{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_46337/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_46337","id":"gutenberg_46337","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46337","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. John -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"The Gospel of St. John\n\n                   With Notes Critical and Explanatory\n\n                                  By the\n\n                        Rev. Joseph MacRory, D.D.\n\n        Professor of Sacred Scripture and Hebrew, Maynooth College\n\n \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\u2010\u2010St. John, xx.\n                                   31.\n\n                         Browne & Nolan, Limited\n\n                                  Dublin\n\n                                   1897\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPreface.\nIntroduction.\n   I.\u2014Authenticity Of The Fourth Gospel.\n      A.\u2014External Evidence.\n      B.\u2014Internal Evidence.\n   II.\u2014Author.\n   III.\u2014For Whom Written, And With What Object.\n   IV.\u2014Outline Of The Plan Of The Gospel.\n   V.\u2014Time And Place Of Writing.\n   VI.\u2014Integrity.\n   VII.\u2014Language.\n   VIII.\u2014Christ\u2019s Discourses In The Gospel.\n   IX.\u2014Errors Combated In The Gospel.\nChapter I.\nChapter II.\nChapter III.\nChapter IV.\nChapter V.\nChapter VI.\nChapter VII.\nChapter VIII.\n   Authenticity of John vii. 53\u2010viii. 11.\n      Evidence against Authenticity.\n      Evidence in favour of Authenticity.\n      Conclusion.\n   Text.\nChapter IX.\nChapter X.\nChapter XI.\nChapter XII.\nChapter XIII.\nChapter XIV.\nChapter XV.\nChapter XVI.\nChapter XVII.\nChapter XVIII.\nChapter XIX.\nChapter XX.\nChapter XXI.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                               [Cover Art]\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter\nat Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]\n\n\n\n\n\n_Nihil Obstat._\n\nGUALTERUS MACDONALD, D.D.,\n\nCensor Theolog. Deputat.\n\nIMPRIMATUR.\n\nGulielmus,\n\n_Archiep. Dublinen., Hiberniae Primas._\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nIt may be well to state briefly the object and plan of the present work.\nSome years ago their Lordships the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland\ndecided to lengthen considerably the course of Sacred Scripture read in\nthis College. As a result of their decision, all our students are now\nexpected to read the whole of the New Testament with the exception of the\nApocalypse, together with portions of the Old Testament. This change,\nwhile it has the desirable advantage of familiarizing our students with a\nlarger portion of the Sacred Text, obviously renders it impossible that so\nmuch time as formerly should be devoted to the study of any one portion.\nThe consequence of this is that it is now impossible for any but the very\nablest students to find time to read the longer commentaries, such as\nthose of Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide. I was not long, therefore, in\ncharge of the Class of Sacred Scripture, when I became convinced that it\nwould be useful, if not necessary, to provide the students with a more\ncompendious exposition of the portions of Scripture that they are expected\nto study.\n\nWith this object in view, I have not attempted, in the present work, to\ngive an exhaustive commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Such an attempt,\nindeed, would have frustrated my object. I have tried rather, while\nomitting nothing of importance, to introduce nothing unnecessary, and to\nobserve throughout the utmost consistent brevity.\n\nI am prepared to hear that some will consider I have passed too lightly\nover the easier portions of the Gospel. I can only say, in reply, that\nwhat I have done, has been done deliberately. Where the meaning of God\u2019s\nword is sufficiently clear, I consider that it ought to be left to the\nexercise of the student\u2019s intelligence to find it, and I am strongly of\nopinion that in such cases a commentator may well be excused from\ninterposing his remarks between the reader and the Sacred Text.\n\nIt might seem that the able and learned commentary of Dr. MacEvilly\u2014the\nonly Catholic commentary hitherto existing on this Gospel in the English\nlanguage\u2014would render such a work as the present unnecessary. But the\nlength of His Grace\u2019s work, like the works of Maldonatus, Estius, and A\nLapide, renders it not wholly adapted to the present conditions of our\nstudents. Besides, anyone acquainted with the work of a professor will\nreadily realize how important it is, and how desirable, when possible,\nthat students should possess in handy and permanent form the professor\u2019s\nviews. No two men will think alike on all the difficult and intricate\nquestions arising out of the Gospel of St. John; and while I should feel\nit my duty, if lecturing on the work of another, to impose upon the\nstudents of my class the necessity of taking notes, I have hope that the\npresent work will to a large extent obviate such a necessity. His Grace\u2019s\nwork will, no doubt, continue to be used by many of our students in\npreference to mine, and with all of them it will still hold its place as a\nuseful book of reference.\n\nThe Latin Text that I have followed is a reprint from the Latin Vulgate\npublished at Turin in 1883: _Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis, Sixti V.\nPontificis Maximi jussu recognita, et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita.\nEditio emendatissima, Indicis Congregationis decreto probata, et iterum\nhoc anno evulgata. Augustae Taurinorum, typis Hyacinthi Marietti_,\nMDCCCLXXXIII. In only one instance is there a conscious departure from\nthis edition, and that is in verses 3 and 4 of the first chapter, where I\nhave returned to the original punctuation of the Clementine Edition.\n\nThe English Text is from the Rhemish New Testament approved by Cardinal\nWiseman, and published by Burns and Oates, Limited.\n\nMAYNOOTH COLLEGE,\n_Ascension Thursday, 1897_.\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\n\n\nI.\u2014Authenticity Of The Fourth Gospel.\n\n\nThat St. John the Apostle is also an Evangelist, and author of the fourth\nGospel, has been the all but unanimous testimony of tradition. If we\nexcept the Alogi (St. Epiph., _Haer._, li. 3, 4), heretics of the second\ncentury, who denied the Johannine authorship, not on historical, but on\ndogmatic grounds, the authenticity of the Gospel was unquestioned down to\nthe end of the eighteenth century. Since that time, however, it has been\nfrequently and variously attacked by the so\u2010called Rationalists, whose\nmany views in regard to it may be reduced to one or other of the three\nfollowing theories:\u2014\n\n1. The patrons of what is sometimes called the \u201cpartition theory\u201d hold\nthat, though the work as a whole cannot be said to be St. John\u2019s, still\nconsiderable portions of it are his. About the extent of these portions\nthey differ. Weisse, who, in the year 1838, first gave prominence to this\ntheory, held that the discourses attributed to Christ in the Gospel are\nstudies from the pen of St. John, representing what he considered to be\nthe doctrine of Christ; and that St. John\u2019s disciples afterwards set these\ndiscourses in their present historical framework, and thus produced the\nGospel. Others, however, admit that some portions of the narrative, as\nwell as the discourses, are the work of St. John.\n\n2. The Gospel is in no part the work of St. John; still the historical\nportions contain valuable traditions derived from that Apostle. Renan, who\nholds this view, says:\u2014\u201cThe fourth Gospel is not the work of the Apostle\nJohn. It was attributed to him by one of his disciples, about the year\n100. The discourses are almost wholly fictitious; but the narrative\nportions contain valuable traditions, which reach back in part to the\nApostle John.\u201d(1)\n\n3. This, like the preceding theory, denies the Johannine authorship; but\nit goes farther than the preceding, in denying to our Gospel any\nhistorical value. According to this theory, not only are the discourses\nspurious, but the historical portions are wholly unreliable, and the\nGospel was forged in the latter half of the second century. So Baur and\nmany others.\n\nAgainst these various adversaries there is abundant evidence, external and\ninternal, in favour of the authenticity of our Gospel.\n\n\n\nA.\u2014External Evidence.(2)\n\n\n1. The *Apostolic Fathers* do not, indeed, quote our Gospel as the work of\nSt. John, for it was not their custom to name the author from whom they\nquoted; but passages are met with in the works of these fathers which are\nvery probably founded upon passages in our Gospel. Compare, for instance,\nwith John xxi. 20, the words of St. Clement of Rome (\u2020 101):\u2014\u201cJohn also,\nwho leaned upon the bosom of our Lord, whom the Lord loved exceedingly\u201d\n(Epis. 1 _De Virgin_, c. 6); or with John iii. 8, the words of St.\nIgnatius of Antioch (\u2020 107):\u2014\u201cThe Spirit, since He is born of God, is not\ndeceived, _for He knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth_\u201d (Ad.\nPhilad. 7). It would be easy to multiply instances of this kind;(3) but,\nas such coincidences are always more or less inconclusive, it is more\nimportant to note here that Papias and Polycarp, two disciples of St.\nJohn, indirectly support the claim of the fourth Gospel to authenticity.\nFor it is certain that both these writers accepted the First Epistle of\nSt. John as his.(4) Now, so great is the similarity of style between our\nGospel and that Epistle, and so close the relation between the two, that\nwe are justified in concluding, with Cornely (Introd. iii. 59, 3), that\nPapias and Polycarp, admitting the one, probably admitted also the other\nto be the work of St. John. Even Renan admits that \u201cThe two writings offer\nthe most complete identity of style, the same terms, the same favourite\nexpressions.\u201d Indeed we have now the direct testimony of Papias in a\nfragment of his rather recently discovered: \u201cQuant au silence de Papias il\nn\u2019est plus possible d\u2019en tirer un argument contre le quatri\u00e8me Evangile.\nUn nouveau fragment de l\u2019\u00e9v\u00eaque d\u2019Hieropolis, cit\u00e9 par Thomasius (i. 344)\n... temoigne qu\u2019il connaissait l\u2019\u0153uvre de l\u2019Apotre\u201d (_Didon\u2014Jesus Christ_,\nIntrod. xxviii.).\n\n2. The *Fathers of the second century* were thoroughly acquainted with our\nGospel, and some of them refer to it as the work of St. John. Thus, when\n*Justin Martyr* (\u2020 167), in proving the necessity of Baptism (_Apol._ i.\n61), says: \u201cFor Christ said: \u2018Unless you be born again, you shall not\nenter into the kingdom of heaven.\u2019 Now that those born once cannot enter\nagain into the wombs of their mothers, is clear to all,\u201d there can hardly\nbe a doubt that he had before his mind John iii. 3, 4.\n\nAgain, *Tatian*, a disciple of St. Justin, actually wrote a Harmony of the\nFour Gospels, known as Tatian\u2019s _Diatessaron_, which commenced with the\nopening words of our Gospel: \u201cIn the beginning was the Word.\u201d(5)\n\nThe *Muratorian Fragment*, which contains a list of canonical books, made\nnot later than 170 A.D., says: \u201cJohn, one of the disciples, (is the\nauthor) of the fourth Gospel.\u201d\n\n*Theophilus* of Antioch (\u2020 186), who was the sixth successor to St. Peter\nin the see of Antioch, says:\u2014\u201cThese things we are taught by the Sacred\nScriptures, and by all inspired by the Holy Ghost, _of whom John says_:\n\u2018In the beginning was the Word,\u2019 \u201d &c.\n\nFinally, *Iren\u00e6us* (\u2020 202), who was Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, from about\nthe year 180, and who wrote his work, _Against Heresies_, probably between\n180 and 190 A.D., says:\u2014\u201cAfterwards John, a disciple of the Lord, who\nreclined upon His breast, also wrote a Gospel.\u201d This testimony of Iren\u00e6us\nis of very special importance; for, besides being a native of Asia Minor,\nand a bishop in Gaul, and thus representing in himself the traditions of\nboth countries, he was moreover a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a\ndisciple of St. John, so that no one had better opportunities than Iren\u00e6us\nof learning everything connected with the Apostle.\n\nIndeed, so well was our Gospel known, and its authority recognised in the\nsecond century, that even the heretics of the time sought the sanction of\nits authority for their errors. \u201cThey use that which is according to\nJohn,\u201d says Iren\u00e6us, speaking of the Valentinian heretics of the second\ncentury (Iren., _Haer._, iii. 11. 7).\n\n3. We abstain from quoting Fathers of the *third century*, because it is\nnot denied that they knew our Gospel, and acknowledged St. John to be the\nauthor. Even Strauss (_Leben Jesu_, \u00a7 10, p. 47) says: \u201cIt is certain that\ntowards the end of the second century, the same four Gospels which we have\nstill, are found recognised in the Church, and are repeatedly quoted as\nthe writings of the Apostles, and disciples of the Apostles, whose names\nthey bear, by the three most eminent ecclesiastical teachers\u2014Iren\u00e6us, in\nGaul; Clement, in Alexandria; and Tertullian, in Carthage.\u201d\n\nIt is undeniable then that before the close of the second century, the\nfourth Gospel was everywhere in the Church received as the genuine work of\nSt. John. This, we hold, proves that it must be indeed his work. For he\nlived on till the end of the first century; his disciples till the middle,\nand their disciples till the end, of the second century. Is it possible\nthen that a spurious work, produced by some forger in the second century,\ncould have been everywhere so soon received and recognised as the work of\nthe Apostle?\n\n\n\nB.\u2014Internal Evidence.\n\n\n1. The author himself tells us (xxi. 20, 24), that he is \u201cthe disciple\nwhom Jesus loved, who also leaned on His breast at supper.\u201d Now according\nto all the fathers, \u201cthe disciple whom Jesus loved,\u201d &c., was St. John.\nMoreover, the three most favoured disciples were Peter, James, and John.\nThey alone were permitted to be present at the raising to life of the\ndaughter of Jairus (Mark v. 37), at the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1),\nand at the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37). But Peter cannot be the\nwriter of our Gospel, from whom he is explicitly distinguished (John xxi.\n20); nor James the Greater, for, in the opinion of all, he had been\nbeheaded by Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) many years before our Gospel\nwas written. It remains then that the writer must be St. John. Nor does\nthis argument lose its force, even though we admit that the last two\nverses of our Gospel (John xxi. 24, 25) were not written by St. John. For\nsince they have stood in the Gospel from the beginning, they must at least\nbe the evidence of a contemporary; so that we have here either an internal\nargument or another powerful external one in favour of the Johannine\nauthorship.\n\n2. While the Apostle John plays an important part in the other Gospels, he\nis not named even once in the fourth Gospel. If we had only it, we should\nnot know that there was an Apostle of that name. The fair inference then\nis, that he himself being the writer, suppressed his own name through\nmodesty. Moreover, while the other Evangelists are accustomed, when they\nspeak of John the Baptist, to distinguish him from John the Apostle, our\nauthor, again through modesty, ignores the Apostle, and refers nineteen\ndifferent times to the Baptist as John without any distinguishing\nappellative.\n\n3. The style is just such as we should expect from St. John; the Greek\npurer than that of the other Gospels, because of the author\u2019s long sojourn\nin Asia Minor, yet not untinged by Hebraisms because of his earlier life\nspent in Palestine.\n\n4. The whole Gospel points to its author as one who was intimately\nacquainted with Palestine and its customs, and who had lived and moved\namong the events he describes.(6) Thus the journey from Cana to Capharnaum\nis rightly described as a _descent_ (John iv. 47, 51); the author is\nacquainted with the pools of Bethsaida and Siloe at Jerusalem (John v. 2,\nix. 7), with the position of the brook of Cedron in relation to Jerusalem\nand the Mount of Olives (John xviii. 1), and with the distance of Bethany\nfrom the Holy City (xi. 18).\n\nAmong Jewish customs he refers to the manner of purification before meals\n(John ii. 6), and to their avoidance of intercourse with Samaritans (iv.\n9), and hints at the objection of their teachers to speak publicly with\nwomen (John iv. 27). He shows, too, that he is familiar, not merely with\nJewish festivals, but also with their peculiar solemnities (John vii. 2,\n37), and the time of their occurrence (x. 22). Finally, he declares\nhimself an _eye\u2010witness_, as well where he says:\u2014\u201cThe Word was made flesh,\nand dwelt among us, _and we saw His glory_\u201d (John i. 14), as where he\ntells us, \u201cHe _that saw it_, hath given testimony ... and he knoweth that\nhe saith true\u201d (John xix. 35).\n\n\n\n\nII.\u2014Author.\n\n\nSt. John, Apostle, Evangelist, prophet, and martyr, was born in Galilee,\nthe son of Zebedee, a fisherman of some means, and Salome, one of those\nholy women who ministered to our Lord during His public life, and stood by\nHis cross on Calvary (Mark i. 20; Matt. iv. 21, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40,\nxvi. 1). Before his call by Jesus, John was probably a disciple of the\nBaptist, and it is extremely likely that he was one of the two who at the\npreaching of their Master first believed in Christ (John i. 37, and\nfoll.). Called with his brother James, immediately after Peter and Andrew\n(Matt. iv. 18, 19, 21), he left all things to follow Christ, and became\nthe best beloved of all the disciples. With Peter and his own brother\nJames he was permitted to witness the raising to life of the daughter of\nJairus, and to be present at the transfiguration on Thabor, and the agony\nin Gethsemane (Mark v. 27; Matt. xvii. 1; Matt. xxvi. 37). He was\nprivileged to recline on his Master\u2019s bosom at the Last Supper (John\nxviii. 23), and to him alone was given from the cross the blessed trust of\nproviding for the Mother of God (John xix. 27). Nor did he fail to return\nlove for love. When the Apostles fled in terror from Gethsemane (Mark xiv.\n50), Peter and John followed Jesus into the court of the High\u2010priest (John\nxviii. 15); and at the last tragic scene on Calvary, our Evangelist, brave\nwith the courage begotten of love, was still close to his Master (John\nxix. 26).\n\nAfter the descent of the Holy Ghost, St. John, with St. Peter, took a\nleading part in establishing the Church. He and Peter were the first to\nsuffer imprisonment for preaching the faith of Christ (Acts iv. 2, 3);\nand, again in company with Peter, he was chosen to go down from Jerusalem,\nand confer the Sacrament of Confirmation on the converted Samaritans. How\nlong he remained in Palestine, we cannot say with certainty. When St. Paul\nwent up to the Council of Jerusalem, in 47 A.D.,(7) he found St. John\nthere; but whether our Apostle had himself gone up specially to the\nCouncil, or had hitherto confined his preaching to Palestine, it seems\nimpossible to say, for St. Peter was there too, though he had been already\nBishop of Antioch, and was then Bishop of Rome.\n\nIn addition to the preceding facts gleaned from the New Testament, we\nlearn from tradition that the saint remained in Jerusalem till after the\nBlessed Virgin\u2019s death (Niceph., _H. E._, ii. 42); that he subsequently\npreached in Asia Minor, and, probably after the martyrdom of St. Paul (67\nA.D.), settled at Ephesus (Origen, _apud._ Euseb., _H. E._, iii. 1). In\nthe reign of Domitian (81\u201096 A.D.) he was taken to Rome, and thrown into a\ncauldron of boiling oil, from which he came forth unhurt (Tertull., _De\nPraescr._ 36).(8) He was then banished to the island of Patmos, in the\nAegean Sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse; was liberated on the accession\nof Nerva (96\u201098 A.D.), and allowed to return to Ephesus, where he lived to\nan extreme old age, and died in the sixty\u2010eighth year after our Lord\u2019s\nPassion (Jer., _Advers. Jovin_, i. 14), _i.e._, about 101 of the Dionysian\nera.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\u2014For Whom Written, And With What Object.\n\n\nSt. Jerome tells us that the fourth Gospel was written for the Christians\nof Asia Minor, and at their request.(9)\n\nThe object or scope of the Gospel was threefold:\u2014\n\n1. To prove that Jesus was the Son of God made man, and that all\nsupernatural life must come to us through faith in His name. Hence he\ntells us in the very beginning that \u201cthe Word was God ... and the Word was\nmade flesh, and dwelt amongst us\u201d (John i. 14); and in xx. 31: \u201cBut these\nare written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,\nand that believing you may have life in His name.\u201d\n\n2. As connected with the preceding, indirectly to refute the heresies of\nthe Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Nicolaites,(10) all of whom erred in\nregard to either the Divinity or humanity of Christ. See below IX., and\nCornely, iii., \u2020 64.\n\n3. To supplement the three Synoptic Gospels. So nearly all the fathers.\nAnd, indeed, it is perfectly evident that an Evangelist who is entirely\nsilent regarding the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, and who\nintroduces Him abruptly to the reader at the beginning of His public life,\ncannot have meant to write a complete life of Christ. And since St. John\nwrote many years after the other Evangelists, it is not surprising to find\nthat his work partakes more of a supplemental character than any of the\nSynoptic Gospels.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\u2014Outline Of The Plan Of The Gospel.\n\n\nWhat has just been said regarding the object of the Gospel will enable us\nto form a general conception of its plan. It must be carefully borne in\nmind that St. John did not intend to write a Life of Christ, nor to give a\ngeneral view of His teaching, nor to compile a work on the general history\nof his own times. His main object was to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was\nthe Son of God; and the various parts of the Gospel are carefully disposed\nwith a view to this end. Out of the vast mass of materials at his disposal\n(xxi. 25; xx. 30) he selects such incidents, such miracles and discourses\nof our Lord, as are best suited to the attainment of this special purpose.\nIn accordance with this view, we subjoin a brief outline of the _plan_ of\nthe Gospel.\n\nI. 1\u201018.\n\n*The Prologue.* The Word in His absolute, eternal Being; in His relation\nto creation generally, and to the spiritual enlightenment and\nsanctification of man; His incarnation.\n\nI. 19\u2010XXI. 23.\n\n_The Narrative_, which divides itself naturally into two parts:\u2014\n\n(_a_) I. 19\u2010XII. 50. Manifestation of Christ\u2019s Divinity in His _Public\nLife_\u2014\n\nBy the testimony of the Baptist.\n\nBy the testimony of His disciples.\n\nBy the testimony of His miracles.\n\nBy the testimony of His discourses.\n\n(_b_) XIII. 1\u2010XXI. 23. Manifestation of Christ\u2019s Divinity in His last\ndiscourses, and in His passion, death, resurrection, and risen life.\n\nXXI. 24, 25.\n\n*The Epilogue*, in which the beloved disciple testifies that he is the\nauthor of the Gospel, and that what he has written is true, though\nincomplete.\n\n\n\n\nV.\u2014Time And Place Of Writing.\n\n\nThe exact date of our Gospel is uncertain. One thing is absolutely\ncertain: that it was written after the other three Gospels. Some have\nplaced it almost as early as 70 A.D.; but the weight of evidence, external\nand internal, places it in the last decade of the first century, that is\nto say, between 90 and 100 A.D.\n\nThere is great doubt, too, as to the place where it was written. Iren\u00e6us\ndistinctly states that it was written at Ephesus,(11) and many of the\nfathers are of the same opinion. On the other hand, a large number of\nancient writers hold, that, like the Apocalypse, it was written in Patmos.\nSee Patrizzi, lib. i., cap. iv., \u00a7 86, who himself inclines to the latter\nview.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\u2014Integrity.\n\n\nWith the exception of three passages: v. 4, vii. 53\u2010viii. 11, and the\nwhole of the last chapter, which have been attacked as interpolations, the\nintegrity of the fourth Gospel has not been seriously questioned. These\npassages we shall examine as they occur, and there discuss the question of\ntheir authenticity.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\u2014Language.\n\n\nIt is certain that St. John wrote in Greek. Such has been the opinion of\nall writers, and it is proved by the fact that he wrote for the Christians\nof Asia Minor, whose language we know was Greek.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\u2014Christ\u2019s Discourses In The Gospel.\n\n\nSt. John\u2019s Gospel has this peculiarity, that it is made up, in great part,\nof Christ\u2019s discourses. Judging from the attention which the Evangelist\nseems to pay to the order of time, we feel sure that these discourses are\nreported in the chronological order in which they were delivered.\n\nBut are they reported in the very words used by Christ? We feel convinced\nthat they are not. The important heads of doctrine, such as iii. 3, 5,\nbearing on baptism; or vi. 48, 52, regarding the Blessed Eucharist, are,\ndoubtless, reported in almost(12) the exact words of our Lord. But the\ndiscourses generally we believe to be reported merely in substance. For\nthis was sufficient for the Evangelist\u2019s purpose; and, therefore, we have\nno reason to suppose a miraculous assistance which would enable him to\nremember every word. No doubt the Evangelist had the assistance of\ninspiration; but the Catholic view of inspiration warrants us in believing\nthat in general the ideas only, and not the words, were inspired. We thus\nget rid of the Rationalist difficulty that the discourses must be\nfictitious, because, they say, no human memory could retain such long\ndiscourses for more than half a century. For in our view it is only the\nsubstance of the discourses that is handed down, and, even if we\nabstracted altogether from the assistance given him by inspiration, it is\nnot difficult to believe that the young and retentive mind of a loving\ndisciple would treasure up and retain the substance of his Divine Master\u2019s\ndiscourses, aided as it must have been by the fact that these discourses,\nbesides being the food of his daily meditation, were doubtless again and\nagain repeated in his apostolic preaching.\n\n\n\n\nIX.\u2014Errors Combated In The Gospel.\n\n\nThere is not one of all the many heresies that have arisen regarding the\nPerson and natures of Jesus Christ that may not be refuted from the Gospel\nof St. John. We intend, however, to speak here only of those errors which\nhad already arisen in the time of the Evangelist, and against which,\ntherefore, his Gospel was immediately directed. What these were we learn\nfrom SS. Iren\u00e6us and Jerome. The former distinctly says that our Gospel\nwas directed against the errors of *Cerinthus*, and of \u201cthose who are\ncalled *Nicolaites*\u201d (see above, III. 2, note); while the latter says that\nit was directed against *Cerinthus*, and *other heretics, especially the\nEbionites*.(13) It is important for us, then, in approaching the study of\nthis Gospel to understand what was the nature of these errors against\nwhich it was directed.\n\n*Cerinthus*, though professing belief in a Supreme Being, held that the\nworld was not made by Him, but by an inferior _power_ (virtus) distinct\nfrom Him, and ignorant of Him. (2) That Jesus was not born of a Virgin,\nbut the child of Joseph and Mary, born according to the ordinary course of\nnature. (3) That Christ (the Word) was quite distinct from Jesus; that,\nhowever, He had descended upon Jesus immediately after the latter\u2019s\nbaptism, and remained with Him filling His soul till shortly before the\nPassion; that then Christ departed from Jesus, who suffered and died a\n_mere_ man, while Christ suffered nothing, being indeed entirely spiritual\nand impassible.(14)\n\nThe *Ebionites*, unlike the Cerinthians, admitted that the world was\ncreated by God, but, like them, denied that Christ was anything but a mere\nman. They scrupulously observed the Mosaic Law, which they held to be\n_obligatory_, by the observance of which Jesus had merited to be called\nChrist, and through which every man was able to become a Christ.(15)\n\nAbout the doctrine of the *Nicolaites*, which they claimed to have derived\nfrom Nicolas the Deacon (Acts vi. 5), we know nothing definite; but it is\ngenerally held that it was akin to that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites.\n\nAmong the \u201cother heretics\u201d alluded to by St. Jerome in the passage cited\nabove were, doubtless, the *Simonians* (followers of Simon Magus, Acts\nviii. 9, and foll.), and the *Docetae*.\n\nThe *Simonians* agreed with the Cerinthians in denying that the world was\nmade by God, and that Jesus was God, and St. Iren\u00e6us speaks of them as the\noriginators of the Gnostic heresy. \u201cSimoniani a quibus _falsi nominis\nscientia_ accepit initia.\u201d (_Adv. Haer._, i. xxxiii. 4.)\n\nThe *Docetae* (\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd = to seem) held that Christ had only the\n_appearance_ of a human body; and hence, that His sufferings and death\nwere not real, but apparent.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n\n    1\u201018. *The prologue*(*16*)* declares the Word\u2019s eternity, distinct\n    personality, and essential unity with God; His relations with\n    creation generally, and with man in particular; His incarnation,\n    and the fulness of grace, and perfection of revelation attained\n    through Him.*\n\n    19\u201034. *Some of the Baptist\u2019s testimonies to Christ.*\n\n    35\u201051. *Circumstances in which Christ\u2019s first disciples were\n    called.*\n\n\n1. In principio erat Verbum,     1. In the beginning was the\net Verbum erat apud Deum, et     Word, and the Word was with\nDeus erat Verbum.                God, and the Word was God.\n\n1. *In the beginning.* These words most probably mean here, as in Gen. i.\n1, at the beginning of all created things; in other words, when time\nbegan. Their meaning must always be determined from the context. Thus we\nknow from the context in Acts xi. 15, that St. Peter there uses them in\nreference to the beginning of the Gospel. Similarly, the context here\ndetermines the reference to be to the beginning of creation; for He who is\nhere said to have been in the beginning, is declared in verse 3 to be the\ncreator of all things, and must therefore have already been in existence\nat their beginning.\n\nOthers, however, have interpreted the words differently. Many of the\nfathers understood them to mean: in the Father, and took this first clause\nof v. 1, as a declaration that the Word was in the Father. But, though it\nis quite true to say that the Word was and is in the Father (x. 38), both\nbeing consubstantial, still such does not seem to be the sense of the\nphrase before us. Had St. John meant to state this, surely he would have\nwritten: In God, or, in the Father, was the Word. He names God in the next\ntwo clauses: _And the Word was with God, and the Word was God_. Why then\nshould he at the risk of being misunderstood, refer to Him in this first\nclause under another name? Besides, if this first clause stated the Word\u2019s\nconsubstantiality with the Father, the third clause: _And the Word was\nGod_, would then be tautological.\n\nMany of the commentators also urge against this view, that if the first\nclause meant, in God (or, in the Father) was the Word, the _second_ clause\nwould be merely a repetition. But we cannot assent to this, since, as we\nshall see, the second clause would add the important statement of the\nWord\u2019s distinct personality. However, the view seems to us improbable for\nthe other reasons already stated.\n\nOthers take \u201cbeginning\u201d here to mean eternity, so that we should have in\nthis first clause a _direct_ statement of the Word\u2019s eternity. But against\nthis is the fact that \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7 (beginning) nowhere else bears this meaning,\nand can be satisfactorily explained in a different sense here. Hence, as\nalready explained, \u201cin the beginning\u201d means: when time began.\n\n*Was* (\u1f26\u03bd), _i.e._, was _already_ in existence. Had St. John meant to\ndeclare that at the dawn of creation the Word began to exist, he would\nhave used \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf as he does in verse 3 regarding the beginning of the\nworld, and again in verse 6 regarding the coming of the Baptist. This\ncannot fail to be clear to anyone who contrasts verses 1, 2, 4, and 9 of\nthis chapter with verses 3, 6, and 14. In the former \u1f26\u03bd is used throughout\nin reference to the eternal existence of the Word;(17) in the latter\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, when there is question of the beginning of created things (3), or\nof the coming of the Baptist (6), or of the assumption by the Word of\nhuman nature at the incarnation (14). At the beginning of creation, then,\nthe Word was already in existence; and hence it follows that He must be\nuncreated, and therefore eternal. St. John\u2019s statement here that the Word\nwas already in existence in the beginning, is, accordingly, equivalent to\nour Lord\u2019s claim to have existed _before_ the world was (xvii. 5), and in\nboth instances the Word\u2019s eternity, though not directly stated, follows\nimmediately. Hence we find that the Council of Nice and the fathers\ngenerally inferred, against the Arians, the eternity of the Son of God\nfrom this first clause of verse 1. \u201cIf He was in the beginning,\u201d says St.\nBasil (_De Div._, _Hom._ xvi. 82), \u201cwhen was He not?\u201d\n\n*The Word* (\u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2). St. John here, as well as in his First Epistle (i.\n1), and in the Apocalypse (xix. 13), designates by this term the Second\nDivine Person. That he speaks of no mere abstraction, or attribute of God,\nbut of a Being who is a distinct Divine Person, is clear. For this \u201cWord\nwas with God, was God, was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us,\u201d and in the\nperson of Jesus Christ was witnessed to by the Baptist (i. 1, 14, 15, 29,\n30). Outside the writings of St. John there is no _clear_(18) instance in\neither Old or New Testament of this use of the term \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. Throughout the\nrest of the Scriptures its usual meaning is _speech_ or _word_.\n\nWhat, then, we may ask, led our Evangelist, in the beginning of his\nGospel, to apply this term rather than Son, or Son of God, to the Second\nDivine Person? Why did he not say: In the beginning was the Son?\n\nApart from inspiration, which, of course, may have extended to the\nsuggestion of an important word like the present, apart also from the\nappropriateness of the term, of which we shall speak in a moment, it seems\nvery probable that St. John was impelled to use the term \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 because it\nhad been already used by the heretics of the time in the expression of\ntheir errors.(19) Endowed, too, as St. John was, like the other Apostles,\nwith a special power of understanding the Sacred Scriptures (Luke xxiv.\n46), and privileged as he had been on many an occasion to listen to the\ncommentaries of Christ Himself on the Old Testament, he may have been\nable, where we are not, to see clearly in the Old Testament instances in\nwhich \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 refers to the Son of God; _e.g._, \u201cVerbo (\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3) Domini\ncoeli firmati sunt\u201d (Psalm xxxii. 6).\n\nOne thing, at all events, is quite plain, that, whatever may be said\nregarding his reason for the application of this _term_ to the Son of God,\nSt. John did not borrow his _doctrine_ regarding the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 from Plato or\nPhilo or the Alexandrian School. For though the term (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) is frequently\nmet with in the writings of both Plato and Philo, yet Plato never speaks\nof it as a person, but only as an attribute of God; and Philo, though in\nour opinion, he held the distinct personality of the Word, yet denied that\nhe was God, or the creator of matter, which latter Philo held to be\neternal. As to the Alexandrian School, to which Philo belonged, and of\nwhose doctrines he is the earliest witness, there is not a shadow of\nfoundation for saying that any of its doctors held the same doctrine as\nSt. John regarding the Divine Word.\n\nFrom the teaching of Christ, then, or by inspiration, or in both ways, our\nEvangelist received the sublime doctrine regarding the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 with which\nhis Gospel opens.\n\nHaving now inquired into the origin of the term \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 as applied to the\nSon of God, and having learned the source whence St. John derived his\ndoctrine regarding this Divine Word, let us try to understand how it is\nthat the Son of God could be appropriately referred to as *the Word* (\u1f41\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2). Many answers have been given, but we will confine ourselves to the\none that seems to us most satisfactory.\n\nWe believe, and profess in the Athanasian Creed (Filius a Patre solo est\nnon factus, nec creatus, sed _genitus_), that the Son is begotten by the\nFather; and it is the common teaching that He is begotten through the\nDivine intellect. Now, this mysterious procession of the Son from the\nFather through the intellect, is implied here in His being called the\nWord. For, as our word follows, without passion or carnal feeling, from\nour thought, as it is the reflex of our thought, from which it detracts\nnothing, and which it faithfully represents; so, only in an infinitely\nmore perfect way, the Son of God proceeded, without passion or any carnal\nimperfection, through the intellect of the Father, detracting nothing from\nHim who begot Him, being the image of the Father, \u201cthe figure of His\nsubstance.\u201d (Heb. i. 3.) \u201cVerbum proprie dictum,\u201d says St. Thomas, \u201cin\nDivinis personaliter accipitur, et est proprium nomen personae filii,\nsignificat enim quamdam emanationem intellectus. Persona autem quae\nprocedit in Divinis secundum emanationem intellectus, dicitur filius, et\nhujusmodi processio dicitur generatio\u201d (St. Thom., 1 Qu. 34, a. 2 c.)\n\n*And the Word was with God* (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd). \u03a0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 here signifies not\nmotion towards, but a living union with, God.(20) God refers not to the\nDivine Nature, but to the Divine Person of the Father (see 1 John i. 2);\notherwise the _Verbum_ would be unnecessarily and absurdly said here to be\nwith Himself, since He is the Divine Nature terminated in the Second\nPerson. Many commentators are of opinion that the use of \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 (with), and\nnot \u1f10\u03bd (in), proves that the _Verbum_ is not a mere attribute of the\nFather, but a distinct Person. So Chrys., Cyril, Theophy., A Lap.,\nPatrizzi, M\u2019Evilly.\n\n*And the Word was God.* As our English version indicates, *Word* is the\nsubject of this clause, God the predicate, for in the Greek \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 has the\narticle, \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 wants it; and besides, as appears from the whole context,\nSt. John is declaring what the Word is, not what God is. A desire to begin\nthis clause with the last word of the clause preceding\u2014a favourite\nconstruction with St. John (see verses 4 and 5)\u2014may have led to the\ninversion in the original. Or the inversion may have been intended to\nthrow the Divinity of the Word into greater prominence by placing the\npredicate before the verb.\n\nSome, like Corluy, refer *God*, in this third clause, to the Divine\nNature, which is common to the three Divine Persons; others, as Patrizzi,\nto the Divine Nature as terminated in the Second Divine Person. We prefer\nthe latter view, but in either interpretation we have in this clause a\ndeclaration of the Divinity of the Word, a proof that cannot be gainsaid\nof His essential unity with the Father. Nor does the absence of the Greek\narticle before \u201cGod\u201d in this third clause, when taken in conjunction with\nits presence in the second, imply, as the Arians held, that the Word is\ninferior to the Father. For our Evangelist certainly refers sometimes to\nthe supreme Deity without using the article (i. 6, 12, 18); and the\nabsence of the article is sufficiently accounted for in the present case\nby the fact that \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is a predicate standing before the copula.(21)\n\n2. Hoc erat in principio apud    2. The same was in the\nDeum.                            beginning with God.\n\n2. *The same was in the beginning with God*. To emphasize the three great\ntruths contained in verse 1: namely, the Word\u2019s eternity, His distinct\npersonality, and essential unity with the Father, they are repeated in\nverse 2. The same, that is, this Word who is God, was in the beginning,\nand was with God.\n\nVarious attempts have been made by the Unitarians to escape the invincible\nargument for a Second Divine Person which these opening verses of our\nGospel contain. Thus, they put a full stop after the last \u201cerat\u201d of verse\n1; and, taking the words in the order in which they occur in the Greek and\nLatin, make the sense of the third clause: _And God was._ Then they join\n\u201c_verbum_,\u201d the last word of verse 1, with verse 2: This Word was in the\nbeginning with God. But even if we granted to the Unitarians this\npunctuation of the verses, the sense of the third clause would still be\nthat the Word was God, and not that God existed. For \u201cDeus\u201d (\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 without\nthe article), in the beginning of the third clause ought still to be\nregarded as the predicate, with \u201cverbum\u201d of the preceding clauses as the\nsubject. This follows not merely from the absence of the Greek article\nalready alluded to, but also from the absurdity of the Unitarian view,\nwhich supposes that St. John thought it necessary, after telling us that\nthe Word was with God, to tell us that God existed!\n\nOthers have tried to explain away the text thus: At the beginning of the\nChristian dispensation the Word existed, and the Word was most intimately\nunited to God by love. But, primum, they have still to explain how this\nWord is declared Creator in verses 3 and 10; secundum, the statement in\nverse 14: \u201cAnd the Word was made flesh,\u201d implies transition of the Word to\na state different from that in which He existed \u201cin the beginning;\u201d but\nthe time of the transition is just the commencement of the Christian\ndispensation, which cannot, therefore, be the time referred to in verse 1\nas \u201cthe beginning.\u201d\n\n3. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt:   3. All things were made by\net sine ipso factum est nihil,   him: and without him was made\nquod factum est,                 nothing that was made.\n4. in ipso vita erat, et vita    4. In him was life, and the\nerat lux hominum:                life was the light of men.\n\n3. St. John passes on to the relations of the Word with creatures. *All\nthings* (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 = \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, 1 Cor. viii. 6, Col. i. 16). The passages\nindicated, as well as verse 10 of this chapter: _the world was made by\nHim_, make it clear that the Son of God created all things. Nor could this\ndoctrine be more plainly stated than in the words before us: _All things\nwere made by Him_, &c. How absurd, then, is the Socinian view, according\nto which St. John merely tells us here that all Christian virtues were\nintroduced, and the whole _moral_ world established by Christ!\n\n*Were made* \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, _i.e._, got their whole _being_ from Him, and not\nmerely were fashioned by Him from pre\u2010existing matter. The Cerinthian\ntheory, that the world was made by an inferior being, is here rejected.\n*By Him* (\u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6). We are not to suppose that the Word was an\ninstrument in the hands of the Father, or inferior to the Father, as the\nArians held. The preposition \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac (per) is often used in reference to a\nprincipal efficient cause. Thus, St. Paul says of the Father: God is\nfaithful, _by whom_ (\u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f57) you are called unto the fellowship of His\nSon, Jesus Christ, our Lord (1 Cor. i. 9. See also 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i.\n1, Gal. iv. 27, Heb. ii. 10.) And since our Evangelist has just declared\nin verse 1 the Word\u2019s divinity, and knew Him to be one with the Father (x.\n30), it cannot be implied here that the Word is inferior to the Father.\nSome commentators hold that there is no special significance in the use\nhere of the preposition \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac, while others see in it an allusion to the\nfact that the Son proceeds from the Father, and derives from Him His\ncreative power. According to these, creation is _from_ the Father, but\n_through_ the Son, because the Son has received His creative power,\ntogether with His essence, from the Father and is not, therefore, like the\nFather, \u201cprincipium sine principio.\u201d\n\nOthers think that since all things were created according to the Divine\nidea, _i.e._, according to the Divine and eternal wisdom, and since the\nWord is that wisdom, therefore all things are rightly said to have been\ncreated through the Word. So St. Thomas on this verse:\u2014\u201cSic ergo Deus\nnihil facit nisi per conceptum sui intellectus, qui est sapientia ab\naeterno concepta, scilicet Dei Verbum, et Dei Filius; et ideo impossibile\nest quod aliquid faciat nisi per Filium.\u201d In this view, which seems to us\nthe most probable, though like all the Divine works that are \u201cad extra,\u201d\n_i.e._ do not terminate in God Himself, creation is common to the Three\nDivine Persons, yet, for the reason indicated, it is rightly said to be\nthrough the Son.\n\n*And without him was made nothing* (\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f15\u03bd = not anything, emphatic for\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd nothing) *that was made* (Gr.: hath been made). By a Hebrew\nparallelism the same truth is repeated negatively: all things were made by\nHim, and nothing was made without Him. To this negative statement,\nhowever, there is added, according to the method of pointing the passage\ncommon at present, an additional clause which gives us the meaning:\nnothing was made without Him, of all the things that have been made. This\nrestrictive clause may then be understood to imply that, together with the\nWord, there was something else uncreated, that is to say (besides the\nFather, whose uncreated existence would be admitted by all) the Holy Ghost\nalso.\n\nIn this way after the Macedonian heresy arose in the middle of the fourth\ncentury, and blasphemously held that the Word had made the Holy Ghost,\nbecause without Him was made nothing, many of the Fathers replied: Nothing\nwas made without the Word, of the things that were made; but the Holy\nGhost was not made at all, and is therefore not included among the things\nmade by the Word. However, this restriction is not necessary to defend the\nDivinity of the Holy Ghost. Even though we understand it to be stated\nabsolutely that nothing was made without the Son, no difficulty can\nfollow; for the Holy Ghost was not _made_ (\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf), but _was_ (\u1f26\u03bd) from\nall eternity, as is clearly implied elsewhere. John xvi. 13, 14.\n\nOn dogmatic grounds, therefore, there is no necessity for connecting:\n_Quod factum est_, in the end of verse 3, with the preceding. And, as a\nmatter of fact, all the writers of the first three centuries seem to have\nconnected these words with verse 4,(22) and it appears to us very likely,\nthat it was because of the Macedonian heresy they began to be connected\nwith verse 3. St. Chrysostom certainly is very strong in connecting them\nwith verse 3, but the reason is because the heretics of the time were\nabusing the other connection to support their errors. \u201cFor neither will\nwe,\u201d he says, \u201cput a full stop after that \u2018nothing,\u2019 as the heretics do\u201d\n(Chrysostom on John, Hom. v). We must not, however, conclude, from this\nremark of St. Chrysostom that it was the heretics alone who did so; for,\nas we have said already, such was the ordinary way of connecting the\nclauses during the first three centuries; and it is supported not only by\nthe Fathers, but by the oldest Latin MSS., and by some of the oldest Greek\nMSS. And even after the Macedonian heretics had abused this passage to\nblaspheme the Holy Ghost, the old pointing, or to speak more correctly the\nold method of connecting the clauses, remained the more common.(23) Not\nonly did Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine, and Venerable Bede, and St.\nThomas, and a host of others read in this way, but Maldonatus, who himself\nprefers the connection in our English version: \u201cWithout Him was made\nnothing that was made,\u201d admits that the usage of his time was against him,\nand that it was then the practice to put a full stop after \u201cnothing\u201d:\n\u201cWithout Him was made nothing.\u201d Nor can the Sixtine or Clementine edition\nof the Vulgate be appealed to in favour of our present pointing. As a\nmatter of fact, the Sixtine edition _rejected_ it, printing thus: \u201cEt sine\nipso factum est nihil: quod factum est in ipso vita erat;\u201d while the\nClementine Bible left the matter undecided by printing thus: \u201cEt sine ipso\nfactum est nihil, quod factum est, in ipso vita erat,\u201d &c. We cannot,\ntherefore, understand to what Roman Bibles A Lapide refers when he says\nthat the Bibles corrected at Rome connect thus: \u201cAnd without Him was made\nnothing that was made.\u201d\n\nWe think it extremely probable, then, that the words: Quod factum est\n(_that was made_, or, as we shall render in our interpretation; _what was\nmade_), standing at present in the end of verse 3, are to be connected\nwith verse 4. Some may be inclined to blame us for departing from what is\nat present the received connection of the words in such a well\u2010known\npassage as this. Let us, therefore, sum up briefly the evidence that has\nforced us, we may say reluctantly, to connect the words with verse 4.\n\n1. Though Maldonatus tries to throw doubt upon the fact, this is the\nconnection adopted by practically all, if not all, the Fathers and other\nwriters of the first three centuries, and by the majority of writers\nafterwards down to the sixteenth century.\n\n2. It is supported by the oldest MSS. of the Vulgate, and, what is more\nremarkable, by some of the oldest Greek MSS., notwithstanding the fact\nthat St. Chrysostom was against it.\n\n3. The parallelism in the verse is better brought out: _All things were\nmade by Him, and without Him was made nothing._\n\n4. If _Quod factum est_ were intended to be connected with the preceding,\nthe clause would be certainly unnecessary, and apparently useless, because\nit is plain without it that the Evangelist is speaking of what was _made_,\nand not including any uncreated Being, like the Father or the Holy Ghost.\n\nWe prefer, then, to connect: _Quod factum est_, with what follows. But it\nstill remains for us to inquire in what way precisely the connection is to\nbe made, for various views have been held upon the subject.\n\n*A.* Some connect thus: What was made in (_i.e._ by) Him, was life, and\nthe life was the light of men. *B.* Others thus: What was made was life in\nHim, and the life was the light of men. *C.* Others again, adopting the\nsame punctuation as in the preceding, but understanding differently: What\nwas made in it was the Life, and the Life was the Light of men.\n\nThe last seems to us the correct view. For *A* is improbable, inasmuch as\nit either declares all things to have life, or implies that though what\nwas made by the Word had life, yet there were other things wanting life,\nwhich proceeded, as the Manichaeans held, from the evil principle.\n\nNor can we accept *B*, even as explained by St. Augustine in the sense\nthat all created things are in the mind of God, as the house before\nbuilding is in the mind of the architect; and that being in the mind of\nGod they are God Himself, and \u201clife in Him.\u201d For though this is in a\ncertain sense true, yet it seems to us unnatural to suppose that St. John\nhere, in this sublime exordium, thinks it necessary or useful to tell us\nthat the archetypes of created things lived in the Divine Mind. *C* then\nappears to us to be the more probable view regarding the passage: \u201cWhat\nwas made, in it was the Life;\u201d or, more plainly: \u201cIn that which was made\nwas the Life;\u201d for here, as elsewhere, St. John begins with the relative\n(see i. 45, 1 John i. 1); so that, in this view, the Evangelist after\ntelling us the relations of the Word to all things at their beginning:\n\u201cAll things were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing,\u201d now goes\non to point out His relations to them after their creation: first, His\nrelations with things generally: \u201cIn that which was made was the Life,\u201d\nthen his relations with man in the supernatural order: \u201cAnd the Life was\nthe Light of men.\u201d\n\n5. Adopting this view as to the connection between verses 3 and 4, St.\nCyril of Alexandria thus explains: \u201cThe Life (\u1f21 \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae), that is to say, the\nOnly\u2010begotten Son of God, was in all things that were made. For He, being\nby nature life itself, imparts being, and life, and motion to the things\nthat are ... In all things that were made was the Life, that is, the Word\nwhich was in the beginning. The Word, being essential life, was mingling\nHimself by participation with all existing things.\u201d\n\nIf it be objected to this interpretation that the first \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae of verse 4,\nnot having the article, cannot mean the Eternal Life, _i.e._ the Divine\nWord, we reply that St. Cyril, one of the greatest of the Greek Fathers,\nthought differently; and moreover, that very many of the commentators who\nare against us in the interpretation of this passage, are yet with us in\nreferring \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae here to the uncreated life of the Divine Word.\n\nBut if we follow what is at present the common punctuation, and read: \u201cIn\nHim was life,\u201d this is commonly interpreted to mean that the Word is the\nsource of supernatural life to man. S. Amb., S. Ath., Tol., Mald., A Lap.,\nPatr., Beel.\n\nBut this view is not without difficulty. For, first, if it be merely meant\nthat life comes to man through the Word, we might rather expect that the\npreposition \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac of the preceding verse would have been retained.\n\nSecondly, if there be question here of the Word as the life of _man_, how\nis it that it is only in the next clause that man is first mentioned?\nSurely, if the opinion we are considering were correct, we should rather\nexpect St. John to have written: \u201cIn Him was the life of man, and the life\nwas the light.\u201d For these reasons, and because of what we have stated\nalready in favour of connecting \u201cQuod factum est\u201d with what follows, we\nprefer to understand this passage, with St. Cyril, as a statement that the\nWord, the Essential Life, was present in all things, conserving them in\nexistence.\n\n*And the Life was the Light of men.* In our view the meaning is that the\nWord, the Life, who conserved all things in existence, was, moreover, in\nthe case of men, their Light\u2014the source and author of their faith. Hence,\nwe suppose St. John, after referring to the creation of all things, in\nverse 3, and the conservation of all things, in the beginning of verse 4,\nto pass on now in the end of verse 4 to speak of that new creation that is\neffected in man by means of a spiritual illumination: \u201cAll things were\nmade by (or through) Him, and without Him was made nothing. In that which\nwas made was the Life, and the Life was the Light of men.\u201d\n\nThose who interpret the beginning of the verse to mean that the spiritual\nlife of man comes through the Word, take the present clause as explaining\nhow that was so, how the Word was the Life; namely, inasmuch as He was the\nLight. He was the source of our life of grace here and glory hereafter,\ninasmuch as He was the source of our light, that is to say, our faith. And\nsome of them, as Patrizzi, hold that the order of the terms in this clause\nis inverted, and that we should read: \u201cthe light of men was the life,\u201d\n\u201clight of men\u201d being the subject.\n\nMaldonatus tells us that almost all writers before his time understood\n\u201clight of men\u201d in reference to the light of reason. However, this view is\nnow generally abandoned, and rightly, for that man owed his reason to the\nWord has been already implied in verse 3: \u201cAll things were made by Him.\u201d\nBesides, the \u201clight\u201d of this fourth verse is doubtless the same as that of\nverse 5, which _men did not receive_, and of verse 7, to which the Baptist\nwas to bear witness. But in neither of the latter verses can there be\nquestion of the light of reason; hence, neither is there in verse 4. The\nmeaning, then, is that He who was the preserver of all things was moreover\nthe source of the _spiritual_ light of men.\n\n5. Et lux in tenebris lucet,     5. And the light shineth in\net tenebrae eam non              darkness, and the darkness did\ncomprehenderunt.                 not comprehend it.\n6. Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui   6. There was a man sent from\nnomen erat Johannes.             God, whose name was John.\n\n5. *And the light shineth.* The meaning is, that the Word, as the source\nand author of faith, was always, as far as in Him lay, enlightening men.\n*Shineth*\u2014the present tense is used, though the latter part of the verse\nshows that the past also is meant: \u201cThe light shineth in the darkness, and\nthe darkness _did not_ comprehend it.\u201d Probably the Evangelist avoids\nusing the past tense, lest it might be inferred that the Word had ceased\nto shine. Besides, the present is more appropriate, seeing that, in the\nsense explained, the Word shines _throughout all time_. From the beginning\nthe Word shone, as far as in Him lay. If men generally were not\nenlightened, it was their own fault. But all who were saved from the\nbeginning, were saved through faith, and no one ever received the gift of\nfaith except in view of the merits of the Word Incarnate. \u201cNulli unquam\ncontigit vita nisi per lucem fidei, nulli lux fidei nisi intuitu Christi\u201d\n(St. August.)\n\n*The darkness* is man shrouded in unbelief. See Luke i. 79, Eph. v. 8.\n\n*And the darkness did not comprehend it.*(24) As we have just said, the\nmeaning is, that unbelieving men refused to be enlightened. Ordinarily,\nindeed, light cannot shine in darkness without dispelling it; but in this\ncase the darkness was man, a free agent, capable of rejecting the light of\nfaith through which the Eternal Word was shining. In telling us that men\nrefused to be enlightened, the Evangelist is stating what was the general\nrule, to which at all times there were noble exceptions.\n\n6. The correct rendering of the Greek text is: *There came* (\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf) *a\nman, sent by God, whose name was John*. This reference to the Baptist in\nthe middle of this sublime exordium is surprising, and has been variously\naccounted for. Some think that our Evangelist, after having treated of the\nDivinity of the Word, merely wishes, before going on to speak of the\nincarnation, to refer to the precursor. But it seems most probable that\nthe Evangelist wished to remove at once the error of those who, impressed\nby the austerity and sanctity of the Baptist\u2019s life, had looked upon him\nas the Messias. If any of them still remained at the time when St. John\nwrote, or should arise afterwards, they are here told that the Baptist,\nthough having his mission from Heaven, was only a man intended to bear\nwitness to Christ. Thus the superior excellence of Christ is thrown into\nrelief from the fact that a great saint like the Baptist was specially\nsent by Heaven to be His herald. The reference in this verse is to the\nBaptist\u2019s coming into the world, at his conception, rather than to the\nbeginning of his preaching, for at the moment of his conception, he came,\nsent by God to be the herald of Christ. See Luke i. 13\u201017.\n\n*John* is the same name as Jochanan (\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df), which is itself a shortened\nform of Jehochanan = Jehovah hath had mercy. This name was appointed for\nthe Baptist, before his conception, by the Archangel Gabriel, Luke i. 13.\n\n7. Hic venit in testimonium,     7. This man came for a\nut testimonium perhiberet de     witness, to give testimony of\nlumine, ut omnes crederent per   the light, that all men might\nillum:                           believe through him.\n8. Non erat ille lux, sed ut     8. He was not the light, but\ntestimonium perhiberet de        was to give testimony of the\nlumine.                          light.\n9. Erat lux vera, quae           9. That was the true light,\nilluminat omnem hominem          which enlighteneth every man\nvenientem in hunc mundum         that cometh into this world.\n\n7. This man came for witness, namely, in order that he might bear witness\nof _the light_, that is to say, the Incarnate Word, to the end that\nthrough him all might believe in the Word.\n\n8. *He was not the light* (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2), that is, he was not the great\nuncreated light which enlighteneth all men; though, in his own way, the\nBaptist too was a light, nay, as Christ Himself testified \u201cthe lamp that\nburneth and shineth.\u201d (v. 35). \u1f3d\u03bd\u03b1 depends on \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd (he came), which is to\nbe understood from the preceding verse.\n\n9. *That was the true light* (or, there was the true light), *which\nenlighteneth every man that cometh into this world*. The Greek of this\nverse may be construed and translated in three different ways:\u20141. By\nconnecting \u1f26\u03bd with \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd: The true light, which enlighteneth every\nman, was coming into this world. 2. By taking \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd as a nominative\nagreeing with \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2: There was the true light which _at its coming_ into the\nworld, enlighteneth every man (iii. 19.) 3. By connecting \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd with\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, as in the Vulgate and our English version. This is far the most\nprobable view. In favour of it we have all the Latin Fathers, all the\nGreek Fathers except one, and all the ancient versions. Besides, \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\nis thus connected with the nearest substantive with which it agrees in\nform. Add to this that the second opinion, the more probable of the other\ntwo, would seem to signify that the Word was not a light to all men before\nHis coming, but only at His coming; and this, as we have explained above\non verse 5, is false. The meaning, then, is that the Word was the true,\n_i.e._ the perfect light, and as far as in Him lies enlighteneth at all\ntimes every man that cometh into this world, be he Jew or Gentile. *That\ncometh into this world*, is in our view a Hebrew form of expression\nequivalent to: that is born. It is used only here in the New Testament,\nbut \u201cto be born\u201d was commonly expressed by Jewish Rabbins by \u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05e1 (to\ncome into the world).\n\n10. In mundo erat et mundus      10. He was in the world, and\nper ipsum factus est, et         the world was made by him, and\nmundus eum non cognovit.         the world knew him not.\n\n10. *He was in the world.* The Word, not the light, is the subject here,\nas is proved by the masculine pronoun \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd towards the end of the verse.\nIt is disputed to what presence of the Word in the world there is\nreference here. Almost all the Fathers understood the reference to be to\nthe presence of the Word in the world before the incarnation. According to\nthis view, which is held also by A Lapide, the Word was in the world, in\nthe universe, conserving what He had created, \u201csustaining all things by\nthe word of His power\u201d (Heb. i. 3). God is everywhere present by His\nessence, by His knowledge, and by His power; but it is of the latter\npresence, which could be known, that the view we are considering\nunderstands this clause.\n\nMaldonatus, though he admits that the Fathers are against him, holds that\nthe reference is to the mortal life of the Word Incarnate. He argues from\nthe fact that the world is blamed, in the next clause, for not having\nknown the Word; but knowledge of the Word was impossible before the\nincarnation. It was possible indeed to know there was a God, but\nimpossible to know the Second Divine Person, the Word. Whatever may be\nthought of the probability of this second view, the arguments ordinarily\nadduced against it, from the use of the imperfect \u201cerat\u201d (\u1f26\u03bd) and from the\nalleged fact that all the preceding verses refer to the Word before His\nincarnation, have no weight. For the imperfect may be used not in\nreference to Christ\u2019s existence before His incarnation, but to show that\nHe not merely appeared among men, but _continued_ to dwell for a time\namong them; and the statement that everything before this verse refers to\nthe Word before His incarnation, cannot be sustained. For the \u201cLight\u201d to\nwhich the Baptist came to bear witness (v. 7) was not the Word before His\nincarnation, but the Word Incarnate, as is evident. According to this\nsecond opinion, verse 11: He came unto His own, and His own received Him\nnot, merely emphasizes the ingratitude of the world towards the incarnate\nWord by showing that He was rejected even by His own chosen people.\n\n*And the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.* Those who\ninterpret the first clause of this verse of the existence of the Word in\nthe world before the incarnation, understand the world to be blamed, in\nthe remainder of the verse, for its ignorance of its Creator. The world is\nnot blamed, they say, for not knowing the Word as the Second Divine\nPerson, for such knowledge it could not have gathered from the works of\ncreation, but for not knowing God (Rom. i. 20), who is one in nature with\nthe Word.\n\nThose who interpret the first part of the verse of the presence of Christ\non earth during His mortal life, hold that in the remainder the world is\nblamed for not recognising the Word Incarnate as the Son of God, and\nSecond Divine Person. The meaning of the whole verse then, in this view,\nis: that though the Son of God, who created the world, deigned to live\namong men, yet they refused to recognise Him as God.\n\n11. In propria venit, et sui     11. He came unto his own, and\neum non receperunt.              his own received him not.\n\n11. *He came unto his own.* It is clear from what we have said on the\npreceding verse, that some take this to be the first reference to the\npresence on earth of the Word Incarnate; while others regard it as merely\nrepeating the idea of the preceding verse, with the additional\ncircumstance that even _His own_ refused to recognise Christ. Some few\nhave held that the reference here is to the transient coming of the Word\nin the apparitions of the Old Testament. But all the Fathers understood\nthe verse of the coming of the Word as man, and the verses that follow\nprove their view to be correct. *His own* is understood by many of His own\nworld, which He had created; but we prefer to take it as referring to His\nown chosen people, the Jews. \u201cVerbum inter Jud\u00e6os veniens, natumque ex\ngente Jud\u00e6orum, quos sibi Deus elegerat in populum peculiarem (Deut. xiv.\n2) percommode dicitur venisse \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 atque ipsi Judaei Verbo \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\nesse dicuntur,\u201d Patriz.\n\n*And his own received him not.* That is to say, believed not in Him, but\nrejected Him. This was the general rule, to which, of course, there were\nexceptions, as the following verse shows. These words together with the\ntwo following verses, we take to be a parenthetic reflexion on the\nreception Christ met with, and the happy consequences to some.\n\n12. Quotquot autem receperunt    12. But as many as received\neum, dedit eis potestatem        him, he gave them power to be\nfilios Dei fieri, his qui        made the sons of God, to them\ncredunt in nomine eius.          that believe in his name.\n13. Qui non ex sanguinibus,      13. Who are born, not of\nneque ex voluntate carnis        blood, nor of the will of the\nneque ex voluntate viri, sed     flesh, nor of the will of man,\nex Deo nati sunt.                but of God.\n\n12. There were some, however, who believed in Him, or, according to the\nHebraism, in His name, and to these, _whether Jews or Gentiles_, He gave\npower to become adopted children of God. That is to say, after they had\nco\u2010operated with His grace and believed, He mercifully gave them further\ngrace whereby they could be justified, and thus be God\u2019s adopted children.\nThe last words of this verse: *To them that believe in His name*, explain\nwhat is meant in the beginning of the verse by receiving Him.\n\n13. Some commentators have found great difficulty in this verse, because\nthey supposed that those who in the preceding verse are said to have got\nthe power to become children of God are here said to have been already\nborn of God. But the difficulty vanishes, it seems to us, if verse 13 be\ntaken as explaining not what those who believed were before they became\nsons of God, but the _nature of the filiation_, to which those who\nbelieved got power to raise themselves. It is not faith that makes them\nsons of God, but through faith (not as a meritorious cause, but as a\ncondition) they attained to charity, which made them children of God. This\ntoo is all that is meant in 1 Jn. v. 1. It is not meant that by believing\nthey are _eo ipso_, through faith alone, sons of God. Faith, as the\nCouncil of Trent lays down, is the root of justification, but it is not\nthe formal nor even the meritorious cause of justification; it is a\ncondition \u201csine qua non.\u201d And just as St. Paul attributes justification to\nfaith without meaning that it is of itself sufficient, so St. John (1 John\nv. 1) attributes to faith Divine sonship without meaning that it comes\nfrom faith alone. See Decrees of the Council of Trent, Sess. vi. Chap. vi.\nand viii. The meaning of the two verses, according to this view, is, that\nas many as received Christ by believing in Him, got power to become\nchildren of God, children who _were_ born (\u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd) not of\n_bloods_,(25) nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of\nGod. Thus verse 13 explains that these sons of God were born not in a\ncarnal but in a spiritual manner. \u201cTria hic de generatione humana sic\nexponit St. Thomas: _ex sanguinibus_, ut ex causa materiali; _ex voluntate\ncarnis_,(26) ut ex causa efficiente quantum ad concupiscentiam (in qua est\nvoluntas sensitiva); _ex voluntate viri_, ut ex causa efficiente\nintellectuali (libere actum conjugalem perficiente).\u201d Corl.\n\nTo be born of God, implies that we are transferred into a new life wherein\nwe become in some sense partakers of the Divine nature (2 Pet. i. 4).\nThrough the seed of Divine grace we are begotten anew and raised to this\nhigher life.\n\n14. Et Verbum caro factum est,   14. And the Word was made\net habitavit in nobis: et        flesh, and dwelt among us (and\nvidimus gloriam eius, gloriam    we saw his glory, the glory as\nquasi Unigeniti a Patre,         it were of the only\u2010begotten\nplenum gratiae et veritatis.     of the Father) full of grace\n                                 and truth.\n\n14. After the reflexion in verses 12 and 13 on the way Christ was received\nby men, the Evangelist now states the _manner_ in which He came; namely,\nby taking human nature. According to some, the first \u201cand\u201d is equivalent\nto \u201cfor.\u201d \u201cAfter He had said that those who received Him are born of God\nand sons of God, He adds the cause of this unspeakable honour, namely,\nthat the Word was made flesh.\u201d (St. Chrys.). Others, however, think that\n\u201cand\u201d has merely its ordinary conjunctive force. Note that \u1f49 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, not\nmentioned since verse 1, is again named, for emphasis, and to put it\nbeyond doubt or cavil that it is the same Eternal God of verse 1 who is\ndeclared to have become man in verse 14. *Flesh* is a Hebraism for man.\nSee also Gen. vi. 12; Isai. xl. 5; Ps. lv. 5; John xvii. 2. Probably it is\nused here specially against the Docetae, heretics who denied that Christ\nhad really taken flesh, which they contended was essentially polluted and\ncorrupt.\n\n\u201cDocetae discernebant in homine tria principia \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, et\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd vel \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. Duo priora habebant ut essentialiter polluta, cum\nquibus ideo Verbum hypostatice uniri non posset. St. Joannes haec tria\nVerbi hypostasi fuisse unita docet, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 hoc loco; \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, John\nxii. 27; \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, xi. 33; xiii. 21; xix. 30,\u201d Corluy, p. 40, note.\n\n*And dwelt.* Many think, with St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril, that the Greek\nverb used is employed specially to indicate that the Word did not cease to\nbe God when He became man, but _dwelt_ in His humanity as in a tent among\nmen.\n\n*And we saw.* The Greek verb signifies to behold with attention. We beheld\nnot merely His human nature present among us, but we beheld His glory as\nin the transfiguration, Matt. xvii. 1, and ascension, Acts i. 9, 11. For\nglory, the Greek word is \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1, the solemn Scriptural term for the glorious\nmajesty of God.\n\n*The glory as it were* (quasi, Gr. \u1f61\u03c2) of the only\u2010begotten; _i.e._, glory\n_such as was becoming_ the only\u2010begotten, &c. Beware of taking the meaning\nto be: a glory like that of the Son of God, but not His. As St. Chrys.\npoints out, the \u1f61\u03c2 here expresses not similitude, but the most real\nidentity(27): \u201cAs if he said: We have seen His glory such as it _was\nbecoming and right_ that the only begotten and true Son of God should\nhave.\u201d S. Chrys. on John, Hom. xii. *Of the Father* should be *from the\nFather*, and may be joined either with \u201cglory,\u201d or with \u201conly\u2010\nbegotten.\u201d(28)\n\n*Full of grace and truth.* (\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2, in the nominative, is the correct\nreading). This is to be connected closely with the beginning of the verse:\n\u201cThe Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth,\u201d\nand the other clause, *And we saw His glory*, &c., is parenthetic, thrown\nin to prove the preceding statement.\n\nChrist is said to have been full of grace and truth, not merely in\nHimself, but also, as the following verses prove, in reference to men with\nwhom He freely shared them. Kuinoel, followed by Patrizzi, understands by\n\u201cgrace and truth\u201d true grace or true benefits. But it is more natural to\ntake grace and truth as two distinct things, seeing that they are again\nmentioned separately (\u1f21 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1) in verse 17. Grace may be\nunderstood in its widest sense; for not only had Christ the \u201cgratia\nunionis,\u201d as it is called, whereby His humanity was hypostatically united\nto the Divinity; but, moreover, His human soul was replenished to its\nutmost capacity with created grace, which not only sanctified Him, but was\nalso through Him a source of sanctification to us. See St. Thomas, p. 2,\nsec. 7, 8. Christ is said to be \u201cfull of truth,\u201d not only because \u201call the\ntreasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him\u201d (Col. ii. 3), but\nalso because, as verse 17 states, He gave us the knowledge of the true\nfaith and true way of salvation.\n\n15. Ioannes testimonium          15. John beareth witness of\nperhibet de ipso, et clamat,     him, and crieth out, saying:\ndicens: Hic erat quem dixi:      This was he of whom I spoke:\nQui post me venturus est, ante   He that shall come after me,\nme factus est: quia prior me     is preferred before me:\nerat.                            because he was before me.\n\n15. *John.* The Baptist (for it is he who is meant: comp. with John i. 27;\nMark i. 4, 7; Luke iii. 2, 16) is now referred to parenthetically, as\nconfirming what our Evangelist has said, namely, that the eternal Word\ndwelt among men.\n\n*Crieth out.* (Gr. perf. with pres. signif., Beel., _Gr. Gram._, \u00a7 41, 4\n(B) note); viz., gives solemn, public testimony.\n\n*This was he of whom I spoke* (rather, said). Some, like Patrizzi, think\nthat the testimony of the Baptist here referred to is a distinct testimony\nnot mentioned elsewhere. Others, and with more probability, hold that the\nEvangelist mentions here by anticipation the same testimony whose\ncircumstances he describes in verses 29 and 30.\n\n*He that shall come after me*, in His public ministry, *is preferred\nbefore me, because he was before me*. Some commentators, as Kuinoel and\nPatrizzi, understand \u201cbefore\u201d in both cases of _time_: is before Me,\nbecause He is eternal; others, as St. Chrys. and Toletus, in both cases of\ndignity: is preferred before Me, because really preferable; and others, as\nour English version, with St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Beelen, Alford, in\nthe former case of dignity in the latter of time: is preferred before Me,\nbecause He is eternal. The last seems the correct interpretation, and in\nit the past tense \u201cis preferred\u201d (ante me factus est) is used\nprophetically for the future, or may be explained as a past: has been\npreferred in the designs of God.(29)\n\n16. Et de plenitudine eius nos   16. And of his fulness we all\nomnes accepimus, et gratiam      have received, and grace for\npro gratia.                      grace.\n17. Quia lex per Moysen data     17. For the law was given by\nest, gratia et veritas per       Moses, grace and truth came by\nIesum Christum facta est.        Jesus Christ.\n\n16. After the parenthetic clause contained in verse 15, the Evangelist,\nnot the Baptist, continues regarding the Word: *And of his fulness* (see\nverse 14) *we have all received, and grace for grace*. The second \u201cand\u201d is\nexplanatory. *Grace for grace*; _i.e._\u2014(1) the grace of eternal life\nfollowing on the grace of justification here; or (2) abundant grace,\naccording as the grace given to Christ was abundant: gratia nobis pro\ngratia Christi (Rom. v. 15); or (3) the more perfect grace of the New Law,\ninstead of that given under the Old Law (Chrysostom, Cyril, Patrizzi); or\n(4), and best, by a Hebraism, abundant grace. \u201ca\u03bd\u03c4\u2019i dicitur de\nsuccessione, gratiam unam post aliam (gratiam cumulatam).\u201d (Beel., _Gr.\nGram._, \u00a7 51 A.) So also Kuin.\n\n17. The Evangelist confirms what is stated in verse 16, and at the same\ntime takes occasion to prefer Christ to Moses, as he has already preferred\nHim to the Baptist. Moses was but the medium of _communicating_ to the\nJews the Mosaic Law, which only pointed out man\u2019s duty, without enabling\nhim to fulfil it\u2014Rom. vii. 7, 8; but Christ was the _source_ and _author_\nof grace and truth to us; of all the graces whereby we are to merit\nheaven, and of the perfect knowledge of the true faith. This is,\ndoubtless, directed against some of the Judaizers, who held that\nsanctification through the Mosaic Law was at all times possible, even\nafter the Christian religion was established.\n\n18. Deum nemo vidit unquam:      18. No man hath seen God at\nunigenitus Filius, qui est in    any time: the only\u2010begotten\nsinu Patris, ipse enarravit.     Son who is in the bosom of the\n                                 Father, he hath declared him.\n\n18. There is considerable difference of opinion as to the drift or bearing\nof this verse. Some think that a reason is given why only Christ could\ngive the truth, because only He saw God in His essence. Others, that a\nreason is given why the gifts of Christ mentioned in the preceding verse,\nare superior to the Law given by Moses, namely, because Moses never saw\nGod in His essence. Others, that the evangelist explains how he and his\nfellow\u2010Apostles received of Christ\u2019s fulness, not only through what Christ\ndid (17), but through what He taught (18); and the necessity for such a\nDivine teacher is shown by the fact that no one but He ever saw God. So\nSt. Thomas.\n\nOthers, as Maldonatus and Patrizzi, hold that the Evangelist is here\nadding to his own testimony, and that of the Baptist, the testimony of our\nLord Himself, in favour of all that he has said regarding our Lord in this\nsublime prologue; the meaning being: What I have said regarding the\neternity, personality, and Divinity of the Word, regarding His power as\ncreator and regenerator, and regarding His incarnation, I have neither\nseen with my own eyes, nor learned from anyone who saw, for \u201cno man hath\nseen God at any time,\u201d but Jesus Christ Himself explained these things to\nme.\n\n*No man hath seen God at any time.* If understood of the vision of\n_comprehension_ this is universally true of every creature, man or angel;\nif of seeing God in His essence without comprehending Him, it is true of\nall while they are here below. The latter is the sense here, for the\nEvangelist wishes to signify that he could not have learned from any mere\nmortal the foregoing doctrine. The saints in heaven see God in His\nessence, for as our Evangelist tells us in his First Epistle: \u201cWe shall\nsee Him as He is\u201d (1 John iii. 2. See also John xvii. 3).\n\n*The only\u2010begotten Son.* Instead of: \u201cThe only\u2010begotten Son,\u201d the reading:\n\u201cGod only\u2010begotten\u201d is found in very many ancient authorities, and is\nalmost equally probable. Were it certain, it would be an additional proof\nof Christ\u2019s Divinity. Christ is the only\u2010begotten Son of God, because\nwhile He is the natural Son of God, all others are but adopted sons.\n\n*Who is in the bosom of the Father* (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2). This\nmeans that the Son is consubstantial with the Father: \u201cIn illo ergo sinu,\nid est in occultissimo paternae naturae et essentiae, quae excedit omnem\nvirtutem creaturae, est unigenitus Filius, et ideo consubstantialis est\nPatri.\u201d St. Thomas on this verse.\n\n*He hath declared him.* \u201cHim\u201d is not represented in the original; and if\nour view of the verse is the correct one, the object of the verb \u201chath\ndeclared\u201d is not so much the Word, as the doctrine contained in this\nprologue concerning Him.(30)\n\n19. Et hoc est testimonium       19. And this is the testimony\nIoannis, quando miserunt         of John, when the Jews sent\nIudaei ab Ierosolymis            from Jerusalem priests and\nsacerdotes et Levitas ad eum,    Levites to him, to ask him:\nut interrogarent eum: Tu quis    Who art thou?\nes?\n\n19. The Evangelist now records, with its various circumstances, one of the\nmost solemn testimonies borne by the Baptist to Christ. The \u201cJews\u201d are\nprobably the Sanhedrim, whose duty it was to inquire into the credentials\nof preachers. The deputation was, therefore, a most solemn one, sent by\nthe Sanhedrim, from the Jewish capital, composed of Priests and Levites,\nto make inquiries regarding a momentous question.\n\n20. Et confessus est, et non     20. And he confessed, and did\nnegavit: et confessus est:       not deny: and he confessed: I\nQuia non sum ego Christus.       am not the Christ.\n\n20. The Baptist first confesses what he is not, and what many at the time\nbelieved him to be, namely, the Christ (Luke iii. 15).\n\n21. Et interrogaverunt eum:      21. And they asked him: What\nQuid ergo? Elias es tu? Et       then? Art thou Elias? And he\ndixit: Non sum. Propheta es      said: I am not. Art thou the\ntu? Et respondit: Non.           prophet? And he answered: No.\n22. Dixerunt ergo ei: Quis es,   22. They said therefore unto\nut responsum demus his qui       him: Who art thou, that we may\nmiserunt nos? quid dicis de      give an answer to them that\nteipso?                          sent us? What sayest thou of\n                                 thyself?\n\n21. *Art thou Elias?* This question arose from a misunderstanding of Mal.\niv. 5. *Art thou the prophet?* (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), as foretold by Moses (Deut.\nxviii. 15). These interrogators evidently regarded \u201cthe prophet\u201d as\ndifferent from the Messias, though in reality they were the same. See Acts\niii. 22\u201024.\n\n23. Ait: Ego vox clamantis in    23. He said: _I am the voice\ndeserto: Dirigite viam Domini,   of one crying in the\nsicut dixit Isaias propheta.     wilderness, Make straight the\n                                 way of the Lord_, as said the\n                                 prophet Isaias.\n\n23. The Baptist with striking humility replies that he is merely a voice,\na passing sign\u2014yet that voice spoken of by Isaias, which was to call upon\nmen to prepare their hearts to receive Christ. The Hebrew of Isaias may be\nrendered: \u201cThe voice of one that crieth in the wilderness: Prepare ye the\nway of the Lord (Jehovah), make straight in the desert a highway for our\nGod.\u201d Or, as is more probable from the Hebrew parallelism: \u201cThe voice of\none that crieth: Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord, make\nstraight in the desert a highway for our God.\u201d The Baptist, in applying to\nhimself this prophetic passage, which is also applied to him by the three\nSynoptic Evangelists (Matt. iii. 3; Mark i. 3; Luke iii. 4), gives merely\nthe substance of the original. It is disputed whether Isaias refers in the\nliteral sense to preparing the roads by which the people should return\nfrom the Babylonian Captivity, and only in the mystical sense to the\npreparation for the Messias, or directly and literally to the preparation\nfor the Messias. The latter seems the more probable view. At any rate, the\nwords as applied here mean that the Baptist is the voice to which Isaias\nreferred (in some sense literal or mystical), and that the burden of his\ncry in the desert of Judea is, that men who heard him in the desert should\nprepare their hearts for Christ.\n\nThe language is metaphorical, and alludes to the custom prevalent in those\ndays of sending forward couriers to get the roads ready for advancing\nprinces.\n\n24. Et qui missi fuerant,        24. And they that were sent\nerant ex Pharisaeis.             were of the Pharisees.\n\n24. The Pharisees were a sect among the Jews, so called according to some\nfrom their founder, Pharos, or more probably, perhaps, from the Hebrew\nverb \u201cpharash\u201d (\u05e4\u05e8\u05e9\u05c2) to separate, as though they were separated from and\nabove ordinary men, owing to their strict observance of the Law. They held\nmany erroneous tenets: thus\u2014(1) They relied for God\u2019s favour upon their\ncarnal descent from Abraham. (2) They taught that no oath was binding in\nwhich the name of God or the gold of the temple was not expressly invoked.\n(3) That internal sins were not forbidden; and (4) some of their schools\nadmitted the right of arbitrary divorce. See Matt. v. 33\u201036; xix. 3;\nxxiii.\n\n25. Et interrogaverunt eum, et   25. And they asked him, and\ndixerunt ei: Quid ergo           said to him: Why then dost\nbaptizas, si tu non es           thou baptize, if thou be not\nChristus, neque Elias, neque     Christ, nor Elias, nor the\npropheta?                        prophet?\n26. Respondit eis Ioannes,       26. John answered them,\ndicens: Ego baptizo in aqua:     saying: I baptize with water;\nmedius autem vestrum stetit,     but there hath stood one in\nquem vos nescitis.               the midst of you, whom you\n                                 know not.\n\n25. Being Pharisees, and therefore versed in the Law, they knew from\nEzech. xxxvi. 25, and Zach. xiii. 1, that in the time of the Messias there\nwas to be a baptism unto the remission of sins. They concluded, then, that\nonly the Messias, or some of those that were to accompany Him, could\nconfer this baptism; and, not understanding the import of the Baptist\u2019s\nanswer, verse 23, in which he really declared himself the herald of\nChrist\u2019s coming, they ask why he presumes to baptize.\n\n26. The Baptist answers that his is not the baptism foretold by the\nProphets, which was to cleanse the sinner, but as he had declared at the\nbeginning of his preaching, a baptism unto penance (Matt. iii. 21). John\u2019s\nbaptism consisted in an ablution of the body, accompanied by the\nprofession of a penitential spirit, preparatory to the coming of Him who\nwas to baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire (Matt. iii. 11). It could in\nno sense be said to remit sin; while the baptism of Christ really remits\nsin (Acts ii. 38). Hence the Council of Trent defined:\u2014\u201cSi quis dixerit\nbaptismum Joannis habuisse eamdem vim cum baptismo Christi anathema sit.\u201d\n(Sess. vii., Can. i.) _De Bapt._\n\n*There hath stood* (\u1f15\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd); rather there *standeth*, the perfect of this\nverb having a present signification. Many authorities indeed read the\nlater present \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9. The meaning is not that our Lord was then actually\npresent in the crowd, else St. John would probably have pointed him out,\nas he did on the following day (v. 29); but that He was already present\namong the Jewish people, was already living among them.\n\n27. Ipse est qui post me         27. The same is he that shall\nventurus est, qui ante me        come after me, who is\nfactus est: cuius ego non sum    preferred before me: the\ndignus ut solvam eius            latchet of whose shoe I am not\ncorrigiam calceamenti.           worthy to loose.\n\n27. Many authorities omit the words: \u201cThe same is,\u201d and also: \u201cwho is\npreferred before me,\u201d and then connect with the preceding thus: \u201cBut there\nhath stood One in the midst of you whom you know not, even He that shall\ncome (rather, that cometh) after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not\nworthy to loose.\u201d So Tisch., Treg., Westcott, and Hort, and the Rev. Vers.\nIt is not easy to explain why the words are wanting in so many MSS., if\nthey were written by St. John; certainly it is easier to believe that they\nwere inserted by some scribe to bring the verse into closer resemblance to\n15 and 30.\n\nIn the latter part of the verse, the Baptist declares himself unworthy to\nperform the lowest menial service for Christ. To loose the sandals of\ntheir masters was the business of slaves; yet for even such service to\nChrist the great Prophet confesses himself unfit.\n\n28. Haec in Bethania facta       28. These things were done in\nsunt trans Iordanem, ubi erat    Bethania beyond the Jordan,\nIoannes baptizans.               where John was baptizing.\n\n28. *Bethania*, here mentioned, was situated in Peraea, east of the\nJordan, and must be carefully distinguished from the town of the same\nname, in which Lazarus lived, about two miles east of Jerusalem, but west\nof the Jordan. Many ancient authorities read Bethabara, instead of\nBethania. Origen, though admitting that nearly all the MSS. of his time\nread Bethania, changed it, on topographical grounds, for Bethabara, in his\nedition of our Gospel. Bethania, according to some, means the house of a\nship (\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4), while Bethabara means the house of a ferry\u2010boat (\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\n\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4); so that, perhaps, they may have been different names for the same\nplace on the Jordan.\n\n29. Altera die vidit Ioannes     29. The next day John saw\nIesum venientem ad se, et ait:   Jesus coming to him, and he\nEcce Agnus Dei, ecce qui         saith: Behold the lamb of God,\ntollit peccatum mundi.           behold him who taketh away the\n                                 sin of the world.\n\n29. On the day after that on which the Baptist bore the preceding\ntestimony, he saw Jesus coming towards him. This is the first time that\nthe mention of the Holy Name occurs in our Gospel. *Jesus* (Gr. \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) is\nthe same as the Hebrew \u05d9\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05e2, which is itself a contraction for \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05e2,\nmeaning God the Saviour. That our Lord was so called, to show that He was\nto be the Saviour of men, is clear from the words of the angel to St.\nJoseph: \u201cAnd she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call His name\nJESUS, _for_ He shall _save_ His people from their sins\u201d (Matt. i. 21). We\ncannot be certain whence Jesus was now coming; but it seems very probable\nthat He was coming from the desert after His forty days\u2019 fast. We know\nfrom St. Mark (i. 12) that as soon as He was baptized, \u201c_immediately_ the\nspirit drove Him out into the desert, and He was in the desert forty days\nand forty nights.\u201d Since, then, the present occasion was subsequent to His\nbaptism, as we learn from a comparison of verse 33 with St. Matthew iii.\n16 (for the Baptist alludes, on the present occasion, to what took place\nat the baptism), it follows that it must have been at least forty days\nsubsequent. Christ seems too to have been absent when, on the day before\nthis, the Baptist bore witness to Him, else the Baptist would have\nprobably pointed Him out as present, just as he does on this occasion. All\nthings considered, then, it is likely Jesus is now returning, and that the\nBaptist here takes the first opportunity of again commending Him to the\npeople.\n\n*Behold the lamb* (\u1f41 \u1f00\u03bc\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2) of God. The Baptist, in these words, points\nout Jesus as the Messias, for there is evident allusion to Isaias liii.\n7\u201012, where the Messias is compared to a lamb before his shearers, bearing\nthe sins of many. In referring to Jesus as a lamb, the Baptist recalled\nthis prophecy, insinuated Christ\u2019s innocence, and perhaps suggested that\nhe was to be sacrificed. *Lamb of God*, because offered by God for the\nsins of men, as we speak of the sacrifice of Abraham, meaning the\nsacrifice offered by him; or it may mean simply the Divine Lamb. But the\nfirst opinion seems more probable.\n\n*Who taketh away the sin of the world.* Every word is emphatic. Christ not\nmerely covers up, or abstains from imputing sin, but He takes it away\naltogether, as far as in Him lies. And it is not merely legal impurities\nthat the sacrifice of this Divine Lamb will remove, but sin; and not\nmerely the sin of one race, like the Jewish, but the sin of the whole\nworld. \u201cSin,\u201d in the singular number, designates as one collective whole\nevery sin of every kind.\n\n30. Hic est de quo dixi: Post    30. This is he of whom I said:\nme venit vir qui ante me         After me there cometh a man,\nfactus est, quia prior me        who is preferred before me:\nerat:                            because he was before me.\n\n30. The Baptist goes on to say that Jesus is that very Person of whom he\nhad said on a previous occasion: *After me*, &c. Some take the reference\nhere to be to the testimony of the preceding day, when the Baptist bore\nwitnesses in verse 27; others think the reference is to the occasion\nspoken of in verse 15, and regard that testimony as distinct from the one\nrecorded in verse 27. We prefer the latter view, and distinguish in all\nsix testimonies of the Baptist recorded in the Gospels. The first, before\nChrist\u2019s Baptism, as in Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 7; Luke iii. 16; the\nsecond, as in John i. 15; the third, as in John i. 19\u201027; the fourth, as\nin John i. 29\u201034; the fifth, as in John i. 35\u201036; and the sixth and last,\nas in John iii. 27\u201036.\n\n31. Et ego nesciebam eum, sed    31. And I knew him not, but\nut manifestetur in Israel,       that he may be made manifest\npropterea veni ego in aqua       in Israel, therefore am I come\nbaptizans.                       baptizing with water.\n\n31. *And I knew him not*; _i.e._, _officially_, so as to be able to bear\nwitness to Him publicly; or, better: I knew Him not personally; I was\nunacquainted with Him, so that my testimony in His favour then and now\ncannot be the result of prejudice or partiality towards Him. The Baptist\nwas indeed a relative of our Lord (Luke i. 36), and must known what his\nfather, Zachary, had declared, \u201cPraeibis enim ante faciem Domini parare\nvias ejus\u201d (Luke i. 76), that he himself was to herald the public coming\nof Jesus. Yet, as Jesus dwelt at Nazareth in Galilee during His private\nlife; and John, reared in the hill country of Juda (Luke i. 39), spent the\nyears before his public mission\u2014perhaps from his very childhood (as\nOrigen, Mald.) in the deserts (Luke i. 80), it is conceivable how he might\nnot have known Christ\u2019s appearance. \u201cWhat wonder,\u201d says St. Chrys., \u201cif he\nwho from his childhood spent his life in the desert, away from his\nfather\u2019s home, did not know Christ?\u201d But as he had, while still in his\nmother\u2019s womb, been divinely moved to recognise Christ (Luke i. 41, 44);\nso, immediately before the baptism of the latter, he was enabled to\nrecognise Him (Matt. iii. 14).\n\n32. Et testimonium perhibuit     32. And John gave testimony,\nIoannes, dicens: Quia vidi       saying: I saw the Spirit\nSpiritum descendentem quasi      coming down as a dove from\ncolumbam de coelo, et mansit     heaven, and he remained upon\nsuper eum.                       him.\n33. Et ego nesciebam eum: sed    33. And I knew him not: but\nqui misit me baptizare in        he, who sent me to baptize\naqua, ille mihi dixit: Super     with water, said to me: He\nquem videris Spiritum            upon whom thou shalt see the\ndescendentem, et manentem        Spirit descending and\nsuper eum, hic est qui           remaining upon him, he it is\nbaptizat in Spiritu Sancto.      that baptizeth with the Holy\n                                 Ghost.\n34. Et ego vidi: et              34. And I saw; and I gave\ntestimonium perhibui quia hic    testimony, that this is the\nest Filius Dei.                  Son of God.\n\n32\u201034. Some, as Patrizzi, take this as a new testimony; others, with more\nprobability, take it as a continuation of the preceding, and say that our\nEvangelist inserts the words, *and John gave testimony*, in the middle of\nthe Baptist\u2019s words, in order to arrest the reader\u2019s attention. The\nBaptist here declares what he had beheld after the baptism of Christ\n(Matt. iii. 16), and how that sign had been revealed to him beforehand as\none that was to mark out the Messias, and _confirm_ his own faith: and how\nhe had accordingly on that occasion borne witness that Jesus is the Son of\nGod.\n\n*That baptizeth with the Holy Ghost*; _i.e._, who will _wash_ you, not\nwith water, but in the graces of the Holy Ghost. There may be special\nreference to the graces conferred in Christian baptism.\n\n35. Altera die iterum stabat     35. The next day again John\nIoannes, et ex discipulis eius   stood, and two of his\nduo.                             disciples.\n36. Et respiciens Iesum          36. And beholding Jesus\nambulantem, dicit: Ecce Agnus    walking, he saith: Behold the\nDei.                             Lamb of God.\n37. Et audierunt eum duo         37. And the two disciples\ndiscipuli loquentem, et secuti   heard him speak, and they\nsunt Iesum.                      followed Jesus.\n38. Conversus autem Iesus, et    38. And Jesus turning, and\nvidens eos sequentes se, dicit   seeing them following him,\neis: Quid quaeritis? Qui         said to them: What seek you?\ndixerunt ei: Rabbi (quod         Who said to him: Rabbi (which\ndicitur interpretatum,           is to say, being interpreted,\nmagister), ubi habitas?          Master), where dwellest thou?\n\n35\u201038. Circumstances in which the first disciples attached themselves to\nJesus. The Evangelist interprets the Syro\u2010Chaldaic word Rabbi (38),\nbecause he is writing for the Christians of Asia Minor.\n\n39. Dicit eis: Venite, et        39. He saith to them: Come and\nvidete. Venerunt, et viderunt    see. They came, and saw where\nubi maneret, et apud eum         he abode, and they staid with\nmanserunt die illo: hora autem   him that day: now it was about\nerat quasi decima.               the tenth hour.\n\n39. *About the tenth hour.* According to those who hold that St. John\nnumbers the hours of the day after the Jewish method, the time here\nindicated would be about two hours before sunset. For the Jews divided the\nnatural day or time of light into twelve equal parts, each part being one\u2010\ntwelfth of the whole, so that the length of their hour varied according to\nthe season of the year. If we suppose St. John to number as we do now, and\nas the Greeks did then, the time here indicated would be about 10 a.m.\n\n40. Erat autem Andreas frater    40. And Andrew the brother of\nSimonis Petri unus ex duobus     Simon Peter was one of the two\nqui audierant a Ioanne, et       who had heard of John, and\nsecuti fuerant eum.              followed him.\n\n40. It is extremely probable that the other who followed, and whose name\nis not given, was our Evangelist himself. See Introd. I. B. 2.\n\n41. Invenit hic primum fratrem   41. He findeth first his\nsuum Simonem, et dicit ei:       brother Simon, and saith to\nInvenimus Messiam (quod est      him: We have found the\ninterpretatum Christus).         Messias, which is, being\n                                 interpreted, the Christ.\n\n41. *First*; _i.e._, before the other (our Evangelist) findeth his\nbrother, James. *Messias* (from the Hebrew root _Mash\u00e0ch_ (\u05de\u05e9\u05c2\u05d7), to\nanoint) = \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 = anointed. It was the custom to anoint Hebrew kings,\npriests, and prophets; and Christ, as combining the three dignities in\nHimself, was _the anointed_ by excellence.\n\n42. Et adduxit eum ad Iesum.     42. And he brought him to\nIntuitus autem eum Iesus,        Jesus. And Jesus looking upon\ndixit: Tu es Simon filius        him said: Thou art Simon the\nIona: tu vocaberis Cephas,       son of Jona: thou shalt be\nquod interpretatur Petrus.       called Cephas, which is\n                                 interpreted Peter.\n\n42. Christ\u2019s omniscience is left to be inferred from His knowing Simon(31)\nhere at first sight. *Cephas*, Syro\u2010Chaldaic, _K\u00e9pha_ (\u05db\u05e4\u05d0); Hebrew _Keph_\n(\u05db\u05e4) = \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 (rock), from which we have \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 with the feminine\ntermination changed into the masculine. The change of Simon\u2019s name was now\npredicted, but was probably not made till afterwards. See Mark iii. 16.\n\n43. In crastinum voluit exire    43. On the following day he\nin Galilaeam, et invenit         would go forth into Galilee,\nPhilippum. Et dicit ei Iesus:    and he findeth Philip. And\nSequere me.                      Jesus saith to him: Follow me.\n\n43. *On the following day he would go forth.* The sense is: when He was\nabout to set out; \u201ccum in eo esset, ut e Judaea abiret\u201d (Kuin.). Jesus had\ncome from Nazareth, the home of His private life in Galilee, to be\nbaptized by John, (Matt. iii. 13; Mark i. 9). He had then spent forty days\nin the desert, and been tempted there, (Matt. iii. 16\u2010iv. 3); had returned\nfrom the desert to the Jordan, and been witnessed to again by the Baptist\n(see above John i. 15, 19\u201036), and was now on the point of returning to\nGalilee.\n\n*Follow me.* Philip to whom these words were addressed was afterwards the\nApostle of that name. The call to follow our Lord on this occasion was not\nthe formal call to the _Apostleship_, but rather an invitation to him to\nbecome a disciple. The same is to be said regarding the others referred to\nin this chapter, Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Nathanael. Four of\nthese\u2014Peter, Andrew, James, and John, who had in the meantime returned to\nGalilee, and were pursuing their calling of fishermen, were again called,\nMatt. iv. 18\u201022, Luke v. 1\u201011; and on this second occasion \u201cleaving all\nthings they followed Him,\u201d and became inseparably attached to Him as\ndisciples. Finally, the solemn formal call of the twelve to the\nApostleship is narrated, Matt. x. 2; Luke vi. 13.\n\n44. Erat autem Philippus a       44. Now Philip was of\nBethsaida, civitate Andreae et   Bethsaida, the city of Andrew\nPetri.                           and Peter.\n\n44. *Bethsaida.* In our view there were two towns of this name: the one\nmentioned here, on the western shore of the sea of Galilee, about four\nmiles south of Capharnaum; the other Bethsaida Julias, situated to the\nnorth east of the same sea. The latter was enlarged and greatly improved\nby Philip the Tetrarch, son of Herod the Great, who gave it the name\nJulias, in honour of Julia the daughter of the Roman Emperor Augustus.\n\n45. Invenit Philippus            45. Philip findeth Nathanael,\nNathana\u00ebl, et dicit ei: Quem     and saith to him: We have\nscripsit Moyses in lege, et      found him of whom Moses in the\nprophetae, invenimus Iesum       law, and the prophets did\nfilium Ioseph a Nazareth.        write, Jesus the son of Joseph\n                                 of Nazareth.\n46. Et dixit ei Nathana\u00ebl: A     46. And Nathanael said to him:\nNazareth potest aliquid boni     Can anything of good come from\nesse? Dicit ei Philippus:        Nazareth? Philip saith to him:\nVeni, et vide.                   Come and see.\n\n45. Philip not only obeys the call to become a disciple himself, but\nbrings another disciple with him to Jesus. Nathanael (= _Deus dedit_) was\na native of Cana in Galilee (John xxi. 2), and is most probably identical\nwith Bartholomew (= son of Tolmai) the Apostle, \u201cFor Nathanael and Philip\nare coupled in John i. 45, as Bartholomew and Philip are here (Matt. x.\n3); Nathanael is named in the very _midst_ of Apostles, John xxi. 2.\n\u2018There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, who is called Didymus, and\nNathanael who was of Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee.\u2019 Would\nanyone but an Apostle be so named? Finally, Matthew, Luke, and Mark do not\nallude to Nathanael, nor does John to Bartholomew\u201d (M\u2019Carthy on Matt. x.\n3).\n\n*The son of Joseph.* Doubtless, he means a son conceived and born in the\nordinary way. So it was generally thought, and so thought Philip, ignorant\nof the miraculous conception of Christ, and of His birth at Bethlehem. It\nis absurd to charge our Evangelist, as De Wette has done, with ignorance\nof Christ\u2019s miraculous birth of a virgin, because he records the ignorance\nof Philip.\n\n*Nazareth*, for ever famous as the scene of the incarnation, was a little\ntown in Lower Galilee, in the tribal territory of Zabulon. It was the\ndwelling\u2010place of our Lord during His private life. Nazareth, indeed all\nGalilee, was held in contempt (see John vii. 52), and hence Nathanael\u2019s\ndoubt, (verse 46), though he was himself a Galilean (John xxi. 2).\n\n47. Vidit Iesus Nathana\u00ebl        47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming\nvenientem ad se, et dicit de     to him, and he saith of him:\neo; Ecce vere Israelita, in      Behold an Israelite indeed, in\nquo dolus non est.               whom there is no guile.\n48. Dicit ei Nathana\u00ebl: Unde     48. Nathanael saith to him:\nme nosti? Respondit Iesus, et    Whence knowest thou me? Jesus\ndixit ei: Priusquam te           answered, and said to him:\nPhilippus vocaret, cum esses     Before that Philip called\nsub ficu, vidi te.               thee, when thou wast under the\n                                 fig\u2010tree, I saw thee.\n49. Respondit ei Nathana\u00ebl, et   49. Nathanael answered him,\nait: Rabbi, tu es Filius Dei,    and said: Rabbi, thou art the\ntu es rex Israel.                Son of God, thou art the King\n                                 of Israel.\n\n47\u201049. When Nathanael had approached near enough to be able to hear what\nwas said, but before he had spoken anything from which our Lord might have\nbeen thought to guess at his character, our Lord said: *Behold an\nIsraelite ** indeed, in whom there is no guile*; that is to say, one who,\nnot merely by descent, but by the simplicity and honesty of his character,\nis a true son of Jacob. See Gen. xxv. 27; Rom. ix. 6. Jacob\u2019s name was\nchanged into Israel, after he wrestled with the angel, Gen. xxxii. 28.\n\n47\u201049. Nathanael must have felt convinced that he had been hidden from\nChrist\u2019s natural view, otherwise he could not draw the inference which,\naided by divine grace, he draws. Whether Nathanael yet recognised Jesus to\nbe true God, and professed his belief in Him as such, in the words of\nverse 49, is disputed. If we are to judge from his words (\u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2), the\naffirmative opinion seems much more probable. The words are an echo of the\nBaptist\u2019s testimony (v. 34), but Nathanael confesses not alone Christ\u2019s\nDivine origin, but also His human sovereignty: Thou art the Son of God,\nThou art the King of Israel.\n\n50. Respondit Iesus, et dixit    50. Jesus answered and said to\nei: Quia dixi tibi: Vidi te      him: Because I said unto thee,\nsub ficu, credis: maius his      I saw thee under the fig\u2010tree,\nvidebis.                         thou believest: greater things\n                                 than these shalt thou see.\n\n50. Jesus promises Nathanael stronger arguments in proof of His Divinity.\nIn the words: *Greater things than these shalt thou see*, the plural these\nseems to point to the class and not merely the special incident.\n\n51. Et dicit ei: Amen, amen.     51. And he saith to him: Amen,\ndico vobis, videbitis coelum     amen, I say to you, you shall\napertum, et Angelos Dei          see the heaven opened, and the\nascendentes, et descendentes     Angels of God ascending and\nsupra Filium hominis.            descending upon the son of\n                                 man.\n\n51. *Amen, amen*, is peculiar to John. The other Evangelists use \u201cAmen\u201d\nonly once in such asseverations. \u201cAmen means verily (at the end of a\nprayer, so be it); and when doubled, strengthens the asseveration, and\npoints to the solemnity of the declaration about to follow\u201d (M\u2019Ev.).\n\n*Son of man.* This term, probably derived in its Messianic sense from Dan.\nvii. 13, 14, was very rarely applied to Christ, except by Himself, and we\nfind Him using it very frequently (though not exclusively; see, _e.g._,\nMatt. ix. 6; xxiii. 30; Acts vii. 56) in connection with His privations,\nsufferings, and death (Matt. viii. 20; xii.40; xvii. 12; xxvi. 21\u201025; John\niii. 14, &c.). It indicates that Christ was not only man like Adam; but\nthat, unlike him, He was _descended_ of man, and therefore our brother in\nthe truest sense.\n\n*You shall see.* Though Nathanael is addressed (and He saith to _him_),\nyet the plural (videbitis) shows that the wondrous sign here promised was\nto be seen not by him alone, but at least by Philip also, and probably by\nothers. The meaning of the prediction is obscure. Evidently some great\nsign is promised; but what it is, interpreters are far from agreed. Some\ntake the words metaphorically, others literally.\n\nOf those who understand them metaphorically, some take the sense to be:\nYou shall see numerous miracles, such as are usually attributed to angels\n(or, in the performance of which angels shall minister to Me) wrought by\nMe, the Son of Man, during My public life. So Beelen, Maier, &c. We cannot\naccept this view, for it seems highly improbable that our Lord would speak\nin language so obscure to the guileless Nathanael and his companions on an\noccasion like the present, when Nathanael had only just believed.\n\nOthers understand of the spiritual glories of the whole period from the\ncommencement of Christ\u2019s public mission till the end of the world. Alford,\nexplaining this view (which, by the way, he calmly claims to have been\n\u201cthe interpretation of all commentators of any depth in all times\u201d!) says:\n\u201cIt is not the outward visible opening of the material heavens nor ascent\nor descent of angels in the sight of men, which the Lord here announces,\nbut the series of glories which was about to be unfolded in His Person and\nwork, from that time forward.\u201d Our difficulty in regard to this view is\nthe same as in regard to the preceding.\n\nSt. Augustine is generally supposed to have understood this text in\nreference to the preachers of the New Testament, \u201cascending\u201d when they\npreach the more sublime, \u201cdescending,\u201d when they preach the more\nelementary doctrines of religion. If St. Augustine meant this as a\n_literal_ interpretation of the passage, as he certainly seems to do in\nTract vii. on this Gospel, we cannot accept it. Surely, something stranger\nand more striking is promised here, after the opening of the heavens, than\nthe sight of preachers!\n\nOthers hold that we must interpret this passage entirely in the light of\nJacob\u2019s dream, Gen. xxviii. 12. Jacob saw a ladder reaching from earth to\nheaven, with angels ascending and descending upon it. That vision meant in\nhis regard that God would make him the object of His special protection\n(see Gen. xxviii. 13\u201015). And now Nathanael, who is _an Israelite indeed_,\na true son of Jacob (v. 47), is told that he and others shall see that\nDivine favour and protection which Jacob\u2019s vision signified, extended in\nsuch an extraordinary manner to Christ, during His life, that it will be\nmost manifest He is the Son of God.\n\nThis view we regard as probable. The Fathers tell us that Nathanael was\nparticularly well versed in the Scriptures, and our Lord\u2019s words might\nreadily recall to his mind Jacob\u2019s dream, with all its significance of\nDivine favour and protection.\n\nOf the opinions that attempt to explain the words literally, some may be\ndismissed at once. Thus there cannot be reference to the angels who\nappeared at Christ\u2019s birth, or after His temptations (Matt. iv. 11), for\nChrist speaks of an event still to come, whereas His birth and temptations\nwere already past. Nor can there be reference to the transfiguration, even\nif we suppose angels to have been present; nor to the agony in the garden;\nnor to the resurrection; for on none of these occasions did Philip and\nNathanael see the angels. Less improbable, perhaps, is the view that there\nis reference to the ascension, and the two angels that appeared then (Acts\ni. 10). But this opinion too we reject without hesitation. In the passage\nof the Acts referred to, St. Luke tells us: \u201cAnd while they were beholding\nHim going up to heaven, behold two men _stood by them_ in white garments.