crystallizes his interpretation of these few words in the two adjectives homoousios, homodynamos—consubstantial, com-potent. Similar language is used by Basil and Chrysostom. Because the Arians said that union of will was meant —unanimity or concord of the Father and Christ— the champions of orthodoxy interpreted this text repeatedly (Athanasius about 50 times). Two brief citations will suffice as a summary of patristic thought. 'Unum ad naturam referimus, sumus ad personarum distinctionern', Jer. 'Quod dico, unum, audiat arianus; quod dico, sumus audiat sabellianus. Non dividat arianus unum; non deleat sabellianus sumus', Aug. 31-39. The Jews understood the magnitude of the claim and again threatened stoning—bringing the stones, rather than finding them near in the Porch of Solomon. 32. Jesus does not withdraw this time (cf. 8:59), but asks them to state their motive. Of the many good works he had shown them from his Father, for which particular good work did they want to stone him? 33. They answer: 'Not for a good work'—whatever it might be—'but for blasphemy'. The accusation is quite formal: 'Thou, being a man, makest thyself God'. 34. Jesus does not deny the charge, nor mitigate what he has said, but leads them to reason upward from a Scripture text, according to the favourite rabbinical process of qal wa?omer—from the less to the greater. Psalms 81 (82):6 (a text of the Law in the wider sense of the term) introduces God addressing the judges of Israel in the solemn words: 'I said: "You are gods"'. 35. The appellation is God's own and registered in an inviolable Scripture. 36. Therefore, a fortiori, it is not blasphemy to apply it to one of higher dignity. That one is Jesus whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world, as his anointed, holy Envoy. It is not blasphemy for him to say: 'I am the Son of God', this being the equivalent of what he had said above. If 'god' is a metaphor in Psalms 81:6, it does hot follow that 'Son of God'is a metaphor here. 37. It is a higher dignity proved by works which Jesus does as works of his Father. If his word is not sufficient—although it is—at least they should believe those works, so as to recognize and know that 'the Father is in me, and I in the Father'. This mutual in-being is a unity of being and nature and signifies an identity such as Jesus later impressed on his Apostle Philip in the same words, 14:10. Therefore, the discourse returns to the earlier assertion of consubstantiality: 'I and the Father are one'. 39. The Jews did not think that he had retracted, for they wished to seize him, but 'he escaped out of their hands'. 40-42 Departure to Peraea —Jesus returned across the Jordan to the place where he gathered his first disciples —the place where the Precursor was first baptizing. Away from the hostile environment of Jerusalem, many believed in him; and the memory of John became a motive of belief. Whereas the Precursor had worked no miracles, all he had said of Jesus was true. XI 1-44 Lazarus called from the Tomb —This is the supreme miracle of the public life, the one which manifests 'the glory of God' most signally on account of its circumstances; it is also most decisive in its results, for it led the Sanhedrin to decree Jesus's death. It invites meditation rather than annotations. The narrative divides itself thus: (a) the Saviour's journey to Bethany, 1-16; (b) the meeting with Martha and Mary, 17-32; (c) the miracle, 33-44; (d) the reactions, 45-53; (e) the retreat of Jesus to Ephrem under virtual sentence of death, 54-56. 1-16 Bethany (the name being variously interpreted by scientific and popular etymologists as House of poverty, of affliction, of Ananias, of obedience) was situated on the eastern slope of the southern shoulder of Olivet, less than 2 miles (3,000 yards) ESE. from Jerusalem. The village where Martha and Mary lived is mentioned without name in Luke 10:38, but is here named by Jn and described as the village of Mary and Martha her sister. 2. Mary is named as the anointer with reference probably to Luke 7:37 rather than to John 12:3. Although the matter is likely to remain a disputed question, there is a sufficiency of indications in the Gospels to give reasonable assurance to those who, with St Gregory the Great and the Latin Liturgy identify Mary of Bethany with the sinner of Luk 7:37 and Mary Magdalene; cf. §§ 739b, 753g. The sickness of Lazarus (Grecized from Eliezer) is set at the head of the narrative. His sisters, knowing the danger to the life of Jesus in Judaea decided to inform him only at the last moment. Lazarus died while the messenger was on the way to Transjordania, i.e. to some place not far from that other Bethany, 1:28. 3. In the circumstances no request is conveyed but a simple intimation: 'Behold, he whom thou lovest is sick'. Aug. says beautifully: 'It is enough that thou know; for thou dost not love and leave it at that'. 4. In the ordinances of God's providence the sickness was not unto death but, through the raising of Lazarus, for the glory of God, who thereby glorifies his Son, the worker of the miracle. Note especially that Christ foretells this miracle no less than four times, 4, 15, 41, 42. 6. Jesus, therefore, though he loved the family at Bethany, waited two days. 7. His subsequent 'Let us go into Judaea. again' alarmed the disciples. 9-10. With the little parable of the day and the night Jesus tells them that nothing can happen till the evening of the Passion comes. 11. Then he announces the sleep of Lazarus his friend which the Evangelist renders by a Gk verb from which we get our word 'cemetery', to signify the 'dormitory' of the dead. 12-14. As the disciples take him to mean ordinary sleep (a good sign in a sick man) he then says plainly that Lazarus is dead. 15-16. Being absent he did not intervene to cure him—a subject of joy, because of the salutary effect which his greater intervention will have on the faith of his disciples. When Jesus repeats: 'Let us go', Thomas speaks a word of decision—the decision of a generous pessimist. 17-32. The death and burial of Lazarus took place probably within a few hours of the departure of the messenger. So four days had elapsed when Jesus came to Bethany. 19. The mourners (called Jews without the usual hostile meaning) were many, on account of the nearness of Jerusalem, and mourning was maintained with gradation of rigour for 3, 7, and 30 days—compare our Catholic 3rd, 7th and 30th day. Mary was the more celebrated of the sisters, 11: 1, but Martha was the mistress of the house. 20. Hence she went to meet Jesus. The dialogue is magnificent. Note the feminine delicacy and vaguely conceived hope of Martha's first word. 23-24. In answer to our Lord's assurance: Your brother shall rise again she makes profession of her faith in the final resurrection, a religious tenet of Judaism that had been growing in clearness since the Maccabean persecutions (cf.2 Mac 12:43 f.). No doubt she had a latent desire of something more immediately consoling. 25-26. Jesus demanded an act of faith in himself as, the resurrection and the life', in the sense of his being their cause or giver, cf. 6:39, 40, 44, 54. 27. Martha's response was magnificent. Though she did not think clearly of the miracle that was to be, she must have felt that the words portended something unusual. 28-32. She called Mary, who came and, with more emotion, repeated Martha's original words. 33-44. Deeply moved by sympathy (e+?µί??µa+??Ta?) Jesus asked to be led to the tomb. 35. The sentence 'And Jesus wept' loses some of its original force by the addition of 'and' to Jn's asyndetic manner, and loses something in accuracy by use of the same verb as that which denotes the weeping or crying of Mary and the Jews. The Gk word (e+?da+´????e?) means that Jesus broke into silent tears. 36-37. This sign of friendship moved some, and excited criticism in others, who asked if Jesus could not have prevented his friend's death. 39. Again giving expression to his feelings of compassion (the verb seems to suggest that Jesus, felt angry with Death or the Prince of Death), he ordered the tomb to be opened. Martha only thought of the decaying body of her brother and had to be reminded. that she must only have faith in him who will presently show her the glory of God. 41-42. As man Jesus had already made the submission of prayer to his Father and now publicly thanks him for the answer to it already granted and just about to be realized. Jesus wished to make the raising of Lazarus a clear proof of his divinity by calling God to witness to the miracle before it had been wrought. They took the stone from what seems to have been a subterranean cavern without an antechamber and closed not with a round stone running in a level groove but with a horizontal stone. 43. From this cavern Jesus calls the dead man. Jn has three Gk words for what were probably only two Aramaic words spoken by Jesus with the solemnity of a loud voice. 44. Lazarus came forth, bandaged as he was and with hands and feet and eyes impeded by the attire of the grave. In order to bring the astonishment of the bystanders to the concrete matter of fact before them, Jesus said simply: 'Loose him and let him go'. From the 4th cent. the tomb of Lazarus was shown where stands the present village of El-'Azariyah (from Byzantine Lazarion). 45-53 The Pharisees resolve to kill Jesus —The miracle had the usual opposite effects. Some believed; others blinded by the light denounced the matter to the enemies of Jesus among the Pharisees. A miracle was no crime, but the growing popularity of the wonderworker was a danger to the worldly hopes of Judaism. 47. The chief priests and Pharisees (scribes) gathered in council. The whole discussion centred on the influence which these undoubted miracles were gaining for Jesus. If things go on thus, all will believe in him, and that will mean the end of the temple of Jerusalem and of the Jewish nation. 49. The gruff counsel of Caiphas was interposed to cut the debate short. 50. He insisted 'that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation perish not'. 51. In the sense of the speaker it was merely a political utterance, but God, as Jn remarks, gave the words of the Pontiff of the year (such Caiphas was from a.d. 18-37) a higher prophetic meaning. 52. Jesus was to die, in order to gather the scattered children of God into one as 'the Israel of God ', Galatians 6:16.53. From this moment the death of the Son of God is decreed by the chief Council of the Jews. They will choose a suitable time and make show of legal forms, but the matter is decided. g 54-56 Jesus retires —His hour was not to sound till the Pasch of which he was to be the Lamb. He therefore retired from Jerusalem to spend the remaining weeks away from hostile manoeuvres. The city of Ephrem to which he went is probably the present village of E?-?ayibeh, about 12 miles NE. of Jerusalem on the edge of the wilderness of Bethaven. Early pilgrims to the Pasch were already beginning to move. There was much talk about Jesus, especially because the chief priests and Pharisces had given orders that his whereabouts should be reported in view of having him arrested. XII. 1-50 End of the Public Ministry—The last journey of Jesus from Ephrem to Jerusalem was a circuit, for we are certain that he passed through Jericho. It is probable that the events and words given by Lk between 17:12 and 19:28 belong to those few days. On this hypothesis Jesus would have touched Galilee once more (at Jenin?), then passed into Peraea, and finally made the journey to Jerusalem via Jericho from near the place where his public ministry began. Jn's account of the days which preceded the intimate farewell of Holy Thursday groups itself in six sections which naturally arrange themselves in pairs. The supper at Bethany, 1-11, and the triumph of Palm Sunday, 12-19, are closely associated by the Evangelist with the miracle of Lazarus; the words occasioned by the petition of some Greeks form two discourses—both under the sign of the cross—namely, that of the grain of wheat, 20-26, and that connected with the Saviour's first prayer of trepidation at the approach of his Passion, 27-36; what remains consists of two solemn summaries, one from the Evangelist, 37-43, and the other from the lips of the Divine Master himself, 44-50. 1-11 The Supper at Bethany—Mt, Mk, Jn tell of the anointing at Bethany. Jn marks the date. 'Six days before the pasch', probably on the Friday evening that began the Sabbath of 8th Nisan, Jesus came to Bethany. Since his return from the grave, it is Lazarus that gives prominence to Bethany. 2. The supper was on the evening of the Sabbath. Simon the (ex-) leper, probably a friend rather than the father of Lazarus, was the host, Matthew 26:6, and Lazarus one of those reclining at table with Jesus; Martha was serving. It was Mary's magnificent gesture which made that supper memorable wherever the Gospel is preached. Anointing the head of a distinguished guest with perfumed oil was quite a common courtesy, Luke 7:46, and it is this act that is given prominence on this occasion even by Mk, who emphasises the profusion of unguent involved in the woman's act of breaking the neck of the alabaster which contained it. 3. Jn on the other hand draws attention to the anointing of the Saviour's feet and the extraordinary act of the woman in wiping the ointment off his feet with her hair. Since towels would obviously have been available this incident becomes readily intelligible only on the assumption of the identity of this Mary with the sinner of Lk 7; and thus her act is also a recalling of the events of her conversion. Nard pistic (genuine) precious, probably the Indian product from the nardostachys Jatamansi of the Himalayas, had a penetrating aroma, and Jn (probably with conscious thought of the symbolism) notes that the whole house was filled with the odour. 4-8. Mt and Mk, if they do not use a plural of category, show that several disciples joined in criticism of the apparently wasteful gesture, but Jn points to Judas Iscariot as the leading and vocal objector. To say that his estimate of the price of the unguent meant so many French francs, or English pounds is mere mathematical equivalence, for 300 denarii actually represented the salary of a whole lunar year earned by an ordinary workman working six days a week. 6. 'took the things. . . .' Jn tells that the pretended solicitude of Judas for the poor was really the avarice of a thief who had been appropriating contributions to the money-box (?????ó??µ?? originally a musician's 'tongue-box') which he administered. 7. Mt and Mk show that the Divine Master's defence of Mary's action drew attention to its character of anticipated embalmment. The words in Jn mean the same, but we must supply an ellipsis: 'Let her alone (she did not sell it) that she might keep it against the day of my burial'. 8. The proximity of the Saviour's death is also brought out in the words: 'the poor you have always with you, but me you have not always'. 9. Unmixed spiritual motive is rare in human crowds. The attraction of Jesus and curiosity as regards Lazarus brought a great throng of Jews to Bethany, of whom many believed. 10. The decision of the chief priests to kill Lazarus as well was involved in the fearful logic of their purpose to destroy the influence of Jesus. But Aug. asks: 'Could he who raised a dead man not raise a murdered man?' 12-19 Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem—The Johannine description of the triumph of Palm Sunday joins that of the Synoptists, but Jn alone mentions palm branches. 13. In the acclamations of the crowd, taken in the main from the great festal Psalms 117(118), he gives prominence to the Messianic title King of Israel; cf. 1:50. Since he supposes the synoptic narrative, he omits many details such as the presence of its mother with the colt that served as a mount for Jesus, but he joins Mt in pointing to the fulfilment of Zach 9:9, which reads 'Rejoice exceedingly, daughter of Sion', etc. Jn quotes the text freely from memory, and substitutes 'Fear not' for 'rejoice exceedingly'. 16. It is again recorded that, as on the occasion of the purification of the temple, the fulfilment of Scriptural prophecy in the events of the day did not come home to the disciples. till later, 'when Jesus was glorified'. 17. The enthusiasm of the crowd is connected with the raising of Lazarus, of which some had been eyewitnesses, while others knew from reliable informants that Jesus 'had done this miracle'. 