\u201d\nNow, it is clear that angels who stood by the apostles and disciples,\ncannot possibly be those referred to here as \u201cascending and descending\nupon the Son of Man.\u201d\n\nA Lapide refers the prediction to some miraculous vision seen by the\ndisciples during our Lord\u2019s life, and not recorded in the Gospels. But it\nseems improbable that the fulfilment of such a prediction would be passed\nover in silence by all the Evangelists.\n\nFinally, there is the opinion, which is held by Maldonatus, that there is\nreference to the last judgment, when the heavens shall be opened, and\nChrist shall come riding on the clouds of heaven, accompanied by angels,\nand all men shall be forced to confess Him God. This seems to us the most\nprobable interpretation. For, first, it is likely that our Lord refers to\nthe clearest and most incontrovertible proof that shall be given of His\nDivinity; and such will be His coming in majesty to judge the world.\nSecondly, we know that on another occasion, when he was challenged by the\nJewish High Priest to say if he was the Son of God, He appealed to this\nsame proof of His Divinity: \u201cI adjure thee by the living God, that thou\ntell us if thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith to him: Thou\nhast said it. Nevertheless, I say to you: Hereafter you shall see the Son\nof Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the\nclouds of heaven\u201d (Matt. xxvi. 63\u201064). Probably the expression: *ascending\nand descending* is to be understood metaphorically, even in this opinion,\nand means merely that the angels shall be _attendant upon_ the great\nJudge, ready to execute His will. The order is remarkable: they are said\nfirst to ascend, and then to descend, as was the case also in Jacob\u2019s\nvision.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n\n    1\u201011. *Christ at the marriage feast in Cana changes water into\n    wine.*\n\n    12. *He goes down to Capharnaum.*\n\n    13\u201017. *At the approach of the Pasch He goes up to Jerusalem, and\n    there drives the buyers and sellers out of the Temple.*\n\n    18\u201022. *Challenged by the Jews for a sign of His authority, He\n    predicts His own Resurrection, as the disciples called to mind\n    after He had risen.*\n\n    23\u201025. *On the occasion of this first Pasch of His public life\n    many believe in Him because of His miracles.*\n\n\n1. Et die tertia nuptiae         1. And the third day there was\nfactae sunt in Cana Galilaeae,   a marriage in Cana of Galilee:\net erat mater Iesu ibi.          and the mother of Jesus was\n                                 there.\n2. Vocatus est autem et Iesus,   2. And Jesus also was invited,\net discipuli eius, ad nuptias.   and his disciples, to the\n                                 marriage.\n\n1. The Evangelist having narrated how our Lord was witnessed to by the\nBaptist, and joined by His first disciples, now proceeds to tell how He\nbore testimony of Himself by His miracles.\n\n*The third day.* Naturally the third from the point of time last referred\nto, in verse 43.\n\nThe marriage feast was celebrated for a week among the Jews, and this\ncustom had come down from very ancient times, as we learn from the book of\nJudges, xiv. 12.\n\n*Cana of Galilee* was situated most probably in the tribe of Zabulon near\nCapharnaum. There was another Cana in the tribe of Aser, near Sidon (see\nJos. xix. 28).\n\n2. *And Jesus also was invited*; that is to say, He also, _as well as_ the\nBlessed Virgin, was invited. Mald. holds that \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 (et) is explanatory: on\nthat account, that is to say, because she _was_ there as a friend of the\nfamily, Jesus was _invited_.\n\n3. Et deficiente vino, dicit     3. And the wine failing, the\nmater Iesu ad eum: Vinum non     mother of Jesus saith to him:\nhabent.                          They have no wine.\n\n3. *And the wine failing* (Gr. having failed). Either all the wine was\nalready drunk, or, at least, there was no more to be drawn; the last was\non the table. When we take into account what Mary says to the servants (v.\n5), it is plain that her object in telling Jesus that the wine had run\nshort, was not that He and His disciples might retire (Bengel), nor that\nHe might exhort the company to patience (Calvin), nor that He might buy\nwine (Kuin.), but that He might work a miracle. \u201cThe Mother of the Lord\nhaving heard of the testimony of the Baptist, and seeing the disciples\ngathered round her Son, the circumstances of whose miraculous birth she\ntreasured in her heart (Luke ii. 19, 51) must have looked now at length\nfor the manifestation of His power, and thought that an occasion only was\nwanting. Yet even so she leaves all to His will\u201d (Westc., in _Speaker\u2019s\nComm._).\n\n4. Et dicit ei Iesus: Quid       4. And Jesus saith to her:\nmihi et tibi est mulier:         Woman, what is it to me and to\nNondum venit hora mea.           thee? My hour is not yet come.\n\n4. *Woman, what is it to me and to thee?* The Vulgate has. \u201cQuid mihi et\ntibi _est_, mulier?\u201d But the verb is not in the Greek text (\u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03af \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9?), which would therefore be better translated: \u201cWhat to Me and\nto thee, woman?\u201d The Revised Version of the Church of England renders:\n\u201cWoman, what have I to do with thee?\u201d\n\nMost Protestant writers have held that these words of our Lord contain a\nreproof of His mother. Among Catholics many have held that the words\ncontain _the semblance_ of reproof; to teach us, not Mary, that we are not\nto be influenced by motives of flesh and blood in the service of God.\nOthers have held (and this is the general opinion of modern Catholic\ncommentators) that the words do not contain even the appearance of\nreproof.\n\n(1) It is now generally acknowledged even by Protestant commentators that\nthe term \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 is not reproachful or disrespectful. According to Alford\nthere is no reproach in the term, but rather respect; and Trench says: \u201cSo\nfar from any harshness, the compellation has something solemn in it\u201d\n(_Miracles_, p. 100). Liddell and Scott\u2019s _Lexicon_, says: \u201cIt is often\nused as a term of respect or affection, mistress, lady.\u201d Yet Calvin\nimpiously asserts that our Lord does not deign to call Mary His Mother:\n\u201cDeinde cur simplici repulsa non contentus eam in vulgarem mulierum\nordinem cogit, nec jam matris nomine dignatur?\u201d \u201cWhy doubt of the heavenly\norigin of a reformation wrought by such reasoning as this?\u201d (McCarthy).\n\nFather Coleridge thinks that Mary is addressed here by the title \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\nbecause that is \u201cwhat we may call her official and theological title ...\nfor she is the \u2018woman\u2019 of whom our Lord was born; she is the \u2018woman\u2019 of\nwhom God spake to our first parents when He made them the promise of a\nRedeemer after the fall; she is the \u2018woman\u2019 to whom the whole range of\ntypes look forward, who was to conceive and compass a man (Jer. xxxi. 22);\nshe is the \u2018woman,\u2019 the second Eve, as our Lord is the Man, and the Son of\nMan, the second Adam.\u201d(32) But whatever may be thought of this view,\nenough has been said to show that the term \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 does not imply reproof or\ndisrespect.\n\n(2) Neither does the phrase \u201cWhat to Me and to thee?\u201d (\u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u03af?).\nWe find exactly the same phrase in Judg. xi. 12; 3 Kings xvii. 18; 4 Kings\niii. 13; 2 Paral. xxxv. 21; Mark v. 7; Luke viii. 28.(33)\n\n(A). After a candid examination of these texts, it must, we think, appear\nthat the meaning of the phrase is _not_: What does this concern you and\nMe? for in some, if not all, of the passages cited the phrase cannot have\nthat meaning. Besides, is it likely Jesus would say that the wants of the\npoor, who were His hosts, and perhaps His relatives, and their shame\nconsequent upon those wants, did not concern Him?\n\n(B). Neither is the meaning: What have I to do with you, or, what have I\nin common with you? (as author of a miracle such as you suggest); it must\nproceed from My Divine nature, while only My human nature has been derived\nfrom you (so Augus., Tolet., Patriz.). For\u2014\n\n(_a_) This is not the meaning of the phrase in the parallel passages.\n\n(_b_) Christ gives a different reason: _My hour is not yet come._\n\n(_c_) His person hypostatically united to His human nature, had that\nnature in common with her, and it is of His person (_mihi_), not of His\nDivine nature merely that He speaks.\n\n(C). What the precise meaning of the phrase is, it is difficult to\ndetermine with certainty. In all the passages where it occurs, it seems to\nindicate some divergence between the thoughts or wishes of the persons so\nbrought together. Most probably it is here a _remonstrance_; because the\nsuggestion that Christ should work a miracle is _inconvenient or\ninopportune_, inasmuch as it brings moral pressure to bear upon Him to\nmake Him begin His miracles before the time at which, prescinding from\nthis suggestion, His public miracles were to begin. Something similar are\nthe words of God to Moses: \u201c_Let Me alone_, that My wrath may be kindled\nagainst them, and that I may destroy them\u201d (Exod. xxxii. 10). On that\noccasion God, after remonstrating, granted the prayer of Moses, just as on\nthis occasion, after remonstrating, He yielded to the suggestion of His\nMother. So St. Cyril of Alex., St. Amb., Corl, &c.\n\nWhether the above be the correct meaning of the phrase or not, one thing\nis clear, against Calvin, Alf., Trench, &c., that the words cannot contain\na rebuke\u2014not a _real_ rebuke; because there was no fault on Mary\u2019s part,\nnot even venial (Council of Trent, sess. vi., can. 23). St. Aug., whose\nauthority Protestants must respect, whatever they may think of that of the\nCouncil of Trent, says: \u201cDe Sancta Maria Virgine, propter honorem Christi,\nnullam prorsus quando de peccato agitur volo habere quaestionem\u201d (_De\nNatura et Gratia_, ch. xxxvi.). Moreover, if the Blessed Virgin were\nguilty of any fault, it would be either because of the thing suggested, or\nof some circumstance of time, place, motive, &c. Now, our Lord granted\nwhat she suggested; the object was therefore, good. The circumstances were\nthe very same when the miracle was wrought as when it was suggested. As to\nher motive, it may have been good\u2014charity for the poor. Why, then, ascribe\na bad motive, such as vanity, without convincing proof? That the\nsuggestion was acceded to, goes to show that it was made in circumstances\nin which it was not displeasing to God.(34)\n\nNeither is there in the words a _feigned_ rebuke, that is, feigned for our\ninstruction, to show us that we are not to regard flesh and blood in doing\nthe work of God (Mald., Tolet., &c.); for Christ actually did what was\nsuggested; and, besides, it is Catholic teaching that Christ in heaven\ngrants many requests to His Mother, _because_ she is His Mother.\n\nIn vain, then, have Protestants tried to find, in these words of our Lord,\nanything derogatory to the dignity of His Blessed Mother. To every\ninterpretation which would give such a sense to His words, we may answer,\nwith St. Justin, Martyr: \u201cNon verbo matrem objurgavit qui facto\nhonoravit.\u201d \u201cHe reproved not His mother by what He said who honoured her\nby what He did.\u201d\n\n*My hour is not yet come.* In our interpretation it is easy to explain\nthese words. His hour is not the hour of His death, nor the time when the\nwant of wine would be fully felt, but the time at which, according to the\nordinary providence of God, and prescinding from His Mother\u2019s suggestion,\nHis public miracles were to begin.\n\n5. Dicit mater eius ministris:   5. His mother saith to the\nQuodcumque dixerit vobis,        waiters: Whatsoever he shall\nfacite.                          say to you, do ye.\n\n5. *Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.* These are not the words of one\nwhose suggestion had been reproved and rejected.\n\n6. Erant autem ibi lapideae      6. Now there were set there\nhydriae sex positae secundum     six waterpots of stone,\npurificationem Iudaeorum,        according to the manner of the\ncapientes singulae metretas      purifying of the Jews,\nbinas vel ternas.                containing two or three\n                                 measures a\u2010piece.\n\n6. For the custom of the Jews in the matter of ablutions, see Matt. xv. 2;\nMark vii. 2\u20105. The \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 was a Greek liquid measure, containing about\nnine gallons, or, to be accurate, eight gallons 7.4 pints. There were six\njars, or water\u2010pots, each containing two or three measures. If each jar\ncontained two measures, the whole quantity of wine miraculously provided\nwould be = 6 \u00d7 2 \u00d7 9 = 108 gallons. If each contained three measures, the\nwhole would be = 6 \u00d7 3 \u00d7 9 = 162 gallons. The quantity of wine\nmiraculously produced was therefore very great, being at least about 108\ngallons. It is absurd, however, to seek in this miracle of our Divine Lord\nany excuse for intemperance. As well might God be accused of conniving at\nintemperance, because He fills the grape each year with the moisture of\nearth and heaven, and then transmutes this into the nobler juices which He\nknows man will convert into wine. He gives in every case, that we may use,\nnot that we may abuse. If the quantity of wine miraculously provided on\nthis occasion was large, we ought to remember that the marriage feast\nlasted for a week; that there were probably many guests present, whose\nnumber was considerably increased by the invitation, at the last moment,\nof Christ and His disciples on their arrival from Judea; that others would\nprobably be attracted now by the fame of this miracle, and the desire to\nsee Him who had wrought it; and, finally, that the quantity of the wine\nmade the miracle more striking.\n\n7. Dicit eis Iesus. Implete      7. Jesus saith to them: Fill\nhydrias aqua. Et impleverunt     the waterpots with water. And\neas usque ad summum.             they filled them up to the\n                                 brim.\n\n7. *To the brim.* So that there was no room left to mix wine or anything\nelse with the water; this shows, too, the quantity of wine that was\nmiraculously supplied.\n\n8. Et dicit eis Iesus: Haurite   8. And Jesus saith to them:\nnunc, et ferte architriclino.    Draw out now, and carry to the\nEt tulerunt.                     chief steward of the feast.\n                                 And they carried it.\n\n8. *Chief steward* (Gr. \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03c2, chief, or ruler, and \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, a dining\u2010\nroom, with three couches, and more generally, a dining\u2010room). The\npresident of the feast, according to some, was _one of the guests_\nselected by the host, or by the unanimous consent of the guests; according\nto others, he was not a guest, but the _chief servant_. In the first view\nhe corresponds with the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 of the Greeks, and the \u201cmagister\nconvivii,\u201d or \u201carbiter bibendi,\u201d of the Romans; and this we take to be\ncorrect, for his familiarity with the bridegroom (v. 10) bespeaks the\nfriend rather than the servant.\n\n9. Ut autem gustavit             9. And when the chief steward\narchitriclinus aquam vinum       had tasted the water made\nfactam, et non sciebat unde      wine, and knew not whence it\nesset, ministri autem sciebant   was, but the waiters knew who\nqui hauserant aquam, vocat       had drawn the water; the chief\nsponsum architriclinus.          steward calleth the\n                                 bridegroom.\n\n9. St. John mentions that the president of the feast knew not whence the\nwine was, nor how it had been produced, in order to show that his\ntestimony in its favour was not the result of previous collusion with\nJesus. *Who had drawn the water.* \u1f20\u03bd\u03c4\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 is the form for the\npluperfect, as well as for the perfect participle, and is rightly rendered\n\u201chad drawn.\u201d We consider it more likely that the reference is to their\ndrawing the water from the well in order to fill the water\u2010pots. But if\nthe reference be to drawing the wine from the pots (in v. 8 the same Greek\nverb is used in reference to that action), then the wine is called water\nbecause it had been water so recently, just as the serpent is called a rod\nin Exod. vii. 12. because it had been a rod immediately before. It is most\nlikely that the conversion took place in the water\u2010pots, and not on the\nway from them to the table.\n\n10. Et dicit ei: Omnis homo      10. And saith to him: Every\nprimum bonum vinum ponit: et     man at first setteth forth\ncum inebriati fuerint, tunc      good wine, and when men have\nid, quod deterius est: Tu        well drank, then that which is\nautem servasti bonum vinum       worse. But thou hast kept the\nusque adhuc.                     good wine until now.\n\n10. Most probably the Greek word (\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) rendered in the Vulgate\n\u201cinebriati fuerint\u201d does not here imply drunkenness, but only drinking\nfreely. \u201cIn classical use it generally, but not always, implies\nintoxication. In the Hellenistic writers, however, as Josephus, Philo, and\nthe LXX., it very often denotes drinking freely, and the hilarity\nconsequent, which is probably the sense here\u201d (Bloomf.). In any case,\nwhatever meaning we give the word here, the president of the feast merely\nspeaks of what was the common practice, without saying that the guests at\nthis particular feast had indulged to the same extent.\n\n11. Hoc fecit initium signorum   11. This beginning of miracles\nIesus in Cana Galilaeae: et      did Jesus in Cana of Galilee:\nmanifestavit gloriam suam, et    and manifested his glory, and\ncrediderunt in eum discipuli     his disciples believed in him.\neius.\n\n11. This was Christ\u2019s first miracle, or better perhaps, it was His first\n_public_ miracle, the first _sign_, or proof given in public of His Divine\npower. It is worthy of note that our Lord honoured marriage on this\noccasion not only by His presence, but also by His first public miracle.\nThe effect of the miracle is carefully noted by our Evangelist whose main\nobject, as we saw, is to prove Christ\u2019s Divinity. And He manifested His\nglory, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 (see i. 14); and the faith of the disciples was _confirmed_.\nThe fact that they were disciples, shows that they had some faith already.\n\n12. Post hoc descendit           12. After this he went down to\nCapharnaum, ipse, et mater       Capharnaum, he and his mother,\neius, et fratres eius; et        and his brethren, and his\ndiscipuli eius: et ibi           disciples: and they remained\nmanserunt non multis diebus.     there not many days.\n\n12. *Capharnaum*, the largest town of Galilee, was situated, on the\nwestern shore of the sea of Galilee (Matt. iv. 13, John vi. 24), and the\njourney to it from Cana is rightly described as a descent. During His\npublic life our Lord seems to have dwelt chiefly in this town, which is\ntherefore sometimes spoken of as His own city (see Matt. ix. 1, and\ncompare with Mark ii. 1). It was long thought to be impossible to identify\nthe site of Capharnaum, but it seems now to be practically certain that\nthe site is that of the modern Tell H\u00fbm, about two and a half miles south\u2010\nwest of the point where the Jordan enters the sea of Galilee. Capharnaum\nmeans the village (\u05e0\u05e4\u05e8) of Nahum. _Tell_ is the Arabic for a hillock\ncovered with ruins, and it is reasonably conjectured that H\u00fbm is a\ncontraction for Nahum, the first syllable, as sometimes happens in such\ncases, being dropped. Thus Tell H\u00fbm would mean the ruin\u2010clad hillock of\nNahum. A summary of the various reasons for identifying the two places is\ngiven by P\u00e9re Didon, in his able work: _Jesus Christ_, vol. ii., Appendix\nF. The *brethren* of the Lord here referred to were His cousins, but\naccording to the Scriptural usage any near relations are called brethren.\nThus Abraham and Lot are \u201cbrethren\u201d (Gen. xiii. 8), though Abraham was in\nreality Lot\u2019s uncle (Gen. xi. 27). See also remarks on vii. 3.\n\n13. Et prope erat pascha         13. And the pasch of the Jews\nIudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus     was at hand, and Jesus went up\nIerosoloymam:                    to Jerusalem.\n\n13. *And* (= for) *the Pasch*, &c. This was the first Pasch of our Lord\u2019s\npublic life. The Evangelist calls it the Pasch of the Jews, because he is\nwriting for the inhabitants of Asia Minor, most of whom were Greeks. The\nPasch (Heb. _pesach_, \u05e4\u05e1\u05d7), beginning at evening on the 14th, and ending\nat evening on the 21st of Nisan,(35) was the greatest festival of the\nJews. The word \u201cpasch\u201d means the passing over (from _pasach_, \u05e4\u05e1\u05d7, to pass\nor leap over), and the name was given to this festival as commemorating\nthe passing over of the houses of the Israelites when the destroying angel\nslew the first\u2010born in the land of Egypt (see Exod xii. 11, 12).\n\n*And Jesus went up to Jerusalem.* At the three principal feasts: Pasch,\nPentecost, and Tabernacles, all the male adults were bound to go up to the\ntemple at Jerusalem.\n\n14. Et invenit in templo         14. And he found in the temple\nvendentes boves, et oves, et     them that sold oxen and sheep\ncolumbas, et numularios          and doves, and the changers of\nsedentes.                        money sitting.\n\n14. The animals here mentioned were sold to be sacrificed. The money\u2010\nchangers were there to change foreign money into Jewish. It was probably\nin the Court of the Gentiles that Christ found them. *In the temple* (\u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce, _i.e._, in sacro loco). The \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd must be carefully distinguished\nfrom the \u03bd\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2 (v. 20). The former included the temple proper, and also its\ncourts, porches, and porticoes; in a word, all its _sacred_ precincts; the\nlatter was the temple proper, the house of God, the place where He _dwelt_\n(\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c9 = to dwell). We know that around the temple as rebuilt by Herod the\nGreat, there were three courts: the outer, or that of the Gentiles; the\ninner, or that of the Israelites; and between them, on the eastern side,\nthe Court of the women. In the inner court, or that of the Israelites,\nthere was a portion next the temple proper set apart for the priests.\n\n15. Et cum fecisset quasi        15. And when he had made as it\nflagellum de funiculis, omnes    were a scourge of little\neiecit de templo, oves quoque,   cords, he drove them all out\net boves, et numulariorum        of the temple, the sheep also\neffudit aes, et mensas           and the oxen, and the money of\nsubvertit.                       the changers he poured out,\n                                 and the tables he overthrew.\n\n15. *He drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen.*\nThese words of our version mean that He drove out not only the animals,\nbut also the sellers, and this is distinctly stated by S. Aug., and\nseveral other Fathers. The sense of the Greek is ambiguous: *He drove all\nout of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen.*\n\n16. Et his qui columbas          16. And to them that sold\nvendebant, dixit: Auferte ista   doves he said: Take these\nhinc, et nolite facere domum     things hence, and make not the\nPatris mei, domum                house of my father a house of\nnegotiationis.                   traffic.\n\n16. Christ deals more leniently with those who sold the doves, perhaps\nbecause these were the offerings of the poor.\n\n*A house of traffic.* Our Lord does not on this occasion say the traffic\nwas unjust, but implies that it was sacrilegious, as being carried on in a\nholy place. On another occasion, three years afterwards, Christ again\ndrove traders from the temple, who He says had made it \u201ca den of thieves,\u201d\nadding the sin of injustice to that of sacrilege (Matt. xxi. 13). Note how\nHe calls God His Father. See v. 18.\n\n17. Recordati sunt vero          17. And his disciples\ndiscipuli eius, quia scriptum    remembered that it was\nest: Zelus domus tuae comedit    written: _The zeal of thy\nme.                              house hath eaten me up._\n\n17. Our Evangelist, mindful of his scope in writing this Gospel, draws\nattention to the fulfilment of this prophecy of the Psalmist, inasmuch as\nthis tends to prove that Jesus was the Messias and the true God.\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (_will eat_ me up) is the true reading here, though the Psalm\nhas the prophetic past.\n\n18. Responderunt ergo Iudaei,    18. The Jews therefore\net dixerunt ei: Quod signum      answered, and said to him:\nostendis nobis, quia haec        What sign dost thou show unto\nfacis?                           us, seeing thou dost these\n                                 things?\n\n18. The Jews challenge (_answered_, meaning here, as frequently, _went on\nto speak_) Christ for a proof of that authority which He appeared to claim\nfor Himself in driving them from the temple, and also in calling God His\nFather (see v. 17\u201018). The incident itself, with so many men tamely\nsubmitting to His action, was, as Origen points out, one of the most\nwonderful signs He could have shown them. But they hoped, as St. Chryst.\nremarks, to put Him in a dilemma by obliging Him either to work a miracle\non the spot, or else cease to interfere with them.\n\n19. Respondit Iesus, et dixit    19. Jesus answered, and said\neis: Solvite templum hoc, et     to them: Destroy this temple,\nin tribus diebus excitabo        and in three days I will raise\nillud.                           it up.\n\n19. Instead of working a miracle He merely refers darkly to a future sign\nthat was still some years off, as He does on a similar occasion, when\ndealing with other unbelievers, Matt. xii. 38\u201040. \u201cHe, however,\u201d says St.\nChrys., \u201cwho even anticipated men\u2019s wishes, and gave signs when He was not\nasked, would not have rejected here a positive request, had He not seen a\ncrafty design in it.\u201d\n\nStanding as He was beside Herod\u2019s temple, probably in the Court of the\nGentiles or immediately outside it, His words, *Destroy this temple, and\nin three days I will raise it up*, were understood by the Jews (v. 20),\nand apparently by His disciples (v. 22), in reference to Herod\u2019s temple.\nVarious views have been put forward to show that His words were not\nnecessarily misleading.\n\n(1) It is said that He may have pointed with His finger to His body while\nHe said: Destroy this temple. But the fact that He was actually\nmisunderstood by all seems to exclude this hypothesis.\n\n(2) It is held by many that He spoke both of Herod\u2019s temple and of His\nbody. So, apparently, Origen; and Cardinal Wiseman says explicitly:\n\u201cFinally did our Lord speak altogether of His resurrection so as to\nexclude all allusion to rebuilding the temple which stood before Him? I\nmust confess that ... I cannot read the passage without being convinced\nthat He spoke of both\u201d (_Lect. on the Euch._, p. 135, No. 4). We, however,\ncannot bring ourselves to adopt this view against what seems to be the\nclear sense according to the interpretation of the inspired Evangelist,\nwho tells us, (v. 21), _But He spoke of the temple of His body_.\n\n(3) There is the common answer, that He spoke ambiguously and allowed them\nto be deceived, because they were unworthy of plainer speech. They were\nnot, however, necessarily deceived, for \u03bd\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2 (a temple) was used\nfrequently in reference to the human body (see, _e.g._, 1 Cor. iii. 16,\n17; vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16), and our Lord\u2019s language might have given them\nsome reason for suspecting that it was of His body He spoke. For the two\nverbs, which he used \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 and \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6 though they could be understood in\nreference to the temple of stone, applied more appropriately to His body;\nthe former signifying the breaking up or _loosing_ of the union between\nHis soul and body; the latter, the raising of the body to life, as so\noften in St. Paul. See, _e.g._, 1 Cor. xv. 4, 12, 14, &c.\n\n*Destroy this temple*, is not, of course, a command to put Him to death,\nbut a permission like what He said to Judas: _That which thou dost, do\nquickly_ (John xiii. 27). It was usual with the Prophets to announce their\npredictions in the form of a command; as, for instance, Isaias (xlvii. 1):\n\u201cCome down, sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon.\u201d\n\n20. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei:        20. The Jews then said: Six\nQuadraginta et sex annis         and forty years was this\naedificatum est templum hoc,     temple in building, and wilt\net tu in tribus diebus           thou raise it up in three\nexcitabis illud?                 days?\n\n20. The rebuilding of the temple by Herod the Great is said by Josephus,\nin Antiq. xv. 11, 1, to have been begun in the eighteenth year of his\nreign; in B. Jud. i. 21, 1, in the fifteenth; the difference arising from\nthe fact that in one case Josephus counts from the death of Antigonus, in\nthe other from Herod\u2019s appointment by the Romans. (See Antiq. xvii. 8, 1.)\nReckoning from the latter, we have twenty years till the birth of Christ,\nand thirty years since that event, making fifty, from which, however, four\nmust be subtracted, because our era is four years too late. This gives\nforty\u2010six years. The mere building of the temple took only nine years and\na half, but during the remainder of the time it was decorated. These\ndecorations were still going on, and were not completed till 64 A.D., so\nthat the Greek verb ought to get its proper sense: _has been_ in building.\n\n21. Ille autem dicebat de        21. But he spoke of the temple\ntemplo corporis sui.             of his body.\n\n21. The inspired Evangelist here tells us that it was of His body Christ\nspoke. He adds the explanation to show, perhaps, how utterly devoid of all\nfoundation in fact was the distorted testimony of the false witnesses, who\non the night before His death charged our Lord with having threatened to\ndestroy the temple _made with hands_ (Matt. xxvi. 61; Mark xiv. 58).\n\n22. Cum ergo resurrexisset a     22. When therefore he was\nmortuis, recordati sunt          risen again from the dead, his\ndiscipuli eius, quia hoc         disciples remembered that he\ndicebat, et crediderunt          had said this, and they\nscripturae, et sermoni quem      believed the scripture, and\ndixit Iesus.                     the word that Jesus had said.\n\n22. When Christ had risen His disciples understood the Scriptures, or\nrather they believed that they (see, _e.g._, Psalms iii. 6; xv. 10), and\nChrist\u2019s present words, referred to His resurrection.\n\n23. Cum autem esset              23. Now when he was at\nIerosolymis in pascha in die     Jerusalem at the pasch, upon\nfesto, multi crediderunt in      the festival day, many\nnomine eius, videntes signa      believed in his name, seeing\neius, quae faciebat.             his signs which he did.\n\n23. *Upon the festival day.* Rather during the festal time, which, at the\nPasch, lasted a week, many believed in His name, that is to say, in Him,\nseeing the miracles which he wrought, and which were _proofs_ of His\ndivine power.\n\n24. Ipse autem Iesus non         24. But Jesus did not trust\ncredebat semetipsum eis, eo      himself unto them, for that he\nquod ipse nosset omnes.          knew all men.\n\n24. *Unto them*; _i.e._, all the Jews, or perhaps those very persons who\nbelieved in Him; because, as searcher of hearts (verse 25), He foresaw\nthat they would not remain faithful followers.\n\n25. Et quia opus ei non erat     25. And because he needed not\nut quis testimonium perhiberet   that any should give testimony\nde homine: ipse enim sciebat     of man: for he knew what was\nquid esset in homine.            in man.\n\n25. He knew this, not by any external indications, but because He is the\nsearcher of hearts. This is noted as another proof of Christ\u2019s Divinity,\nbecause this knowledge of the secrets of the hearts of all men belongs to\nGod alone. See 3 Kings viii. 39; 1 Paral. xxviii. 9; Job xlii. 2; Ps. vii.\n10; Acts xv. 8. Some of the saints in special cases were able to read the\nhearts of certain individuals, but no one save God knows the hearts of\nall.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n\n    1\u201021. *Nicodemus comes to Christ; their discourse.*\n\n    22\u201036. *Christ begins to baptize; complaints of the Baptist\u2019s\n    disciples, and testimony of the Baptist to Christ\u2019s divine origin,\n    and to the necessity of faith in Him.*\n\n\n1. Erat autem homo ex            1. And there was a man of the\npharisaeis, Nicodemus nomine,    Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a\nprinceps Iudaeorum.              ruler of the Jews.\n\n1. This chapter is closely connected with the end of the preceding. Among\nthe many who believed (ii. 23) was *a man of the Pharisees* (see i. 24).\nThe sect, name, and dignity of the man are mentioned, because of his\nimportance, and because of the importance of the discourse about to be\nnarrated.\n\n*A ruler of the Jews*; that is to say, as we gather from vii. 45, 50, he\nwas a member of the Sanhedrim.\n\n2. Hic venit ad Iesum nocte,     2. This man came to Jesus by\net dixit ei: Rabbi, scimus       night, and said to him: Rabbi,\nquia a Deo venisti magister:     we know that thou art come a\nnemo enim potest haec signa      teacher from God: for no man\nfacere quae tu facis, nisi       can do these signs which thou\nfuerit Deus cum eo.              dost, unless God be with him.\n\n2. Because he believed in Jesus, he came; but because he feared the Jews,\nhe came by night.\n\n*We know.* Nicodemus may have come in the name of several, to learn more\nabout Jesus, or he may be merely alluding to the fact that some others\nwere of the same belief. He professed his faith in Jesus as a heaven\u2010sent\nteacher, stating the nature of his belief. \u201cNicodemus estimates\naccurately, we may almost say with theological precision, the force of the\nevidence of the miracles of our Lord, if they were to be taken apart from\nother considerations which belonged to the same subject\u2010matter. The\nmiracles _in themselves_ proved exactly that God was with Him; but if they\nwere taken in conjunction with the witness of St. John the Baptist, with\nour Lord\u2019s manner of working them, that is, _as one who was using His own\npower_, and with His way of speaking of Himself, and of God as His Father,\nthey might have been enough to form the ground of a still higher faith\nconcerning our Blessed Lord\u201d (Coleridge, _Life of our Lord_, vol. i., page\n256).\n\n3. Respondit Iesus, et dixit     3. Jesus answered and said to\nei: Amen, amen, dico tibi,       him: Amen, amen, I say to\nnisi quis renatus fuerit         thee, unless a man be born\ndenuo, non potest videre         again, he cannot see the\nregnum Dei.                      kingdom of God.\n\n3. *Jesus answered.* This might merely mean that He went on to speak, the\nverb to answer being again and again found in this sense in the New\nTestament. Here, however, it may be used in its strict sense of replying\nto a question, for it seems to us extremely probable that a portion of the\ndiscourse leading up to the statement made in verse 3 is omitted by the\nEvangelist. It is highly improbable that the whole discourse between\nChrist and Nicodemus is here recorded, as it seems very unlikely that\nNicodemus, after the trouble of coming specially to Christ by night, left\nHim, or would be allowed to leave, after the two or three minutes in which\nthe discourse here reported was spoken.\n\n*Born again.* The Greek word \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, which is rendered \u201cagain,\u201d may\nmean\u2014(_a_) from above, or (_b_) again. The latter meaning, however, is\nmore probable here, for so Nicodemus understood our Lord\u2019s words (see\nverse 4): so, also S. Chrysostom, and nearly all the Latin fathers.\nCompare, too, Tit. iii. 5; 1 Pet. i. 23. The truth expressed in this verse\nis universal; whoever is born needs to be reborn in order to see (= \u201cto\nenter into,\u201d verse 5) the kingdom of God in Christ\u2019s Church here, and in\nheaven hereafter.\n\n4. Dicit ad eum Nicodemus:       4. Nicodemus saith to him: How\nQuomodo potest homo nasci, cum   can a man be born when he is\nsit senex? numquid potest in     old? can he enter a second\nventrem matris suae iterato      time into his mother\u2019s womb,\nintroire, et renasci?            and be born again?\n\n4. Nicodemus either understood our Lord to speak of a second carnal birth;\nor perhaps, not understanding the words at all, he may have pretended to\nmisunderstand, in order to get Christ to explain. His motive, at all\nevents, was good\u2014to obtain light and instruction.\n\n5. Respondit Iesus: Amen, amen   5. Jesus answered: Amen amen,\ndico tibi, nisi quis renatus     I say to thee, unless a man be\nfuerit ex aqua et Spiritu        born again of water and the\nsancto, non potest intriore in   Holy Ghost, he cannot enter\nregnum Dei.                      into the kingdom of God.\n\n5. Hence Christ goes on to give a more precise statement of the truth\ncontained in verse 3, with an additional explanation regarding the means\nof regeneration under the new dispensation.\n\n*Amen, Amen.* This formula indicates the importance of the pronouncement.\nIt has been defined by the Council of Trent\u2014(_a_) that there is question\nin this fifth verse of natural water, and (_b_) of that natural water as\nnecessary for Baptism. \u201cSi quis dixerit aquam veram et naturalem non esse\nde necessitate baptismi, atque ideo verba illa D. N. J. C.: \u2018Nisi quis\nrenatus fuerit ex aqua, et Spiritu Sancto,\u2019 ad metaphoram aliquam\ndetorserit, anathema sit\u201d (Sess. vii. Can. 2. De bapt.).\n\nThis solemn declaration of the infallible Church settles, for Catholics,\nthe question as to whether there is reference here to Christian Baptism.\nBut even against heretics, for whom the Council of Trent speaks in vain,\nit is not difficult to show that there must be reference here to\n_Christian Baptism_. For (1) it cannot be denied that Christ inaugurated\nsome external rite of baptism (John iii. 25, 26; iv. 11). (2) Christ and\nHis disciples are represented (verse 22) as beginning to baptize after\nthis discourse with Nicodemus. (3) Every circumstance of this second birth\nspoken of to Nicodemus is found in Christian Baptism. (_a_) Here we are\nsaid to be born again; so, too, are we in Baptism:\u2014\u201cAccording to His mercy\nHe saved us by the laver of _regeneration_ and renovation of the Holy\nGhost\u201d (Tit. iii. 5). (_b_) This second birth is necessary that we may be\nsaved and enter the kingdom of God; so is Christian Baptism (Mark xvi. 16;\nActs iii. 37, 38), (_c_) This second birth is through water and the Holy\nGhost; so is Baptism. See Acts viii. 36\u201047; Tit. iii. 5.\n\nSeeing that there is reference in the text to Christian Baptism, the word\n\u201cwater\u201d in the text, as the Council of Trent defined, is to be understood,\nnot metaphorically, but literally. Moreover, since this new birth is\nattributed to the water as to the Holy Ghost \u201c(ex aqua et Spiritu\nSancto\u201d), water is not merely an empty symbol in the sacrament, but an\nefficient cause of grace like the Holy Ghost; He being the principal, the\nwater the instrumental, efficient cause.\n\nThis new birth in Baptism implies\u2014(1) that we die to the old man of sin,\n\u201cfor we are buried together with Him by Baptism into death\u201d (Rom. vi. 4).\nIt implies (2) that we are born through the divine gift of God\u2019s grace to\na new and spiritual life, in which we are His adopted children. \u201cSo do you\nalso reckon that you are dead to sin, but _alive_ unto God in Christ Jesus\nour Lord\u201d (Rom. vi. 11).\n\nWe may remark, before passing from this text\u2014(1) against the Pelagians and\nAnabaptists, that Baptism is here declared necessary for all who have been\nborn, and therefore for infants before the use of reason; (2) against the\nCalvinists and Socinians, who hold that children of Christian parents need\nnot be baptized, that no exception is here made in favour of the children\nof Christians; (3) against Protestants, that water in Baptism is not a\nmere symbol of regeneration, but is as truly its efficient cause as the\nHoly Ghost Himself; with this difference, however, that whereas the water\nis the instrumental, the Holy Ghost is the principal, cause.\n\n6. Quod natum est ex carne,      6. That which is born of the\ncaro est: et quod natum est ex   flesh, is flesh: and that\nspiritu, spiritus est.           which is born of the Spirit,\n                                 is spirit.\n\n6. Christ explains why the agent of the regeneration of which He speaks\nmust be the Holy Ghost. What is born of man (flesh here is taken for human\nnature without grace), is merely human; what is born of the Holy Ghost, is\nspiritual, and partakes of the Divine (2 Pet. i. 4). Since, then, the new\nlife to which a man must be born again is spiritual, a spiritual and\nsupernatural principle is required.\n\n7. Non mireris quia dixi tibi:   7. Wonder not, that I said to\nOportet vos nasci denuo.         thee, you must be born again.\n\n7. Wonder not, therefore, that I said to you: ye must be born again, for\nif that which is born of the flesh is flesh, certainly you need a new\nbirth to be born to a life which is so far above the flesh.\n\n8. Spiritus ubi vult spirat:     8. The Spirit breatheth where\net vocen eius audis, sed         he will: and thou hearest his\nnescis unde veniat, aut quo      voice, but thou knowest not\nvadat: sic est omnis qui natus   whence he cometh, and whither\nest ex spiritu.                  he goeth: so is every one that\n                                 is born of the Spirit.\n\n8. Christ goes on to show how a difficulty in knowing the way in which the\nregeneration takes place is no proof of its impossibility, nor a reason\nfor incredulity regarding its possibility. The sense of this verse depends\nupon the meaning given to the first \u201cspirit,\u201d \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. Some understand\nthis of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost acts in men according to His own\ngood pleasure; \u201cyou hear His voice that cannot be mistaken\u2014its power, its\nsweetness, the peace which it breathes, the light which it pours on you;\nbut you cannot tell that He is approaching, or when He will come, or how\nHe will work on your soul; _in such manner_ is it that everyone is born of\nthe Spirit who is so born\u201d (Coleridge, _Public Life of our Lord_, vol. i.,\npage 262). Others understand the first spirit here of the wind; and this\nis the more common opinion among commentators. In this view, by means of a\nsimple and obvious illustration from nature, Christ shows Nicodemus that\nhe must believe in the possibility of this second birth, even though he\nknow not the manner in which it takes place. The wind bloweth where it\nlisteth, and you know not whence it cometh or whither it goeth: _so is it_\nin regeneration; you are regenerated, though you cannot comprehend the\nprocess. That \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 sometimes means wind in Biblical Greek, is undeniable\n(see, _e.g._, Gen. vii. 1; Ps. civ. 4; Matt. xxiv. 31; Heb. i. 7), and the\nuse of the word here in different senses is plain from the comparison (*so\nis it*, &c.), according to the patrons of this second opinion. Nor does\nthe fact that it is preceded by the article here oblige us, according to\nthese, to refer it to the Holy Ghost; for, just as in verse 5, without the\narticle, it refers to the Holy Ghost, so here, with the article, it may\nnot refer to Him.\n\n9. Respondit Nicodemus, et       9. Nicodemus answered, and\ndixit ei: Quomodo possunt haec   said to him: How can these\nfieri?                           things be done?\n10. Respondit Iesus, et dixit    10. Jesus answered, and said\nei: Tu es magister in Israel,    to him: Art thou a master in\net haec ignoras?                 Israel, and knowest not these\n                                 things?\n\n9, 10. Nicodemus again asks how these things can come to pass, and Jesus\ngently upbraids him for his ignorance. As one of the chief teachers of\nIsrael \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2(36) (see also vii. 45\u201050), one of the seventy\u2010one\nmembers of the Sanhedrim, or supreme Council of the Jews, he should be\nfamiliar with the Sacred Scriptures, and ought to have read in them the\npromise of a spiritual regeneration. See Ezech. xxxvi. 25; Zach. xiii. 1.\n\n11. Amen, amen, dico tibi,       11. Amen, amen I say to thee,\nquia quod scimus loquimur, et    that we speak what we know,\nquod vidimus testamur, et        and we testify what we have\ntestimonium nostrum non          seen, and you receive not our\naccipitis.                       testimony.\n\n11. Christ continues using the solemn form of asseveration. *What we\nknow.* The plural is used not of Himself and the Holy Spirit, nor of\nHimself and the Prophets, nor of all born of the Spirit, nor of the Three\nPersons of the Trinity, but simply as a plural of majesty. *What we have\nseen.* Sight, says St. Chrys. on this verse, we consider the most certain\nof all the senses, so that when we say we saw such a thing with our eyes,\nwe seem to compel men to believe us. In like manner, Christ, speaking\nafter the manner of men, does not indeed mean that He has seen actually\nwith the bodily eye the mysteries He reveals, but it is manifest that He\nmeans He has the most certain and absolute (and we may add, immediate: see\nabove on i. 18) knowledge of them. In these words, then, Christ insists\nupon His authority to teach, and His claim to be believed.\n\n12. Si terrena dixi vobis, et    12. If I have spoken to you\nnon creditis: quomodo, si        earthly things, and you\ndixero vobis coelestia,          believe not: how will you\ncredetis?                        believe if I shall speak to\n                                 you heavenly things?\n\n12. If you will not believe Me when I teach you the comparatively\nelementary doctrine of Baptism, which regards the regeneration of man here\non earth, how shall you believe if I go on to speak of truths more\nsublime, more removed from the realms of sense and human comprehension?\nThe spiritual vision of Nicodemus was hardly able to bear the first ray of\ntruth; how then was it to bear the full flood of the light of higher\nrevelation?\n\n13. Et nemo ascendit in          13. And no man hath ascended\ncoelum, nisi qui descendit de    into heaven, but he that\ncoelo, Filius hominis, qui est   descended from heaven, the son\nin coelo.                        of man who is in heaven.\n\n13. The meaning is: No one was in heaven except Him who has descended from\nheaven, and now speaks to you; namely, the Son of Man, who still remains\nin heaven. In this view, which is that of St. Thomas, Toletus, and Beelen,\nChrist speaks of Himself as _having ascended_ into heaven only to\naccommodate His language to human ideas, which conceive of _ascent_ to\nheaven as necessary, in order to our being there. The Son of Man, *as Son\nof God*, had, of course, been there from all eternity and needed not to\nascend. Some think that Christ here begins to explain the \u201cheavenly\nthings\u201d referred to in the preceding verse; but a more probable connection\nis the following:\u2014He had said: how shall you believe heavenly things from\nMe since you question even the elementary truths which I tell you? And yet\nfrom Me alone you must learn such things, for no one else has been in\nheaven, so as to know and be able to teach you the mysteries of God.\n\n14. Et sicut Moyses exaltavit    14. And as Moses lifted up the\nserpentem in deserto, ita        serpent in the desert, so must\nexaltarioportet Filium           the son of man be lifted up:\nhominis:\n15. Ut omnis, qui credit in      15. That whosoever believeth\nipsum, non pereat, sed habeat    in him, may not perish, but\nvitam aeternam.                  may have life everlasting.\n\n14, 15. Christ now goes on to speak of some of the more sublime doctrines.\nAs Moses raised up the serpent, upon which whosoever looked was healed\n(Numbers xxi. 4\u20109), so must Christ be lifted up on the cross (see John\nviii. 28; xii. 32\u201034), to save those who believe in Him. The best\nsupported Greek reading of verse 15 would be rendered:\u2014*That everyone who\nbelieves may, through him, have eternal life*; \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd (may not\nperish, but) not being genuine, and \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ce standing instead of \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\nThough faith is the only condition to salvation which is mentioned in\nverse 15, others are supposed, as is evident from verse 5:\u2014\u201cUnless a man\nbe born again.\u201d &c. Faith, however, is often specially referred to,\nbecause as the Council of Trent (Sess. vi., c. 8) says:\u2014\u201cFides est humanae\nsalutis initium, fundamentum, et radix omnis justificationis.\u201d\n\n16. Sic enim Deus dilexit        16. For God so loved the\nmundum, ut Filium suum           world, as to give his only\nunigenitum daret: ut omnis,      begotten Son; that whosoever\nqui credit in eum, non pereat,   believeth in him, may not\nsed habeat vitam aeternam.       perish, but may have life\n                                 everlasting.\n\n16. Some commentators, following Erasmus, hold that what follows to the\nend of verse 21, is not the language of Christ, but a comment of the\nEvangelist; but more probably Christ still continues. The boundless love\nof God for the world, and not merely for the elect, is declared to be the\ncause of the incarnation, and the world\u2019s salvation its object. It was\nthis love that made God give His _only\u2010begotten Son_ to suffer for men and\nsave them.\n\n17. Non enim misit Deus Filium   17. For God sent not his Son,\nsuum in mundum, ut iudicet       into the world, to judge the\nmundum, sed ut salvetur mundus   world, but that the world may\nper ipsum.                       be saved by him.\n\n17. For it was to save, not to judge the world, that the Son of God came\nat His first coming. Hereafter in His second coming He will come to judge\nand to condemn (the context proves there is question of the judgment of\ncondemnation).\n\n18. Qui credit in eum, non       18. He that believeth in him\niudicatur: qui autem non         is not judged. But he that\ncredit, iam iudicatus est,       doth not believe is already\nquia non credit in nomine        judged: because he believeth\nunigeniti Filii Dei.             not in the name of the only\n                                 begotten Son of God.\n\n18. He who believeth in Christ escapes the judgment of condemnation; but\nhe who believeth not is already condemned, because, inasmuch as he has not\nbelieved, \u201cthe wrath of God,\u201d _i.e._, original sin (Eph. ii. 3) and its\neffects in actual sin, remain upon him (verse 36); and he has rejected the\nonly means whereby he could be delivered from them. It is as it a\nphysician were sent to the sick, says St. Augustine, they who come to him\nare cured; they who come not, perish; not through him, however, but\nbecause of their disease.\n\n19. Hoc est autem iudicium:      19. And this is the judgment:\nquia lux venit in mundum, et     because the light is come into\ndilexerunt homines magis         the world, and men loved\ntenebras quam lucem: erant       darkness rather than the\nenim eorum mala opera.           light: for their works were\n                                 evil.\n\n19. This is the _reason_ of the condemnation, namely, that men do not come\nto the light, but rather shrink from it, through the fear of being forced\nby an awakened conscience to abandon sin.\n\n20. Omnis enim qui male agit,    20. For every one that doth\nodit lucem, et non venit ad      evil hateth the light, and\nlucem, ut non arguantur opera    cometh not to the light, that\neius:                            his works may not be reproved:\n\n20. *For every one that doth evil*, and, as St. Chrys. explains determines\nto _remain_ in his wickedness, *hateth the light, and cometh not to the\nlight, that his works may not be reproved*.\n\n21. Qui autem facit veritatem,   21. But he that doth truth,\nvenit ad lucem, ut               cometh to the light, that his\nmanifestentur opera eius, quia   works may be made manifest,\nin Deo sunt facta.               because they are done in God.\n\n21. *But he that doth the ** truth*; that is to say, what truth directs,\nor rather the practical truth of good works, for right action is the\nrealization of true thought, *cometh to the light*, by accepting the faith\nof Christ, by believing (v. 18). *That his works may be made manifest.*\nJust as he who does evil, and intends to persist in it, shuns the light,\nin order that his works may not be reproved (v. 20), so he who does good,\nand means to persevere in it, comes to the light and believes, in order\nthat his works may be approved. The antithesis between this and the\npreceding verse, shows that the manifestation of which there is question\nhere is equivalent to approval; and indeed, from the nature of the case,\nthe manifestation of such works in the light of Christian truth would be\nnecessarily followed by their approval, not only by God, but also by the\nenlightened judgment of him who wrought them.\n\n*Because* (\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9) *they are done* (Gr. _have been done_) *in God*. These\nwords may be differently connected. They may give the reason why he who\ndoes good, readily comes to the light, namely, because his works have been\ngood, and he is not afraid to have them tested. Or, they might be\nunderstood to give the reason why such a one\u2019s works are approved, namely\nbecause they are done in God. Or again, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 may be taken to mean not,\n\u201cbecause,\u201d but \u201cthat;\u201d and then the sense will be, that he who does good\ncomes to the light and believes, that his works may be made manifest as\nhaving been (that they have been) done in God. The last is perhaps the\nsimplest and most natural interpretation, but the first also is probable.\n\nBut in any of these interpretations, the question arises\u2014how can the works\nof a man who has not yet believed, be said to have been \u201cdone in God.\u201d\nVarious answers have been given. We cannot agree with those commentators\nwho reply that there is question of future works to be performed after the\nreception of faith; for the whole context, and the Greek text (_have been_\ndone), show that there is question of past works done before their author\nhas come to the light. Nor do we think that there is question merely of\nnatural works done in the past with the aid of medicinal grace, for such\nworks would scarcely be said to have been \u201cdone in God.\u201d We hold, then,\nthat there is reference to the \u201cinitium fidei,\u201d that is to say, to all\nthose works that sprang from supernatural grace, were salutary in\nthemselves, and led up to faith. These are the only works of one who has\nnot yet believed, that can be properly said to have been done in God, done\naccording to His will and pleasure. That there are such works antecedent\nto faith, cannot be denied; for the proposition: \u201cFaith is the first\ngrace,\u201d put forward in the schismatical Council of Pistoia, was condemned\nby Pius VI., in the Bull _Auctorem Fidei_. Besides, it is _de fide_,\nagainst the Semipelagians, that supernatural grace is necessary for the\n\u201cinitium fidei,\u201d from which it follows that the works included in the\n\u201cinitium fidei,\u201d are salutary, and \u201cdone in God.\u201d\n\n22. Post haec venit Iesus, et    22. After these things Jesus\ndiscipuli eius, in terram        and his disciples came into\nIudaeam: et illic demorabatur    the land of Judea; and there\ncum eis, et baptizabat.          he abode with them and\n                                 baptized.\n\n22. *After these things*; that is to say, after this discourse with\nNicodemus. How long our Lord remained in Jerusalem on the occasion of this\nfirst Pasch, we know not. By *the land of Judea*, is meant the country\nparts of that province, as distinguished from the city of Jerusalem, where\nthe discourse with Nicodemus had taken place. In these country parts,\nthen, Jesus baptized through His disciples (iv. 2), the baptism most\nprobably being sacramental.\n\n23. Erat autem et Ioannes        23. And John also was\nbaptizans in Aennon, iuxta       baptizing in Ennon near Salim;\nSalim: quia aquae multae erant   because there was much water\nillic, et veniebant, et          there, and they came, and were\nbaptizabantur.                   baptized.\n\n23. *Ennon, near Salim.* The site of Aennon (Gr. \u0391\u1f30\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd, from a Chaldaic\nword meaning springs) is difficult to determine. If we compare verse 26 of\nthis chapter with John i. 28, it would seem that Aennon was west of the\nJordan. Eusebius and Jerome place it eight miles south of Scythopolis,\n\u201cjuxta Salim et Jordanem;\u201d and the latter states that the ruins of\nMelchizedek\u2019s palace existed in his day at Salim. These statements are so\npositive that they cannot lightly be set aside. In the Jordan valley,\nabout seven and a\u2010half miles from Beisan (Scythopolis), there is a\nremarkable group of seven springs, all lying within a radius of a quarter\nof a mile, which answers well to the description \u201cmany waters.\u201d(37)\nAccording to this view, Aennon was situated in the north\u2010east corner of\nSamaria. Others, however, think, from the connection between this verse\nand verse 22, in which Jesus is said to baptize in Judea, that Aennon also\nwas in Judea, and refer to Josue xv. 32, where the cities of Selim and\n_Aen_ are mentioned as in the tribe of Juda.\n\n24. Nondum enim missus fuerat    24. For John was not yet cast\nIoannes in carcerem.             into prison.\n\n24. The Evangelist notes that the Baptist had not yet been imprisoned,\nprobably lest it should be thought, from Matt. iv. 11, 12, that the\nimprisonment of the Baptist followed at once upon the return of Christ\nfrom the forty days\u2019 fast in the desert. This verse, therefore, affords a\nstrong proof that our Evangelist was acquainted with the Gospel of St.\nMatthew.\n\n25. Facta est autem quaestio     25. And there arose a question\nex discipulis Ioannis cum        between some of John\u2019s\nIudaeis de purificatione.        disciples and the Jews\n                                 concerning purification:\n26. Et venerunt ad Ioannem, et   26. And they came to John, and\ndixerunt ei: Rabbi, qui erat     said to him: Rabbi, he that\ntecum trans Iordanem, cui tu     was with thee beyond the\ntestimonium perhibuisti, ecce    Jordan, to whom thou gavest\nhic baptizat, et omnes veniunt   testimony, behold he\nad eum.                          baptizeth, and all men come to\n                                 him.\n\n25, 26. A question arose between (\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f38\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5,\n_i.e._, \u201ccujus auctores extitere discipuli Joannis,\u201d Beel, _Gr. Gram._, \u00a7\n51, B. 2, 8) John\u2019s disciples and _the Jews_, _i.e._, some leading Jews,\nperhaps members of the Sanhedrim, concerning the relative merits of John\u2019s\nbaptism and Christ\u2019s; and John\u2019s disciples come to their master, jealous\nthat his fame is being eclipsed by that of Him whom he had been the means\nof bringing before the public notice. The best supported reading is _a\nJew_, not the Jews.\n\n27. Respondit Ioannes, et        27. John answered and said: A\ndixit: Non potest homo           man cannot receive anything,\naccipere quidquam, nisi fuerit   unless it be given him from\nei datum de coelo.               heaven.\n28. Ipsi vos mihi testimonium    28. You yourselves do bear me\nperhibetis, quod dixerim: Non    witness, that I said, I am not\nsum ego Christus, sed quia       Christ, but that I am sent\nmissus sum ante illum.           before him.\n\n27, 28. John\u2019s answer to his disciples is his last recorded testimony to\nChrist. It is to the effect that a man may not arrogate to himself power\nor office unless he have authority from God, and that his own office is\nmerely that of precursor to the Messias.\n\n29. Qui habet sponsam, sponsus   29. He that hath the bride, is\nest: amicus autem sponsi, qui    the bridegroom: but the friend\nstat, et audit eum, gaudio       of the bridegroom, who\ngaudet propter vocem sponsi.     standeth and heareth him,\nHoc ergo gaudium meum impletum   rejoiceth with joy because of\nest.                             the bridegroom\u2019s voice. This\n                                 my joy therefore is fulfilled.\n\n29. By a familiar example the Baptist illustrates the difference between\nhimself and Christ. On the occasion of a Jewish marriage it was usual for\nthe bridegroom to have a friend (\u201camicus sponsi,\u201d corresponding to the\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 of the Greeks), whose duty it was to arrange the preliminaries\nto the marriage, and at the marriage feast to minister to the bridegroom.\nThe sense of the Baptist\u2019s words then is, that though many are present to\na wedding, only one, he who hath the bride, is the bridegroom. His friend,\nwho has helped to bring about the marriage, is satisfied to stand and\nminister to him, rejoicing exceedingly to hear the bridegroom speaking\nwith his bride, nor jealous of the happy relations which subsist between\nthem. *This, my joy, therefore, is fulfilled.* In these words the Baptist\npoints the application of the comparison to Christ and himself. The\nBaptist is the \u201camicus sponsi,\u201d who prepared the disciples for Christ;\nChrist is the bridegroom, and the disciples flocking to Christ (verse 26)\nwere to constitute the Church, which is His spouse. See 2 Cor. xi. 2; Eph.\nv. 25, 27.\n\n30. Illum oportet crescere, me   30. He must increase, but I\nautem minui.                     must decrease.\n\n30. John had fulfilled his mission; thenceforward, therefore, whereas\nChrist, in virtue of His nature, and His office of Messias, should\nincrease, the Baptist himself should decrease, in influence and fame.\n\n31. Qui desursum venit, super    31. He that cometh from above,\nomnes est. Qui est de terra,     is above all. He that is of\nde terra est, et de terra        the earth, of the earth he is,\nloquitur. Qui de coelo venit,    and of the earth he speaketh.\nsuper omnes est.                 He that cometh from heaven, is\n                                 above all.\n\n31. He that hath a divine origin is above all men, and so above me; but He\nthat is of the earth by origin, of the earth he is in nature, and of the\nearth He speaks (compare verse 6). This is true of all men, in comparison\nwith Christ: their thoughts are earthly, weak, and limited; His divine and\ninexhaustible; but it is also true absolutely, if we consider them apart\nfrom faith and grace. \u201cHoc autem in Joanne verum est primo, si ejus nudam\nnaturam spectes, et seclusa Dei gratia, vocatione, et revelatione: sic\nenim Joannes non nisi terreus et terrenus erat, nec nisi terrena sapiebat;\nquia \u2018si quid divinum audisti a Joanne illuminantis est, non recipientis,\u2019\nait St. Augustinus, quasi dicat, id accepit a Deo, non habet a se\u201d (A\nLap.).\n\n32. Et quod vidit, et audivit,   32. And what he hath seen and\nhoc testatur: et testimonium,    heard, that he testifieth: and\neius nemo accipit.               no man receiveth his\n                                 testimony.\n\n32. What Christ knoweth of His own _immediate_ divine knowledge, as being\n\u201cin the bosom of the Father\u201d (i. 18), this He testifieth; and yet hardly\nanyone (\u201cno man\u201d being an hyperbole) receiveth His testimony. Christ is\nmetaphorically spoken of here as seeing and hearing, to indicate His\ndirect and _immediate_ knowledge of things divine. Compare v. 19; vi. 46;\nviii. 38; xv. 15; xvi. 13.\n\nAccording to Patrizzi and others, this and the following verses are the\nwords of the Evangelist; but more probably the Baptist continues to the\nend of the chapter, developing the reason why Christ must increase.\n\n33. Qui accepit eius             33. He that hath received his\ntestimonium, signavit quia       testimony, hath set to his\nDeus verax est.                  seal that God is true.\n\n33. He who has believed in Christ has thereby testified solemnly (as\nthough he set his _seal_ to the testimony) that God is truthful. *God*\nhere refers to the Father; and the meaning is, that by believing what\nChrist teaches, we believe Him to be truthful, and therefore believe the\nFather also, from whom He has received His divine nature and knowledge,\nand His mission as Messias, to be truthful. This is better than to refer\nGod here to the Son (Christ), as Maldonatus does; for in the next verse,\nwhich proves this, God plainly refers to the Father.\n\n34. Quem enim misit Deus,        34. For he whom God hath sent,\nverba Dei loquitur: non enim     speaketh the words of God: for\nad mensuram dat Deus spiritum.   God doth not give the spirit\n                                 by measure.\n\n34. *For he whom God* (the Father) *hath sent* (*as His Son*, verse 35),\nas the Messias, *speaketh the words of God, for God doth not give the\nspirit by measure*. The contrast is between the abundant gift of the\nSpirit to Christ, as man, and the stinted participation of the same Spirit\nby those who are merely of the earth (Rom. xii. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 14). The\nsense, then, is, that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were poured out in\nabundance on Christ as man; that \u201cHe unceasingly possessed them all at\nonce to the greatest extent of which human nature is capable\u201d (M\u2019Ev.); and\nthis plenitude of the gifts of the Holy Ghost within Him is the reason why\nHe speaks the words of God.\n\n35. Pater diligit Filium: et     35. The Father loveth the Son:\nomnia dedit in manu eius.        and he hath given all things\n                                 into his hand.\n\n35. This plenitude of the Spirit in Christ, this fulness of grace and\ntruth (i. 16, 17), in Christ as man, is the effect of the love of the\nFather for His Incarnate Son, which love has also caused the Father to\ngrant to Christ, as _man_, the _bestowal_ (He hath given all things *into\nHis hand*) of all the gifts of the Spirit required for the salvation of\nmen.\n\n36. Qui credit in Filium habet   36. He that believeth in the\nvitam aeternam: qui autem        Son, hath life everlasting:\nincredulus est Filio, non        but he that believeth not the\nvidebit vitam, sed ira Dei       Son, shall not see life, but\nmanet super eum.                 the wrath of God abideth on\n                                 him.\n\n36. Since, then, Jesus Christ has been constituted our help unto\nsalvation, he that believes _in Him_ as Son of God (and acts accordingly)\nhath eternal life begun in him by justification; he that believeth not,\n&c. See verse 18.\n\nThis splendid testimony of the Baptist in favour of Christ was intended to\ndetach his disciples from himself, and win them to Christ, of whom, as we\nlearn from verse 26, they had shown themselves jealous.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n\n    1\u20104. *Jesus sets out from Judea to Galilee.*\n\n    5\u201026. *Arrival in Sichar, and discourse with the Samaritan woman.*\n\n    27\u201038. *Discourse with the disciples.*\n\n    39\u201042. *Stay with the people of Sichar.*\n\n    43\u201054. Continuation of the journey into Galilee, and healing of\n    the ruler\u2019s son.\n\n\n1. Ut ergo cognovit Iesus quia   1. When Jesus therefore\naudierunt pharisaei quod Iesus   understood that the Pharisees\nplures discipulos facit, et      had heard that Jesus maketh\nbaptizat, quam Ioannes,          more disciples, and baptizeth\n                                 _more_ than John,\n\n1. *When Jesus therefore understood*, &c. Christ is spoken of as if on\nthis occasion He gained knowledge of which He had been ignorant, because\nthough, as God, He knew all things, every inmost thought of the Pharisees,\nyet, _as man_, like other men, He gathered knowledge from His fellow\u2010men.\nSee Mald.\n\n*That Jesus.* Not that He Himself; because the report which the Pharisees\nhad heard is given verbatim, \u201cthat\u201d (\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9) merely introducing it.\n\n2. (Quamquam Iesus non           2. (Though Jesus _himself_ did\nbaptizaret sed discipuli         not baptize, but his\neius,)                           disciples,)\n\n2. Jesus Himself did not usually baptize; probably because, like St. Paul\n(1 Cor. i. 14\u201016), His mission was to preach and teach. It by no means\nfollows from this verse that He never baptized anyone; and many writers\nare of opinion that He baptized some Himself.\n\n3. Reliquit Iudaeam, et abiit    3. He left Judea, and went\niterum in Galilaeam;             again into Galilee.\n\n3. Because His time to suffer had not yet come, and much of the work of\nHis public mission still remained to be accomplished, He left Judea, the\nheadquarters of the Pharisees, whose jealousy He knew would be aroused by\nthe report mentioned in verse 1, and went again (see John i. 43) into\nGalilee.\n\n4. Oportebat autem eum           4. And he was of necessity to\ntransire per Samariam.           pass through Samaria.\n5. Venit ergo in civitatem       5. He cometh therefore to a\nSamariae, quae dicitur Sichar:   city of Samaria which is\niuxta praedium quod dedit        called Sichar; near the land\nIacob Ioseph filio suo.          which Jacob gave to his son\n                                 Joseph.\n\n4, 5. Not choosing to cross to the east of the Jordan, and go up through\nPeraea, as some of the stricter Jews did, who wished to avoid all possible\ncontact with the Samaritans, He was obliged to pass through Samaria. Of\nthe three provinces of Palestine west of the Jordan, Samaria was in the\ncentre, with Judea to the south, and Galilee to the north. \u201cSt. John is\nthus careful to note that this was no mission to the Samaritans which the\nLord undertook. On the contrary, the law which He imposed on His\ndisciples: \u2018And into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not\u2019 (Matt. x.\n5), this, during the days of His flesh, He imposed also on Himself. He was\nnot sent \u2018but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel\u2019 (Matt. xv. 24;\nActs xiii. 46); and if any grace reached Samaritan or heathen, it was, so\nto speak, but by accident, a crumb falling from the children\u2019s table.\u201d(38)\nSamaria had been the portion of the tribe of Ephraim and of half the tribe\nof Manasses. The province derived its name from its chief city, Samaria,\nwhich, in turn, got its name from Mount Somer (or Semer), on which it was\nbuilt (3 Kings xvi. 24). See A Lap. The city called Sichar(39) (the modern\nNabulus) by St. John is the ancient Sichem, where Abram built an altar to\nthe Lord (Gen. xii. 7), under the turpentine tree behind which Jacob\nburied the idols of his household (Gen. xxxv. 4), and where the bones of\nthe twelve patriarchs were laid to rest (Acts vii. 16).\n\n*Near the land which Jacob gave to his son Joseph.* See Gen. xxxviii. 18,\n19; Josue xxiv. 32.\n\n6. Erat autem ibi fons Iacob,    6. Now Jacob\u2019s well was there.\nIesus ergo fatigatus ex          Jesus therefore being wearied\nitinere, sedebat sic supra       with his journey, sat thus on\nfontem. Hora erat quasi sexta.   the well. It was about the\n                                 sixth hour.\n\n6. *Jacob\u2019s well*, which he had dug or bought, was there; and Jesus, weary\nbecause of His journey, sat _thus_ (_sic._, \u201choc est, fatigatus ut erat,\u201d\nBeel.) by the well.\n\n*It was about the sixth hour.* See on i. 39.\n\n7. Venit mulier de Samaria       7. There cometh a woman of\nhaurire aquam. Dicit ei Iesus:   Samaria to draw water. Jesus\nDa mihi bibere.                  saith to her: Give me to\n                                 drink.\n\n7. There cometh a woman of Samaria, not of the city of Samaria, for that\nwas six miles distant, but of the country of Samaria, a Samaritan woman,\nto draw water.(40)\n\n8. (Discipuli enim eius          8. For his disciples were gone\nabierant in civitatem ut cibos   into the city to buy meats.\nemerent.)\n\n8. Because He had no one else to give Him to drink, He asks her to do so,\nand thus leads up naturally to the following discourse.\n\n9. Dicit ergo ei mulier illa     9. Then that Samaritan woman\nSamaritana: Quomodo tu Iudaeus   saith to him: How dost thou,\ncum sis, bibere a me poscis,     being a Jew, ask of me to\nquae sum mulier Samaritana?      drink, who am a Samaritan\nnon enim coutuntur Iudaei        woman? For the Jews do not\nSamaritanis.                     communicate with the\n                                 Samaritans.\n\n9. The Samaritans, with whom, as here stated, the Jews avoided all\nintercourse, were either pure Assyrians or a mixture of Jews and\nAssyrians, at best a mongrel race. Very probably some Jews were left\nbehind in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian captivity, under\nSalmanassar, 721 B.C.; and from these intermarrying with the imported\nEasterns sprang the Samaritans. The Jews regarded the Samaritans with\nspecial aversion for many reasons. They were the descendants of the\nAssyrian conquerors; they held what was the rightful inheritance of the\nJews; they corrupted Jewish worship; they endeavoured to prevent the\nrebuilding of the Temple under Zorobabel (1 Esd. iv. 2, 7, 8), and were\nalways prepared to harbour the false friends or open enemies of the Jews.\nHence this woman, recognising in Christ\u2019s dress and accent His Jewish\norigin, wonders that He would speak to, much less drink from, a Samaritan.\nThe last clause: *For the Jews do not communicate with the Samaritans*, is\nadded by the Evangelist as an explanation of the woman\u2019s question for\nGentile readers.\n\n10. Respondit Iesus, et dixit    10. Jesus answered and said to\nei: Si scires donum Dei, et      her: If thou didst know the\nquis est qui dicit tibi, Da      gift of God, and who he is\nmihi bibere; tu forsitan         that saith to thee, Give me to\npetisses ab eo, et dedisset      drink; thou perhaps wouldst\ntibi aquam vivam.                have asked of him, and he\n                                 would have given thee living\n                                 water.\n\n10. *The gift of God* is not the Holy Ghost, nor Christ Himself, nor the\nopportunity now offered her, but most probably the gift of grace, the\n\u201cliving water\u201d spoken of in the end of the verse. Hence Christ\u2019s words\nmean: If you knew that there is a spiritual water which slakes the thirst\nof man in the desert of this world, and that He who can bestow it speaks\nto you, *thou perhaps wouldst have asked*, &c. *Perhaps* (_forsitan_) is\nnot represented in the Greek, in which we have an ordinary conditional\nsentence; and certainly Christ knew without doubt what would have been the\nresult. The Vulgate translator, probably added \u201cforsitan\u201d to indicate that\nshe would still be _free_ to reject the grace offered.\n\n*Living water.* There is the same diversity of opinion here as in regard\nto the \u201cgift of God,\u201d with the addition that some have held the reference\nhere to be to the waters of baptism. We take it that the reference again\nis to grace. Living water properly signifies _running water_, in\nopposition to the stagnant water of pools or cisterns. Here, however the\nwords seem to be used in their highest sense, of waters which come from\nGod and bestow _life_ upon all who drink of them.\n\n11. Dicit ei mulier: Domine,     11. The woman saith to him:\nneque in quo haurias habes, et   Sir, thou hast nothing wherein\nputeus altus est: unde ergo      to draw, and the well is deep:\nhabes aquam vivam?               from whence then hast thou\n                                 living water?\n12. Numquid tu maior es patre    12. Art thou greater than our\nnostro Iacob, qui dedit nobis    father Jacob, who gave us the\nputeum, et ipse ex eo bibit,     well, and drank thereof\net filii eius, et pecora eius?   himself, and his children, and\n                                 his cattle?\n\n11, 12. She understands Him to speak of natural water, which He seemed to\nthink superior to that of Jacob\u2019s well; and, concluding that He must refer\nto the water of some other well, since indeed He had no bucket, no means\nof drawing from the deep well at which she stood, she asks Him: Art Thou\ngreater than our father Jacob, so as to be able to provide a better water\nthan he provided for us in this well? That its waters were good enough for\nhim and his sons, is a proof of their excellence; that they sufficed for\nall his household and cattle, is evidence of their abundance. There is a\ntinge of resentment in the words of verse 12, for the Samaritans claimed\ndescent from Jacob (*our father, Jacob*), through Joseph and Joseph\u2019s\nsons, Ephraim and Manasses, whose tribal territory they possessed, and\nthis Jewish Stranger seemed to the woman to set Himself above the great\nPatriarch of her race.\n\n13. Respondit Iesus, et dixit    13. Jesus answered, and said\nei: Omnis qui bibit ex aqua      to her: Whosoever drinketh of\nhac, sitiet iterum: qui autem    this water, shall thirst\nbiberit ex aqua quam ego dabo    again: but he that shall drink\nei, non sitiet in aeternum:      of the water that I will give\n                                 him, shall not thirst for\n                                 ever.\n\n13. Without replying explicitly that He was indeed greater than Jacob,\nChrist implies this by declaring that the water which He will give is\nsuperior to that of Jacob\u2019s well. For while the latter only satisfies\npresent wants, that which He will give will quench present and prevent\nfuture thirst. What is said in Eccl. xxiv. 29: \u201cThey that drink Me shall\nyet thirst,\u201d is not opposed to our Lord\u2019s words here; for in\nEcclesiasticus there is question of desire springing from love, here of a\ncraving arising from want. These words of our Lord show, then, that\nsanctifying grace is of its own nature perennial in the soul. Time does\nnot wear it away; use does not consume it; unless it be expelled, it never\ndeparts: \u201cHe that drinks ... shall not thirst for ever.\u201d\n\n14. Sed aqua, quam ego dabo      14. But the water that I will\nei, fiet in eo fons aquae        give him, shall become in him\nsalientis in vitam aeternam.     a fountain of water springing\n                                 up into life everlasting.\n\n14. But so far from thirsting, he shall have that within him, that is, the\nHoly Ghost and His graces, which will conduct him to eternal life. In this\nbeautiful metaphor, the spiritual water of grace is represented as finding\nits own level; coming from heaven, it will return thither in those whom it\nhas saved. The mention of *eternal life* ought to have made it clear that\nChrist spoke of supernatural and spiritual water.\n\n15. Dicit ad eum mulier:         15. The woman saith to him:\nDomine, da mihi hanc aquam, ut   Sir, give me this water, that\nnon sitiam, neque veniam huc     I may not thirst, nor come\nhaurire.                         hither to draw.\n\n15. Yet she probably still understands of Him merely natural water, \u201cAdhuc\ncarnalis est mulier\u201d (Mald.): and anticipates only relief from having come\nto Jacob\u2019s well in future.\n\n16. Dicit ei Iesus: Vade, voca   16. Jesus saith to her: Go,\nvirum tuum, et veni huc.         call thy husband, and come\n                                 hither.\n\n16. Christ, of course, knew she had no husband; but He knew also what\nanswer she would give, and He wished to get a natural opportunity of\ndisclosing to her the secrets of her wicked life, that He might manifest\nHis supernatural knowledge.\n\n17. Respondit mulier, et         17. The woman answered, and\ndixit: Non habeo virum. Dicit    said: I have no husband. Jesus\nei Iesus: Bene dixisti, quia     said to her: Thou hast said\nnon habeo virum:                 well, I have no husband:\n18. Quinque enim viros           18. For thou hast had five\nhabuisti: et nunc quem habes,    husbands: and he whom thou now\nnon est tuus vir: hoc vere       hast, is not thy husband. This\ndixisti.                         thou hast said truly.\n\n17, 18. *Thou hast well said, I have no husband*, or rather, _husband_ I\nhave not, with an emphasis on husband, which is marked in the Greek by its\nposition in the sentence, as reproduced by Christ.\n\n*Thou hast had five husbands.* Though St. Chrys. and Mald. think that\nthere is question, not of husbands, but of paramours, the common opinion,\nand certainly the obvious one, is that husbands are spoken of. It is not\nnecessary to suppose that the husbands made room for one another by death,\nfor she may have been divorced by several of them. See Deut. xxiv. 1, 2;\nMatt. xix. 3.\n\n19. Dicit ei mulier: Domine,     19. The woman saith to him:\nvideo quia propheta es tu.       Sir, I perceive that thou art\n                                 a prophet.\n\n19. *A prophet*; _i.e._, here, as elsewhere frequently, one who has\nsupernatural knowledge, who knows things which are naturally hidden from\nhim. In these words the poor woman confesses her own guilt and the exalted\ncharacter of Christ, whom, however, she does not yet recognise as \u201c_The_\nProphet,\u201d the Messias, but only as a prophet.\n\n20. Patres nostri in monte hoc   20. Our fathers adored on this\nadoraverunt, et vos dicitis,     mountain, and you say that at\nquia Ierosolymis est locus ubi   Jerusalem is the place where\nadorare oportet.                 men must adore.\n\n20. Not so much for the purpose of turning the conversation from the\nunpleasant subject of her own character,(41) as in order to have the\nopinion of a prophet upon an important question, she adds: *Our fathers*,\n&c.\n\nShe says that her Samaritan ancestors had worshipped on that mountain. She\nevidently refers to public worship, public ceremonies appointed by God,\nespecially the worship of *sacrifice*; for the Jews never held that\nprivate worship, as of prayer, should be restricted to Jerusalem. The\nmountain to which she refers, and beneath the shadow of which Christ and\nshe were standing, is Mount Garizim, which overhangs the town of Sichar.\nIn the time of Alexander the Great, Manasses, a Jewish priest, was\nexcluded from the exercise of his ministry for marrying the daughter of\nthe king of Sichem. The king accordingly built for Manasses a temple on\nMount Garizim, where he offered sacrifice to the true God. This temple was\nbuilt about 330 B.C., and stood for two hundred years. After it was\ndestroyed, about 130 B.C., the Samaritans erected an altar upon Garizim,\nand continued to offer sacrifice there; so that from the time of Manasses\nthe true God was worshipped, though imperfectly, among them. There still\nremain a few families of Samaritans, under the shadow of Mount Garizim, in\nthe modern city of Nabulus, or Naplouse.\n\n21. Dicit ei Iesus: Mulier       21. Jesus saith to her: Woman,\ncrede mihi, quia venit hora      believe me, that the hour\nquando neque in monte hoc,       cometh, when you shall neither\nneque Ierosolymis adorabitis     on this mountain, nor in\nPatrem.                          Jerusalem adore the Father.\n\n21. Christ declares with all solemnity that the time is at hand\u2014nay,\nalready come (see verse 23), when true worship _shall be restricted_\nneither to Jerusalem nor to Garizim; and hence her question is practically\nunimportant.\n\n22. Vos adoratis quod            22. You adore that which you\nnescitis: nos adoramus quod      know not: we adore that which\nscimus, quia salus ex Iudaeis    we know; for salvation is of\nest.                             the Jews.\n\n22. *You adore that which* (\u1f45) *you know not*. As the woman\u2019s inquiry\nregarded not the object, but the place of worship, some have understood\nthese words of our Lord in reference to the place, as if He said: You\nadore in a place for worshipping in which you have no Divine sanction, we\nin a place pointed out by the finger of God. But it is difficult to\nreconcile this view with our Lord\u2019s words: \u201cYou adore _that which_ you\nknow not.\u201d Hence it is more probable, that in replying to her inquiry, He\ntakes occasion to refer to the imperfect knowledge of God, possessed by\nSamaritans. The neuter (\u1f45) seems to be used in the first instance, to show\nthe want of personality and definiteness in the Samaritan idea of God,(42)\nand in the second instance merely for the sake of correspondence between\nthe two members of the sentence. *We adore.* That Christ numbers Himself\namong those who adore, merely proves that He had a human nature.\n\n23. Sed venit hora, et nunc      23. But the hour cometh, and\nest, quando veri adoratores      now is, when the true adorers\nadorabunt Patrem in spiritu et   shall adore the Father in\nveritate. Nam et Pater tales     spirit and in truth. For the\nquaerit, qui adorent eum.        Father also seeketh such to\n                                 adore him.\n\n23. Still, though this is so, not even to Jerusalem, shall worship be\nrestricted in the future; *but the hour cometh*, &c.\n\nWhat is the adoration *in spirit and in truth*, here foretold? Evidently\nthe worship of the new dispensation, as contrasted with that of the old;\nthis is plain from the whole context. What, then, is meant by saying that\nthe worship of the new dispensation is to be *in spirit and in truth*?\nVarious interpretations of the words have been given.\n\n(1) \u201cIn spirit\u201d is opposed to the worship of the Jews; \u201cin truth\u201d to that\nof the Samaritans. Hence the worship of the new dispensation is to be,\n_not merely external_, as was the Jewish (unless it was accompanied by\nfaith in the Redeemer to come, in which case it was not merely Jewish, but\nChristian), nor _false_, as was the Samaritan. (Toletus.)\n\n(2) \u201cIn spirit\u201d is opposed to all merely external and local worship,\nwhether of _Jews_ or _Samaritans_; \u201cin truth\u201d to the _typical_ and\nimperfect worship of the Jews. For the Jewish sacrifices and ceremonies\nwere only shadows and types of the realities in the New Law. \u201cFor the law\nhaving a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image (reality)\nof the things: by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually\nevery year, can never make the comers thereunto perfect\u201d (Heb. x. 1),\nMald., who favours next opinion also.\n\n(3) \u201cIn spirit\u201d and \u201cin truth\u201d are synonymous, and signify true\nsupernatural worship, springing from faith and grace, and hence opposed to\nall imperfect or false worship. This opinion, considered equally probable\nwith the preceding by Maldonatus, and held by Beelen and Corluy, we\nprefer; for in verse 24, the fact that God is a Spirit (it is not stated\nthat He is also Truth) is given as the reason why He should be worshipped\nin _both_ spirit and truth.\n\nThe distinguishing features of true Christian worship, indicated in verses\n21, 23, are that it is to be _universal_, not restricted, like the Jewish\nor Samaritan, to Jerusalem or Garizim; and _spiritual_, offered with\nhearts animated by faith and grace, and not consisting merely in external\nrites.\n\n24. Spiritus est Deus: et eos,   24. God is a Spirit, and they\nqui adorant eum, in spiritu et   that adore him, must adore him\nveritate oportet adorare.        in spirit and in truth.\n\n24. In the end of verse 23 and in this verse Christ goes on to give the\nreasons why this worship, which is primarily spiritual, is to exist in the\nnew and more perfect dispensation\u2014(1). It is the Father\u2019s will. (2) It is\nmeet that such should be the worship paid to Him who is Himself a Spirit.\nIt is hardly necessary to point out that Calvin\u2019s interpretation of\nadoration by faith alone cannot be admitted. Were that sufficient, the\ndevils themselves would be true adorers, for \u201cthe devils also believe and\ntremble\u201d (James ii. 19). Neither does Christ here imply that all\n_external_ worship, external rites and ceremonies, were to cease, but only\nthat they were to cease to be _merely external_; else (1) His acts would\ncontradict His words, Luke xxii. 41; xxiv. 50; (2) His Apostles would\ndistinctly disobey Him: see Acts xvi. 25; ix. 40: Eph. iii. 14; (3) His\nChurch _in every age_ has misunderstood Him.\n\n25. Dicit ei mulier: Scio quia   25. The woman saith to him: I\nMessias venit (qui dicitur       know that the Messias cometh\nChristus): cum ergo venerit      (who is called Christ),\nille, nobis annuntiabit omnia.   therefore when he is come, he\n                                 will tell us all things.\n\n25. The poor woman, apparently bewildered by what Christ had just said, is\nsatisfied to wait in confidence till Messias (here without the article,\nused as a proper name) shall come, who, she believes, will make known all\nthat it is necessary to know regarding the place and character of the\nworship of the true God. As the Samaritans admitted only the Pentateuch,\nwhere the term Messias is not used (though His coming is foretold, Deut.\nxviii. 18); as, moreover, she could not have gathered from the Pentateuch\nthe _time_ of His coming, she must have learned by rumour that the Jews\nwere _at this time_ expecting the Messias; her words, \u201cHe will tell _us_\nall things,\u201d showed that she hoped for His coming in her own day.\n\nIt is difficult to say whether the words explanatory of Messias, *who is\ncalled Christ*, are the woman\u2019s or our Evangelist\u2019s. That the Evangelist\nexplained the term before (i. 41), is not a proof that he does not do so\nagain, for see John xi. 16; xx. 24; xxi. 2.\n\n26. Dicit ei Iesus: Ego sum,     26. Jesus saith to her: I am\nqui loquor tecum.                he who am speaking with thee.\n27. Et continuo venerunt         27. And immediately his\ndiscipuli eius: et mirabantur,   disciples came: and they\nquia cum muliere loquebatur.     wondered that he talked with\nNemo tamen dixit: Quid           the woman. Yet no man said:\nquaeris, aut quid loqueris cum   What seekest thou, or why\nea?                              talkest thou with her?\n\n26, 27. At length Christ reveals Himself; and now that He has excited her\ninterest and awakened her faith, the disciples return from Sichar, and are\nastonished to find Him speaking publicly with a woman\u2014a thing not usually\ndone by Jewish doctors.\n\n28. Reliquit ergo hydriam suam   28. The woman therefore left\nmulier, et abiit in civitatem,   her waterpot, and went her way\net dicit illis hominibus:        into the city, and saith to\n                                 the men there:\n29. Venite, et videte hominem    29. Come, and see a man who\nqui dixit mihi omnia             has told me all things\nquaecumque feci: numquid ipse    whatsoever I have done. Is not\nest Christus?                    he the Christ?\n30. Exierunt ergo de civitate,   30. They went therefore out of\net veniebant ad eum.             the city, and came unto him.\n\n28\u201030. The discourse being interrupted by the arrival of the disciples,\nthe woman, forgetful or indifferent regarding the errand which had brought\nher to the well, *went her way into the city*, and soon returned with a\nnumber of her fellow\u2010citizens.\n\n31. Interea rogabant eum         31. In the meantime the\ndiscipuli, dicentes: Rabbi,      disciples prayed him, saying:\nmanduca.                         Rabbi, eat.\n32. Ille autem dicit eis: Ego    32. But he said to them: I\ncibum habeo manducare, quem      have meat to eat which you\nvos nescitis.                    know not.\n33. Dicebant ergo discipuli ad   33. The disciples therefore\ninvicem: Numquid aliquis         said one to another: Hath any\nattulit ei manducare?            man brought him to eat?\n34. Dicit eis Iesus: Meus        34. Jesus saith to them: My\ncibus est ut faciam voluntatem   meat is to do the will of him\neius qui misit me, ut            that sent me, that I may\nperficiam opus eius.             perfect his work.\n\n31\u201034. Meanwhile the disciples invite Jesus to eat, to whom He replies\nthat He has meat to eat which they know not, that meat being, as He\nexplains in verse 34, to do the will of Him that sent Him. It was no time\nfor attending to the wants of His human nature; He had more serious work\nin hand in the conversion of the Samaritans.\n\n35. Nonne vos dicitis quod       35. Do not you say, there are\nadhuc quatuor menses sunt, et    yet four months, and then the\nmessis venit? Ecce dico vobis:   harvest cometh? Behold I say\nLevate oculos vestros, et        to you, lift up your eyes, and\nvidete regiones, quia albae      see the countries, for they\nsunt iam ad messem.              are white already to harvest.\n\n35. *There are yet four months, and then the harvest cometh.* Maldonatus,\nfollowed by Father Coleridge, takes this to be a proverb(43) meaning that\nthere is no need of hurry\u2014that the matter in question is still far off.\nAs, however, there is no evidence that such a proverb was current among\nthe Jews, it is much better to understand the verse thus: You say what is\ntrue, that it is still four months till the harvest of nature; but lift up\nyour eyes, and behold the harvest of grace in the men of Sichar who are\napproaching.\n\nAs the barley harvest in Palestine came in about the middle of April, this\ntime, four months earlier, was the middle of December, the end of the\nfirst year of our Lord\u2019s public life.(44)\n\n36. Et qui metit, mercedem       36. And he that reapeth\naccipit, et congregat fructum    receiveth wages, and gathereth\nin vitam aeternam: ut, et qui    fruit unto life everlasting:\nseminat, simul gaudeat, et qui   that both he that soweth, and\nmetit.                           he that reapeth, may rejoice\n                                 together.\n\n36. He encourages His disciples to the work; in saving others they save\nthemselves.\n\n37. In hoc enim est verbum       37. For in this is the saying\nverum: quia alius est qui        true: that it is one man that\nseminat, et alius est qui        soweth, and it is another that\nmetit.                           reapeth.\n38. Ego misi vos metere quod     38. I have sent you to reap\nvos non laborastis: alii         that in which you did not\nlaboraverunt, et vos in          labour: others have laboured,\nlabores: eorum introistis.       and you have entered into\n                                 their labours.\n\n37\u201038. The Prophets and Doctors of the old Law had prepared the way for\nthe Apostles and disciples of Christ; had ploughed and sown where they\nwere now to reap. *I have sent you.* Mald., who holds that this is not the\nsame journey with that referred to in Matt. iv. 12, Mark i. 14, and that\nthe Apostles were already formally called by Christ, understands \u201cI have\nsent\u201d of an action already completed by Christ. As, however, it is more\nprobable that the Apostles were not yet formally called (see Matt. iv. 12,\n18; x. 1), it is better to understand this, with A Lap., of the Divine\ndecree to send the Apostles on their mission afterwards.\n\n39. Ex civitate autem illa       39. Now of that city many of\nmulti crediderunt in eum         the Samaritans believed in\nSamaritanorum, propter verbum    him, for the word of the woman\nmulieris testimonium             giving testimony: He told me\nperhibentis: Quia dixit mihi     all things whatsoever I have\nomnia quaecumque feci.           done.\n40. Cum venissent ergo ad        40. So when the Samaritans\nillum Samaritani, rogaverunt     were come to him, they desired\neum ut ibi maneret. Et mansit    him that he would tarry there.\nibi duos dies.                   And he abode there two days.\n41. Et multo plures              41. And many more believed in\ncrediderunt in eum propter       him because of his own word.\nsermonem eius.\n\n39\u201041. Many believed in Him on account of what the woman told them, and,\nafter He had remained two days in Sichar, many more on account of His\ndiscourses.\n\n42. Et mulieri dicebant: Quia    42. And they said to the\niam non propter tuam loquelam    woman: we now believe, not for\ncredimus: ipsi enim audivimus,   thy saying: for we ourselves\net scimus, quia hic est vere     have heard him, and know that\nSalvator mundi.                  this is indeed the Saviour of\n                                 the world.\n\n42. This is the Hebrew way of expressing that it was not _so much_ on\naccount of the woman\u2019s saying, as because they had heard Him themselves.\n\n43. Post duos autem dies exiit   43. Now after two days he\ninde: et abiit in Galilaeam.     departed thence: and went into\n                                 Galilee.\n44. Ipse enim Iesus              44. For Jesus himself gave\ntestimonium perhibuit, quia      testimony that a prophet hath\npropheta in sua patria honorem   no honour in his own country.\nnon habet.\n\n43\u201044. The connection between these two verses is obscure. (1) Verse 44\ngives the reason why He had _left Galilee_, to which He now returns; or\n(2) the reason why He _passes Nazareth_, and goes on to Capharnaum (Matt.\niv. 13), Tolet, A Lap., Corl.; or (3) the reason why He proceeded on His\nway from _Judea, His birthplace_, into Galilee, Mald., Patriz.\n\n45. Cum ergo venisset in         45. And when he was come into\nGalilaeam, exceperunt eum        Galilee, the Galileans\nGalilaei, cum omnia vidissent    received him, having seen all\nquae fecerat Ierosolymis in      the things he had done at\ndie festo: et ipsi enim          Jerusalem on the festival day:\nvenerant ad diem festum.         for they also went to the\n                                 festival day.\n\n45. He is well received by the Galileans, because the remembrance of His\nexercise of authority and of His miracles, on the occasion of the previous\nPasch (ii. 15, 23), is still fresh in their memories.\n\n46. Venit ergo iterum in Cana    46. He came again therefore\nGalilaeae ubi fecit aquam        into Cana of Galilee, where he\nvinum. Et erat quidam regulus,   made the water wine. And there\ncuius filius infirmabatur        was a certain ruler whose son\nCapharnaum.                      was sick at Capharnaum.\n47. Hic cum audisset quia        47. He having heard that Jesus\nIesus adveniret a Iudaea in      was come from Judea into\nGalilaeam, abiit ad eum, et      Galilee, went to him, and\nrogabat eum ut descenderet, et   prayed him to come down and\nsanaret filium eius:             heal his son: for he was at\nincipiebat enim mori.            the point of death.\n\n46. *A certain ruler whose son was sick at Capharnaum*, on hearing that\nJesus was in Cana, came and asked Him to _come down_ and heal his son, who\nwas on the point of death. Origen thinks this ruler may have belonged to\nthe household of C\u00e6sar, and been on duty in Palestine at this time. But\nJosephus uses the word (\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2) to designate the courtiers or officers\nof the Herods (see B. J. vii. 5, 2; Antt. xv. 8, 4); so that this ruler of\nCapharnaum may have been an officer of Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of\nGalilee. Doubtless the ruler had heard of the miracle at the marriage\nfeast in Cana (ii. 7, 11); and perhaps he had witnessed the evidence of\nChrist\u2019s miraculous power at the feast of the Pasch (ii. 23).\n\n48. Dixit ergo Iesus ad eum:     48. Jesus therefore said to\nNisi signa et prodigia           him: Unless you see signs and\nvideritis, non creditis.         wonders, you believe not.\n49. Dicit ad eum regulus:        49. The ruler saith to him:\nDomine, descende prius quam      Lord, come down before that my\nmoriatur filius meus.            son die.\n\n48. Christ upbraids the ruler for his imperfect faith. The ruler is blamed\neither because he was waiting to _see_ a miracle before he would believe,\nor because he foolishly considered that it was _necessary_ for Christ to\ngo down to Capharnaum in order to heal his son.\n\n50. Dicit ei Iesus: Vade,        50. Jesus saith to him: Go thy\nfilius tuus vivit. Credidit      way, thy son liveth. The man\nhomo sermoni quem dixit ei       believed the word which Jesus\nIesus, et ibat.                  said to him, and went his way.\n51. Iam autem eo descendente,    51. And as he was going down,\nservi occurrerunt ei, et         his servants met him: and they\nnuntiaverunt dicentes, quia      brought word, saying that his\nfilius eius viveret.             son lived.\n\n50. Jesus said to him, *Go thy way; thy son liveth*. It is plain, from all\nthe circumstances, that this miracle is quite distinct from that recorded\nin Matt. viii. 5 and foll.; Luke vii. 2 and foll., though some of the\nRationalists have sought to identify the two. There it is the centurion\u2019s\nservant, here the ruler\u2019s son, who is ill; there the illness is paralysis,\nhere fever; there, though asked not to go, Christ goes to the sick person;\nhere, though asked to go, he goes not.\n\n52. Interrogabat ergo horam ab   52. He asked therefore of them\neis in qua melius habuerit. Et   the hour, wherein he grew\ndixerunt ei: Quia heri hora      better. And they said to him:\nseptima reliquit eum febris.     Yesterday at the seventh hour\n                                 the fever left him.\n\n52. *The seventh hour;* _i.e._, about an hour after noon, 1 p.m., or 7\np.m. See i. 39.\n\n53. Cognovit ergo pater, quia    53. The father therefore knew\nilla hora erat, in qua dixit     that it was at the same hour,\nei Iesus: Filius tuus vivit:     that Jesus said to him, Thy\net credidit ipse, et domus       son liveth; and himself\neius tota.                       believed and his whole house.\n54. Hoc iterum secundum signum   54. This _is_ again the second\nfecit Iesus, cum venisset a      miracle that Jesus did, when\nIudaea in Galilaeam.             he was come out of Judea into\n                                 Galilee.\n\n54. It is not said that this was the second miracle He performed, but that\nit was the second He performed on coming out of Judea into Galilee. For\nthe first, see ii. 6, 11, and compare i. 43.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\n    1\u20109. *Jesus goes up to Jerusalem on the occasion of a festival,\n    and there cures a man on the Sabbath day.*\n\n    10\u201016. *The Jews first challenge him who was healed, and then\n    persecute Christ for violating the Sabbath.*\n\n    17. *Christ\u2019s answer and defence.*\n\n    18. *They are still more exasperated, and seek to kill Him.*\n\n    19\u201039. *Christ\u2019s discourse, in which He proves, by various\n    arguments, that He is justified in calling God HIS Father, and in\n    making Himself equal to God.*\n\n    40\u201047. *He upbraids their incredulity, and points out its cause.*\n\n\n1. Post haec erat dies festus    1. After these things was a\nIudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus     festival day of the Jews, and\nIerosolymam.                     Jesus went up to Jerusalem.\n\n1. The interval to be admitted between the events now about to be narrated\nand the preceding, depends upon the answer to be given to the question:\nwhat festival is here referred to? On this question a great diversity of\nopinion has always existed among commentators. The more common opinion is\nthat it is the festival of the _Pasch_; others, however, hold that it is\nthe festival of _Pentecost_, or of _Tabernacles_, or of the _Purification_\nof the Temple, or of _Lots_.\n\nThe Pasch was celebrated from the evening of the 14th till that of the\n21st of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish sacred year. Pentecost was\nthe fiftieth day from the second day of the Pasch. The feast of\nTabernacles was celebrated from the evening of the 14th till that of the\n22nd of Tisri, the seventh month of the sacred year. The feast of\nPurification lasted eight days, beginning with the 25th Casleu, the ninth\nmonth of the sacred year. The feast of Lots lasted two days, the 14th and\n15th of Adar, the twelfth month of the sacred year.\n\nThe three feasts of Pasch, Pentecost, and Tabernacles were the great\nJewish feasts, on which, and on which alone, all adult males were bound to\ngo up to Jerusalem to worship. See Exod. xxiii. 14\u201017; xxxiv. 18, 22, 23.\nMany have held that the approach of the feast is mentioned (verse 1), as\ngiving the reason why Christ went up, like the other adult Jewish men, to\nJerusalem (ii. 13). Others, however, hold that the text merely states a\nfact, that Christ went up on the occasion of a festival, without implying\nat all that the festival was such as ought to be celebrated at Jerusalem.\n\nIt is difficult, if not impossible, to definitely decide which feast is\nmeant; but it seems to us extremely probable that it is either Pasch or\nLots. In favour of the Pasch it is argued\u2014(1) (\u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74) even without the\narticle(45) _may_ designate the Pasch (Matt. xxvii. 15; Mark xv. 6); and\nit is to be believed that it does in the present instance, because ten\nverses before (iv. 45) the same word is used to designate the Pasch\n(compare John ii. 13, 23). (2) From iv. 35 we learn that Jesus was on His\nway, through Samaria, to Galilee, in December; that is, about the _close_\nof the first year of His public life. Hence it cannot be to any of the\nthree great feasts of that _first_ year that our text refers. Naturally,\nthen, it is to the Pasch of the second year, which was the first great\nfeast to occur in the course of the year, and for which, if Christ had not\ngone to Jerusalem, St. John would probably have explained His absence, as\nHe does (vii. 1) in reference to the Pasch mentioned vi. 4. (3) Were it\nany other feast than that of the Pasch, which was by excellence _the_\nfeast of the Jews, St. John, according to his custom (vii. 2; x. 22),\nwould have named it. (4) This is the opinion of St. Iren\u00e6us, who was a\ndisciple of Polycarp, himself a disciple of our Evangelist.\n\nIn favour of the feast of Lots\u2014(1) The absence of the article in the more\nprobable reading points to one of the minor feasts of the Jews. (2) From\nJohn iv. 35, and vi. 4, it would seem to be clear that this feast fell\nbetween December and the Pasch; but only the feast of Lots occurred at\nthat time. (3) If this be the second Pasch of our Lord\u2019s public life, and\nthat in vi. 4 the third, then the events of a whole year are passed over\nby our Evangelist, who proceeds, in vi. 1: \u201cAfter these things Jesus\nwent,\u201d &c., affording no hint that he has passed over the events of a\nyear. (4). Were this the Pasch, St. John would have named it, as he does\non the other three occasions (ii. 13; vi. 4; xi. 55). But as it was only a\nminor feast of the Jews, and probably unheard\u2010of by the Christians of Asia\nMinor, the Evangelist thinks it unnecessary to name it, and contents\nhimself with referring to it as *a feast of the Jews*.\n\nIt is perhaps impossible, as we have said already, to decide with\ncertainty which feast is meant, but we shall follow the more common\nopinion and hold that there is question of the Pasch. Thus, we hold that\nSt. John mentions four Paschs as having occurred during our Lord\u2019s public\nlife: the first in ii. 13; the second here; the third in vi. 4; and the\nfourth and last in xii. 1 and xiii. 1, when our Lord was put to death. He\npasses over the events that occurred between the second and third Pasch,\nbecause they were already narrated by the Synoptic Evangelists.\n\n2. Est autem Ierosolymis         2. Now there is at Jerusalem a\nprobatica piscina, quae          pond, _called_ Probatica,\ncognominatur hebraice            which in Hebrew is named\nBethsaida, quinque porticus      Bethsaida, having five\nhabens.                          porches.\n\n2. The best supported Greek reading would be rendered, \u201cNow there is in\nJerusalem _by the sheep\u2010gate_ (\u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 being understood) a pond which is\ncalled in Hebrew _Bethesda_,\u201d &c.\n\nBethesda, in Syro\u2010Chaldaic, which was the language of Palestine at this\ntime, means the house (place) of mercy; and the name was given in the\npresent instance on account of the merciful cures wrought there. For the\nbuilding of this sheep\u2010gate by the priests, see 2 Esd. iii. 1. The site of\neither gate or pond cannot be determined with certainty; but the pond\nseems to have been close to the Temple, near the gate through which the\nsheep to be sacrificed entered within the outer enclosure of the temple.\nThe *porches*, which served to shelter the sick from sun and rain, were\nopen on the sides, but covered with a roof supported on pillars.\n\nThe Vulgate reading, *a sheep\u2010pond*, has been variously explained. Some\nsay the pond might be so called because the sheep were washed there before\nthey were sacrificed; others, because their entrails were brought there to\nbe washed. *Bethsaida*, read by the Vulgate, means the house (place) for\nfishing.\n\n3. In his iacebat multitudo      3. In these lay a great\nmagna languentium, caecorum,     multitude of sick, of blind,\nclaudorum, aridorum,             of lame, of withered, waiting\nexpectantium aquae motum.        for the moving of the water.\n4. Angelus autem Domini          4. And an Angel of the Lord\ndescendebat secundum tempus in   descended at certain times\npiscinam: et movebatur aqua.     into the pond; and the water\nEt qui prior descendisset in     was moved. And he that went\npiscinam post motionem aquae,    down first into the pond after\nsanus fiebat a quacumque         the motion of the water, was\ndetinebatur infirmitate.         made whole of whatsoever\n                                 infirmity he lay under.\n\n3, 4. The genuineness of the passage, beginning with *waiting for the\nmoving of the water*, and comprising the whole of verse 4, is disputed.\nThe Council of Trent, indeed, defined \u201clibros singulos cum omnibus suis\npartibus ... prout in vulgata Latina Editione habentur ... pro sacris et\ncanonicis esse suscipiendos:\u201d but it is not thereby defined that every\ntittle (_particula_) or every verse, is canonical Scripture. It would\nseem, therefore, that Catholics are free to reject this passage, and it is\na question for criticism to decide whether we are to receive or reject it.\n\nAfter an examination of the evidence for and against, we believe that the\npassage is more probably genuine. It stands in codex A (Alexandrinus), and\nin at least ten other uncial and very many _cursive_ MSS. It is read in\nthe \u201cVetus Itala\u201d and in the Vulgate; in the _plain_ and _figured_ Syriac\nversions, and in the Persian, Coptic, and Arabian versions. It is read by\nCyril of Alexandria, Chrys., Theophy., Euthy., Tertull., Ambr., and\nAugust. Finally, the context, especially the reply of the sick man (verse\n7), supposes it. Why it came to be wanting in so many MSS. it is difficult\nto explain.(46)\n\nThat the wonderful efficacy here attributed to the water of this pond was\nmiraculous, and not merely, as the Rationalists would have us believe, the\neffect of salubrious natural properties in the water, seems clear. For\u2014(1)\nthere is the intervention of an angel which disturbed (\u1f10\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5) the\nwater; (2) only the first person entering the pond was cured; (3) he was\ncured not gradually, but at once, and completely: \u201che was immediately made\nwhole;\u201d (4) he was cured no matter what his disease. When the Rationalists\nfind for us an intermittent spring whose waters possess the properties\nhere attributed to Bethesda, we shall be prepared to listen to them.\n\nThe waters of Bethesda, in their wonderful efficacy to cure every disease,\nwere a striking though imperfect type of the waters of Penance, which heal\nevery spiritual malady of everyone, be he first or last who bathes in\nthem.\n\n5. Erat autem quidam homo ibi    5. And there was a certain man\ntriginta et octo annos habens    there, that had been eight and\nin infirmitate sua.              thirty years under his\n                                 infirmity.\n6. Hunc cum vidisset Iesus       6. Him when Jesus had seen\niacentem, et cognovisset quia    lying, and knew that he had\niam multum tempus haberet,       been now a long time, he saith\ndicit ei: Vis sanus fieri?       to him: Wilt thou be made\n                                 whole?\n7. Respondit ei languidus:       7. The infirm man answered\nDomini, hominem non habeo, ut,   him: Sir, I have no man, when\ncum turbata fuerit aqua,         the water is troubled, to put\nmittat me in piscinam: dum       me into the pond. For whilst I\nvenio enim ego, alius ante me    am coming, another goeth down\ndescendit.                       before me.\n8. Dicit ei Iesus: Surge,        8. Jesus saith to him: Arise,\ntolle grabatum tuum, et          take up thy bed, and walk.\nambula.\n9. Et statim sanus factus est    9. And immediately the man was\nhomo ille: et sustulit           made whole: and he took up his\ngrabatum suum, et ambulabat.     bed and walked. And it was the\nErat autem sabbatum in die       sabbath that day.\nillo.\n\n5\u20109. Christ speaks with and heals a man who had been thirty\u2010eight years\nill (of paralysis or some similar disease, as would appear from verses\n7\u20108); and, to show how complete the cure was, perhaps also to give an\noccasion for the discourse which follows, He orders the man who has been\ncured to take up his bed and walk. It would be a rather severe trial of\nrecovered strength to have to carry some of the beds of modern times; but\nthat on which the poor paralytic had been resting was not cumbrous. It was\nprobably only a carpet or mattress, or at most there was but a very light\nframework. In Acts v. 15, we find the term used in our text distinguished\nfrom \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b7, which was rather the bed of the rich, more expensive and\ncumbrous.\n\n10. Dicebant ergo Iudaei illi    10. The Jews therefore said to\nqui sanatus fuerat: Sabbatum     him that was healed: It is the\nest, non licet tibi tollere      sabbath, it is not lawful for\ngrabatum tuum.                   thee to take up thy bed.\n\n10. *It is not lawful.* See Exod. xx. 8; Jer. xvii. 21, 22.\n\n11. Respondit eis: Qui me        11. He answered them: He that\nsanum fecit, ille mihi dixit:    made me whole, he said to me:\nTolle grabatum tuum, et          Take up my bed, and walk.\nambula.\n\n11. The man appeals to the authority of Him who had cured him, who surely\nmust be from God, and able to dispense in the Sabbath law.\n\n12. Interrogaverunt ergo eum:    12. They asked him, therefore:\nQuis est ille homo qui dixit     Who is that man who said to\ntibi, Tolle grabatum tuum, et    thee: Take up thy bed and\nambula?                          walk?\n13. Is autem qui sanus fuerat    13. But he who was healed,\neffectus, nesciebat quis         knew not who it was. For Jesus\nesset. Iesus enim declinavit a   went aside from the multitude\nturba constituta in loco.        standing in the place.\n\n13. Christ had gone aside to escape the envy of the evil\u2010minded as well as\nthe admiration of the well\u2010disposed. See vi. 15. A more correct rendering\nof the Greek would be: *For Jesus had gone aside, there being a crowd in\nthe place.*\n\n14. Postea invenit eum Iesus     14. Afterwards Jesus findeth\nin templo, et dixit illi: Ecce   him in the temple, and saith\nsanus factus es: iam noli        to him: Behold thou art made\npeccare, ne deterius tibi        whole: sin no more, lest some\naliquid contingat.               worse thing happen to thee.\n15. Abiit ille homo, et          15. And the man went his way,\nnuntiavit Iudaeis quia Iesus     and told the Jews that it was\nesset, quia fecit eum sanum.     Jesus who had made him whole.