19. The Pharisees who were the prime haters and deadliest enemies of the 'King of Israel' expressed their envy in many ways that day (cf. Mt, Lk). Jn records their sense of frustration and their admission that 'the (whole) world is gone after him'. Characteristic of St Augustine's tractates on Jn is the question: 'Why are you jealous, blind crowd, because the world has gone after him, by whom the world was made?' 20-26 The Gentile Visitors —Some men, Greek in language and non-Jewish in race, had come to Jerusalem to worship the one true God whom they (like the centurion of Capharnaum and Cornelius of Caesarea) had learned to know through the influence of the synagogue. The legend of Abgar connects the origin of the Syrian Church of Edessa with these pilgrims. 21. Wishing to have a private talk with Jesus of whom everyone was speaking, they approached Philip, the Apostle from Bethsaida Julias. His name was Greek and he probably spoke Greek. 22. Philip consulted Andrew his fellow-townsman, his senior in the school of Christ, and his helper in embarrassment, 6:5-9. Together they told Jesus. 23. It seems clear enough that Jesus did not say yes. These men were moved by the triumph of Palm Sunday which was not the real triumph of Jesus. His name was to be great amongst the Gentiles in another way. That is what his answer—the parable of the grain of wheat—shows. The hour of the glorification of the Son of Man, which is now so near as to have already come, is the hour of the Passion—to be followed, of course, by the resurrection, ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit. 24-25. Thereupon he enuntiates that immolation is the condition of spiritual fructification. The grain of wheat is an example. It has the germ of life in it, but that germ does not germinate into the production of other living grains, unless it is subjected to a process of death and burial in the earth. The interests of spiritual, supernatural life must take priority over everything. To love the lower natural life more is to lose the higher; to hate (which means to love less and subordinately) what is life in this world is the means of self-preservation unto life everlasting. This is the law of self-denial so often proclaimed by the Saviour, of which the highest act is martyrdom. 26. It is the law of all the ministers or servants of Christ to follow their Master. To be with Jesus in glory— 'where I am' by the anticipation of proximate realization—it is necessary to follow after him in the way of the cross. Such servants the Father will honour and crown. 27-36 Agony of Spirit —Jn alone relates this Agony as the Synoptists alone relate the Agony in the garden. The cross frightens us, but it also frightened Jesus, who clearly showed us that he has known every experience of human weakness (apart from sin) that would fit him to be a compassionate priest. 27. The vivid image of a cruel death brought to Jesus a tremor, freely permitted, of fear. The first Gk words of Jn's version of the Saviour's utterance are an echo of a verse of the Judica, Psalms 42(43):6, which is also echoed in the Tristis est anima mea of Gethsemane. The parallelism with the agony in the garden is striking: 'My soul is troubled '—' my soul is sorrowful unto death'; 'what shall I say? '—' he fell on his face praying' . . .; 'Father, save me from this hour '—' Father . . . take away this chalice'; 'but for this cause I came unto this hour. Father, glorify thy Son '—' not my will but thine be done'. 28. The voice from heaven is, however, not like the angel of the Lord strengthening him in Gethsemane. It will be remembered that the voice of his Father was heard at his baptism and his transfiguration. On those occasions it came to accredit the Divine Messias. Now, before the Passion, the voice of God tells that the name of his Father has been glorified in the life of Jesus and shall be glorified in his death. Like the voice addressed to Saul on the road to Damascus, this voice was not understood by all the bystanders. 30. While they disagreed, some saying it was thunder, others an angel speaking, Jesus told them that the voice had not come to assure him but to assure them. He explains to them how God will be glorified in him. 31. The judgement which is to fall on the world is a judgement of condemnation, for ???+´??? has its usual meaning in the mouth of Christ. The world is the hostile mass of men and its Prince is Satan, who is now about to be cast out of his dominion. In this sense Christ immolating himself is, as Simeon foretold, set for the ruin of many. But Christ is the Saviour. 32. Lifted up on the cross he shall draw 'all men' rather than 'all things' (Vg but not so strongly attested by Gk MSS and Fathers) to himself. The 'all' is not numerical but excludes every distinction of race or people. 34. As exaltation meant crucifixion, the crowd fell into a discussion about the contradiction between the idea of a Messias reigning for ever, Psalms 109(110); Isaiah 9; Daniel 7, and a Son of Man who was to die. 35. Without entering into the discussion, Jesus renews his warning that the light is before them and the time short. 36. Jn says that after these words he hid himself, because he did not stay in Jerusalem but retired to Bethany at night. 37-43 The Reflexions of the Evangelist —In the following reflexions the tragic note of this Gospel sounds again. So many miracles encountering so much unbelief! What is to be thought of it? That 'he came to his own and his own received him not' is from a human point of view the great 'scandal of Jesus'. But there is no scandal. 37. The want of success of Jesus amongst the lost sheep of the House of Israel was due to a perverse disposition foretold in the prophetic Scriptures. 38. It is from what has been called the Passion of Christ according to Isaias, 53:1 ff., that Jn takes the first oracle describing Israelite unbelief. 40. The more difficult text cited freely from Isaiah 6:9 f. had been used by Christ himself, Matthew 13:14 f., and by St Paul, Acts 28:26 f., of the same kind of incredulous obstinacy. The difficulty is in Jn saying that the Jews could not believe, because Isaias had foretold that they would not, and the text itself attributes their blindness and hardness to God blinding and hardening them. What is predicted in Scripture belongs to God's foreknowledge which is infallible. Therefore the Scripture must be fulfilled in the obstinacy of the Jews as well as in the treason of Judas, 17:12, but clearly that does not necessitate the action of the culprits any more than visual knowledge in the eyewitness of a murder necessitates the murder. In the blinding and hardening we have the mystery of the distribution of grace and its efficaciousness or non-efficaciousness. 41. Isaias said these things because (rather than 'when') he saw his glory, so that the Evangelist identifies Jesus with Yahweh of the famous Isaian vision. Hence Jesus knew how his work amongst the Jews was to turn out. 42-43. Like Paul later, St John notes that the infidelity of the Jews was not absolutely universal. Many, even amongst the Sanhedrites, believed, but through fear of the Pharisees and of expulsion from the synagogue—human glory hindering zeal for the glory of God—they did not publicly profess their belief. 44-50 Recapitulation of Jesus' teaching —In the last summary the Evangelist recapitulates from the lips of Jesus the main ideas of the various discourses. Jesus had demanded faith in himself as an Envoy of God. 46. He had repeated that he came into the world as the Light of the World. 47. He had said that he was a Saviour to save, not a Judge to condemn. 48. Nevertheless, by their attitude to his word men condemn themselves and by that same word they shall be condemned on the last day. Practically the first and the last word of this part of the Gospel, 1:4 and 12:50, is 'life'. 49-50. Jesus came into the world with his Father's command to execute and that command is life everlasting—its whole purpose is to give eternal life to those who receive Jesus and keep his words. 'The things, therefore, that I speak, even as the Father said unto me, so do I speak'. 'See', says Chrys., 'how everywhere he shows himself united with him who begot him and that there is no separation'. To see Jesus is to see the Father, to hear Jesus is to hear the words which the Father gave him to speak. 801j XIII-XVII THE LAST SUPPER The earthly ministry of the Christ to his own nation is finished. Through their leaders and as a people 'the children of the kingdom' are standing in the darkness outside, when Jesus retires with his twelve apostles to eat the Paschal supper. That he did eat a Paschal supper with them is all but certain from the synoptics, but there is nothing explicit in Jn either about such a celebration or about the institution of the Eucharist. While the Synoptists narrate the things done at the Last Supper, Jn magnificently supplements them with a narrative which is mainly a report of the Saviour's words. The whole comprises three great sections: (1) ch 13, an historical prelude (washing of the feet, separation from Judas, and a touching preamble about the Passion, the new commandment, Peter's denial); (2) 14-16, the great discourse divided by a gesture of movement into 14 and 15-16; (3) 17, the sacerdotal prayer for unity. XIII 1-38 Events In the Supper Room. XIII 1-17 Washing of the Feet —Jn has not a word to indicate or describe the place of the Last Supper, but he gives a precious date. Both here and in 18:28 he clearly indicates that the Sanhedrists were not themselves eating the Paschal supper, while Jesus was gathered with his own in the supper room (cenacle). Unless we suppose an improbable official transference of the Pasch of that year to 16 Nisan, the dates must be as follows: Jesus celebrated the Pasch on the evening which began 14 Nisan on the official calendar; he was crucified about noon 14 Nisan; the Jewish paschal supper began an hour or two after the Saviour's burial. It is disputed whether Jesus anticipated the date of the Pasch by his own authority ( Fouard, Le Camus), or adhered to a Pharisaic rather than a priestly (Sadducee) dating ( Vosté, Prat), or followed a different (Galilean) observation of the moon ( Lagrange, Braun). Let it suffice to say here that recent studies seem to have given very strong probability to the opinion that Jesus ate the Pasch an instituted the Holy Eucharist after the sundown that closed Thursday 13 Nisan, died on a Friday which was 14 Nisan—a combination which gives very considerable probability to April 7, a.d. 30 as the date of the Redemption. (Nevertheless April 3, a.d. 33, still has its patrons, and their arguments are not negligible; cf. § 676b.) 1. St John loves prologues. They always sound the note of solemnity. Here 'his hour', so often mentioned before, is defined (with an allusion to the Passover) as the hour of his passage from this world to the Father. The proofs of love which he had given to his own had been many. Now he gave his final proof of that love (unto death, says Aug.); or as the Gk phrase 'to the end' may also signify, he gave them supreme proof of his love (Chrys., Cyr.). 2. What follows brings a terrible shock of contrast. The supper was in progress (de?+´p??? ????µe+´???, rather than 'when supper was done'), but the devil had sown treachery in the heart of one of the company, who is now named 'Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon'. Jn had named Judas with similar emphasis when chronicling the day of the Eucharistic promise, John 6:72. 3. There is another antithetic step from the baseness of Judas, to the sublime dignity which Jesus knew was his— universal sovereignty, divine origin, approaching glorification. 4 f. And we follow yet another step of contrast as Jesus fully conscious of this greatness rises from table to preform a menial act for all his apostles, including Judas, while they reclined at table (their feet outwards). A lesson in humility is, in this context, the obvious intention of Jesus, and as such he himself explains it, 12-17. The customary ceremonial required a washing of hands, but Jesus added the washing of their feet. It is really humility doing a service of charity, this latter virtue being the one which has chief prominence in the magnificent commentary provided by the liturgical texts of Maundy Thursday. The further purpose of symbolic purification, though popularly assumed since Orig. and Aug., does not clearly result from the text. Jn notes every detail of the Saviour's actions, as if the wonder with which he then viewed the Lord thus serving his servants, still transpired through his pen. 6. Jesus began with Simon Peter, for we cannot conceive the impetuous apostle holding his protest, while the Lord washed the feet of one, or two, or eleven others. 7 f. English word-order blunts the force of St Peter's protest, as it sounds both in Greek and Latin. The contrast between 'thou' and 'my' in the apostle's words implies loving adoration expressing itself with utmost emphasis and vehemence. The amazed tone of the refusal comes from him who had declared Jesus 'the Christ, the Son of the living God'. Even when Jesus asks for acquiescence, adding a promise of explanation in the future, 12-16, Peter remains obstinate. 'Never', he said. As the refusal proceeded from love, but not according to knowledge, Jesus overcame it by the proper weapon: 'if I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me'. In this threat with which Jesus subdues Peter's love, it cannot well be loss of sanctifying grace, or loss of partnership in the Eucharist or in the priesthood or the apostolate that is meant—all interpretations proposed by different commentators— but rather dissociation of mind from the humiliation of the Passion (cf. Matthew 16:23). 9. The fear of any sort of separation from Jesus drives the ardent apostle to the other extreme of offering his hands and head also to be washed. 10 f. One who has taken a bath needs no subsequent partial washing, for total cleanness excludes the necessity of partial cleansing. This seems the most satisfactory interpretation, as the words 'but' and 'his feet' are absent from many of the best Gk and Vg MSS. It is in order to show his knowledge of the treason of Judas that Jesus passes to the moral sense saying: 'You are clean, but not all'. 12-17. Resuming full attire and his place at table, Jesus explained the lesson. The disciples called him the Master and the Lord, and such he really was. Humble service of one another (washing of feet being a type of all humble services) is what they must learn from this unique Master and Lord. The Church, while keeping the washing of feet in the liturgy of Holy Thursday, has not regarded it as a permanent sacramental, much less a sacrament. It is a generic example given by the Saviour; and the solemn sentence under double Amen emphasizes that the servant being less than his Lord and the apostle being less than his Sender must not be above doing such things. It is not the knowledge, but the practice of such an example that brings the happiness of true discipleship. 18-30 Elimination of the Traitor —It is from such happiness of true discipleship that Jesus passes to indicate the presence of a miserable apostate, without, however, revealing the person to the company. The happiness mentioned did not belong to all the twelve. 18. Knowing everything, Jesus had chosen them all as members of his apostolic college (cf. 6:71), but that one should, by his own fault, betray the confidence shown him was foreseen in the prophetic Scriptures. The text of Ps 40(41):10 is cited according to the Hebrew. The brutal treason of Achitophel, table-companion and intimate counsellor of David, is described as the backward kick of a horse against his Master. Achitophel was the type of Judas. 19. Jesus is careful to make this known beforehand, 'that, when it shall come to pass, you may believe that I am'—the suppressed predicate being 'what I revealed myself to be', namely, the Messias, the Son of God. The undetermined 'I am' on the lips of Jesus is particularly reminiscent of the majesty of 'I am who am'. 20. This grandeur of Jesus, Messias and Son of God, supplies, it seems, the connecting link between 19 and 20, which latter verse derives the dignity of the faithful apostles from the dignity of the Messias and the dignity of the Father who sent him. It is conceivable that the thought of this divinely high apostolic dignity brought on the disturbance which Jesus freely allowed to arise in his spirit, as he turned his mind to the traitor apostle. Though he had twice touched the subject of uncleanness, 11, and treachery, 18, in the apostolic group, he had not yet spoken directly. 21. Now, however, he solemnly attests with emotion, 'Amen, amen I say to you, one of you shall betray me'. Only one knew it was himself, but the eleven were in consternation and in doubt, each about himself (as the synoptics show) and each vaguely about everyone else. St Peter, as usual, wished to cut an intolerable situation short. Placed possibly at the right-hand curve of a horse-shoe arrangement of cushions round a more or less circular table which was probably only slightly above the level of the floor, Peter was near enough to communicate with the disciple in front of Jesus, who was reclining with his head about the level of his Master's breast. Here the Evangelist for the first time covers his anonymity with the beautiful and distinctive title 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'. With a gesture of the hand and in a whisper Peter said to John: 'Who is it?' The familiarity with which John leaned his head back to get the information is charmingly expressed in Gk by the adverb 'thus' (cf. 4:6), that is, just as a bosom friend would do. 26. The sign, a dipped morsel, shows that the supper was not yet finished—an indication that the Eucharist had not yet been instituted. The morsel was not the Eucharist, and was probably a cake of unleavened bread, dipped in the special sauce called charoseth. This sign, of which the whispered significance was known only to John, was a gesture of friendship towards Judas, but it finally hardened him. 27. 'After the morsel Satan went into him' to clench the decision of betraying Jesus. By the words: 'that which thou dost, do quickly' Jesus separates himself from one who had already completely gone over to the enemy. So well had the reputation of Judas been guarded that the company understood the Master's words of a commission to the bursar regarding some festal expenses or almsgiving to the poor. 30. Judas went out immediately. 'And it was night'. To adapt a phrase of Aug., night went out into the night; Judas was going to the Prince of Darkness, separating himself from the Light of the World for ever. There seems to be a growing tendency to rally to the probability (though it is only a probability) that Judas had not received the body of the Lord and was not a priest. [It would be certain if the Eucharist was instituted between the second and third cups of wine and water, as Judas seems to have gone out before the second; cf. § 720a.—Gen. Ed.] 31-33 The Glorification of Jesus —Separated from the traitor and thereby set on the way to his Passion the man Christ regards his glorification, soon to be accomplished on the cross, as virtually realized. 32. Since he is to glorify God by his Passion, God will glorify him; 'in himself' may refer to the glorified or to the glorifier. The resurrection and ascension, forming a unity with the Passion, are regarded as immediately imminent. It is after this verse that many harmonizers insert the institution of the Blessed Eucharist. If so, the term of endearment: 'Little children' (of which this is the only recorded instance from the lips of Jesus) represents the glow of the heart which we now venerate as the Eucharistic Heart. In any case, it introduces a touching adieu, for the Master announces at once his proximate departure and visible withdrawal from his own, in such wise that they cannot accompany him. 34-35 The New Commandment —Jesus gives the old commandment of Lev 19:18 as a new commandment. Mutual fraternal love, as promulgated by the Saviour, is new because of the entirely new standard 'as I have loved you'. The first' that' introduces the commandment; 'as' fixes the standard; the second 'that' manifests the deliberate placing of that standard—in other words, Jesus' intention in loving us was that we should love similarly—unselfishly (Cyr.), gratuitously (Chrys.), efficaciously, rightly (Aquin.). 35. Charity is the badge of true disciples of Christ. Tertullian ( Apol.30) sets it down as a note which pagans recognized in the Christian community. 1 Jn is full of the exegesis of this commandment. We should also recall the precious information transmitted by St Jerome (in Gal.) that St John in extreme old age could preach nothing else but 'My little children, love one another'. Aug. has the beautiful thought: As Christ the Saviour loved us to save us, so charity should be a thirst for the spiritual salvation of our neighbours, all of whom God wills to be saved. It is primarily amongst disciples in the Christian community, but extends to others without exception, that they also may be disciples. 36-38 Peter's Love and Presumption —St Peter was totally absorbed in the departure of Jesus and fixed in the thought that wherever the Master went he should follow. When Jesus said 'not now' but later, Peter made the bold profession of love and presumption which brought from Jesus the terrible reminder, in the form of a prophecy of the Apostle's triple denial, that fervour does not avail without the consciousness of personal weakness and a correlative dependence on divine grace. Recall the touching prayer of St Philip Neri: 'Lord keep thy hand upon Philip, or Philip will betray thee'. The cockcrow mentioned is the second of Mk—that of the third or fourth watch— before which Peter shall have thrice denied the Master (the life, says Aug.) for whom he thought himself ready to die. XIV 1-31 Consolation —The whole discourse, chh 14-16, constitutes a farewell address. Consolation predominates in 14, while the developments of the two succeeding chapters are more exhortatory. The said consolation comes very opportunely to allay the consternation with which the prediction of Peter's denial must have filled the eleven. All that is said is meant to reinforce the consolatory word: 'Let not your heart be troubled'—a phrase occurring in 14:1 and 27. The burden of the thoughts is that the departure of Jesus is not abandonment. The Apostles shall have the assurance of his being their Precursor to paradise, of his future return to take them, and of his permanent interest in them, 1-14, they shall have the assurance of his Paraclete present with them, 15-17, the assurance of Jesus' own interior and living presence, 18-24, the guidance of his Paraclete, 25, 26, and finally the peace with which he bids them farewell as well as the joy that his triumph shall bring them, 27-31. 1-14 The Way to the Father—The movement of this first section is towards the Father in heaven, to whom Jesus is the way, and with whom he is one God. 1. The remedy for troubled hearts is faith in God and in the Christ. Whether we read a double imperative: 'believe. . . believe' (Chrys., Cyr., Hil.), or (with Vg) an indicative 'you believe' and an imperative 'believe', God and Jesus are on a level of equality. 2. 'Many mansions' mean that a multitude shall come to the bliss of the Father's house. Diversity of merits (Aug.) is true theology, but not the plain meaning of 'many mansions' in this context. If it were otherwise—if there were only a few mansions—Jesus would have said so, because his departure was really for the purpose of preparing a place for his own. We must not conceive this preparation in a quasi-material sense of fixing places, but rather understand it of the Saviour's work as intercessor, sender of the Holy Spirit, helper of his combatant soldiers. Thus by preparing the occupants, he prepares the place which they shall occupy. 3. His return to take them is at the hour of death for each individual (personal, Veni, Domine Jesu) and for the whole Church at the Parousia, Apoc 22:20. 4. They knew vaguely that he was going to God by the way of obedience. So he told them that they knew both the goal and the road. 5. Thomas, a man of slow, critical mind, objects that they did not even know the goal or destination. 6. Thereupon Jesus gives both the goal and the way their full clear meaning. The Mediator is the way (to be followed by faith and obedience), inasmuch as he is the truth showing the heavenward path, and the living force that causes movement towards the goal, which is an unending vision of truth and an unending possession of life. Coming to the Father is necessarily a supernatural filial motion realized through the Son. There is only one Son in whom we are sons, only one Mediator who is our way to the Father. On earth we are wayfarers (viatores). 7. The orientation towards the Father which Jesus gives is perfect. To know him is to know the Father in the unity of the one divine nature. To see him with the eyes of faith is to see the Father. 8. This mention of seeing the Father raised in the mind of Philip the idea of a theophany, such as was granted to Moses, Exodus 33:18, to the 70 elders, Exodus 24:9 ff., or to Isaias, 6:1 ff. Hence the apostle who had said to Nathanael, 'Come and see', now says 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us'. 9. Jesus pointed out, in a tone of gentle reproof, that even in more than two or three years Philip had not penetrated his Master's identity with God. 10. He therefore repeats the teaching of that famous day of the dedication feast, 10:25-38, when he had said, 'I and the Father are one '. The statement of 10:38 is here reiterated in inverse order: 'I am in the Father and the Father in me'. Identity of nature means that the words of Jesus are the words of the Father. In-being and immanence express the ineffable union of the Father and the Son. 11. Jesus spoke with an authority that commanded belief; cf. Matthew 7:29. His word was enough to elicit belief when he said 'I am in the Father and the Father in me'. He is now speaking not to Philip only but to all the Apostles. 12. If they hesitated with regard to his mere word, they should believe in his divinity because of his divine works. From the mention of these works he proceeds to tell them solemnly ('Amen, amen') that hereafter anyone believing in him shall do the same works (works of the same kind) and even greater ones. The meaning is not precisely that Peter's shadow was to cure the sick, whereas Jesus only cured them with a word or a touch. No apostolic miracle that we know surpassed the raising of Lazarus and many others of Jesus' miracles; but the results to be achieved by the Apostles and the Church were to be greater, for example, the conversion of the world, the interior transformation of souls through the communication of the Holy Spirit, the admirable development of the little mustard-seed which the Saviour cast into the earth in the days of his mortality. 13. The power to perform such stupendous works shall not be from the Apostles themselves but from Jesus raised to glory with the Father. He makes it clear that he will do the work, even when the apostolic prayer is addressed to the Father 'in his name'. For the Father is to be glorified in the Son. 14. Similarly when Apostles pray to himself and ask something 'in his name', he will do it. Jesus is, of course, not speaking of the twelve only, but of the apostolic efficacy of the prayer of the Church at all times. Petition 'in the name' of Jesus means not merely the use of the formula: in nomine Christi or per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, but intimate apostolic union of mind and heart and intention with the Saviour. We have explained the Rheims text, but it should be noted that in 13 the Gk MSS and the best critical text of Vg read: 'whatsoever you shall ask in my name', the words 'the Father' being omitted. The addition, however, gives the true sense of the verse. 15-17 The Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth —'Love in deed and in truth', that is, love shown by keeping the commandments is the condition of the action of Jesus in the world. On behalf of the Church loving his petition to the Father is efficacious. The Father 'will give another Paraclete'. This purely Gk word used by Jn four times of the Holy Spirit, 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7, and once of 'Jesus Christ the advocate of sinners', 1 John 2:1, means literally 'one called in', as helper, pleader, defender, patron, advocate (especially in a lawsuit). Its active meaning is the usual one. In this discourse the Gk word is either retained (Syr., Copt., Vg, Aeth., Goth.) or translated as 'Consoler' (Syr.-Pal., Arm., Georg., Slav.) or as 'advocate' (Vg in Ep). Consoler is quite a good rendering, if we understand it to include assistance, advice, protection, intercession, everything, in fact, which is required to sustain and strengthen spiritually. The Paraclete shall remain not a short time only with his recipients, but for ever. 17. He is the spirit of truth, communicating truth and therefore irreceivable by the world placed under the dominion of the Father of lies. The antipathy of the corrupt world and of the merely natural man to spiritual teaching is like congenital blindness. Reception of the Spirit is itself vision and knowledge of the Spirit. Such vision is possessed by the Apostles (and the apostolic Church) because of the presence of the Spirit, which presence and its interior character is expressed by the two prepositions 'with' and 'in'. 18-24 Presence of Jesus and the Father —The advent of the Spirit is really the advent of the whole Trinity. Jesus in heaven is not like a departed parent leaving orphaned children. Invisible to corporal eyes (i.e. to the world) he shall be visible to the eyes of faith, which faith is a contact between the living Church and its living Saviour. The day of Jesus' coming is Pentecost and every day in which he manifests his spiritual presence. 20. 'In that day' there will be the recognition of faith that the Christ is in the Father (with whom as Son he is one God), that the disciples are in him as living members, and that he is in them by infusion of the life they possess owing to their incorporation into him. 21. Again the condition of love is formally stated. Active love of the Son draws down the Father's love and also the Son's responsive love, which is an intimate manifestation perceived by faith and even sometimes experimentally felt. 22. Judas (more commonly called Jude, not (the Iscariot) expressed his surprise. His surprise was just like the former surprise of the brethren of the Lord to whose number Jude belonged, 7:4, that Jesus should have mentioned no manifestation of himself to the world. 23. Jesus answered by continuing on the same line of thought. Practical love of Jesus calls down the Father's love and brings a joint visitation of Father and Son, not passing but abiding. 24. The nonobservance of Christ's word is non-observance of the Father's word. Hence such conduct excludes from the divine visitation and manifestation, which is really love meeting love. 25-26 The Paraclete as Teacher and Guide —The connexion between 25 and 26 shows that the function of the Paraclete as Teacher and Mentor will be to give full understanding of the teaching of Jesus. 26 is a Trinitarian verse, for the Father sends the Spirit in the name of Christ. The Holy Spirit is always active in the Church furthering the full development of the truth delivered by Christ. 804c 27-31 Farewell —The conclusion shows an example of Semitic inclusion. The discourse ends as it began in words of encouragement, with a slightly enlarged repetition of one phrase: 'Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid'. It has often been noted that Latins greeted by wishing health, Greeks by wishing joy, Semites by wishing peace. 27. The peace (a real tranquillity of order within the human soul) which Jesus wishes is a legacy and a gift, not a mere formula such as the world uses. The peace of Christ excludes both disturbance and pusillanimity. As at the beginning, the Master couples the thought of his departure with that of his coming (his constant coming). As a matter of fact, his departure, instead of being a cause of sorrow, should be a cause of unselfish joy proceeding from the love of benevolence, 'because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I'. The greatness of the Father over the Son was conceived by some early Fathers as the relation of giver of the divine nature to him who received it by generation. Though theologically justifiable in the sense of priority of relationship, this conception is not exegesis. Jesus is speaking as the Word Incarnate and as one going to the Father by the glorification of his humanity. The Word as Son was equal to the Father; the Word Incarnate as man was less than the Father. 29. As the departure was to be by the scandal of the Passion, Jesus notes that he is telling all this to his Apostles beforehand, in order to keep their faith from succumbing to the shock of events. 30. Little time is left. The prince of the wicked world—the inspirer of Judas and Jewish hatred—is coming, but against Christ the sinless he has no power. 