\n\n14. Christ\u2019s words, *Sin no more*, insinuate that the man\u2019s previous\nillness had been the result of sin; and he is warned that if he provoke\nGod further, something worse may happen to him; worse, perhaps, even on\nthis side, and infinitely worse beyond, the grave. \u201cSome say, indeed,\u201d\nsays St. Chrys., \u201cbecause we have corrupted ourselves for a short time,\nshall we be tormented eternally? But see how long this man was tormented\nfor his sins. Sin is not to be measured by length of time, but by the\nnature of sin itself.\u201d\n\n16. Propterea persequebantur     16. Therefore did the Jews\nIudaei Iesum, quia haec          persecute Jesus, because he\nfaciebat in sabbato.             did these things on the\n                                 sabbath.\n\n16. Therefore the Jews, especially the Scribes and Pharisees, persecuted,\nor rather, perhaps, accused(47) Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath\n(comp. vii. 23; Luke vi. 7), and for authorizing him who was healed to\nviolate the Sabbath.\n\n17. Iesus autem respondit eis:   17. But Jesus answered them:\nPater meus usque modo            My Father worketh until now;\noperatur, et ego operor.         and I work.\n\n17. Christ\u2019s reply is, that as _His_ (not _our_, for He was the natural\nSon of God, we are only adopted sons) Father worketh continually, and\ntherefore even on the Sabbath, conserving and governing all things; so,\ntoo, He Himself, He being consubstantial with the Father. Thus He tells\nthem that equally with the Father He is exempt from the law of the\nSabbath.\n\n18. Propterea ergo magis         18. Hereupon therefore the\nquaerebant eum Iudaei            Jews sought the more to kill\ninterficere, quia non solum      him, because he did not only\nsolvebat sabbatum, sed et        break the sabbath, but also\npatrem suum dicebat Deum,        said God was his Father,\naequalem se faciens Deo.         making himself equal to God.\nRespondit itaque Iesus, et\ndixit eis:\n\n18. They understand Him, so far at least as to see that He makes Himself\nequal to God; and as they now consider Him to be not merely a Sabbath\u2010\nbreaker, but also a blasphemer, they become more exasperated, and seek to\nkill Him. See Deut. xiii. 5.\n\n19. Amen, amen dico vobis: non   19. Then Jesus answered and\npotest Filius a se facere        said to them: Amen, amen, I\nquidquam, nisi quod viderit      say unto you: the Son cannot\nPatrem facientem: quaecumque     do anything of himself, but\nenim ille fecerit, haec et       what he seeth the Father\nFilius similter facit.           doing: for what things soever\n                                 he doth, these the Son also\n                                 doth in like manner.\n\n19. The remainder of the chapter is taken up with Christ\u2019s discourse, in\nwhich He asserts His Divinity, and proves it by various arguments. (1) By\nHis own testimony (19\u201030), which the Jews might be excused for rejecting,\nwere it alone and unsupported (31); (2) by the testimony of the Baptist\n(32\u201035); (3) by the testimony of His miracles (36); (4) by the testimony\nof His Father which is contained in the Sacred Scriptures (37\u201039).\n\nThe Jews had understood Him to make Himself equal to God, and He goes on\nnot to withdraw, but to reiterate and expand what He had said. He declares\nHis operation as God to be identical with that of the Father; in a word,\nHis works to be the works of God. He had received, in His eternal\ngeneration, His Divine nature and operation identical with the Father\u2019s,\nand as God He does nothing except what the Father does, and the Father\ndoes nothing except what He does. This inability to work of Himself, that\nis to say, alone, without the Father (_a seipso_), proceeds not from any\ndefect of power, but from His inseparable union with the Father in nature\nand operation. The Son\u2019s \u201cseeing,\u201d and the Father\u2019s \u201cshowing\u201d (v. 20), are\nboth metaphorical expressions, and signify that the Son derives His divine\nnature and operation from the Father.(48) The Arians appealed to this\nverse to prove the inferiority of the Son to the Father, because, they\nsaid, Christ here declares Himself merely an imitator of the works of the\nFather, just as a pupil or apprentice imitates his master. But Christ\u2019s\nwords, \u201cI and the Father are one\u201d (x. 30), show that there can be no\nquestion here of inferiority; and, moreover, since _all_ things were made\nby the Son (i. 3), it was impossible for Him to copy from anything made\nbeforehand.\n\n*But what he seeth* (\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9) *the Father doing*. \u201cBut what,\u201d that is, not\nby Himself, _but_ together with the Father, \u201cnisi\u201d of the Vulgate being\nhere equal to \u201csed.\u201d See Matt. xii. 4; Gal. ii. 16.\n\n*For what things soever He doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.*\nSt. Thomas on this verse says:\u2014\u201cExcludit in his tria circa potestatem\nsuam: scilicet particularitatem (_quaecumque_), diversitatem (_haec_), et\nimperfectionem (_similiter_).\u201d And St. Augustine on this verse says\nbeautifully: \u201cHe does not say whatsoever the Father doeth, the Son does\n_other_ things like them, but the very same things. The Father made the\nworld, the Son made the world, the Holy Ghost made the world. If the\nFather, Son and Holy Ghost, are one, it follows that one and the same\nworld was made by the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost. Thus it\nis the very same thing that the Son doth. He adds _likewise_, to prevent\nanother error arising. For the body seems to do the same things with the\nmind, but it does not do them in a like way, inasmuch as the body is\nsubject, the soul governing; the body visible, the soul invisible. When a\nslave does a thing at the command of his master, the same thing is done by\nboth; but is it in a like way? Now in the Father and Son there is not this\ndifference; they do the same things, and in a like way. Father and Son act\nwith the same power; so that the Son is equal to the Father.\u201d Since then\nthe works of the Son as God are the works of the Father, if they blamed\nthe Son for violating the Sabbath, they thereby blamed the Father also.\nAnd it is of the Son _as God_ there is question here; for as man, or as\nGod\u2010man He could do many things \u201cof Himself,\u201d such as eating, walking on\nthe waters, &c., which, of course, the Father never did; and, moreover, it\nwould not be true to say that the Son as man does all that the Father\ndoes.\n\n20. Pater enim diligit Filium,   20. For the Father loveth the\net omnia demonstrat ei quae      Son, and showeth him all\nipse facit: et maiora his        things which himself doth: and\ndemonstrabit ei opera, ut vos    greater works than these will\nmiremini.                        he show him, that you may\n                                 wonder.\n\n20. Here is given the reason for the Son\u2019s identity of operation with the\nFather. *For the Father loveth the Son*, and from all eternity\ncommunicateth to Him the one Divine power and operation, whereby He\nHimself doth all things; and that Divine power shall yet be _manifested_\nby the Son in greater works than the healing of the paralytic, that you\nmay wonder.\n\nWe are not to conclude from this verse that the love of the Father is the\ncause of the communication of the Divine nature to the Son, as if the Son\nproceeded from the Father through love, and therefore through the Will.\nThe common teaching of theologians is that the Son proceeds not through\nthe Divine will, but through the Divine intellect. See Perr. De. Trin., \u00a7\n401. Hence the meaning is not, that the Father loves the Son, and\n_therefore_ communicates His Divine nature to Him. Toletus, however,\nthinks that this form of expression is purposely used here by Christ to\nshow men that the Father shares His nature and power with the Son, since\namong men, those who love share their goods with each other.(49)\n\nAs already indicated, the future, \u201cwill show,\u201d is used in this verse in\nreference to the _manifestation_ in time of that power which was given\nfrom eternity. *That you may wonder.* Some take \u201cthat\u201d (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1) here as\nintroducing a consequence; others, and rightly, in its usual sense as\nintroducing a purpose. The purpose of God was that they might wonder and\nbelieve.\n\n21. Sicut enim Pater suscitat    21. For as the Father raiseth\nmortuos, et vivificat: sic et    up the dead, and giveth life:\nFilius, quos vult, vivificat.    so the Son also giveth life to\n                                 whom he will.\n\n21. The connection here shows that the raising of the dead is one of the\n\u201cgreater works\u201d just referred to, as is also the judgment by Christ\nmentioned in the next verse. But who are the dead, and what is the\nresurrection of which there is question?\n\n(_a_) Those who were _corporally_ dead like Lazarus, and were raised by\nChrist, to the wonder of the Jews.(50) For\u2014(1) This view suits the\ncontext. Christ had cured a paralytic; He now promises greater miracles;\nhitherto he had only healed bodies that were sick; now He would raise to\nlife bodies that were dead. (2) In verse 28 there is certainly question of\na corporal resurrection; therefore also here. (3) This raising of the dead\nwas to excite the wonder of the Jews; therefore there must be question of\nthe raising of the body, since a spiritual resurrection could not be\nknown, and hence could not be a matter of wonder.\n\n(_b_) Those _spiritually_ dead, who were to be raised through the\npreaching of Christ and His Apostles from the death of sin to the life of\ngrace. For\u2014(1) It is more probable that there is question of spiritual\ndeath and resurrection in verse 24; therefore also in verse 21. (2) The\nwords \u201cAnd now is\u201d of verse 25 point to a resurrection then present,\ntherefore to a _spiritual_. (3) This view suits the context. The spiritual\nresurrection brought about by Christ, though in itself invisible, produced\nin the world effects _more wonderful_ than the curing of the paralytic,\nand it is as a proof that Christ can raise those spiritually dead, that He\nrefers in verse 28 to the fact that He will raise those corporally dead.\n\nWe prefer the latter view; but whichever view we may hold, we must bear in\nmind that the sense is not that the Father raises some, and the Son\nothers, from the dead. As God, Christ\u2019s will is _identical_ with the\nFather\u2019s, and what one does the other does. Christ then is here said to\nraise \u201cwhom He will\u201d in order to show us His absolute equality with the\nFather.\n\n22. Neque enim Pater iudicat     22. For neither doth the\nquemquam: sed omne iudicium      Father judge any man: but hath\ndedit Filio.                     given all judgment to the Son.\n\n22. Another greater work than the curing of the paralytic is the judging\nof men. Some think it is the judgment of discussion, the trial which\nawaits all (Heb. ix. 27), that is referred to; others that (as in verses\n24, 29, and iii. 19) it is the judgment of condemnation passed upon the\nreprobate, the Greek word which is used being generally (if not always)\nused by St. John of the judgment of condemnation. When it is said here\nthat *neither doth the Father judge any man*, the meaning is that although\nthe Father and the Holy Ghost pass the same identical judgment as the Son,\nyet they do not do this _visibly_, so as to be seen and heard like the\nGod\u2010man Jesus Christ. This is particularly true in regard to the judgment\nof the wicked; Christ alone, in His humanity, appears to them; for as St.\nAugustine says: \u201cSi mali Deum in propria natura viderent jam essent\nbeati.\u201d The Father gave all power to judge to Christ as God in the eternal\ngeneration, to Christ as man at the incarnation; and it is as God and man\nthat Christ judges: as God authoritatively, and as man visibly.(51)\n\n23. Ut omnes honorificent        23. That all men may honour\nFilium, sicut honorificant       the Son, as they honour the\nPatrem; qui non honorificat      Father. He who honoureth not\nFilium, non honorificat Patrem   the Son, honoureth not the\nqui misit illum.                 Father who hath sent him.\n\n23. Here is declared the end that God had in view in conferring the\nsupreme judiciary power upon the Son, namely, that men might honour Him\n_equally_ with the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not\nthe Father who sent Him in the Incarnation equal in all things to Himself.\nIn dishonouring Jesus Christ, the Jews were dishonouring that Divine\nnature and majesty which is one with the Father\u2019s, and they were,\nmoreover, spurning the testimony which the Father had already given to the\nDivinity of His Son, as well after Christ\u2019s baptism (Matt. iii. 17), as in\nthe miracles which He had given Christ to perform (verse 36).\n\n24. Amen, amen dico vobis,       24. Amen, amen, I say unto\nquia qui verbum meum audit, et   you, that he who heareth my\ncredit ei qui misit me, habet    word, and believeth him that\nvitam aeternam, et in iudicium   sent me, hath life\nnon venit, sed transiit a        everlasting; and cometh not\nmorte in vitam.                  into judgment but is passed\n                                 from death to life.\n\n24. We believe the connection with the preceding to be this. In speaking\nof the end God had in view in conferring the supreme judiciary power upon\nthe God\u2010man, our Lord had noted parenthetically the effect of not\nhonouring the Son (verse 23); here He adds what the effect of honouring\nHim is.\n\n*Amen, amen.* The repeated asseveration indicates the solemn importance of\nthe declaration about to be made, namely, that he who accepts the teaching\nof Christ, and thereby the testimony of the Father testifying to Christ as\nHis Son, has eternal life. We take \u201cdeath\u201d and \u201clife\u201d of this verse of the\ndeath of sin and the life of grace, and understand \u201chas passed\u201d in\nreference to the justification of the sinner. See 1 John iii. 14, and what\nwe have said on i. 13.\n\n25. Amen, amen dico vobis,       25. Amen, amen, I say unto\nquia venit hora, et nunc est,    you, that the hour cometh and\nquando mortui audient vocem      now is, when the dead shall\nFilii Dei: et qui audierint,     hear the voice of the Son of\nvivent.                          God, and they that hear shall\n                                 live.\n\n25. Having stated parenthetically the effect of dishonouring and honouring\nHimself, Christ returns to the proof of His divine power. There is the\nsame difference of opinion here regarding the life and death meant, as in\nverse 21.\n\nThe words, *And now is*, favour the view that there is question of a\nspiritual resurrection that had already begun.\n\n*And they that hear, shall live.* These words, too, suggest that there is\nquestion of a spiritual resurrection, a resurrection in which all those\nthat hear and believe are to share.\n\n26. Sicut enim Pater habet       26. For as the Father hath\nvitam in semetipso: sic dedit    life in himself; so he hath\net Filio habere vitam in         given to the Son also to have\nsemetipso:                       life in himself:\n\n26. For the Son is essential Life like the Father, and being in Himself\nthe source of life can therefore impart it to others.\n\n27. Et potestatem dedit ei       27. And he hath given him\niudicium facere, quia Filius     power to do judgment, because\nhominis est.                     he is the son of man.\n\n27. The meaning is, that as it was ordained from all eternity, that the\nSecond Person of the Blessed Trinity should become man, so it was ordained\nthat He, as God\u2010man should judge all men without exception in the general\njudgment, and all who die after the incarnation, in the particular\njudgment.\n\n28. Nolite mirari hoc, quia      28. Wonder not at this, for\nvenit hora in qua omnes qui in   the hour cometh wherein all\nmonumentis sunt, audient vocem   that are in the graves shall\nFilii Dei:                       hear the voice of the Son of\n                                 God.\n\n28. *This* at which they are not to wonder, is His power of raising the\ndead, _i.e._, the few whom He raised corporally during His public life,\nor, as we prefer, the many whom He raised spiritually; and His power of\njudging.\n\n*For the hour cometh wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the\nvoice of the Son of God.* It is admitted by all that the reference in\nthese words is to the general resurrection, and the Jews are told not to\nbe surprised at the spiritual resurrection, inasmuch as the resurrection\nof all flesh shall come to pass at the word of the same Son of God. The\nwords of this verse imply that the spiritual resurrection excites less\nwonder than the corporal; and this indeed is true, for though the\nspiritual resurrection is, in fact, the greater miracle, and in itself\nmore wonderful, yet it is not sensible, and cannot excite our wonder so\nmuch as the raising of even one dead body to life.\n\n29. Et procedent qui bona        29. And they that have done\nfecerunt, in resurrectionem      good things, shall come forth\nvitae: qui vero mala egerunt,    unto the resurrection of life;\nin resurrectionem iudicii.       but they that have done evil,\n                                 unto the resurrection of\n                                 judgment.\n\n29. This verse affords a clear proof that we are not justified by faith\nalone, but that according to our works we shall be rewarded or condemned.\n\n30. Non possum ego a meipso      30. I cannot of myself do\nfacere quidquam. Sicut audio,    anything. As I hear, so I\niudico: et iudicium meum         judge: and my judgment is\niustum est, quia non quaero      just: because I seek not my\nvoluntatem meam, sed             own will, but the will of him\nvoluntatem eius qui misit me.    that sent me.\n\n30. What Christ said in verse 19 of every operation of His, He now repeats\nand applies in particular to this judgment. Since He judges as God\u2010man,\nthe words \u201cAs I hear,\u201d probably refer both to His Divine nature, which,\nlike His judgment was identical with that of the Father, and to His human\nnature, in which, on account of the plenitude of grace within Him, He can\nthink or will nothing contrary to the Father.(52)\n\n31. Si ego testimonium           31. If I bear witness of\nperhibeo de meipso,              myself, my witness is not\ntestimonium meum non est         true.\nverum.\n\n31. From verse 19 Christ has borne witness to Himself, to His Divine power\nand equality with the Father, and now He says that if He were _alone_ in\nbearing such witness of Himself, His witness would not be such as men\nwould be bound to receive. Of course, even though a man were alone and\nunsupported in testifying regarding himself, still it is plain his witness\n_might be true_; but it would not be trustworthy, such as ought to be\nreceived, because it _might be false_, and would be reasonably suspected.\nNo doubt, Christ\u2019s testimony of Himself though unsupported would be more\nthan enough to those who believed in His Divinity; but He is here\naddressing those who had no such belief. Comp. viii. 14\u201016.\n\n32. Alius est qui testimonium    32. There is another that\nperhibet de me: et scio quia     beareth witness of me: and I\nverum est testimonium quod       know that the witness which he\nperhibet de me.                  witnesseth of me is true.\n\n32. Christ\u2019s witness of Himself is supported by that of the _Father_ (some\nthink, by that of the Baptist), to which He can confidently appeal. But\nbefore mentioning how the Father\u2019s testimony is given, He turns aside for\na moment to appeal to the Baptist\u2019s testimony.\n\n33. Vos misistis ad Ioannem:     33. You sent to John; and he\net testimonium perhibuit         gave testimony to the truth.\nveritati.\n34. Ego autem non ab homine      34. But I receive not\ntestimonium accipio: sed haec    testimony from man: but I say\ndico ut vos salvi sitis.         these things that you may be\n                                 saved.\n\n34. He now tells them that He has invoked the testimony of the Baptist,\nnot that He needs any testimony of men, but in the hope that they, who had\nregarded the Baptist as a prophet, might perchance accept his testimony to\nChrist.\n\n35. Ille erat lucerna ardens,    35. He was a burning and a\net lucens: Vos autem voluistis   shining light. And you were\nad horam exultare in luce        willing for a time to rejoice\neius.                            in his light.\n\n35. The Greek is: _He was the lamp that burneth and shineth_. From the use\nof the word _was_ here, it is fairly concluded that the Baptist had been\nalready put to death by Herod Antipas (Mark vi. 17\u201028). The Baptist was a\nbright _lamp_ \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 of truth, but not _the light_ (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 i. 8, 9), which\nwas Christ Himself.\n\n36. Ego autem habeo              36. But I have a greater\ntestimonium maius Ioanne.        testimony than that of John.\nOpera enim quae dedit mihi       For the works which the Father\nPater ut perficiam ea, ipsa      hath given me to perfect: the\nopera quae ego facio,            works themselves, which I do,\ntestimonium perhibent de me,     give testimony of me, that the\nquia Pater misit me:             Father hath sent me.\n\n36. A third testimony is now invoked in the miracles which the Father gave\nChrist to perform. See x. 37, 38, and what was said above on iii. 2.\n\n37. Et qui misit me Pater,       37. And the Father himself who\nipse testimonium perhibuit de    hath sent me, hath given\nme: neque vocem eius unquam      testimony of me: neither have\naudistis, neque speciem eius     you heard his voice at any\nvidistis:                        time, nor seen his shape.\n38. Et verbum eius non habetis   38. And you have not his word\nin vobis manens: quia quem       abiding in you: for whom he\nmisit ille, huic vos non         hath sent, him you believe\ncreditis.                        not.\n\n37, 38. Besides the indirect testimony of the Father through Christ\u2019s\nmiracles, another testimony of His is now appealed to. Some understand\nthis of the testimony of the Father on the occasion of Christ\u2019s baptism,\n(Matt. iii. 17). So Chrys., A Lap., M\u2019Ev. But if there were reference to\nthat past and definite occasion, the Greek aorist, not the perfect, would\nbe used. Others, as Mald., connect this verse closely with the preceding,\nand hold the reference is still to the Father\u2019s testimony given through\nChrist\u2019s miracles. But the form of words: \u201cAnd the Father Himself, who\nhath sent Me, hath given testimony of Me,\u201d seems to add another distinct\ntestimony to those already mentioned. Others, therefore, hold that the\nreference is to the Father\u2019s testimony conveyed through the oracles of the\nprophets. So St. Cyril, Theoph., Euthy., Kuin., Corl.; and this opinion\nseems to be the correct one.\n\nAbout the meaning and connection of the words which follow in this verse\nand the next, there is a great variety of view.\n\n(1) Some thus: But you have never listened to His voice speaking to you\nthrough the Sacred Scriptures, nor recognised Him as speaking in them, nor\ndo you believe in His inspired word; and the reason of this is, because\nyou do not believe in Me whom He has sent. (Patriz.)\n\n(2) Others thus: But though the Father has testified of Me, \u201cneither have\nyou heard His voice ... abiding in you;\u201d _i.e._, you have been excluded\nfrom familiarity with Him, and from belief in His testimony, because you\nrefuse to believe in Me. (Hengstenberg.)\n\n(3) Others take the words to refer to the covenant entered into by God\nwith the Jews (Deut. xviii. 15\u201019), that He should terrify them no more by\nHis awful presence, as when He gave the law on Sinai (Exod. xx. 19\u201021),\nbut should speak to them through a prophet. Hence Christ\u2019s words signify:\nThe Father has borne testimony of Me, nor has He broken His word to you,\nthat you should hear and see no more the terrifying sounds and sights of\nSinai; and yet you refuse to keep your part of the compact (\u201cyou have not\nHis word abiding in you\u201d), inasmuch as you refuse to believe in Me, the\nProphet whom He promised. (Tolet., Beel.)\n\n(4) Others again thus: The Father has borne unquestionable testimony of\nMe, though not, I admit, in such a manner as that He could be seen, or His\nvoice heard by you. But that testimony you accept not (you have not His\nword abiding in you), as is plain from the fact that you refuse to believe\nin Me. See the note to A Lap., in Migne\u2019s Ed., which agrees with Kuinoel.\n\nWhatever view be adopted, we understand the testimony referred to in verse\n37, to be that which is explicitly mentioned in verse 39; viz., the\ntestimony of God given through the Scriptures in the writings of Moses and\nthe prophets.(53)\n\n39. Scrutamini scripturas,       39. Search the scriptures, for\nquia vos putatis in ipsis        you think in them to have life\nvitam aeternam habere: et        everlasting; and the same are\nillae sunt, quae testimonium     they that give testimony of\nperhibent de me:                 me:\n\n39. Here our Lord distinctly mentions the testimony to which He had\nalready alluded (verse 37). *Search the Scriptures*, or rather, *Ye search\nthe Scriptures*. In both the Greek and Latin texts the form of the verb\nleaves it doubtful whether it is to be understood as an indicative or an\nimperative. But the context, in which all the verbs are in the indicative,\nand the course of the argument, render it much more probable that the form\nis to be understood as an indicative. So, too, all the best modern\ncommentators, even among the Protestants; _e.g._, Kuin., Alf., Bloomf.,\nWestc., and the Revised Version, which renders: \u201cYe search the\nScriptures.\u201d\n\nIt is unnecessary then to delay long in refuting the argument which used\nto be drawn by Protestants from this text in favour of the\n_indiscriminate_ reading of the Bible by all the faithful. A few words\nwill suffice. (1) It is much more probable that the words do not contain a\nprecept, but merely state a fact. (2) Even if they did contain a precept,\nthey are addressed very probably only to the Jewish _teachers_ (see verse\n44). (3) Even if we admitted that the words contain a precept, and are\naddressed to all the Jews, still it would not follow that all the faithful\nnow are bound to read the Bible, nor that the Church may not sometimes,\nfor grave reasons restrict the liberty to read it. For we must bear in\nmind that our Lord is here referring to the Sacred Scriptures in\nconnection with one particular point, namely, the fulfilment of prophecy\nin Himself. Even if the Jews were authorized or commanded to read the\nSacred Scriptures in regard to a particular question, it by no means\nfollows that Protestants are commanded or even authorized to read them in\norder to form by the aid of private judgment an opinion on all questions\nof faith and morals.\n\nThe Catholic Church freely admits, of course, and insists that the reading\nof the Bible is in itself good and useful; but since the Bible contains\n\u201ccertain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable\nwrest ... to their own destruction\u201d (2 Pet. iii. 16), hence she knows it\nis possible that, like all God\u2019s best gifts, the Bible may in certain\ncircumstances be abused.\n\n40. Et non vultis venire ad me   40. And you will not come to\nut vitam habeatis.               me that you may have life.\n\n40. *And* is equivalent to \u201cand yet.\u201d\n\n41. Claritatem ab hominibus      41. I receive not glory from\nnon accipio.                     men.\n\n41. Not through a desire to gain glory from them has He borne the\npreceding testimony to Himself. This is said parenthetically, and the next\nverse is to be connected with verse 40.\n\n42. Sed cognovi vos, quia        42. But I know you, that you\ndilectionem Dei non habetis in   have not the love of God in\nvobis.                           you.\n\n42. *But I know you, that* &c. Their unbelief in Christ was due to the\nfact that they did not love God. Had they loved God, they would have\ncorresponded with grace, and recognised the Messias whom God had sent.\n\n43. Ego veni in nomine Patris    43. I am come in the name of\nmei, et non accipitis me: si     my Father, and you receive me\nalius venerit in nomine suo,     not: if another shall come in\nillum accipietis.                his own name, him you will\n                                 receive.\n\n43. The sense is: I am come in the name, and with the power of My Father\nmanifested in My works. If another come to you, and without giving any\nevidence that He is from God, say that he is the Messias, you will believe\nhim, and believe in him. We know that this actually happened. Many false\nChrists arose before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.); and obtained\na following among the people. A person named Barchochebas was the most\nsuccessful of those impostors.\n\n44. Quomodo vos potestis         44. How can you believe, who\ncredere, qui gloriam ab          receive glory one from\ninvicem accipitis: et gloriam,   another: and the glory which\nquae a solo Deo est, non         is from God alone, you do not\nquaeritis?                       seek?\n\n44. Another cause of their unbelief is their empty vanity which sought,\nand was satisfied with, the praise of men.\n\n45. Nolite putare quia ego       45. Think not that I will\naccusaturus sim vos apud         accuse you to the Father.\nPatrem: est qui accusat vos      There is one that accuseth\nMoyses, in quo vos speratis.     you, Moses, in whom you trust.\n\n45. It will not be necessary for Christ to accuse them before God, because\nMoses, their own great prophet, will accuse them.\n\n46. Si enim crederetis Moysi,    46. For if you did believe\ncrederetis forsitan et mihi:     Moses, you would perhaps\nde me enim ille scripsit.        believe me also. For he wrote\n                                 of me.\n\n46. *You would perhaps.* See above on iv. 10.\n\n47. Si autem illius litteris     47. But if you do not believe\nnon creditis, quomodo verbis     his writings: how will you\nmeis credetis?                   believe my words?\n\n47. This is said because Moses far surpassed Him in their estimation; and\nwith the telling thought, that their own Scriptures, even Moses himself,\npointed Him out as their Messias, this weighty discourse ends.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n\n    1\u201013. *Christ crosses with His disciples to the eastern shore of\n    the sea of Galilee, where He miraculously feeds a multitude with\n    five loaves and two fishes.*\n\n    14\u201015. *The multitude, moved by the miracle, wish to make Him\n    King, but He withdraws.*\n\n    16\u201021. *On the night of that same day, as the disciples are\n    crossing to the western side of the lake, a storm rises, and He\n    comes to them, walking upon the waters.*\n\n    22\u201025. *The following day the multitude also cross to the western\n    side of the lake, enter Capharnaum, and find Him there before\n    them.*\n\n    26\u201059. *Christ\u2019s discourse to the multitude, in which He promises\n    the Blessed Eucharist.*\n\n    60. *The place where the discourse was delivered.*\n\n    61\u201067. *Effect of the discourse\u2014murmuring of many of the\n    disciples; His explanation, and their departure from Him.*\n\n    68\u201070. *St. Peter\u2019s noble confession in reply to a question of\n    Christ.*\n\n    71\u201072. *Christ refers to the wickedness of one of the Apostles,\n    and the Evangelist states to whom He refers.*\n\n\n1. Post haec abiit Iesus trans   1. After these things, Jesus\nmare Galilaeae, quod est         went over the sea of Galilee,\nTiberiadis:                      which is that of Tiberias:\n\n1. The interval to be admitted between what is recorded in this chapter\nand in the preceding depends upon the view we adopt as to what feast is\nreferred to in the first verse of the preceding. If that was the Feast of\nPasch, almost a year has elapsed, for we are told here, in verse 4, that\nthe pasch is again at hand. If that was the Feast of Lots, and this the\nPasch following, then the interval to be admitted is much less, only a\nmonth. Those who, like us, admit the longer interval say that St. John\nhere passes over the events of that year, because they were already\nrelated by the Synoptic Evangelists.\n\nIn the last chapter we left Jesus at Jerusalem in Judea, the southern\nprovince of Palestine, and now, soon after the death of the Baptist (Matt.\nxiv. 3, Mark vi. 17, Luke iii. 20) and the return of the Apostles from\ntheir first mission (Mark vi. 30; Luke ix. 10), we find Him in the\nnorthern province, by the shores of the Sea of Galilee. This sea or lake\n(the Jews called every large body of water a sea), which lay to the east\nof the province of Galilee, was called also the Sea of Tiberias, because\nof the town built by Herod Antipas, on its western shore, and named after\nthe Roman Emperor Tiberius. It was also called sometimes the Lake of\nGennesareth, from the fertile plain of that name on its N.W. shore. It is\nalmost heart\u2010shaped, with the narrow end towards the south, and its extent\nat present is 12\u2010\u00bd miles from north to south, by 8 miles at its widest\npart east to west. (Smith\u2019s _B. D._, 2nd Ed.)\n\n2. Et sequebatur eum multitudo   2. And a great multitude\nmagna, quia videbant signa       followed him, because they saw\nquae faciebat super his qui      the miracles which he did on\ninfirmabantur.                   them that were diseased.\n\n2. Jesus, accompanied by His disciples, having crossed the lake, a great\nmultitude follows Him. Comparing the Synoptic Evangelists (Matt. xiv. 13,\nand foll.; Mark vi. 32, and foll.; Luke ix. 10, and foll.), we find that\nthe desert near Bethsaida (Julias) on the north\u2010eastern side of the lake\nwas the place to which Jesus repaired (Luke); that the multitude followed\nby land (\u03c0\u03ad\u03b6\u03b7 = on foot, Matt., Mark); that they arrived before Him\n(Mark), and that He taught them for a considerable time.\n\n3. Subiit ergo in montem         3. Jesus went therefore up\nIesus: et ibi sedebat cum        into a mountain, and there he\ndiscipulis suis.                 sat with his disciples.\n\n3. *Jesus therefore went up into a mountain* (Gr., _the_ mountain);\n_i.e._, the well\u2010known mountain range on that side of the lake. See too in\nverse 15.\n\n4. Erat autem proximum pascha,   4. Now the Pasch, the festival\ndies festus Iudaeorum.           day of the Jews, was near at\n                                 hand.\n\n4. In the view we follow this was the third Pasch of our Lord\u2019s public\nlife.\n\n5. Cum sublevasset ergo oculos   5. When Jesus therefore had\nIesus, et vidisset quia          lifted up his eyes, and seen\nmultitudo maxima venit ad eum,   that a very great multitude\ndixit ad Philippum: Unde         cometh to him, he said to\nememus panes, ut manducent hi?   Philip: Whence shall we buy\n                                 bread that these may eat?\n\n5. In the Synoptic Evangelists the disciples are represented as asking our\nLord to dismiss the multitude, that they may go and procure food. We may\nreconcile with St. John\u2019s account thus. They make a suggestion, as in the\nSynoptic Evangelists. He then turns to Philip, as in St. John.\n\n6. Hoc autem dicebat tentans     6. And this he said to try\neum: ipse enim sciebat quid      him: for he himself knew what\nesset facturus.                  he would do.\n\n6. *To try him.* \u201cOne kind of temptation leads to sin, with which God\nnever tempts anyone; and there is another kind by which faith is tried. In\nthis sense it is said that Christ proved His disciples. This is not meant\nto imply that He did not know what Philip would say, but is an\naccommodation to man\u2019s way of speaking. For as the expression: _Who\nsearcheth the hearts of men_, does not mean the searching of ignorance,\nbut of absolute knowledge; so here, when it is said that our Lord proved\nPhilip, we must understand that He knew him perfectly, but that He tried\nhim in order to confirm his faith. The Evangelist himself guards against\nthe mistake which this imperfect mode of speaking might occasion, by\nadding _For He Himself knew what He would do_\u201d (St. Aug.).\n\n7. Respondit ei Philippus:       7. Philip answered him: Two\nDucentorum denariorum panes      hundred pennyworth of bread is\nnon sufficiunt eis, ut           not sufficient for them, that\nunusquisque modicum quid         every one may take a little.\naccipiat.\n\n7. The denarius was a Roman silver coin, whose value differed at different\ntimes. From the year 217 B.C. till the reign of Augustus (30 B.C. to 14\nA.D.) it was worth 8\u2010\u00bd_d._; afterwards, and, therefore, in the time of\nChrist, it was worth about 7\u2010\u00bd_d._ See Smith\u2019s _Lat. Dict. Calendarium_,\nTables viii. and ix. Two hundred denarii, then would be equal to about \u00a36\n5_s._, and yet what bread this would purchase would not suffice to give\neven a little to each, so great was the multitude.\n\n8. Dicit ei unus ex discipulis   8. One of his disciples,\neius, Andreas frater Simonis     Andrew, the brother of Simon\nPetri.                           Peter, saith to him:\n9. Est puer unus hic, qui        9. There is a boy here that\nhabet quinque panes              hath five barley loaves and\nhordeaceos, et duos pisces:      two fishes: but what are these\nsed haec quid sunt inter         among so many?\ntantos?\n10. Dixit ergo Iesus: Facite     10. Then Jesus said: Make the\nhomines discumbere. Erat autem   men sit down. Now there was\nfoenum multum in loco.           much grass in the place. The\nDiscubuerunt ergo viri, numero   men therefore sat down in\nquasi quinque millia.            number about five thousand.\n\n10. Christ tells the disciples to bid the multitude be seated \u201con the\ngreen grass\u201d (Mark vi. 39); and about 5,000 men (\u201cnot reckoning women and\nchildren,\u201d Matt. xiv. 21) sat down in companies \u201cby hundreds and by\nfifties\u201d (Mark vi. 40).\n\n11. Accepit ergo Iesus panes:    11. And Jesus took the loaves:\net cum gratias egisset,          and when he had given thanks,\ndistribuit discumbentibus:       he distributed to them that\nsimiliter et ex piscibus         were set down. In like manner\nquantum volebant.                also of the fishes as much as\n                                 they would.\n\n11. Having returned thanks for all the benefits of God, and particularly\nfor that which He was now about to bestow, Christ took and blessed the\nloaves and fishes, and through His disciples distributed them to the\nmultitude (Matt., Mark, Luke). It is not said at what precise time the\nloaves were multiplied or enlarged, whether in the hands of Christ, or of\nthe disciples. It may be, as Mald. supposes, that the increase began in\nour Lord\u2019s hands, and continued as far as necessary during the\ndistribution by the disciples. That it at least began in our Lord\u2019s hands,\nwe think extremely probable, for thus He was more clearly shown to be the\nauthor of the miracle.\n\n12. Ut autem impleti sunt,       12. And when they were filled,\ndixit discipulis suis:           he said to his disciples:\nColligite quae superaverunt      Gather up the fragments that\nfragmenta, ne pereant.           remain, lest they be lost.\n\n12. The disciples are told to gather up the fragments\u2014(1) to teach us not\nto neglect the gifts of God; (2) that the fragments might serve as a proof\nand a memorial of the miracle which had been wrought.\n\n13. Collegerunt ergo, et         13. They gathered up\nimpleverunt duodecim cophinos    therefore, and filled twelve\nfragmentorum ex quinque          baskets with the fragments of\npanibus hordeaceis, quae         the five barley loaves, which\nsuperfuerunt his qui             remained over and above to\nmanducaverant.                   them that had eaten.\n\n13. \u201cObserve how the four Evangelists use the word \u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, _baskets_, in\nnarrating this miracle, thus distinguishing it from a like one recorded\nelsewhere by Matthew and Mark, in which there were seven loaves, and 4,000\nmen, and seven _panniers_ (\u03c3\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2) of fragments. It is difficult perhaps\nto point out distinctly how \u03c3\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c2 differed from \u03ba\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, but certain it\nis that they did differ, else they would never have been so nicely\ndiscriminated by the sacred writers in every instance\u201d (M\u2019Carthy: Gosp. of\nthe Sundays, fourth Sunday of Lent).(54)\n\n14. Illi ergo homines cum        14. Now these men, when they\nvidissent quod Iesus fecerat     had seen what a miracle Jesus\nsignum, dicebant: Quia hic est   had done, said: This is of a\nvere propheta, qui venturus      truth the prophet that is to\nest in mundum.                   come into the world.\n\n14. *The prophet*, the Messiah, for whom their fathers and they had\nyearned so long (Luke vii. 19).\n\n15. Iesus ergo cum               15. Jesus therefore when he\ncognovisset, quia venturi        knew that they would come to\nessent ut raperent eum, et       take him by force and make him\nfacerent eum regem, fugit        king, fled again into the\niterum in montem ipse solus.     mountain himself alone.\n\n15. Jesus, knowing their thoughts and intentions, withdrew to _the_\nmountain, where He had already been earlier in the day (verse 3). And He\nwithdrew all alone, a circumstance which makes it extremely probable that\nHe rendered Himself invisible, else some of the crowd would have followed.\n\nIt may seem strange at first sight, how differently Christ treats the\nJews, on their recognising Him as the Messias, from the way He treated the\nSamaritans in similar circumstances (iv. 42, 43). And yet His action in\nthe two cases is intelligible enough. The Jews looked for a Messias who\nwould improve their external condition, free them from subjection to any\nforeign power, and set them up as a powerful nation. But the Samaritans\ncould have, and had, no such hope from the advent of a Jewish Messias.\nWith the Jews, as we see in the present instance, the intention was to\ndeclare the Messias their King, and thus to throw off their allegiance to\nRome. The consequence, of course, would have been great political\nexcitement and rebellion, ending, doubtless, in the triumph of the Roman\narms. But no matter what the success of such a rebellion, it would have\nprejudiced the Roman world against the teachings of Christ, and rendered\nmore difficult the recognition of the spiritual character of Christ\u2019s\nkingdom.\n\n16. Ut autem sero factum est     16. And when evening was come,\ndescenderunt discipuli eius ad   his disciples went down to the\nmare.                            sea.\n17. Et cum ascendissent navim,   17. And when they had gone up\nvenerunt trans mare in           into a ship, they went over\nCapharnaum: et tenebrae iam      the sea to Capharnaum: and it\nfactae erant: et non venerat     was now dark, and Jesus was\nad eos Iesus.                    not come unto them.\n\n17. *They went over the sea.* Rather, *they were going*. From St. Matthew\nwe learn that Christ had told the disciples immediately after the miracle,\nto go before Him across the lake, whilst He dismissed the crowd. St. Mark\nadds that they were told to cross to Bethsaida; _i.e._, to the town of\nthis name, which was near Capharnaum. See above, i. 44. The direction of\nthe wind or some other motive may have induced them to go towards\nCapharnaum, as St. John here tells us they did.\n\n18. Mare autem, vento magno      18. And the sea arose by\nflante, exurgebat.               reason of a great wind that\n                                 blew.\n19. Cum remigassent ergo quasi   19. When they had rowed\nstadia viginti quinque aut       therefore about five and\ntriginta, vident Iesum           twenty or thirty furlongs,\nambulantem supra mare, et        they see Jesus walking upon\nproximum navi fieri, et          the sea, and drawing nigh to\ntimuerunt.                       the ship, and they were\n                                 afraid.\n\n19. The stadium, a Greek measure, was nearly equal to an English furlong,\nso that the distance here indicated was, at the least, almost three miles.\nThe exact length of the stadium was 625 feet, that of the English furlong\nis 660 feet.\n\n20. Ille autem dicit eis: Ego    20. But he saith to them: It\nsum, nolite timere.              is I: be not afraid.\n21. Voluerunt ergo accipere      21. They were willing\neum in navim: et statim navis    therefore to take him into the\nfuit ad terram, in quam ibant.   ship: and presently the ship\n                                 was at the land, to which they\n                                 were going.\n\n21. *They were willing therefore to take him into the ship.* \u1f24\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd here\nis equivalent to an adverb (Kuin.), and the sense is: \u201cThey gladly took\nHim into the ship\u201d (boat), as St. Mark indeed tells us they did (Mark vi.\n51). Or, if, with Winer, _Gr. Gram._, p. 586, it be admitted that \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\nnever has an adverbial force, except in the participle, then we would\nexplain that though at first afraid (verse 19), they were afterwards\nwilling to take Him into the ship, and took Him in.\n\n22. Altera die, turba quae       22. The next day, the\nstabat trans mare, vidit quia    multitude that stood on the\nnavicula alia non erat ibi       other side of the sea, saw\nnisi una, et quia non            that there was no other ship\nintroisset cum discipulis suis   there but one, and that Jesus\nIesus in navim, sed soli         had not entered into the ship\ndiscipuli eius abiissent:        with his disciples, but that\n                                 his disciples were gone away\n                                 alone.\n23. Aliae vero supervenerunt     23. But other ships came in\nnaves a Tiberiade, iuxta locum   from Tiberias, nigh unto the\nubi manducaverant panem,         place where they had eaten the\ngratias agente Domino.           bread, the Lord giving thanks.\n24. Cum ergo vidisset turba      24. When therefore the\nquia Iesus non esset ibi,        multitude saw that Jesus was\nneque discipuli eius,            not there, nor his disciples,\nascenderunt in naviculas, et     they took shipping, and came\nvenerunt Capharnaum quaerentes   to Capharnaum seeking for\nIesum.                           Jesus.\n\n22\u201024. On the following day, the crowd on the eastern shore seek for Jesus\n(verse 24), thinking Him to be still on that side of the lake, inasmuch as\nHe had not left by the only boat that was there on the preceding evening\n(verse 22). Not finding Him, they take boats which had just arrived on the\neastern shore, and cross to the western shore to seek Jesus in Capharnaum,\nwhere He usually abode at this time.\n\n25. Et cum invenissent eum       25. And when they had found\ntrans mare, dixerunt ei:         him on the other side of the\nRabbi, quando huc venisti?       sea, they said to him: Rabbi,\n                                 when camest thou hither?\n\n25. When they found Jesus, they asked Him when He had come to Capharnaum,\nbeing equally anxious, no doubt, to know _how_ He had come.\n\n26. Respondit eis Iesus, et      26. Jesus answered them and\ndixit: Amen, amen dico vobis:    said: Amen, amen, I say to\nquaeritis me, non quia           you, you seek me, not because\nvidistis signa, sed quia         you have seen miracles, but\nmanducastis ex panibus, et       because you did eat of the\nsaturati estis.                  loaves, and were filled.\n\n26. Without answering their question, our Lord takes occasion from the\nmiracle of the preceding day to raise their thoughts to a higher and more\nprecious bread than that which He had miraculously given them. But first\nHe tells them that they followed Him, not because they had realized the\nspiritual significance of His miracles, and believed Him to be God, but\nmerely, He implies, because they hoped for a gross material satisfaction,\nsuch as they had experienced the preceding day. The Greek word, rendered:\n_and were filled_, means literally; were satisfied with food, as animals\nwith fodder.\n\nHaving thus made known to them, that He knew their motive in following\nHim, He goes on to tell them to labour not, that is to say, not so much,\nfor the food that perisheth as for that which endureth unto eternal life.\nThis food enduring unto eternal life (verse 27) we understand to be the\nBlessed Eucharist.\n\nBut before giving our reasons for holding that reference to the Blessed\nEucharist begins here, and not merely at verses 48, 51, or 52, it is\ndesirable to indicate the Protestant interpretations of this discourse of\nour Lord, and prove that they are untenable.\n\nMost Protestants deny that there is any reference to the Blessed Eucharist\nin this chapter; they hold that it refers merely to the reception of\nChrist through faith; and through faith especially in the atoning efficacy\nof His passion and death. It is of this faith in His passion that they\ninterpret the words: \u201cExcept you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and\ndrink His blood, you shall not have life in you,\u201d (verse 54). Indeed they\nare logically constrained either to deny that there is reference here to\nthe sacrament of the Eucharist, or else to abandon their teaching\nregarding the nature and efficacy of the sacraments. On the one hand, if\nthey admit reference to the Eucharist, they see the difficulty of denying\nthe real and substantial presence of Christ in the sacrament; on the other\nhand, holding, as they do, that the few sacraments which they retain,(55)\nare not _causes_ of grace, as the Catholic Church teaches, but merely\nsigns or pledges of grace, and external notes of the Church, they find\nthemselves in direct conflict with our Lord, if His words are to be\nunderstood of the sacrament of the Eucharist. For again and again\nthroughout this discourse He attributes salvation and grace to the eating\nof His flesh and the drinking of His blood, in such a way as to leave no\nroom for doubt that whatever it is He speaks of, whether faith or the\nsacrament of the Eucharist, it is the cause of grace. See, _e.g._, 27, 52,\n55, 57, 59.\n\nBut besides those who deny that there is any reference to the Blessed\nEucharist in this chapter, there is a considerable number of Protestants\nwho take up even a more indefensible position. These admit the reference,\nbut contend that nothing more can be concluded from this or any other part\nof Scripture than that Christ is _spiritually_ present in the Sacrament.\nThey will not admit that Christ is really and substantially present, much\nless that the sacrament causes grace. Against the first class we shall\nshow that Christ refers, in this discourse, to the Blessed Eucharist; and\nagainst the second, that His words prove that He is really and\nsubstantially received in the sacrament.\n\nI. CHRIST REFERS IN THIS DISCOURSE TO THE BLESSED EUCHARIST.(56)\n\nWe may premise that no more appropriate occasion could have been chosen by\nChrist for promising this heavenly bread than the day following that on\nwhich He had multiplied the bread in the desert; and we know that it was\nChrist\u2019s practice to explain His doctrines as they were suggested by\ncircumstances. Thus, after curing the _centurion\u2019s_ servant, He foretells\nthe vocation of the _Gentiles_ (Matt. viii. 6\u201013); after expelling the\nunclean spirit, He describes the power of Satan (Matt. xii. 22\u201045); after\nasking for water, He speaks of the water of life to the Samaritan woman\n(John iv. 10, and foll.); after healing the paralytic, He predicts the\ngeneral resurrection (John v. 28); and after curing the man born blind, He\ndenounces the blindness of the Pharisees (John ix. 41). It was quite in\naccordance with Christ\u2019s practice, then, to predict the Blessed Eucharist\non the present occasion: and that He did so is proved by the following\narguments:\u2014\n\n(1) If St. John did not mean to record here a reference to the Blessed\nEucharist, then he does not mention that sacrament at all, for he does not\nallude, unless perhaps very obscurely (xiii. 1) to its institution. But it\nis very improbable that our Evangelist omits all mention of this sacrament\nin his Gospel. For if, as we shall prove, this sacrament contains the body\nand blood of Christ, there was a reason why St. John should mention it in\norder to confirm the faithful against the Docetae who denied the reality\nof Christ\u2019s human nature. Nor does it at all weaken this argument to say\nthat the Docetae who denied the reality of the body in which Christ had\nwalked and talked, would not be likely to be convinced by a reference to\nHis body present in the Eucharist. For St. John wrote, not to convert\nheretics, but to confirm against heresy Christians who believed in the\nreal presence.\n\n(2) Christ\u2019s words (27, 52) can refer only to the Eucharist. For He speaks\nof a food which was still to be given _in the future_, whereas His\n_doctrines_, and His _Person_ as the object of faith, had been given\nalready.\n\n(3) His words: \u201cAmen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of\nthe Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you\u201d\n(verse 54), could be understood only in a literal sense, and so\nunderstood, they must refer to the Blessed Eucharist. For, if Christ had\nspoken in a figurative sense, it should be in that figurative sense which\nwas known and recognised among the Jews. Now, the recognised figurative\nsense of eating a man\u2019s flesh was to do him some serious injury,\nespecially by calumny.(57) Such a figurative sense, however, would be\nabsurd here; and hence Christ must have been understood, and must have\nspoken, in the literal sense. See Wiseman\u2019s _Lect. on the Euch._, pp.\n77\u201091.\n\n(4) The disciples understood our Lord to speak of a real eating of His\nflesh and blood, such as takes place only in the Eucharist, and understood\nHim correctly. Their words (verse 61), and their departure for ever from\nHim (verse 67), show that they understood Him of a real eating; otherwise\nwhy should they be offended or desert Him? What had He said that was new,\nor hard to take in, if He merely spoke of the necessity of faith in\nHimself or His doctrines? Their action, then, shows in what sense the\ndisciples understood Him; and His action in permitting them to depart,\nshows they understood Him correctly.\n\n(5) The Jews understood Him of a real eating, which was quite different\nfrom belief in His doctrines or in Himself, and which has no meaning\nunless in reference to the Eucharist. \u201c_How_ can this man give us _His\nflesh_ to eat?\u201d they said (verse 53); and His solemn asseveration,\nnegatively (verse 54), and positively (verse 55), shows that He is\ninculcating the very truth which they had questioned, and which they were\nbound to accept on His testimony, even though they could not see _how_ it\nwas to come to pass.\n\nII. CHRIST SPEAKS OF A REAL, ORAL RECEPTION OF HIS BODY AND BLOOD, AND NOT\nMERELY OF A SPIRITUAL RECEPTION THROUGH FAITH EXCITED BY THE SACRAMENT.\n\n(1) The manna with which Christ compares the bread that He will give\n(verses 49, 50, 59) was really eaten; therefore, also the bread, which is\nHis flesh (verse 52), is to be _really_ received.\n\n(2) After the Jews had murmured, Christ declared His flesh to be _truly_\nmeat, and His blood to be _truly_ drink (verse 56), and therefore it must\nbe truly and really received.\n\n(3) In any sense other than the literal, Christ\u2019s meaning would be\nobscure, and His words misleading; and our Evangelist, according to his\nordinary practice (i. 41, 42; ii. 21; iv. 2; xii. 33), would explain. But\nhe does not explain; therefore the language is not obscure, and therefore\nthe literal sense was meant.\n\n(4) See arguments (3), (4), and (5) for the preceding proposition.\n\nAnd now, having satisfied ourselves that there is reference to the Blessed\nEucharist in this chapter, and to a real, oral reception of Christ in the\nsacrament, let us try to decide where that reference begins. Some (as\nWiseman, _Lect. on Euch._, p. 51, and foll.) say at verse 48; others, at\n51; and others, at 52. But it seems much more probable that the reference\nbegins before any of these points; and Wiseman is certainly mistaken when\nhe states, on page 48: \u201cThat Protestants and Catholics are equally agreed\nthat the discourse, as far as the 48th or 51st verse refers entirely to\nbelieving Christ. St. Cyril of Alex., Theophy., Toletus, Lucas of Bruges,\nhad held, before Wiseman\u2019s time, that the reference to the Blessed\nEucharist begins in verse 27\u201d; and since his time, Beelen, Perrone,\nCorluy, Franzelin,(58) and others have held the same.\n\nThe most probable view seems to be that from verse 27, wherever there is\nquestion of the bread (verses 27, 32, 33, 35, ... 59), the Blessed\nEucharist is meant. Christ began in verse 27 to promise the Blessed\nEucharist, but the Jews interrupted Him (verse 28), and their interruption\nraised the question of faith in Him, so that He digressed for a time from\nHis main purpose to explain the necessity of faith, in order to ensure a\nfruitful reception of the Eucharist. But though we admit this digression,\nwe hold that wherever Christ refers to the bread to be given, He means the\nBlessed Eucharist, and that the reference to it begins in verse 27. For\u2014\n\n(1) In verse 27 He speaks of a food that was still _to be given in the\nfuture_, just as in verse 52, where all Catholics admit there is question\nof the Eucharist.\n\n(2) This food was to be given by the Son of Man, Christ Himself; and\nthough in verse 32 the Father is said to give it, this is naturally\nexplained by saying that the Father gives us in the Incarnation what\nChrist gives in a sacramental form in the Eucharist.\n\n(3) The food in verse 27, is a food for which, as we shall see, faith is a\n_preparation_; therefore, not itself faith.\n\n(4) In verses 32, 33, there is question of a bread that cometh down from\nheaven, and giveth life to the world, and in verse 59, of a bread to which\nthe very same properties are attributed; and in both cases this heaven\u2010\ndescended, life\u2010giving bread is contrasted with the manna. Is it not\nnatural, then, to conclude, remembering that both passages belong to the\nsame discourse, that the same bread is meant in both instances?\n\nAnd now we have seen\u2014(1) that there is reference to the Blessed Eucharist\nin this discourse; (2) to a real reception of Christ in it; and (3) that\nthe reference most probably begins in verse 27. Having got so far, it will\nnot be very difficult to interpret the discourse, and to this we proceed\nat once.\n\n27. Operamini non cibum qui      27. Labour not for the meat\nperit, sed qui permanet in       which perisheth, but for that\nvitam aeternam, quem Filius      which endureth unto life\nhominis dabit vobis. Hunc enim   everlasting, which the son of\nPater signavit Deus.             man will give you. For him\n                                 hath God, the Father, sealed.\n\n27. *Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that ** which\nendureth unto life everlasting.* As our Version indicates, the meat is the\nobject for the attainment of which they are exhorted to do their part. The\nmeaning cannot be that they are to _make_ the food by believing, as if the\nfood were faith; for they had not _made_ the bread in the desert the\nprevious day, nor were they thinking of making it now, but they were\ntrying, _striving to obtain it_. This sacramental food will endure _in its\neffects_ unto eternal life. This food *the Son of Man will give*; _i.e._,\nChrist as man will give us His flesh; but since the food is to endure in\nits effects unto _eternal life_, mere man could not give such; and hence\nit is added that the Father who is God has sealed with the impress of\nDivinity (August., Tolet.) the Son of Man, who therefore, being God as\nwell as man, can give a food that will endure unto eternal life.\n\n28. Dixerunt ergo ad eum: Quid   28. They said therefore unto\nfaciemus ut operemur opera       him: What shall we do that we\nDei?                             may work the works of God?\n29. Respondit Iesus, et dixit    29. Jesus answered, and said\neis: Hoc est opus Dei, ut        to them: This is the work of\ncredatis in eum quem misit       God, that you believe in him\nille.                            whom he hath sent.\n\n28\u201029. Some of His hearers now interrupt Christ, not however to inquire\nwhat this food was, but to ask what they must do on their part in order to\nperform the works which they take it for granted _God requires_, before\nthey may receive such food. Christ\u2019s answer is, that in order to obtain\nit, so that it may remain unto eternal life, they must believe in Himself.\nSo too is it even now; the sinner may sacrilegiously receive the Lord into\nhis breast, but it is only for Him who believes (and acts accordingly)\nthat the Sacrament endureth unto eternal life.\n\n30. Dixerunt ergo ei: Quod       30. They said therefore to\nergo tu facis signum ut          him: What sign therefore dost\nvideamus, et credamus tibi?      thou show that we may see, and\nquid operaris!                   may believe thee? what dost\n                                 thou work?\n31. Patres nostri                31. Our fathers did eat manna\nmanducaverunt manna in           in the desert, as it is\ndeserto, sicut scriptum est:     written, _He gave them bread\nPanem de coelo dedit eis         from heaven to eat_.\nmanducare.\n\n30\u201031. Christ having declared the necessity of faith in Himself, they now\nask for motives of credibility, and point to the great standing miracle\nwrought for their fathers in the desert. But whereas He had demanded faith\nin Himself: \u201cThat you believe _in Him_ whom He hath sent\u201d (verse 29), they\nseem to miss the point, and speak not of believing in Him, but merely of\nbelieving Him, believing what He may have to say to them. They did not\nmention Moses, nor was the manna given by Moses; but our Lord\u2019s reply\nshows that the comparison between Himself and Moses was in their minds. It\nis as if they said: You call upon us to believe you on the strength of the\nmiracle wrought yesterday in the desert, whereas Moses fed our _whole\nrace_ for _forty_ years with a bread _from heaven_. These people who speak\nthus, are probably different persons from those who on the preceding day\nrecognised Christ as the Messias (verse 14).\n\n32. Dixit ergo eis Iesus:        32. Then Jesus said to them:\nAmen, amen dico vobis: Non       Amen, amen, I say to you:\nMoyses dedit vobis panem de      Moses gave you not bread from\ncoelo, sed Pater meus dat        heaven, but my Father giveth\nvobis panem de coelo verum.      you the true bread from\n                                 heaven.\n33. Panis enim Dei est qui de    33. For the bread of God is\ncoelo descendit, et dat vitam    that which cometh down from\nmundo.                           heaven, and giveth life to the\n                                 world.\n\n32\u201033. They had asked for some great miracle (comp. Matt. xii. 38), but\nsince they had already had sufficient evidence to enable them to believe,\nChrist does not gratify their desire, but proceeds to declare that it was\nnot Moses who gave the manna, but God (see Ps. lxxvii. 21\u201024); so that\ntheir tacit comparison of Moses with Himself is baseless. He then goes on\nto declare that His Father giveth them the true bread from heaven. This\nmeans, as we have already explained, that the Father gave us in the\nIncarnation what Christ gives us in the Eucharist, namely, the Person of\nthe God\u2010man. That it is true or perfect bread, He proves from the fact\nthat it comes, not like the manna from the clouds, but from heaven itself,\nand that it not merely _sustains_ the life of _one people_, but _gives_\nlife to the _world_.\n\n34. Dixerunt ergo ad eum:        34. They said therefore unto\nDomine, semper da nobis panem    him: Lord, give us always this\nhunc.                            bread.\n35. Dixit autem eis Iesus: Ego   35. And Jesus said to them: I\nsam panis vitae, qui venit ad    am the bread of life: he that\nme, non esuriet: et qui credit   cometh to me shall not hunger;\nin me, non sitiet unquam.        he that believeth in me, shall\n                                 never thirst.\n\n34, 35. They at once ask that He would give them this bread always. They\nevidently think that He speaks of some excellent food like the manna,\nwhich would support their corporal existence, and they desire to be\nconstantly supplied with it. But as they know not _what_ they ask, nor\n_how_ they should be disposed to receive it, He tells them\u2014(1) What the\nbread is, namely, Himself; and (2) what is required for a proper and\nfruitful reception of it, namely, faith in Himself. The words: *He that\ncometh to Me*, mean the same thing as: *He that believeth in Me*. The\nbeliever shall *never thirst*; because, if he act upon his belief, he will\nreceive Christ in the Eucharist, and be spiritually filled, never again to\nthirst, except through his own fault.\n\n36. Sed dixi vobis, quia et      36. But I said unto you, that\nvidistis me, et non creditis.    you also have seen me, and you\n                                 believe not.\n37. Omne quod dat mihi Pater,    37. All that the Father giveth\nad me veniet: et eum qui venit   me shall come to me; and him\nad me, non ejiciam foras:        that cometh to me, I will not\n                                 cast out.\n\n36, 37. Christ again, as in verse 26, reproves their want of faith, and\ndeclares that those who believe in Him, do so through the grace of the\nFather; and all such He receives and rejects not.\n\n38. Quia descendi de coelo,      38. Because I came down from\nnon ut faciam voluntatem meam    heaven, not to do my own will,\nsed voluntatem eius qui misit    but the will of him that sent\nme.                              me.\n39. Hac est autem voluntas       39. Now this is the will of\neius qui misit me, Patris: ut    the Father who sent me; that\nomne quod dedit mihi, non        of all that he hath given me,\nperdam ex eo, sed resuscitem     I should lose nothing, but\nillud in novissimo die.          should raise it up again in\n                                 the last day.\n40. Haec est autem voluntas      40. And this is the will of my\nPatris mei, qui misit me: ut     Father that sent me; that\nomnis qui videt Filium, et       every one who seeth the Son,\ncredit in eum, habeat vitam      and believeth in him, may have\naeternam, et ego resuscitabo     life everlasting, and I will\neum in novissimo die.            raise him up in the last day.\n\n38\u201040. He declares the reason why He does not reject such: because He came\ndown on earth to do His father\u2019s will; and that will is that all who\nrecognize in Him the Son of God and believe in Him as such (acting\naccording to that belief), should be raised up to a glorious life on the\nlast day.\n\n41. Murmurabant ergo Iudaei de   41. The Jews therefore\nillo, quia dixisset: Ego sum     murmured at him, because he\npanis vivus, qui de coelo        had said, I am the living\ndescendi.                        bread which came down from\n                                 heaven.\n42. Et dicebant: Nonne hic est   42. And they said: Is not this\nIesus filius Ioseph, cuius nos   Jesus the son of Joseph, whose\nnovimus patrem et matrem?        father and mother we know? How\nQuomodo ergo dicit hic: Quia     than saith he, I came down\nde coelo descendi?               from heaven?\n43. Respondit ergo Iesus, et     43. Jesus therefore answered\ndixit eis: Nolite murmurare in   and said to them: Murmur not\ninvicem:                         among yourselves.\n\n41\u201043. The Jews, by whom the Scribes and Pharisees perhaps are meant, now\nmurmur because He claims celestial origin, whereas they fancy they know\nHim to be an ordinary man, born in the ordinary way of an earthly father\nand mother. He merely reproves their murmuring without replying to their\ndifficulty, and proceeds to declare the necessity of grace.\n\n44. Nemo potest venire ad me,    44. No man can come to me,\nnisi Pater qui misit me          except the Father, who hath\ntraxerit eum: et ego             sent me, draw him, and I will\nresuscitabo eum in novissimo     raise him up in the last day.\ndie.\n\n44. No one can believe in Him, unless the Father draw him; _i.e._, by\npreventing and assisting grace. We have here a clear proof against the\nPelagians, for the necessity of grace in order to faith. It must be borne\nin mind that, though we are drawn by God, we are drawn by impulses of\ngrace which we are free to resist.(59)\n\n45. Est scriptum in prophetis:   45. It is written in the\nEt erunt omnes docibiles Dei.    prophets: _And they all shall\nOmnis qui audivit a Patre, et    be taught of God_. Every one\ndidicit, venit ad me.            that hath heard of the Father\n                                 and hath learned, cometh to\n                                 me.\n\n45. Christ declares _how_ we are drawn by the Father, namely, by an\nillumination of the intellect and motion of the will, so that we hear\n(\u201caudivit\u201d) and obey (\u201cdidicit\u201d). *It is written in the Prophets: And they\nshall all be taught of God.* The Jewish Scriptures were divided into the\nLaw, the Prophets, and the Hagiographers, and the reference here is to the\nportion written by the Prophets. The phrase: *They shall all be taught of\nGod*, which is found substantially in Isaias, liv. 13, implies direct\nDivine teaching through the influence of the Spirit upon the mind and\nheart, and indicates not merely one Divine communication, but an\nestablished relationship, for the faithful who allow themselves to be\ndrawn, are life\u2010long pupils in the school of God.\n\n46. Non quia Patrem vidit        46. Not that any man hath seen\nquisquam, nisi is qui est a      the Father, but he who is of\nDeo, hic vidit Patrem.           God, he hath seen the Father.\n\n46. *Not that any man hath seen the Father.* It is, says St. Augustine,\n\u201cas if He said: Do not when I tell you: Every man that hath heard and\nlearned of the Father, say to yourselves: We have never seen the Father,\nand how then can we have learned from Him? Hear Him then in Me, I know the\nFather, and am from Him.\u201d\n\n47. Amen, amen dico vobis: Qui   47. Amen, amen, I say unto\ncredit in me, habet vitam        you: He that believeth in me\naeternam.                        hath everlasting life.\n\n47. Having pointed out the necessity of faith (verse 29), its sufficiency\n(verse 35), and the necessary condition to it, namely, the grace of God\nand correspondence therewith (verses 44, 45), He now solemnly repeats what\nHe had declared in verses 35 and 37, that he who believes in Him shall\nhave eternal life. The present tense, *hath everlasting life*, need create\nno difficulty here: for he who believes will receive the Blessed\nEucharist, the food \u201cthat endureth unto everlasting life,\u201d (verse 57); and\nthe present tense is so used to indicate the certainty with which the\nresult will follow.\n\n48. Ego sum panis vitae.         48. I am the bread of life.\n49. Patres vestri                49. Your fathers did eat manna\nmanducaverunt manna in           in the desert, and are dead.\ndeserto, et mortui sunt.\n50. Hic est panis de coelo       50. This is the bread which\ndescendens: ut si quis ex ipso   cometh down from heaven: that\nmanducaverit, non moriatur.      if any man eat of it, he may\n                                 not die.\n51. Ego sum panis vivus, qui     51. I am the living bread,\nde coelo descendi.               which came down from heaven.\n\n48\u201051. Before quitting this portion of His discourse, and going on to\ndeclare _how_ He is the bread of life, Christ sums up what He has said,\nrepeating again the proposition laid down in verse 35: \u201cI am the bread of\nlife;\u201d again comparing and preferring the Blessed Eucharist to the manna\n(49, 50 compared with 32, 35); and combining in one the two propositions\ncontained in verses 35 and 38, namely, that He is the bread, and that He\ncame down from heaven. In verse 50 where it is declared that he who eats\nthis bread shall not die, the meaning is, that the Blessed Eucharist, _of\nits own nature_, is calculated to save us from the death of the soul, and\nto secure even for our bodies a glorious resurrection. Sin, of course, may\nrob it of its glorious effects.\n\n52. Si quis manducaverit ex      52. If any man eat of this\nhoc pane, vivet in aeternuum:    bread, he shall live for ever:\net panis, quem ego dabo, caro    and the bread that I will\nmea est pro mundi vita.          give, is my flesh for the life\n                                 of the world.\n\n52. Having summed up the preceding portion of His discourse, Christ now\nproceeds to declare _how_ He is the bread of life. Till now He had\ncontented Himself with declaring that He is that bread, and with pointing\nout the chief disposition necessary to receive Him worthily; now He goes\nfurther, and points out _how_ He will be the bread of life; namely, by\ngiving His flesh, that is, His whole human nature (i. 14), to which the\nDivine nature is inseparably united, to be received in the Blessed\nEucharist. Thus He gradually unfolds the mystery, reserving till the last\nsupper the further knowledge, that this reception of His body and blood\nwas to take place in a sacramental manner.\n\n*And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.*\nMany Greek MSS. read: \u201cAnd the bread that I will give is My flesh, _which\nI will give_ for the life of the world.\u201d If the words \u201cwhich I will give\u201d\nbe genuine, we would explain them not in reference to the sacrifice of the\ncross, but in reference to the sacrifice of the Eucharist, in which Christ\nis given for us and to us. Compare St. Luke: \u201cThis is My body, which is\n_given for you_\u201d (Luke, xxii. 19), and especially Luke xxii. 20, where the\nGreek text shows that it is the blood _as in the chalice_ (and not as on\nCalvary) that is said to be offered in sacrifice. But the words more\nprobably are not genuine; they are omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf,\nTregelles, Westcott, and Hort, and by the Revised Version, as well as by\nthe Vulgate.\n\nThough not merely Christ\u2019s flesh, that is, His humanity (i. 14), but also\nHis Divinity, is received in the Blessed Eucharist, His human nature is\nspecially mentioned, lest it should be thought that He is the living bread\nonly as God, or merely spiritually. \u201cDixerat enim,\u201d says St. Thomas on\nthis verse. \u201cQuod erat panis vivus; et ne intelligatur quod hoc ei esset\nin quantum est Verbum, vel secundum animam tantum, ideo ostendit quod\netiam caro sua vivificativa est: est enim organum divinitatis suae: unde,\ncum instrumentum agat virtute agentis, sicut divinitas Christi\nvivificativa est, ita et caro virtute Verbi adjuncti vivificat; unde\nChristus tactu suo sanabat infirmos.\u201d Besides, as St. Thomas adds, since\nthis Sacrament is commemorative of our Lord\u2019s Passion (\u201cFor as often as\nyou shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death\nof the Lord,\u201d 1 Cor. xi. 26), His \u201cflesh\u201d is mentioned to remind us of the\nweakness of that human nature wherein it was possible for Him who was God\nto suffer.\n\n53. Litigabant ergo Iudaei ad    53. The Jews therefore strove\ninvicem, dicentes: Quomodo       among themselves saying: How\npotest hic nobis carnem suam     can this man give us his flesh\nsuam dare ad manducandum?        to eat?\n54. Dixit ergo eis Iesus:        54. Then Jesus said to them:\nAmen, amen dico vobis: Nisi      Amen, amen, I say unto you;\nmanducaveritis carnem Filii      Except you eat the flesh of\nhominis, et biberitis eius       the son of man, and drink his\nsanguinem, non habebitis vitam   blood, you shall not have life\nin vobis.                        in you.\n55. Qui manducat meam carnem,    55. He that eateth my flesh,\net bibit meum sanguinem, habet   and drinketh my blood, hath\nvitam aeternam: et ego           everlasting life: and I will\nresuscitabo eum in novissimo     raise him up in the last day.\ndie.\n\n53\u201055. The Jews *therefore* (_ergo_, not enim), because of what He had now\nsaid, disputed among themselves, evidently taking different views of what\nHe had said; but Jesus, far from retracting, solemnly insists upon what He\nhad just said, and declares negatively (verse 54), and positively (verse\n55), not only the possibility, but the _necessity_ of receiving His body\nand blood. It does not follow from verse 54, as the Utraquists falsely\ncontended, that Communion under both kinds is necessary; for Christ is\nreceived whole and entire under either species. Under the species of bread\nonly the body is present _in virtue of the words of consecration_, and\nsimilarly under the species of wine only the blood; but since Christ\u2019s\nbody is now a _living_ body, it follows that in the Blessed Eucharist,\nwhere the body is, there also are the blood and the soul _in virtue of the\nnatural connection_ between the parts of a living body, and there, too,\nthe Divinity, _in virtue of the hypostatic union_. See Decrees of the\nCouncil of Trent, sess. xiii., ch. 3. The precept is to receive both body\nand blood, but not necessarily under both species. For, as the Council of\nTrent (sess. xxi., cap. 1) points out, Christ attributes the same effects\nto eating in verses 55, 58, 59, as He does here to eating and drinking.\nSee also 1 Cor. xi. 26, where he who eats _or_ drinks unworthily, is said\nto be guilty of _both_ body and blood. The precept of Christ, then, is\nobeyed whether one or both species be received, and it is a disciplinary\nmatter entrusted to the care of the Church, whether the faithful are to\nreceive under one or both species.\n\nSeeing, then, that there is no obligation for the faithful to receive the\nBlessed Eucharist under both species, it may be asked why does Christ\nmention both species? We reply, that He does so to signify that in the\nBlessed Eucharist there is a perfect repast, which ordinarily supposes the\npresence of both meat and drink; and, perhaps, also to indicate that this\nsacrament is commemorative of His death, in which His body and blood were\nseparated.\n\nNor do verses 54 and 55 afford any proof that the Blessed Eucharist is\nnecessary, _necessitate medii_ unto salvation, like Baptism (John iii. 5).\nFor\u2014(1) Baptism is declared to be absolutely necessary for all, \u201cunless a\nman be born again;\u201d here the Blessed Eucharist is declared necessary only\nfor those who are capable of receiving a precept, \u201cUnless you eat,\u201d &c.\n(2) From the nature of the case, Baptism, being a new _birth_, is\nabsolutely necessary for all who are to live the new spiritual life; and\nas many as are born, must be _born again_ in order to live the higher\nlife; but the Blessed Eucharist is not the introduction to a new life, but\na means of nourishing the life already acquired. Hence for children who\nhave already acquired that spiritual life in Baptism, and cannot lose it\nbecause incapable of sinning, the Blessed Eucharist cannot be necessary to\nsalvation, nor even for adults can it be absolutely necessary as a means,\nif there be, as there are, other means of retaining the life already\nacquired.\n\n56. Caro enim mea, vere est      56. For my flesh is meat\ncibus: et sanguis meus, vere     indeed: and my blood is drink\nest potus.                       indeed;\n57. Qui manducat meam carnem,    57. He that eateth my flesh\net bibit meum sanguinem, in me   and drinketh my blood, abideth\nmanet, et ego in illo.           in me, and I in him.\n\n57. In the Blessed Eucharist we are united to Christ, and His humanity\nremains in us until the sacred species become corrupted; His divinity,\nuntil mortal sin is committed, and He is expelled.\n\n58. Sicut misit me vivens        58. As the living Father hath\nPater, et ego vivo propter       sent me, and I live by the\nPatrem: et qui manducat me, et   Father: so he that eateth me,\nipse vivet propter me.           the same also shall live by\n                                 me.\n\n58. The sacred union between Christ and the communicant is compared to the\nineffable union between Him and His heavenly Father.\n\n*The living Father.* This is a unique instance of this title, but we\nfrequently find: _The Living God_, Matt. xvi. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16, &c. *And\nI live by* (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1) *the Father*. It is to be noted that \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 is\nfollowed by the accusative, not the genitive. If, then, we are to regard\nit as meaning here what it ordinarily means when followed by the\naccusative, and as the Vulgate seems to take it, the sense would rather\nbe: As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live _on account_ of the\nFather, so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live _on account_ of Me.\nThis would mean that as complete devotion to the Father is the object of\nthe life of the Incarnate Son (the Son _as sent_), so complete devotion to\nthe Son shall be the object of the life of him to whom Christ shall have\nunited Himself in the Blessed Eucharist. Others, however, think that \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\nis here equivalent to _through_, or _by_, as in our Rheims Version. The\nsense then is: as Christ lives through the eternal life communicated to\nHim in His eternal generation by the Father; so, in some way, the\ncommunicant shall live in virtue of the spiritual life communicated to him\nor sustained in him because of his union with Christ in the Blessed\nEucharist.\n\n59. Hic est panis qui de coelo   59. This is the bread that\ndescendit. Non sicut             came down from heaven. Not as\nmanducaverunt patres vestri      your fathers did eat manna,\nmanna, et mortui sunt. Qui       and are dead. He that eateth\nmanducat hunc panem, vivet in    this bread shall live for\naeternum.                        ever.\n\n59. This verse concludes and unites the principal points of the discourse.\nCompare verses 32, 41, 49, 50, 52, 55. Hence it confirms the view we have\nfollowed regarding the unity of subject throughout the discourse.\n\n*He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.* With this encouraging and\nglorious promise, made not to any one people, nor to any class as such,\nnot even to all believers, but to each one (note the change from the\nplural to the singular: _your fathers ... He that eateth_) who shall\nworthily receive, and duly profit by the Blessed Eucharist, the discourse\nends.\n\n60. Haec dixit in synagoga       60. These things he said\ndocens, in Capharnaum.           teaching in the synagogue, in\n                                 Capharnaum.\n\n60. Because of the solemn importance of the discourse, the place where it\nwas delivered is noted. At Tell H\u00fbm (see above on ii. 12) the ruins of a\nlarge synagogue are still to be seen.\n\n61. Multi ergo audientes ex      61. Many therefore of his\ndiscipulis eius, dixerunt:       disciples hearing it, said:\nDurus est hic sermo, et quis     This saying is hard, and who\npotest eum audire?               can hear it?\n\n61. The effect of the _discourse_ upon many of the disciples is recorded.\n*Hard* (\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2), _i.e._, harsh, hard to accept.\n\n62. Sciens autem Iesus apud      62. But Jesus knowing in\nsemetipsum quia murmurarent de   himself, that his disciples\nhoc discipuli eius, dixit eis:   murmured at this, said to\nHoc vos scandalizat?             them: Doth this scandalize\n                                 you?\n\n62. The Evangelist notes, according to his custom, that their thoughts\nwere known to Christ.\n\n63. Si ergo videritis Filium     63. If then you shall see the\nhominis ascendentem ubi erat     son of man ascend up where he\nprius?                           was before?\n\n63. *If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?*\nThe sense according to some, is: If you shall see Me ascending into\nheaven, it will then be easier to believe My doctrine, seeing I am Divine;\nand you shall at the same time understand, that it is not in a bloody\nmanner (as you suppose) that you are to eat My body. Thus He would correct\ntheir too carnal interpretation of His words, and point at the same time\nto a reason why the true sense, however difficult, was to be accepted.\nOthers think that Christ\u2019s words increase the difficulty, the sense being,\nif you are scandalized now, because I say, _while present with you_, that\nI will give My body, how much more will you be scandalized when you see\nthat body taken away into heaven, and are yet asked to believe that it is\nto be eaten on earth? It is argued in favour of this opinion, that the\nform of Christ\u2019s reply: \u201cDoes this scandalize you? If _therefore_,\u201d &c.,\nindicates that their difficulty would then be greater. So Mald., Tolet.,\nBeel., Corl. We may remark, as against the Nestorians, that language could\nnot signify more clearly than this verse signifies the unity of Person in\nChrist. The Son of Man will ascend to heaven where as Son of God He is\nfrom all eternity. \u201cFilius Dei et hominis unus Christus ... Filius Dei in\nterra suscepta carne, Filius hominis in coelo in unitate personae.\u201d St.\nAug. on this verse.\n\n64. Spiritus est, qui            64. It is the spirit that\nvivificat: caro non prodest      quickeneth: the flesh\nquidquam: verba quae ego         profiteth nothing. The words\nlocutus sum vobis, spiritus et   that I have spoken to you, are\nvita sunt.                       spirit and life.\n\n64. Many interpretations of this verse have been advanced. The following\ntwo are the most probable, intrinsically and extrinsically:\u2014\n\n(1) *The spirit* is the spirit of man elevated and ennobled by grace; *the\nflesh*, the corrupt dispositions and weak thoughts of human nature unaided\nby grace (see Rom. viii. 5, 6); and the meaning of the verse is; it is the\nmind illumined by grace that quickeneth to faith and to a proper\nunderstanding of My words; the mind or human nature by itself is of no\navail in such matters; the words which I have spoken to you are _to be\nunderstood by_ the mind quickened and illumined by grace. So St. Chrys.,\nTeoph., Wisem., Perr., M\u2019Ev. But there are serious difficulties against\nthis view\u2014(1) \u201ccaro\u201d is then taken metaphorically in this verse, while\nthroughout the context it has been taken literally of the flesh of Christ;\n(2) the explanation of the words \u201care spirit and life\u201d is unnatural.\n\n(2) Others take *the Spirit* of the Divinity of Christ, *the flesh* of His\nhumanity considered apart from the Divinity; and the meaning of the verse\nthen is: it is My Divinity that quickeneth, and maketh My flesh a meat\nenduring unto eternal life; the flesh if separated from the Divinity would\nprofit nothing; the words which I have spoken to you regard My life\u2010giving\nDivinity as united to My humanity. In this view, as Mald. explains it,\n\u201clife,\u201d by a Hebraism, is equivalent to an adjective signifying _life\u2010\ngiving_, as may be inferred from the beginning of the verse, where it is\nsaid that it is the Spirit _that giveth life_.(60) Hence \u201cSpirit and life\u201d\nis equivalent to _life\u2010giving_ Spirit, and the latter part of the verse\nmeans that Christ\u2019s words have reference to His life\u2010giving Divinity in\nunion with His humanity. So, too, St. Cyril of Alex., Beel., Corl. We\nprefer this view, and hold that Christ here gives the key to the solution\nof the difficulty on account of which His disciples had murmured (verse\n62). He had closed His discourse with words attributing eternal life to\nthe eating of His flesh (verse 59); they murmured accordingly, thinking it\nabsurd or incredible that such effect could follow from such a cause as\nthe eating of a man\u2019s flesh; and in verse 64 He explains that His flesh is\nthe flesh of the Man\u2010God, which therefore through the quickening influence\nof the Divinity with which it is united, is capable of producing such\nmarvellous effects.\n\nThere is not a shadow of probability in the interpretation put upon this\nverse by the Sacramentarians. They explained the verse to mean: that the\n_figurative_ sense of what He had said regarding the necessity of eating\nHis flesh and blood profits, but that the _literal_ sense would profit\nnothing. Thus they professed to find in these words an assurance that\nChrist had not spoken of a real eating of His flesh in the Eucharist, but\nonly of a spiritual reception of Himself through faith. In reply to this\nwe say\u2014(1) that throughout the rest of the Bible \u201cspiritus\u201d and \u201ccaro\u201d are\nnot even once used of a figurative and literal sense; (2) if Christ here\ngave the explanation which our adversaries suppose, how is it that, as we\nlearn from verse 67, many of His disciples retired notwithstanding, and\nwalked with Him no more? In such an explanation all their difficulty would\nbe removed, and they would be taught that it was only of a figurative\neating by faith that Christ had been speaking. How then account for their\ndeparture? But it was different in the explanation we have given above. In\nour view, Christ, still insisting on a real reception of His flesh, merely\nexplains how it is that such real reception can lead to such glorious\nresults.\n\n65. Sed sunt quidam ex vobis,    65. But there are some of you\nqui non credunt. Sciebat enim    that believe not. For Jesus\nab initio Iesus qui essent non   knew from the beginning who\ncredentes, et quis traditurus    they were that did not\nesset eum.                       believe, and who he was that\n                                 would betray him.\n\n65. In the view we hold regarding verse 64, the connection of this verse\nwith it is: the fact that I am God explains what you find difficult in My\nwords (verse 64); but some of you do not believe Me to be God; and hence\nyour difficulty (verse 65). To indicate Christ\u2019s Divine knowledge, the\nEvangelist adds that He knew _from the beginning_, &c.\n\n66. Et dicebat: Propterea dixi   66. And he said: Therefore did\nvobis, quia nemo potest venire   I say to you, that no man can\nad me, nisi fuerit ei datum a    come to me, unless it be given\nPatre meo.                       him by my Father.\n\n66. Christ\u2019s words in this verse are to be connected closely with the\nbeginning of the preceding, the intervening words of the Evangelist being\nparenthetical.\n\n*Therefore did I say to you.* The allusion is to what was said above\n(verse 44), which is substantially the same as what is said here, since to\nbe drawn to Christ by the Father is nothing else than to be given grace by\nthe Father to come to Christ. It might seem at first sight that these\nwords excuse the incredulity of those whom Christ addresses; but it is not\nso. For, the reason they had not been drawn by the Father was because they\n_would_ not, because they had not followed the promptings of grace. See\nabove on verse 45. \u201cPeccabant tamen qui nolebant venire, id est credere in\nChristum, tum quia habebant gratiam sufficientem, qua possent credere si\nvellent, etsi non haberent efficacem, qua reipsa et actu crederent; tum\nquia humiliter non petebant a Deo gratiam efficacem, qua actu crederent:\ntum quia sua superbia aliisque peccatis illa gratia se fecerant indignos,\nimo pervicaces Dei gratiam et fidem repellebant et refutabant\u201d (A Lap. on\nthis verse).\n\n67. Ex hoc multi discipulorum    67. After this many of his\neius abierunt retro: et iam      disciples went back; and\nnon cum illo ambulabant.         walked no more with him.\n\n67. Had Christ in the preceding discourse spoken only of faith, surely,\nall\u2010merciful and loving as He is, He would have made His meaning clear,\nbefore allowing many of His disciples to depart from Him for ever. It was\nonly, then, because they understood Him correctly, and refused to believe\nHim, that He allowed them to depart.\n\n68. Dixit ergo Iesus ad          68. Then Jesus said to the\nduodecim: Numquid et vos         twelve: will you also go away?\nvultis abire?\n\n68. *The twelve.* These are spoken of as well known, though this is the\nfirst mention made of their number in this Gospel.\n\n*Will you also go away?* While the question implies that such desertion\nwas to be feared, its form implies a negative answer, and suggests that in\nthe case of the chosen twelve such conduct ought to be impossible.\n\n69. Respondit ergo ei Simon      69. And Simon Peter answered\nPetrus: Domine, ad quem          him: Lord, to whom shall we\nibimus? verba vitae aeternae     go? thou hast the words of\nhabes:                           eternal life.\n70. Et nos credidimus, et        70. And we have believed and\ncognovimus quia tu es Christus   have known that thou art the\nFilius Dei.                      Christ the Son of God.\n\n69\u201070. Peter replies for all the Apostles (not knowing the unbelief of\nJudas), and confesses the truth of Christ\u2019s doctrine, and, according to\nthe Vulgate reading, the Divinity of Christ. It is very doubtful, however,\nwhether the Vulgate reading here is correct. The oldest Greek MSS. read:\n\u201cAnd we have believed and know that Thou art the _Holy One_ (\u1f41 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) of\nGod.\u201d Whether in the mind of St. Peter this latter form of the words meant\na full confession of Christ\u2019s Divinity, or only that He was the Messias,\nit is difficult to say. It would seem indeed from the praise bestowed upon\nPeter by our Lord (Matt. xvi. 16) on an occasion subsequent to this, that\nthen for the first time Peter fully confessed Christ\u2019s Divinity.\n\n71. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne   71. Jesus answered them: Have\nego vos duodecim elegi, et ex    not I chosen you twelve; and\nvobis unus diabolus est?         one of you is a devil?\n\n71. Peter had answered as he thought for all the Apostles, but Christ\nshows that He knows to the contrary. *A devil*, that is to say a sinner\ninspired by the devil (viii. 44), Judas was (_est_) even then.\n\n72. Dicebat autem Iudam          72. Now he meant Judas\nSimonis Iscariotem: hic enim     Iscariot, the son of Simon:\nerat traditurus eum, cum esset   for this same was about to\nunus ex duodecim.                betray him, whereas he was one\n                                 of the twelve.\n\n72. The Evangelist explains who was meant. \u201cThe name Iscariot has received\nmany interpretations, more or less conjectural, but it is now universally\nagreed that it is to be derived from Kerioth (Josh. xv. 25) a city in the\ntribe of Judah, the Hebrew \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c2 \u05e7\u05e8\u05b4\u05d5\u05ea \u2019\u012bsh Ker\u012byoth passing into\n\u1f38\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\u201d (Smith\u2019s _B. D._, 2nd Ed.). In this view, Judas, unlike the\nother Apostles (Acts ii. 7), was from the Province of Judea.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n\n    1. *Christ remains in Galilee.*\n\n    2\u201010. *His brethren urge Him to go up to Jerusalem to the Feast of\n    Tabernacles with them; this He declines to do, but goes afterwards\n    privately.*\n\n    11\u201013. *The chief men among the Jews look out for Him at the\n    Feast, and express different opinions regarding Him.*\n\n    14\u201024. *In the middle of the festival Christ goes up to the temple\n    and teaches.*\n\n    25\u201029. *Comments of some of the people of Jerusalem; Christ\u2019s\n    reply.*\n\n    30, 31. *Different opinions of the people regarding Him.*\n\n    32\u201036. *Jealously of the Sanhedrim, which sends officers to arrest\n    Him.*\n\n    37\u201039. *Christ\u2019s words on the eighth day of the feast, and St.\n    John\u2019s authentic interpretation.*\n\n    40, 41. *Different opinions among the people regarding Him.*\n\n    44\u201049. *Though some were anxious to arrest Him, no one durst, not\n    even the officers who had been sent for that purpose; consequent\n    indignation of the Priests and Pharisees.*\n\n    50\u201052. *Nicodemus interposes in Christ\u2019s favour; reply of the\n    other members of the Sanhedrim.*\n\n\n1. Post haec autem ambulabat     1. After these things Jesus\nIesus in Galilaeam, non enim     walked in Galilee, for he\nvolebat in Iudaeam ambulare,     would not walk in Judea,\nquia quaerebant eum Iudaei       because the Jews sought to\ninterficere.                     kill him.\n\n1. Instead of \u201cGalilaeam,\u201d \u201cJudaeam,\u201d read \u201cGalilea,\u201d \u201cJudaea\u201d (Abl.) in\nthe Vulgate. The sense is that Christ continues to remain in Galilee.\n\n2. Erat autem in proximo dies    2. Now the Jews\u2019 feast of\nfestus Iudaeorum scenopegia.     tabernacles was at hand.\n\n2. See note on verse 1.\n\n3. Dixerunt autem ad eum         3. And his brethren said to\nfratres eius: Transi hinc, et    him: Pass from hence and go\nvade in Iudaeam, ut et           into Judea: that thy disciples\ndiscipuli tui videant opera      also may see thy works which\ntua, quae facis.                 thou dost.\n\n3. *His brethren said to him: Pass from hence, and go into Judea, that thy\ndisciples also may see thy works which thou dost.*\n\nWho are these brethren of Jesus?\n\n(1) Not the children of Joseph and Mary, born to them after the birth of\nour Lord, for this opinion of Helvidius was condemned as _heretical_ in\nthe Council of Lateran (649 A.D.), and is opposed to the universal and\nconstant tradition of the Church.(61)\n\n(2) Not the children of Joseph by a previous marriage; for this opinion\ntoo, though not heretical, and though held by some of the fathers, is\nopposed to the common opinion of Catholics, according to which St. Joseph\nlived and died a virgin.\n\n(3) These brethren were _cousins_ of our Lord. The term \u201cfratres\u201d\n(\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76) is used in the Sacred Scriptures of many who are not children of\nthe same parents. Thus it is used of fellow\u2010countrymen, Rom. ix. 3, 4; (2)\nof co\u2010religionists, Rom. i. 13; (3) of relations who were not, however,\nmembers of the same family, Gen. xiii. 8, xiv. 4. In these verses of\nGenesis, Abraham and Lot are referred to as _brethren_, though the former\nwas uncle to the latter (Gen. xii. 5).\n\nIn Matthew xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3, James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude, are named\nas brethren of our Lord; but whether they are the same cousins who are\nreferred to here by St. John, is disputed. Of those mentioned by SS.\nMatthew and Mark, James, Jude, and probably Simon, were Apostles;(62) and\nhence, on account of verse 5, some say it is not these, but other cousins\nof our Lord, who are here referred to by St. John. However, there need be\nno difficulty about admitting that the faith of the Apostles was still\nimperfect, especially if we adopt what seems the more probable reading in\nvi. 70. See Matthew xvii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15.\n\nThese brethren of the Lord say to Him, that He ought to go up to\nJerusalem, where there would be a concourse of people to witness His\nmiracles.\n\n4. Nemo quippe in occulto quid   4. For there is no man that\nfacit, et quaerit ipse in        doth anything in secret, and\npalam esse: si haec facis,       he himself seeketh to be known\nmanifesta teipsum mundo.         openly. If thou do these\n                                 things, manifest thyself to\n                                 the world.\n5. Neque enim fratres eius       5. For neither did his\ncredebant in eum.                brethren believe in him.\n\n5. As already explained, if we regard the three Apostles as included among\nthe brethren, we may understand here that their faith was still\n_imperfect_; if other cousins of our Lord are meant, they may have been\nwholly without faith.\n\n6. Dicit ergo eis Iesus:         6. Then Jesus said to them: My\nTempus meum nondum advenit:      time is not yet come; but your\ntempus autem vestrum semper      time is always ready.\nest paratum.\n\n6. There are many opinions as to what is meant by _His time_, here\nreferred to by Christ. Some say it is the time of His passion; others, the\ntime for manifesting Himself to the world; and others, the time for going\nup to Jerusalem. The latter opinion seems to us the most natural and most\nprobable.\n\n7. Non potest mundus odisse      7. The world cannot hate you;\nvos: me autem odit, quia ego     but me it hateth: because I\ntestimonium perhibeo de illo     give testimony of it, that the\nquod opera eius mala sunt.       works thereof are evil.\n\n7. His brethren might go up to Jerusalem at any time, for they, even if\nsome of them were Apostles, had not yet incurred the odium of the _wicked_\nworld (John xv. 18, 19).\n\n8. Vos ascendite ad diem         8. Go you up to this festival\nfestum hunc: ego autem non       day, but I go not up to this\nascendo ad diem festum istum,    festival day: because my time\nquia meum tempus nondum          is not accomplished.\nimpletum est.\n9. Haec cum dixisset, ipse       9. When he had said these\nmansit in Galilaea.              things, he himself staid in\n                                 Galilee.\n10. Ut autem ascenderunt         10. But after his brethren\nfratres eius, tunc et ipse       were gone up, then he also\nascendit ad diem festum non      went up to the feast, not\nmanifeste, sed quasi in          openly, but as it were in\nocculto.                         secret.\n\n8\u201010. Christ here seems to say that He will not go up to Jerusalem for the\nfeast, and yet He went. Various answers to this difficulty have been\ngiven:\u2014(1) Many ancient MSS. and versions, instead of \u201cNon (\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba) ascendo\u201d\nread \u201c_Nondum_ (\u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9) ascendo;\u201d _i.e._, I go not up _yet_. However, as\nthis is the easier reading to explain, and as the other is equally well\nsupported by ancient authority, we are inclined to believe that the more\ndifficult (\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba) is the true reading. Hence (2) others say that our Lord\nused an ambiguous phrase: I go not up, meaning I go not up _now_ (but\nshall go afterwards). (3) The correct explanation seems to be that\ninsinuated by our Evangelist. Christ said: I go not up (as you desire, in\nyour company, and publicly); then when He went up, it was not publicly,\nbut, as it were, in secret.\n\n11. Iudaei ergo quaerebant eum   11. The Jews therefore sought\nin die festo, et dicebant: Ubi   him on the festival day and\nest ille?                        said: Where is he?\n\n11. The leaders of the Jews seek Him at the feast, but, through contempt,\ndo not name Him.\n\n12. Et murmur multum erat in     12. And there was much\nturba de eo. Quidam enim         murmuring among the multitude\ndicebant: Quia bonus est. Alii   concerning him. For some said:\nautem dicebant: Non, sed         He is a good man. And others\nseducit turbas.                  said: No, but he seduceth the\n                                 people.\n13. Nemo tamen palam             13. Yet no man spoke openly of\nloquebatur de illo, propter      him, for fear of the Jews.\nmetum Iudaeorum.\n\n13. *Openly* (_palam_) does not fully express the force of the Greek word,\nwhich seems to mean here _with open approval_.\n\n14. Iam autem die festo          14. Now about the midst of the\nmediante, ascendit Iesus in      feast, Jesus went up into the\ntemplum, et docebat.             temple, and taught.\n\n14. The festival lasted for eight days, so that this would be the fourth\nor fifth day.\n\n15. Et mirabantur Iudaei,        15. And the Jews wondered,\ndicentes: Quomodo hic litteras   saying: How doth this man know\nscit, cum non didicerit?         letters, having never learned?\n\n15. From this verse it is plain that Christ had never attended any of the\nJewish schools, where the _Scriptures_ (\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) were explained.\n\n16. Respondit eis Iesus, et      16. Jesus answered them and\ndixit: Mea doctrina non est      said: My doctrine is not mine,\nmea, sed eius qui misit me.      but his that sent me.\n\n16. The sense is: The doctrine I preach has not been excogitated by Me; I\nhave received it from My Father. As man, Christ had received His knowledge\nthrough the beatific vision, and by infusion into His human soul, and as\nGod, He had received it from the Father from all eternity.\n\n17. Si quis voluerit             17. If any man will do the\nvoluntatem eius facere,          will of him: he shall know of\ncognoscet de doctrina utrum ex   the doctrine, whether it be of\nDeo sit, an ego a meipso         God, or whether I speak of\nloquar.                          myself.\n18. Qui a semetipso loquitur,    18. He that speaketh of\ngloriam propriam quaerit: qui    himself, seeketh his own\nautem quaerit gloriam eius qui   glory: but he that seeketh the\nmisit eum, hic verax est, et     glory of him that sent him, he\niniustitia in illo non est.      is true, and there is no\n                                 injustice in him.\n\n17, 18. In proof that His doctrine is from God, He appeals to two\narguments:\u2014(1) If they will only follow the will of God, and believe,\n_experience_ will teach them that His doctrine is divine. (2) The fact\nthat He seeks not His own glory, but the glory of the Father, is a proof\nthat His doctrine is the doctrine of the Father, and, therefore a proof\nthat He is veracious, and does not deceive (_injustitia_ in illo non est).\nThis second argument, as Mald. points out, is based upon what does, not\nupon what should, happen among men. When men preach doctrines of their own\ninvention, they generally seek their own glory.\n\n19. Nonne Moyses dedit vobis     19. Did not Moses give you the\nlegem: et nemo ex vobis facit    law, and _yet_ none of you\nlegem?                           keepeth the law?\n20. Quid me quaeritis            20. Why seek you to kill me?\ninterficere? Respondit turba,    The multitude answered and\net dixit: Daemonium habes:       said: Thou hast a devil; who\nquis te quaerit interficere?     seeketh to kill thee?\n\n19, 20. Most probably Christ begins here to defend Himself against the\ncharge of violating the Sabbath, which the Jews had brought against Him on\na former occasion (v. 16, 18), and which they still remembered against\nHim.\n\nHe uses an \u201cargumentum ad hominem\u201d: You do not keep the law yourselves,\nwhy then seek to kill Me, even for what you allege to be a violation of\nit? Some among the crowd were even then anxious to kill Jesus, as His\nwords prove, and to these He directs His words; but there were many\npresent who had no such intention, and some of these reply, *Thou hast a\ndevil*. They may have meant that He was possessed, or simply that He was\nraving, out of His senses.\n\n21. Respondit Iesus, et dixit    21. Jesus answered and said to\neis: Unum opus feci, et omnes    them: One work I have done;\nmiramini.                        and you all wonder:\n22. Propterea Moyses dedit       22. Therefore Moses gave you\nvobis circumcisionem: (non       circumcision (not because it\nquia ex Moyse est, sed ex        is of Moses, but of the\npatribus) et in sabbato          fathers); and on the sabbath\u2010\ncircumciditis hominem.           day you circumcise a man.\n23. Si circumcisionem accipit    23. If a man receive\nhomo in sabbato, ut non          circumcision on the sabbath\u2010\nsolvatur lex Moysi: mihi         day, that the law of Moses may\nindignamini quia totum hominem   not be broken; are you angry\nsanum feci in sabbato?           at me because I have healed\n                                 the whole man on the sabbath\u2010\n                                 day?\n\n21\u201023. He proceeds to show by sober reasoning, that they ought not to\nblame Him for having healed the man on the Sabbath.\n\nThe *one work* of verse 21 is the healing of the man on the Sabbath day\n(v. 9, 16). Some prefer to connect \u201cpropterea\u201d with verse 21: \u201cand you all\nwonder on account of it.\u201d But it is better to connect it, as in the\nVulgate, with what follows. The sense is: it was on this account Moses\ngave you circumcision; namely, because it had been handed down from the\nPatriarchs (Gen. xvii. 10), not because it was properly a part of the law.\nIf then a man may receive circumcision on the Sabbath, _and yet_ the law\nregarding the observance of the Sabbath is not violated thereby, are you\nangry with Me because, doing the will of God, I made a man whole, both\nbody and soul, on the Sabbath? In this explanation, \u201cut\u201d (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1) is ecbatic,\ndenoting a consequence. See Gen. xxii. 14; John x. 17; Apoc. xiii. 13.\nOthers, however, give the particle its ordinary telic force, and explain\nthus: If then a man may receive circumcision on the Sabbath, _in order\nthat_ the law commanding circumcision to be performed on the eighth day be\nnot violated, are you angry, &c.? Both explanations are probable, and\nleave the argument unchanged.\n\n24. Nolite iudicare secundum     24. Judge not according to the\nfaciem, sed iustum iudicium      appearance, but judge just\niudicate.                        judgment.\n\n24. *According to the appearance*; _i.e._, take no account of persons, but\njudge according to the merits of the case.\n\n25. Dicebant ergo quidam ex      25. Some therefore of\nIerosolymis: Nonne hic est       Jerusalem said: Is not this he\nquem quaerunt interficere?       whom they seek to kill?\n26. Et ecce palam loquitur, et   26. And behold he speaketh\nnihil ei dicunt. Numquid vere    openly, and they say nothing\ncognoverunt principes quia hic   to him. Have the rulers known\nest Christus?                    for a truth that this is the\n                                 Christ?\n\n25, 26. Some of the people of Jerusalem (the correct reading is\n\u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd) said: can it be that they have discovered that He is really\nChrist?\n\n27. Sed hunc scimus unde sit:    27. But we know this man\nChristus autem cum venerit,      whence he is: but when the\nnemo scit unde scit.             Christ cometh, no man knoweth\n                                 whence he is.\n\n27. And yet this cannot be, for we know this man whence he is; but when\nthe Christ cometh no man knoweth whence He is. This erroneous opinion of\ntheirs may have arisen from Micheas, v. 2: \u201cHis going forth is from the\nbeginning from the days of eternity;\u201d and Mal. iii. 2: \u201cAnd who shall be\nable to think of the day of His coming?\u201d\n\n28. Clamabat ergo Iesus in       28. Jesus therefore cried out\ntemplo docens, et dicens: Et     in the temple, teaching and\nme scitis, et unde sim scitis:   saying: You both know me, and\net a meipso non veni, sed est    you know whence I am, and I am\nverus qui misit me, quem vos     not come of myself; but he\nnescitis.                        that sent me is true, whom you\n                                 know not.\n\n28. The meaning is: You know Me as man, and you know My parents, and yet I\ncome not of My own authority, but sent by My Father, who therein shows\nHimself true to His promises.\n\n29. Ego scio eum: quia ab ipso   29. I know him, because I am\nsum, et ipse me misit.           from him, and he hath sent me.\n\n29. He declares His Divine knowledge of the Father, His eternal\ngeneration, and mission in time.\n\n30. Quaerebant ergo eum          30. They sought therefore to\napprehendere: et nemo misit in   apprehend him: and no man laid\nillum manus, quia nondum         hands on him, because his hour\nvenerat hora eius.               was not yet come.\n\n30. They rightly understand Him to claim to be Divine, and as a\nconsequence seek to apprehend Him; but the time for His sufferings had not\nyet arrived, and so they were powerless.\n\n31. De turba autem multi         31. But of the people many\ncrediderunt in eum, et           believed in him, and said:\ndicebant: Christus cum           When the Christ cometh, shall\nvenerit, numquid plura signa     he do more miracles than these\nfaciet quam quae hic facit?      which this man doth?\n\n31. Many of the multitude\u2014in contrast with their leaders\u2014believed in Him.\n*When the Christ cometh, shall he*, &c. The question, expecting, as it\ndoes, a negative answer (numquid), suggests that Jesus must be the Christ.\n\n32. Audierunt pharisaei turbam   32. The Pharisees heard the\nmurmurantem de illo haec: et     people murmuring these things\nmiserunt principes et            concerning him: and the rulers\npharisaei ministros, ut          and Pharisees sent ministers\napprehenderent eum.              to apprehend him.\n\n32. *Rulers*, rather chief priests (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2). The *ministers* were\nofficers attendant upon the Sanhedrim, or engaged about the temple. See\nverses 45, 46; xiii. 3, 18, 22; xix. 6; Acts v. 22, 26. As the Sanhedrim\nwas made up of chief priests, Pharisees, and Scribes, probably it was the\nSanhedrim that sent these ministers to apprehend Christ.\n\n33. Dixit ergo eis Iesus:        33. Jesus therefore said to\nAdhuc modicum tempus vobiscum    them: Yet a little while I am\nsum: et vado ad eum qui me       with you: and _then_ I go to\nmisit.                           him that sent me.\n\n33. Omit \u201ceis\u201d (to them). Christ\u2019s words were probably directed not merely\nto the ministers, but to all the people. *Yet a little while I am with\nyou*, _i.e._, almost six months more after this feast of Tabernacles, and\nthen He would go to the Father.\n\n34. Quaeretis me, et non         34. You shall seek me, and\ninvenietis: et ubi ego sum vos   shall not find me: and where I\nnon potestis venire.             am, _thither_ you cannot come.\n\n34. *You shall seek me, and shall not find me.* Some think these words\nwere fulfilled at the siege of Jerusalem, when many of the Jews must have\nlooked in vain for help from Him whom they had put to death.\n\nOthers, like Maldonatus, say the statement is conditional: even if you\nsought me, you should not find me, after a little while.\n\nSince the same words: \u201cYou shall seek me,\u201d were afterwards addressed to\nthe Apostles (xiii. 33), it is not likely that the reference is to seeking\nHim at the destruction of Jerusalem, for the Apostles did not seek Him\nthen. It would also seem from xiii. 33 that the view of Maldonatus just\nstated is not probable, for in xiii. 33 there is not a conditional\nstatement, but simply a prediction that the Apostles would seek Him. Hence\nwe take it that in the text before us also, there is a prediction that the\nJews after His departure would, when in distress and tribulation, desire\nto see Him once more among them. Doubtless, many Jews afterwards had such\na desire, but it was in vain, for He had gone to Him that sent Him.\n\n*And where I am* (= shall be) *thither you cannot come*.\n\nThese words too were afterwards addressed to the Apostles (xiii. 33), and\nwe believe in the same sense as here. The meaning is that until death at\nleast the separation would be complete, for He would be no longer here,\nand where He would be they could not join Him. Some take the words: \u201cYou\ncannot come,\u201d as meaning here that the Jews on account of their sins could\n_never_ enter heaven. But since, as we have said, the same words were\nafterwards addressed to the Apostles, the view we have adopted seems more\nprobable.\n\n35. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad      35. The Jews therefore said,\nsemetipsos: Quo hic iturus       among themselves: Whither will\nest, quia non inveniemus eum?    he go, that we shall not find\nnumquid in dispersionem          him? will he go unto the\ngentium iturus est, et           dispersed among the gentiles,\ndocturus gentes?                 and teach the gentiles?\n\n35. *The dispersed among the Gentiles*, _i.e._, the Jews scattered among\nthe Gentiles, or more probably the Gentiles themselves (\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, not\n\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd) scattered over the world. The concluding words of the verse:\n\u201cand teach the Gentiles\u201d render the latter view the more probable.\n\n36. Quis est hic sermo, quem     36. What is this saying that\ndixit: Quaeretis me, et non      he hath said: You shall seek\ninvenietis: et ubi sum ego,      me, and shall not find me; and\nvos non potestis venire?         where I am, you cannot come?\n37. In novissimo autem die       37. And on the last _and_\nmagno festivitatis, stabat       great day of the festivity,\nIesus, et clamabat, dicens: Si   Jesus stood and cried, saying:\nquis sitit, veniat ad me, et     If any man thirst, let him\nbibat.                           come to me, and drink.\n38. Qui credit in me, sicut      38. He that believeth in me,\ndicit scriptura, flumina de      as the scripture saith, _Out\nventre eius fluent aquae         of his belly shall flow rivers\nvivae.                           of living water_.\n\n37, 38. On the last day, the great day of the feast, that is, the eighth\nday, Jesus cried aloud to the people assembled at the temple. His words\nmean: If anyone thirst spiritually, let him come to Me by faith, and grace\nshall be abundantly poured into his soul. The words: *Out of his belly*,\n&c., are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament; but, as signifying the\nabundance of grace in the new dispensation, they convey the sense of many\npassages of the Old Testament. See Is. xli. 18, xliv. 3.; Ezech. xxxvi.\n25; Joel ii. 28.\n\n39. Hoc autem dixit de           39. Now this he said of the\nSpiritu, quem accepturi erant    Spirit which they should\ncredentes in eum: nondum enim    receive who believed in him:\nerat Spiritus datus, quia        for as yet the Spirit was not\nIesus nondum erat                given, because Jesus was not\nglorificatus.                    yet glorified.\n\n39. The Evangelist gives an authentic interpretation of our Lord\u2019s words:\n*For as yet the Spirit was not given*. These words explain why our Lord\nspoke of the abundant outpouring of the Spirit as _still to come_, for the\nHoly Ghost was not yet given, inasmuch as Christ was not yet glorified\n(xvi. 7). When it is said that the Holy Ghost was not yet given, the\nmeaning is, that He was not yet given so _abundantly_, so _manifestly_, or\nso _universally_, as He has been since the first Pentecost. It is not\nmeant that the Holy Ghost had not been given to the just of the Old\nTestament. They, as well as we, had the grace of the Holy Ghost in their\nsouls; moreover, according to the common teaching of the fathers and\ntheologians, they, like the just now, had the Holy Ghost united to their\nsouls, not merely by His grace, but also by a substantial union. This\nunion is not, however, peculiar to the Holy Ghost, but is common to the\nThree Divine Persons, by reason of their unity of nature, and is only by\nappropriation attributed to the Holy Ghost. See Franz., _De Trin., last\nDisp._; Corl., pp. 198, 199.\n\n40. Ex illa ergo turba cum       40. Of that multitude\naudissent hos sermones eius,     therefore, when they had heard\ndicebant: Hic est vere           these words of his, some said:\npropheta.                        This is the prophet indeed.\n41. Alii dicebant: Hic est       41. Others said: This is the\nChristus. Quidam autem           Christ. But some said: Doth\ndicebant: Numquid a Galilaea     the Christ come out of\nvenit Christus?                  Galilee?\n42. Nonne scriptura dicit:       42. Doth not the scripture\nQuia ex semine David, et de      say: That Christ cometh out of\nBethlehem castello, ubi erat     the seed of David, and from\nDavid, venit Christus?           Bethlehem the town where David\n                                 was?\n43. Dissensio itaqua facta est   43. So there arose a\nin turba propter eum.            dissension among the people\n                                 because of him.\n44. Quidam autem ex ipsis        44. And some of them would\nvolebant apprehendere eum: sed   have apprehended him: but no\nnemo misit super eum manus.      man laid hands upon him.\n\n40\u201044. The Evangelist notes the difference of opinion among the crowd.\nSome believed Him to be _the Prophet_ promised to Moses (Deut. xviii. 18);\nothers (wrongly distinguishing between the Prophet and the Messias) held\nHim to be the Messias; others doubted (verse 41); others remained wholly\nincredulous (verse 44). In verse 42, three different passages of Sacred\nScripture are combined: \u201cof the seed of David\u201d (Is. xi. 1); \u201cfrom\nBethlehem\u201d (Mich. v. 2); \u201cthe town where David was\u201d (1 Kings xvii. 12).\n\n45. Venerunt ergo ministri ad    45. The ministers therefore\npontifices et pharisaeos. Et     came to the chief priests and\ndixerunt eis illi: Quare non     the Pharisees. And they said\nadduxistis illum?                to them: Why have you not\n                                 brought him?\n46. Responderunt ministri:       46. The ministers answered:\nNumquam sic locutus est homo,    Never did man speak like this\nsicut hic homo.                  man.\n47. Responderunt ergo eis        47. The Pharisees therefore\npharisaei; numquid et vos        answered them: Are you also\nseducti estis?                   seduced?\n48. Numquid ex principibus       48. Hath any one of the rulers\naliquis credidit in eum, aut     believed in him, or of the\nex pharisaeis?                   Pharisees?\n49. Sed turba haec, quae non     49. But this multitude that\nnovit legem maledicti sunt.      knoweth not the law, are\n                                 accursed.\n\n45\u201049. The officers, who had been sent a few days before to apprehend\nChrist (see above, 14, 32), or perhaps other officers, return and bear\nfavourable testimony to Him, for which they are rebuked by the Pharisees.\n\n50. Dixit Nicodemus ad eos,      50. Nicodemus said to them, he\nille qui venit ad eum nocte,     that came to him by night, who\nqui unus erat ex ipsis.          was one of them.\n51. Numquid lex nostra iudicat   51. Doth our law judge any\nhominem nisi prius audierit ab   man, unless it first hear him,\nipso, et cognoverit quid         and know what he doth?\nfaciat?\n52. Responderunt, et dixerunt    52. They answered and said to\nei: Numquid et tu Galilaeus      him: Art thou also a Galilean?\nes? Scrutare scripturas, et      Search the scriptures, and see\nvide quia a Galilaea propheta    that out of Galilee a prophet\nnon surgit.                      riseth not.\n\n50\u201052. Nicodemus (iii. 1, 2) interposes in Christ\u2019s favour; to whom the\nmembers of the Sanhedrim impatiently reply that no prophet had ever arisen\nin Galilee, thus disposing, as they thought, of Christ\u2019s claim to be a\nprophet. But they were wrong in their assumption that Christ had been born\nin Galilee (see Luke ii. 4\u20107), and equally wrong in the conclusion they\ndrew that, being a Galilean, He could not be a prophet. For the Sacred\nScriptures had nowhere said that a prophet could not arise in Galilee;\nnay, they prove that the prophet Jonas was a Galilean, 4 Kings, xiv. 25.\n\n53. Et reversi sunt              53. And every man returned to\nunusquisque in domum suam.       his own house.\n\n53. See next chapter.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n\n    1\u20102. *Christ having spent the night on the Mount of Olives,\n    returns in the morning to the temple and teaches.*\n\n    3\u201011. *The story of the woman taken in adultery.*\n\n    12\u201020. *Discourse of Christ with the Pharisees in the treasury.*\n\n    21\u201029. *He upbraids them for their incredulity, and foretells His\n    own crucifixion.*\n\n    30\u201050. *Many believed in Him, but others remained incredulous\n    (33), and to these He says that they are not the children of\n    Abraham, but of the devil.*\n\n    51\u201059. *Challenged by the Jews, He declares Himself greater than\n    Abraham; and when they were about to stone Him for this\n    declaration, He hides Himself.*\n\n\n\n\nAuthenticity of John vii. 53\u2010viii. 11.\n\n\nThis is the second of the three passages in our Gospel, whose authenticity\nhas been seriously questioned. See Introd. VI. We shall sum up the\nevidence by which the critical question must be decided, and then say what\nwe think as to the genuineness of the passage.\n\n\n\nEvidence against Authenticity.\n\n\n1. _Manuscripts._\u2014The passage is wanting in the four oldest Greek MSS.\nthat we possess, viz., in B, \u05d0, A, C; the two former of which are thought\nby critics to belong to the fourth, and the two latter, to the fifth\ncentury; also in four other _uncial_ MSS., in more than sixty _cursives_,\nand in thirty\u2010three Evangelistaries.(63) In about fifty other MSS., though\nread, it is marked as doubtful.\n\n2. _Versions._\u2014It is wanting in the best MSS. of the \u201cVetus Itala;\u201d in the\n\u201cSimple\u201d and \u201cFigured\u201d Syriac; in most MSS. of the Coptic; in all of\nGothic, and in some of the Armenian.\n\n3. _Fathers._\u2014The passage is not commented upon by any of the Greek\nfathers that wrote upon this Gospel.\n\n4. _Internal evidence_ is said to prove the passage spurious, because of\nthe use of many words and phrases not elsewhere used by St. John.(64)\n\n\n\nEvidence in favour of Authenticity.\n\n\n1. _Manuscripts._\u2014The passage is found in seven _uncial_ MSS. (one of\nwhich, D, though itself only of the sixth century, is thought to represent\nthe text of the Gospels as it stood in the second century); in more than\nthree hundred cursives, and in six Evangelistaries.\n\n2. _Versions._\u2014The passage is found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Arabic,\nPersian, Ethiopic, Syriac of Jerusalem, Slavic, and Anglo\u2010Saxon.\n\n3. _Fathers._\u2014_The passage_ is read by nearly all the Latin\nfathers\u2014Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo the Great, Chrysologus, Sedulius,\nCassiodorus, &c.; and in the _Apostolic Constitutions_, a work of the\nthird, or, at the latest, the fourth century.\n\n4. _Internal Evidence_\u2014(_a_) Christ\u2019s merciful treatment of the adulteress\nharmonizes beautifully with His declaration immediately after (viii. 15),\nthat at His first coming He condemned no man. (_b_) It is inconceivable\nhow a passage _of this nature_ could ever have found its way into so many\nMSS., unless it was written by St. John. On the other hand, it is easy to\nsee how, though genuine, it came to be omitted in many MSS., through the\nfear that Christ\u2019s merciful treatment of the adulteress might encourage\nsinners. This is exactly what St. Augustine says:\u2014\u201cNonnulli modicae fidei,\nvel potius inimici verae fidei, credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari\nmulieribus suis, illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit,\nabstulerunt de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui\ndixit: \u2018Jam deinceps noli peccare\u2019 \u201d (St. Aug., _De Conj. Adult._, 2, 7).\n\nAs regards the arguments _against_ the passage, we believe that the reason\ngiven by St. Augustine in the words just quoted, explains the absence of\nthe passage in so many MSS., versions, and fathers. As to the internal\narguments against the passage, it must be admitted that a number of words\nare used here which are not met with elsewhere in the writings of St.\nJohn; but then the subject is peculiar, and besides in many other passages\nwhich are unquestioned, we meet with several words not used elsewhere by\nthe Evangelist.(65) Even Renan admits that there is nothing in the passage\nthat is at variance with the style of the fourth Gospel.(66)\n\n\n\nConclusion.\n\n\nFrom the evidence, which has been impartially laid before the reader, we\nhold we are justified in concluding that even on mere critical grounds the\npassage is more probably genuine. Some, as Franzelin (_De Sacra. Script._,\nThes. xix., pp. 466, 467), go farther, and hold, that since the decree of\nthe Council of Trent (Sess. iv.), which defined all the sacred books of\nthe Bible, and _all their parts_, as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be\ncanonical, it is not lawful for any Catholic to question the authenticity\nof this passage. They argue that this passage constitutes a _part_ (not\nmerely a \u201cparticula\u201d) of the Gospel of St. John, and is, therefore,\ncovered by the decree of Trent. Nor can it be said in reply that the\nCouncil, in the words \u201ccum omnibus suis partibus,\u201d meant to define the\nauthenticity of the Deuterocanonical fragments of the _Old_ Testament\nonly, for the Acts(67) of the Council show that these words were intended\nto refer especially to the fragments of the Gospels.\n\nTo conclude, then, we hold that we are not only critically justified in\naccepting John vii. 53\u2010viii. 11, as authentic, but that it is extremely\nprobable that as Catholics we are _bound_ to accept it.\n\n\n\n\nText.\n\n\n1. Iesus autem perrexit in       1. And Jesus went unto mount\nmontem Oliveti:                  Olivet.\n\n1. In contrast to those who retired to their homes (vii. 53), Jesus\nretired to Mount Olivet, where He often spent the night in prayer (Luke\nxxi. 37; vi. 12). Mount Olivet, separated from Jerusalem by the brook of\nCedron, was a Sabbath day\u2019s journey from the City (Acts i. 12); that is to\nsay, about seven and a\u2010half stadia, and therefore less than an English\nmile.\n\n2. Et diluculo iterum venit in   2. And early in the morning he\ntemplum, et omnis populus        came again into the temple,\nvenit ad eum, et sedens          and all the people came to\ndocebat eos.                     him, and sitting down he\n                                 taught them.\n\n2. Early on the morning that followed the eight days of the Feast of\nTabernacles (see vii. 37), He came again to the temple, and all the people\nwho were assembled in the City from the various parts of Palestine, came\nto Him, and He was teaching them.\n\n3. Adducunt autem scribae et     3. And the scribes and\npharisaei mulierem in            Pharisees bring unto him a\nadulterio deprehensam: et        woman taken in adultery; and\nstatuerunt eam in medio.         they set her in the midst,\n\n3. While Jesus was engaged in teaching the people, the Pharisees bring to\nhim a woman who had been caught in adultery, *in the very act*, as we\nlearn from the Greek of verse 4.\n\n4. Et dixerunt ei: Magister,     4. And said to him: Master,\nhaec mulier modo deprehensa      this woman was even now taken\nest in adulterio.                in adultery.\n5. In lege autem Moyses          5. Now Moses in the law\nmandavit nobis huiusmodi         commanded us to stone such a\nlapidare. Tu ergo quid dicis?    one. But what sayest thou?\n\n5. It is not stated anywhere in the Pentateuch that the adulterer and\nadulteress should be _stoned_, but it is, that they should be put to death\n(Lev. xx. 10). Doubtless the death was by stoning, as is indicated in\nEzech. xvi. 38\u201040.\n\n6. Hoc autem dicebant            6. And this they said,\ntentantes eum, ut possent        tempting him, that they might\naccusare eum. Iesus autem        accuse him. But Jesus bowing\ninclinans se deorsum, digito     himself down, wrote with his\nscribebat in terra.              finger on the ground.\n\n6. They hoped to entrap our Lord; for if he acquitted the woman they could\ncharge him with being an adversary of the Mosaic Law (Lev. xx. 10); while\nif He condemned her to death, they could charge Him with defying the Roman\nLaw, which at this time denied to the Jews the right of inflicting capital\npunishment (John xviii. 31). What Jesus wrote it is impossible to say.\nProbably it was His intention to signify by this turning away to something\nelse that He wished not to have anything to do with the matter in\nquestion.\n\n7. Cum ergo perseverarent        7. When therefore they\ninterrogantes eum, erexit se,    continued asking him, he\net dixit eis: Qui sine peccato   lifted up himself and said to\nest vestrum, primus in illam     them: He that is without sin\nlapidem mittat.                  among you, let him first cast\n                                 a stone at her.\n\n7. *Let him first cast a stone at her.* The deep wisdom of this answer\ngave them no ground for charging Him with opposition to any law, and at\nthe same time referred them to their own guilty consciences. He does not\nsay that sinners may not be punished by sinners, but implies that it was\nnot seemly that they who were guilty of the same or greater sins should be\nthe accusers of the poor wretch who stood before them.\n\n8. Et iterum se inclinans,       8. And again stooping down, he\nscribebat in terra.              wrote on the ground.\n\n8. Having shamed them by this appeal to the tribunal of their conscience,\nHe again stooped down to write, probably to afford them an opportunity to\ndepart.\n\n9. Audientes autem unus post     9. But they hearing _this_\nunum exibant, incipientes a      went out one by one, beginning\nsenioribus: et remansit solus    at the eldest. And Jesus alone\nIesus, et mulier in medio        remained, and the woman\nstans.                           standing in the midst.\n10. Erigens autem se Iesus,      10. Then Jesus lifting up\ndixit ei: Mulier, ubi sunt qui   himself, said to her: Woman,\nte accusabant? nemo te           where are they that accused\ncondemnavit?                     thee? Hath no man condemned\n                                 thee?\n11. Quae dixit: Nemo, Domine.    11. Who said: No man, Lord.\nDixit autem Iesus: Nec ego te    And Jesus said: Neither will I\ncondemnabo: vade, et iam         condemn thee. Go, and now sin\namplius noli peccare.            no more.\n\n11. *Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.* Doubtless the\ntreatment of her accusers by Christ, and abundant grace poured into her\nsoul, had already moved the woman\u2019s heart to repentance, and Christ,\nexercising His Divine power, absolved her from her sin. He did not condemn\nher, but, in telling her to sin no more, He showed that she had done what\nwas wrong, and warned her as to the future. Thus the incident shows the\nboundless mercy of Christ for sinners, His hatred of sin, and, what St.\nJohn probably had chiefly before his mind in recording it, Christ\u2019s Divine\npower to forgive sin.\n\n12. Iterum ergo locutus est      12. Again therefore Jesus\neis Iesus, dicens. Ego sum lux   spoke to them, saying: I am\nmundi: qui sequitur me non       the light of the world: he\nambulat in tenebris, sed         that followeth me, walketh not\nhabebit lumen vitae.             in darkness, but shall have\n                                 the light of life.\n\n12. We do not know whether this is a new discourse, or only a continuation\nof that referred to above in verse 2. On Christ\u2019s words here recorded, see\nabove on i. 5. They follow Christ, who believe in Him, and obey Him.\n\n13. Dixerunt ergo ei             13. The Pharisees therefore\npharisaei: Tu de teipso          said to him: Thou givest\ntestimonium perhibes:            testimony of thyself: thy\ntestimonium tuum non est         testimony is not true.\nverum.\n\n13. *Thy testimony is not true*; that is to say, is not juridical, such as\nought to be accepted.\n\n14. Respondit Iesus, et dixit    14. Jesus answered, and said\neis: Et si ego testimonium       to them: Although I give\nperhibeo de meipso, verum est    testimony of myself, my\ntestimonium meum: quia scio      testimony is true: For I know\nunde veni, et quo vado: vos      whence I came, and whither I\nautem nescitis unde venio, aut   go: but you know not whence I\nquo vado.                        come, or whither I go.\n\n14. Christ\u2019s answer is: though I bear testimony of Myself, My testimony\nshould be accepted, because I am God (I know whence I came, and whither I\ngo); self\u2010interest and self\u2010love can have no influence on Me, so as to\nwarp My judgment or weaken My testimony.\n\n15. Vos secundum carnem          15. You judge according to the\niudicatis: ego non iudico        flesh: I judge not any man.\nquemquam:\n\n15. *You judge according to the flesh*; _i.e._, according to appearances,\nas though I were a mere man; or, more probably, according to your carnal\nideas (Rom. viii. 4\u20106); thinking Me an impostor, you condemn Me. *I judge\nnot any man.* The sense is that Christ at His first coming, condemned no\none, for it is of the judgment of condemnation there is question,\naccording to what seems the most probable view. Compare iii. 17; xii. 47.\n\n16. Et si iudico ego, iudicium   16. And if I do judge, my\nmeum verum est, quia solus non   judgment is true: because I am\nsum: sed ego, et qui misit me,   not alone, but I and the\nPater.                           Father that sent me.\n\n16. The meaning is: if I did judge, My judgment would be just, because not\nthe judgment of a mere man, but identical with the judgment of My Father.\nSee x. 30; xiv. 10.\n\n17. Et in lege vestra scriptum   17. And in your law it is\nest, quia duorum hominum         written, that the testimony of\ntestimonium verum est.           two men is true.\n\n17. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 ... \u03b4\u1f72, indicate the transition in which He passes from speaking\nof condemnation to speak of His testimony. Your law, He says, requires and\nis satisfied with two Witnesses (Deut. xvii. 6).\n\n18. Ego sum qui testimonium      18. I am one that give\nperhibeo de meipso: et           testimony of myself: and the\ntestimonium perhibet de me,      Father that sent me, giveth\nqui misit me, Pater.             testimony of me.\n\n18. Now, two bear testimony to Me. Two _Persons_ bore testimony that the\nman Christ, who spoke to the Jews, was God. The Son Himself, as God bore\nthis testimony by word and work, and the Father by the miracles that He\ngave the Son to perform (v. 36).\n\n19. Dicebant ergo ei: Ubi est    19. They said therefore to\nPater tuus? Respondit Iesus:     him: Where is thy Father?\nNeque me scitis, neque Patrem    Jesus answered: Neither me do\nmeum: si me sciretis forsitan    you know, nor my Father: if\net Patrem meum sciretis.         you did know me, perhaps you\n                                 would know my Father also.\n\n19. To their question Jesus answers: *Neither me do you know, nor my\nFather*. The sense is: You know not who I am, _that I am God_; if you knew\nand recognised Me to be God, you would also know who My Father is, that He\nmust be God; and thus you would know the answer to your question, since\nGod dwells in heaven. On the use of \u201cforsitan,\u201d see above on iv. 10.\n\n20. Haec verba locutus est       20. These words Jesus spoke in\nIesus in gazophylacio, docens    the treasury, teaching in the\nin templo: et nemo apprehendit   temple: and no man laid hands\neum, quia necdum venerat hora    on him, because his hour was\neius.                            not yet come.\n\n20. The Greek word translated by \u201ctreasury\u201d is \u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u1ff3, derived from\nthe Persian _gaza_ (money), and \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9 (to guard). This treasury was a\nchest or safe for holding money (see Luke xxi. 1), but by metonymy the\nname was given to the cloister in which it stood. This cloister was in the\ncourt of the women. See above on ii. 14.\n\n21. Dixit ergo iterum eis        21. Again therefore Jesus said\nIesus: Ego vado, et quaeretis    to them: I go, and you shall\nme, et in peccato vestro         seek me, and you shall die in\nmoriemini. Quo ego vado, vos     your sin. Whither I go, you\nnon potestis venire?             cannot come.\n\n21. It is doubtful whether this is a continuation of the preceding, or a\nnew discourse. For the meaning of the verse, see above on vii. 34. The\nparticular _sin_ referred to here is infidelity; but dying in infidelity,\nmeant dying in many sins besides; and hence the plural _sins_, is used in\nverse 24.\n\n22. Dicebant ergo Iudaei:        22. The Jews therefore said:\nNumquid interficiet              Will he kill himself, because\nsemetipsum, quia dixit: Quo      he said: Whither I go, you\nego vado, vos non potestis       cannot come?\nvenire?\n\n22. Josephus (_De Bello Jud._, iii. 8, 5) tells us that the Pharisees\nbelieved that the lowest depths of hell are reserved for suicides. The\nwords of this verse may refer to that superstition; as if they said: does\nHe mean to go into the depths of hell, where we the children of Abraham\ncannot, of course, follow Him? But the more simple explanation is: He\ncannot escape from us wherever He may go on this earth. Does He then mean\nto take His own life, that so He may be out of our reach?\n\n23. Et dicebat eis: Vos de       23. And he said to them: You\ndeorsum estis, ego de supernis   are from beneath, I am from\nsum. Vos de mundo hoc estis,     above. You are of this world,\nego non sum de hoc mundo.        I am not of this world.\n\n23. Taking no notice of what had just been said, Jesus proceeds in His\ndiscourse. *You*, He says, *are from beneath, I am from above* (see iii.\n31); _i.e._, you are earthly in origin and nature, I am of heaven;\nmoreover, you are earthly in sentiment, you belong to the _wicked_ world\n(see xv. 19), I do not belong to it. Thus He shows them there is a twofold\ndifference between Him and them; and unless by the supernatural principle\nof faith they are lifted above their nature, and taken out of the wicked\nworld, they shall die in their sins, and shall never here or hereafter be\nable to follow whither He goeth. Instead of _peccato_ (Vulg.) in the end\nof verse 24, read _peccatis_. *For if you believe not that I am he.* \u201cHe\u201d\nis not represented in the Greek or Latin text, and ought not to stand in\nthe English. The predicate may be purposely suppressed in order to leave\nthe meaning, which was still sufficiently intelligible, obscure, and thus\nafford no opportunity to His enemies of charging Him with blasphemy.\n\n24. Dixi ergo vobis quia         24. Therefore I said to you,\nmoriemini in peccatis vestris:   that you shall die in your\nsi enim non credideritis quia    sins. For if you believe not\nego sum, moriemini in peccato    that I am he, you shall die in\nvestro.                          your sin.\n25. Dicebant ergo ei: Tu quis    25. They said therefore to\nes? Dixit eis Iesus:             him: Who art thou? Jesus said\nPrincipium, qui et loquor        to them: The beginning, who\nvobis.                           also speak unto you.\n\n25. This is a very obscure verse. Christ had just spoken of faith in\nHimself; but in Himself _under what aspect_ He had not defined; and now in\nthe hope of evoking an answer for which they could punish Him, they ask:\n*Who art thou?* His answer is purposely obscure. It is according to the\nGreek text, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 (or \u1f45 \u03c4\u03b9) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd; which is rendered in\nthe Vulgate: _Principium qui et loquor vobis_, and in our Rheims version:\n*The beginning, who also speak unto you*.\n\nAbout the meaning of this answer there is a great diversity opinion. Some\ntake the words affirmatively, others interrogatively; some understand \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd as a substantive, others as an adverb; some regard \u1f45 \u03c4\u03b9 as a\nrelative (that which), others as an interrogative = \u03c4\u03af (how or why?) and\nothers again as a conjunction, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 (for, or, because). The Vulgate\ntranslator may have read \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 (who) instead of \u1f45 \u03c4\u03b9, or \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9; or possibly\n\u201cQui et\u201d of our Vulgate is a corruption of \u201cquia,\u201d which is found in the\noldest Vulgate MSS. The objection against the Vulgate and English\ntranslations is that while \u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd is an accusative, they _seem_ to\nunderstand it as a nominative. Nor can it be replied, that it is attracted\ninto the accusative case of the relative which follows; for, apart from\nthe fact that there is no other instance of such attraction in St. John,\nthe explanation is inadmissible here, inasmuch as these translations\nunderstand the relative not as an accusative, but as a nominative. A\nbetter defence is that of St. Augustine, who would supply some such words\nas: \u201cBelieve Me to be,\u201d before the sentence, thus making _principium_ the\naccusative after _esse_: Believe Me to be the beginning, &c.\n\n(2) Others, understanding \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd in the same way as the preceding\nopinion, take \u1f41 \u03c4\u03b9 as a relative, and render: I am the beginning, that\nwhich I also declare unto you. Here there is room for attraction, since\nthe relative is now taken as an accusative; but against such attraction is\nthe usage of St. John, as already stated.\n\n(3) Others, taking \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd as an adverb (from the beginning), render: I\nam from the beginning, from eternity, what I even declare unto you. But it\nis objected to this view that \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd is not found elsewhere in Sacred\nScripture in this sense, and moreover that the verb \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6 (to discuss with,\nto converse) is wrongly taken to be equivalent to \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 (to declare). To\nthis latter point, however, it is replied that the two verbs are\nfrequently interchanged in later Greek.\n\n(4) Others thus: Even that which I have also spoken to you from the\nbeginning.(68) But this view is open to the same objections as the\npreceding.\n\n(5) Others again: Essentially (or, in very deed) that which I speak unto\nyou. So Alford.\n\n(6) Others: On the whole, why do I even speak with you? So St. Chrys.,\nCorluy, &c.\n\n(7) Others: Absolutely, or most certainly, that which I also tell you. So\nBeel., Kuin, &c. \u03a4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd is thus taken as equivalent to _omnino_, for\nwhich sense Beelen quotes several classical writers.\n\nWe prefer the sixth and seventh opinions; but rather the seventh, since it\nsupposes Christ to answer their question, though in language purposely\nobscure. In the sixth opinion, Christ vouchsafes no answer to their\nquestion, and we should naturally expect an impatient interruption from\nthem immediately after, were that opinion correct.\n\n26. Multa habeo de vobis         26. Many things I have to\nloqui, et iudicare: sed qui me   speak and to judge of you. But\nmisit, verax est: et ego quae    he that sent me is true; and\naudivi ab eo, haec loquor in     the things I have heard of\nmundo.                           him, these same I speak in the\n                                 world.\n\n26. Some explain thus: I have many things to say of you, and to condemn in\nyou, _but with this only will I charge you now_, namely, that you are\nguilty of incredulity, since He who sent Me is true (truthful), and I\nspeak His words, and yet you refuse to believe in Me. But the ellipsis\nhere is not sufficiently obvious; and, hence, we prefer to understand\nthus: I have many things, &c., but My judgments will be just, and such as\ncannot be gainsaid.\n\n27. Et non cognoverunt quia      27. And they understood not\nPatrem eius dicebat Deum.        that he called God his father.\n\n27. The Greek is: _They knew not that He spoke to them of the Father_.\n\n28. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Cum    28. Jesus therefore said to\nexaltaveritis Filium hominis,    them: When you shall have\ntunc cognoscetis quia ego sum,   lifted up the son of man, then\net a meipso facio nihil, sed     shall you know that I am he,\nsicut docuit me Pater, haec      and that I do nothing of\nloquor:                          myself, but as the Father hath\n                                 taught me, these things I\n                                 speak.\n\n28. *Lifted up.* The reference is to Christ\u2019s crucifixion as is clear from\nxii. 32, 33. The substance of Christ\u2019s prediction is, that after His death\nthey will come to recognise Him as God. We know how truly this prediction\nwas fulfilled, not merely in the centurion and his soldiers (Matt. xxvii.\n54), and in the crowd that returned from Calvary, striking their breasts\n(Luke xxiii. 48), but all along from that time through the preaching of\nthe Apostles. On the Father\u2019s teaching the Son, see above on v. 19, 20.\n\n29. Et qui me misit, mecum est   29. And he that sent me is\net non reliquit me solum, quia   with me, and he hath not left\nego quae placita sunt ei,        me alone: for I do always the\nfacio semper.                    things that please him.\n\n29. *For.* \u201cThe word seems to be used as in Luke vii. 47, to indicate the\nsign of the truth of the statement made, and not to give the ground of the\nfact stated\u201d (Westc.).\n\n30. Haec illo loquente, multi    30. When he spoke these\ncrediderunt in eum.              things, many believed in him.\n31. Dicebat ergo Iesus ad eos,   31. Then Jesus said to those\nqui crediderunt ei Iudaeos: Si   Jews who believed him: If you\nvos manseritis in sermone meo,   continue in my word, you shall\nvere discipuli mei eritis:       be my disciples indeed.\n\n31. Christ here lays down the test by which His disciples are to be known.\nIt is only when we accept His words, and conform our works thereto, that\nwe can be truly said to be His disciples.\n\n32. Et cognoscetis veritatem,    32. And you shall know the\net veritas liberabit vos.        truth, and the truth shall\n                                 make you free.\n\n32. *The truth*; _i.e._, the whole body of revelation.\n\n33. Responderunt ei: Semen       33. They answered him: We are\nAbrahae sumus, et nemini         the seed of Abraham, and we\nservivimus unquam: quomodo tu    have never been slaves to any\ndicis: Liberi eritis?            man: how sayest thou: You\n                                 shall be free?\n34. Respondit eis Iesus: Amen,   34. Jesus answered them: Amen,\namen dico vobis: quia omnis      amen, I say unto you, that\nqui facit peccatum, servus est   whosoever committeth sin, is\npeccati:                         the servant of sin.\n35. Servus autem non manet in    35. Now the servant abideth\ndomo in aeternum: filius autem   not in the house for ever: but\nmanet in aeternum:               the son abideth for ever:\n36. Si ergo vos filius           36. If therefore the son shall\nliberaverit, vere liberi         make you free, you shall be\neritis.                          free indeed.\n\n33\u201036. To Christ\u2019s promise that the truth should make them free, some of\nthe crowd who remained incredulous, replied that they were never slaves,\nto which Christ makes answer that they are the slaves of sin: and only\nwhen the Son of God shall free them, shall they be truly free. Verse 35 is\nan illustration drawn from ordinary life. As slaves who displease their\nmasters may be sold, or expelled from the household, so you who, instead\nof serving God, are the slaves of sin, are, and shall remain, excluded\nfrom the household of God here and hereafter.\n\n37. Scio quia filii Abrahae      37. I know that you are the\nestis: sed quaeritis me          children of Abraham: but you\ninterficere, quia sermo meus     seek to kill me, because my\nnon capit in vobis.              word hath no place in you.\n38. Ego quod vidi apud Patrem    38. I speak that which I have\nmeum loquor, et vos quae         seen with my Father: and you\nvidistis apud patrem vestrum,    do the things that you have\nfacitis.                         seen with your father.\n\n38. *Your father*; _i.e._, the devil (see verse 44). Others understand\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 as an imperative; do then the works which you have seen with your\nfather (Abraham). But since the following verse proves that the Jews\nunderstood Christ to speak of another father than Abraham, for this\nreason, and because of verse 44, the first interpretation is preferable.\nThe sense then is: You do the works that you have learned from your father\nthe devil.\n\n39. Responderunt, et dixerunt    39. They answered, and said to\nei: Pater noster Abraham est.    him: Abraham is our father.\nDicit eis Iesus: Si filii        Jesus saith to them: If you be\nAbrahae estis, opera Abrahae     the children of Abraham, do\nfacite.                          the works of Abraham.\n\n39. *If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.* The\nGreek is: If you _were_ the (true) children of Abraham, you would do the\nworks of Abraham.\n\n40. Nunc autem quaeritis me      40. But now you seek to kill\ninterficere, hominem qui         me, a man who have spoken the\nveritatem vobis locutus sum,     truth to you, which I have\nquam audivi a Deo: hoc Abraham   heard of God. This Abraham did\nnon fecit.                       not.\n41. Vos facitis opera patris     41. You do the works of your\nvestri. Dixerunt itaque ei:      father. They said therefore to\nNos ex fornicatione non sumus    him: We are not born of\nnati: unum patrem habemus        fornication: we have one\nDeum.                            Father _even_ God.\n42. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Si     42. Jesus therefore said to\nDeus pater vester esset,         them: If God were your father,\ndiligeretis utique me: ego       you would indeed love me. For\nenim ex Deo processi, et veni:   from God I proceeded, and\nneque enim a me ipso veni, sed   came: for I came not of\nille me misit.                   myself, but he sent me.\n\n41, 42. Understanding Christ to mean that they were not true Jews, but\nidolaters (\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03ad\u03b9\u03b1 being frequently used of idolatry in the Bible; _e.g._,\nEzech. xvi. 15, foll.; see ii. 4, 5,), they protest that they are not\nidolaters, and that they worship but one God. To this Christ replies, that\nif they were true children of God, they would love Himself. *I proceeded\nand came*, denote respectively the eternal generation, and mission in\ntime.\n\n43. Quare loquelam meam non      43. Why do you not know my\ncognoscitis? Quia non potestis   speech? Because you cannot\naudire sermonem meum.            hear my word.\n\n43. The sense is: why do you not understand My discourses (\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd) on this\nand on other occasions? The reason is, because you cannot, you _will not_,\nreceive My doctrine (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2). What we do not desire to hear, we are slow to\nunderstand. Christ\u2019s teaching, so opposed to flesh and blood, so much at\nvariance with all that the Jews had hoped for from their Messias, they\nwere very unwilling to accept. \u201cIdeo audire non poterant, quia corrigi\ncredendo nolebant\u201d (St. August.).\n\n44. Vos ex patre diabolo         44. You are of _your_ father\nestis: et desideria patris       the devil, and the desires of\nvestri vultis facere. Ille       your father you will do. He\nhomicida erat ab initio, et in   was a murderer from the\nveritate non stetit: quia non    beginning, and he stood not in\nest veritas in eo: cum           the truth; because truth is\nloquitur mendacium, ex           not in him. When he speaketh a\npropriis loquitur, quia mendax   lie, he speaketh of his own:\nest, et pater eius.              for he is a liar, and the\n                                 father thereof.\n\n44. At last He plainly tells them who their father is. *He was a murderer\nfrom the beginning*, for he tempted Eve, and thus brought death upon the\nhuman race, and he prompted Cain to slay Abel.\n\n*And he stood not in the truth*; or rather, he _standeth_ not in the truth\n(the perfect of this verb having a present signification. See Winer, _Gr.\nGram. N. T._, p. 342(69)), because there is no truth in his nature. St.\nAugustine argued from this verse to prove the fall of the rebel angels:\n\u201cErgo in veritate fuit, sed non stando cecidit, et de veritate lapsus\nest.\u201d But the conclusion is not warranted by this verse, for the true\nmeaning of \u1f15\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, and the reason given by our Lord for the devil\u2019s not\nstanding in the truth\u2014namely, _because truth is not in him_, show that\nthere is no reference to the devil as he was before the fall, but only to\nhis nature and methods since. *Of his own*, _i.e._, in accordance with his\nnature. *The father thereof*, namely, of _lying_. We thus, with Beelen,\nrefer \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (ejus) to \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (understood). \u201c\u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, scil. \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 quae vox\nsumi debet ex antegressa \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in qua veluti continetur\u201d (_Gr. Gram. N.\nT._, page 104).\n\n45. Ego autem si veritatem       45. But if I say the truth,\ndico, non creditis mihi.         you believe me not.\n\n45. Instead of \u201csi\u201d (Vulg.) the Greek has \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 (quia): because I speak the\ntruth.\n\n46. Quis ex vobis arguet me de   46. Which of you shall\npeccato? Si veritatem dico       convince me of sin? If I say\nvobis, quare non creditis        the truth to you, why do you\nmihi?                            not believe me?\n\n46. Christ appeals to His integrity of character and innocence of life; as\nif He said: it cannot be My life that prevents you from believing: so that\nif My doctrine is true, you have no excuse.\n\n47. Qui ex Deo est, verba Dei    47. He that is of God, heareth\naudit. Propterea vos non         the words of God. Therefore\nauditis, quia ex Deo non         you hear them not, because you\nestis.                           are not of God.\n\n47. \u201cHe assigns the cause of their not believing or obeying His words,\nviz., because they are not of God. They are not children of God, sharers\nin His spirit; but rather children of the devil, filled with his spirit\u201d\n(M\u2019Evilly).\n\n48. Responderunt ergo Iudaei,    48. The Jews therefore\net dixerunt ei: Nonne bene       answered and said to him: Do\ndicimus nos quia Samaritanus     not we say well that thou art\nes tu, et daemonium habes?       a Samaritan, and hast a devil?\n49. Respondit Iesus: Ego         49. Jesus answered: I have not\ndaemonium non habeo: sed         a devil; but I honour my\nhonorifico Patrem meum, et vos   Father, and you have\ninhonorastis me.                 dishonoured me.\n\n48, 49. They say to Him that He is a Samaritan, and has a devil. The first\ncharge He passes over as unworthy of notice; to the second He replies\nthat, so far from having a devil, He honours His Father, while they\ndishonour Himself. On account of His language, strange to them, and His\nearnest fervour, they say that He is possessed; and He replies that His\nwords and manner are due to the fact that He is seeking the glory of His\nFather.\n\n50. Ego autem non quaero         50. But I seek not my own\ngloriam meam: est qui quaerat,   glory: there is one that\net iudicet.                      seeketh and judgeth.\n\n50. But though _you dishonour_ (the Greek has the present in end of 49)\n_Me_, I will not seek to avenge the dishonour; the Father will avenge it.\nSee Deut. xviii. 19.\n\n51. Amen, amen dico vobis: si    51. Amen, amen, I say to you:\nquis sermonem meum servaverit,   If any man keep my word, he\nmortem non videbit in            shall not see death for ever.\naeternum.\n\n51. In verse 32, He promised freedom, now He promises immortality, to\nthose that hearken to His words.\n\n52. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: Nunc   52. The Jews therefore said:\ncognovimus quia daemonium        Now we know that thou hast a\nhabes. Abraham mortuus est, et   devil. Abraham is dead, and\nprophetae: et tu dicis: Si       the prophets: and thou sayest:\nquis sermonem meum servaverit,   If any man keep my word he\nnon gustabit mortem in           shall not taste death for\naeternum.                        ever.\n53. Numquid tu maior es patre    53. Art thou greater than our\nnostro Abraham, qui mortuus      father Abraham, who is dead?\nest? et prophetae mortui sunt.   and the prophets are dead.\nQuem teipsum facis?              Whom dost thou make thyself?\n\n52, 53. The Jews accuse Him of preferring Himself to Abraham and the\nprophets, to which He replies\u2014\n\n54. Respondit Iesus: Si ego      54. Jesus answered: If I\nglorifico, meipsum, gloria mea   glorify myself, my glory is\nnihil est: est Pater meus, qui   nothing. It is my Father that\nglorificat me, quem vos          glorifieth me, of whom you say\ndicitis quia Deus vester est.    that he is your God.\n\n54. If I glorify Myself, _let it go for nought_; it is My Father, &c.\n\n55. Et non cognovistis eum.      55. And you have not known\nEgo autem novi eum: et si        him, but I know him. And if I\ndixero quia non scio eum, ero    shall say that I know him not,\nsimilis vobis, mendax. Sed       I shall be like to you, a\nscio eum, et sermonem eius       liar. But I do know him, and\nservo.                           do keep his word.\n\n55. The Jews knew not the Father as the Father of Christ; moreover, they\nknew Him not at all with a practical knowledge so as to serve Him.\n\n56. Abraham pater vester         56. Abraham your father\nexultavit ut videret diem        rejoiced that he might see my\nmeum: vidit, et gavisus est.     day: he saw it, and was glad.\n\n56. *Abraham your father rejoiced*, &c. He leaves it to be inferred that\nHe, being the object of Abraham\u2019s hope and joy, is greater than Abraham,\nand still not opposed to him. Our Lord\u2019s _day_ here is not the eternal\nexistence of the Son, nor the day of His death, nor Himself, the day\u2010star\nof justice, but the day for which all the ancient just had so long prayed\nand sighed: \u201c_drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds\nrain the just_\u201d (Is. xlv. 8), the day or time of Christ\u2019s mortal life on\nearth. *Rejoiced that he might see* (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b7). Most probably the meaning\nis, that Abraham, after God had revealed to him that the Messias was to be\nborn of his seed, hoped and yearned in joyful confidence that he might see\nChrist on earth. *He saw it, and was glad.* It would seem from these words\nthat Abraham saw in the way in which he had yearned to see. And since he\ncannot have yearned to see Christ\u2019s day merely by faith, for he already\nsaw it by faith; hence there must be question here of some other vision.\nMald., A Lap., and most commentators hold that Abraham\u2019s mental vision was\nelevated by God, so that from limbo he saw and knew that Christ was on\nearth just as the angels and saints in heaven know what happens on earth\nand in hell. The aorist tenses in the Greek (\u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7), with their\npast definite signification, are not easily reconciled with this view, and\nhence others prefer to suppose that there is reference to some very\nspecial revelation made to Abraham during his life on earth, in which he\nsaw with something more than the vision of ordinary faith the time and\nvarious circumstances of Christ\u2019s mortal life (compare Heb. xi. 13).\n\n57. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad      57. The Jews therefore said to\neum: Quinquaginta annos nondum   him: Thou art not yet fifty\nhabes, et Abraham vidisti?       years old, and hast thou seen\n                                 Abraham?\n\n57. In saying Christ was not yet fifty years of age, they take an age\nabout which there could be no dispute, as if they said: at the very\noutside Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? The\ncommon opinion is that Christ died in his thirty\u2010fourth year, though,\nstrange to say, St. Iren\u00e6us held the singular view that he lived to be\nfifty. (Iren., _Adv. Haer._, ii. 39, 40.)\n\n58. Dixit eis Iesus: Amen,       58. Jesus said to them: Amen,\namen dico vobis, antequam        amen, I say to you, before\nAbraham fieret, ego sum.         Abraham was made, I am.\n\n58. In verse 56, He spoke of the day of His mortal life, now He declares\nHis eternity. *Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made*\n(\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, came into being), *I am* (\u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f34\u03bc\u03b9).\n\n59. Tulerunt ergo lapides, ut    59. They took up stones\niacerent in eum. Iesus autem     therefore to cast at him. But\nabscondit se, et exivit de       Jesus hid himself, and went\ntemplo.                          out of the temple.\n\n59. Understanding Him to claim to be eternal, as He really did, they took\nup stones to stone Him, the Law commanding that a blasphemer, as they\naccounted Him, should be stoned (Lev. xxiv. 16). But Jesus hid Himself,\nmost probably rendered Himself invisible, and thus passed out of the\ntemple, showing us that it is sometimes advisable, and conducive to the\ngreater glory of God, that we should flee from danger, even when we are\npersecuted for God\u2019s sake. Many ancient authorities add at the end of this\nverse: \u201cAnd going through the midst of them went His way, and so passed\nby;\u201d but more probably the words are a gloss.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n\n    1\u20107. *Jesus cures a man born blind.*\n\n    8\u201013. *Comments of the man\u2019s neighbours, who bring him to the\n    Pharisees.*\n\n    14. *It was on the Sabbath day the cure was wrought.*\n\n    15\u201023. *Interview between the man and the Pharisees. They refuse\n    to believe that he had been blind, and summon his parents in order\n    to ascertain the truth. The parents declare that he had indeed\n    been born blind.*\n\n    24\u201034. *Again therefore the Pharisees interrogate the man himself,\n    and at length, wincing under his remarks and indignant with him\n    for his favourable opinion of Jesus, they expel him from their\n    assembly.*\n\n    35\u201038. *Jesus finds him, and now illumines the darkness of his\n    soul.*\n\n    39\u201041. *The blindness of the Pharisees.*\n\n\n1. Et praeteriens Iesus vidit    1. And Jesus passing by, saw a\nhominem caecum a nativitate:     man who was blind from his\n                                 birth.\n\n1. Some think that the events about to be narrated occurred shortly after\nChrist left the temple (viii. 59) and had been rejoined by His disciples,\nwho are supposed to have left when He disappeared. This view seems to us\nmore probable than that which places the events about to be narrated on a\ndifferent day from those referred to in the close of the preceding\nchapter. When we are told that Jesus went out of the temple (viii. 59),\nand passing by, saw a man blind from his birth, the natural inference is,\nthat the Evangelist is speaking of Christ\u2019s passing along after He left\nthe temple. This view is confirmed too by the fact, that *Jesus* should\nnot be read in this verse, being spurious according to all critics, but\nmust be supplied from the preceding chapter.\n\nThe man was *blind from his birth*, so that it was no mere passing\naffection of the eyes, from which he suffered; and thus the miracle was\nthe more striking.\n\n2. Et interrogaverunt eum        2. And his disciples asked\ndiscipuli eius: Rabbi, quis      him: Rabbi, who hath sinned,\npeccavit, hic, aut parentes      this man, or his parents, that\neius, ut caecus nasceretur?      he should be born blind?\n\n2. How the disciples knew the man had been *born blind*, we are not told.\nTo excite greater compassion, and probably to obtain alms, he may have\nbeen himself proclaiming the fact. It was reasonable enough that the\ndisciples should think of the sins of the man\u2019s parents as the reason why\nhe was born blind, for God Himself tells us that He is \u201cjealous, visiting\nthe iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth\ngeneration\u201d (Exod. xx. 5). And we know that David was punished by the\ndeath of his child (2 Kings xii. 14). But why should the disciples imagine\nthat the man might have been born blind on account of _his own_ sins? Some\nthink that the disciples may have been imbued with the false notions of\nthe Jews regarding the transmigration of souls, and have thought that this\nman\u2019s soul had sinned in some previous state of existence, and been\ntherefore imprisoned in a blind body. But it is unlikely that the\ndisciples at this time, the third year of our Lord\u2019s public life, were\nstill in such ignorance.(70) Others think that the question means: was he\nborn blind for some sin which it _was foreseen_ he would commit? Others\nthink that the question was hastily put without advertence to its\nabsurdity. Others that the meaning is: was it for his own, or, _since that\nis out of the question_, was it for the sin of his parents that this man\nwas born blind?\n\n3. Respondit Iesus: Neque hic    3. Jesus answered: Neither\npeccavit, neque parentes eius:   hath this man sinned, nor his\nsed ut manifestentur opera Dei   parents; but that the works of\nin illo.                         God should be made manifest in\n                                 him.\n\n3. Christ replies that neither the man himself nor his parents had sinned,\nso as to explain his blindness\u2014\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1, as a _cause_ why he should be born\nblind; but his blindness was ordained, or at least permitted, for the sake\nof the miracle which Christ was now about to work.\n\n4. Me oportet operari opera      4. I must work the works of\neius qui misit me, donec dies    him that sent me, whilst it is\nest: venit nox, quando nemo      day: the night cometh when no\npotest operari.                  man can work.\n\n4. *Day* is here the span of Christ\u2019s mortal life: *night* the time after\ndeath, when Christ was no longer to perform works visibly before men. Of\ncourse, as God, Christ still works, \u201csustaining all things by the word of\nHis power\u201d (Heb. i. 3), but of this Divine operation there is no question\nhere.\n\n5. Quamdiu sum in mundo, lux     5. As long as I am in the\nsum mundi.                       world, I am the light of the\n                                 world.\n\n5. *The light.* See i. 4, 5. Christ was the spiritual light, and as a\nsymbol and proof of His office of spiritual light\u2010giver, He was now about\nto open the eyes of the blind man to the light of day.\n\n6. Haec cum dixisset, exspuit    6. When he had said these\nin terram, et fecit lutum ex     things, he spat on the ground,\nsputo, et linivit lutum super    and made clay of the spittle,\noculos eius.                     and spread the clay upon his\n                                 eyes.\n\n6. *He spat on the ground.* Of course such ceremonies as that here\nrecorded were wholly unnecessary to Christ for effecting the cure. Why He\nsometimes used them it is hard to say; perhaps to help to excite the faith\nof those who were being cured. \u201cThose who impiously jeer at the use of\nceremonies, and material elements in connection with spiritual effects,\nwhich they symbolize, have a clear refutation in this action, and several\nsimilar actions on the part of our Divine Redeemer for similar effects\n(Mark vii. 33; viii. 23).\u201d (McEvilly).\n\n7. Et dixit ei: Vade, lava in    7. And said to him: Go, wash\nnatatoria Siloe (quod            in the pool of Siloe, which is\ninterpretatur Missus). Abiit     interpreted, Sent. He went\nergo, et lavit, et venit         therefore, and washed, and he\nvidens.                          came seeing.\n\n7. St. John interprets for his readers the Hebrew name (\u05e9\u05c2\u05dc\u05d5\u05d7) of the\npool. Some have regarded the interpretation as the gloss of a copyist or\ninterpreter; but there is practically no authority for doubting that it\nwas written by St. John. Doubtless the pool bore this name for some mystic\nreason; by the natural salubrity of its waters, or by a supernatural\nvirtue, like Bethesda (v. 2), it may have typified _Him who was sent_ from\nGod to heal men. The pool which still retains its old name _Birket\nSilwan_, is one of the few undisputed sites at Jerusalem. St. Jerome\nspeaks of the spring which supplied it as situated at the foot of Mount\nSion, and mentions also the intermittent character of the spring. See\nIsaiah viii. 6. In another place St. Jerome speaks of Siloe as situated at\n\u201cthe foot of Mount Moria,\u201d so that there is no reason for doubting that\nthe pool was situated in the valley called Tyropaeon, which separated\nMount Sion from Mount Moria, just where _Birket Silwan_ is still to be\nseen. See also Josephus, _Bella Jud._, v. 4. 1. The blind man journeying\ntowards the pool, with clay upon his eyes, must have attracted the\nattention of many, and thus helped to make the miracle more public. That\none born blind, and accustomed to move about Jerusalem, would be able to\nfind his way to the pool, there is no reason to doubt; in any case there\nneed be no difficulty raised on this point, as he could probably have\nreadily found some one willing to guide him.\n\n8. Itaque vicini, et qui         8. The neighbours therefore,\nviderant eum prius quia          and they who had seen him\nmendicus erat, dicebant: Nonne   before that he was a beggar,\nhic est qui sedebat et           said: Is not this he that sat,\nmendicabat? Alii dicebant:       and begged? Some said: This is\nQuia hic est.                    he.\n9. Alii autem: Nequaquam, sed    9. But others _said_: No, but\nsimilis est ei. Ille vero        he is like him. But he said: I\ndicebat: Quia ego sum.           am he.\n10. Dicebant ergo ei: Quomodo    10. They said therefore to\naperti sunt tibi oculi?          him: How were thy eyes opened?\n11. Respondit: Ille homo qui     11. He answered: That man that\ndicitur Iesus, lutum fecit, et   is called Jesus, made clay,\nunxit oculos meos, et dixit      and anointed my eyes, and said\nmihi: Vade ad natatoria Siloe,   to me: Go to the pool of\net lava, Et abii, et lavi, et    Siloe, and wash. And I went, I\nvideo.                           washed, and I see.\n\n11. *He answered: That man* (\u1f41 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 is the true reading) *that is\ncalled Jesus.* He yet recognises in Christ only a holy man, but refers to\nHim as one who was well known and much spoken of.\n\n12. Et dixerunt ei: Ubi est      12. And they said to him:\nille? Ait: Nescio.               Where is he? He saith: I know\n                                 not.\n13. Adducunt eum ad pharisaeos   13. They bring him that had\nqui caecus fuerat.               been blind to the Pharisees.\n\n13. Why they brought him to the Pharisees is not certain; probably in\norder to have the facts sifted more closely, and perhaps to have Christ\ncondemned of violating the Sabbath (verse 14).\n\n14. Erat autem sabbatum,         14. Now it was the sabbath\nquando lutum fecit Iesus, et     when Jesus made the clay and\naperuit oculos eius.             opened his eyes.\n15. Iterum ergo interrogabant    15. Again therefore the\neum pharisaei quomodo            Pharisees asked him, how he\nvidisset. Ille autem dixit       had received his sight. But he\neis: Lutum mihi posuit super     said to them: He put clay upon\noculos, et lavi, et video.       my eyes, and I washed, and I\n                                 see.\n16. Dicebant ergo ex             16. Some therefore of the\npharisaeis quidam: Non est hic   Pharisees said: This man is\nhomo a Deo, qui sabbatum non     not of God, who keepeth not\ncustodit. Alii autem dicebant:   the sabbath. But others said:\nQuomodo potest homo peccator     How can a man that is a sinner\nhaec signa facere? Et schisma    do such miracles? And there\nerat inter eos.                  was a division among them.\n17. Dicunt ergo caeco iterum:    17. They say therefore to the\nTu quid dicis de illo qui        blind man again: What sayest\naperuit oculos tuos? Ille        thou of him that hath opened\nautem dixit: Quia propheta       thy eyes? And he said: He is a\nest.                             prophet.\n\n16, 17. The Pharisees themselves disagree as to the character of Christ,\nand ask the man who had been cured (note how he is still spoken of as\nblind, just as in the Blessed Eucharist (vi. 52) the flesh of Christ is\nspoken of as bread, not because it is any longer bread, but because of\nwhat it is known to have been shortly before) what he thought of Him who\ncured him. His reply is that Christ is a prophet (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 without the\narticle), a man sent by God; not _the_ Prophet, for he did not yet\nrecognise Christ as the Messias.\n\n18. Non crediderunt ergo         18. The Jews then did not\nIudaei de illo quia caecus       believe concerning him, that\nfuisset et vidisset, donec       he had been blind and had\nvocaverunt parentes eius qui     received his sight, until they\nviderat:                         call the parents of him that\n                                 had received his sight.\n\n18. The Pharisees now doubt the _fact_ of the cure, and send for the man\u2019s\nparents to inquire if he had indeed been born blind.\n\n19. Et interrogaverunt eos,      19. And asked them, saying: Is\ndicentes: Hic est filius         this your son, who you say was\nvester, quem vos dicitis quia    born blind? How then doth he\ncaecus natus est? Quomodo ergo   now see?\nnunc videt?\n20. Responderunt eis parentes    20. His parents answered them\neius, et dixerunt: Scimus quia   and said: We know that this is\nhic est filius noster, et quia   our son, and that he was born\ncaecus natus est:                blind.\n21. Quomodo autem nunc videat,   21. But how he now seeth, we\nnescimus: aut quis eius          know not: or who hath opened\naperuit oculos, nos nescimus:    his eyes, we know not: ask\nipsum interrogate: aetatem       himself; he is of age, let him\nhabet, ipse de se loquatur.      speak for himself.\n\n19\u201021. Three questions are put to the parents; to two they reply: that\nthis is their son, and that he was born blind; but to the third they\nreturn no answer, though, doubtless, they believed their son\u2019s account of\nthe cure.\n\n22. Haec dixerunt parentes       22. These things his parents\neius, quoniam timebant           said, because they feared the\nIudaeos: iam enim                Jews: For the Jews had already\nconspiraverant Iudaei, ut si     agreed among themselves, that\nquis eum confiteretur esse       if any man should confess him\nChristum, extra synagogam        to be Christ, he should be put\nfieret.                          out of the synagogue.\n\n22. *Put out of the synagogue*; that is to say, deprived of all religious\nintercourse by a sort of excommunication.\n\n23. Propterea parentes eius      23. Therefore did his parents\ndixerunt: Quia aetatem habet,    say: He is of age, ask him.\nipsum interrogate.\n24. Vocaverunt ergo rursum       24. They therefore called the\nhominem qui fuerat caecus, et    man again that had been blind,\ndixerunt ei: Da gloriam Deo:     and said to him: Give glory to\nnos scimus quia hic homo         God. We know that this man is\npeccator est.                    a sinner.\n\n24. The man himself is again interrogated. The words: *Give glory to God*\nare a sort of adjuration; as if they said\u2014remember you are in the presence\nof God, and speak the truth. See Jos. viii. 19. And yet while, pretending\nto be anxious to hear the truth, they tried to overawe the poor man by\ndeclaring that they are convinced already that Christ is an impostor and\nsinner.\n\n25. Dixit ergo eis ille: Si      25. He said therefore to them:\npeccator est, nescio: unum       If he be a sinner, I know not:\nscio, quia caecus cum essem,     one thing I know, that whereas\nmodo video.                      I was blind, now I see.\n\n25. *Being blind*, \u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd. The _present_ part. is used relatively to\nthe time when he blind.\n\n26. Dixerunt ergo illi: Quid     26. They said then to him:\nfecit tibi: Quomodo aperuit      What did he to thee? How did\ntibi oculos?                     he open thy eyes?\n27. Respondit eis: Dixi vobis    27. He answered them: I have\niam, et audistis: quid iterum    told you already, and you have\nvultis audire? numquid et vos    heard: why would you hear it\nvultis discipuli eius fieri?     again? will you also become\n                                 his disciples?\n\n27. *You have heard* (Gr. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, _You did not heed_). *Will you\nalso become his disciples?* These words are ironical. The man saw that the\nPharisees were hostile to Jesus, and his natural gratitude towards his\nbenefactor made him impatient with them.\n\n28. Maledixerunt ergo ei, et     28. They reviled him\ndixerunt: Tu discipulus illius   therefore, and said: Be thou\nsis: nos autem Moysi discipuli   his disciple; but we are the\nsumus.                           disciples of Moses.\n\n28. *They reviled him* (\u1f10\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd) *therefore, and said: Be thou that\nman\u2019s disciple*.\n\n29. Nos scimus quia Moysi        29. We know that God spoke to\nlocutus est Deus: hunc autem     Moses: but as to this man, we\nnescimus unde sit.               know not from whence he is.\n\n29. The meaning is: We know not whether this man is sent by God or the\ndevil.\n\n30. Respondit ille homo, et      30. The man answered, and said\ndixit eis: In hoc enim           to them: Why herein is a\nmirabile est quia vos nescitis   wonderful thing that you know\nunde sit, et aperuit meos        not from whence he is, and he\noculos:                          hath opened my eyes.\n\n30. *You* is emphatic; you the teachers of God\u2019s people!\n\n31. Scimus autem quia            31. Now we know that God doth\npeccatores Deus non audit: sed   not hear sinners: but if a man\nsi quis Dei cultor est, et       be a server of God, and doth\nvoluntatem eius facit, hunc      his will, him he heareth.\nexaudit.\n\n31. *Now we know that God doth not hear sinners.* These are the words of\nthe blind man, and we are not bound to hold that they state what is true:\nthat they were spoken by the man, the inspired Evangelist tells us; and\nthe _fact_ that they were spoken is all that is covered by inspiration.\nBut the words are generally true in the sense in which the context proves\nthey were used. For God does not generally hear sinners so as to work\nmiracles at their will; and this is what the words mean. That God never\nhears the prayers of sinners, is not stated here, and is not true.\n\n32. A saeculo non est auditum    32. From the beginning of the\nquia quis aperuit oculos caeci   world it hath not been heard,\nnati.                            that any man hath opened the\n                                 eyes of one born blind.\n33. Nisi esset hic a Deo, non    33. Unless this man were of\npoterat facere quidquam.         God, he could not do anything.\n\n33. *Anything*; that is to say, such as the miracle performed upon me.\n\n34. Responderunt, et dixerunt    34. They answered, and said to\nei: In peccatis natus es         him: Thou wast wholly born in\ntotus, et tu doces nos? Et       sins, and dost thou teach us?\neiecerunt eum foras.             And they cast him out.\n\n34. *Thou wast wholly born in sins*, \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (_totus_); that is to say,\naltogether, entirely, as thy blindness proves. And dost thou, steeped from\nthy birth in sin and ignorance, presume to teach us, the sainted doctors\nof the Law? *And they cast him out.* Some take the sense to be, that they\nexcommunicated him, but the obvious meaning is, that they drove him from\ntheir presence, wherever it was that they were assembled.\n\n35. Audivit Iesus quia           35. Jesus heard that they had\neiecerunt eum foras: et cum      cast him out: and when he had\ninvenisset eum, dixit ei: Tu     found him, he said to him:\ncredis in Filium Dei?            Dost thou believe in the Son\n                                 of God?\n\n35. Christ as God knew, of course, that the man had been expelled by the\nPharisees; but He waited till He heard it as man, and then went to seek\nfor and reward the poor fellow, who had so intrepidly defended Him before\nthem. Instead of *Son of God*, some manuscripts of great authority read\n_Son of Man_; but it is more probable that the former is the correct\nreading. We may here remark how Christ, who had cured the blindness of the\nbody without requiring faith now asks for faith in Himself before He will\ndispel the deeper darkness of the soul. \u201cQui fecit te sine te, non\njustificat te sine te; fecit nescientem, justificat volentem\u201d (St. Aug.,\nSerm. 15, _de verbis Apost._).\n\n36. Respondit ille, et dixit:    36. He answered, and said: Who\nQuis est, Domine, ut credam in   is he, Lord, that I may\neum?                             believe in him?\n\n36. Probably the man recognised the voice of his benefactor, whom he had\nnot seen until now, and he at once shows himself prepared to do what he\nunderstands Christ\u2019s question to suggest. He believed that Christ who had\ncured him, and whom he regarded as a prophet, would not deceive him as to\nwho was really the Son of God. Lord (Gr. \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5) ought rather to be\nrendered \u201cSir.\u201d It is a term of respect, but does not at all imply that\nthe man already recognised Christ to be his Lord and God, as is clear from\nthe context.\n\n37. Et dixit ei Iesus: Et        37. And Jesus said to him:\nvidisti eum, et qui loquitur     Thou hast both seen him; and\ntecum, ipse est.                 it is he that talketh with\n                                 thee.\n\n37. *Thou hast both seen.* The meaning is: Thou _seest_ Him, the Greek\nperfect having here the force of a present. See 1 John iii. 6. Christ\u2019s\nreference to the man\u2019s _seeing_, was doubtless designed to stimulate his\ngratitude, and help him to faith.\n\n38. At ille ait: Credo Domine.   38. And he said: I believe,\nEt procidens adoravit eum.       Lord. And falling down he\n                                 adored him.\n\n38. He *adored* Christ as God. Though the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, which is here\nrendered \u201cadored,\u201d does not, in our opinion, necessarily imply supreme\nworship in the Greek of either the Old or New Testament,(71) still the\ncontext here determines it to that meaning. For Christ had just declared\nHimself to be the Son of God, and it is _as such_ the man worships Him.\n\n39. Et dixit Iesus: In           39. And Jesus said: For\niudicium ego in hunc mundum      judgment I am come into this\nveni: ut qui non vident          world, that they who see not,\nvideant, et qui vident caeci     may see: and they who see, may\nfiant.                           become blind.\n\n39. *For judgment I am come into this world.* The blind man had recovered\nsight in two senses\u2014bodily and spiritual\u2014and Christ, as the occasion\nnaturally suggested, now goes on to speak of spiritual blindness. Christ\u2019s\nwords here are not contradictory of iii. 17 or viii. 15, because here\nthere is question of a different judgment. In those passages there is\nquestion of the judgment of _condemnation_, for which Christ did not come\nat His first coming; here there is question of the judgment of\n_discernment_ (\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bc\u03b1, not \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), and for this He had come at His first\ncoming. The sense of the present passage then is: I am come to separate\nthe good from the bad; to make known who love God, and who do not; to show\nand to effect that those who have been regarded as spiritually blind, and\nwho, indeed, in many cases, have been so, may have the eyes of their souls\nopened to the light of truth, while those who have been thought, and who\nthink themselves, to see (such as you Pharisees), may be shown to be\nindeed spiritually blind, and may really _become more blind_, by being\ninvolved in deeper darkness through their own unbelief. This latter\neffect\u2014that they should become more blind\u2014was not directly intended by\nChrist, but it was foreseen and permitted, and this is enough to justify\nChrist\u2019s expression: \u201cThat they who see may become blind.\u201d Compare Rom. v.\n20: \u201cNow the law entered in that sin might abound.\u201d\n\n40. Et audierunt quidam ex       40. And some of the Pharisees,\npharisaeis qui cum ipso erant    who were with him, heard; and\net dixerunt ei: Numquid et nos   they said unto him: Are we\ncaeci sumus?                     also blind?\n41. Dixit eis Iesus: Si caeci    41. Jesus said to them: If you\nessetis, non haberetis           were blind, you should not\npeccatum: nunc vero dicitis:     have sin: but now you say: We\nQuia videmus. Peccatum vestrum   see. Your sin remaineth.\nmanet.\n\n40, 41. The Pharisees ask: *Are we also blind?* and Jesus replies: *If you\nwere blind, you should not have sin*; that is to say, if you were blind\nthrough invincible ignorance, or, as we prefer to hold, if you were blind\n_in your own estimation_, if you _recognised_ your spiritual blindness,\nyou should not have sin, because I would wipe it out; but now that you\n_say_ you see, and rely upon yourselves, your sin remaineth.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n\n    1\u20105. *The parable (or rather allegory, see below on verse 1), of\n    the door of the sheepfold.*\n\n    6. *The Pharisees understood not the parable.*\n\n    7\u201010. *Christ, therefore, applies it.*\n\n    11\u201018. *The parable of the Good Shepherd.*\n\n    19\u201021. *There was a difference of opinion among the Pharisees\n    regarding Christ.*\n\n    22\u201030. *On another occasion the Pharisees ask Him to tell them\n    plainly if He is the Christ; to whom He replies that He is, and\n    the Son of God, one in nature with His Father.*\n\n    31. *Thereupon they took up stones to stone Him.*\n\n    32\u201038. *He defends his language by a quotation from their own\n    Psaltery.*\n\n    39\u201042. *When they sought to take Him prisoner, He escaped from\n    them, and crossed over to the east side of the Jordan, where many\n    believed in him.*\n\n\n1. Amen, amen dico vobis: qui    1. Amen, amen, I say to you:\nnon intrat per ostium in ovile   he that entereth not by the\novium, sed ascendit aliunde,     door into the sheepfold, but\nille fur est, et latro.          climbeth up another way, the\n                                 same is a thief and a robber.\n\n1. This verse and those that follow down to the end of verse 18, are a\ncontinuation of the discourse directed to the Pharisees, and begun in ix.\n39, with which verse this tenth chapter might more correctly have been\ncommenced. The logical connection of the following parable with the close\nof the preceding chapter is not clear. Some, as St. Aug., say that Christ\nis proving that the Pharisees were _blind_, else they would recognise Him\nas the _door_ through which the true fold must be entered, and as the\n_true Shepherd_. Others, as St. Chrys., think that He is replying to a\ntacit objection of the Pharisees, to the effect that they refused to\nrecognise Him, not because they were blind, but because He was an\nimpostor.\n\nThe parable, taken strictly, is a narrative of a probable but fictitious\n_event_, like that relating to the Prodigal Son (Luke xv. 11\u201032). Where,\nas in the present instance, there is continued or prolonged metaphor,\nwithout the description of any event, some would call it an allegory and\nnot a parable; but we prefer not to interfere with a phrase so familiar as\n\u201cthe parable of the good Shepherd.\u201d It will be noted that we speak of\nparables, and not merely of one parable, for we hold that the parable of\nChrist as _door_ of the fold is distinct from that of Christ as Shepherd.\nOur reasons for this will appear as we proceed. To understand the\ngrammatical sense of these two parables, we must bear in mind what were\nthe relations of the shepherd to his sheep in eastern countries, and\nespecially in Palestine.\n\nIn the Spring of the year the Jewish shepherd conducted his sheep to their\npasture, and there they remained until the end of the following Autumn. At\nnight they were enclosed in folds, the flocks of several shepherds being\nsometimes gathered in the same fold. The fold, open overhead, was\nsurrounded by a wall, in which there was but one door, at which the\ndoorkeeper (_ostiarius_) remained through the night, until the shepherd\u2019s\nreturn in the morning. A thief, wishing to steal sheep, would, of course,\nnot attempt to enter by the door, but would climb the wall. On the\nshepherd\u2019s return in the morning the door of the fold was thrown open by\nthe doorkeeper, and each shepherd entered and called his own sheep, which,\nknowing his voice, followed him to their own pasture. Throughout the whole\nday the shepherd remained with them, guarding them from wild beasts and\nrobbers, and attending to the weak and maimed. Thus his relations with his\nsheep were very close and constant indeed, and must be carefully borne in\nmind, in order that we may rightly appreciate the full significance of\nthese beautiful parables.\n\n*He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold.* If we strip this\nlanguage of its metaphorical character, the sense is: that the teacher who\nenters not into the Church through Christ as the door, that is to say, by\nbelieving in Christ, is a false teacher, as were therefore, the Scribes\nand Pharisees. Christ, then, is the door (see verse 7); the Church is the\nsheepfold; and the Scribes and Pharisees, with all such, are the thieves\nand robbers who injure their fellow\u2010men, sometimes secretly like thieves,\nsometimes with open violence like robbers. That Christ is signified by\n\u201cthe door,\u201d is the view of SS. Aug., Cyril, Bede, Greg., and of A Lap.;\nand is, indeed, distinctly stated by Himself, in verse 7, after His\nhearers had failed to understand His words. Hence we unhesitatingly reject\nthe view of Mald. and many others, who take \u201cthe door\u201d in verse 1 to be\ndifferent from that in verse 7; the latter, they say, being the door of\nthe _sheep_, Christ Himself; the former the door of the shepherds, which\nMald. understands of _legitimate authority_ to teach. We have no doubt\nthat the door in both verses is the same, because Christ begins to\nexplain, in verse 7: \u201cJesus _therefore_ said to them again\u201d what He had\nsaid in verses 1\u20105.\n\n2. Qui autem intrat per          2. But he that entereth in by\nostium, pastor est ovium.        the door, is the shepherd of\n                                 the sheep.\n\n2. The sense is that he who entereth by faith in Christ, and by Christ\u2019s\nauthority, is _a_ true shepherd (\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd, without the article). Such a\npastor is contrasted with the Pharisees who blindly refused to enter by\nthe only gate.\n\n3. Huic ostiarius aperit, et     3. To him the porter openeth;\noves vocem eius audiunt, et      and the sheep hear his voice:\nproprias oves vocat nominatim,   and he calleth his own sheep\net educit eas.                   by name, and leadeth them out.\n\n3. *To him the porter openeth.* In the higher sense, the porter is not the\nScriptures, nor Christ Himself, but the Holy Ghost. To the true pastor of\nsouls the Holy Ghost \u201copeneth,\u201d by giving him grace to teach and govern\nrightly, and by moving the hearts of the faithful to listen to and profit\nby his teaching.\n\n*And leadeth them out.* It is an obvious and familiar principle that in\nexplaining metaphorical language, we are not to expect resemblance in all\npoints between the two things which are implicitly compared. If we say\nPatrick is a lion, we mean that he has courage or strength; but we do not\nmean that he has four legs. Similarly, though the Church is compared to a\nsheepfold, it does not follow that because the sheep had to be led outside\nthe fold in order to find pasture, that therefore the faithful must be\n_led outside the Church_ before they can obtain the spiritual food of\ntheir souls. No, the Church is a fold which has its pastures within\nitself; and what Christ here declares is that a good pastor does for the\nfaithful what the shepherd does for the sheep when he leads them forth;\nnamely, he provides them with proper nourishment.\n\n4. Et cum proprias oves          4. And when he hath let out\nemiserit, ante eas vadit: et     his own sheep, he goeth before\noves illum sequuntur, quia       them: and the sheep follow\nsciunt vocem eius.               him, because they know his\n                                 voice.\n\n4. A good pastor not only puts before his people the sound doctrine of\nfaith, and the right line of duty, but he also goes before them, guiding\nand directing them by his example, and is rewarded by their obedience, for\n\u201cthe sheep follow him,\u201d and tread in his footsteps.\n\n5. Alienum autem non             5. But a stranger they follow\nsequuntur, sed fugiunt ab eo:    not, but fly from him, because\nquia non noverunt vocem          they know not the voice of\nalienorum.                       strangers.\n\n5. The true reading is \u03bc\u03b7 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03be\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, (_will_ not\nfollow, but _will_ fly), the sense, however, being the same. As the sheep\nfollowed their own shepherd every morning from the fold to their pasture,\nand would follow no stranger, so faithful Christians take their spiritual\nnourishment from, and are obedient to, only the true pastor.\n\n6. Hoc proverbium dixit eis      6. This proverb Jesus spoke to\nIesus. Illi autem non            them. But they understood not\ncognoverunt quid loqueretur      what he spoke to them.\neis.\n\n6. *Proverb.* The Greek word (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd) suggests the notion of a saying\nthat is deep and mysterious and not merely metaphorical. See John xvi. 25,\n29.\n\n7. Dixit ergo eis iterum         7. Jesus therefore said to\nIesus: Amen, amen dico vobis,    them again: Amen, amen, I say\nquia ego sum ostium ovium.       to you, I am the door of the\n                                 sheep.\n\n7. *Jesus therefore said to them again*; _i.e._, _because_ they did not\nunderstand, He explains. As we have said already, we take the door here to\nbe the same as in verse 1, and the reference in both cases to be to\nChrist. Here, however, Christ is spoken of as the door through which the\nsheep, there as the door through which the shepherd, entered. But this\nneed create no difficulty, for as we explained in our preliminary remarks\non verse 1, there was only one door on the ordinary sheepfold, and through\nit both sheep and shepherd entered.\n\n8. Omnes quotquot venerunt,      8. All _others_, as many as\nfures sunt et latrones, et non   have come, are thieves and\naudierunt eos oves.              robbers: and the sheep heard\n                                 them not.\n\n8. *All others, as many as ** have come* (many ancient authorities add\n\u201cbefore Me\u201d). The sense is: all others who have come forward before now,\npretending to be the door, the Messias, _are_ thieves and robbers. The\npresent \u201c_are_\u201d is used to denote the essential character of their nature.\n*But* (\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd, _at_ not _et_) *the sheep heard them not*; _i.e._, did not\nlisten to them so as to remain their disciples. Many such impostors\npretending to be the Messias had arisen before this time; such were\nTheodas and Judas of Galilee (Acts v. 36, 37); and, after the time of\nChrist, Simon Magus, Barchochebas, and others appeared in the same\ncharacter.\n\n9. Ego sum ostium. Per me si     9. I am the door. By me, if\nquis introierit, salvabitur:     any man enter in, he shall be\net ingredietur, et egredietur,   saved: and he shall go in, and\net pascua inveniet.              go out, and shall find\n                                 pastures.\n\n9. Christ here declares Himself the door absolutely; and therefore, as we\nhave held, the door of both sheep and shepherds. He then proceeds to\nexplain in this verse what this means in reference to the sheep, and in\nnext verse what it means in reference to the shepherds. *Shall go in and\ngo out* is a Hebraism (1 Kings xxix. 6; 2 Paral. i. 10; Psalm. cxx. 8),\nmeaning he shall deal securely, confidently, and freely.(72)\n\n10. Fur non venit nisi ut        10. The thief cometh not, but\nfuretur, et mactet, et perdat.   for to steal and to kill and\nEgo veni ut vitam habeant, et    to destroy. I am come that\nabundantius habeant.             they may have life, and may\n                                 have it more abundantly.\n\n10. In reference to the pastor, he who enters not through Christ (and who\nis therefore a thief, verse 1), cometh not but to steal, &c. This verse\neffects the transition from Christ as door to Christ as shepherd. He here\nsets Himself in opposition to the thief, and so passes on naturally to\nanother parable in which He speaks of Himself as shepherd.\n\n11. Ego sum pastor bonus.        11. I am the good shepherd.\nBonus pastor animam suam dat     The good shepherd giveth his\npro ovibus suis.                 life for his sheep.\n\n11. *I am the good shepherd* (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2); that particular shepherd\nforetold by the prophets (Ezech. xxxiv. 11, 15, 16, 22, 23; Zach. xi. 17;\nIsai. xl. 11). There is no difficulty in the fact that Christ now calls\nHimself the shepherd, whereas in the preceding verses He has spoken of\nHimself as the door of the sheepfold. For we hold that a new parable\nbegins in verse 11, and it is obviously open to Christ to use a new\nmetaphor, in which to express under a new aspect His relations to the\nfaithful. See xv. 1, where, in the metaphor of the true vine, His\nrelations with the faithful are set forth under yet another aspect. *The\ngood shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.* This is to be understood, of\nChrist, and is the first note of this great Shepherd.\n\n12. Mercenarius autem et qui     12. But the hireling, and he\nnon est pastor, cuius non sunt   that is not the shepherd,\noves propriae, videt lupum       whose own the sheep are not,\nvenientem, et dimittit oves,     seeth the wolf coming, and\net fugit: et lupus rapit, et     leaveth the sheep, and flieth:\ndispergit oves:                  and the wolf catcheth, and\n                                 scattereth the sheep.\n\n12. *The hireling* is most probably a pastor who has a divine mission like\nthe Pharisees (Matt. xxiii. 2) which, however, he abuses for base motives\nof self\u2010interest. Such an one, and also he who has no true mission, flieth\nat the approach of _any danger_, the particular danger from the wolf being\nput to represent danger in general.\n\n13. Mercenarius autem fugit,     13. And the hireling flieth,\nquia mercenarius est, et non     because he is a hireling; and\npertinet ad eum de ovibus.       he hath no care for the sheep.\n\n13. The last word of verse 12 and the first three words of verse 13 in the\nVulgate: \u201cOves: Mercenarius autem fugit,\u201d are regarded by many as not\ngenuine; the remaining portion of verse 13 is to be connected with\n\u201cflieth\u201d of verse 12, in case they are omitted.\n\n14. Ego sum pastor bonus: et     14. I am the good shepherd;\ncognosco meas, et cognoscunt     and I know mine, and mine know\nme meae.                         me.\n\n14. Here we have another note of our great Shepherd, Jesus Christ. He\nknows _every member_ of His flock; not merely the _just_, or the _elect_\n(as Aug., Bede, Ypr., Tol.), and watches over each with special\nsolicitude. And they, in turn, know Him with the knowledge of faith\naccompanied by charity. That there is not question merely of a barren\nfaith, is proved by the comparison in the next verse between this\nknowledge and Christ\u2019s. If it be objected that all Christians do not love\nChrist, we reply that, _as far as in Him lies_, they do; and the purpose\nof the parable is to show Christ\u2019s love and solicitude for His sheep, to\nshow forth what He does for them, not what they do for Him. He knows them,\ngathers them into His one fold, saves them by His grace here, and conducts\nthem to heaven hereafter. What the sheep must do on their part after\nentering the fold, is outside the scope of the parable.\n\n15. Sicut novit me Pater, et     15. As the Father knoweth me,\nego agnosco Patrem: et animam    and I know the Father: and I\nmeam pono pro ovibus meis.       lay down my life for my sheep.\n\n15. Connect with 14: *I know mine, and mine know me, as the Father knoweth\nme, and I know the Father.* The knowledge is similar, but not, of course,\nequal; just as our perfection can never equal the infinite perfection of\nGod, though Christ says: \u201cBe ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father\nis perfect.\u201d Matt. v. 48.\n\n*And I lay down my life for my sheep.* Perfect knowledge and sympathy\nbring forth the perfect remedy, and Christ\u2019s knowledge and love of His\nsheep receive their fitting consummation in His sacrifice. The words \u201cI\nlay down My life\u201d show that Christ gave up His life freely and voluntarily\n(see verse 18); while the closing words of the verse prove the vicarious\ncharacter of Christ\u2019s sacrifice.\n\n16. Et alias oves habeo, quae    16. And other sheep I have,\nnon sunt ex hoc ovili: et        that are not of this fold;\nillas oportet me adducere, et    them also I must bring, and\nvocem meam audient, et fiet      they shall hear my voice, and\nunum ovile, et unus pastor.      there shall be one fold and\n                                 one shepherd.\n\n16. Having referred to His death for men, Christ goes on to speak of the\ncall of the Gentiles, thereby indicating the efficacy of His sacrifice for\nall, whether Jews or Gentiles. *And other sheep I have, that are not of\nthis fold.* The other sheep were those Gentiles who were outside the\nJewish Church, but were to be brought within the Church of Christ, so that\nthere might be one fold (rather _flock_), and one shepherd. Strictly\nspeaking, the Gentiles except very few were not yet His sheep, but those\nwho were to obey the call are spoken of as such by anticipation, and\nbecause in the designs of God it was decreed that they should be\nefficaciously called to the faith. *And there shall be one fold and one\nshepherd.* The \u201cone fold,\u201d or rather \u201cone flock\u201d (\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7), distinctly\nimplies the unity of Christ\u2019s Church, and the \u201cone shepherd,\u201d is Jesus\nChrist Himself as invisible head, with the Pope His representative as\nvisible head.(73) We have therefore three very important declarations in\nthis verse. (1) The faith was to be preached to the Gentiles; (2) Christ\nwas to have but one flock composed alike of Jews and Gentiles; (3) that\none flock was to have one supreme visible head. Some, like Mald., think\nthat the expression \u201c_this_ fold\u201d implies that there was another fold,\nthat is to say, those who were to be called from among the Gentiles. But\nthis does not necessarily follow, as the contrast may be, and we believe\nis, not between a fold of the Jews and a fold of the Gentiles, but between\nthe fold of the Jewish Church which excluded the Gentiles, and the fold of\nthe Christian Church which was to include them.\n\n17. Propterea me diligit         17. Therefore doth the Father\nPater: quia ego pono animam      love me: because I lay down my\nmeam, ut iterum sumam eam.       life that I may take it again.\n\n17. After the parenthetical statement in verse 16, Christ takes up what He\nhad said in the end of verse 15, about laying down His life. *Therefore*:\nthat is to say, because I lay down My life, and so obey Him, the Father\nloveth Me. *That I may take it again.* \u201cUt\u201d (\u1f31\u03bd\u03b1) cannot be taken to\nexpress a purpose here, but means either _so as_, as Mald. holds, or, _on\nthe condition that_, as Patrizzi. The supreme dominion which Christ here\nclaims over His own life and death, is a proof of His Divinity.\n\n18. Nemo tollit eam a me: sed    18. No man taketh it away from\nego pono eam a meipso, et        me: but I lay it down of\npotestatem habeo ponendi eam:    myself, and I have power to\net potestatem habeo iterum       lay it down; and I have power\nsumendi eam. Hoc mandatum        to take it up again. This\naccepi a Patre meo.              commandment have I received of\n                                 my Father.\n\n18. *No man taketh it away from me; but I lay it down of myself.* Christ\ndeclares that His death would be voluntary, because He would lay down His\nlife _freely_. But a difficulty here presents itself. How was He free in\nlaying down His life, if, as He declares, in the end of this same verse,\nHe had a command from His Father to do so? Surely He was bound not to\ndisobey that command, and thus bound to die, and so not free in dying? The\ndifficulty then is to reconcile Christ\u2019s freedom in dying with the\nFather\u2019s command that He should die. Many answers have been given.\n\n(1) The command of the Father was not really a command or precept, but\nonly a wish, with which Christ, without sinning, was free not to\ncorrespond. But this answer is commonly rejected by commentators and\ntheologians, who hold that there was a strict command. Hence:\u2014\n\n(2) Christ was commanded to redeem man, but not to die. He could have\nredeemed us in many other ways; therefore in choosing death as the way, He\ndied freely. But it is replied to this that St. Paul tells us that Christ\nwas _obedient even unto death_ (Phil. ii. 8), thereby implying that His\ndeath was commanded.\n\n(3) Christ was commanded to die, but was left free as to the manner and\ncircumstances of His death, and therefore was free as to the actual death\nHe underwent upon the cross. But it is again replied that St. Paul\ndeclares \u201cHe was obedient unto death, even the _death of the cross_\u201d\n(Phil. ii. 8).\n\n(4) De Lugo and others hold that Christ\u2019s freedom in dying consisted in\nthe fact that He could have asked and obtained a dispensation from His\nFather. He freely chose not to ask a dispensation; therefore He died\nfreely.\n\n(5) Franzelin inclines to the view that the will of the Father was merely\na \u201cbeneplacitum,\u201d a wish, until Christ freely accepted it, when it became\na command: consequent, however, upon Christ\u2019s free acceptance. Thus, in\nvirtue of this free acceptance, Christ died freely, though having a\ncommand from His Father that He should die.\n\n(6) Lastly, there is the opinion of Suarez, who explains thus: Christ\u2019s\nhuman will had, strictly speaking, the _power_ of resisting the will of\nGod, and of sinning, and was therefore free: consequently, His human will\nwas free in accepting the command to die, because, strictly speaking, it\nhad the power to resist. No doubt this power could never be reduced to act\nin our Divine Lord, for the Second Divine Person, in virtue of its\nhypostatic union with Christ\u2019s humanity, was bound to preserve His human\nwill from sin by the operation of grace.\n\n\u201cOn account of this perpetual watchfulness on the part of the Second\nDivine Person,\u201d says A Lap., who adopts this opinion, \u201cthe humanity of\nChrist is said to be extrinsically impeccable; not that the Divinity took\naway the _power_ of sinning (non quod Verbum illam (humanitatem)\npraedeterminaret), but that it always supplied the grace, under the\ninfluence of which it was foreseen that Christ\u2019s human will would freely\nfulfil each precept.\u201d This view we prefer; and hence we hold\u2014(1) that\nChrist had a _strict command_ from His Father to die; (2) that His human\nwill had the _power_ to disobey this command, and was consequently free in\naccepting death; (3) that the Second Divine Person provided that this\npower to disobey could _never be reduced to act_, and hence Christ was\nalways extrinsically impeccable.\n\n19. Dissensio iterum facta est   19. A dissension rose again\ninter Iudaeos propter sermones   among the Jews for these\nhos.                             words.\n20. Dicebant autem multi ex      20. And many of them said: He\nipsis: Daemonium habet, et       hath a devil, and is mad: why\ninsanit: quid eum auditis?       hear you him?\n21. Alii dicebant: Haec verba    21. Others said: These are not\nnon sunt daemonium habentis;     the words of one that hath a\nnumquid daemonium potest         devil: Can a devil open the\ncaecorum oculos aperire?         eyes of the blind?\n\n19\u201021. Again, as on previous occasions there was a difference of opinion\namong the leaders of the Jews.\n\n22. Facta sunt autem encaenia    22. And it was the feast of\nin Ierosoylmis: et hiems erat.   the dedication at Jerusalem;\n                                 and it was winter.\n\n22. A new chapter might well have been begun here. The events and\ndiscourses recorded by the Evangelist, from chapter viii., probably\nfollowed close upon the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2). Now the Evangelist\nsuddenly passes on to the Feast of Purification. During the period of more\nthan two months that intervened (see above on v. 1), Christ returned to\nGalilee (Luke ix. 51; xiii. 22); or, as Patrizzi holds, spent his time in\nthe country parts of Judea, away from Jerusalem. The Feast of the\nDedication instituted by Judas Maccabeus, about 165 B.C., in memory of the\ncleansing of the temple and dedication of the altar of holocausts after\nthe defeat of the Syrians, was celebrated annually for eight days. The\nfirst day of the feast was the 25th of Casleu, the ninth month of the\nJewish sacred year, which corresponded to the latter part of our November\nand the first part of December. See 1 Mach. iv. 59.\n\n23. Et ambulabat Iesus in        23. And Jesus walked in the\ntemplo, in porticu Salomonis.    temple in Solomon\u2019s porch.\n\n23. And because it was winter, Jesus was walking in Solomon\u2019s porch. This\nwas probably a cloister, open on one side, and covered overhead, and\nstood, according to Beel. (Comm. on Acts iii. 11), on the eastern side of\nthe court of the Gentiles. That the Porch of Solomon referred to in 3\nKings vi. 3; 2 Paral. iii. 4, is not meant here (as Mald. holds), we feel\ncertain; for that being within the court of the priests, Christ would not\nhave been permitted by the Jewish priests to approach, much less walk,\nthere.\n\n24. Circumdederunt ergo eum      24. The Jews therefore came\nIudaei, et dicebant ei:          round about him, and said to\nQuousque animam nostram          him: How long dost thou hold\ntollis? si tu es Christus, dic   our souls in suspense? if thou\nnobis palam.                     be the Christ tell us plainly.\n\n24. *How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense?* The phrase here used\nby the Evangelist to record the words of the Jews is a Hebraism (see Exod.\nxxxv. 21; Deut. xxiv. 15; Prov. xix. 23). They wished Christ to state\nopenly that He was their Messias, their King, probably in order that they\nmight accuse Him before the Roman authorities of treason against Rome.\n\n25. Respondit eis Iesus.         25. Jesus answered them: I\nLoquor vobis, et non creditis:   speak to you, and you believe\nopera quae ego facio in nomine   not: the works that I do in\nPatris mei, haec testimonium     the name of my Father, they\nperhibent de me:                 give testimony of me.\n26. Sed vos non creditis, quia   26. But you do not believe:\nnon estis ex ovibus meis.        because you are not of my\n                                 sheep.\n\n25, 26. He again appeals to His miracles, and upbraids their incredulity.\n\n27. Oves meae vocem meam         27. My sheep hear my voice:\naudiunt: et ego cognosco eas,    and I know them, and they\net sequntur me:                  follow me.\n\n27. We prefer to understand the *sheep* here, as in verse 14, not of the\njust merely, nor of the elect only, but, with A Lap., of all the faithful.\nAll the faithful hear Christ, so as to _believe_, and in this they are\ncontrasted with those addressed in the preceding verse, who believe not;\nand all too follow Christ so as to imitate His example, _as far as lies in\nHim_.\n\n28. Et ego vitam aeternam do     28. And I give them life\neis: et non peribunt in          everlasting; and they shall\naeternum, et non rapiet eas      not perish for ever, and no\nquisquam de manu mea.            man shall pluck them out of my\n                                 hand.\n\n28. In the same sense He gives them life eternal, and they shall not\nperish, and (= for) no one can snatch them from His hand. As far as their\nsalvation depends upon Him, they shall be saved; they may indeed fail to\ncorrespond with His grace, but they shall not perish through His fault.\nThey may desert Him themselves, but no one shall snatch them from Him.\n\n29. Pater meus quod dedit        29. That which my Father hath\nmihi, maius omnibus est: et      given me is greater than all:\nnemo potest rapere de manu       and no one can snatch _them_\nPatris mei.                      out of the hand of my Father.\n30. Ego et Pater unum sumus.     30. I and the Father are one.\n\n29, 30. He proves that no one shall snatch them from Him. No one shall\nsnatch them from the Father (_who_ is greater and more powerful than all).\nBut I and the Father are one in nature and power; therefore no one shall\nsnatch them from Me. This is the argument in the more probable Greek\nreading, and is more natural than that afforded by the Vulgate. We would\nread then instead of the present Vulgate text in verse 29: \u201cPater meus\n_qui_ dedit mihi _major_ omnibus est,\u201d &c.(74) Note that the unity with\nthe Father to which Christ here lays claim is not a _moral_ union, but a\nunity of _nature and power_, else the proof of His statement that no one\ncould snatch His sheep from His hands would not be valid.\n\n31. Sustulerunt ergo lapides     31. The Jews then took up\nIudaei, ut lapidarent eum.       stones to stone him.\n\n31. See above on viii. 59.\n\n32. Respondit eis Iesus: Multa   32. Jesus answered them: Many\nbona opera ostendi vobis ex      good works I have shewed you\nPatre meo, propter quod eorum    from my Father; for which of\nopus me lapidatis?               those works do you stone me?\n\n32. *For which of those works do you stone me?* _i.e._, wish to stone\nMe.(75)\n\n33. Responderunt ei Iudaei: De   33. The Jews answered him: For\nbono opere non lapidamus te,     a good work we stone thee not,\nsed de blasphemia; et quia tu    but for blasphemy; and because\nhomo cum sis, facis teipsum      that thou, being a man, makest\nDeum.                            thyself God?\n34. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne   34. Jesus answered them: Is it\nscriptum est in lege vestra      not written in your law: _I\nquia: Ego dixi, dii estis?       said you are gods_?\n\n34. To the charge of blasphemy Christ replies, and His reply has been\noften urged by Arians and Unitarians to show that He did not claim to be\nthe natural Son of God, but merely meant to call Himself God in some\nimproper sense, analogous to that in which the Sacred Scriptures sometimes\nspeak of judges, who were merely men, as gods.\n\nThe sense of verse 34 is: men are called gods in your own law, the\nreference being to Psalm lxxxi. 6.\n\n35. Si illos dixit deos, ad      35. If he called them gods, to\nquos sermo Dei factus est, et    whom the word of God was\nnon potest solvi scriptura:      spoken, and the scripture\n                                 cannot be broken;\n36. Quem Pater sanctificavit,    36. Do you say of him, whom\net misit in mundum, vos          the Father hath sanctified and\ndicitis: Quia blasphemas, quia   sent into the world: Thou\ndixi, Filius Dei sum.            blasphemest, because I said, I\n                                 am the Son of God?\n\n35, 36. While all Catholic commentators and theologians contend that\nChrist does not in these two verses withdraw His claim to true Divinity,\nyet they differ as to the sense of His reply, and hence as to the\ninterpretation of the verses.\n\n(1) Some, as Franzelin, hold that Christ here proves both that He is God,\nand that He has a right to call Himself God. The argument then is\naccording to these: if your judges could be called gods, even in an\nimproper sense, how much more _in the strictest sense_ can He be called\nand is He God, whom the Father generated _holy with His own holiness_, and\nsent into the world?\n\n(2) Others, as Maran, Jungmann, &c., explain the argument here from the\ncontext in the 81st Psalm. Christ, they say, reasons thus. If men could be\ncalled gods, as they are in Sacred Scripture (and the Sacred Scripture\ncannot be gainsaid), how much more, in a strict sense, can He be called\nGod, and is He God, whom the same Scriptures address in the 8th verse of\nthe same 81st Psalm: \u201cArise, _O God_, judge Thou the earth, for Thou shalt\ninherit among the nations\u201d?\n\n(3) Others hold that Christ in these two verses does not insist upon the\n_nature_ of His Sonship, but contents Himself with showing that He has a\nright to _call_ Himself God; then in the following verses He shows that He\nis God in the strictest sense. In this view Christ prescinds in these\nverses from the sense in which He is God, and shows that _in some sense_,\nas the legate of the Father, He has a right to be called God. This was\nsufficient for the moment to shut the mouths of His adversaries. Whether\nHe is God in the truest and strictest sense, or only in an improper sense,\nHe does not here insist, though His language shows that even in these\nverses He speaks of Himself as truly God. For the argument shows that in\nconcluding, in verse 36, that He has a right to call Himself \u201cSon of God,\u201d\nHe means to justify his original statement: \u201cI and the Father are one\u201d\n(verse 30); but these statements are synonymous, and the one justifies the\nother only when there is question of natural Sonship. No merely adopted\nson of God could say that He is one with the Father.\n\nAny of these answers solves the objection drawn from these verses against\nChrist\u2019s Divinity; but we prefer the last, and hold, therefore, that\nChrist first proves against the Pharisees that He has a right to _call_\nHimself God, and then goes on to show in what sense He is God.\n\n37. Si non facio opera Patris    37. If I do not the works of\nmei, nolite credere mihi.        my Father, believe me not.\n38. Si autem facio, et si mihi   38. But if I do, though you\nnon vultis credere, operibus     will not believe me, believe\ncredite, ut cognoscatis et       the works: that you may know\ncredatis quia Pater in me est,   and believe that the Father is\net ego in Patre.                 in me, and I in the Father.\n\n37, 38. He appeals to His miracles as a proof that He is God in the\nstrictest sense. See notes on iii. 2. *That the Father is in me, and I in\nthe Father.* According to the fathers, this is a statement in other words\nof what He said above: \u201cI and the Father are one.\u201d \u201cThe Son,\u201d says St.\nAugustine on this verse, does not say: \u201cThe Father is in Me, and I in Him,\nin the sense in which men who think and act aright may say the like;\nmeaning that they partake of God\u2019s grace, and are enlightened by His\nSpirit. The Only\u2010begotten Son of God is in the Father, and the Father in\nHim, as an equal in an equal.\u201d\n\n39. Quaerebant ergo eum          39. They sought therefore to\napprehendere: et exivit de       take him; and he escaped out\nmanibus eorum.                   of their hands.\n\n39. *They sought therefore to take him.* These words prove that His\nhearers did not understand Christ to retract what He had said.\n\n40. Et abiit iterum trans        40. And he went again beyond\nIordanem, in eum locum ubi       the Jordan into that place\nerat Ioannes baptizans primum:   where John was baptizing\net mansit illic.                 first: and there he abode.\n\n40. He went again to Bethania beyond the Jordan. See above on i. 28. The\nname of Bethania must have been dear to our Evangelist, because it was\nprobably in its neighbourhood he had first met his heavenly Master.\n\n41. Et multi venerunt ad eum,    41. And many resorted to him,\net dicebant: Quia Ioannes        and they said: John indeed did\nquidem signum fecit nullum.      no sign.\n\n41. *John indeed did no sign.* This remark is of great importance as\nshowing how little tendency there was to invest great and popular teachers\nwith miraculous powers. And yet the Rationalists will have us believe that\nour Lord\u2019s miracles were all a popular delusion!\n\n42. Omnia autem quaecumque       42. But all things whatsoever\ndixit Ioannes de hoc, vera       John said of this man were\nerant. Et multi crediderunt in   true. And many believed in\neum.                             him.\n\n42. *And many believed in him.* Most authorities add the note of place\n_there_ (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6), as if the Evangelist wished to bring out into bolder\nrelief the incredulity of the Jews (verse 39), by contrasting it with the\nfaith of those beyond the Jordan.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n\n    1\u20103. *The illness of Lazarus is made known to Christ.*\n\n    4\u201010. *After the lapse of two days, Christ proposes to return to\n    Judea; the disciples try to dissuade Him.*\n\n    11\u201016. *Before setting out, He declares that Lazarus is dead.*\n\n    17\u201032. *On Christ\u2019s approach He is met by the sisters of Lazarus,\n    and many Jews.*\n\n    33\u201044. *Having groaned in the spirit, wept, and returned thanks to\n    His Father, He raises Lazarus from the dead.*\n\n    45\u201053. *Many believed in Him on account of the miracle, but the\n    chief priests and Pharisees forthwith resolved on putting Him to\n    death.*\n\n    54\u201056. *Jesus retired from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and the\n    chief priests and Pharisees gave orders, that anyone knowing where\n    He was, should inform upon Him, in order that He might be\n    arrested.*\n\n\n1. Erat autem quidam languens    1. Now there was a certain man\nLazarus a Bethania, de           sick named Lazarus, of\ncastello Mariae et Marthae       Bethania, of the town of Mary\nsororis eius.                    and of Martha her sister.\n\n1. \u201cThe narrative of the raising of Lazarus is unique in its completeness.\nThe essential circumstances of the fact in regard to persons, manner,\nresults, are given with perfect distinctness. The history is more complete\nthan that in chapter ix., because the persons stand in closer connection\nwith the Lord than the blind man, and the event itself had in many ways a\nruling influence on the end of His ministry. Four scenes are to be\ndistinguished:\u2014(1) the prelude to the miracle (1\u201016); (2) the scene at\nBethany (17\u201032); (3) the miracle (33\u201044); (4) the immediate issues of the\nmiracle (45\u201057)\u201d (Westcott in the Speakers Comm.).\n\n*Bethania.* This _village_ lay nearly two miles east of Jerusalem; see\nverse 18, and our remarks on vi. 19. To prevent the reader from\nconfounding it with Bethania beyond the Jordan (i. 28), the Evangelist\nadds that he means the village of Mary and of Martha her sister, who are\nsupposed to be already known to the reader from the Synoptic Gospels. See,\n_e.g._, Luke x. 38\u201042. Bethania is spoken of as their village, not because\nthey owned it, but because they resided there, just as Bethsaida is called\nthe city of Andrew and Peter (i. 44). In this village, then, Lazarus was\n_seriously_ ill (\u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd; see James v. 14).\n\n2. (Maria autem erat, quae       2. (And Mary was she that\nunxit Dominum unguento, et       anointed the Lord with\nextersit pedes eius capillis     ointment and wiped his feet\nsuis: cuius frater Lazarus       with her hair: whose brother\ninfirmabatur.)                   Lazarus was sick.)\n\n2. The Greek aorist (\u1f21 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ad\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1) shows that the reference is to some\nunction that had already taken place, and not to that which happened\nsubsequently, and which is narrated by our Evangelist (xii. 3; Matt. xxvi.\n7; Mark xiv. 3). The unction here referred to we take to be that recorded\nby St. Luke (vii. 37, 38); and hence, notwithstanding their apparently\ndifferent characters, we regard Mary the sister of Lazarus (xi. 2) as\nidentical with \u201cthe woman who was a sinner in the city\u201d (Luke vii. 37).\nFor St. John in the words: \u201cMary was she that anointed the Lord,\u201d &c.,\ncertainly seems to speak of an unction already known to his readers, and\nthe only unction of Christ, as far as is known, that had taken place\nbefore this illness of Lazarus, is that recorded by St. Luke in the\npassage referred to. In this view, then, our Lord was _twice_ anointed by\na woman; on the first occasion in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke\nvii. 40, 46), probably in Galilee (see Luke vii. 11), as recorded by St.\nLuke vii. 37, 38; on the second occasion at Bethania, in Judea, in the\nhouse of Simon the leper (Matt. xxvi. 6), as recorded by Matthew, Mark,\nand John (J. xii. 3). As the present verse proves that Mary, the sister of\nLazarus, had already anointed our Lord: and as John xii. 3, with its\ncontext, proves that the same sister of Lazarus again anointed Him on a\nsubsequent occasion, we hold that the only woman referred to in the\nGospels as having anointed the living body of our Lord, is Mary, the\nsister of Lazarus; and that she did so on _two_ different occasions. Thus,\nas already stated, we identify Luke\u2019s \u201csinner in the city\u201d with the sister\nof Lazarus. If it be objected that the contemplative character of the\nsister of Lazarus (Luke x. 38\u201042), and the close friendship of Jesus with\nher and her family (John xi. 3, 5), forbid us to regard her as identical\nwith the woman who had once been \u201ca sinner in the city,\u201d we reply that\nMary, converted in the beginning of our Lord\u2019s public life, had now for\nsome years led an edifying life of penance. As a sinner she had lived in\nsome city of Galilee, far away from home, whither she may have gone with\nsome lover whom she met at Jerusalem at one of the great festivals; now\nshe lived with her brother at Bethania, in Judea, where possibly her\nformer sinful life may have been unknown, so that there was no danger of\nscandal in Christ\u2019s friendship with herself and her family. To those who,\nlike Steenkiste (_Comm. on Matt. Quaes._ 678, _conclusio_), have \u201ca deep\u2010\nrooted repugnance\u201d to believing that the sister of Lazarus had ever been a\npublic sinner, we would recall the fact that there are many sinners in\nheaven to\u2010day enjoying the society of God after a far shorter penance than\nwe require to suppose in the case of the sister of Lazarus, before she\nbegan to enjoy the friendship of Christ. Our Divine Lord\u2019s tenderness and\nmercy towards sinners are written on every page of the Gospels, and the\nonly real difficulty here is that to which we have already replied,\narising from the danger of scandal, through our Lord\u2019s associating with\nsuch a woman.\n\nThus far we have spoken only of \u201cthe sinner,\u201d and the sister of Lazarus;\nbut there is a further question, whether Mary Magdalen (Luke viii. 2;\nMatt. xxvii. 56, 61; Matt. xxviii. 1; John xx. 1, &c.) and they are all\nthree, one and the same person. We believe it to be more probable that\nthey are. The more common opinion among the fathers identifies the three;\nfrom the sixth till the seventeenth century their identity was\nunquestioned in the Western Church; and our Roman Breviary and Missal\nstill identify them on the Feast of St. Mary Magdalen, the 22nd of July.\nSo, too, Tertull., Gregory the Great, Mald., Natal\u2010Alex., Mauduit, M\u2019Ev.,\nCorluy.\n\nWe have stated what we consider the most probable view\u2014that Christ was\ntwice anointed during His public life, and on both occasions by the same\nperson, the sister of Lazarus, who is identical with \u201cthe sinner\u201d and\nMagdalen. It is right, however, that we should add, that there is great\ndiversity of opinion, even among Catholic commentators. Some have held\nthat there were three different unctions, others that there was only one.\nSome have held that the sister of Lazarus, \u201cthe sinner,\u201d and Magdalen are\nall three distinct; others, that at least the sister of Lazarus and the\nsinner are distinct; and among those who will not admit the identity of\nall three are found such able commentators as St. Chrys., Estius, Calmet,\nBeelen. In such a case, where the Scriptures are obscure, where the\nfathers disagree, where commentators are so divided, and the Greek Church,\nwhich celebrates three different feasts for the three women, _seems_ (we\nsay _seems_, because the different feasts might possibly be celebrated in\nhonour of the same woman) to differ from the Latin, it is hard to attain\nto anything more than probability, and we have set forth above what, after\na very careful examination of the whole question, seems to us most\nprobable. See Corl., _Dissert._, p. 263 and foll.; Mald. on Matt. xxvi. 6,\n7, and xxvii. 56; Steenk. on Matt. _Quaes._ 678.\n\n3. Miserunt ergo sorores eius    3. His sisters therefore sent\nad eum, dicentes: Domine, ecce   to him, saying: Lord, behold,\nquem amas infirmatur.            he whom thou lovest is sick.\n\n3. They merely announce their trouble through a messenger, and in hopeful\nconfidence leave the remedy to Jesus. \u201cSufficit ut noveris: non enim amas\net deseris\u201d (St. Aug. on this verse).