31. If Jesus delivers himself to the Prince of Darkness, it is to show the world that he loves his Father and carries out his Father's command. After the signal 'Arise, let us go hence', he must at least have left the table and gone to another part or the house. It is difficult to suppose that he spoke chh 15-17 on the way to Gethsemani. Some suppose that we have in chh 15-16 a supplementary collection of paralipomena spoken earlier in the supper and closely connected with 13:31-35; others think that 27-31 are dislocated and should conclude XV-XVI Exhortation and Encouragement —These two words characterize what is most characteristic in this piece. It builds up the unity of the body of Christ by insistence on vital adhesion to the Saviour and on the cohesive bond of mutual charity, 15:1-17. This fellowship conceived as a living vine and a fruitful fraternity shall have to face the perpetual hostility which the world showed towards Jesus himself, 15:18-25; it shall, however, stand and bear its witness to the Saviour in the strength of the Paraclete, 15-26-16:15. The rest is an epilogue of leave-taking which assures the Apostles that they shall have a perpetual source of joy in him and an invincible confidence that his victory over the world shall be theirs, 16:16-35. XV 1-8 The Vine and the Branches —This is almost a pure allegory, the parabolic element in it being very small. The metaphor of the vine and the vineyard signifying the house of Israel is frequent in the OT. It is found in a beautiful canticle, Isaiah 5:1-7, in Jeremias' divine pleas against Israel, Jeremiah 2:21, in a passage of Ezechiel most closely akin on the negative side to our present allegory, Ez 15:2-8, in the Philo-Ephraimite poet of Ps 79(80)—as also in Jacob's prophetic image of Joseph, Genesis 49:22.1. 'I am the bread of life, I am the light of the world, I am the door, I am the good Shepherd, I am the resurrection and the life, I am the way, the truth and the life'—to these six great assertions this seventh and last 'I am' is now added, as the Saviour's own image of the Church which is the extension of himself, the total Christ, the mystic body of Pauline and Catholic theology. The allegory may have some relation to the Eucharistic wine which the Apostles had drunk, but in any case 'true vine' is the man Christ hypostatically planted in the Godhead and realizing the fecundity and excellent fruitage of the vine-image. The cultivation of it is attributed to the Father. 2. A fruitless branch is lopped off like Judas; the fruit-bearing branch is pruned by the pruning-knife of trials, and thus relieved of noxious excrescence becomes more fruitful. 3. The pruning 'clean' of the Apostles is the result of the word Jesus has spoken to them not only that night but during his whole ministry. 4. Vital immanence—the Eucharistic word of 6:57—is what the disciples must maintain by faith and charity—really by sanctifying grace which is inseparable from the virtues of faith and charity. The branches do not give but take the sap of life from the vine; therefore there is no fruit without immanent adhesion. 5. In indicating the meaning of the metaphor 'I am the vine, you the branches', Jesus says that union secures abundant fructification, 'without me you can do nothing'— a sentence which according to patristic interpretation and the authoritative declaration of the 2nd Council of Orange shows the necessity not only of habitual but of actual grace. These six words exclude every sort of Pelagianism. 6. A separated vine-branch is proverbially useless, destined only to be cast out, to wither, to burn in fire. Nothing could be stronger than St Augustine's comment: Aut vitis aud ignis— either the vine or the fire (of gehenna). 7. Mutual union of vine and branch means also efficacious prayer, which is the indispensable means of fruitful life. 8. Fruitfulness and discipleship, which is union of mind and heart with Christ, go together, and in them the Father has received glory, the moment they 9-17 Union of Charity —9. The greatness of Christ's love for his disciples is seen in the comparison: 'As the Father loved me'. They must make sure that his love for them continues. 10. The observance of his commandments, which is the real proof of that union of wills which is called love, will ensure the permanence of Christ's good pleasure towards them, just as in Jesus' own obedience the Father always acknowledged his beloved Son. 11. These words Jesus has spoken, in order that he may have the joy of the vine in its branches, and that the branches may have the full joy of abundant and precious fruit. 12. He reduces his commands to one which includes all: 'that you love one another, as I have loved you'. 13. The standard is Jesus' own love, and the measure is that 'greater' and greatest measure of generosity which will make one ready to sacrifice life itself on behalf of one's 'friends', who in this context also include one's enemies, who do not return one's love. 14. Again the proof of friendship with him who is Lord and Master, is conformity or will in obedience—idem velle, idem nolle, ea demum firma amicitia est, to will the same, to nill the same, is really firm friendship'. 15. Servants receive orders but are not given reasons, friends are treated as intimates and admitted to the master's secrets. So Christ made known to his disciples all that he heard, as man and teacher, from his Father. 16. Most striking characteristic of all, his love was totally gratuitious. He chose them, not they him. This choice is brought back once more to the allegory of the vine: 'I have appointed you that you should go and bring forth fruit, and your fruit should remain'. In the wonderfully bold metaphors of Ps 79(80), the apostolic tendrils of the true vine were to propagate the growth of salvation to the sea and to the Euphrates and to the ends of the earth. Such fecundity is not the result of natural activity but of prayer drawing everything from the Father in the name of his Christ. 17. All these things that Jesus enjoins have one purpose, 'that you love one another'. 18-XVI 4 Hatred on the part of the World —The external response of the world to this apparition of divine charity in its midst will, strange to say, be hatred. Persecution is really a mark of the true Church. A Christian will never be surprised at it; rather will he expect it. Christ has forewarned us. 18. He tells us: 'It (fixedly) hated me before you' (µeµ?+´׀?e?). 19. The reason of the hostility is found in the fact that the aspirations of disciples of Christ are clearly and categorically opposed to the aspirations of the world. A dissimilarity which is a perpetual reproof must be disliked and hated. 'Not of the world', rather 'chosen out of the world', are the qualifications that make the disciples of Christ a sign of contradiction. 20. Servants cannot look for better treatment than their Master received. Persecution from many, submissive love from some will be their lot, as it was his. 21. The name of Christ is the real sign of contradiction, and hatred is heavily charged and intermixed with culpable ignorance: 'they know not him that sent me'. Jesus is speaking of the Jewish world. 22. The advent of Jesus, their Christ, and his message to them has deprived them of all excuse for their unbelief. 23. Hatred of Jesus is simply hatred of God the Father. 24. His works—unique works such as no one ever did—leave them without any plea to excuse them from sin. They have seen him and they have (fixedly) hated him and his Father, whose words the words of Jesus were, and whose works were his works. 25. So it was predicted in their law (i.e. their Scriptures), for a Psalmist said in a Messianic Psalm, 68(69):5: 'They hated me without cause'; cf.Psalms 34(35):19. The connexion between 25 and 26 seems to be that the inexcusability of the unbelieving Jewish world will continue, for testimony to Jesus will also continue through the Holy Spirit and the Apostles who were with him from the beginning. Thus Jesus seems to refer chiefly, if not exclusively, to the years of active Jewish persecution and to the time which had its horizon in the fall of Jerusalem. 26. In a sentence, from which a little compendium of the theology of the Holy Spirit might be extracted, the Master now points to the Paraclete as a witness of himself. The Paraclete's relation of origin or procession from the Son is implicit in the fact that the Son sends him. He shall equally come from the Father (in this temporal mission), but the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father is commonly held to be explicity stated by the use of the present tense, 'who proceeds from the Father'. That the Spirit is a person appears clearly, for although the 'Spirit of truth' is neuter in Gk, this name is immediately followed by the masculine personal pronoun 'he' (??e?+????). The Apostles are witnesses of Christ, as having been with him from the beginning (cf. Acts 1:21 f.: 10:37 ff.); their testimony is distinguished from, but also united to, the testimony of the Holy Ghost (cf. Acts 5:32; Acts 15:28). XVI 1-4. These premonitions are a shield against such terrible shocks as might well make them stagger—excommunication from the synagogue, persecution to death which is actually considered by the persecutors (such as Saul was) as an act of homage to God. Culpable ignorance shall be behind it all, but for the persecuted to be forewarned is to be forearmed. XVI 5-15 The Work of the Holy Spirit —5. In this precise way Jesus had not yet told of the future stubbornness, fury and fanaticism of Jewish persecution. He does so now because he is going, and they know where he is going, since they have ceased to question him. 6. From their own (not really disinterested) point of view they see only the sorrowful aspect of his departure. 7. He therefore tells them of its utility to them. It is the necessary condition of the sending and advent of the Spirit. The benefits of this advent may be summed up as three, (a) the evidences of the divinity of the Holy Ghost, (b) the abundance of his outpourings of grace, (c) the spiritualization of the Apostles' love of Jesus. 8-11. The Spirit will impeach the world and put it in the wrong on three points: sin, justice, judgement. The world thought Jesus to be guilty and itself guiltless; the world thought that justice was on its side; the world thought that it had no condemnation to incur. The Spirit will show all these suppositions to be false. In the first place, the Spirit will give clear evidence that Jesus was the Messias, and in doing so will lay their sin at the door of the Jews as being a sin of unbelief, a sin against the light. Three thousand in Jerusalem made that admission on Pentecost Sunday, Acts 2:37-41, and every conversion of an enemy of Christ will involve the same confession. Secondly, the Spirit will attest that it is not a culprit who ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God. As the Apostles preach, as charismata abound, as the Church grows, it will be clear that justice and sanctity belonged to Jesus and not to the Jews who killed him as a malefactor. Thirdly, it will appear that in the battle between Christ and the Prince of this world, it is not the Christ who has succumbed to adverse judgement. Satan has been struck with a sentence of condemnation (?e+´???ta?) and has been cast out of his dominion; cf. 12:31. The destruction of idolatry and the expulsion of demons from the possessed were to be amongst the proofs of this, Acts 8:7; Acts 16:18; Acts 19:12. 12-15. Whereas towards the world the Spirit is an accuser from whom there is no escape, towards the Apostles he is Christ's great substitute to guide them into all religious truth. 12. To render his teaching explicit and clear in detail, Jesus still needed to speak many words, too many for his hearers to take in that evening. He will, therefore, complete their instruction through that other Paraclete. For the fourth time the advent of the Spirit is promised to them, and for the third time he is called 'the Spirit of truth' (14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 'Holy Spirit' in 14:26, cf. 20:22). 13. 'But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come he shall lead you into all truth'. This may mean the revelation of new truths left unrevealed by the Christ, but the view that the Spirit is an internal illuminator rather than a revealer seems more in keeping with the context of this discourse, 14:26, and of the whole Fourth Gospel (1:16-18; cf. 1 John 2:20-27). In the person of Jesus and his manifestation of himself up to the day of his ascension, Acts 1:3, and sometimes to individual Apostles after the ascension, Acts 9:4; Apoc 1:1, we would seem to have the full final revelation, in the explicit understanding of which the Church shall ever grow through the illuminating action of the Paraclete. Thus the Spirit of God (substantial love) would be the fecundating principle to secure the Church's living penetration of the deposit given by the 'Image of the invisible God', Colossians 1:15, in implicit fullness. In Jesus 'all the treasures of wisdom and khowledge are hidden', Colossians 2:3. The Spirit is not an independent speaker. 'Whatsoever he shall hear (BWD Vg against 'hears' of SL) he shall speak'. By particular prophecies and still more by full confidence in the Christian economy (as voiced, for instance, in Apoc) 'the things which are to come he shall show you'. 14 f. As Jesus glorified the Father, the Paraclete shall glorify Jesus, receiving and showing what is common to the Father and the Son. This statement implies the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from a co-principle. 16-24 Jesus' Departure and Return —Jesus puzzled the Apostles by telling them that in a little while they should not see him' and again in a little while they should see him'. The addition 'because I go to the Father' is not authentic in 16, but is added by the Apostles in 17, from what they had already heard, 16:10. Thus they make the subject of their inquiry, 'the little while' and 'the little while', even more enigmatic. The enigma has received many explanations. Aug. terminates the first 'little while' at the ascension, and extends the second to the judgement and the final bliss of heaven. In this explanation the second 'little while' is by no means little, but it is urged that the ages of time, however many, are short, a thousand years being like a day in comparison with eternity. Another interpretation, approved by Aug. and followed by Aquinas, has the favour of the majority of modern commentators (Maldonatus, however, being a very notable exception). The first modicum extends to the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, the second terminates with his resurrection. Thus the 'little whiles' are respectively less than 20 and 40 hours in round numbers. After his resurrection they saw him and rejoiced with a joy which no one could ever again take from them. 20 ff. The two states of sorrow and joy are illustrated by the Saviour's parable of a woman in childbirth. 23 f. It is objected that whereas he says that in that day they will ask no further questions, after the resurrection the Apostles still asked some questions, John 21:21; Acts 1:6. But Christ evidently means that his resurrection will put his disciples in a permanent condition of certitude about the meaning of what he has said to them. That certitude brought by the resurrection is crowned at Pentecost. Jn himself notes more than once that, when Jesus was glorified, they understood many things that had for formerly been impervious to them, 2:22; 12:16. Then they shall also understand the impetratory power given them in the Saviour's mediation—a thing they had not thought of while he was with them in his mortality. 'If you ask the Father anything in my name, he will give it you'. Aug. emphasizes the last word, and argues that only prayer for one's own needs is certainly infallible. It seems difficult to say that Christ intended to affirm this. The order of words in Gk would rather put the emphasis on 'in my name'. 25-32 Conclusion —Even with the tragic note of human weakness sounding so clearly in them, no words could be more comforting than these few verses. 25-27. 'These things I have spoken to you in allegories'. What Jesus had said in the language of symbol and allegory was obscure, but the hour of full light is coming, when 'I will show you plainly of the Father'; cf. 14:26. That hour shall begin with the resurrection and the mission of the Holy Spirit. Then petition shall be made in the name of Christ—the Apostles and the Church after them shall pray per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum—and although the living intercession of the Saviour on behalf of his own shall go on perpetually, 1 John 2:1-3; Hebrews 7:25, the very fidelity of the Apostles' love for Jesus will draw the benevolence of the Father upon them, for they have believed that he came forth from God. 28-30. With a clearness which, at that moment, seemed new to the eleven he said: 'I came forth from the Father and am come into the world: again I leave the world and I go to the Father'. No one can miss perceiving not only the clarity but the majestic grandeur of this word— a veritable compendium of the Fourth Gospel. The Apostles felt that it answered all the questions they wanted to ask about that enigmatic 'little while'. Not only do they recognize plain speaking ('thou speakest no allegory'), but they feel that Jesus has been reading the secrets of their hearts. 'By this', they say, 'we believe that thou camest forth from God'. 31 f. He does not doubt the sincerity of their faith, but he speaks a prophecy of human tragedy and divine grandeur. The faith of the Apostles is not solid enough to stand the storm of crisis that is to break that very night. The picture is: His intimates dispersed, Jesus alone—but not alone, for the Father is with him. 33. To comment on the final word of eternal encouragement would be to spoil it: '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 (?e??+´?ð?a)'. It is equivalent to saying: My victory over the powers of evil will be yours. St John remembered it when he wrote to the Churches of Asia: 'This is the victory which vanquished the world, your faith', 1 John 5:4. Jesus has not conquered without conquering in his body which is the Church. Aug. writes: 'They had confidence and they conquered. In whom but in him? For he would not have conquered the world if the world conquered his members. Hence the Apostle says: "Thanks be to God who gives us victory", 1 Corinthians 15:57, and he added immediately, "through our Lord Jesus Christ"'. XVII 1-26 Christ's, Sacerdotal Prayer for Unity — The sacerdotal or pontifical character of this majestic prayer of the Saviour is noted more than once by Cyr. Alex. in the course of the ten long chapters which he dedicates to its exposition. It is, of course, v 19 that sounds the specifically sacerdotal note. But the pontifical tone of the whole and the fact that the prayer is a sort of preface to the Passion justifies the title of 'sacerdotal prayer'. However, the theme of it is the unity of the Church through the glorification of the Saviour. The exordium of that great sacrificial prayer, the canon of the Roman Mass, shows some affinities, of which an emphatic supplication for unity is not the least. Christ, as we saw, had probably left the supper-room, 14:31. That he was in the open air (possibly on the flat roof of the house) is suggested but not postulated by the gesture of raising his eyes to heaven. Certainly such a gesture, carefully noted by Jn, would have had more external solemnity, if made under the stars and in the light of the Paschal moon. The prayer is patently tripartite, for Jesus first prays for himself, 1-5, secondly for his Apostles, 6-19, thirdly for the whole Church to be won by the preaching of the Apostles, 20-23. The final epilogue of petition is addressed in two parts to the Father for the reunion of all in glory with Jesus, 24, and for the Church militant as set apart from the world in union with Jesus, who is the revealer of the Father and the total object of the Father's love, for he is the beloved Son gathering the Church through the grace of adoption into intimate unity with himself, 25 1-5 Jesus prays for Himself —The vocative address 'Father' opens the prayer and also opens the special petition of each part, 5, 11, 21, and furthermore opens the two parts of the epilogue, 24, 25. Let it be remembered that the prayer follows on a series of words which had begun with the announcement: 'Now the Son of Man is glorified . . .', 13:31, and ended with the encouragement: 'Have confidence, I have conquered the world'. For the third time, 6:5; 11:41, Jn contemplates Jesus lifting his eyes to heaven. 'The hour has come' means that the Passion is about to begin. It is that Passion which will win for Jesus the glory which as man he now asks at the right hand of his Father. 2. 'Even as thou hast given him power over all flesh, in order that . . .' The lordship of Christ over all flesh, i.e. over the whole human race, is realized by this glorification, given in view of a further glorification of the Father by the Son. The whole function of him who is 'Lord and Christ' is to give eternal life to those who will receive it by living and abiding faith. 3. Therefore the Saviour defines in what eternal life consists. It is faith here and vision hereafter, neither of which is and knowledge but knowledge glowing with charity. The object of such knowledge is the one true God, as distinct from polytheistic idols, and of God's Envoy Jesus Christ. This is perfect Monotheism in the Trinitarian Messianism of the Incarnation. A difficulty has been raised regarding the use of the appellation 'Jesus Christ'. Nowhere else does the Saviour call himself thus. It may be a redactional addition of the Evangelist ( Lagrange, Huby, Braun). As usual in our Lord's words (cf. 5:24) eternal life possessed by the knowledge of faith here is in the forefront, the knowledge of vision being implicit or in the full perspective. 4 f. The 'work', by the fulfilment of which Jesus has glorified the Father, is the Passion already regarded as consummated. It is to the Passion that the glorification of the Redeemer is constantly referred (cf. Phi 2:9 ff.). In praying for the glory which was his with the Father, before the world was, Jesus asks that the full glory of the Word should show itself in the Word Incarnate —that he might be set in enjoyment of the glory of which he emptied himself in taking the form of a servant (Cyr.). 6-19 Jesus prays for the Apostles —Petition for the Apostles begins at 9, the preceding words being an introductory preface in which Jesus enumerates the claims which they have to the benevolence of his Father. 6 ff. Given to him out of the world as out of a mass of corruption, he has made known the Father's name to them. This election is the first fact which entitles them to special consideration. Secondly, they belonged to the Father by the goodness of their dispositions under the guidance of his loving providence. Thirdly, he gave them to Jesus by that interior attractive force of faith which drew them to him (cf. 6:37, 39, 44, 66). Fourthly, they had surrendered mind and will to the teaching they had received from Jesus, recognizing that all he had was from the Father, accepting his words, acknowledging his divine origin, and believing in his heavenly mission. 9. Jesus who prayed for his crucifiers does not absolutely exclude the world from his prayer; he is interested in the conversion of the world, 23; but here he is specially praying for the Apostles. In any case, he could not pray for the world as the world—except for its conversion—because the unspiritual world is hostile to God (cf. 8:43; James 4:4). His prayer for the Apostles is founded on three reasons, which have reference to the present moment. 9b-11a. They belong to the Father as being his Son's very own. Indeed, the Father and the Son have all in common—'all my things are thine and thine are mine' (cf. Luke 15:31 for half the phrase spoken by a father to a son). Moreover, Jesus has been and is glorified in them, for they have persevered in their faith, even when others fell away, 6:68 f. Besides, at his departure, they are now about to be left alone in the world. 11b. It is here that the direct petition for them begins. It is a petition for holiness —for apostolic consecration to the service of God and of truth in the midst of a corrupt world which serves the father of lies'. Hence Jesus places the epithet 'holy' before 'Father'. One recalls the great vision of Is 6 in which the Prophet learned the great distance between God and human corruption so vividly that he constantly calls God 'the Holy One of Israel'. 'Holy Father, keep them in thy name (that divine name) which thou hast given to me'. Which not whom is the reading of the best MSS (BSCLAW etc.). The 'name' is the divine essence manifesting itself in its attributes of power and wisdom—these together with the divine nature having been communicated from the Father to the Son. The petition is that the Apostles should be kept united in mind and will and heart, realizing a unity modelled on the ineffable pattern in which all is one in a distinction of persons. 12-14. Up to the present, Jesus has kept them, so that none of them fell into such temptation as brought permanent rejection (cf. 18:9), except 'the son of perdition'—a Semitism of metaphorical relation denoting destiny, like 'son of gelienna', 'son of death'. Judas was destined to perish, but by his own fault. The Scripture had foretold it, Psalms 40(41):8. The treason of Judas, foreseen as the result of the traitor's own malice, was an element in the plan of redemption. This prayer spoken by Jesus in the world is to secure for the Apostles a full participation in the serene joy which he himself had in the accomplishment of his Father's will. The professors of heavenly doctrine will surely be hated by that world which holds to an earthly philosophy. 15. Jesus does not ask that they should be taken out of the dangerous environment— this would be the end of their apostolate—but that they be kept from contagion—'evil' here seems to be the sum of evil influences rather than the personal evil one, although Johannine usage in his first epistle favours the latter. 16. 'They are not of the world, as I am not of the world'. To keep them from evil, however, is only the negative side of what Jesus desires for his faithful ones. 17 ff. The culmination of his prayer for them is: 'Sanctify them in the truth, thy word is truth'. What is asked is that God should consecrate them for the priestly office of preaching the truth, for what St Paul calls the 'hierurgy of the Gospel', Romans 15:16. Their mission is the continuation of the mission of Jesus. 19. 'And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth'. A word of the same generic signification will vary its sense according to the subject. Jesus consecrates himself. That consecration is not the hypostatic union, nor the 'unction' of his humanity by the Holy Spirit, but the priestly consecration of himself as a victim on the cross. The sacrifice of Christ gives the Apostles a sacrificial consecration for their work in a true sense ('in truth' without the article). It is obviously not an external consecration such as that operated by the sacrifices of the Old Law. It is a sanctification of a kind corresponding to the sacrifice that makes it, and is therefore an internal sanctification; cf. Hebrews 9:13. 20-23 Jesus prays for the Church —20. The prayer passes to the generations to come, to all believers whose faith is founded on the Apostolic teaching. 21. What Jesus asks for them is unity—a unity of souls, imitative of the Divine Trinity (and, no doubt, a social unity of bodies in which St Cyril sees the effect of the Holy Eucharist)—a unity which will be a proof to the world that God is here. 22. The glory which Jesus received and which he has given to his Church—to all faithful disciples of the Apostles—is not so much the glory of miracles and wondrous concord (Chrys.), or the glory of Christ's humanity resplendent in the Church (Aug., Thom.), but rather the fundamental glory of divine filiation (Ambrose, cf. 1:18). Adoptive sonship includes everything else and especially that unity like to the union of the Father and Son, which is the central petition of this prayer. 23. 'I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one: and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me'. Again we have a clear echo of the grace of the Eucharist, 6:57 f. SS Cyril and Hilary and many commentators after them were not wrong in thinking that it is through the Eucharist that this prayer of Jesus is realized. It is through the 'concorporating' sacrament that the Church is enabled to show the world that the Father loves the Church as he loves his own Son. It is really one love, for the Church is Christ. 24-26 Epilogue —The final petition is that all this magnificence may be fulfilled in the vision of heavenly glory. The glory of the Word shining in his humanity, which we now see through the dark medium of faith, is the final reward. Let us note the strong Volo with which Jesus prays for this: 'I will that where I am, they may be with me, that they may see my glory'. This glory is the glory of the Godhead in the Word Incarnate. Such glory, communicated to the sacred humanity in accordance with a divine decree of predestination, manifests the eternal love with which the Father has loved his Son. We may also say—and it is well for us to feel and relish it interiorly—that this strong Volo of the Saviour shows magnificently how 'he loved his own who were in the world and loved them unto the end'. He wants his apostolic Church with him in the glory of heaven. The petition ends here, for the remaining verses, 25 f., opening with the title: 'Just Father' separate the Church—as the Lady Electa (to use a Johanninc phrase)—from the deliberately blind world. 25. The recognition in deed and in truth of the mission of Jesus is what saves men 'from the perverse generation', Acts 2:40, or world, which St Augustine calls the fearful name of massa damnata. To the word 'know' (recognize) in 25 corresponds the word 'make known' in 26: 'I have made known thy name to them'—to the Apostles as foundations of the Church—'and will make it known' —after the resurrection myself, and after Pentecost by my Spirit—'that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them'—as proved by the gifts of grace —'and I in them'—by the immanence which gives them life in abundance. The profundity of these concluding words did not escape Aug.: 'How', he asks, 'comes it that the love with which the Father loved his Son is in us also, except for the reason that we are his members, and in him we are loved when he, the whole Christ, is loved by the Father—that is, the head and the body?' (Tract. 111). XVIII-XXI THE PASSION AND XVIII-XIX The Passion —In recording the events of the night and the day that began in Gethsemane and ended at the rock tomb beside the place of crucifixion, Jn only narrates incidents omitted' by the Synoptists or, if he rejoins them, otherwise supplements their narratives. The chief headings of the Passion according to Jn are: the arrest of Jesus, 18:1-12, his appearance before Annas and Caiphas synchronizing with the triple denial of St Peter, 13-27, the first interrogation before Pilate, 28-38a, the second interrogation—Ecce homo and condemnation to the cross, 19:1-16, the crucifixion, 17-22, the division of garments, 23 f., the last words and death of Jesus, 25-30, the piercing of the sacred side, 31-37, his burial, 38-42. XVIII 1-12 Arrest —1. The journey with which this chapter opens began at the house of the Cenacle (Supper Room) in the SW. quarter of Jerusalem and possibly followed an old Jewish or Maccabean road discovered in recent years by the Assumptionist Fathers. The Water Gate near the Pool of Siloe would be the most probable exit from the city. Turning to the left or north, Jesus and the eleven would have skirted the eastern slope of the old Jebusite site of the city of David and of the temple esplanade, outside the Porch of Solomon. The crossing of 'the brook of Cedron'— literally meaning 'the winter stream of turbid (water)' —is mentioned only by Jn, probably with some reminiscence of the pathetic crossing of the same torrent by David, as he fled from Absalom, 2 Kg 15:23. The garden to which Jesus went is named Gethsemane (Oil-press) by the Synoptists. The property evidently belonged to a friend. 2. Judas knew that place on Olivet, because it was a favourite retreat of Jesus; cf. Luke 21:37; Luke 22:39. 3. The arresting party, to which Judas acted as guide, Acts 1:16, was composed of Roman soldiers and Jewish guards. The former, described as a cohort commanded by a tribune, 12, would in strict parlance number 600 men—or at least 200, this being the strength of a maniple often denoted by the same Gk word (?pe?+??a). Thus the whole party was an armed band of soldiers, Levitical police and lackeys of the chief priests, 10. The lanterns and torches on a night when the moon was full, would have been largely a matter of military routine. 4. Jn, who omits the kiss of Judas, is careful to note the full foreknowledge and sovereign freedom with which the Saviour gave himself into the hands of his enemies. The little dialogue, 4-8, with its accompanying circumstances is most awe-inspiring. 5. The band, with which Judas stood, answered the question: 'Whom seek ye?' by using the ordinary designation of the Master: 'Jesus of Nazareth'; cf. Mark 10:47; Luke 18:37. The words, 'I am he', uttered by him who could say: 'I am who am', caused what Jn undoubtedly attributes to miraculous power, namely, a backward stampede, involving an impressive fall to the ground of many, at least, of the arresting party. 7-8. The same question having been asked again and answered, Jesus demanded free departure for his companions—not calling them disciples, in order to save them more surely from arrest. 9. A word of Jesus, 17: 12, had guaranteed the eleven against their moral destruction (which could have happened if they had been arrested), and so Jn does not seem to extend the word unduly to preservation from physical destruction. 