\n\n4. Audiens autem Iesus dixit     4. And Jesus hearing it, said\neis: Infirmitas haec non est     to them: This sickness is not\nad mortem, sed pro gloria Dei,   unto death, but for the glory\nut glorificetur Filius Dei per   of God: that the Son of God\neam.                             may be glorified by it.\n\n4. *And Jesus hearing it, said to them* (\u201cto them\u201d (_eis_) is not\ngenuine): *This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God: that\nthe Son of God may be glorified by it.* The words of Christ were obscure\nuntil the miracle threw light upon them. They mean that the sickness of\nLazarus was not to end in _ordinary_ death, for ordinary death is the end\nof mortal life, whereas Lazarus was to live again a mortal life. The\nsickness and death of Lazarus were intended to show forth the Divine power\nof Jesus in the miracle to be wrought.\n\n5. Diligebat autem Iesus         5. Now Jesus loved Martha and\nMartham, et sororem eius         her sister Mary, and Lazarus.\nMariam, et Lazarum.\n\n5. Some connect this verse with what has gone before, as giving the reason\nwhy the sisters of Lazarus informed Jesus of the illness of His friend.\nBut it is better to connect with what follows in this way. Jesus loved\nLazarus, and therefore when He had remained in the same place two days,\nthen He said: Let us go into Judea again, as if He were unable to remain\nany longer away from His friend. Thus it is not merely His return to\nJudea, but His return after two days, that proves His friendship. Had He\nreturned sooner, the miracle of the raising of Lazarus would have been\nless striking, and would not have afforded to Martha and Mary such a\npowerful motive of faith. See below on verse 15.\n\nThe passing notice here of a friendship that must have been the result of\nlong and intimate intercourse shows us how incomplete are the Gospel\nrecords. It is very interesting to notice how in this verse St. John\nrefers to the love of Jesus for Lazarus and his sisters by a different\nword from that used by the sisters in verse 3. Instead of \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, which\nexpresses the affection of personal attachment, St. John, now that there\nis question of the love of Jesus not only for Lazarus but also for his\nsisters, uses \u1f28\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1, which expresses rather esteem than love, rather a\nreasoning appreciation than a heartfelt attachment. See below on xxi.\n15\u201017, where the contrast between the two words is most marked.\n\n6. Ut ergo audivit quia,         6. When he had heard therefore\ninfirmabatur, tunc quidem        that he was sick, he still\nmansit in eodem loco duobus      remained in the same place two\ndiebus.                          days.\n7. Deinde post haec dixit        7. Then after that he said to\ndiscipulis suis: Eamus in        his disciples: Let us go into\nIudaeam iterum.                  Judea again.\n8. Dicunt ei discipuli: Rabbi,   8. The disciples say to him:\nnunc quaerebant te Iudaei        Rabbi, the Jews but now sought\nlapidare, et iterum vadis        to stone thee: and goest thou\nilluc?                           thither again?\n\n8. The disciples, fearing for His safety and for their own (see verse 16,\nwhere Thomas takes it for granted that return to Judea meant death to Him\nand them), try to dissuade Him from returning.\n\n9. Respondit Iesus: Nonne        9. Jesus answered: Are there\nduodecim sunt horae diei? Si     not twelve hours of the day?\nquis ambulaverit in die, non     If a man walk in the day, he\noffendit, quia lucem huius       stumbleth not, because he\nmundi videt:                     seeth the light of this world.\n\n9. The meaning is: just as a man walks safely and without stumbling during\nthe period of daylight, which is a fixed period that cannot be shortened:\nso, during the time appointed for My mortal life by My Father, I am safe,\nand so are you.\n\n10. Si autem ambulaverit in      10. But if he walk in the\nnocte offendit, quia lux non     night he stumbleth, because\nest in eo.                       the light is not in him.\n\n10. But after the time of My mortal life, then, indeed, _you_ may expect\npersecution and suffering; for when I am gone, you shall be as men walking\nafter the sun\u2019s light has gone down.\n\n11. Haec, ait, et post haec      11. These things he said: and\ndixit eis: Lazarus amicus        after that he said to them:\nnoster dormit: sed vado ut a     Lazarus our friend sleepeth;\nsomno excitem eum.               but I go that I may awake him\n                                 out of sleep.\n12. Dixerunt ergo discipuli      12. His disciples therefore\neius: Domine, si dormit,         said: Lord, if he sleep, he\nsalvus erit.                     shall do well.\n13. Dixerat autem Iesus de       13. But Jesus spoke of his\nmorte ejus: illi autem           death; and they thought that\nputaverunt quia de dormitione    he spoke of the repose of\nsomni diceret.                   sleep.\n14. Tunc ergo Iesus dixit eis    14. Then therefore Jesus said\nmanifeste: Lazarus mortuus       to them plainly: Lazarus is\nest:                             dead;\n\n11\u201014. Jesus declares of His own Divine knowledge (there is no hint of a\nsecond message) that Lazarus sleeps. The disciples fail to understand, and\nHe explains.\n\n15. Et gaudeo propter vos, ut    15. And I am glad for your\ncredatis, quoniam non eram       sakes, that I was not there,\nibi; sed eamus ad eum.           that you may believe: but let\n                                 us go to him.\n\n15. Jesus rejoices that He was not with Lazarus, in which case His tender\nmercies would have led Him to prevent the death of Lazarus, and He\nrejoices for the sake of His disciples, inasmuch as a new and powerful\nmotive to _strengthen_ their faith would now be afforded them in the\nmiracle to be wrought.\n\n16. Dixit ergo Thomas, qui       16. Thomas therefore, who is\ndicitur Didymus, ad              called Didymus, said to his\ncondiscipulos: Eamus et nos,     fellow\u2010disciples: Let us also\nut moriamur cum eo.              go, that we may die with him.\n\n16. See verse 8. *Thomas*, Aramaic \u05ea\u05d0\u05de\u05d0, means a twin, the Greek\nequivalent being Didymus. The Greek equivalent is again mentioned after\nthe name in xx. 24, xxi. 2. Possibly Thomas was commonly known in Asia\nMinor as Didymus.\n\n17. Venit itaque Iesus: et       17. Jesus therefore came and\ninvenit eum quatuor dies iam     found that he had been four\nin monumento habentem.           days already in the grave.\n\n17. *Four days.* The day of the messenger\u2019s arrival would probably be the\nfirst day: two other days our Lord remained in Peraea after He had\nreceived the news, and one more He would be likely to spend in the journey\nto Bethania. Dying upon the first day, Lazarus, according to the custom of\nthe Jews, that burial should immediately follow on death (see, _e.g._,\nActs v. 6, 10), had been buried on that same day, as a comparison of this\nverse with 39 clearly proves.\n\n18. (Erat autem Bethania iuxta   18. (Now Bethania was near\nIerosolyman quasi stadiis        Jerusalem, about fifteen\nquindecim.)                      furlongs off.)\n\n18. See above on verse 1, and especially on vi. 19.\n\n19. Multi autem ex Iudaeis       19. And many of the Jews were\nvenerant ad Martham et Mariam,   come to Martha and Mary, to\nut consolarentur eas de fratre   comfort them concerning their\nsuo.                             brother.\n\n19. *The Jews*, whom our Evangelist always carefully distinguishes from\nthe \u201cturba,\u201d or lower class, were leading men among the people; so that it\nappears from this that the family of Lazarus had a good social standing.\n\n20. Martha ergo ut audivit       20. Martha therefore, as soon\nquia Iesus venit, occurrit       as she heard that Jesus was\nilli: Maria, autem domi          come, went to meet him; but\nsedebat.                         Mary sat at home.\n21. Dixit ergo Martha ad         21. Martha therefore said to\nIesum: Domine si fuisses hic,    Jesus: Lord, if thou hadst\nfrater meus non fuisset          been here, my brother had not\nmortuus:                         died.\n22. Sed et nunc scio quia        22. But now also I know that\nquaecumque poposceris a Deo,     whatsoever thou wilt ask of\ndabit tibi Deus.                 God, God will give it thee.\n\n22. Even still she has hope that He may intercede with God to restore life\nto her brother.\n\n23. Dicit illi Iesus: Resurget   23. Jesus saith to her: Thy\nfrater tuus.                     brother shall rise again.\n\n23. In words, purposely ambiguous, and meant to try her faith, Jesus\nassures her that her brother shall rise again.\n\n24. Dicit ei Martha: Scio quia   24. Martha saith to him: I\nresurget in resurrectione in     know that he shall rise again\nnovissimo die.                   in the resurrection at the\n                                 last day.\n\n24. Understanding Him to speak of the final resurrection, or at least\nwishing to force Him to explain, she says: *I know*, &c. Note how Martha\u2019s\nwords prove the faith of the Jews of that time in the resurrection of the\nbody.\n\n25. Dixit ei Iesus: Ego sum      25. Jesus said to her: I am\nresurrectio et vita: qui         the resurrection and the life:\ncredit in me, etiam si mortuus   he that believeth in me\nfuerit, vivet:                   although he be dead, shall\n                                 live.\n26. Et omnis qui vivit et        26. And every one that liveth,\ncredit in me, non morietur in    and believeth in me shall not\naeternum. Credis hoc?            die for ever. Believest thou\n                                 this?\n\n25, 26. Christ avails of this occasion to perfect her faith, and in the\nbeautiful and consoling words which we read in the antiphon of the\n_Benedictus_ in the Office for the Dead, declares that He Himself by His\nown power, and not merely by supplication to the Father, as she imagined\n(verse 22), is the author of our resurrection and life. In the following\nwords He explains what He means. He who believes in Me, and dies in the\nliving faith, which worketh by charity, even though he be _corporally_\ndead, like Lazarus, shall live again a glorious life, even in his body;\nand everyone who is living _in the body_, and so believeth shall never\ndie, because though he shall indeed pass through the gates of death, I\nshall quicken him again to a better life so that he may be said rather to\nhave slept than died.(76) If this interpretation of the words, \u201cshall\nnever die,\u201d seem to anyone strained, he may take them in reference to the\ndeath of the soul; but as there is question in the context of the raising\nof the _body_ of Lazarus, we consider the opinion we have adopted more\nprobable. In these verses, then, Jesus declares Himself the resurrection\nand the life; the resurrection of the _dead_, the enduring life of the\n_living_. So that verse 25 encourages Martha to hope to have Lazarus\nrestored to her, and verse 26 warns her to look to herself, in order that\nshe may live for ever.\n\n27. Ait illi: Utique Domine,     27. She saith to him: Yea,\nego credidi quia tu es           Lord, I have believed that\nChristus Filius Dei vivi, qui    thou art Christ the Son of the\nin hunc mundum venisti.          living God, who art come into\n                                 this world.\n28. Et cum haec dixisset,        28. And when she had said\nabiit, et vocavit Mariam,        these things, she went, and\nsororem suam silentio, dicens:   called her sister Mary\nMagister ad est, et vocat te.    secretly, saying: The master\n                                 is come and calleth for thee.\n29. Illa ut audivit, surgit      29. She, as soon as she heard\ncito, et venit ad eum.           _this_, riseth quickly and\n                                 cometh to him.\n30. Nondum enim venerat Iesus    30. For Jesus was not yet come\nin castellum: sed erat adhuc     into the town; but he was\nin illo loco ubi occurrerat ei   still in that place where\nMartha.                          Martha had met him.\n31. Iudaei ergo qui erant cum    31. The Jews therefore who\nea in domo, et consolabantur     were with her in the house and\neam, cum vidissent Mariam quia   comforted her, when they saw\ncito surrexit et exiit, secuti   Mary that she rose up speedily\nsunt eam dicentes: Quia vadit    and went out, followed her,\nad monumentum ut ploret ibi.     saying: She goeth to the\n                                 grave, to weep there.\n32. Maria ergo, cum venisset     32. When Mary therefore was\nubi erat Iesus, videns eum,      come where Jesus was, seeing\ncecidit ad pedes eius, et        him, she fell down at his\ndicit ei: Domine, si fuisses     feet, and saith to him: Lord,\nhic, non esset mortuus frater    if thou hadst been here, my\nmeus.                            brother had not died.\n\n27\u201032. To Christ\u2019s question, if she believed what He had said of Himself\nas the resurrection and the life, she replies that she believes(77) Him to\nbe the Messias, the Son of God, and so she implicitly believes in\neverything He teaches, even though, as was probably the case now, she did\nnot quite understand. Then she goes home, and secretly calls her sister\nMary, who hurries out to meet Jesus. The Jews, thinking Mary went out to\nweep at the tomb of Lazarus, follow her, and she and they come to the\nplace where Jesus still remained outside the village. Mary repeats almost\nthe exact words which Martha had used on meeting Jesus.\n\n33. Iesus ergo, ut vidit eam     33. Jesus therefore, when he\nplorantem, et Iudaeos qui        saw her weeping, and the Jews\nvenerant cum ea, plorantes,      that were come with her,\ninfremuit spiritu, et turbavit   weeping, groaned in the\nseipsum.                         spirit, and troubled himself.\n\n33. The word \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf which we translate *groaned*, is far more\nexpressive of indignation than of grief. So Tolet., Beel., Trench, &c.\nChrist\u2019s indignation on the present occasion was on account of sin which\nbrought death upon Lazarus and the whole human race, or rather perhaps on\naccount of the incredulity of the Jews, which made this miracle and the\nsorrow consequent upon the death of Lazarus necessary.\n\n*Troubled himself.* These words imply Christ\u2019s supreme control over the\npassions of His human nature.\n\n34. Et dixit: Ubi posuistis      34. And said: Where have you\neum? Dicunt ei: Domine, veni,    laid him? They say to him:\net vide.                         Lord, come and see.\n\n34. He knew well, but probably wished to excite their faith and hope by\nthe question.\n\n35. Et lacrymatus est Iesus.     35. And Jesus wept.\n\n35. Truly this is a touching scene! The Lord of heaven weeps over the\ngrave of His departed friend. In no other part of the Gospels are the\nhuman and Divine sides of our Blessed Lord\u2019s character more clearly\nbrought out than in this beautiful story of the raising of Lazarus. Christ\nas man weeps over him, whom He is about as God to raise from the dead.\n\n36. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: Ecce   36. The Jews therefore said:\nquomodo amabat eum.              Behold how he loved him.\n37. Quidam autem ex ipsis        37. But some of them said:\ndixerunt: Non poterat hic, qui   Could not he that opened the\naperuit oculos caeci nati,       eyes of the man born blind,\nfacere ut hic non moreretur?     have caused that this man\n                                 should not die?\n38. Iesus ergo rursum fremens    38. Jesus therefore again\nin semetipso, venit ad           groaning in himself, cometh to\nmonumentum: erat autem           the sepulchre: Now it was a\nspelunca: et lapis               cave; and a stone was laid\nsuperpositus erat ei.            over it.\n\n38. Caves were the usual family vaults of the Jews, sometimes natural,\nsometimes artificial and hollowed out of a rock. See Gen. xxiii. 9; Judith\nxvi. 24; Isai. xxii. 26; John xix. 41.\n\n39. Ait Iesus: Tollite           39. Jesus saith: Take away the\nlapidem: Dicit ei Martha,        stone. Martha, the sister of\nsoror eius qui mortuus fuerat:   him that was dead, saith to\nDomine, iam foetet,              him: Lord, by this time he\nquatriduanus est enim.           stinketh, for he is now of\n                                 four days.\n\n39. Martha evidently imagined that Jesus wished merely to see her\nbrother\u2019s corpse, and she shudders at the thought of its being exposed,\nnow decomposing, to the gaze of the crowd. Her words and Christ\u2019s reply,\nboth show that she did not _now_ hope that Jesus could raise her brother\nwho was four days dead.\n\nA little before indeed she had hoped for even this (verse 22); but now her\nfaith began to waver. \u201cHabuit ergo alternantes motus gratiae et naturae,\nfidei et diffidentiae, spei et desperationis de resurrectione Lazari\u201d (A\nLap.).\n\nFrom this verse we learn that Lazarus was four days dead; from verse 17\nthat he was four days in the grave; hence he must have been buried on the\nday he died.\n\n40. Dicit ei Iesus: Nonne dixi   40. Jesus saith to her: Did\ntibi quoniam si credideris,      not I say to thee, that if\nvidebis gloriam Dei?             thou believe, thou shalt see\n                                 the glory of God?\n\n40. Christ\u2019s reply shows that Martha\u2019s faith was now imperfect. *Did I not\nsay to thee, that if thou believe, thou shalt see the glory of God?* Where\nHe had said these exact words to her is not recorded, but the reference is\nprobably to what was said to the messenger and reported by him to the\nsisters of Lazarus (4), or to the discourse with Martha, epitomized above\n(23\u201026). By the \u201cglory of God\u201d is meant the glorious power of God.\n\n41. Tulerunt ergo lapidem:       41. They took therefore the\nIesus autem elevatis sursum      stone away. And Jesus lifting\noculis, dixit: Pater gratias     up his eyes said: Father, I\nago tibi quoniam audisti me:     give thee thanks that thou\n                                 hast heard me.\n\n41. The stone that closed the mouth of the cave was removed, and Jesus\nraising His eyes to heaven returns thanks to His Father. As man He returns\nthanks for the power which He was about to manifest; and He does so before\nthe event, so confident is He that Lazarus will start at His call. Jesus\ndid not enter the sepulchre; if He had entered, our Evangelist who records\nall the circumstances so minutely would have mentioned the fact. It is\nhardly necessary to remark upon the absurd explanation of Paulus and\nGabler, to the effect that Jesus alone looked into the sepulchre, or alone\nentered it, and to His surprise found Lazarus alive; that He then returned\nthanks to God that Lazarus was not dead, and told Lazarus to come out of\nthe sepulchre. For that Christ did not enter the sepulchre, is clear from\nwhat has been already stated, as well as from His words, \u201cCome forth,\u201d\nwhich imply that He was outside. That He alone looked into the sepulchre,\nis incredible; for we may be sure that the natural curiosity of the crowd\nassembled, led many of them to look into the sepulchre. Is it likely too,\nthat if Jesus on looking into the sepulchre saw His friend alive, He would\ncoolly begin to return thanks to God, and then quietly tell Lazarus to\ncome out? He should have been more than man, which our adversaries will\nnot admit Him to have been, to preserve such coolness in such\ncircumstances.\n\n42. Ego autem sciebam quia       42. And I knew that thou\nsemper me audis: sed propter     hearest me always, but because\npopulum qui circumstat, dixi,    of the people who stand about\nut credant quia tu me misisti.   have I said it; that they may\n                                 believe that thou hast sent\n                                 me.\n\n42. Christ\u2019s thanks to the Father on this occasion must not lead us to\nsuppose that some unexpected favour had been conferred by the Father upon\nHim. He knew well that on account of the conformity of His will with that\nof His Father, He could ask nothing that His Father could refuse; but He\nreturns thanks now, as He Himself tells us, in order that the people\npresent might believe that the Father had sent Him. In other words, Jesus\nwished to make the raising of Lazarus a clear proof of His Divinity, by\nthus calling God to witness to the miracle before it was wrought.\nUnquestionably the raising of Lazarus from the dead is a most powerful\nproof of the Divinity of Christ. It was a manifest and public miracle\nperformed in the presence of a whole crowd of witnesses (see 19, 31, 45),\nperformed to prove that Christ had come from the Father (verse 42); that\nHe was the resurrection and the life (verses 25, 26); that He was the Son\nof God (verse 4); that, in fact, He was all that which, a short time\npreviously, and in Jerusalem itself, He had claimed to be, namely, the\nLord of life, one with the Father (x. 28, 30). Such a miracle in such\ncircumstances God could never have permitted, had Christ not been in truth\nall that He claimed to be.\n\nRationalists have tried in various ways to explain away this stupendous\nmiracle. Some say that the story is a pure concoction of St. John, else it\nwould have been narrated by some other Evangelist. Others, that the death\nof Lazarus was merely feigned, a pious ruse in which Christ and Lazarus,\nas well as Martha and Mary were accomplices, with the object of inducing\nthe people to accept and follow the teachings of Christ.\n\nBut we need hardly point out how absurd it is to suppose, that St. John\nwould attempt, fifty years after the Synoptic Evangelists, to invent and\nput forward such a minute account of an extraordinary event till then\nunheard\u2010of by the Jews. That the other Evangelists make no mention of this\nstupendous miracle is remarkable, but may be accounted for by the fact\nthat prior to the history of the Passion, they confine their narratives\nalmost entirely to what Christ said and did in Galilee. Hence they do not\nmention the healing of the man who had been ill for thirty\u2010eight years\n(John v. 5\u20109), nor of the man born blind (John ix.), nor, for the same\nreason, the raising of Lazarus, all these miracles having occurred in\nJudea.\n\nThe second theory mentioned above hardly requires refutation. Even His\nJewish enemies never accused Christ of fraud or deception; and in this\nparticular instance the Jews, many of whom were hostile to Jesus (verse\n46), and no doubt investigated the miracle, had not the slightest\nsuspicion of fraud. So certain were all, even the Pharisees, that the\nmiracle was genuine, that without attempting to deny it, they merely\nbethink themselves what they will do with Jesus (verses 47, 48).\n\n43. Haec cum dixisset, voce      43. When he had said these\nmagna clamavit: Lazare veni      things, he cried with a loud\nforas.                           voice: Lazarus, come forth.\n44. Et statim prodiit qui        44. And presently he that had\nfuerat mortuus, ligatus pedes    been dead came forth, bound\net manus institis, et facies     feet and hands with winding\u2010\nillius sudario erat ligata.      bands, and his face was bound\nDixit eis Iesus: Solvite eum,    about with a napkin. Jesus\net sinite abire.                 said to them: Loose him and\n                                 let him go.\n45. Multi ergo ex Iudaeis qui    45. Many therefore of the Jews\nvenerant ad Mariam et Martham;   who were come to Mary and\net viderant quae fecit Iesus,    Martha, and had seen the\ncrediderunt in eum.              things that Jesus did,\n                                 believed in him.\n46. Quidam autem ex ipsis        46. But some of them went to\nabierunt ad pharisaeos, et       the Pharisees, and told them\ndixerunt eis quae fecit Iesus.   the things that Jesus had\n                                 done.\n47. Collegerunt ergo             47. The chief priests\npontifices et pharisaei          therefore and the Pharisees\nconcilium et dicebant: Quid      gathered a council, and said:\nfacimus, quia hic homo multa     What do we, for this man doth\nsigna facit?                     many miracles?\n48. Si dimittimus eum sic,       48. If we let him alone so,\nomnes credent in eum: et         all will believe in him, and\nvenient Romani, et tollent       the Romans will come, and take\nnostrum locum, et gentem.        away our place and nation.\n\n48. They dreaded lest the Romans, fearing He should become king, should\ncome and destroy their temple and nation.\n\n49. Unus autem ex ipsis          49. But one of them named\nCaiphas nomine, cum esset        Caiphas, being the high\u2010priest\npontifex anni illius, dixit      that year, said to them: You\neis: Vos nescitis quidquam.      know nothing.\n50. Nec cogitatis quia expedit   50. Neither do you consider\nvobis ut unus moriatur homo      that it is expedient for you\npro populo, et non tota gens     that one man should die for\npereat.                          the people, and that the whole\n                                 nation perish not.\n51. Hoc autem a semetipso non    51. And this he spoke not of\ndixit: sed cum esset pontifex    himself: but being the high\u2010\nanni illius, prophetavit quod    priest of that year, he\nIesus moriturus erat pro         prophesied that Jesus should\ngente.                           die for the nation.\n52. Et non tantum pro gente,     52. And not only for the\nsed ut filios Dei, qui erant     nation, but to gather together\ndispersi, congregaret in unum.   in one the children of God,\n                                 that were dispersed.\n\n49\u201052. Then Caiphas, the High\u2010priest for that year said: *You know\nnothing*, &c. Caiphas meant that Jesus should be got rid of to save the\nJewish nation from incurring the anger of the Romans. The Holy Ghost,\nhowever, as St. John tells us, signified through Caiphas (as an\nunconscious instrument) that the death of Jesus was necessary for the\neternal salvation of the Jewish people, and of all to be called to the\nfaith who were scattered then or since among the Gentiles. Caiphas was\nunaware of the solemn sense of the words which he enunciated; so that the\nHoly Ghost speaking through a prophet may sometimes mean one thing, the\nProphet himself something quite different. It is the common opinion, too,\nthat even the _inspired writers_ did not always understand the meaning of\nwhat they wrote, and in such cases the sense of Scripture is, of course,\nthat which was intended by the Holy Ghost.\n\nCaiphas, whom on this occasion the Holy Ghost employed to declare the\nnecessity for man of the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, was the Jewish\nHigh\u2010priest at the time (xi. 49, xviii. 13). His father\u2010in\u2010law, Annas, is\ncalled High\u2010priest by St. Luke (Luke iii. 2; Acts iv. 6), from which some,\nas Beelen, conclude, that each filled the office of High\u2010priest every\nalternate year. For this view, however, there is no historical evidence,\nand it seems more probable that Annas is called High\u2010priest by St. Luke,\nnot because he was then discharging the duties of the successor of Aaron,\nbut because, having been High\u2010priest, and unlawfully deposed (A.D. 14) by\nValerius Gratus, the Roman Governor of Judea, he was still regarded by the\nJews as the lawful High\u2010priest.(78)\n\nOr it may be that, as _President of the Sanhedrim_, a position which Annas\nfilled, after he had been deposed from that of High\u2010priest, he is styled\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 by St. Luke. This latter is the view of Cornely, iii., \u00a7 76, n.\n18. See Acts vii. 1; ix. 1, 2.\n\n53. Ab illo ergo die             53. From that day therefore\ncogitaverunt ut interficerent    they devised to put him to\neum.                             death.\n\n53. Thus the raising of Lazarus, which was the occasion of Caiphas\u2019\nsuggestion, had an important influence upon the final determination of the\nJews to put Christ to death. St. John notes the growth of Jewish hostility\nstep by step: v. 16 ff.; vii. 32, 45 ff.; viii. 45 ff.; viii. 59; ix. 22;\nx. 39.\n\n54. Iesus ergo iam non in        54. Wherefore Jesus walked no\npalam ambulabat apud Iudaeos,    more openly among the Jews,\nsed abiit in regionem iuxta      but he went into a country\ndesertum, in civitatem quae      near the desert, unto a city\ndicitur Ephrem, et ibi           that is called Ephrem, and\nmorabatur cum discipulis suis.   there he abode with his\n                                 disciples.\n\n54. The city of Ephrem (Gr. \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bc) is probably the same to which Josephus\nrefers (_Bell. Jud._, iv. 9, 9) as situated in the mountains of Judea. The\ncity probably occupied the site of the modern et\u2010Taiyibeh, about 14 miles\nN.E. of Jerusalem, in the mountainous district lying between the central\ntowns and the Jordan. See Smith\u2019s _B. D._\n\n55. Proximum autem erat pascha   55. And the pasch of the Jews\nIudaeorum: et ascenderunt        was at hand: and many from the\nmulti Ierosolymam de regione     country went up to Jerusalem\nante pascha, ut sanctificarent   before the pasch, to purify\nseipsos.                         themselves.\n\n55. This was the fourth and last Pasch of our Lord\u2019s public life, and\nduring it He was put to death. *To purify themselves*; _i.e._, from any\nlegal uncleanness, in order that they might be able to keep the Passover.\nSee Numb. ix. 10; 2 Paral. xxx. 17; Acts xxi. 24\u201056. In any case where\nsacrifice was required in the process of purification, it was necessary to\ngo to Jerusalem, because there only could sacrifice be offered.\n\n56. Quaerebant ergo Iesum: et    56. They sought therefore for\ncolloquebantur ad invicem, in    Jesus; and they discoursed one\ntemplo stantes: Quid putatis,    with another, standing in the\nquia non venit ad diem festum?   temple: What think you, that\nDederant autem pontifices et     he is not come to the festival\npharisaei mandatum, ut si quis   day? And the chief priests and\ncognoverit ubi sit, indicet,     the Pharisees had given a\nut apprehendant eum.             commandment, that if any man\n                                 knew where he was, he should\n                                 tell, that they might\n                                 apprehend him.\n\n56. Whether those who sought Jesus were His friends or enemies, is\ndisputed. But from what follows in this verse, we believe they were His\nenemies, who were looking for Him, in order to deliver Him up to the\nSanhedrim.\n\n*What think you, that he is not come to the festival day?* We much prefer\nto understand here two questions\u2014*What think you?* Do you think *that he\nwill not come to the feast*? For our Rhemish translation gives \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b7\n\u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 a past, whereas it ought to have a future sense. Hence the Revised\nVersion translates with two questions.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n\n    1\u20108. *The Supper in Bethania six days before the Pasch.*\n\n    9\u201011. *The chief priests think of killing Lazarus.*\n\n    12\u201019. *On the day after the supper Christ enters Jerusalem in\n    triumph, to the disgust of the Pharisees.*\n\n    20\u201022. *Some Gentile Proselytes wish to see Him.*\n\n    23\u201033. *Christ (at the temple) foretells the near approach of His\n    passion, and a voice from heaven is heard.*\n\n    34\u201036. *He continues to refer to His approaching death, and\n    exhorts the people to faith.*\n\n    37\u201043. *Yet though they had witnessed many miracles, most of them\n    refused to believe, as the prophets had foretold.*\n\n    44\u201050. *Christ\u2019s testimony regarding the object of the\n    Incarnation, and the necessity of faith in Him.*\n\n\n1. Iesus ergo ante sex dies      1. Jesus therefore six days\npaschae venit Bethaniam, ubi     before the pasch came to\nLazarus fuerat mortuus, quem     Bethania, where Lazarus had\nsuscitavit Iesus.                been dead, whom Jesus raised\n                                 to life.\n\n1. Maldonatus connects with xi. 55: since the Pasch was near, Jesus on His\nway to Jerusalem to celebrate it, came to Bethania. *Six days before the\npasch.* This peculiar Greek construction would be better rendered in\nLatin; \u201csex diebus ante pascha.\u201d We have now entered upon the last week of\nour Divine Lord\u2019s mortal life, but there is a diversity of opinion\nregarding the exact day here indicated. The principal views regarding the\ndays of our Lord\u2019s arrival at Bethania, of the supper there, and of the\ntriumphant entry into Jerusalem, are:\u2014\n\n(1) Arrival at Bethania on Friday; the supper (_a_) on the same evening,\nor (_b_) according to others, on Saturday evening; the triumphal entry on\nSunday.\n\n(2) Arrival at Bethania on Saturday evening; the supper on the same\nevening; the entry into Jerusalem (_a_) on Sunday, or (_b_) according to\nothers, on Monday.\n\n(3) Arrival on Sunday; supper on the same evening; the entry into\nJerusalem on Monday.\n\n2. Fecerunt autem ei coenam      2. And they made him a supper\nibi: et Martha ministrabat,      there: and Martha served, but\nLazarus vero, unus erat ex       Lazarus was one of them that\ndiscumbentibus cum eo.           were at table with him.\n\n2. In Bethania then (in the house of Simon the leper, as we learn from\nMatt. xxvi. 6; Mark xiv. 3) a supper was prepared for Jesus, at which\nLazarus was present and Martha served. We take it as certain that Matthew\n(xxvi. 6\u201013) and Mark (xiv. 3\u20109) refer to the same unction of Christ which\nis recorded by St. John in the following verses here. If not, we should\nhave to suppose that the same murmuring for the same cause in the same\ncircumstances took place a second time within four days, though\nreprehended by Christ on the first occasion it occurred. That SS. Matthew\nand Mark seem to refer to an occasion _two_ days before the Pasch (Matt.\nxxvi. 2; Mark xiv. 1), while St. John refers to an occasion _six_ days\nbefore, is readily explained. The two Synoptic Evangelists record this\nanointing of Jesus by Mary out of its place, and in connection with the\ntreachery of Judas, because it was it that finally determined Judas to\nbetray our Lord.(79)\n\n3. Maria ergo accepit libram     3. Mary therefore took a pound\nunguenti nardi pistici,          of ointment of right\npretiosi, et unxit pedes Iesu,   spikenard, of great price, and\net extersit pedes eius           anointed the feet of Jesus,\ncapillis suis: et domus          and wiped his feet with her\nimpleta est ex odore unguenti.   hair: and the house was filled\n                                 with the odour of the\n                                 ointment.\n\n3. When we bear in mind the prominence given to Lazarus, Martha, and Mary\nin the preceding chapter, and find two of the three mentioned in verse 2\nhere, it is certain that the Mary mentioned here, in verse 3, can be no\nother than she who was sister to Martha and Lazarus.\n\n*Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard.* We learn\nfrom Matthew and Mark that the ointment was contained in an alabaster box.\nAlabaster is a species of stone resembling marble, and derives its name\nfrom Alabastron, a town in Egypt, near which it was found in large\nquantities. The term \u201calabaster box\u201d came in time to be applied to any box\nfor holding perfumes.\n\n*Spikenard*, or nard, is a famous aromatic substance obtained from an\neastern plant of the same name. It is said in our Rhemish Version to be\n*right* spikenard. The Greek adjective thus translated is \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2, which\nmay mean _genuine_, from \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2; or _liquid_, from \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, to\ndrink); or, as St. Augustine says, the nard may have been so called from\nthe place in which it was obtained. St. John tells us that Mary anointed\nthe _feet_ of our Lord, who, according to the Jewish custom, would be\nreclining on His left side upon a couch, with His feet stretching out\nbehind. The first two Evangelists mention only the unction of our Lord\u2019s\nhead, so that St. John supplements their account. The fact that the odour\nof the ointment filled the house, is mentioned as a proof of its\nexcellence. Pliny (xiii. 3) refers to such unctions among the Romans:\n\u201cVidimus etiam vestigia pedum tingi.\u201d\n\n4. Dixit ergo unus ex            4. Then one of his disciples,\ndiscipulis eius, Iudas           Judas Iscariot, he that was\nIscariotes, qui erat eum         about to betray him, said:\ntraditurus:\n5. Quare hoc unguentum non       5. Why was not this ointment\nveniit trecentis denariis, et    sold for three hundred pence,\ndatum est egenis?                and given to the poor?\n\n4, 5. From SS. Matt. and Mark, it would seem that at least two of the\ndisciples must have murmured, for St. Matt. says: \u201cAnd the disciples\nseeing it, had indignation;\u201d and St. Mark: \u201cNow there were some that had\nindignation within themselves, and said: Why was this waste of the\nointment made?\u201d We may admit, then, that some of the others joined Judas\nin murmuring, but probably from a different motive; or, we may hold, with\nsome commentators, that the plural is used indefinitely for the singular.\n\n*Judas Iscariot* (Gr. Judas Iscariot, _son of Simon_: see notes on vi. 72)\nspoke out, asking why this ointment was not sold at 300 pence, and the\nprice given to the poor? We discussed above on vi. 7, the value of the\nRoman silver penny at this time current in Palestine, from which it\nappears that this box of ointment was thought to be worth nearly \u00a310 of\nour money.\n\n6. Dixit autem hoc, non quia     6. Now he said this, not\nde egenis pertinebat ad eum,     because he cared for the poor;\nsed quia fur erat, et loculos    but because he was a thief,\nhabens, ea quae mittebantur      and having the purse, carried\nportabat.                        the things that were put\n                                 therein.\n\n6. St. John here declares the motive of Judas. It was not love for the\npoor, as he pretended, but because, being purse\u2010bearer, for our Lord and\nthe disciples, he was always anxious to receive money, that he might have\nan opportunity of filching some of it for himself. Whether with our\nRhemish Version we give \u1f10\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5\u03bd the meaning of \u201ccarried,\u201d or, as others\nprefer, \u201cmade away with,\u201d at all events, it is plain from the verse, in\nwhich Judas is declared a thief, that he sometimes appropriated to his own\nuses money from the common purse. In his case, too, the saying was true:\n\u201cNemo repente fit turpissimus.\u201d\n\n7. Dixit ergo Iesus: Sinite      7. Jesus therefore said: Let\nillam ut in diem sepulturae      her alone, that she may keep\nmeae servet illud.               it against the day of my\n                                 burial.\n\n7. There is a difference of reading in this verse. Many ancient\nauthorities read: *She has kept it* (\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd) *against the day of my\nburial*; and the meaning of this reading is plain. The more probable(80)\nGreek reading, however, is: \u201c_That she might keep it_ (\u1f31\u03bd\u03b1 ... \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3)\n_against the day of My burial_.\u201d In this reading we take our Lord\u2019s reply\nto mean: Let her alone: it was not sold (Judas had asked: Why was it not\nsold?) in order that she might keep it against the day of My burial. Thus\nwe would read \u201cservaret\u201d instead of \u201cservet\u201d in the Vulgate; and we take\n\u201cut\u201d to depend not on \u201csinite,\u201d but on some words such as \u201cnon veniit\u201d (it\nwas not sold) understood. St. John\u2019s report of Christ\u2019s words agrees\nsubstantially with that of St. Mark, who represents our Lord as saying:\n\u201cShe is come beforehand to anoint My body for the burial\u201d (Mark xiv. 8);\nand both accounts, as well as that of St. Matt. (xxvi. 12), \u201cShe hath done\nit for My burial,\u201d signify that our Lord\u2019s death was so close at hand that\nthis unction might be regarded as a preparation for His burial; and hence\nMary was not to be blamed, inasmuch as such honours were usually paid to\nbodies before burial.\n\nImmediately after their account of this unction, SS. Matt. and Mark\nnarrate the compact of Judas with the Jews to betray Jesus for thirty\npieces of silver; so that it is extremely probable that it was spite at\nlosing the price of the ointment used on this occasion that finally\ndetermined Judas to betray our Lord.\n\n8. Pauperes enim semper          8. For the poor you have\nhabetis vobiscum: me autem non   always with you; but me you\nsemper habetis.                  have not always.\n\n8. *But me you have not always.* Christ as God is, no doubt, everywhere,\neven now; and even as man He is still upon our altars in the Blessed\nSacrament; but He is no longer with us in a mortal body capable of\nderiving sensible pleasure and comfort from such ministrations as those of\nMary upon this occasion.\n\n9. Cognovit ergo turba multa     9. A great multitude therefore\nex Iudaeis quia illic est: et    of the Jews knew that he was\nvenerunt, non propter Iesum      there: and they came, not for\ntantum, sed ut Lazarum           Jesus\u2019 sake only, but that\nviderent, quem suscitavit a      they might see Lazarus, whom\nmortuis.                         he had raised from the dead.\n10. Cogitaverunt autem           10. But the chief priests\nprincipes sacerdotum ut et       thought to kill Lazarus also:\nLazarum interficerent.\n11. Quia multi propter illum     11. Because many of the Jews\nabibant ex Iudaeis, et           by reason of him went away,\ncredebant in Iesum.              and believed in Jesus.\n\n9\u201011. A great multitude, on learning that Christ was in Bethania, flocked\nout to see the wonder\u2010worker, and Lazarus whom He had raised from the\ndead; and so many were being converted by that miracle, that the chief\npriests thought of putting Lazarus to death, that they might thus get rid\nof a living and manifest proof of the almighty power of Jesus.\n\n12. In crastinum autem turba     12. And on the next day a\nmulta, quae venerat ad diem      great multitude, that was come\nfestum, cum audissent quia       to the festival day, when they\nvenit Iesus Ierosolymam.         had heard that Jesus was\n                                 coming to Jerusalem,\n\n12. On the day after the supper, which we take to have been Sunday or\nMonday, that is, the first or second day of the Jewish week, a great\nmultitude came to meet our Lord and escort Him into Jerusalem. Hundreds of\nthousands always flocked to Jerusalem for the Pasch, and though the feast\nwas still some days off, a great number had already arrived. Doubtless\nmany of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were also among the crowd on this\noccasion.\n\n13. Acceperunt ramos palmarum,   13. Took branches of palm\u2010\net processerunt obviam ei, et    trees, and went forth to meet\nclamabant: Hosanna, benedictus   him, and cried: Hosanna,\nqui venit in nomine Domini,      blessed is he that cometh in\nrex Israel.                      the name of the Lord, the king\n                                 of Israel.\n\n13. Carrying palm branches, with shouts of joy and triumph, they hailed\nJesus as the Messias, and King of Israel; in the words of the great\nPaschal chant (Ps. cxvii. 26), *Hosanna* (\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05c2\u05e2\u05e0\u05d0, which is contracted for\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05c2\u05d9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d0) means: _pray_, _save_, or: _save, I beseech_. It may be taken\nhere as a prayer to Jesus to save them, or rather as a prayer to God to\nsave and bless their Messias. Or it may be that it was used as an\nexpression of joy without attention to its literal meaning, as the\nexpressions \u201cvivat,\u201d \u201cvive le roi,\u201d and the like, are sometimes used at\nthe present day.\n\n14. Et invenit Iesus asellum,    14. And Jesus found a young\net sedit super eum, sicut        ass, and sat upon it, as it is\nscriptum est:                    written:\n\n14. From the Synoptic Evangelists we learn that Jesus sent His disciples\ntelling them where they should find the colt, and St. Matthew tells us\nthat they brought the colt and its mother, and spread their garments upon\nboth (\u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, Matt. xxi. 7). They spread their garments upon both,\nbecause they did not know upon which He would choose to sit. And St.\nMatthew adds that Jesus sat _upon them_ (\u1f11\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd); that is, as we take\nit, upon the garments that had been spread upon the colt. In this way the\naccounts of the four Evangelists are reconciled.\n\nAnother difficulty occurs here, if we compare the parallel passage of St.\nLuke (xix. 29). For, whereas St. John\u2019s account naturally leads us to\nsuppose that the ass\u2019s colt was procured on the way _between_ Bethania,\nwhere Christ had supped on the preceding night (xii. 1, 2) and Jerusalem,\nSt. Luke, on the other hand, says: \u201cAnd it came to pass _when He was come\nnigh to Bethphage and Bethania_, unto the mount called Olivet, He sent two\nof His disciples, saying, Go into the town which is over against you, at\nyour entering into which you shall find the colt of an ass tied,\u201d &c. We\nhave searched in vain for a satisfactory solution of this difficulty. If\nthe words of St. Luke are to be taken strictly as meaning that Christ was\nnot merely near to, but _approaching_ Bethania, then we would hold that on\nthis morning, before the procession started, He had retired from Bethania\neastward, and therefore farther away from Jerusalem, and was now again\napproaching the village on His way to the Holy City. There is nothing\nimprobable in this supposition, for Christ did many things which the\nEvangelists have not recorded (John xxi. 25), and it enables us to\nreconcile two accounts, which are not easily reconciled otherwise.\n\n15. Noli timere filia Sion:      15. _Fear not, daughter of\necce rex tuus venit sedens       Sion: behold, thy king cometh,\nsuper pullum asinae.             sitting on an ass\u2019s colt._\n\n15. St. Matthew (xxi. 4) says that these things were done that prophecy\nmight be fulfilled; that is, they were brought about by God, not by the\ndisciples, who, as St. John tells us in the next verse, were ignorant that\nthey were fulfilling a prophecy. The whole quotation here is substantially\nfrom Zach. ix. 9: \u201cRejoice greatly (\u2018fear not,\u2019 of St. John) O daughter of\nSion; shout for joy, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold thy King will come to\nthee, the Just and Saviour: He is poor and riding upon an ass, and (even)\nupon a colt the foal of an ass.\u201d\n\n16. Haec non cognoverunt         16. These things his disciples\ndiscipuli eius primum: sed       did not know at the first: but\nquando glorificatus est Iesus,   when Jesus was glorified, then\ntunc recordati sunt quia haec    they remembered that these\nerant scripta de eo, et haec     things were written of him,\nfecerunt ei.                     and that they had done these\n                                 things to him.\n\n16. The disciples did not know at that time that prophecy was being\nfulfilled; but when the light of the Holy Ghost had flooded their souls at\nthe first Pentecost (Acts ii. 4), then they recognised in these things the\nfulfilment of prophecy.\n\n17. Testimonium ergo             17. The multitude therefore\nperhibebat turba quae erat cum   gave testimony, which was with\neo quando Lazarum vocavit de     him when he called Lazarus out\nmonumento, et suscitavit eum a   of the grave, and raised him\nmortuis.                         from the dead.\n\n17. *When he called Lazarus out of the grave.* It is doubtful, and\nauthorities are much divided, whether the true reading here is _when_\n(\u1f45\u03c4\u03b5), or _that_ (\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9). In the former reading, eye\u2010witnesses of the\nmiracle now bore testimony of it; in the latter, the crowd that was now\nwith Him having heard and believed that the miracle had been wrought, now\nbore witness _that_ Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead.\n\n18. Propterea et obviam venit    18. For which reason also the\nei turba, quia audierunt eum     people came to meet him:\nfecisse hoc signum.              because they heard that he had\n                                 done this miracle.\n\n18. It was on account of this miracle too that the crowd had come out to\nmeet Him. We take \u201cthe multitude\u201d in this verse to be the same as that\nreferred to in the preceding (\u1f41 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2); and what St. John tells us is,\nthat their coming out to meet Him, and their testimony regarding Him, both\nproceeded from the fact that He had raised Lazarus from the dead.\n\n19. Pharisaei ergo dixerunt ad   19. The Pharisees therefore\nsemetipsos: Videtis quia nihil   said among themselves: Do you\nproficimus? ecce mundus totus    see that we prevail nothing?\npost eum abiit.                  behold, the whole world is\n                                 gone after him.\n\n19. The jealousy of the Pharisees is at once aroused, and, as often\nhappens in such circumstances, they exaggerate, saying that the whole\nworld had gone after Him.\n\nOur Lord moved on towards Jerusalem, riding upon the ass,(81) between two\nenthusiastic crowds (see Matt. xxi. 9; Mark xi. 9). As He approached the\ncity, and shouts of joy and thanksgiving rose from the crowds which\npreceded and followed, some Pharisees, as we learn from St. Luke, bade\nJesus rebuke His disciples for the words of homage they were using. To\nwhom He replied: \u201cI say to you, if these shall hold their peace, the\nstones will cry out\u201d (Luke xix. 40). Then when He had mounted the summit\nof Olivet, and the city and temple burst upon His view, He wept, and \u201cwent\non to prophesy the destruction of the city with a particularity of detail,\nto the exactness of which the subsequent history bears wonderful\ntestimony.\u201d (Coleridge, _Life of our Life_, vol. ii., p. 187). See Luke\nxix. 41\u201044.\n\nWhen the procession entered Jerusalem, the \u201cwhole city was moved, saying,\nWho is this?\u201d And the people said, \u201cThis is Jesus the Prophet from\nNazareth of Galilee\u201d (Matt. xxi. 10, 11). As we learn from St. Mark, Jesus\nwent up to the temple, and there the events occurred which St. John\nrecords down to verse 36.\n\n20. Erant autem quidam           20. Now there were certain\ngentiles, ex his qui             gentiles among them who came\nascenderant ut adorarent in      up to adore on the festival\ndie festo.                       day.\n21. Hi ergo accesserunt ad       21. These therefore came to\nPhilippum, qui erat a            Philip, who was of Bethsaida\nBethsaida Galilaeae, et          of Galilee, and desired him,\nrogabant eum, dicentes: Domine   saying: Sir, we would see\nvolumus Iesum videre.            Jesus.\n22. Venit Philippus, et dicit    22. Philip cometh and telleth\nAndreae: Andreas rursum et       Andrew. Again Andrew and\nPhilippus dixerunt Iesu.         Philip told Jesus.\n\n20\u201022. Some Gentiles, who were probably proselytes, had come to Jerusalem\nfor the Pasch, and they ask Philip that they may see, that is, speak with\nJesus. Philip consults his fellow\u2010townsman, Andrew (John i. 44), and they\nboth make known the request to Jesus. Our Lord was probably in the Court\nof the Jews, into which the Gentiles could not enter, so that their\nrequest meant that Jesus should come out into the Court of the Gentiles.\nSee above on ii. 14.\n\n23. Iesus autem respondit eis,   23. But Jesus answered them\ndicens: Venit hora, ut           saying: The hour is come, that\nclarificetur Filius hominis.     the son of man should be\n                                 glorified.\n\n23. The Evangelist does not tell us whether Jesus granted an audience to\nthese Gentiles, but goes on to record His reply to the disciples: *The\nhour is come that the son of man should be glorified*: _i.e._, the hour of\nHis death to be followed by His glorious resurrection and ascension by the\ndescent of the Holy Ghost, and the call of the Gentiles.\n\n24. Amen, amen dico vobis,       24. Amen, amen, I say to you,\nnisi granum frumenti cadens in   unless the grain of wheat\nterram, mortuum fuerit,          falling into the ground die;\n25. Ipsum solum manet: si        25. Itself remaineth alone.\nautem mortuum fuerit, multum     But if it die, it bringeth\nfructum affert. Qui amat         forth much fruit. He that\nanimam suam, perdet eam: et      loveth his life shall lose it:\nqui odit animam suam in hoc      and he that hateth his life in\nmundo, in vitam aeternam         this world, keepeth it unto\ncustodit eam.                    life eternal.\n\n24, 25. In a beautiful comparison our Lord points out that as the grain of\nwheat dies in order that it may fructify, so in the providence of God His\ndeath is necessary to His triumph and His glory. And applying this\ndoctrine to His disciples, He points out that whoever loveth his life\ninordinately here, shall lose it for eternity, and he that hateth (a\nHebraism for _loveth less_) his life in this world, keepeth it unto life\neternal.\n\n26. Si quis mihi ministrat, me   26. If any man minister to me,\nsequatur: et ubi sum ego,        let him follow me: and where I\nillic et minister meus erit.     am, there also shall my\nSi quis mihi ministraverit,      minister be. If any man\nhonorificabit eum Pater meus.    minister to me, him will my\n                                 Father honour.\n\n26. *If any man minister to me, let him follow me.* This exhortation to\nfollow Christ in despising this life for God\u2019s sake, is addressed to all\nHis followers, who are to minister to Him by the service of devout lives;\nbut it is applicable in a special way to Priests, for to them belongs the\nprivilege of the special ministry. To such as imitate Him He gives the\nglorious promise, that where He is, that is, in the glory of the Father,\nwhich as God He then enjoyed, and which as man He was to merit by His\npassion, there also shall His followers be.\n\n27. Nunc anima mea turbata       27. Now is my soul troubled.\nest. Et quid dicam? Pater,       And what shall I say? Father,\nsalvifica me ex hac hora. Sed    save me from this hour. But\npropterea veni in horem hanc.    for this cause I came unto\n                                 this hour.\n\n27. The thought of His approaching Passion now disturbed His human soul,\nfor as He was true man, His humanity naturally shuddered at the suffering\nand death He was about to undergo. Compare Matt. xxvi. 38; Mark xiv. 34.\nChrist, of course, permitted this fear to seize upon Him, so that it was\nwholly voluntary; and He manifested it at this particular time, probably\nlest His disciples should be tempted to say that it was easy for Him who\nwas God to exhort others to despise their life and endure suffering. He\nshows them, therefore, that He dreads death like the rest of men; and St.\nJohn records the fact because of the Docetae, who denied the reality of\nthe Incarnation, and consequently of Christ\u2019s sufferings. See above on i.\n14, and Introd. IX.\n\n*Father save me from this hour.* Some read this with a note of\ninterrogation after it, as if the meaning were: Shall I say to the Father\nto save Me from this hour? But we may understand the words as a\nconditional prayer proceeding from Christ\u2019s human will; conditional, that\nis, upon his Father\u2019s will to save Him from the Passion which He was to\nundergo, just as in St. Luke xxii. 42: \u201cFather, if Thou wilt, remove this\nchalice from Me; but not My will, but Thine be done.\u201d That such, indeed,\nis the meaning here, is proved by what follows, where Jesus retracts this\nconditional prayer, saying that it was for the very purpose that He might\nsuffer, that He came unto this hour.\n\n28. Pater, clarifica nomen       28. Father, glorify thy name.\ntuum. Venit ergo vox de coelo:   A voice therefore came from\nEt clarificavi, et iterum        heaven: I have both glorified\nclarificabo.                     it, and will glorify it again.\n\n28. In this verse, then, He prays absolutely to the Father to glorify His\nname by the sufferings and death of the Son. And a voice came from the\nair, produced there by God or an angel, saying: *I have both glorified\n(it), and will glorify (it) again*. The sense of these words of the Father\nis disputed. The Latin fathers understand the sense to be; I have\nglorified Thee from all eternity, and will glorify Thee again as God\u2010man\nafter Thy ascension. In favour of this view is the prayer of Christ: \u201cAnd\nnow glorify Thou Me, O Father, with Thyself, with the glory which I had\nbefore the world was, with Thee\u201d (John xvii. 5). The Greek fathers, on the\nother hand, all take the sense to be: I have already glorified Thee by\nmany miracles, and will again glorify Thee in the miracles to be wrought\nat Thy death, resurrection, and ascension, and afterwards by Thy followers\nin Thy name. It will be noted that the fathers generally understand the\nwords of God the Father in reference to the glorification of Christ,\nwhereas Christ\u2019s prayer regarded the glorification of the Father\u2019s name.\nWe feel convinced, however, that the _direct_ object of glorification in\nboth instances is the Father\u2019s name. For when Christ prays: \u201cGlorify Thy\nname,\u201d and the Father answers: \u201cI have glorified, and will again glorify,\u201d\nobviously the answer must refer to the glorification of the Father\u2019s name,\nfor which Christ had prayed. Since, however, the glorification of the\nFather was to be brought about by the glorification of the Son; hence,\nthis too is indirectly referred to, and our interpretation agrees\nsubstantially with that of the fathers.\n\n29. Turba ergo quae stabat et    29. The multitude therefore\naudierat, dicebat tonitruum      that stood and heard, said\nesse factum. Alii dicebant:      that it thundered. Others\nAngelus ei locutus est.          said, An Angel spoke to him.\n30. Respondit Iesus, et dixit:   30. Jesus answered and said:\nNon propter me haec vox venit,   This voice came not because of\nsed propter vos.                 me, but for your sakes.\n\n30. Jesus declares that the voice from heaven was the Father\u2019s testimony\nto Him, given for their sakes, in order that they might believe in Him.\n\n31. Nunc iudicium est mundi:     31. Now is the judgment of the\nnunc princeps huius mundi        world: now shall the prince of\neiicietur foras.                 this world be cast out.\n\n31. *Now is the judgment of the world.* There is a difference of opinion\nas to what judgment is here spoken of; whether the judgment of liberation\nof the world in general, or the judgment of condemnation of the _wicked_\nworld. In favour of the former, it is argued\u2014(_a_) that since Satan was to\nbe cast out, or deprived of his dominion over the world, therefore the\nworld was to be liberated; (_b_) that verse 32 declares the effect of this\njudgment: the world shall be liberated, and as a consequence I shall draw\nall things to Myself; (_c_) that the world to be judged is that over which\nSatan had ruled, and from which he was now to be cast out. But before the\nIncarnation he had held sway over the whole world (Rom. iii. 23, xi. 32;\nGal. iii. 22). Therefore, it is the whole world that is to be judged, and\nhence there must be question of the judgment of liberation. So St. Aug.,\nMald., A Lap., Tolet., Beel., Patriz.\n\nIn favour of the latter view, which is held by St. Chrysostom and most of\nthe Greek fathers, it is argued\u2014(_a_) that St. John always uses \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of\nthe judgment of condemnation; (_b_) that the world in the beginning of the\nverse is the same whose prince is to be deprived of his dominion; that,\ntherefore, it should stand or fall with its prince; hence since he is to\nbe stripped of his dominion, it is to be condemned; (_c_) that in the\ndiscourse after the Last Supper, Christ always means by the world, the\n_wicked_ world, opposed to Himself (John xiv. 17, 22, 30; xv. 18, 19;\nxviii. 9, 16, 25); therefore, also here, and hence there must be question\nof the judgment of condemnation. *The prince of this world* is plainly the\ndevil. See also 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12. In the Talmud the same\ntitle is given to the prince of devils. By Christ\u2019s death the devil was\ncast out: that is, deprived of that almost universal sway which he had\nexercised over men before the coming of Christ. \u201cAt nondum diabolus e\nmundo ejectus videtur esse, cum in eo adhuc grassetur. Ejectus foras\ndicitur non quod nunc in mundo non sit, et in multis etiamnum dominetur;\nsed quod, quantum in Christo fuit, ejectus fuerit, ita ut, si homines\nvellent, nihil prorsus in ipsos haberet potestatis. Homines illi postea\nportam arcis aperuerunt, et proditione quadam in suam quisque domum\nadmittit. Itaque etiam nunc regnat et operatur, sed in filios\ndiffidentiae, Eph. ii. 2\u201d (Mald. on this verse).\n\n32. Et ego si exaltatus fuero    32. And I, if I be lifted up\na terra, omnia traham ad         from the earth, will draw all\nmeipsum:                         things to myself.\n\n32. *And I, if I be lifted up from the earth.* Christ here predicted that\nafter His death on the cross (see next verse) He should become a centre of\nattraction, and draw all men (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 is the more probable reading, not\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1), both Jews and _Gentiles_ to Himself. This marvellous prophecy\nbegan to be fulfilled in the centurion and his companions (Matt. xxvii.\n54), and the rest of the multitude that witnessed the crucifixion (Luke\nxxiii. 48), and is daily receiving its fulfilment still.\n\n33. Hoc autem dicebat,           33. (Now this he said,\nsignificans qua morte esset      signifying what death he\nmoriturus.                       should die.)\n\n33. St. John here gives us an authentic interpretation.\n\n34. Respondit ei turba: Nos      34. The multitude answered\naudivimus ex lege quia           him: We have heard out of the\nChristus manet in aeternum; et   law, that Christ abideth for\nquomodo tu dicis, Oportet        ever; and how sayest thou: The\nexaltari Filium hominis? Quis    son of man must be lifted up?\nest iste Filius hominis?         Who is this son of man?\n\n34. The multitude understood Jesus to speak of His death, or at least of\nHis withdrawal from them, and object that He cannot be the Messias, who,\nas they understood the Scriptures (the law is here put for the whole\nScriptures), was to remain for ever. They quote no single text, but\nprobably they had gathered this idea from many passages; _e.g._, Isai. ix.\n6, 7; Ps. cix. 4; Dan. vii. 13, 14, &c. It is not unlikely that they had\nthe passage of Daniel specially before their minds, for there the power of\nthe _Son of Man_ is described as \u201can everlasting power that shall not be\ntaken away, and His kingdom (a kingdom) that shall not be destroyed.\u201d\nHence, they argued, if Christ was to die, He could not be the Messias, but\nmust be some other _Son of Man_ than he spoken of by Daniel.\n\n35. Dixit ergo eis Iesus:        35. Jesus therefore said to\nAdhuc modicum, lumen in vobis    them: Yet a little while, the\nest. Ambulate dum lucem          light is among you. Walk\nhabetis, ut non vos tenebrae     whilst you have the light,\ncomprehendant: et qui ambulat    that the darkness overtake you\nin tenebris, nescit quo vadat.   not. And he that walketh in\n                                 darkness knoweth not whither\n                                 he goeth.\n\n35. Christ might have easily replied, showing them from the same\nScriptures that the Messias was to suffer and die (see, _e.g._, Isai.\nliii.; Dan. ix. 26); but probably because He saw that the motive of the\nmultitude in objecting was not to seek light, but to disprove His claim to\nbe the Messias, He did not vouchsafe a reply to their objection, but went\non to exhort them to believe, for thus they should find a solution of all\ntheir difficulties.\n\n*Yet a little while*; _i.e._, a few days more, the light, which is\nHimself, is to be among them. He exhorts them, therefore, to walk, that\nis, to believe, while He is present among them, in order that darkness,\nthat is, the time when He is gone from among them, may not find them still\nin their unbelief.\n\n*And* (\u03ba\u03b1\u03af = \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1) *he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he\ngoeth*. Christ does not mean to say that they could not believe after His\ndeath; but just as, though it is quite possible to walk during the time of\ndarkness, still it is easier to walk in daylight, so it was easier for\nthem to believe now, when He, the Sun of Justice was corporally present\namong them, than it would be when He had withdrawn His light. We take,\n\u201cdarkness,\u201d then, with Mald., not of sin, nor of unbelief, but, as opposed\nto the light which is Christ, of the time when Christ could be no longer\npresent among them, after His death, as in verse ix. 4; xi. 9, 10.\n\n36. Dum lucem habetis, credite   36. Whilst you have the light,\nin lucem, ut filii lucis         believe in the light, that you\nsitis. Haec locutus est Iesus:   may be the children of light.\net abiit, et abscondit se ab     These things Jesus spoke, and\neis.                             he went away, and hid himself\n                                 from them.\n\n36. He now explains what He means by telling them to walk. It is that they\nshould believe. *That you may be* (become) *the children of light*. The\nphrase \u201cchildren of light\u201d is a Hebraism, meaning those who are to possess\nthe light, who are destined for it. Compare Luke xvi. 8; Eph. v. 8.\n\n*And he went away, and hid himself from them.* SS. Matt. and Mark tell us\nthat He went to Bethania with the twelve and remained there (Matt. xxi.\n17; Mark xi. 11).\n\n37. Cum autem tanta signa        37. And whereas he had done so\nfecisset coram eis, non          many miracles before them,\ncredebant in eum:                they believed not in him.\n38. Ut sermo Isaiae prophetae    38. That the saying of Isaias\nimpleretur, quem dixit:          the prophet might be\nDomine, quis credidit auditui    fulfilled, which he said:\nnostro? et brachium Domini cui   _Lord, who hath believed our\nrevelatum est?                   hearing? and to whom hath the\n                                 arm of the Lord been\n                                 revealed?_\n39. Propterea non poterant       39. Therefore they could not\ncredere, quia iterum dixit       believe, because Isaias said\nIsaias:                          again.\n40. Excaecavit oculos eorum,     40. _He hath blinded their\net induravit cor eorum: ut non   eyes, and hardened their\nvideant oculis, et non           heart, that they should not\nintelligant corde, et            see with their eyes, nor\nconvertantur, et sanem eos.      understand with their heart,\n                                 and be converted, and I should\n                                 heal them._\n\n37\u201040. Before closing this first part of the _narrative_ portion of the\nGospel (see Introd. iv.), St. John pauses in the history to note the hard\u2010\nhearted incredulity of the Jews, notwithstanding the fact that Christ had\nwrought _so many_ miracles; an incredulity, however, which had been\nforetold by Isaias, which, therefore, came to pass now _in order that_\n(\u1f31\u03bd\u03b1) the prediction of the Prophet should be fulfilled (verses 37, 38);\nand which came to pass necessarily (_necessitate consequente_), because,\nas Isaias declared, they no longer had the abundant graces necessary in\norder that they might believe (verses 39, 40). Thus the incredulity of the\nJews in our Lord\u2019s time was _necessary_ to the end that prophecy might be\nfulfilled. How then, we may ask, was that incredulity culpable, if those\nwho were incredulous were not free and able to believe? The answer is,\nthat this incredulity was necessary by a necessity consequent upon the\nprediction of the inspired Prophet, which prediction was itself consequent\nupon God\u2019s foreknowledge that the Jews would, culpably and of their own\nfree will, remain incredulous. God foresaw this incredulity, predicted it,\nbecause He foresaw it was to be; and, of course, it came to pass, as He\nhad foreseen it would. Hence, when God foresees, or His Prophet predicts,\nthe commission of a certain sin, that sin is infallibly, yet freely\ncommitted. It is, as if we saw a man walking across a plain; he does so,\nnot because we see him, but we see him because he walks. Similarly, in the\nboundless plain of His eternal present, God sees all things that are to\nbe, and they happen, not because He sees them, but He sees them because\nthey are to happen.\n\nNote, in verse 38, that *our hearing* means what has been heard _from_ us,\nfor the preachers of the Gospel are represented in Isaias as complaining\nof the small number of those who listened to them. *The arm of the Lord*\nis Christ, according to several of the fathers; or we may take it to mean\nthe power of the Lord in the work of man\u2019s redemption.\n\nNote, in verse 40, where the prophecy is cited freely, after neither the\nHebrew nor the Septuagint, that it is not meant that God blinded any man\n_positively_, but only negatively, by the withdrawal of His more abundant\ngraces.\n\n41. Haec dixit Isaias, quando    41. These things said Isaias\nvidit gloriam eius, et locutus   when he saw his glory, and\nest de eo.                       spoke of him.\n\n41. See Isaias vi. 1, 9, 10, where the Prophet says: \u201cI saw the Lord\u201d\n(\u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9 = the Supreme God), words which are here referred by St. John to the\nProphet\u2019s having seen Christ; therefore, according to St. John, Christ is\nthe Supreme God.\n\nIt would also seem from this verse that the Son of God Himself, and not\nmerely an angel representing Him, appeared to Isaias on that occasion. It\nwas the common opinion of the fathers, though denied by most of the\nscholastics, that God sometimes appeared in the O. T. apparitions.\n\n*And spoke of him*, rather, \u201cand he spoke of Him,\u201d for this clause does\nnot depend upon the preceding \u201cwhen.\u201d It is a statement that it was of\nChrist Isaias spoke the words just quoted.\n\n42. Verumtamen et ex             42. However many of the chief\nprincipibus multi crediderunt    men also believed in him: but\nin eum: sed propter pharisaeos   because of the Pharisees they\nnon confitebantur, ut e          did not confess _him_, that\nsynagoga non eiicerentur:        they might not be cast out of\n                                 the synagogue.\n\n42. See above on ix. 22.\n\n43. Dilexerunt enim gloriam      43. For they loved the glory\nhominum magis quam gloriam       of men, more than the glory of\nDei.                             God.\n44. Iesus autem clamavit, et     44. But Jesus cried, and said:\ndixit: Qui credit in me, non     He that believeth in me, doth\ncredit in me sed in eum qui      not believe in me, but in him\nmisit me.                        that sent me.\n\n44. These words of our Lord recorded in the remainder of this chapter seem\nto have been spoken on a subsequent day of Holy Week (see verse 36); but\non what precise day, it is difficult to determine. *Doth not believe in\nme* is the Hebrew way of saying: doth not _so much_ believe in Me, as in\nHim that sent Me. Compare Mark ix. 36.\n\n45. Et qui videt me, videt eum   45. And he that seeth me,\nqui misit me.                    seeth him that sent me.\n\n45. In these words Christ declares His unity of nature with the Father.\n\u201cSensus est de visione corporali, non quod Deus oculo corporeo videatur\nimmediate, et per se, sed mediante humanitate, cui Divina substantia\nPatris et Filii est unita\u201d (Tolet.).\n\n46. Ego lux in mundum veni: ut   46. I am come a light into the\nomnis qui credit in me, in       world; that whosoever\ntenebris non maneat.             believeth in me, may not\n                                 remain in darkness.\n\n46. *Darkness* here means unbelief and sin.\n\n47. Et si quis audierit verba    47. And if any man hear my\nmea, et non custodierit, ego     words and keep them not: I do\nnon iudico eum, non enim veni    not judge him: for I came not\nut iudicem mundum, sed ut        to judge the world, but to\nsalvificem mundum.               save the world.\n\n47. *I do not judge him*; _i.e._, I do not _condemn_ him. Compare iii. 17;\nviii. 15, 50. At his _first_ coming Christ did not come to condemn, but to\nsave.\n\n48. Qui spernit me, et non       48. He that despiseth me, and\naccipit verba mea, habet qui     receiveth not my words, hath\niudicet eum: sermo quem          one that judgeth him: the word\nlocutus sum, ille iudicabit      that I have spoken, the same\neum in novissimo die.            shall judge him in the last\n                                 day.\n\n48. *Hath one that judgeth him*; namely, the Father (viii. 50). Hence the\nsense of the verse is that he that despiseth Me ... hath one that judgeth\nhim _even now_; and moreover, on the last day My words shall rise in\njudgment against him.\n\n49. Quia ego ex meipso non sum   49. For I have not spoken of\nlocutus, sed qui misit me        myself, but the Father who\nPater, ipse mihi mandatum        sent me, he gave me\ndedit quid dicam, et quid        commandment what I should say,\nloquar.                          and what I should speak.\n\n49. This verse gives the reason why the words of Christ shall stand in\njudgment against the unbeliever; because His words were not merely His\nown, uttered by His private authority, but spoken by the command of His\nFather, whom therefore they despise, in despising Him. In our view Christ\nhere speaks of Himself as man.\n\nIf *say* and *speak* are to be distinguished, then \u201csay\u201d (\u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03c9) refers to\nthe formal discourses, \u201cspeak\u201d (\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9) to the ordinary conversations; so\nthat in all His words Christ had spoken to them the words of God.\n\n50. Et scio quia mandatum eius   50. And I know that his\nvita aeterna est. Quae ergo      commandment is life\nego loquor, sicut dixit mihi     everlasting. The things\nPater, sic loquor.               therefore that I speak; even\n                                 as the Father said unto me, so\n                                 do I speak.\n\n50. To show them their folly, and in the hope of yet inducing them to\nbelieve, He tells them He knows with certainty that the command of the\nFather (that is, what the Father had commanded Him to say and do, and\nhence, all His own words and works) is the cause of life eternal to\nmankind. Hence their folly in not believing.\n\n*The things therefore that I speak; even as the Father said unto me, so do\nI speak.* Thus He concludes, insisting on the fact that He is the legate\nof God (consubstantial with the Father, verse 45), and as such worthy to\nbe believed.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n\n    1\u201020. *On the night before (according to the Jewish method of\n    reckoning their days, on the first night of) the great festal week\n    of the Pasch, Jesus celebrates the Paschal Supper with His\n    disciples in Jerusalem, washes their feet, exhorts them to imitate\n    His example of humility and charity, and hints at the sin of\n    Judas.*\n\n    21\u201030. *He reveals the traitor, who then leaves the supper\u2010room.*\n\n    31\u201039. *He foretells the near approach of His own death and\n    glorification; gives the new commandment of Christian charity, and\n    predicts the triple denial by Peter.*\n\n\nWith this chapter the second part of the narrative of our Gospel\ncommences. See Introd. IV.\n\nSt. John now passes on to the history of the events of the night before\nour Lord\u2019s death, omitting a number of incidents of Holy Week, which had\nbeen already recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists. Thus, he does not\nmention the weeping over Jerusalem (Luke xix. 39\u201044); the cursing of the\nbarren fig\u2010tree (Matt. xxi. 18, 19, Mark xi. 12\u201014); or the cleansing of\nthe temple (Matt. xxi. 12, 14; Mark xi. 15; Luke xix. 45, 46). There can\nbe little doubt that it was his intention to supplement the Synoptic\nGospels, for not only does he omit many things that they record, but he\nrecords very much that they omit.\n\n1. Ante diem festum paschae,     1. Before the festival day of\nsciens Iesus quia venit hora     the pasch, Jesus knowing that\neius ut transeat ex hoc mundo    his hour was come, that he\nad Patrem: cum dilexisset suos   should pass out of this world\nqui erant in mundo, in finem     to the Father: having loved\ndilexit eos.                     his own who were in the world,\n                                 he loved them unto the end.\n\n1. *Before the festival day of the pasch.* We are here met by a serious\ndifficulty when we compare with these words of St. John the accounts of\nthe Synoptic Evangelists; for, while they represent the supper, referred\nto by St. John in verse 2, as having taken place on the evening of the\nfirst day of Azymes, St. John here seems to place it prior to that Feast.\nIf we had only the Synoptic Gospels, we should, without any hesitation,\ncome to the conclusion\u2014(_a_) that our Lord and His Apostles ate the\nPaschal Supper on the night before He died; and (_b_) that the Jews that\nyear eat it on the same night. For St. Matthew tells us: \u201cAnd on the first\nday of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou\nthat we prepare for thee to eat the pasch? But Jesus said: Go ye into the\ncity to a certain man, and say to him: The Master saith, my time is near\nat hand; with thee I make the pasch with my disciples. And the disciples\ndid as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch. But when it\nwas evening he sat down with his twelve disciples\u201d (Matt. xxvi. 17\u201020).\nSimilarly, St. Mark (xiv. 12\u201017) and St. Luke (xxii. 7\u201014) seem to take\nfor granted that the ordinary time for celebrating the Paschal Supper was\ncome, for St. Mark says: \u201cNow on the first day of the unleavened bread,\n_when they sacrificed the pasch_, the disciples say to him,\u201d &c.; and St.\nLuke: \u201cAnd the day of the unleavened bread came, on which _it was\nnecessary_ that the pasch should be killed.\u201d St. John, on the other hand,\nin the verse before us, in which he introduces his account of the events\nof this last night of Christ\u2019s mortal life, speaks of the time as;\n\u201c_Before_ the festival day of the pasch.\u201d Moreover, in subsequent\npassages(82) of our Gospel, to which we shall direct attention as they\noccur, St. John uses language which, at first sight, at least, would seem\nto show that the Jews did not eat the Pasch on the night of Christ\u2019s last\nsupper, but on the following night, after He was crucified. Hence the\ndifficulty of reconciling St. John\u2019s account with that of the Synoptic\nEvangelists. A vast amount of learning has been expended upon this\nquestion, and a great deal has been written upon it. We shall indicate as\nbriefly as possible the different opinions, and state what seems to us\nmost probable.\n\n(1) Some, as St. Clement of Alexandria, Calmet, &c., have held that our\nLord did not eat the Pasch at all in the last year of His life. They argue\nfrom texts in St. John, which prove, they say, that the time for eating\nthe Pasch had not come until after Christ was put to death. They take the\n\u201cfirst day of the Azymes,\u201d in the Synoptic Gospels, to mean the 13th day\nof Nisan; and hold that it, and not the 14th, was so called because the\nJews removed all leaven from their houses a day before the Feast. In this\nview they have no difficulty in reconciling St. John\u2019s account with that\nof the other Evangelists; for the Synoptic Evangelists are then made to\nrepresent the Last Supper as having taken place on the 13th of Nisan. That\nbeing so, it is at once concluded that there cannot be question of the\nPaschal Supper, but of an ordinary supper, and St. John, in agreement with\nthe Synoptists, states that the supper in question was held \u201cbefore the\nfestival day of the pasch.\u201d\n\nThis opinion, however, we regard as wholly improbable and untenable in the\nface of the statements of the Synoptic Evangelists, for these statements\nare such as to leave no reasonable doubt that our Lord and His Apostles\ndid eat the Paschal Supper the night before He died. Thus, they tell us\nthat the disciples were sent by our Lord to prepare the Pasch, that they\nprepared it, and that when the time for eating it was come, Christ sat\ndown with the Twelve.(83) Moreover, St. Luke tells us that after they sat\ndown, Christ said: \u201cWith desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you\nbefore I suffer\u201d (Luke xxii. 15)\u2014words which clearly imply that on the\noccasion of that last supper the Pasch was eaten by Christ and the\nApostles. Hence the opinion we are now considering, which would reconcile\nthe Evangelists by holding that our Lord, on the night before He died, did\nnot partake of the Paschal Supper, but only of an ordinary supper, is, as\nwe have already said, wholly improbable; and, indeed, the book of a\ncertain Florentine named Vecchietti, published at the close of the\nsixteenth century, and maintaining this view, was condemned by the Holy\nOffice and its author imprisoned.(84)\n\n(2) Others, especially among the Greeks, admit that our Lord did eat the\nPaschal Supper on this occasion, but hold that He did so on the night\nfollowing the 13th of Nisan, thus anticipating by a day the ordinary time\nfor celebrating it.\n\nBut this view, too, seems to us very improbable; for the language of the\nSynoptic Evangelists appears to us to prove conclusively that our Lord did\nnot anticipate the legal time for eating the Pasch, which, as we know from\nExod. xii. 6, 8, and from tradition, was the night following the 14th of\nNisan. Thus St. Mark, in the passage already quoted, says: \u201cNow, on the\nfirst day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed (\u1f14\u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd, the\nImperf. denoting what was _customary_) the pasch, the disciples say to\nHim: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?\u201d\n(Mark xiv. 12). And St. Luke: \u201cAnd the day of the unleavened bread came,\non which it was _necessary_ (\u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9) that the pasch should be killed\u201d (Luke\nxxii. 7). These texts, we believe, prove that our Lord celebrated His last\nsupper on the night following the 14th of Nisan, the night on which the\nJews were bound by their Law to eat the Pasch. Hence we unhesitatingly\nreject any view which supposes Him to have anticipated the legal time for\nthe Paschal Supper.\n\n(3) Others, as Harduin, Bisping, &c., hold that the 13th of Nisan with the\nJudeans was the 14th with the Galileans, who therefore kept the Pasch a\nday earlier than the Judeans; and that our Lord, being a Galilean, did the\nsame. This opinion, too, would enable us to readily reconcile the\nEvangelists; but unfortunately the assumption as to a difference of\ncomputation between the Judeans and Galileans is a mere conjecture, and\nhas no evidence to support it.\n\n(4) Others, as Petav., Mald., Kuin., Coleridge,(85) Cornely, &c., hold\nthat our Lord and the Apostles eat the Paschal Supper on the night of the\n14th of Nisan, while the Jews that year eat it on the night of the 15th.\nMaldonatus holds that it was customary with the Jews from the time of the\nBabylonian captivity, whenever the first day of the Pasch fell on a\nFriday, to transfer it to Saturday, in order that two solemn feasts might\nnot occur on successive days. According to this view, our Lord\ncorresponded with the requirements of the Jewish Law; the Jews, on the\nother hand, followed the custom which had been introduced after the\nBabylonian captivity. In this view, too, it is easy to reconcile St.\nJohn\u2019s statement with those of the other Evangelists. He speaks of the\nnight of the Last Supper, in reference to the feast as celebrated that\nyear by the Judeans, and so places it _before_ the feast; they, on the\nother hand, speak of it in reference to the strict Law, and place it on\nthe first day of Azymes, or rather on the night following the first day of\nAzymes.(86)\n\nThe great names of many who have held this opinion, lend to it\nconsiderable probability, and if the custom which is alleged in its favour\nwere proved to have existed in the time of Christ, we would at once adopt\nit. But it is seriously disputed whether such a custom did exist at that\ntime. It is true, indeed, that among the modern Jews, when the Paschal\nfeast should begin on Friday, they always defer it till the Sabbath; and\nthe Talmud is referred to by Comely (vol. iii., \u00a7 73, 1) as saying that\nthe same has been the Jewish practice ever since the Babylonian captivity.\nOthers, however, contend that the custom is not as old as the time of\nChrist, and that in His time the first day of the Pasch was kept on a\nFriday whenever it happened to fall on that day. Aben\u2010Ezra (on Levit.\nxxiii. 4) says: \u201cTam ex Mischna quam ex Talmude probatur Pascha in\nsecundam, quartam, et _sextam_ feriam quandoque incidisse.\u201d Since, then,\nthe hypothesis on which this opinion rests seems doubtful, the opinion\nitself appears to us less satisfactory than that which follows.\n\n(5) Lastly, there is the old, and always the most common opinion, that our\nLord did eat the Pasch at His last supper; that He eat it on the night of\nthe 14th of Nisan; and that the Jews eat it on that same night. So St.\nJer., St. Aug., St. Anselm, Suarez, Tolet., A Lap., Benedict XIV.,\nPatriz., M\u2019Carthy, Corluy, Didon. This opinion is certainly in accordance\nwith the obvious meaning of the Synoptic Evangelists; and the objections\nagainst it, which are chiefly drawn from the Gospel of St. John,(87) can\nall be answered satisfactorily, as we shall show when discussing the\npassages on which they are founded.\n\nWe hold, then, that Christ and the Jews eat the Pasch on the night\nfollowing the 14th of Nisan, when, according to the Jewish method of\ncounting their days, the 15th had already commenced; and that Christ was\nput to death on the 15th, the first and most solemn day of the Paschal\nweek.\n\nAnd now, returning to the text of St. John, we are confronted at the very\ncommencement of this chapter by an objection to our view, in the words:\n\u201cBefore the festival day of the pasch.\u201d If Christ celebrated the Last\nSupper on the night after the 14th of Nisan, how does St. John speak of\nthe time of this supper as \u201cbefore the festival day of the pasch\u201d? To this\ndifficulty various answers have been given. (1) Some have replied that St.\nJohn means by \u201cday\u201d the natural day, or time of light; and then it is\nplain that a supper celebrated on the night following the 14th was before\nthe festival _day_ of the 15th. This explanation is unsatisfactory, for in\nthe original St. John does not merely say \u201cBefore the festal day,\u201d but\n\u201cBefore the festal period\u201d (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2; comp., _e.g._, vii. 2, 14,\n37).\n\n(2) Others say that the words \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 are equivalent to \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u1ff3; \u201cquod ita praecedit festum, ut tamen sit pars festi\u201d are the\nwords of Bochart, with whom Stier agrees. See Smith\u2019s _B. D._, Art.\n\u201cPassover.\u201d\n\n(3) Others prefer to believe that as St. John wrote sixty years after the\nLast Supper, after he had spent many years in Asia Minor, and become\naccustomed to Greek habits of thought and expression, he speaks according\nto the Greek method of reckoning the day. The Greeks, like ourselves,\nreckoned their days from midnight to midnight; and St. John, speaking of\nthe supper as taking place before the midnight that followed the 14th of\nNisan, might well refer it to a time previous to the festival.(88)\n\n*Jesus, knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this\nworld to the Father.* As God, Jesus knew from all eternity the hour of His\ndeath; as man, he knew it from the first moment of the Incarnation.\nKnowing, then, that He was about to pass out of this vale of sorrow and\nmisery, and by His death, resurrection, and ascension, go to share in the\nglory of the Father, having throughout His life loved His Apostles (His\nown), whom He was now leaving behind Him to struggle with the world, so He\nnow chose to manifest towards them His love _in an extraordinary manner_.\n\u0395\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 which in our Rhemish Version is translated \u201cunto the end,\u201d we\nunderstand, with the Greek fathers, who ought to be the best judges of the\nmeaning of the phrase, as equivalent to _excessively_, or _in a surpassing\nmanner_. This excessive love Jesus manifested on this last night, as well\nin the washing of the Apostles\u2019 feet as in the institution of the Blessed\nEucharist, the elevation of the Apostles to the dignity of the priesthood,\nand the loving discourse which followed this supper.\n\n2. Et coena facta, cum           2. And when supper was done\ndiabolus iam misisset in cor     (the devil having now put into\nut traderet eum Iudas Simonis    the heart of Judas Iscariot,\nIscariotae:                      the son of Simon, to betray\n                                 him),\n\n2. *And when supper was done.* We have taken for granted that the supper\nhere mentioned by St. John is identical with the last supper referred to\nby the Synoptic Evangelists, for there is no room for reasonable doubt as\nto their identity. On both occasions the traitor is revealed, and the\ndenial by Peter foretold, and on both the supper is followed by the\ndeparture to the Garden of Olives.(89)\n\n\u201cThere are good grounds for questioning the correctness of the Greek\nreading, which in the Vulgate is translated \u2018coena facta\u2019; for the\n_present_ participle (\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5) and not the past (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5) is found in\nmany MSS. of the highest authority. Finally, it is obvious that,\nconsidering the special signification of the Greek verb employed (\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n_to be, to come into being_), even the _past_ participle by no means\nimplies that the supper was then over, but merely that it had commenced,\nand was then going on. The same participle is used unquestionably in this\nsense in many passages of the New Testament; as, for instance, in John\nxxi. 4: \u2018When morning _was come_;\u2019 in Mark vi. 2, \u2018_during_ the Sabbath;\u2019\nMatt. xxvi. 6, \u2018Jesus _being_ now at Bethany,\u2019 and in many other passages\u201d\n(Dr. Walsh, _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, note 19.) The meaning,\nthen, is that supper was proceeding.\n\n*The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of\nSimon, to betray him.* This inhuman treachery was suggested by Satan, but\nfreely consented to by the wretched Apostle. The treachery of Judas is\nhere mentioned to throw into relief the loving mercy and condescension of\nJesus in washing even the traitor\u2019s feet.\n\n3. Sciens quia omnia dedit ei    3. Knowing that the Father had\nPater in manus, et quia a Deo    given him all things into his\nexivit, et ad Deum vadit.        hands, and that he came from\n                                 God, and goeth to God.\n\n3. While fully conscious of His dignity, of His supreme dominion over all\nthings, and of the fact that He had come out from the bosom of God in the\nincarnation, and would return thither by His resurrection and ascension,\nHe yet makes Himself as it were the servant of His Apostles.\n\n4. Surgit a coena, et ponit      4. He riseth from supper, and\nvestimenta sua: et cum           layeth aside his garments, and\naccepisset linteum, praecinxit   having taken a towel, girded\nse.                              himself.\n\n4. *He riseth from supper.* Hence it is clear that the supper had already\nbegun when the washing of the Apostles\u2019 feet took place. And for the\nreasons given above on verse 2, as also because of verse 12 (\u201cbeing sat\ndown again\u201d) we hold that it was _not over_; so that we adhere to the\ntraditional view that the washing of the feet took place during the\nsupper.(90) Commentators generally hold that the Paschal Supper on the\npresent occasion was followed by the ordinary supper or evening meal, and\nthis again by what we may call the Eucharistic Supper. It is generally\nheld that the washing of the feet took place immediately after the Paschal\nSupper, or during the ordinary, and before the Eucharistic Supper. At the\nPaschal Supper the company at the table might not be less than ten nor\nmore than twenty. In our Lord\u2019s time those partaking of the supper\nreclined on couches, this being the usage then, as standing had been\noriginally. \u201cThe rites of the supper were regulated according to the\nsuccession of four, sometimes five, cups of red wine mixed with water,\nwhich were placed before the head of the house or the most eminent guest,\nwho was called the celebrant, the president, or _proclaimer of the\nfeast_.\u201d(91) (See Dr. Walsh, _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, note 16.)\n\nChrist having risen from the supper *layeth aside his garments*. The\npallium or cloak, a square or oblong piece of cloth, which was thrown\nloosely around the body outside the tunic, was probably what was laid\naside;(92) and thus Jesus made Himself more like a servant, for servants\nwere not accustomed to wear the cloak. Then He took a towel, and girded\nHimself therewith. \u201cQuid mirum,\u201d says St. Augustine, si \u201cpraecinxit se\nlinteo qui formam servi accipiens habitu inventus est ut homo?\u201d Note how\nthe Evangelist narrates every little circumstance connected with this act\nof marvellous condescension.\n\n5. Deinde mittit aquam in        5. After that, he putteth\npelvim, et coepit lavare pedes   water into a basin, and began\ndiscipulorum, et extergere       to wash the feet of his\nlinteo quo erat praecinctus.     disciples, and to wipe them\n                                 with the towel, wherewith he\n                                 was girded.\n\n5. *After that, he putteth water into a basin.* In the Greek we have _the_\nbasin (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1), probably denoting a vessel ordinarily used for the\nwashing of feet, or that had been provided for the ceremony of the washing\nof hands, which was portion of the ritual of the Paschal Supper. We take\nit that the fourth and fifth verses describe in a general way how our Lord\nset about washing the disciples\u2019 feet.\n\n6. Venit ergo ad Simonem         6. He cometh therefore to\nPetrum. Et dicet ei Petrus:      Simon Peter. And Peter said to\nDomine, tu mihi lavas pedes?     him: Lord, dost thou wash my\n                                 feet?\n\n6. Here the Evangelist goes on to state in detail what happened when our\nLord presented Himself first of all before Peter. Thus we need not suppose\nthat our Lord had washed the feet of any other disciple before He came to\nPeter. St. Peter almost always stands first among the Apostles, and on the\npresent occasion, the remonstrance would naturally come from the first\nperson at whose feet our Lord presented Himself.\n\n\u201cThere is nothing to support the old notion that the action began with\nJudas. It is more natural to suppose that the Lord began with St. Peter.\nIn that case his refusal to accept the services is more intelligible than\nit would be if others had already accepted it\u201d (Westc. in _The Speaker\u2019s\nCommentary_).\n\n*Dost thou wash my feet?* The position of the pronouns in the Greek brings\nout sharply the contrast of the persons.\n\n7. Respondit Iesus, et dixit     7. Jesus answered, and said to\nei: Quod ego facio, tu nescis    him: What I do, thou knowest\nmodo, scies autem postea.        not now, but thou shalt know\n                                 hereafter.\n\n7. Peter, bewildered by His Divine Master\u2019s condescension, is told that he\nshall afterwards learn the moral significance of what Jesus was about to\ndo.\n\n8. Dicit ei Petrus: Non          8. Peter said to him: Thou\nlavabis mihi pedes in            shalt never wash my feet.\naeternum. Respondit ei Iesus:    Jesus answered him: If I wash\nSi non lavero te, non habebis    thee not, thou shalt have no\npartem mecum.                    part with me.\n\n8. Strong in faith, and mindful of the dignity of his Master, with that\nimpetuosity which displayed itself on other occasions, Peter declares that\nhe will never consent to such an act of self\u2010abasement on the part of his\nLord. Christ at once replies to him: *If I wash thee not, thou shalt have\nno part with me.* The meaning is, that if Peter refused obedience to\nChrist\u2019s wish, now distinctly made known to him in these words, he should\nbe excluded from Christ\u2019s society here and hereafter. Complete surrender\nof his will to Christ was a necessary condition of discipleship.\n\nThe washing of the feet here referred to is not a sacrament; the practice\nof the Church makes this clear. Besides, it cannot be shown that grace was\nannexed to it. No doubt, without it Peter was to have no part with Christ;\nbut this, we hold, would be the effect of disobedience, not the result of\nwanting anything which the washing could bestow. In reality, Peter was\nalready in the state of grace, for in the tenth verse Jesus tells the\nApostles that they are _clean_; and though He qualifies the statement by\nsaying that all are not clean, yet St. John explains this qualification in\nreference to Judas only. Hence Peter was already in the state of grace,\nand there is nothing in the text or context to show that he was to obtain\ngrace if his feet were washed, but only that he was to lose it if they\nwere not.\n\n9. Dicit ei Simon Petrus:        9. Simon Peter saith to him:\nDomine, non tantum pedes meos,   Lord, not only my feet, but\nsed et manus, et caput.          also my hands and my head.\n10. Dicit ei Iesus: Qui lotus    10. Jesus saith to him: He\nest, non indiget nisi ut pedes   that is washed, needeth not\nlavet, sed est mundus totus.     but to wash his feet, but is\nEt vos mundi estis, sed non      clean wholly. And you are\nomnes.                           clean, but not all.\n\n10. *Jesus saith to him: He that is washed* (rather _bathed_), *needeth\nnot but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly*. Some ancient authorities\nomit the words \u201cbut\u201d and \u201chis feet,\u201d and the meaning whether in regard to\nbody or soul is then clear and simple, namely, that he who has bathed has\nno need to wash, but is already clean. However, the words are much more\nprobably genuine; and the difficulty they create is doubtless the reason\nwhy they are wanting in some authorities. Taking them as genuine, then,\nlet us try to explain the verse. Some have understood our Lord to speak\nonly of a corporal washing, as if He merely meant that the Apostles who\nhad bathed, or at least washed their hands before this Supper (see above\non ii. 6), now needed nothing except to have their feet washed. But the\ncommon opinion of commentators understands our Lord to speak of a\nspiritual washing, of which the washing of the feet was a symbol, and this\nview we accept. For the closing words of the verse: \u201cAnd you are clean,\nbut not all\u201d when taken together with St. John\u2019s explanation in verse 11,\nleave no doubt that our Lord speaks of spiritual cleanness, and therefore\nwe may fairly conclude that He speaks also of a spiritual washing. He was\nabout to wash their feet literally, but He intended that ceremony as a\nsymbol of the higher cleansing process required of them and others as a\nfitting preparation before receiving the Blessed Eucharist. Such\npreparation was not absolutely necessary in their case, for they were\nalready clean from mortal sin, but it was fitting and in some sense\nrequired, in order that they might remove the dust of venial sin, which\nwas daily clinging to them in their contact with the world. It is clearly\nimplied that if they had not been clean, that is to say, free from mortal\nsin, a more thorough cleansing would have necessary.\n\nThe meaning, then, seems to be that one who has bathed spiritually by\nhaving his soul cleansed from mortal sin, needs afterwards, as a fitting\npreparation for the Blessed Eucharist, merely that limited cleansing that\nwas symbolized by the washing of only the feet.\n\n11. Sciebat enim quisnam esset   11. For he knew who he was\nqui traderet eum: propterea      that would betray him;\ndixit: Non estis mundi omnes.    therefore he said: You are not\n                                 all clean.\n12. Postquam ergo lavit pedes    12. Then after he had washed\neorum, et accepit vestimenta     their feet, and taken his\nsua: cum recubuisset iterum,     garments, being sat down\ndixit eis: Scitis quid fecerim   again, he said to them: Know\nvobis?                           you what I have done to you?\n13. Vos vocatis me, Magister     13. You call me Master, and\net Domine: et benedicitis: sum   Lord: and you say well, for so\netenim.                          I am.\n14. Si ergo ego lavi pedes       14. If then I, being _your_\nvestros, Dominus et Magister:    Lord and Master, have washed\net vos debetis alter alterius    your feet; you also ought to\nlavare pedes.                    wash one another\u2019s feet.\n15. Exemplum enim dedi vobis,    15. For I have given you an\nut quemadmodum ego feci vobis,   example, that as I have done\nita et vos faciatis.             to you, so you do also.\n16. Amen, amen dico vobis: Non   16. Amen, amen, I say to you:\nest servus maior domino suo:     The servant is not greater\nneque apostolus maior est eo     than his lord: neither is the\nqui misit illum.                 apostle greater than he that\n                                 sent him.\n\n12\u201016. Having concluded the washing of the feet, and _again reclined_,\nJesus points out to the Apostles the moral significance of what He had\ndone. If He, whom they rightly called Lord and Master condescended to wash\ntheir feet, how much more ought they to wash the feet of one another, and\nperform towards one another similar acts of humility and mutual charity?\nIt was that they might reflect in their own lives this spirit of humility\nand charity that He had set them the example; and though such humble\noffices of charity might at first sight seem unworthy of them, or beneath\nthem, yet a servant is not greater than his master; and whither Christ had\nstooped they too should be prepared to stoop.\n\n17. Si haec scitis, beati        17. If you know these things,\neritis si feceritis ea.          you shall be blessed if you do\n                                 them.\n\n17. In this verse, He promises them happiness here and hereafter, if they\ncontinue to fulfil towards one another such offices of humility and mutual\ncharity.\n\n18. Non de omnibus vobis dico:   18. I speak not of you all: I\nego scio quos elegerim: sed ut   know whom I have chosen: but\nadimpleatur scriptura: Qui       that the scripture may be\nmanducat mecum panem, levabit    fulfilled, _He that eateth\ncontra me calcaneum suum.        bread with me, shall lift up\n                                 his heel against me_.\n\n18. Christ does not here qualify the promise made in verse 17, for that\npromise was conditional, and as such is universally true. But taking\noccasion from the word \u201cblessed,\u201d which He had used, He proceeds to say\nthat not all of them are, or shall be, blessed.\n\n*I know whom I have ** chosen.* SS. Aug. and Bede understand Christ to\nspeak of the choice or election by which He had predestined some to\n_glory_; and as Judas was not predestined, therefore Christ had not\nintended to speak of blessedness in connection with him. But since, in\nother parts of Scripture, Christ never attributes the act of\npredestinating to Himself, but only to the Father, hence we prefer, with\nTol., Mald., A Lap., to understand here not of election to glory, but of\nthe call to the Apostleship; and the sense is: I know what sort are the\ntwelve whom I have chosen to be Apostles, and that one of them is not\nblessed, and never shall be. *But that the Scripture may be fulfilled.*\nThe sense is: but though I know and knew how unworthy one of you is, still\nI called him to the Apostleship, that the Scripture might be fulfilled\nwhich foretold his ingratitude and guilt. That the prediction of the\ntreachery of Judas did not deprive him of his liberty, nor extenuate his\nguilt, see above on xii. 38. The Scripture quoted is from Psalm xl. 10,\nwhere David complains of the ingratitude of some person whom he had\ntreated as his familiar friend. David and his false friend were types of\nChrist and Judas; and, as we learn from the present passage of St. John,\nthe mystical sense of David\u2019s words had reference to the betrayal of\nChrist by Judas. In the quotation, the words *shall lift* (or rather \u201chas\nlifted,\u201d for _levabit_ ought to be _levavit_) *up his heel against me*,\nare to be taken metaphorically. The meaning probably is that the\ningratitude of Judas is like that of the beast which kicks him who feeds\nit and treats it kindly.\n\n19. Amodo dico vobis,            19. At present I tell you,\npriusquam fiat: ut cum factum    before it come to pass: that\nfuerit, credatis quia ego sum.   when it shall come to pass,\n                                 you may believe that I am he.\n\n19. Christ tells them that He now makes known to them the treachery of one\nof them, in order that when it shall have come to pass, they may remember\nthat He had foreknowledge of it, and may believe Him to be God.\n\n20. Amen, amen dico vobis: qui   20. Amen, amen, I say to you,\naccipit si quem misero, me       he that receiveth whomsoever I\naccipit: qui autem me accipit,   send, receiveth me: and he\naccipit eum qui me misit.        that receiveth me, receiveth\n                                 him that sent me.\n\n20. Some hold that this verse has no connection with the context here; and\nthat the words of Christ with which it was connected are omitted by our\nEvangelist. Others connect in various ways. With Beelen, we prefer to\nconnect as follows. In verses 15\u201017, Christ had exhorted the Apostles to\nshare in His humiliations; then, in verses 18 and 19 he digressed, to\nspeak of the treachery of Judas; and now after the digression He tells\nthem, for their consolation, that they shall be sharers in His honour.\n\nSome harmonists place the institution of the Blessed Eucharist immediately\nafter the words recorded in verse 20; others, after verse 22; and others,\nat other points in the narrative.\n\n21. Cum haec dixisset Iesus,     21. When Jesus had said these\nturbatus est spiritu: et         things, he was troubled in\nprotestatus est, et dixit:       spirit: and he testified, and\nAmen, amen dico vobis: quia      said: Amen, amen, I say to\nunus ex vobis tradet me.         you, one of you shall betray\n                                 me.\n\n21. *He was troubled in spirit.* As we said above on xi. 23, this\nperturbation of soul was freely permitted by Christ. The disclosure of the\ntraitor had been begun earlier in the night. It is recorded more or less\nfully by the four Evangelists, but in such a manner as to render it\nextremely probable that Christ returned to the subject several times\nduring the night. St. Matthew (xxvi. 21, and foll.) and St. Mark (xiv. 18,\nand following) record the allusion to the traitor, immediately before the\ninstitution of the Blessed Eucharist. St. Luke, on the other hand, records\nit immediately after the same event: \u201cThis is the chalice, the New\nTestament, in my blood, which shall be shed for you. But yet behold, the\nhand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table\u201d (Luke xxii. 20,\n21). St. John does not refer, at least explicitly, to the institution of\nthe Blessed Eucharist; but in his narrative the treachery of Judas is at\nfirst insinuated during the washing of the feet (verse 10); again alluded\nto in verse 18; and, finally, clearly foretold in verse 26. We can best\nreconcile all the Evangelists by holding that, in the hope of deterring\nJudas from his awful purpose, our Lord returned several times to the same\nsubject: first, during the washing of the feet, as in St. John; then\nbefore the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, as in SS. Matthew and\nMark; then, immediately after the institution, as in St. Luke; and\nfinally, when the dipped bread was handed to the traitor, and he left the\nroom, as in St. John.\n\n\u201cNo doubt it would be difficult to admit this supposition if the words in\nquestion (the words of the Synoptic Evangelists) contained, as seems\ngenerally to be taken for granted, a distinct identification of the\ntraitor. For it could hardly be supposed that Judas, if thus pointed out,\ncould have retained his place at the supper table, among the Apostles.\nBut, in reality, there is no reason to regard the expressions recorded by\nSt. Matthew and St. Mark\u2014and the same may be said of that recorded by St.\nLuke\u2014as thus distinctly identifying the one who was to betray our Lord.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe may, indeed, regard them as conveying an intimation to _Judas\nhimself_, if, as may be supposed, at the time they were uttered, or\nshortly before it, his hand had been upon the table, or if he had helped\nhimself to some meat from the same dish as our Lord, and those others who\nsat in immediate proximity to Him. Or we may even suppose that those\nexpressions, or at least some of them, were _altogether indefinite_, so as\nto convey only the sad intelligence that it was one of His chosen Twelve\nwho was about to betray Him; just as the words, \u2018_Unus vestrum_ me\ntraditurus est,\u2019 of St. Matthew (xxvi. 21), or the \u2018_Unus ex vobis_ tradet\nme, qui manducat mecum\u2019 of St. Mark (xiv. 18), or the prophetic words of\nthe Psalmist (Ps. xl. 10) quoted by our Lord, as recorded by St. John\n(xiii. 18), \u2018_Qui manducat mecum panem_, levabit contra me calcaneum\nsuum.\u2019\n\n\u201cBut there appears no sufficient reason for supposing that any of the\nexpressions hitherto quoted was calculated, or was intended, to identify\nthe traitor, at least _in the eyes of his fellow\u2010Apostles_.(93) Thus,\nthen, there is no difficulty in supposing that they may have been spoken\nby our Lord at even an early period of the supper.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe incident recorded by St. John (xiii. 21, 30) is of an essentially\ndifferent character. There our Lord, after announcing in general terms,\n\u2018Unus ex vobis tradet me,\u2019 is appealed to by St. John, at the instance of\nSt. Peter, to declare who the traitor may be. The request of the beloved\ndisciple is promptly met by the response, \u2018Ille est, cui ego intinctum\npanem porrexero;\u2019 and the traitor is immediately pointed out by the signal\nthus selected by our Lord: \u2018Et quum intinxisset panem, dedit Judae Simonis\nIscariotae.\u2019 \u201d(94)\n\n22. Aspiciebant ergo ad          22. The disciples therefore\ninvicem discipuli, haesitantes   looked one upon another,\nde quo diceret.                  doubting of whom he spoke.\n\n22. *The disciples therefore looked* (rather, _were looking_, as in the\noriginal and Vulgate) *one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke*. The\nwords vividly recall the actual scene. Strange as the prediction was, no\none doubted its fulfilment; they merely doubted of whom He spoke. We say\nof _whom_ He spoke, for though the original might mean, of _what_ He\nspoke, Peter\u2019s question immediately afterwards: \u201cWho is it of whom he\nspeaketh?\u201d (v. 24), shows that their doubt regarded merely which of them\nwas to betray Him. Earlier in the night, when He first referred to the\nbetrayal, they may perhaps have doubted even _what_ He meant; but that\nstage was now passed, and the only doubt remaining was as to which of\ntheir number was to play the part of traitor.\n\n23. Erat ergo recumbens unus     23. Now there was leaning on\nex discipulis eius in sinu       Jesus\u2019 bosom one of his\nIesu, quem diligebat Iesus.      disciples whom Jesus loved.\n\n23. *Now there was leaning on Jesus\u2019 bosom.* Rather: \u201cNow there was\nreclining at the table _in_ (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03bd) Jesus\u2019 bosom.\u201d Instead of\nsitting at table, as we do now, the Jews of our Lord\u2019s time, and for some\ntime before and after, reclined. The guests lay resting on their left arm,\nstretched obliquely, their feet being behind them, instead of under the\ntable, as with us. In this way a guest was reclining close to the bosom of\nthe guest behind him, and such was the position that St. John occupied in\nreference to Christ on this occasion. When three reclined on the same\ncouch, the centre was the place of honour.\n\n*One of his disciples whom Jesus loved.* This, according to all antiquity,\nwas our Evangelist himself. The title, which occurs here for the first\ntime, is perhaps suggested by the recollection of the privileged position\nhe occupied at the Last Supper. It occurs again, xix. 26; xxi. 7, 20.\nComp. also xx. 2.\n\n24. Innuit ergo huic Simon       24. Simon Peter therefore\nPetrus, et dixit ei: Quis est,   beckoned to him, and said to\nde quo dicit?                    him: Who is it of whom he\n                                 speaketh?\n\n24. The best\u2010supported Greek reading agrees substantially with the\nVulgate: \u201cSimon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, Tell\nwho it is of whom he speaketh.\u201d According to this reading, St. John was\nnot asked to inquire of Jesus who the traitor was, but St. Peter takes for\ngranted that St. John had already learned from Jesus, and simply asks the\nbeloved disciple to make it known to them all. In the other and less\nprobable reading, St. John is asked _to inquire_ (\u03c0\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) who the\ntraitor is. It might seem more in accordance with St. Peter\u2019s character,\nthat he should directly ask our Lord to point out the traitor, but it is\npossible that Christ\u2019s threat, recorded in verse 8, may have made him less\nconfident than usual.\n\n25. Itaque cum recubuisset       25. He therefore leaning on\nille supra pectus Iesu, dicit    the breast of Jesus saith to\nei: Domine quis est!             him: Lord, who is it?\n\n25. If St. Peter supposed that St. John already knew who the traitor was,\nhe was mistaken, as we see by this verse.\n\n*He therefore leaning on.* The best\u2010supported Greek reading would be\nrendered thus: _He leaning back, as he was, on_ &c. (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af).\n\nFrom his reclining position, St. John had merely to lean a little farther\nback in order to rest his head on His Divine Master\u2019s breast. Thus \u201cas he\nwas,\u201d _i.e._, without changing his position at table, by merely leaning\nback, he was not only close to the _bosom_ of Jesus, but was on His\nbreast, and could whisper his question. All the fathers speak of the\nprivilege conferred upon St. John on this occasion in his being admitted\nto such familiarity with his Divine Master.\n\n26. Respondit Iesus: Ille est    26. Jesus answered: He it is\ncui ego intinctum panem          to whom I shall reach bread\nporrexero. Et cum intinxisset    dipped. And when he had dipped\npanem, dedit Iudae Simonis       the bread, he gave it to Judas\nIscariotae.                      Iscariot, _the son_ of Simon.\n\n26. If we suppose the bread which was handed to Judas to have been dipped\nin the Charoseth (\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05e1\u05ea) a kind of sauce used at the Paschal Supper, then\nthe meats of the Paschal Supper must have been still upon the table. This\nthere is no difficulty in admitting, even if the ordinary supper,\nfollowing upon the Paschal Supper, had already been partaken of.\n\n27. Et post buccellam,           27. And after the morsel,\nintroivit in eim Satanas. Et     Satan entered into him. And\ndixit ei Iesus; Quod facis,      Jesus said to him: That which\nfac citius.                      thou dost, do quickly.\n\n27. After the morsel had been given to Judas, \u201cSatan entered into him;\u201d\nthat is to say, Judas now revealed as a traitor, at least to St. John,\nbecame still more confirmed in his evil purpose. The words are generally\nunderstood not as implying corporal possession of Judas by the devil, but\nas signifying that the devil now gained full control over him in reference\nto the crime contemplated. *And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost,\ndo quickly*, again intimating that He knew the traitor\u2019s thoughts, and at\nthe same time manifesting His own readiness to suffer. These words of our\nLord do not contain a command or permission to Judas to commit the crime:\nbut, taking for granted the traitor\u2019s fixed determination \u201cThat which thou\ndost,\u201d _i.e._, hast determined to do, they show Christ\u2019s readiness and\neagerness to begin to drink of the chalice that awaited Him.\n\n28. Hoc autem nemo scivit        28. Now no man at the table\ndiscumbentium ad quid dixerit    knew to what purpose he said\nei.                              this unto him.\n\n28. The disciples, even St. John, knew not to what purpose Christ had told\nJudas to do quickly what he was determined to do. Though St. John, at\nleast, had learned immediately before that Judas was to betray our Lord,\nstill he probably did not expect that the betrayal would follow so rapidly\nupon the disclosure of the traitor.\n\n29. Quidam enim putabant, quia   29. For some thought, because\nloculos habebat Judas, quod      Judas had the purse, that\ndixisset ei Iesus: Eme ea quae   Jesus had said to him: Buy\nopus sunt nobis ad diem          those things which we have\nfestum: aut egenis ut aliquid    need of for the festival day:\ndaret.                           or that he should give\n                                 something to the poor.\n\n29. *For some thought ... for the festival day*. This conjecture of the\nApostles is adduced by some writers as a proof that the supper mentioned\nby St. John in this thirteenth chapter is not the Paschal Supper; or, if\nthe Paschal Supper, that it was not celebrated on the night of the 14th of\nNisan. They argue\u2014(_a_) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan it would\nnot have been lawful to buy or sell; and, therefore, the Apostles would\nnot have conjectured as on this occasion they did; and (_b_) that on the\nnight of the 14th of Nisan the Feast would already have begun, and the\nApostles would not have conjectured that Judas was about to buy\nnecessaries in preparation for the Feast.\n\nBut to (_a_) we reply that the buying and selling of articles of food was\nnot forbidden during the Pasch (Exod. xii. 16), and certainly was not\nforbidden on a festival that fell, as in this case, on a Friday, the day\nbefore the Sabbath. To (_b_) we answer that though the festival time had\nbegun, yet it lasted seven days; and the fact that a few hours of the\nfestal period had already elapsed would not prevent the Apostles from\nconjecturing that Judas might be making provision for the long period that\nwas still to come. *To the poor.* From this conjecture, and from xii. 5,\nwe may conclude that our Lord and the Apostles were in the habit of giving\nalms to the poor.\n\n30. Cum ergo accepisset ille     30. He therefore having\nbuccellam, exivit continuo.      received the morsel, went out\nErat autem nox.                  immediately. And it was night.\n\n30. When Judas found himself revealed as the traitor, he immediately left\nthe supper\u2010room. The Evangelist adds: *And it was night*, no doubt in\norder to give completeness to the history, but possibly also to mark the\ncontrast of the light Judas left behind him with the outer darkness into\nwhich he went forth. \u201cErat autem nox,\u201d says St. Aug., \u201cEt ipse qui exivit\nerat nox.\u201d\n\nLet us here pause for a moment in the narrative of St. John to inquire\nwhether the Blessed Eucharist was instituted before the departure of\nJudas; whether, therefore, he sacrilegiously received the Blessed\nEucharist and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. The great majority\nof the fathers answer in the affirmative. This view seems to us extremely\nprobable. For the Synoptic Evangelists all take care to tell us that Jesus\nsat down with the Twelve; and then a few verses afterwards, without any\nindication of a change in the company, without the slightest hint that\nanyone had departed, they proceed: \u201cAnd whilst they were at supper, Jesus\ntook bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and said:\nTake ye, and eat; this is My body\u201d (Matt. xxvi. 26). Compare St. Mark and\nSt. Luke. Hence, although they must have had the treachery of Judas before\ntheir minds while writing, yet they say not a word about his departure, as\nit might naturally be expected they would, if he had actually departed.\nNay, St. Luke\u2019s version of our Lord\u2019s words clearly implies that Judas was\npresent at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; for in St. Luke our\nLord seems to contrast His own love in instituting the Blessed Eucharist\nwith the treachery of _one who was present_. \u201cThis is the chalice, the New\nTestament in My blood, which shall be shed for you. _But yet_ behold, the\nhand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table\u201d (Luke xxii. 20,\n21). Therefore, according to St. Luke, Judas was still at the table after\nthe institution; and St. Mark states that all present drank of the\nchalice: \u201cAnd they all drank of it\u201d (xiv. 23).\n\nIt seems to us, then, much more probable that Judas received the Blessed\nEucharist, and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. Many, however, hold\nthe opposite view; among others, St. Hilary, Innocent III., Salmeron, B.\nLamy, Corluy, Langen, and Cornely. The latter says that he agrees in this\n\u201cCum plerisque modernis\u201d (Corn., iii., p. 298, note). Their principal\narguments are: (1) That St. Matthew, who was present at the Last Supper,\nrecords the disclosure of the traitor _before_ the institution of the\nEucharist, while we know from St. John (verse 30) that Judas departed when\nhe was disclosed: therefore he departed before the institution of the\nEucharist. But this argument loses its force, if we hold as above, that\nChrist referred on several occasions during the night to the treachery of\nJudas, and _only on the last occasion_ definitely disclosed who the\ntraitor was.\n\n(2) They say, that surely our Lord did not allow Judas to make a\nsacrilegious Communion and receive Holy Orders, when He could so easily\nhave prevented it. But we may reply that Christ referred several times to\nthe betrayal, in order to recall Judas to a better sense; failing in this,\nHe left him free, just as He leaves unworthy communicants or bad priests\nfree now.\n\nWe believe, then, that modern commentators have no solid reason for\ndeparting from what was undeniably the common view in the early Church,\nthat Judas at the Last Supper did receive Holy Communion and was ordained\npriest.\n\n31. Cum ergo exisset, dixit      31. When he therefore was gone\nIesus: Nunc clarificatus est     out, Jesus said: Now is the\nFilius hominis: et Deus          son of man glorified, and God\nclarificatus est in eo.          is glorified in him.\n\n31. With this verse our Lord\u2019s last discourses begin. They are divided\ninto two portions by the change of place at the close of chapter xiv., the\nfirst portion containing what was spoken in the Supper Room (xiii. 31\u2010xiv.\n31); the second, what was spoken just outside the Supper Room or along the\nway to Gethsemane or at some point on the way (xv., xvi.). In the first\nportion the leading ideas are that He and the Apostles are to be separated\nbecause He is about to ascend to the glory of the Father; still, that\nnotwithstanding the separation, they shall not be orphans, but He and they\nshall be united.\n\n*When he therefore was gone out Jesus said.* The departure of Judas marked\nthe beginning of the end, and Jesus at once turned to the eleven with\nwords that prove His knowledge of what was about to happen, and His\nacceptance of the issue of the traitor\u2019s work.\n\n*Now is the son of man glorified.* Judas had finally decided to betray\nHim, and He Himself had fully accepted what was to follow, so that His\ndeath, now so certain and so near, might be spoken of as already past: \u201cis\n... glorified.\u201d For their consolation and encouragement He refers to His\ndeath as a glorification, as indeed it was, being a triumph over Satan and\nsin, and the prelude to victory over death itself.\n\n*And God is glorified in him.* God\u2019s rigorous justice and boundless love\nfor men were manifested by His sending His Divine Son to die for them, and\nhence God was glorified in the death of Christ. See Rom. iii. 25, 26; v.\n8, 9.\n\n32. Si Deus clarificatus est     32. If God be glorified in\nin eo, et Deus clarificabit      him, God also will glorify him\neum in semetipso: et continuo    in himself: and immediately\nclarificabit eum.                will he glorify him.\n\n32. Many authorities omit the words: \u201cIf God be glorified in him.\u201d *In\nhimself.* The meaning seems to be: _with_ Himself, as in xvii. 5: \u201cAnd now\nglorify thou me, O Father, with thyself.\u201d *Immediately*, we refer to the\ntime of the crucifixion.\n\n33. Filioli, adhuc modicum       33. Little children, yet a\nvobiscum sum quaeretis me: et    little while I am with you.\nsicut dixi Iudaeis: Quo ego      You shall seek me, and as I\nvado, vos non potestis venire:   said to the Jews: Whither I\net vobis dico modo.              go, you cannot come: so I say\n                                 to you now.\n\n33. The glorification of Christ implied His departure from the Apostles,\nand the time was now come for making known to them the separation. At\npresent they, any more than His enemies, could not follow Him, and what He\nhad before declared to His enemies (vii. 33, 34), He now declares to His\ndearest friends. Yet, though the substance of the declaration is in both\ncases the same, Christ\u2019s purpose in making it was very different. To the\nJews it was made in the hope that they would thus be urged to make good\nuse of the time that still remained to them before the separation, while\nin the present case the motive seems rather to be to forearm the Apostles\nby forewarning them and putting before them various motives of\nconsolation.\n\nThe term (\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bd\u03af\u03b1) occurs only here in the Gospels, but is found six (or\nseven) times in St. John\u2019s First Epistle. The diminutive form is\nexpressive of tender affection, and perhaps of anxiety for those who were\nstill immature.\n\n*Little children you shall seek me*, &c. See above on vii. 34. The\ndeclaration is somewhat different in form on this second occasion. The\nwords: \u201cand shall not find me\u201d (vii. 34) are omitted, and instead of:\n\u201cwhere I am\u201d the present text has: \u201cwhither I go.\u201d As we have said, the\nleading idea in both cases is of separation, but since that separation was\nto be followed in the case of the Apostles by spiritual union (xiv. 18,\n23), hence He now omits the words: \u201cand shall not find me;\u201d though in the\nsense of not finding Him any longer visibly present among them, the words\nwere true even in reference to the Apostles.\n\n34. Mandatum novum do vobis:     34. A new commandment I give\nut diligatis invicem, sicut      unto you: That you love one\ndilexi vos, ut et vos            another, as I have loved you,\ndiligatis invicem.               that you also love one\n                                 another.\n\n34. Christ calls this commandment a new one, because though love of the\nneighbour had been commanded in the Law (Lev. xix. 18), yet love modelled\non the love of Christ as its exemplar, Christian love, had never been\ncommanded before. The words: *As I have loved you*, imply that we should\nlove our neighbour with the same kind of love, and from the same motive,\nas Christ loves us; but not, of course, in the same measure, for of this\nwe are incapable.\n\n35. In hoc cognoscent omnes      35. By this shall all men know\nquia discipuli mei estis, si     that you are my disciples, if\ndilectionem habueritis ad        you have love one for another.\ninvicem.\n\n35. This mutual love was to be a distinctive mark of Christ\u2019s perfect\ndisciples. And so, in fact, it was in the early Church, for Tertullian\ntells us that the Pagans used to say: \u201cSee how these Christians love one\nanother\u201d!... \u201cand how they are ready to die for one another\u201d! (Apol. 39).\n\n36. Dicit et Simon Petrus:       36. Simon Peter saith to him:\nDomine, quo vadis? Respondit     Lord whither goest thou? Jesus\nIesus: Quo ego vado, non potes   answered: Whither I go, thou\nme modo sequi: sequeris autem    canst not follow me now, but\npostea.                          thou shalt follow hereafter.\n\n36. St. Peter, all absorbed in Christ\u2019s words, (verse 33), which signified\nthat he was to be separated from his Divine Master, asks: *Lord, whither\n** goest thou?* Christ\u2019s reply means that He was going to His Father,\nwhither Peter should one day follow, though he could not follow then.\n*Thou shalt follow hereafter.* These words implied Peter\u2019s final\nperseverance and salvation.\n\n37. Dicit ei Petrus: Quare non   37. Peter saith to him: Why\npossum te sequi modo? animam     cannot I follow thee now? I\nmeam pro te ponam.               will lay down my life for\n                                 thee.\n\n37. St. Peter, not understanding Christ\u2019s reply, and thinking that He\nmeant to go to some place of danger, testifies his readiness to die for\nChrist, and hence, he implies, to follow Him anywhere.\n\n38. Respondit ei Iesus: Animam   38. Jesus answered him: Wilt\ntuam pro me pones? Amen, amen    thou lay down thy life for me?\ndico tibi: non cantabit          Amen, amen, I say to thee, the\ngallus, donec ter me neges.      cock shall not crow, till thou\n                                 deny me thrice.\n\n38. Christ replies, rebuking Peter\u2019s boastful confidence, and declaring\nthat so far was Peter from being ready at that time to die for Him, that\nbefore cockcrow he would deny Him thrice.\n\nWe believe that our Lord _twice_ on this night predicted the denials by\nPeter: once in the supper\u2010room, as recorded by St. John here, and by St.\nLuke (xxii. 34), and again on the way to Gethsemane, as recorded by St.\nMatt. (xxvi. 30\u201034), and St. Mark (xiv. 26\u201030). By the latter Evangelists\nthe prophecy of Peter\u2019s denial is distinctly placed on the way to\nGethsemane, and connected with the prophecy of the general desertion of\nthe Apostles. This latter prophecy, it may well be, called forth from\nPeter a second expression of his fearless attachment to his Master, and\nthis was followed in turn by a second reference to Peter\u2019s denials.\n\nWhile the other three Evangelists represent our Lord as saying that the\nthree denials by Peter should take place before the cock would crow, St.\nMark, who was a disciple of St. Peter, records the prediction more\nminutely, and represents our Lord as saying: \u201cBefore the cock crow\n_twice_, thou shalt deny me thrice\u201d (Mark xiv. 30). There is, however, no\ncontradiction between St. Mark and the others, even if all refer to the\nsame prediction; for the _second_ crowing of the cock, before which,\naccording to St. Mark, the three denials were to take place, is that which\nis meant by the other Evangelists, and which was universally known as\n\u201c_the_ cockcrowing.\u201d That the cockcrowing in our Lord\u2019s time was regarded\nas so distinct a note of time as to have given its name to one of the four\nwatches of the night, we have clear evidence in the Gospels. Thus, in St.\nMark (xiii. 35), our Lord says: \u201cWatch ye therefore (for you know not when\nthe lord of the house cometh; at even, or at midnight, _or at the\ncockcrowing_, or in the morning).\u201d Thus, then, although the cock crew\nafter Peter\u2019s _first_ denial, as St. Mark records (Mark xiv. 68), still\nthe time generally known as cockcrow\u2014about 3 a.m.\u2014was that meant when the\nword was used, as it is in our Lord\u2019s prediction in SS. Matt., Luke, and\nJohn, without any special indication that the first crowing of the cock\nwas the one intended. Hence, the _second_ crowing of the cock referred to\nby St. Mark was _the_ cock\u2010crowing mentioned by the other three\nEvangelists.\n\nBefore quitting this chapter, it may be well, for clearness sake, to\nrepeat here what we consider to be the most probable order of events at\nthe Last Supper.\n\n(1) There was the Paschal Supper.\n\n(2) During the Paschal Supper, or at its close (but certainly before the\nordinary supper was over: see above on verse 2), the washing of the feet,\naccompanied by the first allusion to the traitor (John xiii. 10).\n\n(3) The ordinary supper, during which\n\n(4) Another reference to the traitor (Matt. xxvi. 21 _ff._; and Mark xiv.\n18 _ff._).\n\n(5) The Eucharistic Supper.\n\n(6) A third reference to the traitor (Luke xxii. 21).\n\n(7) The strife among the Apostles as to which of them was the greatest,\noccasioned, perhaps, by the anxiety of each to shift from himself the\ncharge of treachery.\n\n(8) The question of St. John (John xiii. 25), and the final disclosure of\nthe traitor, who quits the supper room.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n\n    1\u20104. *Christ bids the Apostles not to be troubled in heart, and\n    puts before them three motives of consolation.*\n\n    5\u20107. *Interrupted by Thomas He declares Himself to be* _the way_,\n    *and His Father* _the term_ *whither He goeth*.\n\n    8\u201012_a_. *Philip\u2019s request, and Christ\u2019s reply containing a fourth\n    motive of consolation.*\n\n    12_b_\u201014. *All who have the requisite faith shall perform even\n    greater miracles than His, for whatever they shall ask the Father\n    or Himself in His name, He will grant.*\n\n    15\u201017. *As a fifth motive of consolation, He promises to send them\n    the Holy Ghost.*\n\n    18\u201021. *As a sixth motive, He promises to come to them Himself.*\n\n    22\u201024. *Not only to them but to all the faithful shall He come\n    together with the Father and the Holy Ghost.*\n\n    25\u201026. *As a seventh motive, He tells them that the Holy Ghost\n    will teach them all truth, and call to their minds all He has said\n    to them.*\n\n    27. *As an eighth motive, He bequeathes them His peace.*\n\n    28. *Finally, as a ninth, He tells them that to leave them and go\n    to the Father is for His greater glory.*\n\n    29. *His object in foretelling His departure and return.*\n\n    30\u201031. *He declares the approach of Satan, and invites the\n    Apostles to quit the Supper\u2010room.*\n\n\n1. Non turbetur cor vestrum.     1. Let not your heart be\nCreditis in Deum, et in me       troubled. You believe in God,\ncredite.                         believe also in me.\n\n1. *Let not your heart be troubled.* Continuing the discourse after the\nLast Supper, begun in xiii. 31, Jesus begins to console the Apostles. He\nsaw that they were sore at heart, as well they might be, on account of\nwhat He had foretold that night\u2014the treachery of one of their number, the\ndenials of another, and His own departure whither they could not follow.\n\n*You believe in God, believe ** also in me*; that is, believe Me also to\nbe God, who can therefore overcome all My enemies, and make you victorious\nover yours. Instead of \u201cyou believe\u201d we have in the Greek \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, which\nby its form might be either an indicative or imperative, but is more\nprobably an indicative, because it is not likely that Christ thought it\nnecessary to exhort the Apostles to believe in God, a thing that every Jew\ndid.\n\n2. In domo Patris mei            2. In my Father\u2019s house there\nmansiones multae sunt; si quo    are many mansions. If not, I\nminus, dixissem vobis: quia      would have told you, that I go\nvado parare vobis locum.         to prepare a place for you.\n\n2. *In my Father\u2019s house there are many mansions.* Here He puts before\nthem the _first_ motive of consolation; namely, that there is room for\nthem as well as for Him in heaven, in that house of God, the eternal\nantitype of the Jewish Temple (ii. 16), wherein He exercised the rights of\na Son. \u201cMansions\u201d renders the Vulgate \u201cmansiones,\u201d which were resting\u2010\nplaces or stations along the highways, where travellers found\nrefreshments. The Greek word \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae is found in the New Testament only here\nand in verse 23.\n\n*If not, I would have told you that I go to prepare a place for you.*\n_That_ (\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9, Vulg., quia) is almost certainly genuine,(95) and hence we\nmust explain the text, retaining it, though its presence creates\ndifficulty.\n\n(1) Some explain thus. If not, yet even in that case I would have told you\nthat I go to prepare a place for you (my intimate friends). And if (in\nthat case) I should go to prepare a place you, I would return, &c. Against\nthis view, however, it is fairly objected that Christ\u2019s going is thus\nrepresented as purely _hypothetical_, whereas from the text it seems to be\nreal: \u201cAnd if I shall go ... I will come again.\u201d\n\n(2) Others thus: If not, would I have told you that I go to prepare a\nplace for you? In this view a note of interrogation is supplied, a thing\nthat the original text, which was unpointed, admits; and reference is made\nto some past occasion when He promised to go and prepare places for them.\nThat we have no record of a promise made in so many words, does not prove,\nof course, that it was not made.\n\n(3) Others thus: If not, I would have told you _so. But, in fact, there\nare many mansions_, for I go to prepare a place for you. Against this view\nit is objected that it supplies an ellipsis, which is in no way indicated\nin the text. The same meaning, however, may be had without any ellipsis,\nif the words: \u201cIf not, I would have told you\u201d be regarded as parenthetic.\nThe sense will then be: in My Father\u2019s house there are many mansions (if\nnot, I would have told you), as is proved by the fact that I go to prepare\na place for you.\n\n*To prepare a place.* Christ by his death, resurrection, and ascension\nopened heaven, and made ready a place for man.\n\n3. Et si abiero, et              3. And if I shall go, and\npraeparavero vobis locum:        prepare a place for you: I\niterum venio, et accipiam vos    will come again, and will take\nad meipsum, ut ubi sum ego, et   you to myself, that where I am\nvos sitis.                       you also may be.\n\n3. *I will come again.* This is a _second_ motive of consolation. There is\na difference of opinion as to what coming of Christ is meant. Some\nunderstand of His coming at the death of each and the particular judgment;\nothers, of His coming at the general judgment; and others, of both. We\nprefer the last opinion, for while Christ took the souls of the Apostles\nto the mansions of bliss at their particular judgment, it is only at the\ngeneral judgment that He will take their bodies and perfect their\nfelicity. The words cannot refer to the continual coming of Christ to the\nChurch through the Holy Ghost whom He has sent; such a meaning is excluded\nby the words that follow: \u201cAnd will take,\u201d &c.\n\n4. Et quo ego vado scitis, et    4. And whither I go you know,\nviam scitis.                     and the way you know.\n\n4. And though you may think that you know not whither I go, nor the way\nthereto, yet you know both. For you know My Father to whom I go, and you\nknow Me, the way that leads to Him. This may be regarded as a _third_\nmotive of consolation.\n\n5. Dicit ei Thomas: Domine,      5. Thomas saith to him: Lord,\nnescimus quo vadis: et quomodo   we know not whither thou\npossumus viam scire?             goest, and how can we know the\n                                 way?\n6. Dicit ei Iesus: Ego sum       6. Jesus saith to him, I am\nvia, et veritas, et vita, nemo   the way, and the truth, and\nvenit ad Patrem, nisi per me.    the life, no man cometh to the\n                                 Father but by me.\n\n5, 6. St. Thomas interrupts, and Jesus explains, pointing out that He\nHimself is the way to the Father.\n\n*I am the way, and the truth, and the life.* Many interpretations of these\nwords have been given. We believe that the first clause: \u201cI am the way,\u201d\nanswers Thomas\u2019 difficulty; but as such a statement itself needed\nexplanation, the remaining words \u201cand the truth, and the life,\u201d are added\nto explain how Christ is the way namely, inasmuch as He is the Truth,\n_i.e._ the author of faith; and the Life, _i.e._ the author of grace and\nof the supernatural life of the soul. In this view the phrase hebraizes,\nthe first \u201cand\u201d being explanatory: I am the way, _inasmuch as_ I am the\ntruth and the life. This seems better than to hold with SS. Augustine and\nThomas that Christ declares Himself the way _as man_, the truth and the\nlife as God. St. Augustine\u2019s words are: \u201cIpse igitur (vadit) ad seipsum\nper seipsum.\u201d But the words that follow in this verse: \u201cNo man cometh to\nthe Father but by me,\u201d show that the Father, and not Christ as God, is the\nterm to which the way in question leads.\n\n7. Si cognovissetis me, et       7. If you had known me, you\nPatrem meum utique               would without doubt have known\ncognovissetis: et amodo          my Father also; and from\ncognoscetis eum, et vidistis     henceforth you shall know him,\neum.                             and you have seen him.\n\n7. Having told them that He Himself is the way, He now proceeds to point\nout to them that if they had known this way in the manner they ought, they\nshould also have known the term towards which it led. Hence the sense is:\nYou would know the Father to whom I go, if you knew Me; for I and the\nFather are the same divine substance (John x. 30). Thomas had said that\nthey did not know the term of Christ\u2019s journey, and therefore could not\nknow the way thereto, implying that the way was to be known from, or at\nleast after, the term to which it led. Christ now declares that the\nreverse is the case; and if they had known Him, the way, they should also\nhave known the Father. The words: *If you had known me*, imply that they\nhad not yet known Christ as they ought. They had indeed known Him to some\nextent as He admits in verse 4, but they had not realized fully His\nDivinity and consubstantiality with the Father, else they would have\nimplicitly known the Father in knowing Him. *And from henceforth you shall\nknow him, and you have seen him.* We would render the Greek thus: \u201cAnd\n_even now_ (see John xiii. 19) you know Him, and you have seen Him.\u201d The\nsense is, that even now they knew the Father in some way through their\nimperfect knowledge of Christ, and they had seen Him in seeing Christ,\nbecause, as Christ adds in verse 9: \u201cHe who seeth me, seeth the Father\nalso.\u201d Thus it was true that in an imperfect manner they knew whither\nChrist went, and the way thereto (verse 4), yet equally true that they\nknew neither way nor term so clearly as they might, considering that He\nhad now for more than three years been gradually revealing Himself to\nthem.\n\n8. Dicit ei Philippus: Domine,   8. Philip saith to him: Lord\nostende nobis Patrem, et         show us the Father, and it is\nsufficit nobis.                  enough for us.\n\n8. Thomas is silenced, but Philip now interposes, and failing to\nunderstand Christ\u2019s statement that they had seen the Father, asks Him to\nshow them the Father, probably in some visible form, and then they will\nask no more.\n\n9. Dicit ei Iesus: Tanto         9. Jesus saith to him:. So\ntempore vobiscum sum: et non     long a time have I been with\ncognovistis me? Philippe, qui    you: and have you not known\nvidet me, videt et Patrem.       me? Philip, he that seeth me\nQuomodo tu dicis: Ostende        seeth the Father also. How\nnobis Patrem?                    sayest thou, show us the\n                                 Father.\n\n9. Christ replies, again insisting on His consubstantiality with the\nFather: *He that seeth me, seeth the Father also* (\u201calso\u201d is probably not\ngenuine.) These words prove clearly, against the Arians, Christ\u2019s\nconsubstantiality, or unity of nature, with the Father; otherwise in\nseeing Him they could not be said to see the Father even implicitly. Yet\nit is clear against the Sabellians that the Father and the Son are\ndistinct Persons, for Christ plainly distinguishes Himself from the Father\nin verse 6 where He says \u201cNo man cometh to the Father but by me;\u201d and\nagain in verse 13, where He says that He goes to the Father. There is,\nthen, identity of nature, but distinction of Persons. _Cognovistis_ of the\nVulgate ought to be _cognovisti_, Philip being addressed.\n\n10. Non creditis quia ego in     10. Do you not believe that I\nPatre, et Pater in me est?       am in the Father, and the\nVerba quae ego loquor vobis, a   Father in me? The words that I\nmeipso non loquor. Pater autem   speak to you, I speak not of\nin me manens, ipse facit         myself. But the Father who\nopera.                           abideth in me, he doth the\n                                 works.\n\n10. *Do you not believe* (_creditis_ ought to be _credis_) *that I am in\nthe Father and the Father in me*? He who saw Christ saw the Father\nimplicitly, in virtue of the unity of nature. The words, and the\nconnection with verse 9, show clearly that such is the identity of nature\nin the Father and the Son that He who sees the Son, thereby in some sense\nsees the Father also. \u201cHoc autem quod dicit,\u201d says St. Thomas on this\nverse, \u201c \u2018Ego in Patre et Pater in me est,\u2019 dicitur propter essentiae\nunitatem, de qua dicitur supra x. 30. \u2018Ego et Pater unum sumus.\u2019 Sciendum\nest enim, quod essentia aliter se habet in divinis ad personam, et aliter\nin hominibus. Nam in hominibus essentia Socratis non est Socrates, quia\nSocrates est quid compositum, sed in divinis essentia est idem personae\nsecundum rem, et sic essentia Patris est Pater, et essentia Filii, Filius.\nUbicumque ergo est essentia Patris, est ipse Pater, et ubicumque est\nessentia Filii, est ipse Filius. Essentia autem Patris est in Filio et\nessentia Filii est in Patre. Ergo Filius est in Patre, et Pater in Filio.\u201d\n\nThen He goes on to prove that the Father is in Him, and He in the Father,\nfrom the fact that His words and works are the words and works of the\nFather. Instead of \u201cthe works\u201d many authorities read \u201cHis works;\u201d but the\nsense is the same, for the works were both Christ\u2019s and the Father\u2019s.\n\n11. Non creditis quia ego in     11. Believe you not that I am\nPatre, et Pater in me est?       in the Father, and the Father\n                                 in me.\n\n11. According to the Vulgate reading, Christ, for emphasis, repeats the\nquestion of verse 10. In the original there is not a question, but simply\nan injunction addressed to all the Apostles; \u201cBelieve me that I am in the\nFather, and the Father in me.\u201d\n\n12. Alioquin propter opera       12. Otherwise believe for the\nipsa credite. Amen, amen dico    very works\u2019 sake. Amen, amen,\nvobis, qui credit in me, opera   I say to you, he that\nquae ego facio et ipse faciet,   believeth in me, the works\net maiora horum faciet, quia     that I do, he also shall do,\nego ad Patrem vado.              and greater than these shall\n                                 he do.\n\n12. The sense is: But if My testimony does not suffice to satisfy you of\nMy Divinity, at least believe on account of My miracles.\n\nHaving thus replied to the interruptions of Thomas and Philip He now\nproceeds to put before the Apostles other motives of consolation. The\nmention of the _fourth_ motive opens with the solemn \u201cAmen, amen;\u201d and the\nApostles are told that whoever believeth in Him shall perform even greater\nmiracles than His (\u201cmajora horum\u201d is a Graecism for \u201cmajora his\u201d), the\nreason being that in leaving His followers He bequeaths to them His\nthaumaturgic power, and bequeaths it in great perfection, because He\nascends to the glory of the Father.\n\n*Greater than these.* The miracles of Christ\u2019s followers were greater than\nHis in their visible effects. \u201cEvangelizantibus discipulis ... gentes\netiam crediderunt; haec sunt sine dubitatione majora\u201d (St. Aug. _ad\nloc._). We think it very probable that the charism of miracles is here\npromised not merely to the Apostles, but _to the Church_, in which it\nstill resides; for it is promised to whoever believeth. Of course, not\nevery faith is sufficient that we may work miracles; a specially strong,\nunwavering faith is necessary. See Matt. xxi. 21.\n\n13. Et quodcumque petieritis     13. Because I go to the\nPatrem in nomine meo, hoc        Father: and whatsoever you\nfaciam: ut glorificetur Pater    shall ask the Father in my\nin Filio.                        name, that will I do: that the\n                                 Father may be glorified in the\n                                 Son.\n\n13. In the Vulgate the words: \u201cBecause I go to the Father,\u201d are rightly\nconnected with the preceding, and form portion of verse 12.\n\n*And whatsoever you shall ask the Father.* The words \u201cthe Father\u201d are\nprobably not genuine, but they indicate the sense. For it is by the Son\u2019s\ndoing what is asked of the Father that the Father is glorified in the Son.\n\n*In my name* (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5). This phrase occurs here for the first\ntime in this Gospel. Compare the phrase \u201cin the name of my Father,\u201d v. 43;\nx. 25; xvii. 6; 11, 12, 26, and the words of the Evangelist i. 12; ii. 23;\niii, 18. The phrase before us occurs again in xiv. 26; xv. 16; xvi. 23;\nxvi. 24; and xvi. 26. See also Acts iii. 6; iv. 10, 12. In the present\nverse, and wherever there is question of asking, it seems to mean: _while\ninvoking with faith the name of Christ_.\n\n14. Si quid petieritis me in     14. If you shall ask me\nnomine meo, hoc faciam.          anything in my name, that I\n                                 will do.\n\n14. Moreover, whatsoever miracle they shall ask of Himself, in His own\nname (and, of course, with the requisite faith), that He will perform. We\nincline to the view that in verses 13 and 14 there is question _primarily_\nof miracles; but the expression \u201csi quid\u201d (\u1f10\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9) is so general, that we\nwould not limit the promise, but are inclined to believe that it proves\nthe efficacy of all prayer of supplication offered with the proper\ndispositions.\n\n15. Si diligitis me, mandata     15. If you love me keep my\nmea servate.                     commandments.\n\n15. Now begins the promise of the Holy Ghost\u2014the _fifth_ and greatest\nmotive of consolation. But first in this verse, He requires as a condition\nthat they should prove the love they protested by keeping His\ncommandments; for, as St. Gregory says, \u201cLove is proved by deeds.\u201d\n\n16. Et ego rogabo Patrem, et     16. And I will ask the Father,\nalium Paraclitum dabit vobis,    and he shall give you another\nut maneat vobiscum in            Paraclete, that he may abide\naeternum.                        with you for ever.\n\n16. \u201cParaclitus\u201d(96) may mean comforter, advocate, or helper. Bearing in\nmind the tribulations in which the Apostles were already, and the still\ngreater ones that awaited them, we think the principal meaning here is\nthat of comforter. But this does not exclude the other meanings,\nespecially that of helper, which the Holy Ghost undoubtedly was in an\neminent degree. This other Comforter, who is promised in Christ\u2019s stead,\nwill not leave the Apostles, as Christ did, but is to remain with them for\never. It is disputed whether the Holy Ghost is here promised only to the\nApostles, or, in them, to the whole teaching Church. In the first case,\n\u201cfor ever,\u201d would mean during their lives; in the second, it would mean\ntill the end of the world, as long as the Church shall endure. This latter\nsense we prefer, for\u2014(1) the words \u201cfor ever\u201d favour this view; (2) though\nthe Apostles needed a comforter, yet not they only, but their successors\nquite as much; (3) this spirit is promised to teach them all truth (John\nxvi. 13); why, except in order that they through themselves _and their\nsuccessors_ might teach the world? (4) we know from the event that on the\nday of Pentecost the Holy Ghost came not to the Apostles alone (Acts ii.\n4). We hold then that the Holy Ghost is here promised to the _Ecclesia\ndocens_, represented by the Apostles, to abide with her for ever.\n\nIn either interpretation it cannot be proved from this text that the\nApostles were to be confirmed in grace after the descent of the Holy\nGhost, for it is enough for the fulfilment of the promise here made that\nthe Holy Ghost was to be, as far as in Him lay, an enduring Comforter,\nthough the Apostles, on their part, might expel and banish Him. This verse\nproves the personality of the Holy Ghost, for He is sent in the place of\nChrist (see also verse 26). It proves also His Divinity, for only a Divine\nPerson would be thus compared to Christ, and spoken of as _another_\nComforter. Moreover the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father is\nhere implied in the fact that the Father is said to send the Holy Ghost.\nFor the sending of one Divine Person by another, implies the Eternal\nProcession of one from the other with a relation to some term in time.(97)\nFinally, the three Persons of the Trinity are shown to be distinct, for\nthe Father will send the Holy Ghost at the request of the Son.\n\n17. Spiritum veritatis, quem     17. The Spirit of truth, whom\nmundus non potest accipere,      the world cannot receive,\nquia non videt eum, nec scit     because it seeth him not, nor\neum: vos autem cognoscetis       knoweth him: but you shall\neum, quia apud vos manebit, et   know him; because he shall\nin vobis erit.                   abide with you, and shall be\n                                 in you.\n\n17. *The Spirit of truth.* The Holy Ghost is so called not only because He\nis essential Truth, but also because He was to come to the Apostles as a\nteacher of truth (verse 26).\n\nIn the following words the Apostles are told that the wicked world (i. 10;\nxiv. 30; xvii. 9, 16) cannot receive the Holy Ghost, for as St. Paul says:\n\u201cthe sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of\nGod; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand: because it is\nspiritually examined\u201d (1 Cor. ii. 14).\n\n*It seeth him not, nor knoweth him.* Some take the meaning to be: seeth\nHim not with the eyes of the body, nor discerneth Him by spiritual vision;\nothers, and with more probability, take both clauses as synonymous and in\nreference to spiritual vision. The sense is that because the wicked world\nwill refuse to recognise the Holy Ghost, it will be incapable of receiving\nHim at His coming. Want of vision shall be a hindrance to possession.\n\n*But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in\nyou.* Reversing the order of thought, He now says that the presence of the\nHoly Ghost abiding in the Apostles shall bring them still fuller\nknowledge. Such seems to be the sense of the verse according to the\nVulgate reading. But in the latter part of the verse, instead of \u201cshall\nknow\u201d and \u201cshall abide,\u201d we have in both instances the present tense in\nthe Greek, and many authorities also read the present instead of \u201cshall\nbe.\u201d The clause would then run: \u201cbut you know him because he abides with\nyou and is in you.\u201d\n\nBut even in this reading the present may stand for the future, and the\nmeaning will be the same as in the Vulgate.\n\n18. Non relinquam vos            18. I will not leave you\norphanos: veniam ad vos.         orphans, I will come to you.\n\n18. As a _sixth_ motive of consolation, He tells them that He will come\nagain to them Himself. Already indeed he had spoken of His coming to them,\nand had put it forward as a motive of consolation (verse 3), but the\ncoming there meant we take to be different from that now referred to, and\nhence a new motive of consolation is now put forward in the coming\npromised here.\n\n*I will come* (\u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03af) *to you*. There are various views as to what\ncoming of Christ is here promised.\n\n(1) Some hold that the reference is to the coming after His resurrection\nwhen we know He appeared to the Apostles but was unseen by the world. So\nSt. Chrys., St. Thom., Patriz., &c.\n\n(2) Others hold that there is question of the coming at the Day of\nJudgment. As the years are measured before God, only \u201ca little while\u201d\nshall elapse till then, and it is only after the Day of Judgment that the\npromise of verse 20: \u201cIn that day you shall know that I am in my Father,\nand you in me, and I in you\u201d shall be fully realized. So St. Aug., Mald.,\n&c.\n\n(3) Others understand of the coming of Christ in and with the Holy Ghost\non the day of Pentecost. If the consubstantiality and circumincession of\nthe three Divine Persons be borne in mind, the whole passage that follows\nas far as verse 24, will then be naturally explained. So St. Cyril, Beel.,\nBisp., &c. We prefer the last view, and hold that from 15\u201024, there is\nquestion of the coming of the Holy Ghost, first in reference to the\nApostles (15\u201020), and then in reference to the faithful generally (21\u201024).\nIn reference to the Apostles, the coming of the Holy Ghost is first\nconsidered in itself (15\u201017), and next, for their consolation, as implying\nand including the coming of Christ Himself (18\u201020).\n\nThough this view may at first sight seem forced, we believe that if the\nconnection in the passage be followed closely, it must appear the most\nprobable. For when St. Jude, alluding to the words of verse 19, asks, in\nverse 22, how Christ shall be seen by the Apostles, yet unseen by the\nworld, Christ\u2019s reply, in verse 23, goes to show that the vision is\nspiritual, and such as is explained by the fact, that He and His Father\nwill come and make their abode in those that love Him.\n\n19. Adhuc modicum, et mundus     19. Yet a little while: and\nme iam non videt. Vos autem      the world seeth me no more.\nvidetis me, quia ego vivo, et    But you see me: because I\nvos vivetis.                     live, and you shall live.\n\n19. *Yet a little while.* This we understand of the few hours that\nremained till His death. After that, the world should see Him no longer.\nBut, He adds, you shall see Me (present for future); not, indeed, with the\neyes of the body, but with those of the soul; because I live (the present\nbeing used, perhaps, of His Divine life, in virtue of which He was to\nresume the life of the body), and you shall live the life of grace, which\nwill be rewarded by the vision of Me.\n\nThus he tells them that they shall live a spiritual life, a kind of\nparticipation in His own glorious life (vi. 57), and that for this reason\nthey shall be privileged to see Him spiritually. That there is question of\nspiritual vision, is proved, we believe, from what follows; for they shall\nsee according as He shall manifest Himself (verse 21); and this\nmanifestation of Himself He explains in verse 23 of His abiding in them.\n\n20. In illo die vos              20. In that day you shall know\ncognoscetis quia ego sum in      that I am in my Father, and\nPatre meo, et vos in me, et      you in me, and I in you.\nego in vobis.\n\n20. In that time, after I have come to you at Pentecost (together with the\nHoly Ghost), you shall know clearly that I am in My Father, that I am God,\nand that you are in Me as its branches in the vine (see below, xv. 2),\nderiving all your spiritual life from Me, and I in you by a _special\nindwelling_ enjoyed only by the just. See above on vii. 39. If there be a\ncomparison here between the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son on the\none hand, and that of Christ and the just on the other, it is plain that\nthe likeness is only imperfect and analogical. Yet such texts as this (see\nalso vi. 58; xvii. 21, 23), even when we make all necessary allowance for\nthe imperfection of the likeness, prove clearly how marvellously intimate\nand sacred is the union that exists between Christ and the souls of the\njust.\n\n21. Qui habet mandata mea, et    21. He that hath my\nservat ea, ille est, qui         commandments, and keepeth\ndiligit me. Qui autem diligit    them: he it is that loveth me.\nme, diligetur a Patre meo: et    And he that loveth me, shall\nego diligam eum, et manifestab   be loved of my Father: and I\no ei meipsum.                    will love him, and will\n                                 manifest myself to him.\n\n21. *He that hath* (\u1f41 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd) *my commandments, and keepeth them*, &c. Not\nonly to the Apostles, but to all that love Him, Christ will manifest\nHimself, for in and with the Holy Ghost He and His Father will come and\nabide in them.\n\n22. Dicit ei Iudas, non ille     22. Judas saith to him, not\nIscariotes: Domine, quid         the Iscariot: Lord, how is it,\nfactum est quia manifestaturus   that thou wilt manifest\nes nobis teipsum, et non         thyself to us, and not to the\nmundo?                           world?\n23. Respondit Iesus, et dixit    23. Jesus answered, and said\nei: Si quis diligit me,          to him: If any one love me, he\nsermonem meum servabit, et       will keep my word, and my\nPater meus diliget eum, et ad    Father will love him, and we\neum veniemus, et mansionem       will come to him, and will\napud eum faciemus:               make our abode with him.\n\n22\u201023. Asked by the Apostle Jude, brother to James the Less, who was also\ncalled Thaddeus, how He would manifest Himself to the Apostles, yet be\nunseen by the world, Christ replies that He will come and dwell in all\nthat love Him, and thus manifest Himself, and be seen by them in a\nspiritual manner.\n\n24. Qui non diligit me,          24. He that loveth me not,\nsermones meos non servat. Et     keepeth not my words. And the\nsermonem quem audistis, non      word which you have heard is\nest meus: sed ejus qui misit     not mine; but the Father\u2019s who\nme, Patris.                      sent me.\n\n24. He had just said that those who love Him will keep His words and obey\nthem, and now He adds that those who do not love Him will not keep His\nwords. The reason why He here insists upon this observance of His words\nis, that such observance is necessary, before He will manifest Himself and\nmake His abode in any heart. For, as is clear from verse 21, Christ will\nmanifest Himself only to those who are loved by the Father; but they alone\nare loved by the Father who love Christ, and they alone love Christ who\nkeep His commandments (verse 23).\n\n*And the word which you have heard*, &c. \u201cSermonem\u201d (Vulg.) ought to be\n\u201csermo,\u201d and the verb in the original is in the present (\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5). The\nsense, therefore, is: the words which you are _wont to hear_ from Me are\nnot Mine alone, but the Father\u2019s also who sent Me. *Is not mine, but the\nFather\u2019s who sent me.* This form of expression, which seems to declare\nthat the words are in no way Christ\u2019s, is a Hebraism, and means that they\nare not His alone. See above on vii. 16. Of course the authority of\nChrist\u2019s words was equal in every way to that of the Father\u2019s, but since\nthe Apostles did not yet fully realize His Divinity with all that it\nimplied, He invokes the Father\u2019s authority as having more weight with\nthem.\n\n25. Haec locutus sum vobis,      25. These things have I spoken\napud vos manens.                 to you, abiding with you.\n26. Paraclitus autem Spiritus    26. But the Paraclete, the\nsanctus, quem mittet Pater in    Holy Ghost, whom the Father\nnomine meo, ille vos docebit     will send in my name, he will\nomnia, et suggeret vobis vobis   teach you all things, and\nomnia, quaecumque dixero         bring all things to your mind,\nvobis.                           whatsoever I shall have said\n                                 to you.\n\n25, 26. These things I have spoken to you while remaining with you; and if\nyou fail to fully understand them, yet be consoled with My assurance that\nthe Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He\nwill teach you all that you need know, and _recall to your minds_\n(\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9) all that I _said_ (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd) to you. This may be regarded as the\n_seventh_ motive of consolation.\n\nHere again, as in verse 16, we have mention of three distinct Persons: the\nHoly Ghost is to be sent by the Father in the name of the Son. And, as we\nremarked on verse 16, the fact that the Holy Ghost is to be sent by the\nFather, proves His procession from the Father.\n\nThe Holy Ghost is said to be sent _in Christ\u2019s name_, most probably\nbecause He was sent in the place of Christ, another Comforter and Helper,\nto console the Apostles and carry on the work begun by Christ.\n\nThe infallible teaching authority of the _Apostles_ follows from the fact\nthat they were to be taught by the Holy Ghost, the spirit of truth (verse\n17). And since they were endowed with this infallible teaching authority\nin order that they might teach the flock of Christ (xv. 16); since,\nmoreover, there is still the same need for an infallible teaching\nauthority in the Church, if the work of Christ and His Apostles is to be\ncontinued without danger of failure, we are warranted in concluding that\nan infallible teaching authority still resides in the _Church_.\n\nHence, to use Christ\u2019s own words: \u201cThe gates of hell shall not prevail\nagainst her\u201d (Matt. xvi. 18), because in her _office of teacher_ she has\nChrist with her, all days, even, to the consummation of the world. \u201cEuntes\n... _docete ... et ecce_ ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad\nconsummationem saeculi\u201d (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20).\n\n27. Pacem relinquo vobis,        27. Peace I leave with you, my\npacem meam do vobis: non         peace I give unto you: not as\nquomodo mundus dat, ego do       the world giveth, do I give\nvobis. Non turbetur cor          unto you. Let not your heart\nvestrum, neque formidet.         be troubled, nor let it be\n                                 afraid.\n\n27. As the _eighth_ motive of consolation, Christ gives the Apostles His\npeace. Among the Jews it was customary for the people to salute and take\nleave of one another by wishing one another peace. Christ here says that\nHis words are not a mere wish or empty formula; with Him to wish peace was\nto confer it, and that in a true and lasting manner.\n\n28. Audistis quia ego dixi       28. You have heard that I said\nvobis: Vado et venio ad vos.     to you: I go away and I come\nSi diligeretis me, gauderetis    unto you. If you loved me, you\nutique, quia vado ad Patrem:     would indeed be glad, because\nquia Pater maior me est.         I go to the Father: for the\n                                 Father is greater than I.\n\n28. *You would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father.* \u201cNaturae\nhumanae gratulandum est, eo quod sic assumpta est a Verbo unigenito, ut\nimmortalis constitueretur in coelo, atque ita fieret terra sublimis, ut\nincorruptibilis pulvis sederet ad dexteram Patris.\u201d (St. Aug. _in loc._).\n\n*For the Father is greater than I.* These words have been variously\nexplained. We would interpret either with St. Chrys.: For the Father is\ngreater than I, _in your estimation_; or better still: For the Father is\ngreater than I _as man_. Hence, since by His going to the Father, Christ\u2019s\nhumanity was to share in the glory of the Father, and thus be exalted,\nthey should rejoice at His going, if they really loved Him. This is the\n_ninth_ motive proposed for their consolation.\n\nThe Arians triumphantly pointed to the words: \u201cThe Father is greater than\nI,\u201d as a proof of the inferiority of the Son to the Father. But in neither\nof the interpretations which we have given of the words, does the Arian\nheresy find any support. And certainly whatever be the correct\ninterpretation, Christ cannot, without contradicting Himself, mean that\n_as God_ He is inferior to the Father. For He had already told them that\nHe is in the Father, and the Father in Him (verse 10), and in the face of\nHis enemies He had proclaimed that He and the Father are one (John x. 30).\n\n29. Et nunc dixi vobis           29. And now I have told you\npriusquam fiat: ut cum factum    before it come to pass: that\nfuerit, credatis.                when it shall come to pass you\n                                 may believe.\n\n29. Not that they did not believe His words beforehand: but they would be\nstrengthened in their belief of all He had told them, when they should see\nfulfilled this special prediction _of His going away and returning_ (verse\n28).\n\n30. Iam non multa loquar         30. I will not now speak many\nvobiscum: venit enim princeps    things with you. For the\nmundi huius, et in me non        prince of this world cometh,\nhabet quidquam.                  and in me he hath not\n                                 anything.\n\n30. Satan who is here called *the prince of this* (rather _the_) *world*\n(see also xii. 31, xvi. 11; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12), and who was\nnow urging on Judas and the Jews to lay hands on Christ, found nothing in\nChrist in virtue of which Christ could be in any way subjected to him.\n\n*In me he hath not anything.* From what we have just said it will be seen\nthat the meaning is: he has no authority over Me, no claim upon Me,\ninasmuch as sin has never had any share in Me.\n\n31. Sed ut cognoscat mundus      31. But that the world may\nquia diligo Patrem et sicut      know that I love the Father:\nmandatum dedit mihi Pater, sic   and as the Father hath given\nfacio. Surgite, eamus hinc.      me commandment, so do I:\n                                 Arise, let us go hence.\n\n31. Yet, to prove His love for, and His obedience to, the Father, He will\nsubmit to be forthwith seized by the minions of Satan. The construction of\nthis verse is not clear. The first part may depend on the last clause:\narise, let us go hence, that the world, &c., or there may be ellipsis in\nthe opening words (comp. ix. 3; xiii. 18), the sense being: but _I deliver\nMyself to death_ that the world, &c. For explanation of the words, \u201cAs the\nFather hath given me commandment,\u201d see above on x. 18.\n\n*Arise, let us go hence.* We may reasonably conclude that Jesus,\naccompanied by the Apostles, now left the supper\u2010room. Had they not done\nso, St. John would probably have referred to the delay. Whether they\npaused in a porch or court of the house, or at some quiet spot on the way,\ntill the discourse and prayer to the Father (xv.\u2010xvii.) were spoken, or\nproceeded immediately through the city towards the Garden of Olives, and\nhad arrived at the brook of Cedron (John xviii. 1), when Christ concluded,\nis disputed. Bearing in mind the crowded condition of Jerusalem during the\nPaschal week, and that probably it was hardly yet 10 p.m., when the\nstreets would be still thronged with people, we think it extremely\nunlikely that such a discourse and prayer, as are contained in John\nxv.\u2010xvii. 26, were spoken while Christ and the Apostles passed through the\nstreets of the city. We think it most probable, then, that they paused at\nsome quiet spot on the outskirts of the city, or in a porch or court of\nthe house where they had supped.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n\n    1\u201011. *In a beautiful allegory, Christ declares the necessity of\n    union with Himself in order to a supernatural life.*\n\n    12\u201017. *He inculcates mutual love, proposing as a model His own\n    love for the Apostles\u2014a love which made him ready to lay down His\n    life for them (13), and which was spontaneous (16).*\n\n    18\u201025. *He fortifies them against the world\u2019s hatred by reminding\n    them that it hated Himself, and so they shall only be treading in\n    His footsteps. He points out too how inexcusable is this attitude\n    of the world towards Himself and His followers.*\n\n    26\u201027. *He again promises the Holy Ghost, who together with the\n    Apostles, will bear testimony of Him.*\n\n\n1. Ego sum vitis vera: et        1. I am the true vine; and my\nPater meus agricola est.         Father is the husbandman.\n\n1. After they had left the supper\u2010room Christ again addresses the\nApostles. The fact that the Evangelist gives the discourse that follows\nwithout any introductory remark, such as: And Christ said, or: And while\nthey went Christ said\u2014favours the view that only a slight break separated\nthis discourse from that recorded in the preceding chapter. This would,\ntherefore, render it very probable that what follows was spoken in the\nvicinity of the house in which they had supped rather than on the\noutskirts of the city.\n\nAs Christ was about to leave His Apostles, He now impresses upon them the\nnecessity of abiding in Him by faith and love. For this purpose He\ncompares Himself to the stem of the vine, and the Apostles to its\nbranches. As the branches draw all their life and nourishment from the\nstem, so must the Apostles draw all their spiritual life from Him. This\nidea would be illustrated by the relation between the trunk of any tree\nand its branches. The chief reason, then, why He compares Himself to the\nvine is because it was customary to prune its branches, and He was about\nto speak of the pruning of His mystical branches by the Father.(98) He is\n_the true_, that is the perfect vine, because He nourishes His members\nmore perfectly than does any vine tree its branches. In a similar sense He\nis the true light (John i. 9), and the true bread (John vi. 32).\n\n\u201cHe is the \u2018vine\u2019 in His _humanity_, in which the branches of the same\nnature are united with Him. But it is from His _Divinity_ the branches\nderive the spiritual and life\u2010giving influence that leads to eternal\nhappiness\u201d (MacEv.)\n\nIt is needless to say, that in calling Himself the true vine, Christ does\nnot mean to signify that He is really a vine. The language is plainly\nmetaphorical, and is so explained by our Lord Himself in verses 4 and 5.\nHence it bears no comparison with the words used by Christ in instituting\nthe Blessed Eucharist. In the latter case He declared that what He held in\nHis hands was His body, and there was nothing in His words, or in the\ncircumstances in which they were uttered to point to a figurative sense.\nOn the contrary, His discourse delivered twelve months beforehand in the\nSynagogue of Capharnaum, and recorded in the sixth chapter of our Gospel,\nprepared the Apostles to receive His words, mysterious though they must\nhave seemed, in the literal sense.\n\n*And my Father is the husbandman.* The Father attends to and purifies\nChrist\u2019s followers in a manner similar to that employed by the vine\u2010\ndresser, that so they may produce more abundant fruit. The Arians appealed\nto this text to show that Christ was inferior to God. For as the vine and\nthe husbandman are not of the same nature, so neither, they said, are\nChrist and the Father of the same nature. We answer that in metaphorical\nlanguage the comparison is not to be pressed too far, only indeed in that\nparticular, or in regard to that point, for the illustration of which the\nmetaphor is employed. See above on x. 3. Now in the present instance\nChrist points out (in verse 4) that His metaphorical language is designed\nto show the necessity for the Apostles of union with Himself. Nothing\ntherefore can be inferred in regard to His _nature_ and the Father\u2019s. In\nreality, Christ, _as God_, was husbandman, as well as the Father; but as\nit would not suit the comparison to call Himself both vine and husbandman,\nHe attributes the office of husbandman to the Father. \u201cNumquid unum sunt\nagricola et vitis? Secundum hoc ergo vitis Christus, secundum quod ait:\nPater major me est. Secundum autem id quod ait: Ego et Pater unum sumus,\net ipse agricola est.\u201d (St. Aug.)(99)\n\n2. Omnem palmitem in me non      2. Every branch in me, that\nferentem fructum, tollet eum:    beareth not fruit, he will\net omnem qui fert fructum,       take away: and every one that\npurgabit eum, ut fructum plus    beareth fruit he will purge\nafferat.                         it, that it may bring forth\n                                 more fruit.\n\n2. *Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit.* From this it follows that\nbranches may be unfruitful and yet really remain branches, and members of\nChrist\u2019s Church. The sense of Christ\u2019s words is: Every Christian that\nbeareth not the fruit of good works, the Father _takes_ away (Gr.\npresent), either in this life, by permitting them to fall into heresy, or\nat death when they shall no longer remain members of the Church. They are\ntherefore lopped off like useless branches. The good, too, are purified by\nthe Father, who _prunes_ their hearts, removing therefrom all impediments\nto perfection, taking away everything that would hinder or impede the\nvital power in the production of spiritual fruit. As even the best\nbranches are improved by judicious pruning, so the just are rendered more\nperfect by the purifying action of the Divine Husbandman. \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf in both\ncases is redundant.\n\n3. Iam vos mundi estis propter   3. Now you are clean by reason\nsermonem, quem locutus sum       of the word which I have\nvobis.                           spoken to you.\n\n3. *Now* (already) *you are clean*. The meaning is that the Apostles were\nalready pruned, that the obstacles to their spiritual growth had been\ntaken away by His words addressed to them that night. It is possible that,\nas some think, there is reference to all Christ\u2019s teaching; but we believe\nthere is at least _special_ reference to the discourse of that last night.\nFor He had that night perfected their knowledge (xiv. 6\u201011); guarded them\nagainst an unavailing sorrow (xiv. 1\u20102, &c.); checked the presumption of\nsome (xiii. 38), and supplied motives to confirm the faith of all (xiv.\n29).\n\n4. Manete in me: et ego in       4. Abide in me: and I in you.\nvobis. Sicut palmes non potest   As the branch cannot bear\nferre fructum a semetipso,       fruit of itself, unless it\nnisi manserit in vite: sic nec   abide in the vine, so neither\nvos, nisi in me manseritis.      can you, unless you abide in\n                                 me.\n\n4. *Abide in me, and I in you.* The meaning is: take care that ye abide in\nMe by faith and love, and I will abide in you by love and grace.(100) Or\nit may be that the last clause too is imperative in conception: permit me\nto abide in you. Since they are exhorted to abide, it follows that they\nwere free not to abide; and hence it is possible, as the Council of Trent\ndefined (Sess. vi., Can. 23) to fall away from faith and grace. *Of\nitself*\u2014that is, as the source of its vital energy.\n\n5. Ego sum vitis, vos            5. I am the vine; you the\npalmites: qui manet in me et     branches: he that abideth in\nego in eo, hic fert fructum      me, and I in him, the same\nmultum: quia sine me nihil       beareth much fruit: for\npotestis facere.                 without me you can do nothing.\n\n5. The theme (verse 1) is again repeated, and now there is added the\nclause: *Ye are the branches*, which definitely sums up what was already\nimplied in the preceding verses. *For without me you can do nothing.*\nThese words show that, though as we have seen in the preceding verse the\nApostles were free not to abide in Him, they were not able of themselves\nto abide in Him or to bear any supernatural fruit except through His\ngrace. The words refute the Pelagian and Semipelagian heresies, for they\nshow that without the aid of Christ\u2019s grace we are capable of no\nsupernatural good work. \u201cSive ergo parum, sive multum, sine illo fieri non\npotest, sine quo nihil fieri potest\u201d (St. Aug. _in loc._). It would be\ndifficult, we think, to prove from this text by itself that even where\n_habitual_ grace is present, _actual_ grace is also necessary in order to\na salutary work; but the traditional interpretation given to this text by\nthe fathers forbids us to doubt that the necessity of actual grace also is\nhere revealed.\n\nThere is no question in this text of the necessity of God\u2019s concurrence in\nour _natural_ acts; the question is of Christ\u2019s influx as mystic vine upon\nthe faithful who remain united to Him as branches.\n\n6. Si quis in me non manserit,   6. If any one abide not in me:\nmittetur foras sicut palmes:     he shall be cast forth as a\net arescet et colligent eum,     branch, and shall wither, and\net in ignem mittent, et ardet.   they shall gather him up, and\n                                 cast him into the fire, and he\n                                 burneth.\n\n6. Observe the variety of tense in the verbs of this verse in the Greek\ntext. \u201cSensus est: Si quis in me non manserit, jam eo ipso _ejectus est_\nforas sicut palmes et _exaruit_\u201d (Beel., _Gr. Gram._, \u00a7 41, 5, b). The\ncasting forth and withering happen simultaneously with the separation from\nChrist. The words of the verse indicate the punishment which is in store\nfor those who die separated from Christ. In the Greek we have \u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u1f70 (ea)\ninstead of \u201ceum\u201d of the Vulgate; and the sense, is that as men usually\ngather up the _withered branches_ (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1), and fling them into the fire,\nwhere they burn, so shall the angels of God do to the sinner. See Matt.\nxiii. 41.\n\n7. Si manseritis in me, et       7. If you abide in me, and my\nverba mea in vobis manserint:    words abide in you, you shall\nquodcumque volueritis petetis,   ask whatever you will, and it\net fiet vobis.                   shall be done unto you.\n\n7. In contrast with the unhappy condition of those separated from Christ,\nthey who remain in Him by faith, and keep His words through charity\nworking by faith, shall obtain from God through prayer whatever they ask,\nprovided it be necessary or useful to their spiritual life. \u201cWhatsoever we\nshall ask according to His will He heareth us\u201d (1 John v. 14).\n\n8. In hoc clarificatus est       8. In this is my Father\nPater meus, ut fructum           glorified; that you bring\nplurimum afferatis, et           forth very much fruit, and\nefficiamini mei discipuli.       become my disciples.\n\n8. It is clear from these words that the good works of the just give glory\nto God. Instead of \u201cefficiamini,\u201d the more probable Greek reading is\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 (efficiemini), and the meaning is; And so you shall become more\nand more My disciples.\n\n9. Sicut dilexit me Pater, et    9. As the Father hath loved\nego dilexi vos. Manete in        me, I also have loved you.\ndilectione mea.                  Abide in my love.\n\n9. As (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c2) expresses not equality, but resemblance. The resemblance\nconsists in this, that as the Father loved Christ\u2019s humanity gratuitously,\nwithout any previous merit on its part, and united it with the Person of\nthe Word, so Christ loved the disciples gratuitously, and united them with\nHimself. So Toletus, following St. Aug. Then Christ adds as a practical\nconclusion: Take care to remain in the enjoyment of that love of mine for\nyou. Or the meaning of the whole verse according to the Greek text may be:\nas the Father hath loved Me, and as I have loved you, so abide ye in the\nenjoyment of that love of Mine for you.\n\n10. Si praecepta mea             10. If you keep my\nservaveritis, manebitis in       commandments, you shall abide\ndilectione mea, sicut et ego     in my love; as I also have\nPatris mei praecepta servavi,    kept my Father\u2019s commandments,\net maneo in eius dilectione.     and do abide in his love.\n\n10. Here he points out how they are to continue to enjoy His love: it is\nby keeping His commandments.\n\n11. Haec locutus sum vobis, ut   11. These things I have spoken\ngaudium meum in vobis sit, et    to you, that my joy may be in\ngaudium vestrum impleatur.       you, and your joy may be\n                                 filled.\n\n11. The meaning is: these things, namely, that you should keep My\ncommandments and continue to retain My love, I have spoken in order that\nMy joy on account of you may continue (the true reading is \u1f96, not \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3,\nbut does not alter the sense), and your joy may be perfected.\n\n12. Hoc est pr\u00e6ceptum meum ut    12. This is my commandment,\ndiligatis invicem, sicut         that you love one another, as\ndilexi vos.                      I have loved you.\n\n12. He had just said that the observance of His commandments is a\nnecessary condition to be fulfilled by those who would retain His love,\nand now He goes on to point to one commandment that in a special manner is\n_His_, the \u201cnew commandment\u201d (xiii. 34), to which they must attend.\n\n13. Maiorem hac dilectionem      13. Greater love than this no\nnemo habet, ut animam suam       man hath, that a man lay down\nponat quis pro amicis suis.      his life for his friends.\n\n13. In this verse He explains what sort is that love of His upon which\ntheirs must be modelled (comp. 1 John iii. 16). The meaning is, that no\ngreater proof of love for a friend can be given than to lay down one\u2019s\nlife for him. This He was about to do for them. The comparison is not\nbetween dying for a _friend_ and dying for an _enemy_, but between the\ndifferent proofs of love for a friend.\n\n14. Vos amici mei estis, si      14. You are my friends, if you\nfeceritis quae ego praecipio     do the things that I command\nvobis.                           you.\n\n14. Here He shows that in speaking of laying down His life for His\nfriends, He means laying it down for the Apostles.\n\n15. Iam non dicam vos servos,    15. I will not now call you\nquia servus nescit quid faciat   servants: for the servant\ndominus eius. Vos autem dixi     knoweth not what his Lord\namicos: quia omnia quaecumque    doth. But I have called you\naudivi a Patre meo, nota feci    friends: because all things\nvobis.                           whatsoever I have heard of my\n                                 Father, I have made known to\n                                 you.\n\n15. He has referred to them as friends, and will do so in future.\nFormerly, indeed, He had referred to them as His servants (John xii. 26,\nxiii. 16), but now after He has taken them so fully into His confidence,\ntold them of His speedy departure from them (xiii. 33), pointed out to\nthem His consubstantiality with the Father (xiv. 7\u201011), and instructed\nthem that the Holy Ghost was to come to them (xiv. 16, 17), He will no\nlonger speak of them as servants, but as friends.\n\n*All things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to\nyou.* That is to say, all the knowledge which was communicated to Him,\ntogether with His Divine nature, in His eternal generation by the Father;\nall this, as far as they were capable (John xvi. 12), and it was useful\nfor them, He had communicated to them.\n\n16. Non vos me elegistis: sed    16. You have not chosen me:\nego elegi vos et posui vos, ut   but I have chosen you; and\neatis, et fructum afferatis:     have appointed you, that you\net fructus vester maneat: ut     should go, and should bring\nquodcumque petieritis Patrem     forth fruit, and your fruit\nin nomine meo, det vobis.        should remain: that whatsoever\n                                 you shall ask of the Father in\n                                 my name, he may give it you.\n\n16. *You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you.* Or more exactly; \u201cit\nwas not you that chose Me, but I chose you,\u201d where the aorist refers back\nto the definite act of selecting and calling the Apostles. Not only then\nwas His love for them most intense, as was signified in verse 13, but it\nwas also _gratuitous_, unmerited: and this is now pointed out. You did not\nchoose Me as your friend, but I chose you as My special friends, My\nApostles; and set you up as such, in order that you should go into the\nwhole world (Mark xvi. 15). and bear fruit in yourselves and others, and\nthat this fruit should remain unto eternal life.\n\n*That* (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1) *whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may\ngive it you*. Some as Mald. and A Lap. take \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 here to denote a\nconsequence: if you bring forth the fruit for which I have chosen you, _it\nwill come to pass_ that whatsoever, &c. Others think \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 may retain its\nusual telic force: I appointed you in order that ... your fruit should\nremain, and that whatsoever _in reference to that fruit_ you shall ask,\n&c. On what is meant by asking the Father in Christ\u2019s name, see above on\nxiv. 13.\n\n17. Haec mando vobis, ut         17. These things I command\ndiligatis invicem.               you, that you love one\n                                 another.\n\n17. Some take the meaning to be: these things, namely, the greatness and\ngratuitousness of My love for you _I insist upon_, to the end that you may\nlove one another. Others as Mald. and Patriz. take the meaning to be the\nsame as in verse 11: this is what I command you, namely, that you love one\nanother. The use of \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 (haec) and not \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf (hoc) is rather against the\nlatter view, but it is replied that the plural demonstrative followed by\nthe single precept is intended to signify that charity is the fulfilment\nof the whole law.\n\n18. Si mundus vos odit,          18. If the world hate you,\nscitote quia me priorem vobis    know you that it hath hated me\nodio habuit.                     before you.\n\n18. Having exhorted them to mutual love, He now fortifies them against the\nhatred of the world and the persecutions that awaited them. The world, as\nis plain, is the wicked world, and in being hated by it they shall only be\ntreading in the footsteps of their Master.\n\n*It hath hated.* The Greek perfect implies not merely a passing\nmanifestation of hatred, but an abiding and persistent feeling.\n\n19. Si de mundo fuissetis,       19. If you had been of the\nmundus quod suum erat            world, the world would love\ndiligeret: quia vero de mundo    its own: but because you are\nnon estis, sed ego elegi vos     not of the world, but I have\nde mundo propterea odit vos      chosen you out of the world,\nmundus.                          therefore the world hateth\n                                 you.\n\n19. *If you had been*, ought rather to be: if you were. The five\u2010fold\nrepetition of \u201cthe world\u201d in this verse brings vividly before us this\ngreat antagonist of Christ.\n\n20. Mementote sermonis mei,      20. Remember my word that I\nquem ego dixi vobis: Non est     said to you: The servant is\nservus maior domino suo. Si me   not greater than his master.\npersecuti sunt, et vos           If they have persecuted me,\npersequentur: si sermonem meum   they will also persecute you:\nservaverunt, et vestrum          if they have kept my word,\nservabunt.                       they will keep yours also.\n\n20. He now reminds them of what He had told them before (xiii. 16) that:\n\u201ca servant is not greater than his master,\u201d and from this He goes on to\nsignify what they must expect to meet with from the world.\n\n*If they have kept my word.* Some think there is reference to those who\nhaving been of the world came out from it to follow Christ and keep His\nword. But it appears more probable that He speaks of those who are still\nof the world, and leaves it to be supplied that since they had not kept\nHis word, so neither would they keep that of the Apostles. By the word of\nthe Apostles is meant the word of Christ as preached by them.\n\n21. Sed haec omnia facient       21. But all these things they\nvobis propter nomen meum: quia   will do to you for my name\u2019s\nnesciunt eum qui misit me.       sake: because they know not\n                                 him that sent me.\n\n21. But remember that you shall suffer in a glorious cause; namely, on My\naccount; for they will persecute you because you are My followers, and\nthis because through culpable ignorance they will not recognise God as My\nFather, nor Me as the Son of God.\n\n22. Si non venissem, et          22. If I had not come, and\nlocutus fuissem eis, peccatum    spoken to them, they would not\nnon haberent: nunc autem         have sin: but now they have no\nexcusationem non habent de       excuse for their sin.\npeccato suo.\n23. Qui me odit et Patrem meum   23. He that hateth me, hateth\nodit.                            my Father also.\n\n22, 23. That this ignorance is culpable, He now proves from the fact that\nHe had Himself declared to them His relations with the Father. The sin\n(_peccatum_) is that of incredulity, and in remaining incredulous and\nhating Christ, they thereby showed that they hated the Father who sent\nHim.\n\n24. Si opera non fecissem in     24. If I had not done among\neis quae nemo alius fecit,       them the works that no other\npeccatum non haberent: nunc      man hath done, they would not\nautem et viderunt, et oderunt    have sin: but now they have\net me, et Patrum meum.           both seen and hated both me\n                                 and my Father.\n\n24. Not only His words (verse 22), but also His unparalleled miracles\ndeprived them of all excuse for their unbelief. See above on iii. 2. But\nnow they have seen, or ought to have seen, the Father in Me (see above on\nxiv. 9); and they have seen Me, and they have hated Us both.\n\n25. Sed ut adimpleatur sermo     25. But that the word may be\nqui in lege eorum scriptus       fulfilled which is written in\nest: Quia odio habuerunt me      their law: _They have hated me\ngratis.                          without cause_.\n\n25. Yet, He continues, it is only what their own Scriptures (Ps. xxxiv.\n19) foretold, that they would hate Him without cause. Thus this hatred of\nthe world, so far from weakening the faith of the Apostles in Christ as\nthe Messias, should confirm it, since the Messias was to be hated by the\nworld. In this verse \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 has its usual _telic_ force, and the sense is:\nbut this has come to pass _in order that_ the Scripture might be\nfulfilled. See above on xii. 37\u201040. The passage of the Psalm referred to\nis probably Messianic in its literal sense.\n\n26. Cum autem venerit            26. But when the Paraclete\nParaclitus, quem ego mittam      cometh, whom I will send you\nvobis a Patre, spiritum          from the Father, the Spirit of\nveritatis, qui a Patre           truth, who proceedeth from the\nprocedit, ille testimonium       Father, he shall give\nperhibebit de me:                testimony of me.\n27. Et vos testimonium           27. And you shall give\nperhibebitis, quia ab initio     testimony, because you are\nmecum estis.                     with me from the beginning.\n\n26, 27. The connection with the preceding is: though the world hate\nChrist, yet the Holy Ghost and the Apostles shall bear witness to Him.\nHere again, in verse 26, we have distinct mention of the Three Persons of\nthe Blessed Trinity. See xiv. 16, 26. Though the Holy Ghost is not here\nsaid to proceed from the Son as well as from the Father (\u201cex Patre\nFilioque\u201d), yet this is implied in His being sent by the Son (see above on\nxiv. 26), and can be clearly proved against the schismatical Greeks from\nother parts of Scripture, as from John xvi. 13, 14. The Greek rendered\n*you shall give testimony*, is ambiguous, and may be either an imperative\nor an indicative. However, as Christ seems to be speaking of the witnesses\nwho will maintain His cause against the world, and not to be prescribing\nthe duty of the Apostles, the indicative is preferable.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n\n    1\u20104. *Christ points out the violence of the persecutions which\n    await the Apostles, and His object in forewarning them.*\n\n    5\u20107. *He again consoles them, and tries to reconcile them to His\n    departure, by telling them that it is necessary, in order that the\n    Holy Ghost may come to them.*\n\n    8\u201015. *He points out that the Holy Ghost will convince the world\n    vv. (8\u201011), instruct them in what they were not yet able to learn\n    (vv. 12\u201013), and give glory to Christ Himself (vv. 14\u201015). Hence\n    they ought to desire the Holy Ghost\u2019s coming.*\n\n    16\u201022. *He promises that after a brief absence, during which they\n    shall have bitter sorrow, He will return to them, and their sorrow\n    shall give place to joy.*\n\n    23, 24. *He bids them to pray to the Father in His name, and\n    promises that such prayer will be heard.*\n\n    25\u201028. *Though He has spoken obscurely to them in this last\n    discourse, the time is at hand when He will speak plainly\u2014a time\n    when they will ask the Father in His name.*\n\n\n1. Haec locutus sum vobis, ut    1. These things have I spoken\nnon scandalizemini.              to you, that you may not be\n                                 scandalized.\n\n1. His object in foretelling *these things* was that the Apostles might\nnot be scandalized; _i.e._, might not waver in the faith amid the trials\nthat were before them. But what are \u201cthese things\u201d to which He refers?\nSome, as St. Aug., understand the reference to be to the promise of the\nComforter (xv. 26, 27). Others, as Mald., to the persecutions that awaited\nthe Apostles, because the prediction of those persecutions now would\nprepare the Apostles for them; nay, when those persecutions should come,\nthey would be another proof of the omniscience, and, therefore, of the\nDivinity of Christ. Others, as A Lap., combine both the preceding\nopinions. This appears to us the correct view, for Christ has spoken\ntowards the end of the preceding chapter, both of the persecutions that\nthe Apostles were to endure, and of the Comforter, who was to come to\nthem; and the prediction of both facts was calculated to sustain them when\ntrials should come. On the one hand, they would not become disspirited by\n_unexpected_ reverses; on the other, they would trust in the Comforter,\nwho had been promised.\n\n2. Absque synagogis facient      2. They will put you out of\nvos: sed venit hora, ut omnis    the synagogues: yea, the hour\nqui interficit vos, arbitretur   cometh, that whosoever killeth\nobsequium se praestare Deo:      you, will think that he doth a\n                                 service to God.\n\n2. *They will put you out of the synagogues* (or rather, synagogue) _i.e._\nexcommunicate you. Compare ix. 22; xii. 42. Yea, He continues, the time is\napproaching when persecution will be so violent that your countrymen will\nthink that they do a service to God by putting you to death. The mention\nof the synagogue proves that the reference is to _Jewish_ persecutions. No\ndoubt many of the Jews thought, like St. Paul (Acts xxvi. 9; 1 Tim. i.\n13), that they were pleasing God by persecuting Christians. Their\nignorance, however, while it extenuated, did not wholly excuse, their sin,\nfor it was culpable. They ought to have known from Christ\u2019s words and\nworks, and from the fulfilment of prophecy in Him, that He was the\nMessias, to whom, therefore, they were bound to hearken (Deut. xviii. 19),\nand whose religion was to perfect and supplant their own.\n\n3. Et haec facient vobis, quia   3. And these things will they\nnon noverunt Patrem neque me.    do to you, because they have\n                                 not known the Father, nor me.\n\n3. See above on xv. 21.\n\n4. Sed haec locutus sum vobis:   4. But these things I have\nut, cum venerit hora eorum,      told you, that when the hour\nreminiscamini quia ego dixi      shall come, you may remember\nvobis.                           that I told you of them.\n\n4. \u201cEorum\u201d of the Vulgate is to be connected with \u201creminiscamini,\u201d on\nwhich it depends. The comma ought to be before \u201ceorum;\u201d the Greek text\nmakes this clear. As we said above on verse 1, the fact that Christ had\nforetold these persecutions, would be another proof of His Divinity.\nMoreover, since He knew that these persecutions were in store, and did not\navert them, the Apostles ought to learn from this to bear them with\nresignation, inasmuch as they were not merely endured for Him, but\npermitted by Him.\n\n5. Haec autem vobis ab initio    5. But I told you not these\nnon dixi, quia vobiscum eram.    things from the beginning,\nEt nunc vado ad eum, qui misit   because I was with you. And\nme: et nemo ex vobis             now I go to him that sent me,\ninterrogat me, Quo vadis?        and none of you asketh me:\n                                 Whither goest thou?\n\n5. *But I told you not these things from the beginning.* \u201cThese things,\u201d\nwe again understand, as in verse 1, both of the persecutions which were\nbefore them, and of the coming of the Holy Ghost to take Christ\u2019s place,\nand console the Apostles.\n\nBut had He not already predicted that the Apostles were to be persecuted?\nHad He not said: \u201cBut beware of men. For they will deliver you up in\ncouncils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues. And you shall be\nbrought before governors and before kings for My sake, for a testimony to\nthem and to the Gentiles\u201d? (Matt. x. 17, 18). To this we may reply, with\nMald., that He had never predicted persecution until now, and that St.\nMatthew, in recording, in the passage cited, the prediction of\npersecution, does not follow the order of time, but inserts, in connection\nwith the mission of the Apostles to the Jews what was spoken long after,\nprobably immediately before, Christ\u2019s ascension, when they were receiving\ntheir mission to the whole world. (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20). Or we may\nreply\u2014and this answer we prefer\u2014that although He had before predicted the\npersecution of the Apostles, yet He had not till now told them what He\ntold them on this occasion; namely, that they should be excommunicated by\nthe Jews, and that men would think they were actually honouring God in\npersecuting them. So that although He had before predicted persecution,\nstill it was only now He predicted its terrible violence.\n\n*And* (Gr. \u03b4\u03b5 = _but_) *now I go to him that sent me*. These words are to\nbe connected closely with the preceding. Before, He had not told them\nthese things, _but_ now He is about to leave them, and there is,\ntherefore, a special reason for His referring to the future.\n\n*And none of you asketh me: Whither goest thou?* Or: \u201cAnd does none of you\nask Me: Whither goest thou\u201d? Our Lord probably remained silent for a few\nmoments after announcing His departure, in order to see if anyone would\nquestion Him further about it. Since no one did, He mildly reminds them in\nthe words before us, that they are not sufficiently solicitous to learn\nthe things that concerned Him; but, as He goes on to say in verse 6, are\ntoo much occupied with their own sorrows. No doubt, Peter had already\nasked Him: \u201cLord, whither goest Thou?\u201d (John xiii. 36); and Thomas had\nsaid: \u201cLord, we know not whither Thou goest; and how can we know the way?\u201d\n(John xiv. 5), but they had not persevered in asking; and at present, when\nHe is just about to depart, they put Him no questions about the glory that\nwas before Him, or the nature of the kingdom that awaited Him.\n\n6. Sed quia haec locutus sum     6. But because I have spoken\nvobis: tristitia implevit cor    these things to you sorrow\nvestrum.                         hath filled your heart.\n\n6. *These things* we again take, as in verses 1 and 5, to refer to the\npersecutions which He had predicted, and to the coming of the Holy Ghost\n_after His departure_. That there is not question merely of persecutions\npredicted, is proved by the next verse, in which He goes on, in immediate\nconnection with this (_But_ I tell you the truth, it is expedient to you\nthat I go) to reconcile them to His departure. For the same reason, there\nis not question merely of the coming of the Holy Ghost, since that was no\ncause for sorrow, but of His coming _in Christ\u2019s place_. The prediction of\npersecution, and of the coming of the Holy Ghost as _implying the\ndeparture of Christ_, was what filled their hearts with sorrow.\n\n7. Sed ego veritatem dico        7. But I tell you the truth:\nvobis: expedit vobis ut ego      it is expedient to you that I\nvadam: si enim non abiero,       go: for if I go not, the\nParaclitus non veniet ad vos:    Paraclete will not come to\nsi autem abiero, mittam eum ad   you: but if I go, I will send\nvos.                             him to you.\n\n7. *But.* The meaning is: notwithstanding your silence (verse 5), or:\nnotwithstanding your sorrow (verse 6), *I tell you the truth: it is\nexpedient to you that I go*. This expediency arose from the free\ndisposition of the Divine economy that the Son of God should remove from\namong men His visible presence before the Holy Ghost should come. Nothing\nin the nature of things necessarily required this; but God freely decreed\nit so.\n\n8. Et cum venerit ille, arguet   8. And when he is come he will\nmundum de peccato, et de         convince the world of sin, and\niustitia, et de iudicio.         of justice, and of judgment.\n9. De peccato quidem, quia non   9. Of sin: because they\ncrediderunt in me:               believed not in me.\n10. De iustitia vero, quia ad    10. And of justice: because I\nPatrem vado, et iam non          go to the Father; and you\nvidebitis me:                    shall see me no longer.\n11. De iudicio autem, quia       11. And of judgment: because\nprinceps huius mundi iam         the prince of this world is\niudicatus est.                   already judged.\n\n8\u201011. We may take these four verses together, as the three last explain\nthe first. Christ goes on to show why it is expedient for the Apostles\nthat He should leave them, and that the Holy Ghost should come. *And when\nhe is come, he will convince*, &c. The Greek word for \u201cwill convince\u201d is\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u03be\u03b5\u03b9, which may mean either\u2014(_a_) to rebuke, or (_b_) to prove a thing\nclearly so that it must be admitted. It is not absolutely necessary that\nthe word be used in the same sense throughout these verses; but since\nthere is nothing to indicate that it is used in different senses, we take\nit in the same sense throughout. This sense we believe to be the second\njust indicated, for this alone suits verses 10 and 11.\n\nThe meaning of the whole passage, then, we take to be the following:\u2014And\nwhen the Holy Ghost is come, He will clearly prove to the _unbelieving_\nworld, principally through your preaching and miracles, its own sin, My\njustice, and its own condemnation. Its own sin of incredulity, which is\nproved by the fact that the children of this wicked world did not believe\nin Me (verse 9); My justice, which is proved by the fact that I go to God\nto reign with Him for ever, so that men shall see Me no more; its own\ncondemnation, which is shown to be certain by the fact that its prince,\nthe devil, is already condemned. Christ\u2019s victory over the devil at His\ndeath implied the condemnation of the devil\u2019s kingdom, the world. And as\nChrist\u2019s death was so near, the devil might be said to be already\ncondemned.\n\nIf it be objected to our interpretation that, since there is question in\nverses 9 and 11 of the _world\u2019s_ sin and condemnation, so there must be\nquestion of the world\u2019s justice in verse 10, we reply that Christ makes it\nsufficiently clear that He is speaking in verse 10 of His own justice by\nthe words He adds: \u201cBecause I go to the Father, and you shall see Me no\nlonger.\u201d\n\nIf it be objected that the Holy Ghost did not prove to the world its own\nsin, nor Christ\u2019s justice, nor its own condemnation, we reply that He did,\nthough the world in many of its children closed its eyes to the proof;\n_Oculos habent et non videbunt_. (Ps. cxiii. 5.) The world saw in the\nsanctity of the Christian religion, in the miracles wrought by Christ\u2019s\nfollowers, in the power of the Apostles and their successors over devils\nand those possessed by devils, what ought to have convinced it of Christ\u2019s\nDivinity, and of its own sin and inevitable condemnation.\n\n12. Adhuc multa habeo vobis      12. I have yet many things to\ndicere: sed non potestis         say to you: but you cannot\nportare modo.                    hear them now.\n\n12. *I have yet many things.* Among these many things which they were not\nyet able to bear were, probably, the nature of His earthly kingdom, and\nthe abrogation of the Jewish Law, in as far as it was judicial and\nceremonial. As Jews who had grown up imbued with deepest reverence for the\nMosaic Law, the Apostles were naturally slow to believe that it was to be\nabrogated; and immediately before St. Peter received Cornelius into the\nChurch as the first\u2010fruits of the Gentile world, he had to be taught by a\nvision from heaven that the Jewish distinction between clean and unclean\nmeats was no longer to exist. (Acts x. 10\u201016.) And as to the nature of\nChrist\u2019s earthly kingdom, the Apostles in common with the rest of their\nrace still hoped that the Messias would establish a mighty Jewish empire,\nand restore Israel to a foremost place among the nations. Even on\nAscension day they still cherished this hope, as we learn from the Acts:\n\u201cLord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?\u201d (Acts\ni. 6).\n\n13. Cum autem venerit ille       13. But when he, the Spirit of\nSpiritus veritatis, docebit      truth, is come, he will teach\nvos omnem veritatem: non enim    you all truth. For he shall\nloquetur a semetipso: sed        not speak of himself: but what\nquaecumque audiet loquetur, et   things soever he shall hear,\nquae ventura sunt annuntiabit    he shall speak: and the things\nvobis.                           that are to come he shall shew\n                                 you.\n\n13. *But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come.* Though you are now unable\nto bear these truths, you shall be taught them all by the Holy Ghost. The\nGreek for *will teach* (docebit) is \u1f40\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, which means to lead on the\nway, to conduct; and the sense, therefore, is: He shall _guide_ you into\n_all the truth_ (which I have still to tell you, but which you are now\nunable to bear). We are not to suppose that the Apostles were taught all\nthe truth on the day of Pentecost; the revelation was vouchsafed\ngradually, and at their death the deposit of faith was complete.(101)\nSince the Apostles\u2019 time, doctrines and dogmas have, indeed, been more\nfully drawn out and developed, but no new doctrines have been revealed.\nThis follows clearly from the words we are considering; for it was to the\nApostles, to those same men who were now unable to bear it, that the Holy\nGhost was to teach the _whole_ truth.\n\nThe promise here made to the Apostles, that they should be taught the\nwhole truth by the Holy Ghost, while it regarded them _directly_, regarded\nthe whole Church indirectly; for it is to them as Apostles, appointed to\nteach the whole Church, that Christ speaks: \u201cI have chosen you, and have\nappointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit, and your\nfruit should remain\u201d (John xv. 16). And in the solemn prayer to the\nFather, with which this discourse concludes, He prays the Father:\n\u201cSanctify them (the Apostles) in (the) truth.... And not for them only do\nI pray, but for them also who, through their word, shall believe in me.\u201d\nSo that the Apostles first, and through them the Church of Christ,\nreceived the whole truth from the Holy Ghost.(102)\n\n*For he shall not speak of himself.* These words give a reason why the\nHoly Ghost shall teach the truth. No other reason than His own Divinity\nand essential truthfulness was necessary; but, as the Apostles did not yet\nunderstand that this new Comforter was Divine, Jesus vouchsafes another\nreason to convince them of His truthfulness. This other reason is, that\nthe Holy Ghost shall speak to them, not what has been excogitated or\ninvented by Himself, but what he received from the Son of God in His\neternal procession. Doubtless the Apostles did not yet know much about the\nmystery of the Divine procession; still they could gather from these words\nthat the new Comforter was to announce to them the truth, as Christ\u2019s\nlegate, and this was enough.\n\n*But what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak.* A Divine Person\n(unless He were possessed of two natures, like Jesus Christ) cannot be\nconceived to acquire anything except in His procession; for once He is a\nDivine Person He is infinite, and can receive nothing that He does not\nalready possess. Hence whatever the Holy Ghost _heard_, He heard from all\neternity, in proceeding from the Father and the Son.(103) Yet, though the\nHoly Ghost heard and hears from all eternity, the _future_ tense \u201cshall\nhear\u201d is used because there is question of knowledge _to be manifested in\nthe future_.(104)\n\n*And the things that are to come he shall shew you.* Hence the Holy Ghost\nwas to confer the gift of prophecy on the Apostles. As evidence that He\nconferred this gift upon them, see Acts xx. 29; St. Jude 17, 18, and The\nApocalypse.\n\n14. Ille me clarificabit: quia   14. He shall glorify me;\nde meo accipiet, et              because he shall receive of\nannuntiabit vobis.               mine, and shall shew _it_ to\n                                 you.\n\n14. *He shall glorify me. because he shall receive of mine* (\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6),\n*and shall shew it to you*.\n\nThe Holy Ghost gave glory to Christ before men by showing that Christ was\nthe Messias and Saviour of the world. This He did principally through the\nApostles, by imparting to them (in so far it was necessary or useful for\nthem) the knowledge which He had received from the Son, and especially, as\nthe context here (verse 16) proves, the knowledge of future things. In the\nwords, \u201cHe shall receive of mine,\u201d we refer \u201cmine\u201d to the Son\u2019s knowledge,\nwhich, however, _in reality_ does not differ in a Divine Person from His\nessence.(105)\n\nAs we remarked already on verse 13, a Divine Person (having no other\nnature than the Divine), cannot be conceived to receive anything except in\nHis procession; and hence when the Holy Ghost is here said to receive from\nthe Son, we have a convincing proof that _He proceeds from the Son_.\n\nThe schismatical Greeks attempted in two ways to get rid of the argument\nthat is thus afforded for the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son.\n\n(_a_) First, they supplied \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 after \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, and thus represented\nChrist as saying that the Holy Ghost should receive from the Father. Hence\nthey concluded that He proceeds only from the Father. But we say in\nreply\u2014(1) that it is against the rules of Greek syntax that the possessive\npronoun \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 should refer to a word not expressed in the phrase. (2)\nThat all the fathers, Greek as well as Latin, referred \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 to _what\nis in the Son_ and not to the Father. (3) The context here Proves that \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 does not refer to the Father. For in verse 15 we have the pronoun\nrepeated in the plural: \u201cAll things whatsoever the Father hath _are mine_\n(\u1f10\u03bc\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd). Therefore I said, he shall receive of _mine_,\u201d and it is\nplain that in both instances _mine_ refers to the same thing; hence not to\nthe Father, but to what is in the Son, communicated from the Father.\n\n(_b_) Equally inadmissible is the other interpretation by which it was\nattempted to explain away this text. According to this second view,\nChrist\u2019s words would mean: The Holy Ghost shall glorify Me because He\nshall receive of Mine _from My Father_, and shall show it to you. But\nthere is nothing to justify this insertion of the words \u201cfrom My Father;\u201d\non the contrary, the whole context points to the fact that the Holy Ghost\nis to receive what is the Son\u2019s (of mine) _from the Son Himself_. For\nsince the Holy Ghost in reality glorified the Father and Himself as well\nas the Son, when we find it here stated that He shall glorify the Son,\n_because_ He shall receive of Him, the natural inference is, that He\nreceives from Him directly, and not merely through the Father. Besides,\nwhen the text distinctly states that the Holy Ghost shall receive of the\nSon, it is wholly arbitrary and really not an interpretation of the words\nat all to say that He receives of the Son _through the Father_, and not\ndirectly of the Son Himself.\n\nHence the words of this verse plainly mean that the Holy Ghost receives\nfrom the Son, and consequently, as we saw above on verse 13, afford a\nproof that He proceeds from the Son, just as those of xv. 26 prove that He\nproceeds from the Father. He proceeds, therefore, as our faith professes,\nEx Patre _Filioque_.\n\n15. Omnia quaecumque habet       15. All things whatsoever the\nPater, mea sunt. Propterea       Father hath, are mine.\ndixi: quia de meo accipiet, et   Therefore I said, he shall\nannuntiabit vobis.               receive of mine, and show _it_\n                                 to you.\n\n15. *Therefore I said, he shall receive*, &c. The present (\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9) is\nthe more probable reading, but it is used for the future, so that the\nVulgate gives the meaning. This verse is variously connected with the\npreceding, even by Catholic commentators. We believe that Christ is here\nproving what He has just said, namely, that the Holy Ghost should receive\nof Him. The proof is this: All whatsoever the Father hath (except, of\ncourse, the relation of Paternity) is the Son\u2019s; but the Father has\n_spiratio activa_: in other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him,\ntherefore He proceeds from the Son also: \u201cAll things whatsoever the Father\nhath are mine; _therefore_ I said, He shall receive of mine, and shew it\nto you.\u201d Note that this verse, too, furnishes a clear proof of the\nprocession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, since the Son has all that the\nFather hath.\n\n16. Modicum, et iam non          16. A little while, and now\nvidebitis me: et iterum          you shall not see me: and\nmodicum, et videbitis me: quia   again a little while, and you\nvado ad Patrem?                  shall see me: because I go to\n                                 the Father.\n\n16. Instead of \u03bf\u03cd the best supported Greek text reads \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 (no longer),\nand omits the words \u201cbecause I go to the Father.\u201d We are not, however,\nconvinced that the Vulgate is wrong in retaining the words, for the next\nverse, where they are certainly genuine, makes it clear that our Lord must\nhave used the words here; though, of course, it is possible that St. John\ndid not record them.\n\n*A little while.* There are two probable interpretations of the two\n\u201clittle whiles.\u201d According to one, the first \u201clittle while\u201d is the short\ntime until Christ\u2019s death, and _after_ that they should not see Him; then\nanother \u201clittle while,\u201d namely the three days that His body was in the\ngrave, and _after_ that they should see Him risen to a glorious and\nimmortal life. According to the other, the first \u201clittle while\u201d is the\ntime until the ascension, and _after_ that they should see Him no longer\namong them on earth; the second \u201clittle while\u201d is the time from the\nascension until the day of general judgment, and _after_ that they should\nsee Him for ever, their joy no man should take from them (verse 22), and\nthey would require to ask Him no questions (verse 23), because all would\nbe clear in the light of the beatific vision.\n\nWe prefer the latter view; for when Christ goes on in the following verses\nto explain, His words, especially in verses 22 and 23, are not easily or\nnaturally understood in the first interpretation. For, though the Apostles\ndid rejoice after His resurrection (John xx. 20), and though that glorious\nevent with all that it implied must have been to them a source of lasting\njoy, still they had very many occasions for sorrowing subsequently.\nBesides, we know that after His resurrection they put Him questions (Acts\ni. 6). Hence, we prefer to hold that the second \u201clittle while\u201d (with the\nLord a thousand years are as one day, 2 Peter iii. 8) shall terminate with\nthe day of judgment, for then only shall they require to put Him no\nquestions, and both body and soul shall be for ever happy.\n\n*Because I go to the Father.* Some connect with both the preceding\nmembers. Others, as Mald., only with the first member\u2014you shall not see\nMe, because I go to the Father.\n\n17. Dixerunt ergo ex             17. Then some of his disciples\ndiscipulis eius ad invicem:      said one to another: What is\nQuid est hoc quod dicit nobis:   this that he saith to us: A\nModicum, et non videbitis me:    little while, and you shall\net iterum modicum: et            not see me: and again a little\nvidebitis me, et quia vado ad    while, and you shall see me,\nPatrem?                          and because I go to the\n                                 Father?\n18. Dicebant ergo: Quid est      18. They said therefore: What\nhoc quod dicit Modicum:          is this that he saith, A\nnescimus quid loquitur.          little while? we know not what\n                                 he speaketh.\n\n17, 18. The Apostles were perplexed, and did not understand. Doubtless\ntheir sorrow at the thought of His departure confused them, and in any\ncase the meaning was not clear.\n\n19. Cognovit autem Iesus quia    19. And Jesus knew that they\nvolebant cum interrogare et      had a mind to ask him: and he\ndixit eis: De hoc quaeritis      said to them: Of this do you\ninter vos quia dixi, Modicum?    inquire among yourselves,\net non videbitis me: et iterum   because I said: A little\nmodicum, et videbitis me.        while, and you shall not see\n                                 me: and again a little while,\n                                 and you shall see me?\n\n19. Though they had spoken only among themselves, Jesus knew their\nthoughts, and was aware of their perplexity.\n\n20. Amen, amen dico vobis:       20. Amen, amen, I say to you,\nquia plorabitis et flebitis      that you shall lament and\nvos, mundus autem gaudebit:      weep, but the world shall\nvos autem contristabimini, sed   rejoice: and you shall be made\ntristitia vestra vertetur in     sorrowful, but your sorrow\ngaudium.                         shall be turned into joy.\n21. Mulier cum parit,            21. A woman, when she is in\ntristitiam habet, quia           labour, hath sorrow, because\nvenithora eius: cum autem        her hour is come: but when she\npepererit puerum, iam non        hath brought forth the child,\nmeminit pressurae propter        she remembereth no more the\ngaudium, quia natus est homo     anguish, for joy that a man is\nin mundum.                       born into the world.\n\n20, 21. He compares their brief sorrow here below to that of a woman in\nlabour, and their lasting joy to that of a mother when she has brought\nforth her child.\n\n22. Et vosigitur nunc quidem     22. So also you now indeed\ntristitiam habetis, iterum       have sorrow, but I will see\nautem videbo vos, et gaudebit    you again, and your heart\ncor vestrum: et gaudium          shall rejoice; and your joy no\nvestrum nemo toilet a vobis?     man shall take from you.\n\n22. Applying the preceding comparison, He says: You too now in this life,\nthe period of your travail, have sorrow; but I will see you again at the\nday of general judgment (or, perhaps, when their souls should enter\nheaven), and then your joy shall be lasting.\n\n23. Et in illo die me non        23. And in that day you shall\nrogabitis quidquam. Amen, amen   not ask me anything. Amen,\ndico vobis: si quid petieritis   amen, I say to you: if you ask\nPatrem in nomine nemo dabit      the Father anything in my\nvobis.                           name, he will give it you.\n\n23. In that time, when you shall enjoy the vision of God, you shall not\nrequire to put me any questions(106) (\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5) as just now you\nwished to do (verse 19), because you shall know all that you can desire to\nknow. Thus in the interpretation that we have adopted, Christ, after\npromising the Apostles the knowledge of future things while they are here\non earth (verses 13\u201015), goes on in the following verses (16\u201023) to\npromise them His own. society, eternal joy, and perfect knowledge in the\nlife to come.\n\n*Amen, amen, I say to you: if you ask* (\u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5) *the Father anything*,\n&c. These words ought to begin a new verse, for a new subject, the\nefficacy of prayer, is begun. The correct Greek reading is \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 (not \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n\u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd), and agrees with the Vulgate, \u201csi quid.\u201d Most critics of the Greek\ntext read the latter part of this verse thus: \u201cIf you ask the Father\nanything, He will give it you in my name.\u201d Still we are inclined to\nbelieve that the Vulgate reading, which connects \u201cin my name\u201d with \u201cask\u201d\nand not with \u201cwill give,\u201d is correct; for immediately after (in verses 24\nand 26) we have question of asking in the name of Christ. Moreover, the\nconnection between verses 23 and 24, with the apparent antithesis: \u201cif you\nask the Father anything in my name, He will give it you. Hitherto you have\nnot asked anything in my name,\u201d confirms the Vulgate reading. We prefer\nthe Vulgate reading therefore, and the sense is, that if they ask the\nFather anything in the name, through the merits, of Christ, He will give\nit; provided, of course, as St. John says in his First Epistle (v. 14)\nthey ask according to the will of God. Hence the Church always asks\nthrough the merits of Christ: \u201cPer Christum Dominum nostrum,\u201d or \u201cPer\nDominum nostrum Jesum Christum,\u201d &c.\n\nThere could be no clearer proof than this verse affords of the wondrous\nefficacy of prayer.\n\n24. Usque modo non petistis      24. Hitherto you have not\nquidquam in nomine meo:          asked anything in my name.\npetite, et accipietis, ut        Ask, and you shall receive:\ngaudium vestrum sit plenum.      that your joy may be full.\n\n24. They had already indeed asked of Christ Himself; they had also asked\nthe Father; but not in the name of Christ, as they are now bid to do. This\nwas a new form of prayer. The Jews, when praying, begged of God to\nremember their Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Christians appeal\nthrough the name and merits of Jesus Christ.\n\n25. Haec in proverbiis locutus   25. These things I have spoken\nsum vobis. Venit hora, cum iam   to you in proverbs. The hour\nnon in proverbiis loquar         cometh when I will no more\nvobis, sed palam de Patre        speak to you in proverbs, but\nannuntiabo vobis.                will show you plainly of the\n                                 Father.\n\n25. *In proverbs.* The word translated \u201cproverbs\u201d is \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, which\nsignifies not merely proverbial, but also obscure or figurative language;\nand this is the sense here, as is proved by the antithesis between\nspeaking \u201cin proverbs\u201d and speaking \u201cplainly.\u201d \u201cThese things,\u201d then,\nconcerning His death, His resurrection, His return to the Father, the\n\u201clittle whiles,\u201d &c., He had spoken obscurely. We must hold that the words\nof institution of the Blessed Eucharist are not included in \u201cthese\nthings.\u201d They did not belong to this discourse _after_ the Last Supper,\nbut were spoken during the supper. Moreover, had they been obscure, surely\nthree Evangelists and St. Paul would not have narrated them without some\nexplanation.\n\n*The hour cometh when I will no more speak to you in proverbs.* \u201cHour\u201d is\nthe ordinary Hebraism for time. Some refer this to the next life, some to\nthe forty days of Christ\u2019s risen life, and some to the time after\nPentecost. With St. Aug. and Mald. we prefer this latter view, for the\nfirst opinion seems excluded by the next verse, where it is said they will\nask of the Father during the time in question, and we know they shall not\nrequire to ask in heaven. The second opinion too (unless it be joined with\nthe third) is improbable, for it was not till the day of Pentecost, when\nthey were \u201cendued with power from on high\u201d (Luke xxvi. 49), that they were\nable to bear plain speaking, or that Christ _through the Holy Ghost_ spoke\nplainly to them.\n\n26. In illo die in nomine meo    26. In that day you shall ask\npetetis: et non dico vobis       in my name: and I say not to\nquia ego rogabo Patrem de        you, that I will ask the\nvobis:                           Father for you:\n\n26. *I say not to you, that I will ask the Father for you.* The sense is:\nI need not say, I do not need to tell you, that I will ask the Father for\nyou. This form of expression is what is called \u201cpraeteritio,\u201d not\n\u201cexclusio,\u201d for we know that Christ is \u201calways living to intercede for us\u201d\n(Heb. vii. 25). The connection in the following verse: \u201cFor the Father\nHimself,\u201d &c., shows that Christ also wished to intimate that such\nintercession on His part would not be necessary, because the Father\nHimself would be prompt to hear and answer their prayers. Thus they should\nunderstand that, though Christ, their advocate, was leaving them, yet they\nhad no reason to be disheartened, since the Father unsolicited would love\nthem and hear their prayers, because they had loved Christ, and believed\nHim to be the Messias sent by God.\n\n27. Ipse enim Pater amat vos,    27. For the Father himself\nquia vos me amastis, et          loveth you, because you have\ncredidistis quia ego a Deo       loved me, and have believed\nexivi.                           that I came out from God.\n28. Exivi a Patre, et veni in    28. I came forth from the\nmundum: iterum relinquo          Father, and am come into the\nmundum, et vado ad Patrem.       world: again I leave the\n                                 world, and I go to the Father.\n\n28. Taking up the closing words of the preceding verse, He insists upon\nthe truth of what they have believed. For in coming into the world I did\ncome out from God, who is My Father, and now I return to Him in leaving\nthe world, Some commentators refer the words: \u201cI came forth from the\nFather\u201d to the eternal procession, and the following words to the mission\nin time; but we think the view we follow more probable; for what is here\nasserted is what the Apostles had already believed, and we doubt if they\nyet understood or believed in the eternal procession.\n\n29. Dicunt ei discipuli eius:    29. His disciples say to him:\nEcce nunc palam loqueris, et     Behold now thou speakest\nproverbium nullum dicis:         plainly, and speakest no\n                                 proverb.\n\n29. In saying that He was about to leave the world and go to the Father,\nHe spoke plainly, and explained their doubts of verse 17.\n\n30. Nunc scimus quia scis        30. Now we know that thou\nomnia, et non opus est tibi ut   knowest all things, and thou\nquis te interroget: in hoc       needest not that any man\ncredimus quia a Deo existi.      should ask thee. By this we\n                                 believe that thou comest forth\n                                 from God.