10. In describing the apostolic act of violence which ensued, Jn alone names Simon Peter as the one who struck the blow, joins Lk in specifying the right ear, but is the sole recorder of the name Malchus, said to be a Nabataean name (Heb. Melek) equivalent to our Rex or Roy—these being used in English both as baptismal and family names. Malchus was a servant of the high-priest, not one of the temple police. 11. In reprimanding Simon Peter, Jesus made a clear reference to the words of his agony in the garden, otherwise omitted by Jn: 'Chalice', of course, means the portion assigned to one (in a banquet), not what comes to him by the chance of a lottery cup. 12. In arresting Jesus they bound him, for the traitor had said: 'Lay hold on him and lead him away carefully', Mark 14:44. 13-27 Before Annas and Caiphas —This narrative raises a difficulty which must be treated briefly here. 24 suggests that Peter's first denial, 15-18, and the first examination of Jesus, 19-23, took place in the house of Annas, who in this hypothesis, is called highpriest in 15, 16, 19, whereas in 13 and 24 the title is given (as elsewhere in John 11:49) to Caiphas. As the Synoptists place Peter's denials in the house of Caiphas, one part of the difficulty has been met by supposing that Annas lived in the same pontifical palace as his son-in-law, the Pontiff of the year. Hence the courtyard of Caiphas was also the courtyard of Annas. As there is no trace of a topographical tradition marking a distinct palace of Annas before the 14th cent., this supposition is tenable; but what of the title 'high-priest' being given to Annas? Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6 are appealed to, but the appeal does not clear the Johannine narrative of confusion. A transposition of 18:24 after 18:13 rectifies the situation. This transposition is not purely arbitrary, for it has the support of the Syro-Sinaitic MS, of Cyril of Alexandria, and (it is said) of a minuscule codex 226, which, however, puts 24 in the middle of 13. Certain reasons of internal criticism drawn from the omission or fluctuation of a particle (de+´ or ???) at the beginning of 24 are also alleged. However, the transposition, though not devoid of probability, does not seem to stand before the united voice of the MSS and versions. The difficulty can be satisfactorily met (even without supposing one palace), by understanding 'high-priest' of Caiphas only and taking 24 as introductory to a resumption of the history of Peter's denials. The whole passage is so evidently a series of reminiscences, that 24 (though seeming to be out of its logical place) is quite characteristic of the evangelist's style. Jn alone mentions that Jesus was brought to Annas first. It was an act of courtesy, for the old man was a political power and notoriously shrewd in managing business affairs. Called Hananus (Hananya=the Lord is merciful) by Josephus, he had attained the highpriesthood through Quirinius in 6 b.c., was deposed by Valerius; Gratus in a.d. 15, but still succeeded in having five of his sons (Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, Ananus the Younger) elevated to the highpriesthood. Luke 3:2 sets him before Caiphas (the actual high-priest) in marking the pontifical year, and in Acts 4:6 he is also named first. Jn gives as reason for this present act of deference to Annas that 'he was the father-in-law of Caiphas, the high-priest of that year'. 14. Caiphas, whose personal name was Joseph, was altogether 17 years high-priest, 18-36, and was also, as John 11:50 reveals him, a politician rather than a priest. Jn here cites the Pontiff's decision of some weeks earlier, to show that the case of Jesus was prejudged. 15 f. Two disciples, Simon Peter and another, followed Jesus. The studious anonymity as well as the association with Peter indicates the evangelist himself. Some have thought of the young man who had fled in Gethsemane, Mark 14:51 f. How the son of Zebedee came to be known to the high-priest has not been explained, but is not thereby made incredible. A word from him to the portress obtained admission for Peter. 17. Her question to the Apostle (expecting however a negative answer) shows that she knew his companion was a disciple. Peter denied discipleship. 18. April nights can be cold at Jerusalem. Hence the brazier in the courtyard, to which Peter drew near, as much to keep up appearances as to warm himself. 19-23. The palace of Caiphas in which this first interrogatory was held, as well as the two judicial sessions of the night, Matthew 26:57-68, and of the morning, Matthew 27:1, Luke 22:66-71, is traditionally located (since the pilgrim of Bordeaux 333, it seems) near the Cenacle, south of the Sion Gate, now called Neby Dβϋd. The claims of the Armenian Monastery of Mount Sion are still upheld, but since 1927 the sanctuary brought to light by the Assumptionists and named Saint Peter in Gallicantu has found strong defenders ( Marchet, Power). 19. The questions of Caiphas have reference to two points—disciples whereon a political charge might be grafted, and teaching, in view of religious consequences. 20. Jesus, taking full responsibility, says nothing about the former, and in regard to the latter refers the Pontiff to the public witnesses of his quite open teaching—given in synagogues and in the temple. 22. This just and dignified answer earned him a blow with the open palm from a guard, who pretended zeal for the honour of the Pontiff. 23. Jesus, whose teaching on turning the other cheek, Matthew 5:39, is most often to be observed by a peaceful interior attitude of soul, calmly reminded the striker that one under accusation can demand proper justice and the proper forms of justice—testimony against him, if he speaks ill, respect for his person, when he speaks well. 24. The short sentence or note which says that Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiphas is inserted here as something which the Evangelist recalls for the purpose of continuing the account of Peter's denials. 25-27. Nine denials of his Master by Peter can be counted in the Gospels, if variations of persons, circumstances, and verbal forms are taken into account. But all insist that the denials were three. Three distinct times, when called to answer by one or more persons at once, Peter denied our Lord. The first denial had no variety of circumstance; the second and third had. Hence they are variously reported according to the particular circumstance or set of circumstances apprehended by the witness. Jn sets these last two denials in relation to queries from bystanders at the brazier, and from a relative of Malchus. The (second) cockcrow, as we said, 13:38, may have been as close to daybreak as the beginning of the 4th watch, 3-6 a.m. 28-38a First Interrogation before Pilate —28. The praetorium to which Jesus was brought from Caiphas was the residence of the governor. The procurators of Judaea, who were subordinate to the imperial Legate of Syria, resided habitually at Caesaraea, but came to Jerusalem for the great festivals or whenever a concourse or other circumstances endangered public tranquility. About Pilate's place of residence at Jerusalem there has been a difference of opinion. The Herodian palace near the present Jaffa Gate would seem to be naturally indicated as the Jerusalem residence of the supreme Roman magistrate, and we know from Josephus (BJ 2, 14, 8; 15, 5) that a quarter of a century later the governor Gessius Florus lodged there. Pilate also by the famous incident of the shields would have signified his intention of doing so. On the other hand, the arx Antonia or vast fortress-palace built by Herod at the NW. angle of the temple area was undoubtedly the most central and best post of vigilance. Especially, when the air was electric, it would be the proper place for the Governor to lodge. Since the 13th cent. the Via Dolorosa has begun from there, and excavations made between 1927 and 1932 in the property of the Sisters of Sion seem to have given reasonable grounds for connecting this place with the Lithostrotos of Joh 19:13. Probabilities in favour of the Antonia have therefore decidedly grown in recent years. The time was morning, probably as early as 6 a.m. by our clocks. The Sanhedrists did not enter the pagan residence to avoid legal defilement which would prevent them from taking part in the Paschal rites that evening. Meanwhile they were defiling their consciences with murder. Jesus, we may suppose, was conducted at once to a judgement hall within, entering, perhaps. by the northern long side of the great quadrangular fortress. 29. Pilate is now mentioned for the first time. Procurator of Judaea since a.d. 26 he is known to us not only from the Gospels but also from Philo and Josephus. His haughty and imprudent contempt of Jewish religious susceptibility is shown by two desecrations of the city, first with ensigns bearing the image of Caesar, and secondly with shields similarly adorned which he set up in the Herodian palace. He also offended Jewish feeling by the appropriation of temple monies for the building of an aqueduct. He was often cruel; cf. Luke 13:1. It was an act of cruelty against Samaritans that led finally in 36 to his deposition by the Syrian Legate Vitellius. The Gospels, however, show that he had something of a Roman sense of justice, was at once sceptical and superstitious, but above all weak as an upholder of right, when his position was thereby threatened. He feared above all things the frown of Tiberius Caesar. Jesus seems to have impressed him from the beginning. So, when he went out (on to a balcony ?) to the Jews, he demanded very categorically the formulation of their charge. 30. Having come only for the ratification of a capital sentence, which they could not carry out themselves, they were taken aback. They retorted that they would not have delivered up a fellow Jew to Pilate, if he had not done wrong. 31. Before this vagueness, Pilate pretends to understand the matter as a minor (non-capital) charge, to be judged by themselves according to Jewish law. Thereupon they make it clear that they want the death penalty, admitting that they have not the ius gladii or power of execution. 32. Thus Jesus, as he had foretold, Matthew 20:19; John 3:14; John 8:28; John 12:32, was to die by the Roman provincial penalty of crucifixion. 33. Pilate proceeds to an interrogation in the hall within. Of the three charges given by Luke 23:2, namely sedition, anti-fiscal agitation, pretending to royal sovereignty, the governor takes only the last which was laesa maiestas or treason in a very definite sense. '(So) thou art the king of the Jews', is, as the context shows, an assertion uttered with something of an interrogatory tone. Pilate would have expected a negative answer. 34. Jesus distinguished: Did that statement come from Pilate (a Roman) or from others (namely Jews)? If king meant a rival of Tiberius, No; if it meant the Israelite Messias, Yes. This was what was implied in the question of Jesus to Pilate. 35. The latter, having signified that the affair against Jesus was all a Jewish matter, asked definitely: 'What hast thou done?' 36. Jesus does not answer this question, except by clearly defining what his kingship is. It is not of terrestrial origin. If it were, his guards— the military force which in that hypothesis he would have had—would have striven against his arrest. Consequently his kingship is not 'from hence'— terrestrial—and therefore he is no Palestinian rival of the majesty of Roman Tiberius. 37. Pilate, surprised at an avowal of kingship of any kind, asked: 'Art thou a king then?' The answer given by Jesus is Yes. He is a Teacher-King, born and present in the world to proclaim the royal authority of truth. 'Every one who is of the truth (joined to it by the filial sympathy of true goodness, cf. 3:21) heareth my voice', i.e. obeys me. 38a. Pilate showed the scepticism of his soul by the question: 'What is truth?' but went no further. It is at this point that Pilate sent Jesus off to Herod; cf. Luke 23:6-12. 38b. When Jesus was brought back from Herod's court, Pilate, convinced that he had only to deal with a philosopher or a dreamer, went out and again informed the Jews: 'I find no cause in him'. Up to this Pilate has done his duty as a Roman magistrate, but he did not follow out the course of justice by immediately releasing the prisoner. The sending of Jesus to Herod, Luke 23:6-12, was the beginning of compromise; the proposal of the minor penalty of flogging, Luke 23:16, was a further step on the way of weakness. 39 f. Jn only mentions as a first subterfuge the proposed preference of Jesus to Barabbas (Son of Abba—rather 'Masterson' than 'Fatherson' in our English style of names). This suggestion of amnesty likewise violated the innocence of Jesus. Jn tells briefly that the preference was given by the Jews to Barabbas, and ends with one of those characteristically tragic sentences: Now Barabbas was a robber'. XIX 1-7 Scourging and Ecce Homo—1. Pilate ordered the scourging. Generally a preliminary of crucifixion, it was administered with the horrible flagellum made of thongs or the still more horrible flagrum armed with bone or metal. The mode of executing the penalty is described elsewhere, § 721h. 2 f. The soldiers themselves took the initiative in the mockery of the crown of thorns. Jn mentions the crown, the purple garment, the mock-imperial salute (imitation of Ave Caesar imperator), the blows with the open hand; he omits the reed, the genuflexions, the spittings. 4. Pilate seizes on what he considers a new opportunity of saving Jesus. Disfigured by the wounds and blood caused by scourges and thorns, and wearing a crown and a robe that made him look much more pathetic than any tinselled pretender to royalty could possibly be, Jesus was led out. 'Behold the man' was intended to excite pity or (in the more brutal) such a kind of laughter as would wish to push tragedy no further. 6. In the chief priests (here mentioned for the first time as a group directing hostilities before the praetorium) and in the Levitical guards it only excited more emphatic hatred. The cry 'Crucify, crucify', recorded for the first time by Jn and with the stark brevity of verb without object (attested by the best Gk and Lat. MSS) represents a frenzy of hatred. Pilate stiffens before it. There is both sarcasm and strong contempt in the words: 'Take him you and crucify him: for I find no cause in him'. For the third time in Jn (4th in the harmonized narrative) Pilate says, 'I find no cause'. American Seniors Association 7. The Sanhedrists being stung by the scoff at their dependence on Rome to carry out a capital sentence, their fury turns back, in spite of their plans, to the religious charge. For a capital crime against Roman law they substitute a crime against Jewish law—blasphemy, punishable by the Jewish code with stoning or (failing the power to stone) by execution in the Roman way, i.e. by substituting the Roman penalty of crucifixion. The words: 'He made himself the Son of God' can have nothing but their full sense. Otherwise the blasphemy statute of Lev 24:16 could not be invoked. 8-16 Last Interrogation and Sentence—8. Pilate must have already felt, at least vaguely, that no man ever faced jealous hatred like this man. Hence his scepticism could not prevent him, on hearing of Jesus' claim to be 'Son of God', from suspecting that the prisoner might be more than human. 9. It was, however, superstitious fear and curiosity rather than love of truth that prompted his question: 'Whence art thou?' Jesus did not answer. American Seniors Association 10. Pilate's remark in the face of this silence shows that he conceived himself as supreme arbiter of the prisoner's liberty and life. 11. The answer of Jesus refers to the present situation—to the power of the death-sentence towards which Pilate was drifting. 'The power given from above' does not refer to Pilate's civil jurisdiction. Pilate has the power to crucify by a permissive decree of God not authorizing the crime but permitting the event in view of the redemption of the world. 'Therefore he that hath delivered me to thee, hath greater sin'. The one who has greater sin is Caiphas rather than Judas. The latter's treason was indeed blackest of all, but is not presumed known to Pilate, who had moreover already said: 'Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me'. The 'therefore' is exceedingly difficult to interpret. The logical connexion implied in it would seem to be conveyed most satisfactorily by the following paraphrase: 'You, Pilate, a pagan and under God's permissive providence an instrument in this crime, partly unwilling, though sufficiently responsible to be a sinner, have sin indeed, but for the very reason of your lesser and his greater responsibility, the spiritual ruler of Israel who handed Israel's Messias over to you has greater sin'. 