\n\n30. Seeing that He had read their thoughts (verse 19), and anticipated\ntheir inquiries, even for this reason they declare their faith in Him as\nthe Messias and Son of God to be _confirmed_ and made perfect.\n\n31. Respondit eis Iesus: Modo    31. Jesus answered them: Do\ncreditis?                        you now believe?\n\n31. Christ\u2019s reply does not deny that they believe; yet insinuates, if we\ntake it interrogatively with the Vulgate, that He had reason to doubt the\nfirmness of the faith they boasted, as indeed He goes on to declare\nplainly in the following verses.\n\n32. Ecce venit hora, et iam      32. Behold the hour cometh,\nvenit, ut dispergamini           and it is now come, that you\nunusquisque in propria, et me    shall be scattered every man\nsolum relinquatis: et non sum    to his own, and shall leave me\nsolus, quia Pater mecum est.     alone: and yet I am not alone\n                                 because the Father is with me.\n\n32. *Hour* is again a Hebraism for time. This same prediction, or a\nsimilar one, is recorded by St. Matt. (xxvi. 31), and St. Mark (xiv. 27),\nand according to both it was made after Christ and the Apostles had left\nthe supper room to go towards the Mount of Olives. As we observed above on\nxiv. 31, we think it highly improbable that this long discourse after the\nLast Supper was spoken in the crowded streets of Jerusalem; and if the\nwords of SS. Matthew or Mark obliged us to hold that the prediction,\nrecorded by those Evangelists was spoken whilst Christ and the Apostles\npassed along the streets, we would hold that this prediction, recorded by\nSt. John, is a different one, and that Christ referred twice on this night\nto the desertion of His Apostles. In reality, however, SS. Matthew and\nMark can be satisfactorily explained on the supposition that the\nprediction which they record was spoken outside the house where Christ and\nthe Apostles had supped, or at some quiet spot on the way to Mount Olivet.\n\n33. Haec locutus sum vobis, ut   33. These things I have spoken\nin me pacem habeatis. In mundo   to you, that in me you may\npressuram habebitis: sed         have peace. In the world you\nconfidite, ego vici mundum.      shall have distress: but have\n                                 confidence, I have overcome\n                                 the world.\n\n33. These last discourses He had spoken to confirm their faith and afford\nthem consolation, that so they might have peace of heart, despite the\nhatred of the world. Then He closes this beautiful discourse with the\nconsoling and encouraging assurance that He was just about to conquer the\nworld (by prolepsis He speaks of His victory as already gained). The\ncontext shows that this assurance implied that they too, through Him,\nshould triumph over the world. For it is because His victory implied\ntheirs that He tells them to have confidence. \u201cFor whatsoever is born of\nGod overcometh the world: and this is the victory which overcometh the\nworld, our faith\u201d (1 John v. 4).\n\nThus in His last words to His Apostles before His passion, at the very\nmoment when He knew that His enemies were approaching (xv. 30), Christ\nconfidently claims the glory of a conqueror.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\n\n    1\u20105. *As man, Christ prays to the Father for Himself.*\n\n    6\u201019. *He prays for the Apostles.*\n\n    20\u201023. *He prays for all the faithful.*\n\n    24\u201026. *His last prayer for the Apostles.*\n\n\n1. Haec locutus est Iesus: et    1. These things Jesus spoke,\nsublevatis oculis in coelum,     and lifting up his eyes to\ndixit: Pater venit hora,         heaven, he said: Father, the\nclarifica Filium tuum ut         hour is come, glorify thy Son,\nFilius tuus clarificet te:       that thy Son may glorify thee.\n\n1. *These things*, we understand here of all that is comprised in the\ndiscourses just recorded (xiii. 31\u2010xvi. 33). Having completed His words of\nwarning and consolation and love, Jesus now turns from teaching to prayer,\nfrom earth to heaven, from His children to His Father.\n\n*Glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee.* Christ, _as man_, prays\nto His Father; and the sense is: The time of My trial is come; do not\ndesert Me, but glorify Me by exalting My humanity to a participation in\nthe glory of the Divinity; that so, by My resurrection and ascension, I\nmay give glory to Thee, by giving eternal life to all whom Thou hast given\nme(107) (verse 2).\n\n2. (_a_) Sicut dedisti ei        2. As thou hast given him\npotestatem omnis carnis, ut      power over all flesh, that he\nomne quod dedisti ei, det eis    may give eternal life to all\nvitam aeternam.                  whom thou hast given him.\n\n2. These words explain _how_ Christ will glorify the Father, namely, by\ngiving eternal life to all whom the Father had given Him.\n\n*All flesh* is a Hebraism for all mankind (John i. 14); and by another\nHebraism the nominative \u201comne\u201d of the Vulgate is redundant, the sense\nbeing as in our English version.\n\nThis verse we connect with the last clause of verse 1, and take the sense\nto be: That Thy Son may glorify Thee, _according as_ Thou hast given Him\npower over all men, _in order that_ in them He may glorify Thee. In other\nwords, Christ prays that the Father may bring about His own glory, which\nHe had in view in giving Christ power over all men. There are various\nother interpretations, but the above seems to us best, as it connects\nnaturally with the preceding, and retains the ordinary signification of\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c2 and \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1.\n\nThis power over all men, Christ, as God, possessed from eternity, and as\nGod\u2010man He obtained at His incarnation.\n\nThough He has power over all men, yet He does not give eternal life to all\nmen, but only to those _whom God has given Him_ (vi. 37), because only\nthese correspond with His grace. This is implied in Christ\u2019s language\nhere, for the words, \u201cto all whom Thou has given Him,\u201d explain the\nexpression all flesh, and show that it is only in those who believe that\nthe universal Power over \u201call flesh\u201d is efficacious.\n\n3. Haec est autem vita           3. Now this is eternal life:\naeterna: ut cognoscant te,       that they may know thee, the\nsolum Deum verum, et quem        only true God, and Jesus\nmisisti Iesum Christum.          Christ, whom thou hast sent.\n\n3. *Now this is eternal life*, &c. The sense is: this is the pledge, the\ncause of eternal life (see John iii. 36), that they know Thee _with the\nknowledge of faith_, know Thee to be the only true God and Jesus Christ\nwhom Thou hast sent. The Greek \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd\nshows that the Father is here said to be the only God, to the exclusion of\nother Gods, but not to the exclusion of other Persons who participate in\nthe same Godhead. It is not meant that the Father is the only Divine\nPerson. There are other Persons in the Godhead, but there is no other\nGodhead. The words mean, then, that they may know Thee to be the only true\nGod, to the exclusion of all other Gods; but do not mean that they may\nknow Thee alone to be the true God, to the exclusion of the Son and Holy\nGhost.\n\nMany of the fathers adopt another interpretation of the verse, holding\nthat the order of the words is inverted, and that Divinity is predicated\nof both the Father and Christ. They understand the verse thus: that they\nmay know Thee and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent, to be the only true\nGod. So SS. Aug., Amb., Hil., Greg. Naz., Athan., Cyp. The latter\ninterpretation more clearly establishes Christ\u2019s Divinity against the\nArians; but in any interpretation it is clear that Christ implies His own\nDivinity, since He declares that the knowledge of Himself, equally with\nthat of the Father, is the cause and pledge of eternal life. He who had\nsaid: \u201cI and the Father are one\u201d (John x. 30), and who, a few verses\nfarther down in this prayer, says to the Father: \u201cAll my things are thine,\nand thine are mine,\u201d cannot reasonably be supposed to withdraw His claims\nto Divinity in the words before us.\n\nSome of the fathers, and many of the scholastics, hold that there is\nquestion in verse 3 not of the knowledge of God through _faith_, but of\nthe knowledge of the blessed in heaven; and they argue from this verse to\nprove that the essence of life eternal consists in _knowing_ God; in other\nwords, that the happiness of the blessed consists in an act of the\n_intellect_; namely, the vision of God.(108) Since we believe that the\nquestion here is of the knowledge of God through faith, and not through\nthe beatific vision, we hold that no argument can be drawn from this verse\nas to the essence of the happiness of the blessed.\n\n4. Ego te clarificavi super      4. I have glorified thee on\nterram: opus consummavi, quod    the earth: I have finished the\ndedisti mihi ut faciam:          work which thou gavest me to\n                                 do:\n\n4. Some understand these words as proleptic, and take the sense to be: I\nam about to glorify Thee by My death, to finish the work of _redemption_\nwhich thou gavest Me to do. Others understand of the work of preaching,\nwhich was now actually completed, and by which the Father\u2019s name and glory\nhad been manifested _upon the earth_. The latter interpretation seems to\nus the more natural, and more suited to the context, especially to verse\n6: \u201cI have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of\nthe world.\u201d\n\n5. Et nunc clarifica me tu,      5. And now glorify thou me, O\nPater, apud temetipsum,          Father, with thyself, with the\nclaritate, quam habui, prius     glory which I had, before the\nquam mundus esset, apud te.      world was, with thee.\n\n5. In return for His having given glory to the Father _upon the earth_,\nChrist, as man, prays the Father to glorify Him in heaven. There is a\ndifficulty here, arising from the fact that Christ seems to pray that the\nglory which as God He possessed from all eternity may be given to Him _as\nman_. Now, the glory of God is incommunicable, and even the blessed\nhumanity of Christ is incapable of partaking fully thereof. Hence various\ninterpretations have been advanced in order to explain this difficulty:\u2014\n\n(1) Some say that Christ, as man, prays merely for that glory which, _in\nthe decrees of God, was given_ to His humanity from all eternity. But\nagainst this view is the fact that the fathers generally quoted the latter\npart of this verse to prove the eternal existence and Divinity of Christ.\n\n(2) Hence others, and we believe rightly, hold that in the latter part of\nthe verse there is question of the Divine and eternal glory of Christ, and\nunderstand Him to pray that His humanity, according to its capacity, may\nbe made to partake of the glory of the Divinity. Of course, the humanity\nwas incapable of receiving the infinite glory of the Divinity; but the\nglorious qualities of Christ\u2019s glorified body are a participation,\naccording to the capacity of the body, of the eternal glory of the Son.\n\u201cDa ut claritas et gloria quam ego ut Deus ab aeterno tecum habeo,\ncommunicetur et extendatur usque ad carnem meam, quae propter\ndispensationem hactenus est suspensa\u201d(109) (Tolet.)\n\n6. Manifestavi nomen tuum        6. I have manifested thy name\nhominibus, quos dedisti mihi     to the men whom thou hast\nde mundo. Tui erant, et mihi     given me out of the world.\neos dedisti: et sermonem tuum    Thine they were, and to me\nservaverunt.                     thou gavest them: and they\n                                 have kept thy word.\n\n6. This passage from verse 6\u201019 refers primarily to the Apostles, as\nappears from verses 12 and 18; and Christ prayed specially for them\nbecause He was sending them into the world, the heralds of His Gospel\n(verse 18), the foundations upon which His earthly kingdom was to be\nreared (Eph. ii. 20). The sense is: I have manifested Thy name, Thy glory\n_effectually_ (He had manifested it to others, who refused to believe) to\nthose whom Thou hast given Me to be My Apostles; they were Thine by\nelection, &c.\n\nIn this verse, as well as in verses 7 and 8, the correct reading is \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2\n(gavest), not \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c2 (hast given).(110)\n\n7. Nunc cognoverunt quia         7. Now they have known that\nomnia, quae dedisti mihi: abs    all things which thou hast\nte sunt:                         given me are from thee.\n8. Quia verba quae dedisti       8. Because the words which\nmihi, dedi eis: et ipsi          thou gavest me, I have given\nacceperunt, et cognoverunt       to them: and they have\nvere quia a te exivi, et         received them, and have known\ncrediderunt quia tu me           in very deed that I came out\nmisisti.                         from thee, and they have\n                                 believed that thou didst send\n                                 me.\n9. Ego pro eis rogo: non pro     9. I pray for them: I pray not\nmundo rogo, sed pro his quos     for the world, but for them\ndedisti mihi, quia tui sunt:     whom thou hast given me:\n                                 because they are thine:\n\n9. *I pray for them.* The pronouns are emphatic. For these men who on so\nmany grounds are deserving of Thy grace and care, do I, to whom Thou\ngavest them, ask. But what does the Saviour of the world mean by saying\nthat He does not pray for the world, He who on the cross prayed for the\nvery men that crucified Him: \u201cFather, forgive them, for they know not what\nthey do\u201d? (Luke xxiii. 34). Some reply that Christ speaks not of\nsufficient, but of efficacious prayer; but the true view is that He is\nspeaking only of this particular prayer, in which He asks for the Apostles\nwhat the world was unfit and unwilling to receive (see verses 13, 17, 18).\n\nThe fact, then, that He prays in this prayer, not for the Father\u2019s\nenemies, but for those who belong to both the Father and Himself is put\nforward as a reason why He ought to be heard by the Father.\n\n*Because they are thine.* These words sum up this first reason, and we\ntake them as depending upon the phrase: \u201cI pray for them\u201d at the\ncommencement of the verse.\n\n10. Et mea omnia tua sunt: et    10. And all my things are\ntua mea sunt: et clarificatus    thine, and thine are mine: and\nsum in eis.                      I am glorified in them.\n\n10. *And all my things are thine, and thine are mine.* Could anyone but\nGod address God so? These words seem to be thrown in to give a reason for\nthe statement: \u201cthey are thine,\u201d the reason being that since they were\nChrist\u2019s (the Father had made them Christ\u2019s), they must be the Father\u2019s\nalso, for \u201call my things are thine, and thine are mine.\u201d\n\nThe remaining words of this verse afford a second reason why the Father\nought to hear Christ\u2019s prayer for the Apostles and watch over them,\nbecause Christ, through them, had been glorified before men, as a teacher\nis honoured by disciples attaching themselves to him. Or the words: \u201cI am\nglorified,\u201d may possibly be proleptic, and mean that Christ was to be\nglorified _afterwards_ through the preaching of the Apostles.\n\n11. Etiam non sum in mundo, et   11. And now I am not in the\nhi in mundo sunt, et ego ad te   world, and these are in the\nvenio. Pater sancte, serva eos   world, and I come to thee.\nin nomine tuo, quos dedisti      Holy Father, keep them in thy\nmihi: ut sint unum, sicut et     name, whom thou hast given me:\nnos.                             that they may be one, as we\n                                 also are.\n\n11. A third reason why they ought now to receive the Father\u2019s special care\nwas because Christ was now leaving them, and they were to remain in the\nworld.\n\n*Keep them in thy name, whom thou hast given me.* The sense of this\nreading is sufficiently evident. The best\u2010supported Greek reading,\nhowever, is \u1f67(111) (not \u03bf\u1f55\u03c2), \u1f67 being attracted into the dative case of\nthe preceding noun, and standing for \u1f41. The most probable meaning of this\nGreek reading is: keep them in the confession of Thy name, in the\nknowledge of Thee, which Thou hast given to Me, and which I in turn have\ngiven to them; that they may be one by a union of faith and charity\nresembling, though in an imperfect way, the union between the Persons of\nthe Blessed Trinity.\n\n12. Cum essem cum eis, ego       12. While I was with them, I\nservabam eos in nomine tuo.      kept them in thy name. Those\nQuos dedisti mihi, custodivi:    whom thou gavest me have I\net nemo ex eis periit, nisi      kept: and none of them is\nfilius perditionis, ut           lost, but the son of\nscriptura impleatur.             perdition, that the scripture\n                                 may be fulfilled.\n\n12. *I kept them.* In the original, the imperfect tense \u1f10\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd brings out\nmore clearly Christ\u2019s continuous care.\n\nIn this verse, too, there is a difference of opinion as to whether \u03bf\u1f50\u03c2 or\n\u1f66 is the correct reading, but the Vulgate reading is more strongly\nsupported here than in verse 11.\n\n*And none of them is lost, but the son of perdition.* \u201cSon of perdition\u201d\nis a Hebraism, signifying one devoted to destruction, as Judas was,\nthrough his own fault.\n\nNone of them was lost in either soul or body except Judas, who was already\nlost as to his soul, though not irreparably; and who was soon to be\nirreparably lost both as to soul and body. But this loss of Judas was not\nto be ascribed to Christ, but took place _in order that_ (see above on\nxii. 37\u201040) the Scripture (Ps. xl. 10) might be fulfilled. The Holy Ghost\nhad predicted the ruin of Judas, because it was foreseen that this would\ncertainly come about through the wretched Apostle\u2019s own fault. In the\nwords: \u201cnone of them is lost,\u201d we think there is question of both the\nbodies and souls of the Apostles; for while it is generally admitted that\nChrist here claims to have guarded the _souls_ of the Apostles from\nspiritual ruin, John xviii. 8, 9, seems to prove, as we shall there show,\nthat in the words before us Christ speaks of having guarded from harm\ntheir bodies also.\n\n13. Nunc autem ad te venio: et   13. And now I come to thee:\nhaec loquor in mundo, ut         and these things I speak in\nhabeant gaudium meum impletum    the world, that they may have\nin semetipsis.                   my joy filled in themselves.\n\n13. *These things* we refer to what Christ had already spoken in the\nhearing of the Apostles in this prayer to the Father; namely, that He\nshould give them life eternal (verse 2); that He should be glorified with\nthe Father (verse 5); and that in His absence the Father would watch over\nthem, and keep them in His name (verse 11).\n\n*That they may have my joy filled* (made full) *in themselves*. \u201cMy joy\u201d\nmight mean the joy they had received from Christ, or the joy they felt\n_because_ of Christ; but we think the most probable and most natural\nmeaning is: that they may have the joy which _I feel_ in going to the\nFather, made full in themselves. Before this time He had said to them: \u201cIf\nyou loved Me, you would indeed _be glad_, because I go to the Father\u201d\n(xiv. 28); and now He has spoken in this prayer of the glory which awaited\nHim, and of the care of the Father for the Apostles, in order that they\nmay be reconciled to, and fully rejoice in, His departure to the Father.\n\n14. Ego dedi eis sermonem        14. I have given them thy\ntuum, et mundus eos odio         word, and the world hath hated\nhabuit, quia non sunt de         them, because they are not of\nmundo, sicut et ego non sum de   the world; as I am not of the\nmundo.                           world.\n\n14. *I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them.* \u201cI\u201d (\u1f10\u03b3\u03ce)\nis emphatic; I, Thy Son. This is a _fourth_ reason why the Father ought to\nwatch over and guard the Apostles\u2014the world hated them, and this because\nthey had received the words of Christ, which are the words of the Father.\n\nThough _in_ the world, the Apostles were not _of_ the world, not imbued\nwith its spirit, nor pandering to its tastes.\n\n15. Non rogo ut tollas eos de    15. I pray not that thou\nmundo, sed ut serves eos a       shouldst take them out of the\nmalo.                            world, but that thou shouldst\n                                 keep them from evil.\n\n15. *From evil* (\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6). This may refer to the evil of the wicked\nworld which is sin, or to the devil, the _evil one_. The parallel passage\nin 1 John v. 18, 19 favours the latter view. These words, to which the\nApostles were listening, gave them to know that they must not despair, and\nwish to quit the world when trials should come; but rather, remaining in\nthe world, keep themselves unspotted from its defilements.\n\n16. De mundo non sunt, sicut     16. They are not of the world:\net ego non sum de mundo.         as I also am not of the world.\n\n16. The last clause of verse 14 is repeated as the ground of another\npetition, namely, that the Father may \u201csanctify\u201d them.\n\nIn order to emphasize the point in their hearing, and also as a motive why\nGod ought to hear the petition that follows, the fact that the Apostles\nare not men of the world is repeated and insisted upon by Christ.\n\n17. Sanctifica eos in            17. Sanctify them in truth.\nveritate. Sermo tuus veritas     Thy word is truth.\nest.\n\n17. *In the truth*, is the correct reading; not \u201cin _thy_ truth,\u201d nor \u201cin\ntruth.\u201d The word in which they are to be sanctified is probably the word\nof God, which Christ had preached, and which is referred to in the end of\nthe verse: \u201cThy word is truth;\u201d and not, as Mald. holds, the real\nsanctification of the New Law as opposed to the typical and merely\nexternal sanctification by which the priests of the Old Law were set apart\nfor their functions.\n\nIn the Gospel, then, and for the preaching of the Gospel Christ prays that\nthe Apostles may be sanctified. But what does the word \u201csanctify\u201d here\nmean? Sometimes the word \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd signifies to make holy, or to make more\nholy, or to keep more holy (1 Cor. vii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 23); at other\ntimes, it means to set apart or destine for an office; and in this sense\nit is generally used throughout the Old Testament. Both senses are\nprobably combined in the word here, for it was by making and keeping them\nholy that the Apostles were to be efficaciously set apart by the Father\nfor the sacred mission to which Christ had already called them.\n\n18. Sicut tu me misisti in       18. As thou hast sent me into\nmundum, et ego misi eos in       the world, I also have sent\nmundum.                          them into the world.\n\n18. This verse shows that the sanctification is prayed for especially with\na view to their mission as Apostles. *Have sent* (Greek \u201cdid send\u201d) is\nused proleptically, for the Apostles had not yet received their mission to\nthe _Gentile_ world. See John xx. 21; Matthew xxviii. 18, 19; Mark xvi.\n15.\n\n19. Et pro eis ego sanctifico    19. And for them do I sanctify\nmeipsum: ut sint et ipsi         myself: that they also may be\nsanctificati in veritate.        sanctified in truth.\n\n19. *And for them do I sanctify myself.* St. Aug. understands of the\nsanctification wherewith the Son of God sanctified the humanity He\nassumed. \u201cQuando Verbum caro factum est, tunc sanctificavit se in se, id\nest hominem se in Verbo se, quia unus Christus Verbum et homo: propter sua\nvero membra dicit: et pro eis ego sanctifico meipsum, hoc est, ipsos in\nme, quoniam in me etiam ipsi sunt et ego. Ut sint et ipsi sanctificati in\nveritate. Quid est \u2018et ipsi\u2019 nisi quemadmodum ego.\u201d (St. Aug. _in loc._).\n\nBut the common opinion is that Christ speaks of the sacrifice of Himself\nwhich He was about to offer a few hours afterwards. In this view the\nmeaning is: and for them do I set Myself apart, do I consecrate Myself as\na victim, that they may be truly and efficaciously set apart and\nconsecrated for the preaching of the Gospel. Thus while the word\n\u201csanctify\u201d has in both clauses the same generic meaning of setting apart,\nthere is yet a difference. Christ sets Himself apart, devotes Himself to\ndeath, that they may be consecrated in the fulness of grace for the work\nof the Apostleship. Christ sets Himself apart, but the Apostles are\nevidently to be set apart by the Father; that is to say, effectually\nfitted by the Father for the work to which Christ had already called them.\n\n*In truth.* (\u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3). The absence of the Greek article distinguishes\nthis clause from that in verse 17. There the question is of \u201c_the_ truth,\u201d\nthe word of God; here \u201cin truth,\u201d seems to be equivalent to truly,\nreally\u2014that they also may be truly sanctified. Compare 2 John 1; 3 John 1.\n\n20. Non pro eis autem rogo       20. And not for them only do I\ntantum, sed et pro eis qui       pray, but for them also who\ncredituri sunt per verbum        through their word shall\neorum in me:                     believe in me:\n\n20. Instead of *shall believe* the more probable Greek reading has the\npresent tense, as if Christ looked upon the Church of the future as\nactually present. He now prays not alone for the Apostles, but for all who\nshould believe through their preaching. There is direct reference to the\nApostles and their converts, but the prayer of Christ included the\nsuccessors of both.\n\n21. Ut omnes unum sint, sicut    21. That they all may be one,\ntu Pater in me, et ego in te,    as thou, Father, in me, and I\nut et ipsi in nobis unum sint:   in thee: that they also may be\nut credat mundus quia tu me      one in us: that the world may\nmisisti.                         believe that thou hast sent\n                                 me.\n\n21. The unity of the faithful cannot, of course, equal the unity of nature\nin the Persons of the Blessed Trinity; but since it is here compared with\nthe latter, we are justified in concluding that it is as perfect as\npossible; and hence a unity of intellect through faith, of will through\ncharity, and of government through the due subordination of the different\nmembers. Such a moral miracle as this unity implies, must suppose a\n_principle_ of unity in the Church; that is to say, a teaching and ruling\nauthority by which this marvellous unity is Divinely secured.\n\nThe words *That the world may believe that thou hast sent me* show that\nthis unity was to be a _note_ of the true Church, pointing it out even to\nthe wicked world as the Church of God.\n\n22. Et ego claritatem quam       22. And the glory which thou\ndedisti mihi, dedi eis: ut       hast given me, I have given to\nsint unum, sicut et nos unum     them: that they may be one, as\nsumus.                           we also are one.\n\n22. *And the glory which thou hast given me, I have ** given to them.*\nSome understand \u201cthe glory\u201d here mentioned to be the gift of working\nmiracles; others, the glory _about to be enjoyed_ by Christ\u2019s humanity,\nwhich is to be shared in by all the faithful after the day of judgment;\nothers, the glorious privilege of Divine filiation which makes the\nfaithful the adopted sons, as Christ was the natural Son, of God; others,\nin fine, the glory of the Divinity which Christ had just shared with the\nApostles that night, and which He was to share with all the faithful in\nfuture, in giving them His own glorious and Divine Person in the Blessed\nEucharist.\n\nWe believe that either the third or fourth is the correct opinion. But it\nis not easy to choose between these two. The third is the more obvious,\nand is certainly very probable; but in favour of the fourth it must be\nsaid it was very natural that Christ speaking of the union of the faithful\non this night when He had instituted the Blessed Eucharist, should refer\nto that wonderful cause and pledge of union which He had just left to the\nfaithful in the Blessed Sacrament: \u201cFor we, being many, are one bread, one\nbody, all that partake(112) of one bread\u201d (1 Cor. x. 17). See also John\nvi. 57.\n\n23. Ego in eis, et tu in me:     23. I in them, and thou in me:\nut sint consummati in unum: et   that they may be made perfect\ncognoscat mundus, quia tu me     in one; and the world may know\nmisisti, et dilexisti eos,       that thou hast sent me, and\nsicut et me dilexisti.           hast loved them as thou hast\n                                 also loved me.\n\n23. *I in them, and thou in me.* This clause is in apposition to the last\nclause of the preceding verse: \u201cthat they may be one, as we also are one,\u201d\nand explains how the union there spoken of is effected, namely, by the\npresence of Christ in the faithful.\n\n24. Pater, quos dedisti mihi,    24. Father, I will that where\nvolo ut ubi sum ego, et illi     I am, they also whom thou hast\nsint mecum: ut videant           given me may be with me: that\nclaritatem meam, quam dedisti    they may see my glory which\nmihi, quia dilexisti me ante     thou hast given me, because\nconstitutionem mundi.            thou hast loved me before the\n                                 creation of the world.\n\n24. Here, too, as in verses 11, 12, some of the critics read the neuter\npronoun \u1f43 (that which) instead of \u1f41\u1f7a\u03c2 (they whom). The Vulgate reading is\nat least equally probable. Having prayed in verses 20\u201021 for all the\nfaithful, Christ now continues His prayer for the Apostles, as a\ncomparison of this verse with verses 11 and 12 proves. And this, His last\npetition for them, is, that they may one day be made partakers of that\nglory which He as God enjoyed eternally, and into which as man He was to\nenter at His ascension.\n\n*That they may see my glory*; that is to say, see and enjoy the glory of\nMy Divinity (reflected also in My humanity; see above on verse 5). We\nbelieve there is not question merely of the glory of Christ\u2019s humanity,\nfor He seems to pray here that the Apostles may enjoy the bliss of heaven,\nwhich does not consist in the vision of Christ\u2019s humanity, but in the\nvision and enjoyment of the Divinity. If this is the correct view, and we\nthink, with A Lap., that it is, then this glory was given from all\neternity to the Son. The words: *Because thou hast loved me*, do not, in\nthis view, state the _cause_ of the communication of the eternal glory of\nthe Father to the Son. See above on chapter v., verse 20.\n\nIf the words be understood, as St. Aug. understood them, of Christ\u2019s\nhumanity, then the meaning is: Share with My Apostles the glory which Thou\nart _about to bestow_ upon Me because from all eternity Thou hast loved\nMe, and predestined Me _as man_ for this glory. In this view the love of\nthe Father for Christ as man is the reason why He glorifies Christ\u2019s\nhumanity.\n\nThe phrase *before the creation of the world*, or more accurately, \u201cbefore\nthe foundation of the world,\u201d denotes that the world is not eternal; while\nChrist\u2019s claim to have been loved by the Father before creation, is a\nclaim to personal existence before the world began, and indirectly,\ntherefore, a claim to an eternal Personality.\n\n25. Pater iuste, mundus te non   25. Just Father, the world\ncognovit: ego autem te           hath not known thee: but I\ncognovi, et hi cognoverunt       have known thee: and these\nquia te me misisti.              have known, that thou hast\n                                 sent me.\n26. Et notum feci eis nomen      26. And I have made known thy\ntuum, et notum faciam: ut        name to them, and will make it\ndilectio, qua dilexisti me, in   known; that the love wherewith\nipsis sit, et ego in ipsis.      thou hast loved me, may be in\n                                 them, and I in them.\n\n25, 26. These verses give a reason why the Father who is _just_, and who\nrewards man\u2019s merits, even though these merits are themselves the result\nof His grace, ought to hear Christ\u2019s prayer. The reason is, because He who\nprays had known and loved the Father, and they for whom He prays had known\nand received Himself as the Messias. Moreover, He had made known the\nFather to them, and would do so still more, afterwards, through the Holy\nGhost.\n\n*That the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in\nthem.* Here He states His object in making known the Father\u2019s name. It was\nin order that the special love of the Father might extend to them, and\nthat He Himself might remain intimately united to them by His grace, and\nby the presence of the Divinity in their souls.\n\nWith these beautiful and consoling words, which bespoke the special love\nof the Father for the Apostles, and His own enduring presence with them\nnotwithstanding His departure, Christ concludes this sublime prayer to His\neternal Father.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\n\n    1\u20107. *Jesus retires to the Garden of Gethsemani, where, having\n    been betrayed by Judas, He freely delivers Himself up, after He\n    had first shown His almighty power, by casting His enemies to the\n    ground.*\n\n    8\u201011. *He requests that the Apostles be allowed to depart\n    unmolested, and forbids Peter to defend Him with the sword.*\n\n    12\u201014. *He is seized, bound, and led before Annas.*\n\n    15\u201027. *He is led before Caiphas, followed by Peter and John, and\n    while being examined there, is thrice denied by Peter.*\n\n    28\u201038. *He is led before Pilate, the Roman Governor, and examined\n    by him.*\n\n    39\u201040. *Pilate attempts to release Jesus, but the crowd calls for\n    the release of Barabbas.*\n\n\n1. Haec cum dixisset Iesus,      1. When Jesus had said these\negressus est cum discipulis      things, he went forth with his\nsuis trans torrentem Cedron,     disciples over the brook\nubi erat hortus in quem          Cedron, where there was a\nintroivit ipse, et discipuli     garden, into which he entered\neius.                            with his disciples.\n\n1. Having finished His last discourses to the Apostles, and His prayer to\nthe Father, Jesus accompanied by the Apostles now proceeds towards Mount\nOlivet (Matt xxvi. 36; Mark xiv. 32), crossing the brook of Cedron on His\nway. As we stated already, we believe that the discourse (xv. 1\u2010xvi. 33)\nand the prayer after the Last Supper were not spoken while Christ and the\nApostles passed along, but at some point of rest either outside the\nSupper\u2010room or along the way. See above on xiv. 31. Nor are we to suppose\nfrom the words of this verse, \u201cHe went forth,\u201d that it was only now Christ\nand the Apostles left the Supper\u2010room. As we remarked already, had Christ\nand the Apostles not left the Supper\u2010room when He gave the word to do so\n(xiv. 31), St. John would very probably have noted the fact, and added\nsome word of explanation. In the verse before us, then, there is not\nquestion of going forth from the Supper\u2010room but of going forth from the\ncity. Comp. Matthew xxvi. 30, 36; Mark xiv. 26, 32.\n\n*Over the brook Cedron.* Many authorities read \u201cover the brook of the\ncedars\u201d (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd). *Where there was a garden.* SS. Matthew and Mark say\nthat He came to \u201can enclosed piece of ground\u201d (\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd), called Gethsemani.\n\u201cGethsemani\u2014\u05d2\u05ea, (gath) = a wine\u2010press, and \u05e9\u05c2\u05de\u05df (shemen) = oil\u2014was the\nspot where the prediction of Isaias was fulfilled: \u2018I have trodden the\nwine press alone\u2019 (Isaias lxviii. 3). A modern garden, enclosed by a wall,\nin which are some old olive\u2010trees, said to date from the time of Christ,\nis now pointed out as the Garden of Gethsemani. It is on the left bank of\nthe Kedron, about seven hundred and thirty feet from the east wall of the\ncity, and immediately south of the road, from St. Stephen\u2019s Gate to the\nsummit of Olivet .... This garden is, there is little reason to doubt, the\nspot alluded to by Eusebius, when he says (_O. S._, 2, pp. 248, 18) that\n\u2018Gethsemane was at the foot of the Mount of Olives, and was then a place\nof prayer for the faithful\u2019 \u201d (Smith\u2019s _B. D._, _sub voc_).\n\nThe Cedron is a small _winter\u2010flowing_ (\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03bf\u03bd) stream, which passes\nthrough the ravine below the eastern wall of Jerusalem, and separates the\nMount of Olives from the Temple mount. For mention of it in the Old\nTestament see 3 Kings ii. 37; xv. 13; 4 Kings xxi. ii. 4; Jer. xxxi. 40.\n\nSt. John passes over the history of the prayer in the garden, of the\nappearance of the angel to strengthen Christ, and of the sweat of blood,\nbecause all this had been already recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists.\n(Matt. xxvi. 38\u201044; Mark xiv. 34\u201040; Luke xxii. 40\u201044.)\n\n2. Sciebat autem et Iudas qui    2. And Judas also, who\ntradebat eum, locum: quia        betrayed him, knew the place:\nfrequenter Iesus convenerant     because Jesus had often\nilluc cum discipulis suis.       resorted thither together with\n                                 his disciples.\n\n2. *Who betrayed him.* In the original the present participle marks the\nprocess of betrayal as going on. *Jesus had often resorted thither with\nhis disciples.* The original might be rendered more exactly \u201cJesus and\n(with) his disciples often assembled there.\u201d We know from St. Luke xxi.\n37, that our Lord on the occasion of this last visit to Jerusalem was in\nthe habit of spending His nights on Mount Olivet, and the same Evangelist\ntells us that, on this occasion after the Last Supper, \u201cgoing out he went\naccording to his custom to the Mount of Olives\u201d (Luke xxii. 39).\n\n3. Iudas ergo cum accepisset     3. Judas therefore having\ncohortem, et a pontificibus et   received a band of soldiers,\npharisaeis ministros, venit      and servants from the chief\nilluc cum laternis, et           priests and the Pharisees,\nfacibus, et armis.               cometh thither with lanterns\n                                 and torches and weapons.\n\n3. *A band of soldiers.* If \u201cthe band\u201d here means a whole cohort, it was\nthe tenth part of a Roman legion, and contained about six hundred\ninfantry, with thirty cavalry. The words of this verse, as well as the\npresence of the \u201ctribune\u201d (verse 12), who was the commander of a cohort,\njustify the belief that a whole cohort was present on this occasion. Very\nlikely the authorities were afraid that a strongly\u2010supported attempt might\nbe made to save or rescue Christ from them. This large body of soldiers,\nstrengthened by servants or officers of the temple (\u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2) who were\nsent by the chief\u2010priests and Pharisees, came furnished with arms and\nlights. As it was now full moon, this being the night of the 14th of the\nlunar month Nisan, it might seem that the lights were unnecessary, but\nprobably the garden was considerably shaded by trees, and no doubt it was\nfeared that Jesus might try to hide in some dark nook or lurk beneath the\nshrubs or trees.\n\n4. Iesus itaque sciens omnia     4. Jesus therefore knowing all\nquae ventura erant super eum,    things that should come upon\nprocessit, et dixit eis: Quem    him, went forth, and said to\nquaeritis?                       them: Whom seek ye?\n\n4. Christ\u2019s foreknowledge is pointed out, both to prove His Divinity, and\nto show His readiness to suffer. For, though aware of the sufferings He\nwas to endure, He did not seek to escape from them. He who had before\nwithdrawn from His enemies (viii. 59; xii. 36, &c.), now that His hour was\ncome, _went forth_ (from the enclosure of the garden) to meet them.\n\nWe learn from St. Luke (xxii. 47) that Judas preceded the soldiers, and\ngave the traitor\u2019s kiss to Jesus, thus marking Him out as the person to be\narrested. We learn too from St. Matthew (xxvi. 50), that Jesus addressed\nthe traitor, even in this hour of infamy as His friend: \u201cFriend, whereto\nart thou come?\u201d and from St. Luke (xxii. 48), that He addressed to him the\npathetic words: \u201cJudas, dost thou betray the Son of Man with a kiss?\u201d\nAfter meekly receiving the kiss from the wretched Apostle, Jesus addressed\nthe crowd.\n\n5. Responderunt ei: Iesum        5. They answered him: Jesus of\nNazarenum. Dicit eis Iesus:      Nazareth. Jesus saith to them:\nEgo sum. Stabat autem et Iudas   I am he. And Judas also, who\nqui tradebat eum, cum ipsis.     betrayed him, stood with them.\n6. Ut ergo dixit eis, Ego sum,   6. As soon therefore as he had\nabierunt retrorsum, et           said to them: I am he: they\nceciderunt in terram.            went backward, and fell to the\n                                 ground.\n\n5, 6. If our view is correct, that the traitor\u2019s kiss had preceded\nChrist\u2019s question: \u201cWhom seek ye?\u201d then it would seem that the soldiers\nwere withheld by Divine power from at once rushing on Jesus; and in order\nto visibly prove His power and His ability to escape from them if He\nwished, they were stricken to the ground. This prostration of Christ\u2019s\nenemies cannot be explained on natural grounds.\n\n7. Iterum ergo interrogavit      7. Again therefore he asked\neos: Quem quaeritis? Illi        them: Whom seek ye? And they\nautem dixerunt: Iesum            said: Jesus of Nazareth.\nNazarenum.\n8. Respondit Iesus: Dixi vobis   8. Jesus answered, I have told\nquia ego sum: si ergo me         you, that I am he. If\nquaeritis, sinite hos abire.     therefore you seek me, let\n                                 these go their way.\n\n8. *Let these go their way.* The meaning obviously is, do not arrest or\nmolest these My disciples.\n\n9. Ut impleretur sermo quem      9. That the word might be\ndixit; Quia quos dedisti mihi,   fulfilled, which he said: Of\nnon perdidi ex eis quemquam.     them whom thou hast given me,\n                                 I have not lost any one.\n\n9. The Evangelist sees in Christ\u2019s care for the safety of the disciples on\nthis occasion a fulfilment of His words recorded in xvii. 12. It is true\nthose words as spoken seem to refer only to the time then past, but as\nChrist then knew that He would continue to guard the Apostles from danger\nduring the few hours of His life that remained, He meant the words to\nexpress His care for the Apostles up to the moment of His death, and\ntherefore on this occasion at Gethsemani. His present action was,\naccordingly, one fulfilment of what is recorded in xvii. 12. We believe\nthat Christ\u2019s care for the Apostles in the present instance regarded their\nbodies as well as their souls. That it regarded their bodies, may be\nfairly concluded from His words: \u201clet these go their way;\u201d and that it\nregarded their souls is clear from the consideration that if arrested now\nthey would probably have fallen into sin by denying Him.\n\n10. Simon ergo Petrus habens     10. Then Simon Peter having a\ngladium eduxit eum: et           sword, drew it; and struck the\npercussit pontificis servum:     servant of the high\u2010priest,\net abscidit auriculam eius       and cut off his right ear. And\ndexteram. Erat autem nomen       the name of the servant was\nservo Malchus.                   Malchus.\n\n10. The Synoptic Evangelists merely say that _one_ of those who were with\nJesus struck the servant of the high\u2010priest, but St. John tells us that\nthis one was Peter. The Synoptists may have suppressed Peter\u2019s name\nthrough fear of inconvenient consequences to him, but now that the Prince\nof the Apostles was dead, there was no further reason for such\nconcealment. We cannot say whether any other motive than a desire for\nhistoric completeness prompted St. John to give, as he does, the servant\u2019s\nname as well as Peter\u2019s.\n\n11. Dixit ergo Iesus Petro:      11. Jesus therefore said to\nMitte gladium tuum in vaginam.   Peter: Put up thy sword into\nCalicem, quem dedit mihi         the scabbard. The chalice\nPater, non bibam illum?          which my Father hath given me,\n                                 shall I not drink it?\n\n11. *Put up thy sword into the scabbard.* The words are given more fully\nby St. Matt. (xxvi. 52, ff). *The chalice ... shall I not drink it?* In\nMatt. xxvi. 39, we read that on this same night, and in Gethsemani, before\nthe arrival of Judas, Christ had prayed: \u201cFather, if it be possible, let\nthis chalice pass from me;\u201d but now, since it was not to pass, He accepts\nit willingly.\n\n12. Cohors ergo, et tribunus     12. Then the band and the\net ministri Iudaeorum            tribune, and the servants of\ncomprehenderunt Iesum, et        the Jews, took Jesus, and\nligaverunt eum:                  bound him:\n\n12. The *tribune* was the commander of the cohort. \u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, strictly\ntaken, means the commander of one thousand men. See above on verse 3.\n\n13. Et adduxerunt eum ad Annam   13. And they led him away to\nprimum: erat enim socer          Annas first, for he was\nCaiphae, qui erat pontifex       father\u2010in\u2010law to Caiphas, who\nanni illius.                     was high\u2010priest of that year.\n\n13. This journey to Annas is mentioned only by St. John. Annas, though not\nthe actual high\u2010priest, was the head of the Sanhedrim, and a man of great\nauthority among the Jews (see above on xi. 49), and so Jesus was brought\nbefore him in the first instance.\n\n14. Erat autem Caiphas, qui      14. Now Caiphas was he who had\nconsilium dederat Iudaeis:       given the counsel to the Jews,\nQuia expedit, unum hominem       that it was expedient that one\nmori pro populo.                 man should die for the people.\n15. Sequebatur autem Iesum       15. And Simon Peter followed\nSimon Petrus, et alias           Jesus, and so did another\ndiscipulus. Discipulus autem     disciple. And that disciple\nille erat notus pontifici, et    was known to the high\u2010priest,\nintroivit cum Iesu in atrium     and went in with Jesus into\npontificis.                      the court of the high\u2010priest.\n\n15. The other disciple was almost certainly our Evangelist himself (see\nIntrod. I. B. 2); and the fact that he was known to the high\u2010priest makes\nit probable that he belonged to a family of some importance.\n\nBut who is the high\u2010priest into whose court Peter and John followed Jesus?\nIs it Caiphas that is meant, or Annas? Some think the reference is to\nAnnas, who, it must be admitted, is called \u201chigh\u2010priest\u201d by St. Luke (Luke\niii. 2; Acts iv. 6), and to whom it has just been stated, in verse 13,\nthat Jesus was led. But as our Evangelist has just stated in verse 13, as\nhe also does in xi. 49, that Caiphas was high\u2010priest for that year, we\nprefer to hold that the \u201chigh\u2010priest\u201d here referred to is not Annas, but\nCaiphas. We hold, then, that what is recorded by St. John in this passage\n(verses 15\u201023) took place in the court of Caiphas, after Jesus had been\nled thither from Annas, and that verse 24: \u201cAnnas (_had_) sent,\u201d &c., is\nadded by St. John to guard the reader against supposing that what is\nrecorded in verses 15\u201023 took place at the house of Annas. St. Cyril of\nAlexandria, and a few Greek and Syrian MSS. read verse 24 between verses\n13 and 14.\n\nIn this view the account of St. John harmonizes at once with the Synoptic\nGospels, which represent St. Peter\u2019s first denial, recorded in verse 17\nhere, as taking place in the court of Caiphas.\n\nMany commentators of note, such as Patrizzi among Catholics, and Alford\namong Protestants, reconcile St. John\u2019s account with that of the Synoptic\nEvangelists in another way. They hold that the events recorded in verses\n15\u201023 took place when Jesus was brought before Annas; but as Caiphas and\nAnnas occupied an official residence in common, or as Annas was, perhaps,\nthe guest of Caiphas, his son\u2010in\u2010law, on this night of the Paschal Supper,\nthough it was _Annas_ who examined Christ, as recorded by St. John (verses\n10\u201023), yet it was to the court of Caiphas, or the common court attached\nto the house of Annas and Caiphas, that Jesus entered (verse 15); and\nthere, too, St. Peter denied His Master for the first time. In any of the\nabove opinions, St. John agrees with the Synoptic Evangelists, that the\nplace of St. Peter\u2019s first denial was the court of Caiphas: but in the\nsecond opinion, the \u201chigh priest\u201d of verse 19 is Annas, not Caiphas. See\nPatriz., Liber ii. Adnot. clxxvii.\n\nFrom St. Matthew (xxvi. 59) and St. Mark (xiv. 55) we learn that Caiphas\nwas not alone on this occasion. The whole Sanhedrim was present; but as\nthe case was an important one, this body had to meet again formally after\nday\u2010dawn, to finally decide it. See below on verse 28.\n\n16. Petrus autem stabat ad       16. But Peter stood at the\nostium foris. Exivit ergo        door without. The other\ndiscipulus alius qui erat        disciple therefore who was\nnotus pontifici, et dixit        known to the high\u2010priest, went\nostiariae: et introduxit         out, and spoke to the\nPetrum.                          portress, and brought in\n                                 Peter.\n\n16. *But Peter stood* (was standing) *at the door without*. \u201cAn oriental\nhouse is usually built round a quadrangular interior court; into which\nthere is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part of the house,\nclosed next the street by a heavy folding gate, with a small wicket for\nsingle persons, kept by a porter. In the text, the interior court, often\npaved or flagged, and open to the sky, is the \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03ae, where the attendants\nmade a fire; and the passage, beneath the front of the house, from the\nstreet to this court is the \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (Mark xiv. 68), or \u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd (Matt.\nxxvi. 71). The place where Jesus stood before the high\u2010priest may have\nbeen an open room or place of audience on the ground\u2010floor, raised\nsomewhat above the court (Mark xiv. 66) in the rear or on one side of the\ncourt; such rooms, open in front, being customary\u201d (Robinson, _Notes to\nHarmony_).\n\n17. Dicit ergo Petro ancilla     17. The maid therefore that\nostiaria: Numquid et tu ex       was portress, saith to Peter:\ndiscipulis es hominis istius?    Art not thou also one of this\nDicit ille: Non sum.             man\u2019s disciples? He saith: I\n                                 am not.\n\n17. It will be convenient to treat of the three denials by Peter (verses\n17, 25\u201027) together. Many Rationalist and Protestant commentators have\nalleged that it is impossible to harmonize the different accounts of these\ndenials. We hope to show, however, that there is little difficulty in\nharmonizing them.\n\nTo this end we would draw attention, with Dean Alford,(113) to the\nfollowing points:\u2014\n\n\u201cIn the first place, we are not bound to require accordance ... in the\n_recognition_ of Peter _by different persons_. These may have been _many_\non _each occasion_ of denial, and independent narrators may have fixed on\ndifferent ones among them.\u201d\n\n\u201cSecondly, no reader ... will require that the _actual words spoken by\nPeter_ should in each case be _identically reported_.\u201d In support of this\nview, Alford refers to the remarks of St. Augustine on the words: \u201cDomine,\nsalva nos, perimus\u201d (Matt. viii. 25). \u201cWhat matters it,\u201d says St. Aug.,\nreferring to the different versions of the words given by the Evangelists,\n\u201cwhether the disciples, in calling on the Lord, really used one or another\nof those three expressions, or some other, not recorded by any of the\nEvangelists, differing from all those that are recorded, but still giving\nthe sense, that those who called upon Him were perishing, and called on\nHim to save them.\u201d\n\n\u201cThirdly, I do not see that we are obliged to limit the narrative to\n_three sentences_ from Peter\u2019s mouth, _and no more_. On _three occasions_\nduring the night he was _recognised_, on _three occasions he was a denier_\nof his Lord: such a statement may well embrace _reiterated expressions of\nrecognition_, and _reiterated and importunate denials on each occasion_.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd those remarks being taken into account, I premise that all difficulty\nis removed, the resulting inference being that the narratives are\n_genuine, truthful accounts of facts underlying them all_.\u201d\n\nSimilarly, Patrizzi:\u2014\u201cConsiderare etiam juvat, ut ea difficultas quam\nquidam in hac historia esse putant, quod alter Evangelista ait Petrum a\nmuliere, alter a viro, hic ab uno, ille a pluribus, fuisse interrogatum,\nin specie quidem gravis, re tamen ipsa propemodum nulla sit; ex his enim\nnihil aliud consequitur, nisi, non unum, sed plures, sive simul, sive\nalium post alios, Petrum esse percontatos, hunc autem, nisi multis ac\nrepetitis interrogationibus adactum non respondisse, quod apprime veri\nsimile est, imo vix dubitandum de hoc foret, etiamsi ex evangeliis id\nminime colligeretur\u201d (Lib. ii. Adnot. clxxviii.) That the reader may apply\nthese principles, and convince himself as to their sufficiency, we quote\nfrom Dr. Walsh\u2019s _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, a tabulated statement\nsuggesting the chief points to be attended to in the four Gospel accounts.\n\n\n    1st Denial:\n\n    ST. MATTHEW.: There came to him _a maid servant_: \u201cThou also wast\n    with Jesus the Galilean.\u201d \u201cI know not what thou sayest.\u201d\n\n    ST. MARK.: There cometh to him _one of the maid servants_: \u201cThou\n    also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.\u201d \u201cI neither know nor understand\n    what thou sayest.\u201d\n\n    ST. LUKE.: There came a _certain maid servant_: \u201cThis man was also\n    with him.\u201d \u201cWoman, I know him not.\u201d\n\n    ST. JOHN.: And _the maid that was portress_ said to Peter: \u201cArt\n    not thou also one of this man\u2019s disciples?\u201d \u201cI am not.\u201d\n\n    2nd Denial:\n\n    ST. MATTHEW.: _As he went out_ to the vestibule, _another maid_\n    saw him, and she saith to them that were there: \u201cThis man also was\n    with Jesus of Nazareth.\u201d He denied with an oath: \u201cI do not know\n    the man.\u201d\n\n    ST. MARK.: And _the maid servant_ seeing him, began to say to the\n    standers by: \u201cThis is one of them.\u201d He denied again.\n\n    ST. LUKE.: And _another (Alius)_ says: \u201cThou also art one of\n    them.\u201d \u201c_O man_, I am not.\u201d\n\n    ST. JOHN.: Peter was _standing and warming himself_; and they said\n    to him: \u201cArt not thou also one of his disciples?\u201d \u201cI am not.\u201d\n\n    3rd Denial:\n\n    ST. MATTHEW.: _They that stood by_ said: \u201cSurely thou also art one\n    of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.\u201d He began to\n    curse and swear that he knew not the man.\n\n    ST. MARK.: _They that stood by_ said: \u201cSurely thou art one of\n    them; for thou also art a Galilean.\u201d He began to curse and swear,\n    saying: \u201cI know not this man of whom you speak.\u201d\n\n    ST. LUKE.: _Another man_ said: \u201cSurely this man was with him, for\n    he is a Galilean.\u201d \u201cMan, I know not what thou sayest.\u201d\n\n    ST. JOHN.: _One of the servants of the high priest_ saith: \u201cDid I\n    not see thee in the garden with him?\u201d Peter then denied again.\n\n\nThus, it is plain that there is no difficulty in regard to the _first_\ndenial, whether we suppose that St. Peter made use of the different\nexpressions attributed to him, or, as seems more probable in regard to\nthis first occasion, used only one expression, which is _substantially_\nreported by the four Evangelists.\n\nIn regard to the _second_ denial it is to be noted\u2014\n\n(_a_) That according to SS. Matthew and Mark the maid does not address\nherself to Peter, but to those who were around; so that there is no\ndifficulty when we learn from St. Luke that Peter was addressed by a man\n(_alius_) on the occasion.\n\n(_b_) St. Matthew, in the account of this denial, speaks of a _different_\nmaid from her who brought about the first denial. St. Mark seems to speak\nof the _same_ maid, for he has \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7 (xiv. 69), which would seem to\nrefer to _the_ maid already mentioned. There is nothing improbable,\nhowever, in supposing that _two_ maids spoke to those around on the\noccasion of the second denial.\n\n(_c_) As to the _place_ of the second denial, St. John says that it\noccurred while \u201cPeter was standing and warming himself,\u201d while St. Matthew\nsays it occurred \u201cas he went out to the vestibule,\u201d or more correctly,\naccording to the Greek, \u201cafter he _had gone_ out\u201d (\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1) into the\nvestibule. But again we may readily explain by saying that on this\noccasion Peter was challenged in _both places_, and denied in both.\n\nIn regard to the _third_ denial, the reason given, in St. John, by the\nhigh\u2010priest\u2019s servant, for identifying Peter as a follower of Jesus, is\ndifferent from that given in the other Evangelists; but there is no\ndifficulty in supposing that several different reasons were given by\ndifferent persons.\n\n18. Stabant autem servi et       18. Now the servants and\nministri ad prunas, quia         ministers stood at a fire of\nfrigus erat, et calefaciebant    coals, because it was cold,\nse: erat autem cum eis et        and warmed themselves. And\nPetrus stans, et calefaciens     with them was Peter also\nse.                              standing, warming himself.\n\n18. We are not to connect this verse with the preceding, as if it\nindicated that Peter was _standing_ during the first denial. We know from\nSt. Matthew (xxvi. 69; Comp. Mark xiv. 54; Luke xxii. 55) that he was\n_sitting_, and from St. Mark (xiv. 68) that after the first denial he went\nout into the passage or vestibule (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd). Hence what St. John\nsays here is to be understood in reference to a time between the first and\nsecond denial.\n\nThe Greek here is somewhat different from the Vulgate. It would be\nrendered: \u201cNow the servants and the officers were standing, having made a\nfire of charcoal, for it was cold, and they were warming themselves,\u201d &c.\nThe Roman soldiers had, doubtless, gone back to their quarters in the\ncastle of Antonia, close to the Temple; and hence we find mention here of\nonly the servants of the high\u2010priest and the Temple guards.\n\n19. Pontifex ergo interrogavit   19. The high\u2010priest therefore\nIesum de discipulis suis, et     asked Jesus of his disciples,\nde doctrina eius.                and of his doctrine.\n\n19. Meantime, while Peter was denying Him in the court, Jesus was being\nexamined by the high\u2010priest in a room or hall of the house of Caiphas. See\nabove on verse 16. As we have said already, we believe that Caiphas is the\n\u201chigh\u2010priest\u201d here referred to; so that St. John here supplements the\naccount given by the Synoptic Evangelists of the preliminary trial, before\nCaiphas (Matt, xxvi 59\u201068; Mark xiv. 55\u201065; Luke xxii. 54\u201063). From the\nother Evangelists we learn that many false witnesses now appeared against\nJesus; but the inquiry regarding His _disciples_ and _doctrine_ here\nrecorded by St. John is mentioned by no other Evangelist.\n\nThe inquiry regarding Christ\u2019s disciples was probably intended to find out\nwhether He had collected these followers around Him with any seditious or\nunlawful object; and that regarding His doctrine in the hope of convicting\nHim from His own mouth of blasphemy. Later on in this trial, as we learn\nfrom SS. Matt. and Mark, they did condemn Him of blasphemy, and judge Him\ndeserving of death.\n\n20. Respondit ei Iesus: Ego      20. Jesus answered him: I have\npalam locutus sum mundo: ego     spoken openly to the world: I\nsemper docui in synagoga, et     have always taught in the\nin templo, quo omnes Iudaei      synagogue, and in the temple,\nconveniunt: et in occulto        whither all the Jews resort;\nlocutus sum nihil.               and in secret I have spoken\n                                 nothing.\n\n20. Jesus makes no reply regarding His disciples, because it was\nsufficiently plain that they followed Him from no unworthy motive, but for\nsake of His doctrine and its fruits. Of His doctrine, therefore He speaks.\nBut since He, of all teachers (the twice\u2010repeated \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce is in each instance\nemphatic) had taught publicly, and nothing in private _that was different\nfrom_ His public teaching (or the meaning may be, nothing that He tried to\nhide), He refers his interrogator to those who had heard Him, as their\ntestimony ought naturally to be sought rather than His in a matter that so\nintimately concerned Himself.\n\n21. Quid me interrogas?          21. Why askest thou me? ask\ninterroga eos qui audierunt      them who have heard what I\nquid locutus sim ipsis? ecce     have spoken unto them: behold\nhi sciunt quae dixerim ego.      they know what things I have\n                                 said.\n\n21. *Behold they* (these, \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9) *know what things I have said*. Some\nthink that Christ here referred, perhaps pointed, to the Priests and\nPharisees around him, or to the crowd in the court outside; for we know\nfrom St. Luke (xxii. 61) that those outside in the court were visible from\nthe hall where Christ was being examined. It may be, however, that \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\nrefers simply to all and any who had at any time heard His doctrine.\n\n22. Haec autem cum dixisset,     22. And when he had said these\nunus assistens ministrorum       things, one of the servants\ndedit alapam Iesu, dicens: Sic   standing by gave Jesus a blow,\nrespondes pontifici?             saying: Answerest thou the\n                                 high\u2010priest so?\n\n22. *A blow.* \u201cAlapa\u201d is a blow on the ear; but the Greek word (\u1fe5\u03ac\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1)\nsignifies any blow with the open hand or with a rod or stick. The blow was\ngiven by one of the Temple guards.\n\n23. Respondit ei Iesus: Si       23. Jesus answered him: If I\nmale locutus sum, testimonium    have spoken evil, give\nperhibe de malo: si autem        testimony of the evil: but if\nbene, quid me caedis?            well, why strikest thou me?\n\n23. *If I have spoken* (rather, spoke) *evil*. It is not clear whether the\nreference is to the words just uttered in reply to the high\u2010priest (verse\n21), or to the general teaching of Christ. The use of the aorist here,\njust as in verses 20 and 21, is in favour of the latter view.\n\nWe have here an example of Christ\u2019s meekness and patience in very trying\ncircumstances, a practical application of the words contained in Matt. v.\n39.\n\n24. Et misit eum Annas ligatum   24. And Annas sent him bound\nad Caipham pontificem.           to Caiphas the high\u2010priest.\n\n24. \u201cEt\u201d is not genuine; the true reading is \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u201cJesus,\ntherefore, had sent him,\u201d &c.(114) We take it that this is added by St.\nJohn to signify that Jesus _had been_ already sent to Caiphas before the\nevents recorded in verses 15\u201023. \u201cMisit\u201d ought, then, to be \u201cmiserat,\u201d a\nsense which the Aorist \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd admits. Compare, for this sense of the\naorist, John iv. 45, 46; xi. 30; xiii. 12; xix. 23.\n\n25. Erat autem Simon Petrus      25. And Simon Peter was\nstans, et calefaciens se.        standing, and warming himself.\nDixerunt ergo ei: Numquid et     They said therefore to him:\ntu ex discipulis eius es?        Art not thou also one of his\nNegavit ille, et dixit: Non      disciples? He denied it, and\nsum.                             said: I am not.\n26. Dicit ei unus ex servis      26. One of the servants of the\npontificis, cognatus eius,       high\u2010priest (a kinsman to him\ncuius abscidit Petrus            whose ear Peter cut off) saith\nauriculam: Nonne ego te vidi     to him: Did I not see thee in\nin horto cum illo?               the garden with him?\n\n25, 26. Here we have St. John\u2019s account of Peter\u2019s second and third\ndenial. See above on verse 17. We learn from St. Luke that the third\ndenial took place about an hour after the second.\n\n27. Iterum ergo negavit          27. Again therefore Peter\nPetrus: et statim gallus         denied: and immediately the\ncantavit.                        cock crew.\n\n27. From St. Mark, who, being a disciple of St. Peter, generally records\nmore minutely the incidents connected with the Prince of the Apostles, we\nlearn that the cock crew after St. Peter\u2019s _first_ denial, as well as\nafter the third. But, as we explained on xiii. 38, the second crowing,\nwhich took place after the third denial, occurred at the time ordinarily\nknown as cockcrow, and to it St. John refers here.\n\n28. Adducunt ergo Iesum a        28. Then they led Jesus from\nCaipha in praetorium. Erat       Caiphas to the governor\u2019s\nautem mane: et ipsi non          hall. And it was morning: and\nintroierunt in praetorium, ut    they went not into the hall,\nnon contaminarentur, sed ut      that they might not be\nmanducarent pascha.              defiled, but that they might\n                                 eat the pasch.\n\n28. The Evangelist here passes over much that had already been recorded by\nthe Synoptic Evangelists. From them we learn that Christ, at this midnight\nmeeting before the Council, was accused by false witnesses, convicted of\nblasphemy, and judged deserving of death (Matt. xxvi. 66; Mark xiv. 64).\nThen he was apparently given over to the charge of the servants of the\nhigh\u2010priest, was spat upon and struck with the closed fist (_colaphis_)\n(Mat. xxvi. 67), and with the open hand or a stick (\u1fe5\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd); and,\nbeing blindfolded, was mockingly asked to tell who it was that struck him.\nThus He remained, perhaps, till daybreak,(115) mocked and abused by the\nservants; though some think that for a part of the time He was put into\nprison.\n\nThen when morning was come, the Synoptic Evangelists tell us that Jesus\nwas again brought before the Sanhedrim, which almost at once decided to\nhand him over to Pilate for punishment. \u201cFrom Luke (as also, he might have\nadded, from Matt. xxvii. 1; Mark xv. 1) we learn that the night council\nhad been dissolved and that early again, in the morning of the last day of\nour Lord\u2019s life, another more solemn assembly (rather the same assembly)\nwas summoned, at which all the chief\u2010priests and elders and scribes\nassisted, the subject of discussion being urgent and most important. It\nwas, besides, a wise Jewish maxim that legal proceedings especially in\ncapital cases should be conducted in the light of day, and not in the\ndarkness of night\u201d (M\u2019Carthy on St. Matt. xxvii. 1).\n\nIt was after this morning council that Jesus was bound (Matt. xxvii. 2;\nMark xv. 1) and led before Pilate, as St. John here narrates. At this\npoint, when the Lord was brought before Pilate, and His death now seemed\ncertain, Judas, touched with remorse, but not with true repentance,\nbrought back the blood\u2010money to the priests, and flung it in the temple;\nthen in despair went and hanged himself (Matt. xxvii. 3\u20105).\n\n*Then they led Jesus.* The true reading is: \u201cthey lead Jesus therefore.\u201d\nThat is to say, in accordance with their determination to put Christ to to\ndeath, a determination of which we are informed by St. Matthew (xxvii. 1),\nthey bring Him before the representative of Roman authority to have the\nsentence of death confirmed. See below on verse 29.\n\n*And they went not into ** the hall* (rather, the governor\u2019s residence,\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.) The Roman Governors ordinarily dwelt at Caesarea, on the sea\ncoast; but at the more important Jewish festivals they resided in\nJerusalem, for the purpose of preventing or repressing, if necessary, any\nuprising of the Jewish people against Roman authority (Josephus, _Bell.\nJud._, ii. 14, 3). When in Jerusalem, they usually occupied the palace of\nHerod the Great on Mount Sion. A tradition as old as the fourth century,\nhowever, states that on this occasion Pilate was staying in the castle of\nAntonia, beside the temple on Mount Moria.\n\n*And it was morning* (\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u0390). Just as a condemnation to death at night was\ntechnically illegal according to Jewish law, so a Roman court could not be\nheld till after sunrise. It is likely that the sun was not long risen on\nthis morning till the Jews in their eagerness appeared with their prisoner\nat the residence of Pilate. The term \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u0390 is, in fact, used in St. Mark\nxiii. 35, for the fourth watch of the night.\n\n*That they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch.*\n\nIn our note on xiii. 1 we held that the Jews, as well as our Lord,\nsacrificed the Paschal lamb on Thursday evening, and eat it that night;\nand hence we hold that \u201cthe Pasch\u201d here referred to, which on this Friday\nmorning was still to be eaten, was not the Paschal lamb. Had there been\nquestion of the Paschal Supper proper, then such a defilement as that\ncontracted by entering the house of a Gentile would not have prevented the\nJews from partaking of the supper; for it would appear from Lev. xv. 5,\nwhere there is question of a defilement apparently as serious as that\nwhich would be contracted from entering the house of a Gentile, that such\ndefilement continued only \u201cuntil the evening,\u201d and, therefore, could not\nbe a hindrance to participation in the Paschal Supper, which was eaten\n_after_ the evening, and when the next Jewish day had begun.(116)\n\nThere is question, then, of some of the other Paschal sacrifices which\nwere partaken of during the seven days of the Paschal feast (Deut. xvi. 2,\n3; 2 Paral. xxx. 22), perhaps of the special sacrifice known as the\nChagigah (\u05d7\u05d2\u05d9\u05d2\u05d4).(117)\n\nFrom such a sacrifice, eaten, as we learn from the Mishna in the note\nbelow, not only at night, but also _during the day_, a defilement\ncontracted in the morning would exclude.\n\nIn view of the anxiety of the Jews to avoid the legal defilement incurred\nby entering a house from which all leaven had not been removed, one cannot\nhelp wondering, with St. Augustine, at their blind hypocrisy: \u201cO impia et\nstulta caecitas: habitaculo videlicet contaminarentur alieno, et non\ncontaminarentur scelere proprio!\u201d\n\n29. Exivit ergo Pilatus ad eos   29. Pilate therefore went out\nforas, et dixit: Quam            to them, and said: What\naccusationem affertis adversus   accusation bring you against\nhominem hunc?                    this man?\n30. Responderunt, et dixerunt    30. They answered and said to\nei: Si non esset hic             him: If he were not a\nmalefactor, non tibi             malefactor, we would not have\ntradidissemus eum.               delivered him up to thee.\n31. Dixit ergo eis Pilatus:      31. Pilate therefore said to\nAccipite eum vos, et secundum    them: Take him you, and judge\nlegem vestram iudicate eum.      him according to your law. The\nDixerunt ergo ei Iudaei: Nobis   Jews therefore said to him: It\nnon licet interficere            is not lawful for us to put\nquemquam.                        any man to death.\n\n29\u201031. As they entered not, Pilate, now first mentioned by St. John, went\nout to them and asked: *What accusation bring you against this man?* It is\nvery likely he had already learned something of the nature of the\naccusation, either on the preceding night when the Roman soldiers were\nrequired for Gethsemani, or just now before coming out of his house, but\nhe would naturally wish to have it made formally. They, having already\npronounced Jesus deserving of death, and having brought Him to Pilate\nmerely to have the sentence of death pronounced and executed without any\nformality of trial, are indignant at the Roman\u2019s question, and reply as in\nverse 30: \u201cIf he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up\nto thee.\u201d Pilate, wishing to shift from himself responsibility for\nChrist\u2019s death, bids the Jews to take Him, and judge Him according to\ntheir own law. This they declined to do, alleging as a reason that the\nRomans had taken away from the Jews the power to punish by death. This,\nhowever, was merely an evasion, for they knew thoroughly that Pilate\u2019s\npermission in the present case was sufficient warrant for their action,\neven if they put Jesus to death. But the motive of the Jewish leaders was\nto make the responsibility for His death, in the eyes of the Jewish\npeople, rest upon the Romans.\n\n32. Ut sermo Iesu impleretur     32. That the word of Jesus\nquem dixit, significans qua      might be fulfilled which he\nmorte esset moriturus.           said, signifying what death he\n                                 should die.\n\n32. *That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled.* The refusal of the Jews\nto judge Jesus according to their own law came to pass, adds St. John,\nthat the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, in which He had foretold that\nHe should die the death of the cross (John iii. 14; xii. 32\u201034; Matt. xx.\n19). Had He been punished according to Jewish law, having been judged a\nblasphemer, He should have been stoned to death, according to Levit. xxiv.\n14: \u201cBring forth the blasphemer without the camp, and let them that heard\nhim put their hands upon his head, and let all the people stone him.\u201d\n\n33. Introivit ergo iterum in     33. Pilate therefore went into\npraetorium Pilatus, et vocavit   the hall again, and called\nIesum, et dixit ei: Tu es rex    Jesus, and said to him: Art\nIudaeorum?                       thou the king of the Jews?\n\n33. It was probably at this point, after they had refused to judge Jesus\naccording to their own law, and when they saw that Pilate was not at once\nproceeding to condemn Him, that the Jews brought forward those three\ndistinct charges against Him, which St. Luke records: \u201cWe have found this\nman perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and\nsaying that He is Christ the king\u201d (Luke xxiii. 2). Upon this, Pilate\nreturned into the house, had Jesus called in(118), and questioned Him on\nthe third count in the indictment just brought against Him. The pretension\nof any Jew to be the King of Palestine was a point which, as questioning\nthe sovereignty of Rome, a Roman governor was bound to look to. Pilate,\ntherefore, asked Him: *Art thou the King of the Jews?* The words may mean\neither, \u201cArt thou He who has just now become notorious under this title?\u201d\nor, \u201cDost thou claim the title, as it is said?\u201d The title itself would be\nlikely to arrest Pilate\u2019s attention, whether he had heard it spoken of\nbefore in connection with the entry into Jerusalem or only now from the\nJews. And further, he would rightly conclude that the title, when thus put\nforward, would be fitted to call out any fanaticism which there might be\nin a political enthusiast. In each of the four Gospels, the first words of\nPilate to Jesus are the same: \u201cArt thou the King of the Jews?\u201d (Matt.\nxxvii. 11; Mark xv. 2; Luke xxiii. 3). \u201cThe form of the sentence (\u03c3\u1f7a \u03b5\u1f36)\nsuggests a feeling of surprise in the questioner: \u2018Art thou, poor, and\nbound, and wearied, the the King of whom men have spoken?\u2019 Comp. iv. 12.\u201d\nWestc. in _Speaker\u2019s Commentary_.\n\n34. Respondit Iesus: A           34. Jesus answered: Sayest\ntemetipso hoc dicis, an alii     thou this thing of thyself, or\ndixerunt tibi de me?             have others told it thee of\n                                 me?\n\n34. To Pilate\u2019s question, Christ replies: Sayest thou this of thyself,\nfrom thy own knowledge or suspicion of My having taken part in seditious\npractices, or is it merely because of what others, through envy and\njealousy, have now told thee of Me? These words were, doubtless, intended\nto remind Pilate that, although Governor of Judea during all the time of\nChrist\u2019s public life (Luke iii. 1), he had no reason from his own personal\nknowledge to find fault with Jesus. Hence, he ought to suspect the charges\nthat had been made.\n\n35. Respondit Pilatus: Numquid   35. Pilate answered: Am I a\nego Iudaeus sum? Gens tua et     Jew? Thy own nation and the\npontifices tradiderunt te        chief priests have delivered\nmihi: quid fecisti?              thee up to me: what hast thou\n                                 done?\n\n35. Pilate impatiently replies, signifying that as he was not a Jew, he\nmight easily be ignorant of Christ\u2019s guilt, while it would be well known\nto Christ\u2019s countrymen who now accused Him.\n\n36. Respondit Iesus: Regnum      36. Jesus answered: My kingdom\nmeum non est de hoc mundo: si    is not of this world. If my\nex hoc mundo esset regnum        kingdom were of this world, my\nmeum, ministri mei utique        servants would certainly\ndecertarent ut non traderer      strive that I should not be\nIudaeis: Nunc autem regnum       delivered to the Jews: but now\nmeum non est hinc.               my kingdom is not from hence.\n\n36. In response to Pilate\u2019s question: \u201cWhat hast thou done?\u201d Jesus\nproceeds to explain that His is not that mighty temporal kingdom for which\nthe Jews had hoped, and which the Romans might well fear; if it were, His\nfollowers would surely have striven that He should not be delivered to the\nJews; but in truth it was not a temporal kingdom.\n\n*My kingdom is not from hence*; _i.e._ is not _of this world_, not a\ntemporal kingdom. _In_ this world it was, and is; but _of_ this world it\nis not. See xvii. 15, 16.\n\n37. Dixit itaque et Pilatus:     37. Pilate therefore said to\nErgo rex es tu? Respondit        him: Art thou a king then?\nIesus: Tu dicis quia rex sum     Jesus answered: Thou sayest\nego. Ego in hoc natus sum, et    that I am a king. For this was\nad hoc veni in mundum, ut        I born, and for this came I\ntestimonium perhibeam            into the world: that I should\nveritati: omnis qui est ex       give testimony to the truth.\nveritate, audit vocem meam.      Every one that is of the\n                                 truth, heareth my voice.\n\n37. *Art thou a king then?* Pilate asked; to which Jesus replied: \u201cThou\nsayest it\u201d (Matt., Mark, Luke); or, as here, \u201cThou sayest that I am a\nking,\u201d(119) meaning thou sayest truly, what is the fact. That this is the\nsense of the phrase, see Matt. xxvi. 64, and compare with Mark xiv. 61.\nThen, having made this admission, Jesus at once proceeds to point out the\nspiritual character of the kingdom which He had come to establish. That\nkingdom is His Church, which was established, not amid the clash of arms\nor din of battle, but by the preaching of the truth, and to which all\nbelong, whether Jew or Roman, who hear the truth.\n\n38. Dicit et Pilatus: Quid est   38. Pilate saith to him: What\nVeritas? Et cum hoc dixisset,    is truth? And when he said\niterum exivit ad Iudaeos, et     this he went out again to the\ndicit eis: Ego nullam invenio    Jews, and saith to them: I\nin eo causam.                    find no cause in him.\n\n38. At the mention of \u201cthe truth,\u201d Pilate asks: *What is truth?* (\u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1,\nwithout the article). The question was not asked for information, for\nPilate went out without waiting for an answer, but impatiently or\nsneeringly, as if he said: \u201cYes, but what _is_ truth?\u201d Then Pilate went\nout again to the Jews, and told them that he could find in Jesus no reason\nfor condemning Him.\n\nThen it was, probably, that as St. Luke tells us: \u201cThey were more earnest,\nsaying: He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea,\nbeginning from Galilee to this place\u201d (Luke xxiii. 5). \u201cAmid their\nconfused and passionate exclamation, the practised ear of Pilate caught\nthe name of \u2018Galilee,\u2019 and he understood that Galilee had been the chief\nscene of the ministry of Jesus. Eager for a chance of dismissing a\nbusiness of which he was best pleased to be free, he proposed, by a\nmaster\u2010stroke of astute policy, to get rid of an embarrassing prisoner, to\nsave himself from a disagreeable decision, and to do an unexpected\ncomplaisancy to the unfriendly Galilean tetrarch, who, as usual, had come\nto Jerusalem\u2014nominally to keep the Passover, really to please his\nsubjects, and to enjoy the sensations and festivities offered at that\nseason by the densely\u2010crowded capital\u201d (Farrar).\n\n39. Est autem consuetudo         39. But you have a custom that\nvobis, ut unum dimittam vobis    I should release one unto you\nin pascha: vultis ergo           at the pasch: will you\ndimittam vobis regem             therefore that I release unto\nIudaeorum?                       you the king of the Jews?\n40. Clamaverunt ergo rursum      40. Then cried they all again,\nomnes dicentes: Non hunc, sed    saying: Not this man, but\nBarabbam. Erat autem Barabbas    Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a\nlatro.                           robber.\n\n39. Then, after Herod had examined and mocked Christ, he sent Him back to\nPilate (Luke xxiii. 8\u201012); and now it was, after the return from Herod,\nthat Pilate thought of releasing Jesus, in accordance with his custom of\nreleasing a prisoner every year at the festival of the Pasch.\n\n*Will you, therefore, that I release unto you the king of the Jews?* or as\nSt. Matt. has: \u201cWhom will you that I release to you; Barabbas, or Jesus,\nthat is called Christ?\u201d (Matt. xxvii. 17). Barabbas, as we learn from the\nSynoptic Evangelists, was a \u201cnotorious prisoner,\u201d \u201cwho was put in prison\nwith some seditious men, who, in the sedition, had committed murder.\u201d\nPilate hoped, therefore, that the release of Jesus rather than of a\nnotorious criminal like Barabbas would be called for. But the people,\ninstigated by the chief\u2010priests and elders (Matt. xxvii. 20), blindly\ncalled for the release of Barabbas.\n\n*A robber.* (\u03bb\u1fc3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2), one who appropriates the goods of another by open\nviolence, as opposed to the thief (\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), who takes what is not his\nown, secretly and by fraud.\n\nWe have followed the view held by Patrizzi and the majority of\ncommentators, that Pilate on only _one occasion_, and after the return\nfrom Herod, proposed our Lord to the Jews as the prisoner to be released.\nOthers, as Father Coleridge and Dr. Walsh, hold that on _two_ different\noccasions, once before the journey to Herod, as recorded by St. John, and\nonce after, as recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists, Christ was proposed\nby Pilate as the prisoner to be released. But we are not convinced by the\nreasons urged in favour of this view. It is argued\u2014(_a_) from the fact\nthat in St. John the question of releasing a prisoner is first mentioned\nby Pilate, while in the Synoptic Evangelists the question of having a\nprisoner released to them is first moved by the people. But we say, in\nreply, that there is nothing in the Synoptic accounts which forbids us to\nsuppose that Pilate first mentioned the matter, as in St. John: \u201cYou have\na custom that I should release one unto you at the Pasch;\u201d that then they\ncalled upon him to observe the custom on that occasion, and that he\nforthwith put before them the choice between Jesus and Barabbas. Certainly\nSt. Matt. (xxvii. 17) as well as St. John represents Pilate as the first\nto refer to the matter.\n\n(_b_) Father Coleridge argues also from the fact that Pilate, in St.\nMatt., says to the Jews: \u201cWhom will you that I release to you; Barabbas,\nor Jesus, that is called Christ?\u201d \u201cThat he mentions Barabbas along with\nour Lord,\u201d says Father Coleridge, \u201ccan only be explained by the fact that,\nas St. John mentions, Barabbas had been already called for by the priests\nand crowd, when Pilate had, for the first time, spoken of the custom.\u201d But\nit seems to us that the mention of Barabbas by Pilate is sufficiently\nexplained by the fact which St. Matthew himself had just mentioned in the\npreceding verse, that Barabbas was a \u201cnotorious prisoner;\u201d and hence his\nname was more familiar to Pilate than the names of the other prisoners.\nMoreover his well\u2010known guilt encouraged Pilate to hope that if the choice\nlay between him and Jesus, the Jews would surely call for the release of\nour Lord.\n\nBefore quitting this chapter, it may be well to point out the different\ntribunals, before which, as we have seen, Jesus was led on this last night\nand morning of His mortal life.\n\n(1) First, then, He was led from Gethsemane before Annas.\n\n(2) He was led before Caiphas.\n\n(3) When day dawned, He was led before the Sanhedrim.\n\n(4) He was led before Pilate.\n\n(5) He was led before Herod Antipas.\n\n(6) On His return from Herod, He was again led before Pilate.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\n\n    1\u20105. *Jesus is scourged, crowned with thorns, clothed with a\n    purple garment, and mockingly saluted by the soldiers as King of\n    the Jews; then shown to the people.*\n\n    6\u20107. *The people, led on by the Priests and their servants, demand\n    Christ\u2019s death.*\n\n    *8\u201012. Pilate becomes still more unwilling to interfere with\n    Jesus, and again examines Him, and makes known his intention of\n    releasing Him.*\n\n    13\u201016. *Then the Jews charge him with disloyalty to the Roman\n    Emperor, and at length Pilate gives way and delivers Jesus to be\n    crucified.*\n\n    17\u201022. *Jesus is led to Calvary, and crucified between two\n    robbers.*\n\n    23\u201024. *The soldiers divide His other garments among four of them,\n    but cast lots for His tunic.*\n\n    25\u201027. *Jesus gives John to the Blessed Virgin as her son, and her\n    in turn to him as his mother.*\n\n    28\u201030. *Jesus, having partaken of the vinegar which was offered to\n    Him in a soaked sponge, dies.*\n\n    31\u201037. *The legs of the two robbers are broken, and the side of\n    Jesus pierced with a lance.*\n\n    38\u201042. *Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus embalm and bury the body\n    of Jesus.*\n\n\n1. Tunc ergo apprehendit         1. Then, therefore Pilate took\nPilatus Iesum, et flagellavit.   Jesus, and scourged him.\n\n1. After he had released Barabbas, Pilate now thought of another but a\ncruel means of saving the life of Jesus. He had Him scourged, hoping thus\nto satisfy the fury of His enemies (Luke xxiii. 22). Then was fulfilled\nthe prophecy of Isaias: \u201c_I have given my body to the strikers_, and My\ncheeks to them that plucked them: I have not turned away my face from them\nthat rebuked me, and spat upon me\u201d (Isaias 1. 6).\n\nHad Christ been scourged by Jewish authority, according to the Jewish law\nHe should not have received more than forty stripes. \u201cAccording to the\nmeasure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be: Yet so that\nthey exceed not the number of forty: lest thy brother depart shamefully\ntorn before thy eyes\u201d (Deut. xxv. 2, 3). By Jewish practice the number of\nstripes was restricted to thirty\u2010nine (See 2 Cor. xi. 24). But as the\nscourging was ordered by Pilate, it was, doubtless, inflicted according to\nthe cruel Roman method, in which there was no limit to the number of\nstripes that might be inflicted. The word used by the Greek translator of\nSt. Matthew and by St. Mark in reference to this scourging is \u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2,\nwhich, like that used by St. John (\u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd), signifies a scourging\nwith whips or flagella(120) (not _rods_, which were sometimes used by the\nRomans; Acts xvi. 22. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 25). The _flagellum_ was chiefly\nused in the punishment of slaves. It was made of cords or thongs of\nleather, knotted with bones or circles of bronze, or pieces of hard wood,\nand sometimes terminated by hooks in which latter case it was called a\nscorpion. No wonder that Horace (_Sat._ 1, 3, 119) speaks of it as\n\u201chorribile flagellum.\u201d It was with this brutal instrument of torture,\nthen, that our Lord was mangled on this morning by the fierce Roman\nsoldiers.\n\nThe pillar to which according to tradition our Lord was tied while being\nscourged, was brought from Jerusalem to Rome, in 1223 A.D. \u201cIn a small\nshrine to the right of the chapel (in the Church of St. Praxedes on the\nEsquiline, near St. Mary Major\u2019s), is preserved the marble pillar to which\nour Lord is said to have been bound. It measures two feet three inches in\nheight, not including its circular pedestal, which is two inches high; its\nlower diameter is one foot and a\u2010half, its upper is only nine inches, and\nits top was attached to a ring, the perforation for which remains\u201d (Dr.\nDonovan\u2019s _Rome, Ancient and Modern_).\n\n2. Et milites plectentes         2. And the soldiers platting a\ncorronam de spinis,              crown of thorns, put it upon\nimposuerunt capiti eius: et      his head: and they put on him\nveste purpurea circumdederunt    a purple garment.\neum.\n\n2. There is a difficulty here when we compare this verse with Matt. xxvii.\n26\u201029; Mark xv. 15\u201018. For, while St. John here represents the crowning\nwith thorns(121) and the incident of the cloak as _preceding_ the sentence\nof death (see verse 16), SS. Matthew and Mark seem to say that they\nfollowed it.\n\nHence, some have held that Christ was twice crowned with thorns and clad\nwith a cloak, and hailed as King of the Jews: once before the sentence as\nsignified here, and once after as indicated by SS. Matthew and Mark.\n\nBut it seems the more probable opinion that these events occurred only\nonce, and before the sentence was passed, as St. John records. In this\nview, SS. Matthew and Mark do not record these events and the sentence in\nthe order in which they occurred.(122) We would suggest, in support of\nthis view, that these Evangelists, in recording the sentence by which\nBarabbas recovered his liberty (Matt. xxvii. 26; Mark xv. 15), depart from\nthe order of time to record in connection with the liberation of Barabbas\nthe condemnation of Jesus. Thus the sentence of death, though following\nthe crowning with thorns is represented in the two first Gospels as\npreceding it.\n\n*A purple garment.* If it be objected that while the cloak according to\nSt. John was _purple_, according to St. Matthew it was _scarlet_, we reply\nthat the same difficulty occurs on a comparison of St. Matthew with St.\nMark, for the latter also says the cloak was _purple_; and yet all admit\nthat SS. Matthew and Mark refer to the same occasion. In reality, the two\nGreek words translated purple and scarlet seem to have been frequently\ninterchanged.\n\n\u201c\u03a0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1 is vaguely used to signify different shades of red, and is\nespecially convertible with crimson = \u03ba\u03bf\u03ba\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7, Matt.\u201d (Alf. on St. Mark\nxv. 17).\n\n3. Et veniebant ad eum, et       3. And they came to him, and\ndicebant: Ave rex Iudaeorum:     said: Hail, king of the Jews,\nEt dabant ei alapas.             and they gave him blows.\n\n3. *Hail, king of the Jews.* The soldiers had derisively arrayed Him in\nthe insignia of royalty; nothing was wanting but the mockery of their\nhomage; this they now offer. St. Matthew is more explicit: \u201cAnd bowing the\nknee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, king of the Jews\u201d (Matt.\nxxvii. 29).\n\n*And they gave him blows.* From St. Matthew we learn, too, that \u201cspitting\nupon him, they took the reed, and struck his head\u201d (Matt. xxvii. 30).\n\n4. Exivit ergo iterum Pilatus    4. Pilate therefore went forth\nforas, et dicit eis: Ecce        again, and saith to them:\nadduco vobis eum foras, ut       Behold I bring him forth unto\ncognoscatis quia nullam          you, that you may know that I\ninvenio in eo causam.            find no cause in him.\n\n4. Pilate now brought Jesus forth, hoping that the wretched plight to\nwhich our Saviour had been reduced, that the mockery and degradation and\nsuffering to which He had been subjected, would satisfy them, and with\nthis view he says to them in effect: Behold I bring Him forth to you that\nI may make known to you again that I can find no reason for condemning\nHim; see, then, the miserable state to which He is reduced, and be\nsatisfied.\n\n5. (Exivit ergo Iesus portans    5. Jesus therefore came forth\ncoronam spineam, et purpureum    bearing the crown of thorns,\nvestimentum). Et dicit eis:      and the purple garment. And he\nEcce homo.                       saith to them: Behold the Man.\n\n5. This verse gives us the graphic description of an eye\u2010witness. *Behold\nthe Man.* \u201cBehold\u201d is an interjection, not a verb. It it were a verb,\n\u201cman\u201d would be in the accusative case governed by it. This, indeed, is\nwhat is suggested by our translation and punctuation: \u201cBehold the Man.\u201d\nBut in the original, \u201cman\u201d is in the nominative case (\u1f41 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2), and the\nmeaning is: Behold, here before you is _the Man_.\n\n6. Cum ergo vidissent eum        6. When the chief priests\npontifices et ministri           therefore and the servants had\nclamabant dicentes: Crucifige,   seen him, they cried out,\ncrucifige eum, Dicit eis         saying: Crucify him, crucify\nPilatus: accipite cum vos et     him. Pilate saith to them:\ncrucifigite: ego enim non        Take him you, and crucify him;\ninvenio in eo causam.            for I find no cause in him.\n\n6. As soon as Jesus appeared, the chief\u2010priests and the ministers at once\nraised the savage cry, fearing lest the sight of His bleeding and mangled\nbody might melt the hearts of the people.\n\nPilate\u2019s words: *Take him, you, and crucify him*, are thought by some to\nbe ironical, as if he said: Take him you, if you dare. We prefer, however,\nto understand the words, like the similar words in verse xviii. 31, as the\nexpression of his desire to please the Jews. He was convinced that Jesus\nwas innocent, and was unwilling himself to condemn Him; yet, to please the\nJews, he would permit them to put Him to death.\n\n7. Responderunt ei Iudaei: Nos   7. The Jews answered him: We\nlegem habemus, et secundum       have a law; and according to\nlegem debet mori, quia Filium    the law he ought to die,\nDei se fecit.                    because he made himself the\n                                 Son of God.\n\n7. *The Jews answered him: We have a law.* The Jews reply, that though the\nRoman governor sees nothing in Him for which to condemn Him, yet,\naccording to their law, Jesus has incurred the penalty of death: \u201cHe that\nblasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die; all the multitude\nshall stone him\u201d (Lev. xxiv. 16).\n\n*Because he made himself the Son of God.* Note here that the Jews\nunderstood Christ to have claimed to be the _natural_ Son of God. Had they\nunderstood Him to speak of Himself merely as an adopted son, they could\nnot have blamed Him, for the just are frequently spoken of in the Old\nTestament as sons of God. From St. Luke xxiii. 2, then, we know that the\nJews understood Jesus to claim to be \u201cChrist, the King;\u201d that is to say,\nto be the Messias; and from the verse before us we learn that they\nunderstood Him to claim to be the Son of God. As such then, and for such\nclaims on His part, He was put to death; and the fact that He chose rather\nto die, than explain away or withdraw these claims, proves that He was\nunderstood correctly.\n\n8. Cum ergo audisset Pilatus     8. When Pilate therefore had\nhunc sermonem, magis timuit.     heard this saying, he feared\n                                 the more.\n\n8. *He feared the more.* When Pilate heard that Christ claimed to be the\nSon of God, he became _more_ afraid to interfere with or condemn Him.\nAlready her dream which Pilate\u2019s wife had made known to him (Matt. xxvii.\n19), and the majesty, serenity, and evident innocence of Jesus, must have\ngreatly impressed the governor.\n\n9. Et ingressus est praetorium   9. And he entered into the\niterum, et dixit ad Iesum:       hall again, and he said to\nUnde es tu? Iesus autem          Jesus: Whence art thou? But\nresponsum non dedit ei.          Jesus gave him no answer.\n\n9. Again, therefore, he entered the palace (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd). Jesus, too, was\nled in, and Pilate questioned Him in reference to the accusation just made\nagainst Him. You have been charged with claiming to be the Son of God:\n*Whence art thou?* from heaven, or of earth, like other men? Pilate was\nunworthy of an answer, or else Jesus thought it useless to explain to one\nwho would not understand or believe it His eternal generation from the\nFather, and accordingly He was silent.\n\n10. Dicit ergo ei Pilatus:       10. Pilate therefore saith to\nMihi non loqueris? nescis quia   him: Speakest thou not to me?\npotestatem habeo crucifigere     knowest thou not that I have\nte et potestatem habeo           power to crucify thee, and I\ndimittere te?                    have power to release thee?\n\n10. *Speakest thou not to me?* In the original the pronoun, standing at\nthe head of the clause, is emphatic. Speakest thou not _to me_, the\nrepresentative of Roman power, who have authority (\u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd) to liberate\nor crucify thee?\n\n*Knowest thou not that I have power*, &c. The more probable order of the\nclauses is: \u201cI have power to release thee, and I have power to crucify\nthee,\u201d the motive of hope standing before that of fear.\n\n11. Respondit Iesus: Non         11. Jesus answered: Thou\nhaberes potestatem adversum me   shouldest not have any power\nullam, nisi tibi datum esset     against me, unless it were\ndesuper. Propterea qui me        given thee from above.\ntradidit tibi, maius peccatum    Therefore he that hath\nhabet.                           delivered me to thee, hath the\n                                 greater sin.\n\n11. Pilate\u2019s claim to unlimited power over Him makes Jesus again break\nsilence. His words are an implicit admission that Pilate possesses power\nover Him, but at the same time a reminder that there was One greater than\neven a Roman governor, without whose permission Pilate could do nothing\nagainst Him.\n\n*Unless it were given thee from above.* From the original, in which we\nhave \u1f26\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, not \u1f26\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 (datum, not data), it is clear that the\nverb has not \u201cpower\u201d for its subject, but is to be taken impersonally:\nUnless it were given thee from above _to have such power_.\n\n\u201cFrom above\u201d has been taken by some to refer to the Sanhedrim, as if\nChrist here referred to it as a higher tribunal than Pilate\u2019s; but this\nview cannot be admitted. Not only is it opposed to the ordinary sense of\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd (iii. 31; James i. 17; iii. 15, 17), but it would make our Lord say\nthat Pilate had received his power from the Sanhedrim\u2014a statement which\nwould not be correct. \u201cFrom above\u201d, then, means: from heaven or from God.\n\n*Therefore he that hath delivered* (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, not \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2) *me to thee\nhath the greater sin*. Some, as Kuinoel, hold that \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf is here\nmerely a formula of transition (like the Hebrew \u05dc\u05d1\u05df, Judg. viii. 7, &c.),\nof which no account is to be taken. The meaning is then sufficiently\nclear. But if, as most commentators take for granted, we are to give \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf its ordinary inferential force, the connection is very obscure, and\nhas been variously explained.\n\n(_a_) Some thus: Because you exercise your power _unwillingly_ therefore\nyour sin is less than that of Caiphas and the Sanhedrim, who have\ndelivered me to you, and are forcing you to condemn me. But it is rightly\nobjected against this interpretation, that the word \u201cunwillingly,\u201d upon\nwhich it turns, is neither expressed nor suggested in the text.\n\n(_b_) Others thus: Since you have received from God power over Me, _but\nhave not had an opportunity of judging of My character_, therefore your\nsin is less than that of Caiphas and the Sanhedrim, who with the clearest\nevidences of My Divinity before them have yet condemned Me and delivered\nMe to you. But it is objected to this view also, that the words upon which\nthe interpretation hinges, are not found in the text.\n\n(_c_) Others thus: since you possess lawful authority, therefore the\nSanhedrim is more guilty in handing Me over to you than it would be, if\nyou possessed not this authority. For, in handing Me over to you, they try\nto brand Me as a malefactor, and they surrender Me to one who has the\npower to put Me to death, even by the cruel death of crucifixion. In this\nview, held by Toletus, the sin of the Sanhedrim is compared, not with that\nof Pilate, but with what their own sin would have been, had they merely\nbrought Jesus before some unlawful tribunal.\n\nThe last connection, though, perhaps, not sufficiently obvious, is the\nmost natural. The meaning of the whole verse is: You have lawful authority\nindeed, but not independently of God; and since you have lawful authority,\ntherefore, My accusers are the more guilty.\n\nThe words \u201che that hath delivered me to thee\u201d refer primarily to Caiphas,\nthe high\u2010priest, but include the Sanhedrim with him in the responsibility\nfor delivering up Christ.\n\n12. Et exinde quaerebat          12. And from thenceforth\nPilatus dimittere eum. Iudaei    Pilate sought to release him.\nautem clamabant, dicentes: Si    But the Jews cried out,\nhunc dimittis, non es amicus     saying: If thou release this\nCaesaris: omnis enim qui se      man, thou art not Cesar\u2019s\nregem facit contradicit          friend. For whosoever maketh\nCaesari.                         himself a king, speaketh\n                                 against Cesar.\n\n12. *And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him.* Pilate, who had\nhitherto tried to shirk the trial of Jesus, or to induce the Jews to call\nfor His release, now \u201csought\u201d himself to release Him. At this juncture,\nwhen all other motives had failed to move Pilate, the Jews exasperated\ncharge him with being the enemy of C\u00e6sar, if he refuse to condemn one who\nclaimed to be a sovereign within C\u00e6sar\u2019s dominions. Their words conveyed\nto Pilate that they would denounce him to C\u00e6sar, in case he persisted in\nrefusing to condemn Jesus. Tiberius (14\u201037 A.D.), who was Roman Emperor at\nthe time, was, according to Suetonius (Vit. Tib., c. 58), a most\nsuspicious tyrant, and one with whom, as Tacitus tells us: \u201cMajestatis\ncrimen omnium accusationum complementum erat\u201d (Ann. iii. 38).\n\n13. Pilatus autem cum audisset   13. Now when Pilate had heard\nhos sermones, adduxit foras      these words, he brought Jesus\nIesum: et sedit pro tribunali,   forth; and sat down in the\nin loco qui dicitur              judgment seat, in the place\nLithostrotos, hebraice autem     that is called Lithostrotos,\nGabbatha.                        and in Hebrew Gabbatha.\n\n13. Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth. Pilate,\nthrough fear of the Emperor, at length gave way, and Jesus, who had\nremained within the house after the interrogation (verses 9\u201011), while\nPilate was signifying his own intention to the people (verse 12), was now\nbrought forth, and Pilate formally took his seat to pass sentence of\ndeath.\n\n*In the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha.* The\nRev. Vers. renders: \u201cAt a place called the Pavement, but in Hebrew\nGabbatha.\u201d The judgment\u2010seat was usually in front of the Praetorium, on an\nelevated platform. The Syro\u2010Chaldaic word Gabbatha means _a high place_,\nprobably from the root \u05d2\u05d1\u05d4 (Gabhah), and such high places were usually\npaved with many\u2010coloured stones, hence the name \u201cLithostrotos\u201d (from\n\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, a stone, and \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, covered, or paved). Suetonius (Caes. 8, 46)\nsays that Julius C\u00e6sar carried such a pavement with him on his\nexpeditions.\n\n14. Erat autem parasceve         14. And it was the parasceve\npaschae, hora quasi sexta, et    of the pasch, about the sixth\ndicit Iudaeis: Ecce rex          hour, and he saith to the\nvester.                          Jews: Behold your king.\n\n14. *And it was the parasceve of the Pasch.* \u201cParasceve\u201d (Gr. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae)\nmeans _preparation_, or _day of preparation_, and the expression: \u201cthe\nparasceve of the Pasch\u201d _might_ mean the day of preparation for the\nPaschal feast, and hence the day _before_ the feast began. This, indeed,\nis the meaning given to the phrase by all those who hold that Christ, in\nthe last year of His mortal life, celebrated the Paschal Supper a day\nbefore the Jews.(123) They hold that St. John here signifies that the\nJewish Pasch had not yet begun. But the phrase may have, and we believe\nhas, a different meaning. We know from St. Mark that \u201cParasceve\u201d was\nanother name for Friday; \u201cIt was the Parasceve, that is, the day before\nthe Sabbath\u201d (Mark xv. 42). Friday naturally enough got this name, because\nit was the _day of preparation_ for the Jewish Sabbath.\n\nBy \u201cthe parasceve of the Pasch,\u201d then, we understand the Friday of the\nPaschal week, and we take it that St. John here indicates the day of the\nweek, as in the words immediately following he indicates the hour of the\nday. His readers, some of whom were, doubtless, acquainted with the\nSynoptic Gospels, would be already aware that this day was the first of\nthe Paschal week, and not the eve of the festival. See above on xiii. 1.\n\n*About the sixth hour.* A very great difficulty arises from a comparison\nof this account with that of St. Mark. For St. Mark says: \u201cAnd it was the\n_third_ hour, and they crucified Him.... And when the sixth hour was come,\nthere was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour\u201d (Mark xv.\n25, 33).\n\nThus, while St. John represents our Lord as _condemned_ about the _sixth_\nhour, St. Mark represents Him as already _crucified_ at the _third_ hour.\nHow, it is asked, could He be crucified at the _third_ hour, if He was not\ncondemned till the _sixth_?\n\nMany solutions of this difficulty have been proposed, but some of them are\nso improbable, that we will not delay upon them. When, for instance, St.\nAugustine says that St. Mark, in stating that the Jews crucified Jesus at\nthe third hour, means that at that time they crucified Him with their\n_tongues_ by calling for His crucifixion, it is plain from the whole\ncontext of St. Mark that such a view cannot be admitted; because he\nevidently speaks of the real nailing of Jesus to the cross. Thus he says:\n\u201cAnd it was the third hour, and they crucified him. And the inscription of\nhis cause was written over, _The King of the Jews_. And with him they\ncrucify two thieves, the one on his right hand, and the other on his\nleft.... And they that passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads, and\nsaying: ... save thyself, coming down from the cross\u201d (Mark xv. 25\u201030).\n\nBut, setting aside the less probable methods of reconciliation, we must\nnotice four which have found favour with commentators.\n\n(1) Maldonatus and many of the older commentators hold that besides the\ndivision of the Jewish day into twelve hours, there was also another\ndivision into four periods, corresponding to the four watches of the\nnight.(124) Thus, at the Pasch, which occurred about the time of the\nvernal equinox, these four periods, or \u201chours,\u201d would be\nrespectively\u2014(_a_) from 6 to 9 a.m.; (_b_) from 9 a.m. to noon; (_c_) from\nnoon to 3 p.m.; and (_d_) from 3 to 6 p.m. According to Mald., these\nperiods were called respectively, the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth\n\u201chour.\u201d He curiously supposes, however, that sometimes any one of these\n\u201chours\u201d or periods was referred to either by the name of the hour with\nwhich it began, or by the name of that with which it closed. Hence the\nperiod between 9 a.m. and noon, or, to speak more correctly, a time within\nthat period\u2014about 11.30 a.m.\u2014is referred to by St. Mark as the _third_\nhour; while a time within the same period, but about an hour earlier is\nreferred to by St. John as the sixth hour.\n\nThis view is now generally abandoned, and not without reason. For, in the\nfirst place, there are no solid grounds for believing that the fourfold\ndivision of the Jewish day here supposed, ever existed. In the second\nplace, even if it had existed, we should require a great deal of proof,\nindeed, before we could believe that the \u201chours\u201d were numbered in so\nstrange and confusing a fashion.\n\n(2) More probable than the preceding is the view of Cornely (Introd., vol.\niii., \u00a7 73, 3). He, too, like Mald., holds the above fourfold division of\nthe day, but says that the divisions were called respectively, the first,\nthird, sixth, and ninth hour. Now, the Synoptic Evangelists, he says,\nfollow this fourfold division of the day; and, hence, St. Mark\u2019s third\nhour is the time from 9 a.m. to noon. St. John, on the other hand, reckons\naccording to the more accurate Jewish method of dividing the day into\ntwelve equal parts; and, therefore, his phrase, \u201cabout the sixth hour,\u201d\nmeans _about noon_. Cornely thinks that the vagueness of the phrase:\n\u201c_About_ the sixth hour\u201d justifies us in supposing that the time when\nPilate passed sentence upon our Lord, according to St. John, may have been\nas early as half\u2010past ten. Thus, condemned about half\u2010past ten, Jesus\ncould be led out to Calvary and put upon the cross before noon; in other\nwords, while, as St. Mark says, it was still the third hour.\n\nThough this view is more probable than the preceding, we cannot accept it.\nFor it supposes, like the preceding, a division of the day into four\n\u201chours,\u201d for which Cornely offers no evidence any more than Maldonatus.\nMoreover, we cannot bring ourselves to believe that St. John would refer\nto a time so early as half\u2010past ten as \u201cabout the sixth hour.\u201d\n\n(3) Others think that while St. Mark follows the Jewish division of the\nday, and, therefore counts the hours from sunrise, St. John, on the other\nhand, follows the Greek method, and counts them from midnight. Thus, about\nthe time of the equinox, St. Mark\u2019s \u201cthird hour\u201d would mean about 9 a.m.,\nwhile St. John\u2019s \u201cabout the sixth hour\u201d would mean about 6 a.m. According\nto this view, our Lord was condemned about 6 a.m., and nailed to the cross\nabout 9 a.m.\n\nAgainst this view, it is held by many writers that St. John, like the\nother Evangelists, counts the hours of the day from sunrise, that is to\nsay, according to the Jewish method.(125)\n\nBut a still more serious difficulty against this view arises from the\ndifficulty of finding time for all the events of the morning of the\nCrucifixion between day\u2010dawn and 6 a.m.\u2014the time at which, in this\nopinion, our Lord was condemned by Pilate. \u201cThose events ... were\u2014(1) the\nmeeting of the Council; (2) the procession to Pilate\u2019s Court; (3) the\nvarious incidents recorded by the four Evangelists on the occasion of our\nLord\u2019s first appearance before Pilate\u2019s tribunal; (4) the sending of our\nLord to Herod; (5) the interview between our Lord and Herod; (6) the\nmocking of our Lord by Herod\u2019s soldiers; (7) the return to the Court of\nPilate; (8) the scourging; (9) the crowning with thorns; (10) the mocking\nof our Lord by the Roman soldiers; (11) the incident of the \u2018Ecce Homo,\u2019\nand (12) the final interview, within the Praetorium, between our Lord and\nPilate, at the close of which Pilate came forth, and, after a final effort\nto obtain the liberation of our Lord, took his place on the judgment seat,\n\u2018and it was now about the sixth hour.\u2019\n\n(4) \u201cIt would seem, then, that the most satisfactory solution of the\ndifficulty is that given by the great majority of modern\ncommentators\u2014Catholic as well as Protestant\u2014namely, that an error has\ncrept into the text of St. John\u2019s Gospel, and that the true reading of the\npassage in question there (xix. 14), is to be obtained by substituting\n\u2018third\u2019 for \u2018sixth.\u2019\n\n\u201cManifestly, such a correction of the text removes the difficulty we are\nconsidering. On the one hand, it leaves abundance of time before Pilate\u2019s\nsentence\u2014three or four hours\u2014for the events of the earlier part of the\nmorning. On the other hand, it leaves quite sufficient time\u2014an interval,\nit may be supposed, of nearly an hour\u2014between the passing of the sentence\nand the actual crucifixion; for St. John\u2019s statement, that it was \u2018about\u2019\nthe third hour, might surely be understood of any time between half\u2010past\neight and nine o\u2019clock; and St. Mark\u2019s words are quite consistent with the\nsupposition that our Lord was crucified at any time between nine and ten.\n\n\u201cAnd it is not to be supposed that the emendation of the text is suggested\nmerely on _a priori_ grounds. For (1) this reading is actually found in\none of the five Greek MSS. of the New Testament that rank highest in\nantiquity and authority\u2014Codex D. (_Cantabrigiensis_ or _Bezae_): this MS\ndates probably from the 5th or 6th century. Moreover (2) we have in its\nfavour the very strong testimony of an ancient writer, the author of the\n_Chronicon Paschale_ (circ. A.D. 630), who adopts this reading on the\nauthority of many \u2018accurate copies,\u2019 and mentions the striking fact that\nthe clause was thus read in St. John\u2019s original autograph of his Gospel,\nthen extant, and, of course, deeply venerated by the faithful in the\nChurch at Ephesus.\u201d (See Patrizzi, _De Evangeliis_, lib. ii., n. 195.)\n\n\u201cBut, it may be objected, is it not a somewhat forced hypothesis to\nsuppose that an interchange of two words so dissimilar as \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 and\n\u1f15\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7,\u2014the Greek words for \u2018third\u2019 and \u2018sixth\u2019 respectively\u2014could have\noccurred by an error of transcription? By no means. For, in the first\nplace, it must be remembered that the usage was almost universal of using\nthe numeral characters\u2014which, in Greek consist of letters of the\nalphabet\u2014instead of writing the words in full. Thus the change would\nconsist merely in the substitution of one letter for another. But,\nfurthermore, it is essential to explain that when the ancient MSS. of the\nGreek Testament were written, it was the usage to employ only capital, or,\nas they are called, uncial letters\u2014thus those MSS. themselves are commonly\nknown as uncial. Now, since the character by which the numeral 3 was\nrepresented was _gamma_, the _third_ letter of the Greek alphabet, its\nuncial form was \u0393. The character by which the numeral 6 was represented\nwas the now obsolete _digamma_, at one time the _sixth_ letter of the\nGreek alphabet: its uncial form was \u03dc.\n\n\u201cThus then we find that the error which, it is suggested, has crept into\nthis verse of the text of St. John consisted merely in the interchange of\nthe characters \u03dc and \u0393\u2014a mistake so easily made that its very facility\nconstitutes a strong antecedent probability in favour of the view that it,\nin fact, occurred.