12-16. As Pilate is now seeking to release Jesus it is clear that the religious charge has failed; and since the political charge has also failed, there is only one thing left, to play on Pilate's fears for his own security. The Sanhedrists now play their last desperate card and wrest the death-sentence from Pilate by intimidation. 12. After the last word of Jesus—'And from this' is both temporal and logical—Pilate tried to release him. He is deterred by the threat of denunciation to the emperor. Not to be 'a friend of Caesar' was a serious matter, when the Caesar was Tiberius who, as Suetonius informs us, was atrociously severe where there were suspicions or charges of treason'judicia maiestatis atrocissime exercuit' ( Vita Tiberii, 58). 'If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend. For whosoever maketh himself a king declares against Caesar'—this was decisive. 13. Pilate had Jesus brought out and set up his tribunal—the folding curule chair of a Roman magistrate—'in the place . . . called Lithostrotos' (from the remarkable pavement), but also known by the Hebrew (Aramaic) name of Gabbatha, meaning a height or eminence rather than a bare front (also etymologically possible). Pilate caved in to peer pressure and knowing Jesus was innocent,he had Jesus Scourged and then condemned an innocent man to a most gruesome death. 14. Jn also carefully notes the time. Parasceve (preparation) had become synonymous with Friday, but here it probably means the preparation day before the Pasch. It was actually Friday, Mark 15:42. The hour was approximately the sixth (probably about 11 a.m., cf. Mark 15:20 'the third hour'). Defeated but haughty towards those forcing his hand, Pilate said: 'Behold your king'. 15. Another frenzied cry for the crucifixion of their victim—and Pilate responded with the deliberate question: 'Am I to crucify your king?' To which the leaders of the theocratic people said: 'We have no king but Caesar'. 16. According to legal form the sentence had to be read—as being irrevocable. A usual form of sentence was Ibis ad crucem—'Thou shalt go to the cross'. All that Jn says however is that Pilate delivered him to the Jews that he might be crucified (by an execution squad of four Roman soldiers under the command of a centurion). 16b-22 The Crucifixion —Jn is very brief regarding the via dolorosa. He does not repeat what Mt, Mk, Lk had recorded of Simon the Cyrenean, nor the sympathy shown by some women of Jerusalem, Lk. It was of course the soldiers, not the Jews, that took Jesus (and led him out). 17. The cross which he carried would, on the basis of probabilities established by ancient references to crucifixion, be the patibulum or cross-beam only. The upright, which the Gk word ?ta??ó? more properly indicates, would in this case have been already erected at the place of execution. Nevertheless, all the narratives suggest that Jesus carried a heavier weight than a mere cross-beam; the use of one and the same word by Jn identifies the instrument which Jesus carried with that beside which his mother stood; Tertullian who knew the facts of crucifixion, writing against Jews ( Adv. Jud, 10), says very confidently: 'Jesus carried his cross on his shoulder'—note singular number, for the patibulum was lashed over both shoulders. Jesus, therefore, probably carried the whole cross, which was a crux immissa (not decussata or commissa), having an upright above the cross-beam, to which an inscription could be affixed; cf. § 722b. The place of crucifixion was called Golgotha (Aram. Gulgulta), meaning skull, not because the skull of Adam was unearthed there to receive the flow of Christ's blood—a beautiful conception still often represented on crucifixes—nor because it was like a head in the imaginary topographic skeleton of Jerusalem, but simply because it was a hill promontory such as Arabs in Jerusalem still call râs (head). As the Calvary under the roof of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is most probably the true site, we can calculate the length of the via dolorosa—from Antonia to Golgotha—as something over one-third of a mile. 18. Jn repeats, in a different form of words, what the Synoptists recorded of the crucifixion of Jesus between two thieves ( Isaiah 53:12—but the citation in Mark 15:28 is possibly a gloss imported from Luke 22:37). 19. The form of the title of the cross, given substantially by Mt, Mk, Lk, is most probably reproduced with verbal accuracy by Jn. As Pilate had to write the sentence of crucifixion, the words 'Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews' would be excerpted from some such formula as: Jesum Xazarenum Regem Judaeorum crucis supplicio animadverti placet. With the same evident unwillingness the proconsul Galerius Maximus pronounced a similarly worded sentence of decapitation on St Cyprian. 20. Pilate would have written Jesus Nazaremus Rex Judaeorum with his own hand in Latin (the language of administration) and then ordered the same to be written in Greek (the language of lettered people and of pilgrims) and in Hebrew (Aramaic, the spoken language of Palestine). 21 f. His firmness in refusing to change the title of the cross was a magistrate's insistence on the irrevocability of a Roman sentence, mixed with a desire to have this revenge on the Jews; but, in God's providence, Pilate's inscription stands as a perpetual monument of the Kingship of Jesus of Nazareth. 23-24 Division of Garments —Here Jn adds notable clarifying details. None of the evangelists say that Jesus was crucified in absolute nakedness, but that was undoubtedly the rule, and the Fathers and most commentators have supposed that there was no departure from the rule in this case. Judging from passages in the Talmud, Jewish feeling was against total nudity even in capital executions. The blasphemous (2nd cent.?) graffito of the crucifixion from the Paedagogium of the Palatine at Rome cannot indeed be adduced as evidence on this point, but it is worth noting that it shows a loin-cloth. Four pieces of the clothing in which Jesus went to Calvary fell to the four soldiers of the execution squad. These (cloak, cincture, sandals and head-dress?) were divided. The completely woven unsewn tunic was too valuable to tear into pieces. They cast lots for it, and thus literally fulfilled the prophecy of Ps 21(22):19 here cited by Jn, but of doubtful authenticity in Mt. This seamless coat or tunic (which Trier and Argenteuil claim to possess) has, at least from the time of St Cyprian, been regarded as a symbol of the unity of the Church. 25-27 Jesus and His Mother —Jn draws a marked contrast, difficult to render in translation, between the soldiers who did these things and the little group that stood beside the cross. 25. The balance of the opening phrase (even as estimated by the maker of the Syriac Peshitta) leads us to distinguish not three but four women beside the cross or Jesus. The disputed point is whether 'his mother's sister' is 'Mary of Cleophas' or another cousin of our Lady. The general love of anonymity and reticence shown by Jn would suggest that if she is the latter we must identify her with Salome, his own mother, who was certainly on Calvary that day, Mark 15:40. As Mary Cleophas is identifiable with 'Mary the Mother of James the less, and of Joseph', Mark 15:40, Jn most probably mentions the same three women as Mk, but Jn alone names the Saviour's mother, § 673b. The incomparable comment of St Ambrose at the end of a letter to the clergy of Vercellae (Vercelli) should be read in PL 16, 1218. Part of this eloquent page is found in the Breviary (Sept 15). 26 f. The literal or immediate sense of Jesus' words: 'Woman, behold thy son' (addressed to his mother) and 'Behold thy mother' (addressed to Jn) is a last touching fulfilment of the fourth commandment. Jesus provides for his mother, and the privileged legatee of this precious trust is 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'. 27b indicates this clearly: 'From that hour (comparable in many ways to the 10th hour of that wonderful first day 1:39) the disciple took her to his home'. The further spiritual meaning (which attaches a declaration of the universal spiritual maternity of Mary to these words) is barely suggested by Origen in the 3rd cent., and is not clearly enunciated (except rhetorically by George of Nicomedia, friend of Photius) either in the east or the west, till it finds its theologian in Rupert of Deutz ( 1070-1129). The position of this interpretation in the Church today scarcely permits us to regard it as an accommodated sense. Jn is mystically the representative of the human race called to be spiritual children of the Mother of Jesus. This motherhood of Mary was, latently at least, the mind of the Church from the earliest times— 'hoc perpetuo sensit Ecclesia' (Leo XIII, Sept. 5, 1895—cf. Pius XI, Rerum Ecclesiæe, Feb. 28, 1927). 28-30 Last Words and Death of Jesus —Of the first three words of petition, pardon, and piety spoken by Jesus on the cross, Jn has only the third just dealt with; of the last four words of desolation (moral suffering), thirst (physical suffering), consummation, and voluntary surrender, he has two: 'I thirst' and 'it is consummated'. 28. He fulfilled Psalms 68(69):22 (cf. Psalms 21(22):19) when he said the former of these. The soldiers had sour Wine with them—a mixture of acid wine and water called posca. A sponge, which served for some purpose or other, formed part of their apparatus. This they dipped in the vessel and fixing it on sprigs of hyssop they offered it to him by means of a reed or cane, as Mt and Mk had already narrated. Jn added the detail of the hyssop. To read ???? on a javelin instead of ????+´p?, as many now do, is not only an unreasonable preference of one codex (476 London) against all other MSS and the ancient versions, but also supposes what, on consideration, is an unlikely scribal lapse. Moreover, it supposes the improbability that 'reed' or cane in Mt, Mk stands for the shaft of a javelin. 30. 'It is consummated' means that the work of redemption is accomplished. So it really is at the moment that Jesus, after the seventh word recorded by Luke, bows his head and dies. 31-37 The Transfixion —This passage is the biblical and historical basis of devotion to the Sacred Heart. Its devotional riches may be gathered from the 8 homilies assigned for that Feast and its Octave in the Breviary. Here only the main points of the history are noted. 31. It was very much the concern of the Jews that the bodies should be removed before sundown of that Parasceve or Friday. Deuteronomy 21:23 ordered this removal of an 'accursed one' (cf. Galatians 3:14) executed on a tree, and in this case the sacred Sabbath just about to begin was also the Paschal solemnity. Hence the request to Pilate for crurifragium (breaking of legs with a hammer or club to bring about immediate death from muscular cramp or shock) and removal. 32. Soldiers (apparently not the execution squad) came to carry out the order. The legs of the two robbers were broken. Jn mentions a 'first', but we do not know which it was. 33 f. The soldiers (two at least) took timely notice that Jesus was dead. One, however, wishing to make assurance doubly sure, struck the side of Jesus with a lance (a broad-headed spear) intending, no doubt, to pierce the heart. The word for 'struck' or 'pierced' (????e?) had become 'opened' (?????e?) in the codices from which the Latin version was made. Hence Augustine's famous reference to the evangelist's 'watchful word'—not really a blunder, however, because Jn's verb means 'to pierce', which is equivalent to opening. The soldier has been named in hagiographic legend, Longinus (or Spearman). 'Immediately there came out blood and water'. As Jesus had been dead some time, the phenomenon was extraordinary, as the eyewitness Jn certainly recognized. Many attempts have been made to give a physiological explanation, but none of them seems adequately to explain the impression which Jn registers here and in his first epistle, 5:6. Many hold that the water was serum which owing to Jesus' intense sufferings collected in the pericardium;cf. IEC, March 1951. But whether the double flow was miraculous or whether it can be explained on natural grounds, as many physiologists claim, is immaterial. There is no doubt about its reality. The Fathers have therefore rightly taken the two liquids as symbols of Baptism and the Eucharist, and, in consequence, see in these regenerating and life-giving streams the graces which produce a second Eve (the Church) from the side of the second Adam sleeping on the cross. 35. That Jn invokes the knowledge of Jesus to corroborate his own testimony is suggested by the word ??e?+???? (Lat. ille), but perhaps the pronoun has not its full classical Greek force here. In any case, the testimony is very solemn. 36 f. Two Scriptures were fulfilled in what had happened: the typal precept not to break the bones of the Paschal lamb, Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12, and a word of Zacharias 12:10, taken from a passage which undoubtedly refers to Messianic times and to the Messias himself. Jn only changes the accusative pronoun from first to third: 'They shall look on him whom they pierced'; cf.Apoc 1:7. 38-42 Burial of Jesus —Jn here supplements the. synoptics. Joseph of Arimathea (which is RamathaimSophim, the birthplace of Samuel, now Rentis, 8 miles NE. of Lydda) is described as a disciple by Mt, and by Jn as a secret disciple. His fear of the Jews vanished at the great hour, for he went boldly to Pilate to ask for the body, Mk. Nicodemus figures in Jn's narrative only. The quantity of aromatic mixture, which he brought, was very considerable (72 lbs avoirdupois of myrrh, a dried Arabian gum, and of aloes, an odoriferous wood crushed fine or powdered). The intention was not embalmment, and there was no anointing; the women intended doing that later, Lk, Mk. The spices would have been strewn on. the shroud, but principally on the funeral 'bench and within the sepulchral chamber. Jn mentions only smaller bands of linen used for tying. These are to be distinguished from the sindon or shroud, Mt, Mk, Lk, and the napkin over the face, John 20:7. The shrouding was according to Jewish custom but hurriedly done, and we should say (in view of the intention of the. women) that it was provisional; cf. Barnes, The Holy Shroud of Turin, London 1934. Jn alone tells us that. the new tomb was in a garden. Finally, it is not unfair to say that DV failed to render the solemn cadences which 19:42 has both in Gk and Latin. XX 1-XXI 25 The Risen Saviour —That, on the. Sunday following the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, the tomb in which he had lain was empty, and that he showed himself alive from the dead many times that day and during forty days Are the best certified facts of human history. For thirty years and more eyewitnesses were proclaiming these facts to the world, and shaking the world with their proclamation. The fragmentary written record of their evidence which we possess in the four Gospels is unassailable, but, like all evidence of the kind, it presents difficulties of harmonization. This work of distinguishing persons and moments and other circumstances, so as to eliminate apparent contradictions, belongs mainly to commentators on the Synoptists. Jn concentrates on the empty tomb, on the first appearance to Mary Magdalene, and on three appearances to the Apostles as a body or in representative numbers. His narrative touches the synoptic narrative at four points only. These will be noted as they occur. Jn unites both Judaean and Galilean appearances, for after the three appearances at Jerusalem he records a fourth on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias. This makes the Gospel end serenely, on an April or May morning, beside the waters where the Apostles were formerly called to be fishers of men. The last page dedicates its final words to Simon Peter, the Supreme Shepherd of the Lord's sheep, and to the disciple whom Jesus loved. Chapter XX without its epilogue is really the record of an apparition marked by a miracle, 1-14, to which are attached the conferring of the primacy on Peter, 15-17, the prediction of his martyrdom, 18-19, and the rectification of a misunderstanding about John 20- XX 1-10 The Empty Tomb —The Johannine witnesses of the empty tomb are first Mary Magdalene and then the two Apostles Peter and John. 1. After the Sabbath, Mt, Mk on the first day of the week —our Sunday, Lk, Jn—Mary Magdalene came to the tomb (not alone, but with other women). Jn agrees with Lk on the early hour, 'while it was yet dark', but seems to differ from Mk who says that the sun had risen. As it seems likely that the women had been staying over in Bethany, the difficulty is solved by distinguishing the moment of setting out from the moment of arrival. Whereas in Mk the three Women saw the stone already removed, Jn only records the presence and action of her on whom the impression of the empty tomb was most rapid and vivid. 2. He does not say that Mary looked into the tomb, but the sequel supposes it. She ran back at once to tell the Apostles. The repetition of prepositions seems to indicate that she found Peter and John in different places. Her report is rapid: 'They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him'. The use of the first person plural shows that she had not gone unaccompanied. 3 f. Peter and John ran to the tomb. John's youth is sufficient reason for his outrunning Peter. 5. Bending down to the low opening, he saw the bandages but did not go in—retained possibly by some strong emotion or more probably by respect for Peter. 6 f. The latter entered and found complete evidence that the body had not been removed; for bodysnatchers would surely never have carefully divested the body of its linen bands before taking it away. The bandages were not in a confused heap, but were 'lying' on the ledge (in the shape of the body and not folded up?). And the napkin that had been over his head was lying apart and carefully rolled up. 8 f. John perceived the truth at once, and with the light of his faith saw the meaning of some Scriptural prophecy of the resurrection (probably Psalms 1506)). 10. Each went his way, but Lk shows Peter 'wondering in himself'. 11-18 Appearance to Mary Magdalene —As Aug. says so beautifully: 'When the men went away, a stronger affection kept the weaker sex fixed in the same place'. 1 11 f. Mary was so completely absorbed in the grief of her loss, that she only just noticed the two whiterobed figures within. 13. To the question of the angels she has only one answer, 'they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him'. 14. She turned back, possibly because, while she was answering, the angel at the foot of the funeral bench was fixing his eyes on someone outside. Jesus was standing there, but either because he did not show the appearance which she had known, or because of tears in her eyes, or because of her state of soul she did not recognize him. 15. His double question was identical with that of the angels. With her fixed idea regarding the removal of the body, Mary grasped at what seemed some hope of finding it. This man (whom she thought to be the gardener) could tell her. In her request to the stranger she names no name, only him; him, him, as if the whole world should know who he was. In saying: 'I will take him away', it is 'the audacious Mary Magdalene', as St Thérèse called her, who speaks. 16. Jesus spoke then. In the sound of the name Mariam from the lips of the Saviour we should meditate the voice of the Good Shepherd calling his sheep by name. In calling him Rabboni Mary used a form of address which had more solemnity and respect in it than Rabbi. 17. A gloss in some MSS says: 'She ran forward to touch him'. Most probably she did take hold of his feet, for the words 'Touch me not', representing a Gk present imperative, mean 'Do not cling to me'. The reason of the prohibition is that just now she must be a messenger, apostolorum apostola. The content of the message is that he is risen and is still with his brethren, till he ascends to his Father—not immediately. There are many interpretations or these difficult words, but the above seems the simplest. 18. Jn records that Mary delivered her message; Mk registers the incredulity of the disciples, 16:11. 19-23 Appearance to Ten Apostles —Lk places this apparition after the return of the two disciples from Emmaus. The Apostles had reassembled during the day. The collegiate term 'eleven' is used by Lk for those gathered, but there were actually only ten. Jn seems to consider the Apostles only, though some others were present, Luke 24:33. Faith in the resurrection had already established itself, for Jesus had appeared to Peter during the day. Nevertheless, Mk tells that the pilgrims from Emmaus were not believed. The joy of the resurrection, it seems, did not exclude the feeling expressed in the popular phrase that some things are too good to be true. The place of reunion is probably the Cenacle. 19. The news of the empty tomb and the calumny that the body had been stolen by disciples of Jesus, Matthew 28:13, was no doubt already circulating in Jerusalem. Hence the fear which made the disciples hide behind closed doors. Jesus, whose glorified body needed no open door to enter by, suddenly stood in their midst. The salute 'Peace be to you' must have sounded like a general pardon. 20. Proof beyond all doubt of the identity of the Lord was given by the wounded hands and side which he showed them. 21. The exhibition of these signs of redemption was a fitting introduction to a repetition of 'Peace be to you'. The words that follow conferred on the Apostles the same mission which the Word Incarnate had from the Father, to be exercised in the name and with the authority of Jesus himself. 22 f. By the symbolic gesture of breathing upon them he signified that he was communicating the Holy Spirit —a partial anticipation of the gift of Pentecost. The words: 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost' made the meaning quite clear. The power of remitting and retaining sins, clearly supposes judicial authority exercised over sins in a tribunal. Accordingly the Church has perpetually understood this act of the Saviour as the institution of the sacrament of Penance ( Trent, Sess. 14). Thus the sacrament of pardon was instituted under a double sign of the Saviour's peace, on the most joyful day of the world's history. It should be noted that in the intention of Christ who gave this power to the members of an apostolic college, Thomas, who was absent, also received it. 24-29 Appearance to the Eleven —The case of Thomas, in whom Jn took a special interest, 11:16; 14:5, is very important because, as St Gregory remarks, the slow surrender of Thomas is of more advantage to strengthen our faith than the more ready faith of all the believing Apostles. Besides, the act of faith made by the believing Thomas is the fullest and most explicit of all the confessions of faith recorded in the Gospels. 24. For the third time Jn mentions Thomas, and for the second time interprets his name, which means 'Twin'. A blend of scepticism and pessimism goes with a melancholic temperament, such as seems to have been that of Thomas. He had probably lost heart more than the others during the Passion, and his absence from the reunion on Easter Sunday may have been due to a hard-headed attitude towards such wishful imagining as he would have thought Mary Magdalene's message to be. However, this is partly conjecture. 25. The fact is that he met the joyful announcement of the Apostles 'We have seen the Lord' with a most exacting demand for proof. He required every sort of experimental test, before he would believe that the Crucified was risen. 26. And he remained in this stubbornness a full week, till Jesus appeared in the same circumstances to all the Apostles, including himself. Again our Lord gave his peace, 27, invited Thomas to apply his tests, and added: 'Do not become an unbeliever but a believer'. This is the force of the Gk words, which indicate that Thomas had not lost the virtue of faith, but was on the way to losing it. 28. The Apostle, we may feel certain, did not approach to touch Jesus in the way he had demanded, but immediately made his sublime act of faith. The words he spoke do not seem to be either an exclamation nor a vocative, but an elliptic proposition: 'Thou art my Lord and my God'. Rather than a confession of the Messianic character and divinity of Jesus, it is a double confession of his divinity. 29. If we read the words of Christ, which follow, as an assertion, we must understand them thus: 'Because thou hast seen me (risen), thou hast believed (me to be God)'. It is better, however, to read them as a question: 'Is it because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed?' No, because believing does not require seeing. Hence the beatitude (the last evangelical beatitude) of believing without seeing. The more faith is an interior supernatural light—the more it is independent of the support of merely human arguments, the better it is. 30-31 First Epilogue —There are two tenable explanations of this first epilogue. Either the Gospel originally ended here and Jn later added ch 21 with another epilogue, or this first epilogue was originally at the end of 21 and migrated here, when presbyters of Ephesus, gathered around Jn and under divine inspiration, added the final epilogue. The first epilogue sums up the whole purpose of the Fourth Gospel. This writing was not intended as an exhaustive record of the signs wrought by Jesus. The evangelist made a choice of a certain number of facts and discourses, in order to confirm disciples in their faith regarding Jesus as Messias and Son of God, so that believing they may have life in his name—the life meant being everlasting life. XXI 1-14 Manifestation at the Lake—1. After the Paschal octave, the Apostles returned to Galilee. The homes of many of them were near the sea of Tiberias. 2. Seven of their number were to be witnesses of a second miraculous catch of fishes. Simon Peter was the chief, and with him were Thomas, whose name is again interpreted, Nathanael (Bartholomew) designated here as a native of Cana, the (two) sons of Zebedee, and two whose identity we have no means of establishing. Some commentators, appealing to Jn's habitual reticence about himself and his, regard 'the sons of Zebedee' as a gloss, but the MSS should be decisive. 3. Six disciples therefore went with Peter (probably from Capharnaum) and spent a fruitless night fishing on the lake. 4. As morning was coming (rather than 'when morning was come'), a figure appeared standing on the shore, a hundred yards away. He was not recognized as Jesus, presumably because of the distance and the obscurity of early dawn, and perhaps also because Jesus did not himself wish to be recognized immediately. 5. To draw attention to the miracle about to take place Jesus asked them: 'Young men, have you any fish?' The word of address is one of familiarity, and the Gk substantive, which means something-to-eat-with-bread, is in the circumstances a polite synonym of 'fish'. The unwillingness with which fishermen admit that they have caught nothing is probably reflected in the curt 'No' that came over the water. 6. As the boat was probably moving south close to the western shore, the order to put the net out on the right side meant putting it out where fish were less likely to be. Nevertheless the catch was enormous. 7. John was the first to recognize the Master—ubi amor, ibi oculus: love gives eyesight. But if John was a better contemplative, Peter was more prompt in action. His undress meant that he was clothed only in a sort of overall (without tunic) which he quickly girded to come to Jesus directly, more by wading than swimming through the water. 8. The others followed in the boat, dragging the net. 9. The breakfast prepared by Jesus on the shore is a touching instance of his solicitude for hungry men—a fire of coals, a fish roasting, bread read. 10 f. His order to bring some of the catch was only intended to provoke the count. The number 153 has been given many symbolic meanings, mostly in the sense of the catholicity of the Church (Jerome's 153 species of fishes) or the total number of the elect. St Augustine discovered—one can hardly guess how —that 10 (the commandments) and 7 (the gifts of the Holy Ghost) in the addition of the whole series 1, 2, 3 . . . 17 give exactly 153. That the net was not rent suggests the unity and integrity of the Church. The net was used by Christ himself for a parable of the kingdom of heaven. 12-14. The kindly invitation, the respect of the disciples, who knew who he was and in a sense did not know, and yet did not question him, the charity of the risen Lord ministering—these show that the intimate contact of friendship with Jesus is always the same, yesterday, today, and for ever. 14b. Jn numbers this as the third manifestation to the disciples in a body. 15-17 The Primacy of Peter —After the meal Jesus proceeded to an act which was of the utmost importance for the future of his Church. From the first day Jesus had called Simon son of John Kêphâ, 1:42, and had declared many months ago that on 'this rock' he would build his Church, Matthew 16:18. Weak as the Rock was during the Passion, the prayer of Jesus for the future confirmer of his brethren, Luke 22:32, was necessarily efficacious. Therefore the Rock is restored to its proper strength in a triple profession of love intended to undo the triple denial. The questions and the answers show that the devoted but presumptuous Peter has found the strength of his devotedness in humility. The whole admirable drama, in which Peter's love of his Master is turned to care of his Master's sheep, is founded on the parable of the Good Shepherd. The first question of Christ, with its term of comparison 'Lovest thou me more than these?' was evidently set against the Apostle's boast 'Although all shall be scandalized in thee, I will never be scandalized', Matthew 26:33. Peter does not now dare to say that he loves more than the others, but he does assert that he loves, and appeals to Jesus' knowledge of his heart. The emotion of his third answer, under the sadness of being asked three times, is most touching. To each response the same commission corresponds, expressed in a variety of terms which give it emphasis. 'Feed my lambs—shepherd my sheep—feed my sheep' mean the same thing, for there is no reason for the supposition that sheep and lambs mean pastors and people. The whole flock (all the sheep of the Good Shepherd) are committed to Peter's care. To understand this commission as anything less than a primacy of authority over the universal church is to falsify the text. The passage has been dogmatically interpreted in this traditional sense by the Vatican Council, Dz 1822. 18-19 Prediction of Peter's Martyrdom —A vision of Peter's future destiny is annexed to the supreme commission with the solemnity of a double 'Amen'. The chief shepherd will follow the Good Shepherd even in the manner of his death. The words have some of the mysterious obscurity of prophecy. Against the liberty of Peter's younger days (girding himself and walking where he pleased) is set this mysterious future event of his old age. If the counterpart contains only two terms, namely, girding by another, as an old man is helped to dress himself, and being led to a place not naturally desired (a place of execution), the prophecy envisages a violent death only, not the mode of death by crucifixion. The extension of the hands must therefore be the term specifically corresponding to crucifixion, but as the extension of hands is set before girding and being led away, it is difficult to discern how it must be conceived. If the order is part of the prophecy, we must suppose the prisoner lashed to the patibulum before being girded and led out to execution. Jn writing after Peter's death notes that Jesus said this 'signifying by what death he should glorify God'. The words 'Follow me' which Jesus spoke immediately afterwards to Peter are so general as to include imitation, 'even to the death of the cross'. 20-23 Rectification concerning John's Future —The Prince of the Apostles there and then did turn his footsteps to go with Jesus, but seeing John walking just behind, he was seized with a friend's interest in the beloved disciple. Affection and curiosity moved him to ask the question, 'Lord, and this man what?' (as the original Rheims translates). The change of si to sic in many Vg MSS and the adoption of that reading in the Clementine edition has given us the present Vg translation. But read: 'If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? do thou follow me'. This answer really means: Even if I should let him remain till my second coming, what concern is it of thine? Follow me and leave the destinies of others in my hands. In view of a current rumour making Jesus say that the beloved disciple would not die—a rumour which spread on account of his longevity —Jn here draws attention to the exact form of the word of Jesus concerning him. 24-25 Second Epilogue —The mixture of first plural with first singular in these final words seems to justify the view that St John dictated them surrounded by the presbyters of Ephesus, but cf.1 John 1-2. These, according to the Muratorian canon had requested him to write the Gospel, and are now giving testimony of its veracity together with him: 'This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 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'. Semitic hyperbole, no doubt, like comparing a people to the stars of heaven in multitude or to the sand at the lip of the sea, but how amply justified by the multitude and the magnitude of the things which Jesus did!