\u201d(126)\n\nIn this view, which seems to us the most probable, Christ was condemned\n_about_ the _third_ hour. As the _third_ hour at the season of the Pasch\nextended from about 8 till 9 a.m., St. Mark\u2019s \u201cthird hour\u201d may refer to a\ntime immediately after 8 a.m. This opinion allows abundance of time for\nthe events which on that Good Friday morning preceded the sentence of\ndeath. For, as the sun at the Pasch rose about 6 a.m., day\u2010dawn began\nabout half\u2010past four; and thus we have nearly four hours from the\nassembling of the Sanhedrim, before which Jesus was led at dawn, till the\nsentence was pronounced upon Him by Pilate. In this view, our Lord was put\nupon the cross about 9 a.m.\n\n*Behold your king.* This, like Pilate\u2019s words in the next verse, was\nprobably said to annoy the Jews because they had forced him to condemn\nJesus.\n\n15. Illi autem clamabant:        15. But they cried out: Away\nTolle, tolle, crucifige eum.     with him, away with him,\nDicit eis Pilatus: Regem         crucify him. Pilate saith to\nvestrum crucifigam?              them: Shall I crucify your\nResponderunt pontifices: Non     king? The chief priests\nhabemus regem, nisi Caesarem.    answered: We have no king but\n                                 Cesar.\n\n15. *We have no king but Caesar.* Though the Jews were at this time\nchafing under the dominion of the Romans, the chief priests, blinded by\ntheir hatred of Christ, here proclaimed their submission to the Roman\nyoke.\n\n16. Tunc ergo tradidit eis       16. Then therefore he\nilium ut crucifigeretur.         delivered him to them to be\nSusceperunt autem Iesum, et      crucified. And they took\neduxerunt.                       Jesus, and led him forth.\n\n16. And now Pilate at last delivered Jesus to them to be crucified, having\nfirst, as St. Matthew tells us, gone through the vain ceremony of washing\nhis hands, as if he could thus wash his soul from the guilt of weakly\nconsenting to Christ\u2019s death!\n\n17. Et baiulans sibi crucem,     17. And bearing his own cross\nexivit in eum qui dicitur        he went forth to that place\nCalvariae locum, hebraice        which is called Calvary, but\nautem Golgotha:                  in Hebrew Golgotha.\n\n17. The words \u201cand led him forth,\u201d are probably not genuine. We learn from\nthe Synoptic Evangelists that Jesus was now mocked, stripped of the purple\ncloak, and clothed with His own garments. Then, like Isaac of old (Gen.\nxxii. 6), bearing the wood on which He was to suffer, Jesus _went forth_\n(comp. xviii. 1) to the place where He was crucified. By Jewish as well as\nRoman law the execution should take place outside the city; Numb. xv. 35;\n3 K. xxi. 13. And Cicero says: Quid enim attinuit, cum Mamertini _more\natque instituto suo_, crucem fixissent _post urbem_ in via Pompeia, &c.\n(Verr. v. 66). Calvary, which is now within the walls of Jerusalem, was\nthen outside them, lying to the west of the city. A very old tradition\nrepresents Jesus as falling three times beneath the cross on His way to\nCalvary; and the three Synoptic Evangelists tell us that Simon of\nCyrene(127), probably a Jew who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the\nPasch, was forced to carry the cross. It is disputed whether Simon was\nmade to bear the cross alone or merely to assist Jesus. The latter view is\nfrequently followed in paintings, but the former seems more probable.\nJesus was now worn and weak, and as the Jews were impatient to hurry on to\nthe place of punishment; perhaps, too, through a fear that He might\notherwise die on the way and deprive them of the pleasure of seeing Him\nwrithing on the cross, they would be more likely to relieve Him from even\nhelping to carry the cross. \u201cNota,\u201d says A Lapide, \u201cnon videri Simonem\ncrucem gestasse cum Christo hac ratione, ut Christus priorem crucis\npartem, Simon posteriorem portaret, uti pingunt pictores; sed ipsum solum\ntotam Christi praeeuntis crucem gestasse\u201d (A Lap. on St. Matt. xxvii. 32).\n\nSt. Luke alone mentions the incident of the women of Jerusalem, who\nfollowed Jesus bewailing and lamenting for Him (Luke xxii. 27\u201031). A very\nancient tradition represents the Blessed Virgin as meeting Jesus in this\nsad procession to Calvary.\n\n_Calvaria_ in the Vulgate is not a proper name. \u201cIt is simply the Latin\nfor \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, a _bare skull_, and used in Vulgate only here (Matt.) and in\nthe parallel passages of Mark, Luke, and John when describing the\ncrucifixion\u2014nowhere else in the Old or New Testament. Golgotha was the\nHebrew name of the spot where our Lord was crucified. The pure Hebrew form\nof the word \u05d2\u05dc\u05d2\u05dc\u05ea (Gulgoleth), meaning a skull (from \u05d2\u05dc\u05dc (galal) _to roll,\nto be round_), is found in Judges ix. 53. Thence came the Chaldaic (rather\nwe should say, Syro\u2010Chaldaic), Gulgalta, abbreviated into Golgotha. But\nwhy was the place called Golgotha, or _skull_? Either because criminals\nwere commonly executed on that spot, and many skulls were found there\nbleaching in the sun (St. Jerome and most modern Catholic comm.); or the\nmound was skull\u2010like (St. Cyril of Jerusalem alludes to this view, but\nrefutes it); or (according to tradition) the skull of the first man, Adam,\nwas buried there (Orig., St. Epiph., and nearly all the fathers) ...: In\naccordance with this opinion (of the fathers), we see so often in\npaintings and pictures a skull placed at the foot of the cross. Although\nwe read constantly in sermons of the _hill_ of Calvary, there is little to\nshow that there was any hill or mound on the spot named _Golgotha_. St.\nCyril of Jerusalem objects to the derivation of Calvary from the mound\nbeing skull\u2010shaped, because he says there was _no hill_ there. In the\nwhole history of the Passion no mention is made of the _mount_ or hill of\nCalvary.... The traditional spot is simply on a high ground, like Holborn\nin London, or Patrick\u2019s\u2010hill in Dublin, or the Pantheon in Paris\u201d (Dr.\nM\u2019Carthy, on St. Matthew, xxvii. 33).\n\n18. Ubi crucifixerunt eum, et    18. Where they crucified him,\ncum eo alios duos hinc et        and with him two others, one\nhinc, medium autem Iesum.        on each side, and Jesus in the\n                                 midst.\n\n18. Whether Jesus was nailed to the cross while it was lying upon the\nground, or whether the cross was first erected and He then raised up to it\nby ropes and ladders, is disputed.(128)\n\nAs to the shape of the cross, too, on which He was crucified, there is a\nslight difference of opinion. Setting aside the _crux simplex_, which was\nmerely an upright stake, the _crux compacta_, so called from the parts\nbeing joined together, was threefold: \u201c_decussata_ (cut into two equal\nparts), like the letter X; _commissa_, like the letter T, and _immissa_,\nor Latin +, which differs from the _commissa_, by having the long upright\nbeam projecting over the transverse bar\u201d (M\u2019Carthy). The almost unanimous\ntradition of the fathers holds that Christ died upon the Latin cross, and\nthere is no reason to doubt that this is correct.\n\n*And with him two others.* These are described as \u201crobbers\u201d (\u03bb\u1fc3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af), by\nSt. Matt. (xxvii. 38), and St. Mark (xv. 27), and as \u201cmalefactors\u201d by St.\nLuke (xxiii. 32). It may possibly have been to add to His disgrace and\nshame that the Jews had these punished together with Jesus. \u201cAnd the\nScripture was fulfilled which saith: _And with the wicked he was reputed_\u201d\n(Mark xv. 28).\n\n19. Scripsit autem et titulum    19. And Pilate wrote a title\nPilatus: et posuit super         also: and he put it upon the\ncrucem, Erat autem scriptum:     cross. And the writing was,\nIESUS NAZARENUS, REX             JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF\nIUDAEORUM.                       THE JEWS.\n\n19. *Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.* It was usual to indicate in\nsome such way the name and offence of those crucified, and so Pilate had\nan inscription placed over the head of Jesus, giving His name, and the\nreason why He suffered. We should have expected, however, that Pilate\nwould have caused to be written: Jesus of Nazareth who _claimed to be_\nking of the Jews. But no, either to annoy the Jews, or by an over\u2010ruling\nProvidence, Pilate wrote: \u201cKING OF THE JEWS,\u201d thus proclaiming Christ\u2019s\nroyal dignity even while he crucified Him.\n\nThe title is slightly different in all four Evangelists. _Hic est Jesus\nRex Judaeorum_ (Matthew); _Rex Judaeorum_ (Mark); _Hic est Rex Judaeorum_\n(Luke); _Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum_ (John).\n\nIt is very probable that St. John gives the precise words of the title,\nthe others the substance. For all that is at present legible(129) of the\nHebrew text of the title agrees exactly with St. John.\n\nThe title, written on a whitened wooden tablet, together with the true\ncross, nails, and lance, was discovered during the excavations ordered by\nan English woman, St. Helen, the mother of Constantine the Great, about\nthe year 326 A.D. The title was placed by St. Helen in the Church of the\nHoly Cross on the Esquiline, in Rome, where it is still venerated. See Dr.\nDonovan\u2019s _Rome, Ancient and Modern_, vol. i., p. 508.\n\n20. Hunc ergo titulum multi      20. This title therefore many\nIudaeorum legerunt: quia prope   of the Jews did read: because\ncivitatem erat locus, ubi        the place where Jesus was\ncrucifixus est Iesus: et erat    crucified was nigh to the\nscriptum hebraice, graece, et    city: and it was written in\nlatine.                          Hebrew, in Greek, and in\n                                 Latin.\n\n20. *The place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city.* Calvary\nwas less than a mile from the centre of Jerusalem, and as the city was\nthen crowded, many read the title. The title was in three languages, that\nall might be able to read it. The Jews resident in Palestine could read\nthe Syro\u2010Chaldaic; the strangers could read the Greek; and the Roman\nsoldiers, the Latin. It was formerly held by some commentators that the\nthree inscriptions were in Latin, but written in Syro\u2010Chaldaic, Greek, and\nLatin characters, respectively. This opinion, however, has nothing to\nrecommend it. The obvious sense of the verse before us, and the relics of\nthe title, prove that the inscription was in three different languages.\nMany authorities reverse the order of the two last clauses in this verse:\n\u201cin Latin, and in Greek.\u201d\n\n21. Dicebant ergo Pilato         21. Then the chief priests of\npontifices Iudaeorum: Noli       the Jews said to Pilate: Write\nscribere, Rex Iudaeorum: sed     not, the king of the Jews, but\nquia ipse dixit: Rex sum         that he said: I am the king of\nIudaeorum.                       the Jews.\n\n21. *Then the chief priests.* Rather, \u201cthe chief priests of the Jews,\n_therefore_,\u201d &c.\n\n22. Respondit Pilatus: Quod      22. Pilate answered: What I\nscripsi, scripsi.                have written, I have written.\n\n22. *What I have written, I have written.* Pilate, already tired of the\npainful business, and disgusted with the Jews, refused to make any change\nin what he had written.\n\n23. Milites ergo cum             23. The soldiers therefore\ncrucifixissent eum, acceperunt   when they had crucified him,\nvestimenta eius (et fecerunt     took his garments (and they\nquatuor partes: unicuique        made four parts, to every\nmiliti partem), et tunicam.      soldier a part) and also his\nErat autem tunica                coat. Now the coat was without\ninconsutilis, desuper contexta   seam, woven from the top\nper totum.                       throughout.\n\n23. It was the custom to give the clothes to the executioners. The tunic\nwas the inner garment worn next the skin, and reaching from the neck to\nthe ankles. It was usually fastened round the neck with a clasp.\n\n24. Dixerunt ergo ad invicem:    24. They said then one to\nNon scindamus eam, sed           another: Let us not cut it,\nsortiamur de illa cuius sit.     but let us cast lots for it\nUt scriptura impleretur,         whose it shall be; that the\ndicens: Partiti sunt             scripture might be fulfilled,\nvestimenta mea sibi: et in       saying: _They have parted my\nvestem meam miserunt sortem.     garments among them: and upon\nEt milites quidem haec           my vesture they have cast\nfecerunt.                        lots_. And the soldiers indeed\n                                 did these things.\n\n24. As Christ\u2019s tunic was seamless, and the soldiers thought it a pity to\ntear it, they cast lots for it; God so ordaining, in order that the\nScripture might be fulfilled. According to an old tradition, the tunic had\nbeen woven for Jesus by the Blessed Virgin\u2019s own hands.\n\n25. Stabant autem iuxta crucem   25. Now there stood by the\nIesu mater eius, et soror        cross of Jesus, his mother,\nmatris eius, Maria Cleophae,     and his mother\u2019s sister, Mary\net Maria Magdalene.              of Cleophas, and Mary\n                                 Magdalen.\n\n25. *By the cross.* There is no contradiction between this and the\nSynoptic Evangelists (Matt. xxvii. 55; Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiii. 49), who\nrepresent the women as standing \u201cafar off;\u201d for they refer to a time\nsubsequent to Christ\u2019s death, St. John to a time when He was hanging on\nthe cross still alive.\n\n*His mother\u2019s sister.* Mary of Cleophas was the wife of Cleophas, and\nmother of the Apostle James the Less. She was a cousin of the Blessed\nVirgin. Some writers, however, prefer to think, that she is called a\n\u201csister,\u201d because her husband Cleophas was brother to St. Joseph.\n\n26. Cum vidisset ergo Iesus      26. When Jesus therefore had\nmatrem, et discipulum stantem    seen his mother and the\nquem diligebat, dicit matri      disciple standing, whom he\nsuae: Mulier, ecce filius        loved, he saith to his mother:\ntuus.                            Woman, behold thy son.\n27. Deinde dicit discipulo:      27. After that, he saith to\nEcce mater tua. Et ex illa       the disciple: Behold thy\nhora accepit eam discipulus in   mother. And from that hour the\nsua.                             disciple took her to his own.\n\n26, 27. *Woman* (\u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9) is the same term by which Jesus addressed His\nmother at the marriage feast of Cana (John ii. 4). Its use on the present\nsad, solemn occasion were itself sufficient proof that the term implies no\ndisrespect. (See above on ii. 4.) The virgin disciple is here commended to\nthe Blessed Virgin\u2019s care, to be loved and treated as her son; and she, in\nturn, to His care, to be loved and respected and supported as a mother.\nThere is no reason for doubting the common opinion that St. Joseph was\ndead at this time; had he been still alive, the Blessed Virgin would,\ndoubtless, have remained under his care.\n\n*To his own* (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1, _i.e._ \u03b4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1). The meaning is that he took her\nto where he himself abode. He may have had a house of his own, for his\nfather seems to have been a man of some means (Mark i. 20), and the\nexpression would most naturally refer to his own house (Acts xxi. 6). But\nit is possible, too, that he merely lodged in another\u2019s house. In xvi. 32,\nit is predicted that the Apostles should be scattered every man to his own\n(\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1), and very few of these poor Galilean fishermen can have\nowned houses in Jerusalem.\n\nRegarding the common belief that St. John, at the foot of the cross,\nrepresented the whole human race, or, at least, all the faithful, it must\nbe said that the fathers make no mention of this view, and that there is\nnothing in the obvious literal sense of the passage to indicate that St.\nJohn held any such representative capacity.\n\n28. Postea sciens Iesus quia     28. Afterwards Jesus knowing\nomnia consummata sunt, ut        that all things were now\nconsummaretur scriptura,         accomplished, that the\ndixit: Sitio.                    scripture might be fulfilled,\n                                 said: I thirst.\n\n28. *Afterwards*, when three o\u2019clock was come, Jesus, knowing that He had\ndone all for which He had been sent, and that the prophecies regarding the\nMessias had been fulfilled in Himself, in order that one remaining\nprophecy might be accomplished, said: *I thirst*. Sorrow, and suffering,\nand the loss of blood had exhausted the humours of the body, and naturally\nproduced thirst.\n\n29. Vas ergo erat positum        29. Now there was a vessel set\naceto plenum. Illi autem         there full of vinegar. And\nspongiam plenam aceto, hyssopo   they putting a sponge full of\ncircumponentes, obtulerunt ori   vinegar about hyssop, put it\neius.                            to his mouth.\n\n29. *Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar.* Some think that\nthe \u201cvinegar\u201d was the posca, or thin wine, which was the ordinary drink of\nthe Roman soldiers, and that it was there on this occasion for their use.\nBut the fact that the sponge and hyssop seem to have been at hand,\nprovided apparently for the sake of the victims, makes it very probable\nthat the vinegar also was provided on their account. We must carefully\ndistinguish this occasion from another referred to by SS. Matt. and Mark,\nprior to the crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 34; Mark xv. 23). These Evangelists\nrefer to the present occasion also, but they speak of only one who took\nthe sponge, and gave Christ to drink (Matthew xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36). We\nmay reconcile St. John\u2019s account with theirs, by saying that he simply\nuses the indefinite plural for the singular; or that he ascribes to many\nwhat was done by one with their approval. One of those present, then,\nprobably a soldier, took a sponge,(130) and soaked it in vinegar, and\nfastened it around the point of a sprig of hyssop, and then reached it up\nto our Lord\u2019s mouth that He might suck it. Thus was the Scripture\naccomplished: \u201cAnd in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink\u201d (Ps.\nlxviii. 22). Many think that the vinegar was given to hasten death.\n\nHyssop is an aromatic plant, which grows upon walls. Its stalks are less\nthan two feet long, so that our Lord\u2019s mouth seems not to have been raised\nhigher above the ground than such a stalk in a man\u2019s outstretched arm\ncould reach.\n\n30. Cum ergo accepisset Iesus    30. Jesus therefore when he\nacetum, dixit: Consummatum       had taken the vinegar, said:\nest. Et inclinato capite         It is consummated. And bowing\ntradidit spirituum.              his head, he gave up the\n                                 ghost.\n\n30. *It is consummated*; that is, all the purpose of My life is completed;\nonly one thing remains, that I finish My course and crown My life and\nsufferings by My death. Then, as St. Luke tells us: \u201cJesus crying with a\nloud voice, said: Father into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying\nthis he gave up the ghost\u201d (Luke xxiii. 46).\n\n*He gave up the ghost.* He gave up His soul into the hands of His eternal\nFather. The expression used seems to be employed with the special purpose\nof showing that His death itself was a voluntary act (comp. x. 17, 18).\n\u201cSpiritum cum verbo sponte dimisit, praevento carnificis officio.\u201d\n(Tertull. Apol., ch. 21, p. 58.) And St. Augustine on this verse says\nbeautifully: \u201cQuis ita dormit quando voluerit, sicut Jesus mortuus est\nquando voluit? Quis ita vestem ponit quando voluerit, sicut se carne exuit\nquando vult? Quis ita cum voluerit abit, quomodo ille cum voluit obiit?\nQuanta speranda vel timenda potestas est judicantis, si apparuit tanta\nmorientis?\u201d\n\nIt may be useful to set down here together what are commonly referred to\nas the seven last \u201cwords\u201d of Jesus on the cross. The Synoptic Evangelists\nrecord four of them, and St. John the other three. The first was: \u201cFather\nforgive them, for they know not what they do\u201d (Luke xxiii. 34); the\nsecond, addressed to the good thief: \u201cAmen, I say to thee, this day thou\nshalt be with me in paradise\u201d (Luke xxiii. 43); the third: \u201cWoman behold\nthy son,\u201d together with the words addressed to St. John: \u201cBehold thy\nmother\u201d (John xix. 26, 27); the fourth: \u201cMy God, my God, why hast thou\nforsaken me?\u201d (Matthew xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34); the fifth: \u201cI thirst\u201d\n(John xix. 28); the sixth: \u201cIt is consummated\u201d (John xix. 30); and the\nseventh: \u201cFather into thy hands I commend my spirit\u201d (Luke xxiii. 46).\n\n31. Iudaei ergo (quoniam         31. Then the Jews (because it\nparasceve erat), ut non          was the parasceve) that the\nremanerent in cruce corpora      bodies might not remain upon\nsabbato (erat enim magnus dies   the cross on the sabbath\u2010day\nille sabbati), rogaverunt        (for that was a great sabbath\u2010\nPilatum ut frangerentur eorum    day) besought Pilate that\ncrura, et tollerentur.           their legs might be broken,\n                                 and that they might be taken\n                                 away.\n\n31. *(Because it was the parasceve) that the bodies*, &c. We would take\naway the brackets. The fact that it was Friday, and that the Sabbath was,\ntherefore, near, made the Jews anxious to have the bodies removed. This\nverse strongly confirms the view we hold (see above on verse 14) that St.\nJohn means by parasceve, the day before the Sabbath, that is to say,\nFriday; not the day before the Paschal feast. For, in the present verse\nthe fact that it was the parasceve is evidently taken to imply that the\nnext day would be the Sabbath.\n\n*For that was a great sabbath day.* The better\u2010supported Greek reading\nwould be rendered: For great was the day of that sabbath (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5). The meaning is that this Sabbath was specially solemn, because\nit was the Sabbath that fell within the Paschal week.\n\n*And that they might be taken away.* We read in Deut. xxi. 22, 23: \u201cWhen a\nman hath committed a crime for which he is punished with death, and being\ncondemned to die is hanged on a gibbet, his body shall not remain upon the\ntree, but shall be buried _the same day_.\u201d It was more than usually\nnecessary to have the bodies buried on the same day in the present case,\nas the next day was to be a Sabbath, and a very special Sabbath, too. And\nas the Sabbath began at sunset, hence the anxiety of the Jews to have the\nbodies removed. The breaking of the legs was intended to insure death.\nWith the Romans it was usual to let the bodies of the crucified hang till\nthey rotted.\n\n32. Venerunt ergo milites: et    32. The soldiers therefore\nprimi quidem fregerunt crura,    came: and they broke the legs\net alterius, qui crucifixus      of the first, and of the other\nest cum eo.                      that was crucified with him.\n33. Ad Iesum autem cum           33. But after they were come\nvenissent, ut viderunt eum iam   to Jesus, when they saw that\nmortuum, non fregerunt eius      he was already dead, they did\ncrura:                           not break his legs.\n34. Sed unus militum lancea      34. But one of the soldiers\nlatus eius aperuit, et           with a spear opened his side,\ncontinuo exivit sanguis et       and immediately there came out\naqua.                            blood and water.\n\n34. *Opened* (Vulg., aperuit) *his side*. It is very much more probable\nthat the verb in the original is \u1f14\u03bd\u03c5\u03be\u03b5\u03bd (pierced) not \u1f24\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03be\u03b5\u03bd (opened). *A\nspear*; (\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c7\u03b7). This was the long lance of a horseman. The lance is now\npreserved and venerated in Rome, in St. Peter\u2019s. It wants the point, which\nis kept in the holy chapel in Paris.\n\nIt is uncertain whether it was Christ\u2019s right side or left that was\npierced with a lance. According to the Ethiopian Version, and the\napocryphal Gospels of Nicodemus and the Infancy, it was the right. Thus a\nvery early tradition points to the right side, and it was on his right\nside, too, that St. Francis was marked when he received the sacred\nstigmata.\n\n*And immediately there came out blood and water.* It is disputed whether\nthis flow of blood and water was natural or miraculous.\n\n(1) Some hold that each flow was miraculous, because in a _dead_ body\nblood does not flow and water is not found in the region of the heart.\n\n(2) Others, on the contrary, hold that in each case the flow was quite\nnatural, because in a dead body the _clot_ or red corpuscles become\nseparated from the _serum_ or watery substance of the blood, and both\nwould naturally flow out when Christ\u2019s side was pierced. This opinion,\nhowever, is improbable, as the best modern physiologists say it would\nrequire four hours after death to effect this separation,(131) and no such\nlength of time can be admitted between the death of Christ at three\no\u2019clock and the piercing of his side, for he had to be buried before\nsunset, that is to say, at the latest, about 6 p.m.\n\n(3) Hence others hold that Christ\u2019s heart had broken, and that the blood\nwhich had therefore flowed into the pericardium, or sheath of the heart,\nhad become, when extravasated, _rapidly_ dissolved into its constituent\nelements. This view is held by some writers of great authority. See Dr.\nStroud\u2019s _Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ_. Against\nit, however, we have the opinion of physiologists, that the heart never\nbreaks except in those in whom the organism has been long diseased; and it\nis contrary to the common opinion that Christ took or had a diseased body,\nor any diseased organ.\n\n(4) Hence, with Corluy, we think the most probable view is, that the blood\nflowed naturally from a body _only a short time dead_, the water\nmiraculously. Certainly the fathers generally seem to see in this flow of\nblood and water a mystery, something that was not ordinary or natural, and\nmany think that our Evangelist himself, in the next verse, _insists_ upon\nthe truth of what he says, as if it were something wholly unnatural and\ndifficult to believe. It may, however, be replied to this latter argument\nthat he insists upon the truth of the facts, not because anything\nmiraculous and difficult to believe had taken place, but because there was\nquestion of the fulfilment of two important Messianic prophecies.\n\nAccording to the fathers, the flow of blood typified the Sacrament of the\nBlessed Eucharist, that of water, the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus St. Cyril\nof Alex.: \u201cLancea latus ejus perfodiunt, unde cruor aqua mistus scaturiit,\nquod Eulogiae mysticae et baptismatis imago quaedam erat atque primitiae.\u201d\n\n35. Et qui vidit, testimonium    35. And he that saw it hath\nperhibuit: et verum est          given testimony: and his\ntestimonium eius. Et ille scit   testimony is true. And he\nquia vera dicit: ut et vos       knoweth that he saith true;\ncredatis.                        that you also may believe.\n\n35. *And he that saw* (hath seen) *it hath given testimony*. \u201cIt\u201d is not\nrepresented in the original, and ought not to stand in our English\nversion, as it seems to determine the reference to be merely to the sight\nof the flow of blood and water. We take the object of the verb \u201chath\nseen,\u201d to be _all_ that is stated in the two preceding verses; namely,\nthat Christ\u2019s legs were not broken, that His side was pierced, and that\nblood and water flowed. That this is the meaning is proved by the next\nverse.\n\n*That you also may believe.* The sense is not that you also may believe\nthat blood and water flowed, or that Christ really died; but, with Beel.;\nBisp., Corl., that you also, as well as I, may more firmly believe that\nJesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets. These words, then, express\nthe full purpose that our Evangelist had in view in testifying to the\nfacts just stated. \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 (that) may be taken to depend upon the three\npreceding clauses, or upon the words immediately preceding: \u201csaith true.\u201d\n\n36. Facta sunt enim haec, ut     36. For these things were done\nscriptura impleretur: Os non     that the scripture might be\ncomminuetis ex eo.               fulfilled: _You shall not\n                                 break a bone of him_.\n\n36. *For these things were done.* \u201cFor\u201d establishes the connection, and\nproves, we think, the view we hold. It is as if the Evangelist said: these\nthings happened, and I insist upon their truth, because they afford a\nstrong argument why you should believe that Jesus was the Messias.\n\n*You shall not break a bone of him*, had reference in its literal sense\n(Exod. vii. 46; Num. ix. 12) to the Paschal lamb; yet, St. John tells us\nhere that the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ. Hence we have here an\ninvincible argument for the existence of a mystical sense in Scripture.\n\n37. Et iterum alia scriptura     37. And again another\ndicit: Videbunt in quem          scripture saith: _They shall\ntransfixerunt.                   look on him whom they\n                                 pierced_.\n\n37. The quotation is from Zach. xii. 10, according to the Hebrew text,\nexcept that, perhaps, the correct reading in Zach. is \u201con me,\u201d and not \u201con\nhim.\u201d The passage in Zach. is Messianic in its literal sense, and the\ncontext shows that there is question of looking upon Jesus in sorrow and\nregret for what had taken place. We know from St. Luke that \u201call the\nmultitude returned (from Calvary) striking their breasts\u201d (xxiii. 48).\n\n38. Post haec autem rogavit      38. After these things Joseph\nPilatum Ioseph ab Arimathaea     of Arimathea (because he was a\n(eo quod esset discipulus        disciple of Jesus, but\nIesu, occultus autem propter     secretly for fear of the Jews)\nmetum Iudaeorum), ut tolleret    besought Pilate that he might\ncorpus Iesu. Et permisit         take away the body of Jesus.\nPilatus. Venit ergo, et tulit    And Pilate gave leave. He came\ncorpus Iesu.                     therefore and took away the\n                                 body of Jesus.\n\n38. *After these things.* We learn from SS. Matthew and Mark that when\nJoseph approached Pilate it was evening (Matthew xxvii. 57; Mark xv. 42).\nJoseph was \u201ca rich man\u201d (Matthew xxvii. 57), \u201ca noble counsellor\u201d (Mark\nxv. 43), that is a member of the Sanhedrim, \u201ca good and a just man\u201d (Luke\nxxiii. 50).\n\n*Arimathea.* Opinion is divided as to whether this was Rama in the tribe\nof Benjamin (Matt. ii. 18), or Rama (Ramathaimsophim) in the tribe of\nEphraim (1 Kings i. 1). The latter, the birthplace of the Prophet Samuel,\nis called Ramatha in 1 Kings i. 19. St. Luke calls Arimathea \u201ca city of\nJudea\u201d (Luke xxiii. 51). St. Jerome (Onom. sacr., 2nd Ed., p. 178)\nidentifies Arimathea with Remftis, now Rantieh, on the plain North of\nLydda. See Smith\u2019s _B. D._ _sub voc._\n\n*Secretly.* Till now he had been a disciple in secret, but after the death\nof Christ both he and Nicodemus boldly appeared in public as devoted\nfriends of their dead Master.\n\n*And Pilate gave leave.* Permission was usually given to the friends of\none who had been executed to bury his body. Sometimes, indeed, Roman\nGovernors granted such permission only on receiving money from the friends\n(Cic., Verr. v. 45), but in the present instance Pilate granted the\nprivilege gratis (\u201c_Donavit_ corpus Jesu,\u201d Mark xv. 45).\n\nWe learn from St. Mark that Pilate gave the body only after he had\nsummoned the centurion and learned that Jesus was dead (Mark xv. 44, 45).\n\n*He came therefore and took away the body of Jesus.* We learn from St.\nMark (xv. 46), and St. Luke (xxiii. 53), that he \u201ctook down\u201d the body of\nJesus, either aiding in or directing the work. Hence he must have returned\nto the foot of the cross, before the orders given to the soldiers (verses\n31, 32) were fully carried out. If we suppose Joseph to have come soon\nafter the Jews (verse 31) to Pilate, the governor, before granting his\nrequest, would naturally wish to be certain that Jesus was dead, and would\ntherefore summon the centurion and make inquiry (Mark xv. 44, 45); then\nJoseph, returning from wherever Pilate was at the time, arrived before the\nbody of our Lord had been taken down by the soldiers.\n\n39. Venit autem et Nicodemus,    39. And Nicodemus also came,\nqui venerat ad Iesum nocte       he who at first came to Jesus\nprimum, ferens mixturam          by night, bringing a mixture\nmyrrhae et alo\u00ebs, quasi libras   of myrrh and aloes, about an\ncentum.                          hundred pound _weight_.\n\n39. *He who at first came to Jesus by night.* The reference is to the\nvisit recorded above in iii. 1, ff. St. John alone makes mention of\nNicodemus on this occasion. The phrase \u201cat first\u201d may imply that Nicodemus\nvisited Christ on other occasions, or it may indicate merely the beginning\nof Christ\u2019s ministry. The present public act of reverence in the light of\nday, beside a crowded city, is thrown into relief by contrast with the\ntimid visit then paid \u201cby night.\u201d\n\n*Bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.*\n\u201cThe compound was made of the gum of the myrrh tree, and a powder of the\nfragrant aloe wood. The amount of the preparation (\u2018about a hundred pound\nweight,\u2019 that is, a hundred Roman pounds of nearly twelve ounces) has\ncaused some needless difficulty. The intention of Nicodemus was, without\ndoubt, to cover the body completely with the mass of aromatics. Comp. 2,\nChro. (Paralip.) xvi. 14: for this purpose the quantity was not excessive\nas a costly gift of devotion.\u201d (Westc. in _The Speaker\u2019s Commentary_.)\n\n40. Acceperunt ergo corpus       40. They took therefore the\nIesu, et ligaverunt illud        body of Jesus, and bound it in\nlinteis cum aromatibus, sicut    linen cloths with the spices,\nmos est Iudaeis sepelire.        as the manner of the Jews is\n                                 to bury.\n\n40. *And bound it in linen cloths* (\u1f41\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1). They bound the body in\nswathes of linen cloth covered with layers of the aromatic mixture. The\nSynoptists speak only of \u201ca linen cloth\u201d (\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd) in which the body was\n\u201cwrapped.\u201d We may naturally suppose that the body when embalmed was\nwrapped in a large linen cloth.\n\n*A new sepulchre, wherein no man yet had been laid.* We learn from St.\nMatthew (xxvii. 60), that the sepulchre belonged to Joseph, and from all\nthe Synoptists that it was hewn out of a rock, and therefore artificial.\nAs no other body had been buried in the sepulchre, there could be no\npossible doubt that the body that rose was that of our Lord.\n\n41. Erat autem, in loco ubi      41. Now there was in the\ncrucifixus est, hortus, et in    place, where he was crucified,\nhorto monumentum novum, in quo   a garden; and in the garden a\nnondum quisquam positus erat.    new sepulchre, wherein no man\n                                 yet had been laid.\n42. Ibi ergo propter             42. There therefore because of\nparasceven Iudaeorum, quia       the parasceve of the Jews they\niuxta erat monumentum,           laid Jesus, because the\nposuerunt Iesum.                 sepulchre was nigh at hand.\n\n42. *Because the sepulchre was nigh at hand.* It seems to be implied that\nif there had been more time, some other sepulchre would have been chosen.\nAs it was, because the Sabbath was at hand they laid Him in the tomb that\nwas most convenient. St. John writing for the Christians of Asia Minor,\nspeaks of \u201cthe parasceve of the Jews,\u201d because when he wrote, Saturday was\nthe Parasceve of Christians, the day of rest having been already changed\nfrom Saturday to Sunday, in honour of our Blessed Lord\u2019s resurrection.\n(See Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\n\n    1\u201010. *On Easter Sunday morning Magdalen comes to the tomb, and\n    then runs to Peter and John, who also come to the tomb.*\n\n    11\u201017. *Magdalen, having followed Peter and John back to the tomb,\n    sees first two angels, and then Jesus Himself.*\n\n    18. *Then she announces to the disciples that Jesus had appeared\n    to her.*\n\n    19\u201023. *Appearance of Jesus to the disciples on Easter Sunday\n    evening when he instituted the Sacrament of Penance.*\n\n    24, 25. *Incredulity of Thomas.*\n\n    26\u201029. *Appearance of Jesus again on Low Sunday to Thomas and the\n    other disciples, when Thomas believes, and confesses his faith.*\n\n    30, 31. *Incompleteness of this narrative regarding the miracles\n    which Christ wrought to prove his resurrection, and statement of\n    the object which St. John had in view in recording what he has\n    recorded.*\n\n\nSt. John\u2019s narrative regarding the visit of Magdalen to the tomb on Easter\nSunday morning is very simple, when taken by itself. She came to the tomb\nor, at least, started for it, \u201cwhen it was yet dark,\u201d and then ran from\nthe tomb to tell Peter and John that the body of Jesus had been removed\n(xx. 1, 2). But when we compare this account with those of the other\nEvangelists several serious difficulties arise. Thus, while St. John says\nthat Magdalen \u201ccometh early, _when it was yet dark_, unto the sepulchre;\u201d\nSt. Matthew says that she and the other Mary came to see the sepulchre \u201cin\nthe _end of the Sabbath_ (according to the Vulgate: \u2018_Vespere_ Sabbati\u2019),\nwhen it began to dawn towards the first day of the week\u201d (Matt. xxviii.\n1). And St. Mark creates still further difficulty when he says: \u201cAnd when\nthe Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen, and Mary (the mother) of James, and\nSalome bought (not brought; Vulg. emerunt) sweet spices, that coming they\nmight anoint Jesus. And very early in the morning, the first day of the\nweek, they come to the sepulchre, _the sun being now risen_\u201d (Mark xvi.\n1\u20102). Thus, while St. Matt. represents Magdalen as coming to the sepulchre\nin the end of the Sabbath, or as the still more difficult text of the\nVulgate has it: \u201cVespere Sabbati,\u201d St. Mark represents her as coming on\nSunday morning, _when the sun was risen_; and St. John, as coming on the\nSunday morning _when it was yet dark_.\n\nAgain, while St. John does not mention the appearance of any angel on the\noccasion of Magdalen\u2019s first visit to the tomb (John xx. 1), St. Mark says\nthat when the women entered the tomb \u201cthey saw a young man _sitting_ on\nthe right side clothed with a white robe\u201d (Mark xvi. 5); and St. Luke,\nthat after the women entered the tomb, and found not the body of the Lord\n\u201cbehold _two_ men _stood_ by them in shining apparel\u201d (Luke xxiv. 4).(132)\n\nVarious theories have been advanced to reconcile these different accounts.\nMaldonatus (on Matt. xxviii. 3) undertakes, with his usual great ability,\nbut, we think, without success, to reconcile them in the hypothesis, not\nmerely that there was only one company of women, but also that Mary\nMagdalen visited the tomb but once on the morning of the resurrection.\nOthers, while admitting that Magdalen came twice to the tomb that morning,\nas, indeed, seems to follow naturally from St. John\u2019s account (xx. 2\u201011),\nhold that there was only one company of women, and that all the\nEvangelists speak of the same company. Others again hold that not only did\nMagdalen come twice to the tomb, but that at least two different companies\nof women visited the tomb that morning, and that some Evangelists refer to\nthe visit of one company, others to the visit of the other company. Thus\nPatrizzi (_De Evang._, Diss. liii. 5, 6, 7) supposes SS. Matt. and Mark to\nrefer to the visit of one company, SS. Luke and John to the visit of a\ndifferent company. On the other hand Dr. Walsh (_Harmony of the Gosp.\nNarr._), Cornely (Introd. III., _Synops. Chron._, p. 301), and Greswell\n(_Harm. of the Gosp._), suppose St. Luke to refer to the visit of one\ncompany, the other three Evangelists to that of a different company.\n\nThe following seems to us the most satisfactory method of reconciling all\nthe accounts. Very early on Sunday morning, \u201cwhen it was yet dark\u201d (John\nxx. 1), Mary Magdalen, accompanied, perhaps from the start, by Mary of\nCleophas, set out from Bethany, where we suppose her to have spent the\npreceding day and night in the house of her brother Lazarus. To this same\ndeparture from Bethany and to the same two women (compare Matt. xxviii. 1\nwith xxvii. 56) St. Matt. refers: \u201cAnd in the end of the Sabbath, when it\nbegan to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and\nthe other Mary to see the sepulchre\u201d (Matt. xxviii. 1).(133) Proceeding on\ntheir way they were joined by Salome and probably by others, and arrived\nat the tomb, \u201cthe sun being now risen\u201d (Mark xvi. 2). The journey from\nBethany was nearly three miles, for Bethany was nearly two miles east of\nJerusalem (John xi. 18), and Calvary was another mile westward from the\neastern part of the city. We may well suppose, then, that an hour and a\nhalf\u2014the length of morning twilight at Jerusalem about the season of the\nPasch (Patriz. Diss. liii. 2)\u2014was spent on the journey, especially if, as\nwe may suppose, there were delays on the way while the party was being\njoined by other women; and hence, though the start from Bethany took place\nwhile it was still dark (John xx. 1), they did not arrive at the tomb till\nthe sun had risen (Mark xvi. 2).\n\nWhile these women were on their way, Christ rose and quitted the sealed\ntomb, and after His resurrection an angel rolled away the stone and sat\nupon it, _in the sight of the guards_ (Matt. xxviii. 2\u20104). The women on\narriving saw the stone already rolled away (Mark xvi. 4; John xx. 1), and\nMagdalen probably ran and looked into the tomb. Not seeing the body of\nJesus, she concluded it had been removed, and ran to say so to the\ndisciples (John xx. 2).\n\nHer companions remained at the tomb and entered it, and the angel\nmentioned by St. Matt. (xxviii. 5) and St. Mark (xvi. 5) appeared to them.\nThe women then left the tomb in fear and astonishment and great joy, and\nran to tell the disciples, but through fear told no one _on the way_ (Mark\nxvi. 8), though their hearts were full of the wonderful and joyous event.\n\nSoon after their departure from the tomb, Peter and John arrived coming to\nsee if what Magdalen announced was true. Then Peter and John departed, and\nMagdalen who had followed them to the tomb, remained behind them, and saw\nthe two angels _sitting_ (John xx. 12). Then Jesus appeared to her (John\nxx. 14\u201017), before he had appeared to anyone else, as we learn from St.\nMark: \u201cBut He rising early the first day of the week appeared first to\nMary Magdalen out of whom he had cast seven devils\u201d (xvi. 9).(134)\nMeantime the women, Magdalen\u2019s companions, were on their way to the\ndisciples, and now Jesus appeared to them (Matt. xxviii. 9), immediately\nafter He had appeared to Magdalen.\n\nAnd now we have reconciled the accounts of SS. Matthew, Mark, and John\nregarding Magdalen and her companions. It remains to speak of St. Luke\u2019s\naccount.\n\nWe believe that St. Luke speaks of a different company of women from that\nreferred to by the other Evangelists. There is nothing improbable in\nsupposing that more than one company of women came to the tomb on Sunday\nmorning. As they had not been able to visit it on the Sabbath, a visit of\nseveral companies on Sunday morning is just what might be expected. But we\nare not obliged to depend merely on _a priori_ reasoning. For St. Luke\u2019s\ncompany prepared their spices on Friday evening before the Sabbath: \u201cand\nreturning they prepared spices and ointments: and on the Sabbath\u2010day they\nrested according to the commandment\u201d (Luke xxiii. 56); the other company,\nafter the Sabbath, when the first day of the Jewish week had begun: \u201cand\nwhen the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen and Mary _the mother_ of James\nand Salome bought sweet spices, that coming they might anoint Jesus.\u201d\n(Mark xvi. 1). Moreover, the women of whom St. Luke speaks seem to have\ncome to the tomb earlier than any other company, for they came \u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 (literally, at the first dawn, Luke xxiv. 1): and we are not to\nconclude that they merely set out for the tomb at this early hour, for\nthey seem to have arrived at the tomb before the sun was risen: see Luke\nxxiv. 22: \u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nAgain, the natural inference from Luke xxiv. 9\u201012, 22\u201024 is that the women\nhe mentions had returned from the tomb and announced Christ\u2019s resurrection\nbefore Peter and John went to the tomb. We are disposed to hold with\nPatrizzi (Lib. iii., Diss. liii. 4) that St. Luke xxiv. 10 is a summary\naccount of _all_ the announcements made by the various women to the\ndifferent followers of Christ that morning; and hence all the women there\nreferred to need not be supposed to have gone to the disciples before\nPeter and John went to the tomb. But we think that Luke xxiv. 22\u201024,\ncompared with Luke xxiv. 12, proves that others besides Magdalen had come\nto the disciples from the tomb before Peter and John went thither. \u201cYea,\nand certain women also of our company affrighted us, who before it was\nlight (\u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9) were at the sepulchre. And not finding his body, came,\nsaying that they had also seen a vision of angels, who say that he is\nalive. And some of our people went to the sepulchre: and found it so as\nthe women had said, but him they found not\u201d (Luke xxiv. 22\u201024).\n\nHence we hold that St. Luke\u2019s company of women started for the tomb at\nearly dawn, after Magdalen had set out from Bethany, but as they probably\nspent the night in Jerusalem, they _arrived before_ her, saw the two\nangels _standing_ (Luke xxiv. 4), and then went to announce Christ\u2019s\nresurrection to the disciples. Not long after the departure of this\ncompany, Magdalen and her companions arrived at the tomb, and Magdalen\n_running_ from the tomb (John xx. 2) arrived at the house where Peter and\nJohn were staying, about the same time as St. Luke\u2019s company, or perhaps a\nlittle later. Her announcement that the Lord\u2019s body had been removed,\nconfirming to some extent the announcement of St. Luke\u2019s company that He\nhad risen, Peter and John now ran to the tomb. The events that followed\nhave been already arranged above.\n\n1. Una autem sabbati, Maria      1. And on the first day of the\nMagdalene venit mane, cum        week, Mary Magdalen cometh\nadhuc tenebrae essent, ad        early, when it was yet dark\nmonumentum; et vidit lapidem     unto the sepulchre: and she\nsublatum a monumento.            saw the stone taken away from\n                                 the sepulchre.\n\n1. *The first day of the week.* The Vulgate reading \u201cuna\u201d (\u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6) is a\nHebraism for _prima_; and the week is called by the name of its principal\nday, the Sabbath. Comp. Luke xviii. 22.\n\n*And when it was yet dark.* She started from Bethany while it was yet\ndark, but she did not arrive at Calvary till the sun was risen (Mark xvi.\n2).\n\n2. Cucurrit ergo, et venit ad    2. She ran therefore, and\nSimonem Petrum, et ad alium      cometh to Simon Peter, and to\ndiscipulum quem amabat Iesus,    the other disciple whom Jesus\net dicit illis: Tulerunt         loved, and saith to them: They\nDominum de monumento, et         have taken away the Lord out\nnescimus ubi posuerunt eum.      of the sepulchre, and we know\n                                 not where they have laid him.\n\n2. It is likely that before running to tell the Apostles that the body was\nremoved, Magdalen had looked into the sepulchre and convinced herself it\nwas not there.\n\n*And cometh to Simon Peter.* Notwithstanding his fall on the preceding\nThursday night, which can hardly have remained till now unknown to\nMagdalen, Peter was still regarded as the leader of the disciples.\n\n*The other disciple whom Jesus loved*, is our Evangelist. He and Peter may\nhave been staying in different places in the city. Our Blessed Lady was\nstaying in the same house as St. John (xix. 27).\n\n*They have taken away the Lord.* It is plain that the angels had not yet\nappeared to Magdalen and told her that Jesus was risen. Yet Maldonatus\nsupposes she had already seen the angels, and learned that Jesus was\nrisen, as recorded below in verses 11, 12, ff.\n\n*We know not.* These words show that Magdalen had not come alone to the\ntomb.\n\n3. Exiit ergo Petrus, et ille    3. Peter therefore went out,\nalius discipulus, et venerunt    and that other disciple, and\nad monumentum.                   they came to the sepulchre.\n\n3. *And they came to the sepulchre.* The meaning is that they \u201cwent\ntowards\u201d (\u1f24\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2) the sepulchre.\n\n4. Currebant autem duo simul,    4. And they both ran together,\net ille alius discipulus         and that other disciple did\npraecucurrit citius Petro, et    outrun Peter, and came first\nvenit primus ad monumentum.      to the sepulchre.\n\n4. We have here the vivid touches of one of the two actors in the scene.\nThe incidents of that eventful morning must have remained for ever fresh\nin his memory. St. John being the younger man was able to run more quickly\nthan Peter.\n\n5. Et cum se inclinasset,        5. And when he stooped down,\nvidit posita linteamina, non     he saw the linen cloths lying:\ntamen introivit.                 but yet he went not in.\n\n5. It would appear from this, as indeed we might expect, that it was\nnecessary to stoop in order to look into the sepulchre. See also verse 11\nand Luke xxiv. 12.\n\nHaving stooped and looked in, St. John saw (seeth) the linen swathes in\nwhich the body of our Saviour had been bound (xix. 40).\n\n6. Venit ergo Simon Petrus       6. Then cometh Simon Peter,\nsequens eum, et introivit in     following him, and went into\nmonumentum, et vidit             the sepulchre, and saw the\nlinteamina posita.               linen cloths lying.\n\n6. St. John had arrived first at the tomb, but (deterred by some feeling\nof fear or awe) he did not enter, as he takes care to record. Then Peter\narrived less fleet but more brave, and, apparently, without pausing to\nlook in, at once enters the tomb.\n\n*And saw (seeth).* In the original we have here the verb \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03ad\u03b9, denoting\nan intent and searching gaze, as distinct from St. John\u2019s simple look\n(\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9) described in the preceding verse.\n\n7. Et sudarium quod fuerat       7. And the napkin that had\nsuper caput eius, non cum        been about his head, not lying\nlinteaminibus positum, sed       with the linen cloths, but\nseparatim involutum in unum      apart, wrapt up into one\nlocum.                           place.\n\n7. *And the napkin.* St. Peter\u2019s more searching examination discovered\nwhat had been unnoticed by St. John. The presence of the linen swathes,\nand the napkin folded and laid apart, are doubtless mentioned as proof\nthat Christ was truly risen. Had His body been simply taken away to some\nother tomb, those taking it, whether friends or enemies, would not have\ngone to the useless trouble of removing the spice\u2010covered bandages and the\nnapkin. And, certainly, if it had been hurriedly stolen, such nice care\nwould not have been taken to fold the napkin and place it apart. So,\nsubstantially, St. Chrysostom on this verse.\n\n8. Tunc ergo introivit et ille   8. Then that other disciple\ndiscipulus qui venerat primus    also went in, who came first\nad monumentum, et vidit, et      to the sepulchre: and he saw\ncredidit:                        and believed.\n\n8. St. John now followed Peter into the cave.\n\n*And he saw and believed.* St. Augustine understands this to mean that\nJohn believed what Magdalen had said (verse 2), namely that the body of\nJesus had been removed. We prefer to understand that he believed what St.\nLuke\u2019s company of women had told him, namely, that Jesus was risen from\nthe dead; for when our Evangelist speaks of belief _absolutely_, as here,\nhe usually means faith.\n\n9. Nondum enim sciebant          9. For as yet they knew not\nscripturam, quia oportebat eum   the scripture, that he must\na mortuis resurgere.             rise again from the dead.\n\n9. *For as yet.* We take the meaning to be, that as yet _until now_ they\nknew not the Scripture, that it was necessary Jesus should rise from the\ndead. Even now St. Peter \u201cwent away, wondering in himself at that which\nwas come to pass\u201d (Luke xxiv. 12).\n\n10. Abierunt ergo iterum         10. The disciples therefore\ndiscipuli ad semetipsos.         departed again to their home.\n\n10. *The disciples therefore*\u2014thinking that they could learn nothing more\nthere\u2014*departed again to their home*.\n\n11. Maria autem stabat ad        11. But Mary stood at the\nmonumentum foris, plorans. Dum   sepulchre without, weeping.\nergo fleret, inclinavit se, et   Now as she was weeping, she\nprospexit in monumentum:         stooped down, and looked into\n                                 the sepulchre.\n\n11. *But Mary stood at the sepulchre without, weeping.* Maldonatus holds\nthat what is here recorded took place when Magdalen came to the tomb\n(verse 1), but that St. John hastening to tell of the coming of St. Peter\nand himself to the tomb, inverts the order of events in his narrative. But\nthis is unnatural. We take it that Magdalen had followed Peter and John\nback to the tomb, and now remained behind them. \u201cA stronger affection,\u201d\nsays St. Augustine, \u201criveted to the spot one of a weaker nature.\u201d\n\n12. Et vidit duos angelos in     12. And she saw two angels in\nalbis, sedentes, unum ad         white, sitting, one at the\ncaput, et unum ad pedes, ubi     head, and one at the feet,\npositum fuerat corpus Iesu.      where the body of Jesus had\n                                 been laid.\n\n12. *And she saw two angels.* The vision of angels now accorded to\nMagdalen is not mentioned by any other Evangelist.\n\n13. Dicunt ei illi: Mulier,      13. They say to her: Woman,\nquid ploras? Dicit eis: Quia     why weepest thou? She saith to\ntulerunt Dominum meum: et        them: Because they have taken\nnescio ubi posuerunt eum.        away my Lord: and I know not\n                                 where they have laid him.\n\n13. Magdalen\u2019s words here are the same as in verse 2, except that \u201cmy\nLord\u201d is substituted for \u201cThe Lord,\u201d and \u201cI know not\u201d for \u201cwe know not.\u201d\nBoth her statement and her loss are now more personal.\n\n14. Haec cum dixisset,           14. When she had thus said,\nconversa est retrorsum, et       she turned herself back, and\nvidit Iesum stantem: et non      saw Jesus standing; and she\nsciebat quia Iesus est.          knew not that it was Jesus.\n\n14. *She turned herself back.* Magdalen, conscious, perhaps, of another\npresence, or moved by the ecstatic gaze of the angels on Jesus, now turned\nround and saw Him, but did not recognise Him. Probably, as happened to the\ntwo disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 16), her eyes were held\nthat she should not know Him.\n\n15. Dicit ei Iesus: Mulier,      15. Jesus saith to her: Woman,\nquid ploras? quem quaeris?       why weepest thou? Whom seekest\nIlla existimans quia             thou? She thinking that it was\nhortulanus esset, dicit ei:      the gardener, saith to him:\nDomine, si tu sustulisti eum,    Sir, if thou hast taken him\ndicito mihi ubi posuisti eum:    hence, tell me where thou hast\net ego eum tollam.               laid him: and I will take him\n                                 away.\n\n15. *The gardener*; that is, the man who had charge of Joseph\u2019s garden, in\nwhich our Lord was buried. The man\u2019s presence in the garden at that hour\nof the morning\u2014about 7 o\u2019clock\u2014naturally suggested the thought. Without\nanswering his question, Magdalen replies: *Sir, if thou hast taken him\nhence.*... As if she imagined everyone to be filled like herself with only\none thought, she does not say who it is she is seeking.\n\n*And I will take him away.* To her love everything seemed possible, nor\ndoes she pause to think whether she could carry the body, nor whither she\nwould bear it.\n\n16. Dicit ei Iesus: Maria.       16. Jesus saith to her: Mary.\nConversa illa, dicit ei:         She turning, saith to him:\nRabboni (quod dicitur            Rabboni (which is to say,\nmagister).                       Master).\n\n16. Our Lord now calls her by her name, and she at once recognises Him.\n\n*She, turning, saith to him* (very many authorities add \u201cin Hebrew\u201d)\n*Rabboni*. The word strictly means \u201cmy Master,\u201d but the pronominal suffix,\njust as in Rabbi, gradually became almost a part of the title. The Hebrew\nspoken by Magdalen was of course Syrochaldaic The corresponding word in\npure Hebrew would be Rabban (\u05e8\u05d1\u05df).\n\n17. Dicit ei Iesus: Noli me      17. Jesus saith to her: Do not\ntangere, nondum enim ascendi     touch me, for I am not yet\nad Patrem meum, vade autem ad    ascended to my Father: but go\nfratres meos, et dic eis:        to my brethren, and say to\nAscendo ad Patrem meum, et       them: I ascend to my Father\nPatrem vestrum, Deum meum, et    and to your Father, to my God\nDeum vestrum.                    and your God.\n\n17. Probably Magdalen had prostrated herself at His feet, and was clinging\nto them, as did other women that morning (Matt. xxviii. 9). Christ\u2019s words\nare variously explained. The following view seems to be the most natural:\nDo not seek to cling to Me, to remain with Me now (\u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is often used\nnot in the sense of touching, but of clinging to, hanging on by. See Lidd.\nand Scott); you shall have other opportunities of satisfying your love,\nsince I am to remain with you for forty days, and am not at once ascending\nto My Father.\n\n*But go to My brethren and say to them.* For her consolation she is made\nthe harbinger of Christ\u2019s further exaltation.\n\n*To My Father and to your Father.* \u201cNon ait Patrem nostrum, sed _Patrem\nmeum et Patrem vestrum_. Aliter ergo meum, aliter vestrum: natura meum,\ngratia vestrum. Neque dixit Deum nostrum, sed _Deum meum_, sub quo ego\nhomo; et Deum vestrum, inter quos et ipsum mediator sum\u201d (St. Aug. on St.\nJohn Tr. 121.)\n\n18. Venit Maria Magdalene        18. Mary Magdalen cometh and\nannuntians discipulis: Quia      telleth the disciples: I have\nvidi Dominum, et haec dixit      seen the Lord, and these\nmihi.                            things he said to me.\n\n18. Magdalen went and announced to the disciples that she had seen the\nLord; but, as St. Mark, xvi. 11, tells us, they did not believe her.\n\n19. Cum ergo sero esset die      19. Now when it was late that\nillo, uno sabbatorum, et fores   same day, the first of the\nessen clausae, ubi erant         week, and the doors were shut,\ndiscipuli congregati propter     where the disciples were\nmetum Iudaeorum: venit Iesus,    gathered together for fear of\net stetit in medio, et dixit     the Jews, Jesus came and stood\neis: Pax vobis.                  in the midst, and said to\n                                 them: Peace be to you.\n\n19. *Now when it was late that same day.* Jesus now appears to the ten\nApostles on Easter Sunday evening. Before this, and after the appearance\nto Magdalen, He had appeared to the women returning from the tomb (Matthew\nxxviii. 9); then to Peter (Luke xxiv. 34); then, towards evening, to the\ntwo disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 13, 31); so that the\napparition to the apostles on Easter Sunday evening was the _fifth_\napparition of Jesus on that day, mentioned in the Gospels. He passed\nthrough the closed doors in virtue of the property of subtility which His\nglorified body possessed, and saluted the Apostles \u201cand those who were\nwith them\u201d (Luke xxiv. 33\u201036) with the usual Jewish salutation.\n\nFrom a comparison of St. Luke (xxiv. 33\u201036), we know that the disciples\nwho had returned from Emmaus were present when our Lord appeared on the\noccasion here mentioned by St. John. Now, Emmaus was sixty stadia (about\nseven English miles) from Jerusalem (Luke xxiv. 13), and the two disciples\ndid not reach Emmaus till it was \u201ctowards evening,\u201d and the day was \u201cfar\nspent\u201d (Luke xxiv. 29). Hence though they tarried only a short time in\nEmmaus (Luke xxiv. 33), they can hardly have returned much before dark.\nIndeed it may have been after dark, and in that case the words \u201cwhen it\nwas late that same day\u201d would prove that our Evangelist speaks here, not\naccording to the Jewish method of counting the day from evening to\nevening, but according to the Greek method of counting, as we do, from\nmidnight to midnight.\n\n20. Et cum hoc dixisset,         20. And when he had said this,\nostendit eis manus et latus.     he shewed them his hands, and\nGavisi sunt ergo discipuli,      his side. The disciples\nviso Domino.                     therefore were glad, when they\n                                 saw the Lord.\n\n20. Then to convince them that it was not a spirit they saw (see Luke\nxxiv. 37), He showed them (the wounds in) His hands, and feet (Luke xxiv.\n39), and side, and said to them, as St. Luke tells us: \u201cHandle and see,\nfor a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me to have\u201d (Luke xxiv.\n39). From these words it is plain that Christ\u2019s glorified body, though it\nhad passed through the closed doors, was yet capable of being touched and\nhandled.(135) When He had partaken of food in presence of the disciples\n(Luke xxiv. 42, 43), and dispelled all their doubts as to the reality of\nHis body, then, as St. John tells us here, they were glad.\n\n21. Dixit ergo eis iterum: Pax   21. He said therefore to them\nvobis. Sicut misit me Pater,     again: Peace be to you. As the\net ego mitto vos.                Father hath sent me, I also\n                                 send you.\n\n21. When fear had been dispelled and doubt overcome, He saluted them again\nwith the usual salutation, and proceeded to confer upon them the power of\nforgiving sins. *As the Father hath sent me*, with Divine authority for\nthe salvation of mankind, so with the same authority and for the same\npurpose, I, who have equal authority with the Father, send you.\n\n22. Haec cum dixisset,           22. When he had said this, he\ninsufflavit: et dixit eis:       breathed on them; and he said\nAccipite Spiritum sanctum:       to them: Receive ye the Holy\n                                 Ghost:\n\n22. *He breathed on them.* He breathed upon the Apostles (probably with\none breath upon all) to signify what His words expressed, that He was\ngiving them the Holy Ghost. Already, indeed, the Holy Ghost was in their\nsouls, but He was now given to them more fully in His grace, and in the\nnew power which they received of forgiving sins. This power of forgiving\nsins is common to the three Divine Persons, but is here attributed to the\nHoly Ghost, like all other things pertaining to our sanctification. Though\nthe Apostles already had the Holy Ghost in their souls and though He was\ngiven to them more fully now, yet He was still to be given in a _visible_\nand fuller manner on the day of Pentecost. It is important to note that\nthe power of forgiving sins here evidently attributed to the Holy Ghost\nproves Him to be God, for only God, who is offended by sin, can give\nauthority and power to forgive it.\n\n23. Quorum remiseritis           23. Whose sins you shall\npeccata, remittuntur eis: et     forgive, they are forgiven\nquorum retinueritis, retenta     them: and whose _sins_ you\nsunt.                            shall retain, they are\n                                 retained.\n\n23. The Council of Trent has defined that there is question here of the\nremission of sins in the Sacrament of Penance.(136) As the Council points\nout, the Church always understood the words in this sense, and the natural\nmeaning of the words signifies that the sins are to be remitted or\nretained by a _judicial sentence_ of the persons here addressed. For the\nwords are: _If you remit_ the sins of some (Greek, \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd), that is if\nyou _decide_ to remit the sins of some, and to retain the sins of others,\n&c.\n\nSince there is question of a judicial sentence, and since judgment can be\npassed only upon subjects, it follows that there can be question here only\nof sins committed _after_ Baptism.\n\nUpon the words of this text note\u2014(1) That the persons to whom this\nwondrous power is given are to _forgive_ (remiseritis) sins, not merely to\n_declare_ them forgiven by God.\n\n(2) That there is no restriction as to the sins that may be forgiven; so\nthat there is no such thing as an irremissible sin, if only the minister\ncan decide that the penitent is worthy to receive the Sacrament, and the\npenitent have the proper dispositions. (3) That instead of the present\ntense (remittuntur eis) which stands in the first member(137), we have the\nperfect (retenta sunt) in the second member, implying that the sins\n_remain_ as they were. (4) That in the second member the words are not:\nWhose sins you shall not forgive, but whose sins you shall _retain_;\nimplying, in the minister, a _positive_ judgment adverse to the penitent.\nFor other questions arising out of this text, consult works on Dogmatic\nTheology.\n\nIt appears from St. Luke, xxiv. 33, that there were other persons than the\nApostles present, when these words were spoken and this power to forgive\nsins conferred. It may be that Christ made it clear that this power was\ngiven only to the Apostles and their successors, the bishops and priests\nof the Catholic Church; but, at all events, the tradition of the Catholic\nChurch, with which the Holy Ghost remains to teach her all truth (John\nxvi. 13), has decided that the power was given only to these.\n\nWhether the power of forgiving sins was on this occasion given to Thomas,\nwho was absent, is disputed. Some, as Mald., hold that it was, and appeal\nto the case mentioned in Numb. xi. 26, when the spirit of prophecy was\ngiven to Eldad and Medad, though they were absent. Others, as Toletus, and\nA Lap., hold that it was not, as Thomas was now incredulous, but that it\nwas given on the following Sunday, when Jesus appeared to Thomas and\nconverted him.\n\n24. Thomas autem unus ex         24. Now Thomas, one of the\nduodecim, qui dicitur Didymus,   twelve, who is called Didymus,\nnon erat cum eis quando venit    was not with them when Jesus\nIesus.                           came.\n\n24. *Thomas.* See above on xi. 16. *One of the twelve* \u201cHe says one of the\ntwelve, although the Apostolic College was _now_ reduced to _eleven_,\nbecause \u2018twelve\u2019 was the original number, just as in the case of the\n\u2018Decemvirs,\u2019 they would be thus termed, although only _nine_ out of the\n_ten_ were present on a particular occasion\u201d (M\u2019Ev.).\n\n25. Dixerunt ergo ei alii        25. The other disciples\ndiscipuli: Vidimus Dominum.      therefore said to him: We have\nIlle autem dixit eis: Nisi       seen the Lord. But he said to\nvidero in manibus eius fixuram   them: Except I shall see in\nclavorum, et mittam digitum      his hands the print of the\nmeum in locum clavorum, et       nails, and put my finger into\nmittam manum meum in latus       the place of the nails, and\neius, non credam.                put my my hand into his side,\n                                 I will not believe.\n\n25. The reply of Thomas shows how he had dwelt on each terrible detail of\nthe Passion. The other Apostles may have told him how Christ had pointed\nto His hands and feet, and invited them to \u201chandle and see\u201d that it was He\nHimself. (Luke xxiv. 29, 30). If so, the language of Thomas would\nnaturally be shaped in accordance with what they told him.\n\n26. Et post dies octo, iterum    26. And after eight days,\nerant discipuli eius intus: et   again his disciples were\nThomas cum eis. Venit Iesus,     within, and Thomas with them.\nianuis clausis, et stetit in     Jesus cometh, the doors being\nmedio, et dixit: Pax vobis.      shut, and stood in the midst,\n                                 and said: Peace be to you.\n\n26. *And after eight days*, that is to say, on Low Sunday, Christ again\nappeared to the Apostles, Thomas being present; and this was His _sixth_\nappearance. Thomas, though still without faith, had remained in the\ncompany of the Apostles.\n\n27. Deinde dicit Thomae: Infer   27. Then he said to Thomas:\ndigitum tuum huc, et vide        put in thy finger hither, and\nmanus meas, et affer manum       see my hands, and bring hither\ntuam, et mitte in latus meum:    thy hand and put it into my\net noli esse incredulus, sed     side; and be not faithless,\nfidelis.                         but believing.\n\n27. We may here admire our Lord\u2019s tender and touching mercy in\ncondescending to such pains to dispel the unbelief of Thomas. The language\nused is such as to prove to the Apostle that Jesus knew the very words in\nwhich he had questioned the resurrection.\n\n28. Respondit Thomas, et dixit   28. Thomas answered, and said\nei: Dominus meus et Deus meus.   to him: My Lord, and my God.\n\n28. *My Lord, and my God* (\u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5). As often in the\nNew Testament (Mark ix. 25; Luke viii. 54; John viii. 10), the nominative\nis here used for the vocative (see Beel., _Gr. Gram._, \u00a7 29, Adnot. 1).\nFor the Evangelist expressly states that Thomas addressed Christ. It is\nabsurd then to contend, as the Socinians and Paul of Heidelberg did, that\nthese words are simply an exclamation, meaning: O Jehovah! For, besides\nthe fact that Christ is addressed, the Jews were not in the habit of using\nany such exclamation. The second council of Constant., cap. 12, condemned\nthose who, following the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, said: \u201cHaec\nverba a Thoma non dicta fuisse de Christo, sed miraculo resurrectionis\nperculsum, Thomam laudasse Deum qui Christum resuscitasset.\u201d\n\nThomas\u2019s words, then, are a confession of faith, as our Lord\u2019s words in\nthe next verse prove, and of faith in Christ\u2019s humanity and Divinity.\n\nIn confessing Jesus to be his Lord, Thomas acknowledges Him to be \u201cthe\nmaster\u201d who had been crucified; while, in the remaining words, he clearly\nconfesses Christ\u2019s Divinity. And so our Evangelist, ever mindful of his\nobject in writing this Gospel, records this splendid testimony to the\nhumanity and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and our Lord\u2019s approval thereof.\n\n29. Dixit ei Iesus: Quia         29. Jesus saith to him:\nvidisti me Thoma, credidisti:    Because thou hast seen me,\nbeati qui non viderunt et        Thomas, thou hast believed:\ncrediderunt.                     blessed are they that have not\n                                 seen, and have believed.\n\n29. *Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas thou hast believed.* \u201cAliud vidit,\net aliud credidit. Vidit hominem et cicatrices, et ex hoc credidit\ndivinitatem resurgentis\u201d (St. Thomas Aquin).\n\n*Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.* Rather: \u201cBlessed\nare they that _saw not_ (\u1f31\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2), and believed.\u201d\n\nThe aorist seems to point to something that had already taken place during\nthe preceding week. Some had believed who had merely heard from the\nApostles or the pious women that Jesus was risen, and their faith was more\nprompt and praiseworthy than that of Thomas.\n\n30. Multa quidem et alia signa   30. Many other signs also did\nfecit Iesus in conspectu         Jesus in the sight of his\ndiscipulorum suorum, quae non    disciples, which are not\nsunt scripta in libro hoc.       written in this book.\n\n30. *Many other signs.* We understand not of the various other miracles of\nChrist\u2019s mortal and risen life, but of the other _proofs_ (\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1,\nliterally signs) of His resurrection and Divinity, which he afforded\nduring His risen life. For, the miracles of His mortal life were wrought\nin the sight of all the people; but the _proofs_ of His resurrection were\ngiven only \u201cin the sight of His disciples.\u201d So Mald., Tol., Corn., &c.\n\n31. Haec autem scripta sunt ut   31. But these are written that\ncredatis quia Iesus est          you may believe that Jesus is\nChristus Filius Dei: et ut       the Christ the Son of God; and\ncredentes, vitam habeatis in     that believing you may have\nnomine eius.                     life in his name.\n\n31. But what is here written _in evidence of His resurrection_ is written\nin order that you may believe that Jesus is the Messias (\u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2), the\nSon of God; and that believing you may have life, the life of grace here,\nand of glory hereafter, through His name; that is, through faith in Him.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\n\n    1\u201014. *Appearance of Jesus to the disciples at the Sea of Galilee;\n    the miraculous draught of fish, after which St. John first\n    recognises Jesus, and St. Peter leaps from the boat into the water\n    to come to Him. The breakfast miraculously prepared for the\n    disciples by Jesus.*\n\n    15\u201017. *Peter\u2019s triple confession of his love for his master; he\n    is constituted by Jesus visible head of the whole Church.*\n\n    18\u201019. *Jesus predicts the manner of Peter\u2019s death, as St. John\n    explains.*\n\n    20\u201023. *He reproves Peter\u2019s curiosity regarding the end in store\n    for St. John.*\n\n    24\u201025. *The conclusion.*\n\n\nThe authenticity of this last chapter of our Gospel has been questioned\n(see Introd. v.), and it has been contended that the chapter was not\nwritten by St. John, but by some disciple or disciples of his after his\ndeath. Even among those who admit its authenticity, some have held that it\nwas not written at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, but at a later\nperiod, and added on as an appendix.(138) Both those who deny the\nauthenticity of the chapter, and those who hold it to be an authentic\n_appendix, written at a later date_, argue from the last two verses of\nchapter xx., which, they say, prove that St. John intended to conclude at\nthat point. In addition to this, those who deny the authenticity, contend\nthat the style of this chapter is so different from that of the rest of\nthe Gospel as to compel the belief that both cannot possibly be the work\nof the same hand.\n\nWe may begin by remarking that no Catholic is free to doubt the\n_inspiration_ of the chapter, so that whoever wrote it must have been\ninspired. This follows from the decree of Trent, which defined the _entire\nbooks_ of the Vulgate with all their _parts_ (and this is certainly a\npart, not merely a \u201cparticula\u201d of this Gospel) to be canonical Scripture.\nSee above on iv. 3, 4.\n\nHence, the only questions remaining are: (_a_) whether St. John or _some\nother inspired writer_ wrote the chapter; and (_b_) in case St. John wrote\nit, whether he wrote it at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, or\nlater, and as an appendix.\n\nWith Catholic commentators generally, we hold that the chapter was written\nby St. John and at the same time as the rest of the Gospel. For, since it\nis read in all the MSS., and quoted by all the fathers, the natural\ninference is that it stood in the Gospel from the beginning. Against this\nunanimous testimony of tradition, the arguments for any other view have no\nweight. For, as to the argument drawn from the last two verses of chapter\nxx., we have already, with Mald., Tol., and Cornely, given the most\nprobable explanation of those verses, from which it appears that they were\nnot intended as a conclusion of the whole Gospel, but only of that portion\nof it which deals with the proofs of His Divinity afforded by Christ to\nthe Apostles during His risen life.(139)\n\nAs to the argument from the difference of style, we confidently deny that\nany such difference exists. Kuinoel, no mean judge on such a point, and\ncertainly not a prejudiced witness, says: \u201cOmnino probari nequit,\nscribendi genus, in hoc capite, si clausulam(140) ejus exceperis, diversum\nesse a scribendi genere, quod in reliquo Evangelio deprehenditur.\u201d\n\n1. Postea manifestavit se        1. After this Jesus shewed\niterum Iesus discipulis ad       himself again to the disciples\nmare Tiberiadis. Manifestavit    at the sea of Tiberias. And he\nautem sic:                       shewed _himself_ after this\n                                 manner.\n\n1. *After this.* How many days after Low Sunday (xx. 26) the events now to\nbe recorded occurred, we cannot determine. In the meantime, at all events,\nthe disciples had left Jerusalem and gone to Galilee (Mat. xxviii. 16), in\nobedience to the express desire of their Divine Master (Mat. xxviii. 7;\nMark xvi. 7).\n\n*The sea of Tiberias.* See above on vi. i.\n\n2. Erant simul Simon Petrus,     2. There were together Simon\net Thomas, qui dicitur           Peter, and Thomas who is\nDidymus, et Nathanael, qui       called Didymus, and Nathanael\nerat a Cana Galilaeae, et        who was of Cana in Galilee,\nfilii Zebedaei, et alii ex       and the sons of Zebedee, and\ndiscipulis eius duo.             two others of his disciples.\n\n2. *Nathanael* is most probably the same with Bartholomew, the Apostle.\nSee above on i. 45.\n\n*And two others of his disciples.* Who they were we cannot tell. Had \u201cthe\nsons of Zebedee\u201d not been already named, it would be quite in the style of\nour Evangelist to refer to his brother James and himself in this way.\n\n3. Dicit eis Simon Petrus:       3. Simon Peter saith to them:\nVado piscari, Dicunt ei:         I go a fishing. They say to\nVenimus et nos tecum. Et         him: We also come with thee.\nexierunt, et ascenderunt in      And they went forth and\nnavim: et illa nocte nihil       entered into the ship, and\nprendiderunt.                    that night they caught\n                                 nothing.\n\n3. As they had not yet begun to preach the Gospel, and thus to have a\nright to support from the faithful, they had to provide themselves with\nthe necessaries of life, and so they \u201cgo a fishing.\u201d\n\n*And they went forth* from the house where they were, *and entered into\nthe ship* (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd), which was there, lent or hired for their use; *and\nthat night they caught nothing*, God having so arranged, no doubt, in\norder to make the miracle of the following morning more remarkable.\n\n4. Mane autem facto stetit       4. But when the morning was\nIesus in littore: non tamen      come, Jesus stood on the\ncognoverunt discipuli quia       shore: yet the disciples knew\nIesus est.                       not that it was Jesus.\n\n4. *But when the morning was come.* The better supported Greek reading\n(\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 not \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2) gives the meaning: \u201cWhen the morning was\nbreaking.\u201d But even if this be the correct reading, and the morning was\nonly breaking, still this fact by itself may not be the whole reason why\nthe disciples failed to recognise Jesus. Even when they had come close to\nhim (verse 12), they knew it was He, rather because of what had happened\nthan from the testimony of their eyes. Comp. Luke xxiv. 16.\n\n5. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Pueri   5. Jesus therefore said to\nnumquid pulmentarium habetis?    them: Children, have you any\nResponderunt ei: Non.            meat? They answered him: No.\n\n5. Jesus called to them from the shore: \u201cHave you any meat?\u201d The Revised\nVersion renders: \u201cHave you aught to eat?\u201d The Hellenistic Greek word\n(\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), which is here used, meant primarily something that was eaten\nas relish with other food, but it came to mean food generally, and so the\nmeaning here probably is: \u201chave you anything to eat?\u201d See Lidd. and Scott,\n_sub voce_.\n\n6. Dicit eis: mittite in         6. He saith to them: Cast the\ndexteram navigii rete: et        net on the right side of the\ninvenietis. Miserunt ergo: et    ship; and you shall find. They\niam non valebant illud trahere   cast therefore: and now they\nprae multitudine piscium.        were not able to draw it for\n                                 the multitude of fishes.\n\n6. *On the right side of the ship.* Jesus directed them to the particular\nspot (which John, who was present, is careful to record), in order that\nthey might not look upon the draught as a mere accident. Why they so\nreadily obeyed one unknown to them, we cannot say with certainty. Perhaps\nthe minds of some of them reverted to another occasion, in many respects\nsimilar to this (Luke v. 4\u201010), when, after a night of fruitless toil,\ntheir Master, then with them in His mortal flesh, blessed their labours\nwith a miraculous draught of fish in the morning. And though they did not\nnow _know_ it was He that spoke to them, yet we cannot help thinking,\nespecially when we remember how they were now come to Galilee in\nexpectation of His appearance to them, that some of them must have\n_suspected_ that perhaps it was He who now called to them from the shore.\n\n*To draw it*, _i.e._, into the boat. In verse 11 we are told that they\n\u201cdrew\u201d it to land. It will be noticed that a different word is used in\nverse 8 of dragging the net after the boat.\n\n7. Dixit ergo discipulus ille    7. That disciple therefore\nquem diligebat Iesus, Petro:     whom Jesus loved, said to\nDominus est. Simon Petrus cum    Peter: It is the Lord. Simon\naudisset quia Dominus est,       Peter, when he heard that it\ntunica succinxit se (erat enim   was the Lord, girt his coat\nnudus) et misit se in mare.      about him (for he was naked)\n                                 and cast himself into the sea.\n\n7. The beloved disciple infers from the miraculous draught that it is the\nLord who stands upon the shore. *Simon Peter* (add \u201ctherefore,\u201d \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd) *when\nhe heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him (for he was\nnaked)*. The virgin disciple was the first to recognise his master, but\nPeter as usual was the leader in action. The \u201ccoat\u201d was some garment\nusually _worn over another_ (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd), perhaps an outer and looser\ntunic, which Peter had laid aside while fishing. As he was about to swim\nto his Master, and foresaw that his garments should necessarily be wet, he\nprobably thought it decorous to have some other garment on him besides the\ntight\u2010fitting inner tunic. We suppose therefore that he was already\nclothed in the inner tunic. He girded himself in order that the garment\nmight not impede him when swimming. The Greek word, which, in our Version,\nis rendered \u201cnaked,\u201d is used not only of those who are entirely naked, but\nalso of those who are sparingly clad. See Matt. xxv. 36; Acts xix. 16; 1\nKings xix. 24.\n\n8. Alii autem discipuli          8. But the other disciples\nnavigio venerunt (non enim       came in the ship (for they\nlonge erant a terra, sed quasi   were not far from the land,\ncubitis ducentis), trahentes     but as it were two hundred\nrete piscium.                    cubits) dragging the net with\n                                 fishes.\n\n8. *In the ship.* Rather: \u201cin the boat\u201d (\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c9). It may be that the\nreference is to a small boat that was attached to the larger vessel (\u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd) mentioned in verse 3. As the cubit was eighteen inches, the\ndistance of the boat from the shore was 100 yards.\n\n9. Ut ergo descenderunt in       9. As soon then as they came\nterram, viderunt prunas          to land, they saw hot coals\npositas, et piscem               lying, and a fish laid\nsuperpositum, et panem.          thereon, and bread.\n\n9. *They saw hot coals lying.* In the circumstances, the natural view is\nthat the fire, as well as the fish and bread, was provided miraculously.\nDoubtless one of Christ\u2019s objects in preparing this repast was to prove to\nHis disciples that He could and would provide for the temporal as well as\nthe spiritual necessities of His followers.\n\n10. Dicit eis Iesus: Afferte     10. Jesus saith to them: Bring\nde piscibus, quos prendidistis   hither of the fishes which you\nnunc.                            have now caught.\n\n10. There are various views as to why He said this. Some say because He\nwished them to cook some of the fish, as what was on the fire was not\nenough for all. But, especially on account of the next verse, we believe\nChrist\u2019s object was to give the disciples an occasion of seeing at once\nthe size and number of the fishes, that so they might be the more\nimpressed with the greatness of the miracle.\n\n11. Ascendit Simon Petrus, et    11. Simon Peter went up, and\ntraxit rete in terrain, plenum   drew the net to land, full of\nmagnis piscibus centum           great fishes, one hundred\nquinquaginta tribus. Et cum      fifty\u2010three. And although\ntanti essent, non est scissum    there were so many, the net\nrete.                            was not broken.\n\n11. *Simon Peter went up.* Peter went _aboard_, and drew the net to land.\nThe fact that the net was not broken is evidently mentioned as something\nextraordinary. If this great draught was intended, as doubtless it was\n(see Matthew iv. 19; Luke v. 10: \u201cFrom henceforth thou shalt catch men\u201d),\nto symbolize the success which was to attend the labours of the Apostles\nin drawing men into the Church, we may note how fitting it was that Peter\nled the way in going to fish (verse 3), and landed the net, and brought\nthe fish to his Master on this occasion. For it was he who first preached\nto the Jews on the day of Pentecost, converting about three thousand (Acts\nii. 14\u201041), and he, too, who opened the Church to the Gentiles (Acts x.\n1\u201048).\n\n12. Dicit eis Iesus: Venite,     12. Jesus saith to them: Come,\nprendete. Et nemo audebat        and dine. And none of them who\ndiscumbentium interrogare eum:   were at meat, durst ask him:\nTu quis es? scientes quia        Who art thou? knowing that it\nDominus est.                     was the Lord.\n\n12. *Come, and dine* (\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5). The _primary_ meaning of the Greek word\nused, has reference to breakfast, and since it was early morning (verse\n4), that is the meaning here.\n\n*And none of them that were at meat durst ask him.* The best supported\nGreek reading has: \u201cAnd none _of the disciples_ durst ask him.\u201d The words\nthat follow in this verse seem to imply that Christ\u2019s appearance on this\noccasion was not that which was familiar to the disciples; yet that\nbecause of the miracles they were convinced that it was He. Some, as\nKuinoel, think that \u1f10\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1 (durst) is redundant.\n\n13. Et venit Iesus, et accipit   13. And Jesus cometh and\npanem, et dat eis, et piscem     taketh bread, and giveth them,\nsimiliter.                       and fish in like manner.\n\n13. Their risen Master is not merely their host, but He condescends also\nto be their servant. Whether He Himself ate with them, as on another\noccasion (Luke xxiv. 43), we are not told.\n\n*And taketh bread* (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd). The article points back to the bread\nmentioned in verse 9, which Christ Himself had provided. So, too, in the\ncase of the fish (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f40\u03c8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd).\n\n14. Hoc iam tertio               14. This is now the third time\nmanifestatus est Iesus           that Jesus was manifested to\ndiscipulis suis, cum             his disciples, after he was\nresurrexisset a mortuis.         risen from the dead.\n\n14. *This is now the third time*, &c. It was not His third appearance\nabsolutely, for our Evangelist himself has already recorded three before\nthis: that to Magdalen (xx. 14\u201018), that to the ten Apostles on Easter\nSunday (xx. 19\u201023), and that to the eleven on Low Sunday (xx. 26). The\nmeaning, then, appears to be, that this was the third appearance to any\n_considerable number_ of the disciples.\n\nSome, as Patrizzi, suppose this appearance at the sea of Galilee to have\nbeen absolutely the seventh, after the resurrection, mentioned in the\nGospels. Others make it the eighth, and suppose the one upon the mountain\nof Galilee (Matt. xxviii. 16) to have been the seventh. We rather incline\nto the view that it was the seventh; and, perhaps, at this seventh\nappearance Jesus named to the Apostles the mountain on which His eighth\nappearance would take place (Matt. xxviii. 16). For the other appearances\nof the Lord during the forty days of His risen life, see Mark xvi. 14\u201020;\nActs i. 4\u20109; 1 Cor. xv. 5\u20107.\n\n15. Cum ergo prandissent,        15. When therefore they had\ndicit Simoni Petro Iesus:        dined, Jesus saith to Simon\nSimon Ioannis, diligis me plus   Peter: Simon _son_ of John,\nhis? Dicit ei: Etiam Domine,     lovest thou me more than\ntu scis quia amote. Dicit ei:    these? He saith to him: Yea,\nPasce agnos meos.                Lord, thou knowest that I love\n                                 thee. He saith to him: Feed my\n                                 lambs.\n\n15. *When, therefore.* When they had breakfasted, and were, therefore,\nfree from distractions, so that they could attend to what was said, Jesus\naddressed Peter.\n\n*Simon, son of John* (see above on i. 42). It was certainly not without a\nreason that Jesus here addressed Peter by his former name of Simon. Though\nthe Apostle\u2019s name had been already changed into Peter (Mark iii. 10),\nstill he had not yet begun to be what that new name indicated, the _rock_\nor foundation of the Church, its Pope and supreme head on earth. Our Lord\nwas now about to confer that dignity upon him, and the mention of his\nformer name, now that he was accustomed to the name of Peter, was\ncalculated to remind him of the change of name, and still more of the\n_promised_ authority and pre\u2010eminence (Matt. xvi. 17, 19), which that\nchange implied.\n\n*More than these.* It is supremely ridiculous to suppose, as some\nProtestants have done, that Christ merely meant to ask, if Peter loved Him\nmore than he loved _these fish_. Surely that would be but a poor proof of\nhis love for his Master! It is equally improbable, though not quite so\nabsurd, to suppose that Christ meant: Lovest thou Me more than thou lovest\nthese companions of thine? For Peter knew and believed Jesus to be God\n(Matt. xvi. 16), had declared before now his readiness to die with Him\n(Luke xxii. 33), and on this very morning had proved the intensity of his\nlove for his Master by leaping from the boat and quitting the Apostles to\ncome to Him. Surely, then, it is wholly improbable that Christ merely\nmeant to ask if Peter loved Him more than he loved his fellow\u2010Apostles.\n\nThe meaning, then, plainly is: lovest thou Me more than these love Me?\nPeter replies, humbly avoiding any comparison between his own love and\nthat of his companions, and appealing to Jesus, whom he knew to be the\nSearcher of Hearts, in confirmation of the love that he avows: *Yea, Lord,\nthou knowest that I love thee*. It is worthy of note that the word which\nPeter uses to express his love, is not that which Christ had just used in\nHis question. Christ had asked: Lovest thou (\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1fb7\u03c2) Me? Peter replies:\nYea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love (\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1ff6) Thee. Many commentators think\nthe distinction is not to be pressed, but we cannot believe that Peter\nchanged the word without a reason, especially as he does so again in his\nsecond reply (verse 16), and Christ, in His third question, adopts the\nword that Peter insists upon using. Whatever the distinction be, it is\nlost in our English version; but the reader will see that an effort is\nmade to preserve it in the Vulgate, which in each case renders \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c9, by\n\u201cdiligo,\u201d and \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9 by \u201camo.\u201d We think that Trench properly appreciates\nthe difference between the two words. \u201cOn occasion,\u201d he says, \u201cof that\nthreefold Lovest thou Me,\u201d which the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He\nasks him first, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1fb7 \u03bc\u03b5. At that moment, when all the pulses in the heart\nof the now penitent Apostle are beating with an earnest affection towards\nhis Lord, this word on that Lord\u2019s lips sounds too cold; not sufficiently\nexpressing the warmth of his personal affection toward Him. Besides the\nquestion itself, which grieves and hurts Peter (verse 17), there is an\nadditional pang in the form which the question takes, sounding as though\nit were intended to put him at a comparative distance from his Lord, and\nto keep him there; or at least as not permitting him to approach so near\nto Him as he fain would. He, therefore, in his answer substitutes for it\nthe word of a more _personal_ love, \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1ff6 \u03c3\u03b5 (verse 15). When Christ\nrepeats the question in the same words as at the first, Peter in his reply\nagain substitutes his \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1ff6 for the \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1fb7\u03c2 of his Lord (verse 16). And now\nat length he has conquered; for when for the third time his Master puts\nthe question to him, He does it with the word which Peter feels will alone\nexpress all that is in his heart, and instead of the twice\u2010repeated\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u1fb7\u03c2, His word is \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, now (verse 17). (Trench, _Syn. of the New\nTestament_, pp. 48, 49).(141)\n\n16. Dicit ei iterum: Simon       16. He saith to him again:\nIoannis, diligis me? Ait illi:   Simon _son_ of John, lovest\nEtiam, Domine, tu scis quia      thou me? He saith to him: Yea\namo te. Dicit ei: Pasce agnos    Lord, thou knowest that I love\nmeos.                            thee. He saith to him: Feed my\n                                 lambs.\n\n16. In the second question our Lord drops the comparison between Peter\u2019s\nlove and that of the other Apostles, and, according to the Greek text,\nuses different words in giving Peter his commission. Before, it was:\n_Feed_ My _lambs_ (\u0392\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5): now it is: _Tend_ (or rule) My\n_sheep_ (\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5). Among Uncial MSS., B and C read \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\n(little sheep) here. But A, D, X, and nearly all others read \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac; and\nwhile the Vulg. (agnos) favours the former, the Vetus Itala (oves)\nsupports the latter. It is difficult, then, to decide between the two\nreadings.\n\nWhether Christ intended to signify one portion of His Church by the lambs,\nthe remaining portion by the sheep, or merely used two different terms to\nindicate, in each case, _the whole flock_, matters little as to the sense\nof the passage; for in either case the whole flock of Christ is committed\nto Peter\u2019s care.\n\n17. Dicit ei tertio: Simon       17. He said to him the third\nIoannis, amas me? Contristatus   time: Simon son of John,\nest Petrus, quia dixit ei        lovest thou me? Peter was\ntertio, Amas me? et dixit ei:    grieved, because he had said\nDomine, tu omnia nosti: tu       to him the third time, Lovest\nscis quia amo te. Dixit ei:      thou me? And he said to him:\nPasce oves meas.                 Lord, thou knowest all things:\n                                 thou knowest that I love thee.\n                                 He said to him: Feed my sheep.\n\n17. Again, a third time, Jesus puts the question, but now changing His\nword to the stronger word of Peter\u2019s choice. This threefold repetition of\nthe question, provoking the threefold confession of Peter\u2019s love, was\nprobably intended, not only to make amends for Peter\u2019s threefold denial,\nbut also to indicate the solemn importance of the trust that was now\ncommitted to him. Peter was grieved at the repetition of the question,\nbecause it seemed as if his Lord suspected the sincerity of his love, or,\nperhaps, he feared that the repeated questioning foreboded another fall.\n\n*He said to him: Feed my sheep.* Here, too, as in the preceding verse it\nis doubtful whether \u201clittle sheep\u201d or \u201csheep\u201d is the true reading. In\nfavour of the former we have here not only B and C but also A. On the\nother hand, the Vulgate in this verse (oves) supports the latter. The\ndiminutive, as a term of endearment, would not be out of place in this\nverse or the preceding.\n\nThe Vatican Council has interpreted this passage, verses 15\u201017, of the\nbestowal of the primacy on Peter\u2014a primacy not merely of honour, but also\nof jurisdiction\u2014so that no Catholic is free to interpret the passage in\nany sense other than this. \u201cDocemus itaque et declaramus, Juxta Evangelii\ntestimonia primatum _jurisdictionis_ in _universam_ Dei Ecclesiam\n_immediate_ et directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a\nChristo Domino fuisse.... Atque uni Simoni Petro contulit Jesus post suam\nresurrectionem summi pastoris et rectoris jurisdictionem in totum suum\novile, dicendo: Pasce agnos meos: Pasce oves meas\u201d (_Decr. Vat._, cap. 1,\n_De Apost. Prim. Instit._) And, indeed, the passage cannot reasonably be\ninterpreted in any other sense. For Peter alone is addressed, and his love\nfor his master singled out for comparison with that of his companions, to\nshow that to him individually, and not to them with him, the commission\nhere given was entrusted.\n\nWhat that commission was the Vatican Council tells us in the passage\nalready quoted, and the words of Christ prove. Peter was appointed to feed\nthe _whole flock_ of Christ, to rule it as a shepherd rules his sheep.\nNow, the shepherd not merely feeds his sheep, but he directs and controls\nthem, tends them, guards them from harm (see above on x. 1), and in\nvarious other ways promotes their good. \u201cWherefore the primacy conferred\nupon Peter in this metaphor is an _ordinary_(142), _immediate_(143),\n_universal_, _supreme_, power to _teach_ men the doctrine of Christ, to\nfurnish them with the _pastures_ of salvation, through the Sacraments,\nevangelical counsels, &c.; to _make laws_ by which the sheep may be\ndirected to the eternal pastures; to _appoint subordinate pastors_; to\n_secure that the laws be observed_; to _punish_ disobedient sheep, and to\n_bring back erring sheep_ to the fold. It is, therefore, the fullest power\nof _Episcopal jurisdiction_. Wherefore St. Peter himself (1 Peter ii. 25)\ncalls Christ \u2018the _shepherd_ and bishop of souls\u2019 \u201d (Corl.).\n\nThis wonderful power, then, which as visible head of the Church, and in\nbehalf of its invisible Head Jesus Christ, Peter was to exercise through\nhimself and his successors over all the flock of Christ, whether bishops,\npriests, or people, was given to him on the shore of the sea of Galilee,\non the present occasion.\n\n18. Amen, amen dico tibi: cum    18. Amen, amen, I say to thee:\nesses iunior, cingebas te, et    when thou wast younger, thou\nambulabas ubi volebas: cum       didst gird thyself, and didst\nautem senueris, extendes manus   walk where thou wouldst. But\ntuas, et alius te cinget, et     when thou shalt be old, thou\nducet quo tu non vis.            shalt stretch forth thy hands,\n                                 and another shall gird thee,\n                                 and lead thee whither thou\n                                 wouldst not.\n\n18. We are told by St. John in the following verse that, in the words\nrecorded in this, Christ signified by _what kind_ (\u03c0\u03bf\u1f76\u1ff3) of death Peter\nshould glorify God. Why the Lord chose this particular time, immediately\nafter he had appointed Peter supreme head of the Church, to foretell for\nthe Apostle a martyr\u2019s death by crucifixion, we cannot say with certainty.\nProbably it was to console Peter, now grieved by the thrice\u2010repeated\nquestion, and to assure him that, though he had denied his Lord and had\njust now been closely questioned as to his love, yet his final\nperseverance was secure.\n\n*When thou wast younger*, opposed here to: \u201cWhen thou shalt be old,\u201d\nprobably includes Peter\u2019s life up to the time to which the prediction\nrefers. It is as if Christ had said: Whilst thou _art_ young; for as\nKuinoel on this verse says: \u201cPraeterita de re praesente in oraculis\nadhibentur.\u201d At all events, Peter was still young in the sense of the word\nhere, for we know from verse 7 that on this very morning he had girded\nhimself. *Thou didst gird thyself*, &c. The meaning is: Throughout your\nlife, as on this morning before you swam to Me, you gird yourself when you\nwill to do what you will, and go where you will; but the day shall come\nwhen your hands shall no longer be free to gird yourself, but you shall\nstretch them forth to have them bound to the transverse beam of a\ncross,(144) and another shall gird you (with a cloth round your loins),\nand shall lead you away to death\u2014to death, from which human nature\n_naturally_ recoils.\n\n19. Hoc autem dixit,             19. And this he said,\nsignificans qua morte            signifying by what death he\nclarificaturus esset Deum. Et    should glorify God. And when\ncum hoc dixisset, dicit ei:      he had said this, he saith to\nSequere me.                      him: Follow me.\n\n19. *And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God.*\nWhen St. John wrote this, St. Peter\u2019s death had thrown light on Christ\u2019s\nwords, if, indeed, our Evangelist did not understand their meaning at the\ntime they were spoken. That Peter understood it, we may rest assured.\nAccording to tradition, Peter, at his own request, was crucified with his\nhead downwards, declining, in his humility, to be crucified like his Lord.\n\n*Follow me.* Most of the fathers take these words to mean, not so much\nthat Peter was now to walk after Jesus, as that he was to follow Him\nthrough the death of the cross to the glory of the Father. Compare xiii.\n36, 37.\n\n20. Conversus Petrus vidit       20. Peter turning about, saw\nillum discipulum, quem           that disciple whom Jesus loved\ndiligebat Iesus, sequentem,      following, who also leaned on\nqui et recubuit in coena super   his breast at supper, and\npectus eius, et dixit: Domine    said: Lord, who is he that\nquis est qui tradet te?          shall betray thee?\n\n20. *Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following.*\nFrom these words it would appear that Christ had begun to move away and\nPeter to follow, as if to symbolize the higher sense in which Peter was\none day to tread in His footsteps.\n\n*Who also leaned.* Rather, \u201cwho also leaned back\u201d (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd). The\nreference is to the incident recorded in xiii. 25, not to the position\nJohn occupied at table.\n\n21. Hunc ergo cum vidisset       21. Him therefore when Peter\nPetrus, dixit Iesu: Domine hic   had seen, he saith to Jesus:\nautem quid?                      Lord, and what _shall_ this\n                                 man _do_?\n\n21. Peter, having learned what his own end was to be, was now anxious to\nknow the end that awaited our Evangelist, who was so dear to Jesus and to\nhimself. He therefore asked: \u201cAnd what shall this man do?\u201d or rather as\nthe Greek has it; \u201cAnd this man, what?\u201d that is to say, what end awaits\nhim?\n\n22. Dicit ei Iesus: Sic eum      22. Jesus saith to him: So I\nvolo manere donec veniam, quid   will have him to remain till I\nad te? tu me sequere.            come, what is it to thee?\n                                 follow thou me.\n\n22. *So I will*, &c. \u201cSo\u201d translates the Vulgate \u201csic,\u201d which is a\nmisprint for _si_ (\u1f10\u03b1\u03bd). Hence the true reading is: If I will have him to\nremain till I come, what is it to thee? Follow _thou_ Me. Our Lord here\nreproves Peter\u2019s curiosity and bids him see to himself, nor wish to know\nmore than his Master was pleased to communicate.\n\n*Follow thou me.* \u201cThou\u201d is emphatic. Peter\u2019s question regarding the end\nthat awaited John; and our Lord\u2019s reply, contrasting as it does the two\nApostles (\u201cIf I will have _him_\u201d ... Follow _thou_), justifies us in\ntaking the words \u201cFollow thou me\u201d in reference to Peter\u2019s death by\ncrucifixion.\n\n23. Exiit ergo sermo iste        23. This saying therefore went\ninter fratres quia discipulus    abroad among the brethren,\nille non moritur. Et non dixit   that that disciple should not\nei Iesus: Non moritur: sed:      die. And Jesus did not say to\nSic eum volo manere donec        him: He should not die; but,\nveniam, quid ad te?              So I will have him to remain\n                                 till I come, what is it to\n                                 thee?\n\n23. Our Evangelist tells us here what was _not_ the meaning of the Lord\u2019s\nwords; what their meaning was, he does not say. He merely wished to show\nthat the words afforded no ground for the belief which prevailed among the\nfaithful, and which his own very advanced age at the time when this Gospel\nwas written tended to confirm, that he was not to die at all, or at least\nnot until the day of judgment. Those who deny the authenticity of this\nlast chapter appeal triumphantly to this verse. It was written, they say,\nafter St. John died, when it become necessary to explain away the meaning\nthat had been put upon our Lord\u2019s words. But, from what we have said\nalready, the reader will have seen that there is not the slightest reason\nwhy this verse may not have been written by St. John himself.\n\nThere is a difference of opinion as to what our Lord meant by the words:\n\u201cIf I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?\u201d Some have\ntaken the meaning to be: If I will have him to remain till I come for him\nin a _natural_ death, what is it to thee? But this is not probable; Christ\ncomes for the martyr just as much as for him who dies a natural death.\n\nOthers thus: If I will have him to remain till My coming at the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, what is it to thee?\n\nBut it is most likely that Christ\u2019s coming when spoken of absolutely, as\nhere, refers to His coming at the day of judgment. Hence the most probable\nview seems to be: _If I were_ to will him to remain living even till the\nday of judgment, what were that to thee? Thus our Lord makes a purely\nhypothetical case, and conveys no information to Peter, thereby reproving\nstill more his curiosity.\n\n24. Hic est discipulus ille      24. This is that disciple who\nqui testimonium perhibet de      giveth testimony of these\nhis, et scripsit haec: et        things, and hath written these\nscimus quia verum est            things: and we know that his\ntestimonium eius.                testimony is true.\n25. Sunt autem et alia multa     25. But there are also many\nquae fecit Iesus: quae si        other things which Jesus did:\nscribantur per singula, nec      which if they were written\nipsum arbitror mundum capere     every one, the world itself, I\nposse eos, qui scribendi sunt,   think, would not be able to\nlibros.                          contain the books that should\n                                 be written.\n\n24, 25. The authenticity of these verses has been questioned more than\nthat of the rest of the chapter, both because it is not in St. John\u2019s\nmanner to speak of himself in the plural number (as here in verse 24:\n\u201c_we_ know\u201d), and because of the hyperbole in verse 25. For these reasons,\nsome Catholic writers have denied their authenticity, though no Catholic,\nas far as we are aware, has denied their _inspiration_. Those Catholics\nwho deny their authenticity, hold that they were probably written by the\nbishops of Asia Minor, at whose request St. John wrote the Gospel. See\nIntrod. iii., note. This view is not without some probability. Still, we\nprefer the common opinion of Catholic commentators, that the verses were\nwritten by St. John himself; for without them the conclusion of the Gospel\nwould be extremely abrupt.\n\nAs to the reasons for the opposite view, though we admit that St. John\ndoes not usually employ the first person plural, still it is not unnatural\nthat in closing his Gospel he should wish to confirm his own testimony by\nan appeal to the consenting voice of his contemporaries. Besides, he does\nuse the same form of expression in i. 14: \u201cAnd we saw his glory.\u201d See also\n1 Ep. i. 3. As to the argument drawn from the alleged extravagance of the\nhyperbole in verse 25, it has no weight. For, there is no reason why St.\nJohn may not have used this striking hyperbole to signify the\ninexhaustible treasury of instruction contained in our Divine Lord\u2019s life\nand works, and to suggest the deep truth that a full account (\u201cevery one\u201d)\nof Christ\u2019s human life would be practically infinite. \u201cHunc loquendi\nmodum,\u201d says St. Aug. on this passage, \u201cGraeco nomine hyperbolem vocant:\nqui modus, sicut hoc loco, ita in nonnullis aliis divinis Literis\ninvenitur ... et multa hujusmodi, sicut _alii tropi_, Scripturis S. non\ndesunt.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 _Vie de Jesus_, ed. xiii., pp. 10, 11.\n\n    2 See Lamy, vol. ii., pp. 246\u2010270; Cornely, Introd. iii., pp. 216\u2010260.\n\n    3 See, _e.g._, Cornely, iii., pp. 222, 223.\n\n    4 Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 39.\n\n    5 St. Ephrem (\u2020 373) wrote a Commentary, in Syriac, on the\n      _Diatessaron_, and this Commentary is still extant in an Armenian\n      translation, which is probably as old as the fifth century.\n\n    6 It is important to note this, because the Rationalist arguments\n      against the Johannine authorship prove nothing against St. John that\n      they do not prove also against all his contemporaries.\n\n    7 See notes on chronology of the Acts.\n\n    8 St. Jerome, referring to this, writes: \u201cRefert Tertullianus quod\n      Romae missus in ferventis olei dolium purior et vegetior exierit\n      quam intraverit.\u201d (_Advers. Jovin_, i. 26.)\n\n    9 \u201cJoannes quum esset in Asia, et jam tunc haereticorum semina\n      pullularent Cerinthi et Ebionis et ceterorum qui negant Christum in\n      carne venisse ... coactus est ab omnibus tunc pene Asiae Episcopis\n      et multarum ecclesiarum legationibus de divinitate Salvatoris altius\n      scribere.\u201d\u2014_Prol. in Matthew._\n\n   10 Iren., _Haer._ iii. 1: \u201cJoannes volens per evangelii annunciationem\n      auferre, eum qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus errorem et\n      multo prius ab his qui dicuntur Nicolaitae ... sic inchoavit\n      evangelium.\u201d\n\n   11 \u201cJoannes discipulus Domini ... et ipse edidit evangelium Ephesi\n      Asiae commorans.\u201d\u2014_Haer._ iii. 1.\n\n   12 Corluy, indeed, supposes the heads of doctrine to be reported in\n      precisely the exact words of our Lord: \u201cEas propositiones quae quasi\n      capita doctrinae apparent ... ad verbum referri admittendum\n      putamus,\u201d are his words. But the fact that the words of institution\n      of the Blessed Eucharist are _differently_ reported by the Synoptic\n      Evangelists seems to us to refute this view.\n\n   13 \u201cJoannes novissime omnium scripsit evangelium, rogatus ab Asiae\n      episcopis, adversus Cerinthum aliosque haereticos et maxime tunc\n      Ebionitarum dogma consurgens, qui asserunt Christum ante Mariam non\n      fuisse.\u201d\u2014_Jer. de Vir. Illust._, 9.\n\n   14 The words of Iren\u00e6us are:\u2014\u201cEt Cerinthus autem quidam in Asia, non a\n      primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a Virtute quadam valde\n      separata, et distante ab ea principalitate, quae est super universa,\n      et ignorante eum, qui est super omnia, Deum. Jesum autem subjecit\n      non ex Virgine natum (impossibile enim hoc ei visum est); fuisse\n      autem Joseph et Mariae filium similiter ut reliqui omnes homines....\n      Et post baptismum descendisse in eum ab ea principalitate quae est\n      super omnia (\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) Christum figura columbae,\n      et tunc annuntiasse incognitum Patrem, et virtutes perfecisse, in\n      fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu, et Jesum passum esse\n      et resurrexisse, Christum autem impassibilem perseverasse,\n      existentem spiritalem.\u201d\u2014Iren., _Adv. Haer._, i. xxvi.\n\n   15 \u201c_Ebionaei_ autem consentiunt quidem mundum ab eo, qui revera Deus\n      est, factum esse; quae autem ad Christum pertinent, consimiliter\n      Cerintho fabulantur. Moribus Judaicis utuntur secundum legem;\n      quapropter et Christum Dei vocatum esse Jesum, quum nemo ex reliquis\n      observaret legem. Etenim si quis alius fecisset quae in lege\n      praescripta sunt, ille evasisset Christus. Posse autem etiam ipsos,\n      si similiter egerint, Christos evadere; etenim illum quoque hominem\n      aeque ac reliquos fuisse dicunt.\u201d\u2014_Philosophumena_, vii. 16, 3342\n      (Migne).\n\n   16 Referring to this sublime prologue, St. Augustine says: \u201cCeteri tres\n      evangelistae tanquam cum homine Domino in terra ambulant, et de\n      divinitate ejus pauca dixerunt, istum autem quasi piguerit in terra\n      ambulare, sicut in ipso exordio sui sermonis intonuit, erexit se non\n      solum super terram et super omnem ambitum aeris et coeli, sed super\n      omnem etiam exercitum angelorum, omnemque constitutionem\n      invisibilium potestatum; et pervenit ad eum per quem facta sunt\n      omnia, dicendo: \u2018In principio erat verbum.\u2019 Huic _tantae sublimitati\n      principii_ etiam caetera congrua praedicavit,\u201d etc.\u2014Tract 36 on St.\n      John.\n\n   17 Compare also 1 John i. 1, where our Vulgate should have translated\n      by \u201cerat\u201d instead of \u201cfuit.\u201d\n\n   18 According to many, Heb. iv. 12 affords another instance in the New\n      Testament.\n\n   19 \u201cHuic nomini seligendo occasionem forte dederunt tunc jam grassantes\n      doctrinae Gnosticorum, qui ita post Philonem vocabant ens aliquod\n      sublimius quod dicebant Jesu fuisse unitum. Sic etiam nomina \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae,\n      \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae, \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, a Gnosticis tribuuntur aeonibus\n      suis, quae omnia Joannes in suo prologo sensu genuino\n      exponit.\u201d\u2014Corl., _Comm. in S. Joan._, Quaer. 3, p. 26.\n\n   20 Sometimes (with \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2) the import of the accusative is apparently\n      lost, \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 signifying _with_, particularly in connection with names\n      of persons (John i. 1); but here \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 indicates (ideal)\n      _annexation_, implying rather the active notion of intercourse than\n      a mere passive idea.\u2014Winer, Gr. _Gram. N. T._, 8th Eng. ed., p. 504,\n      h. and note 4.\n\n   21 \u201cThe omission of the article before the predicate, when the\n      predicate stands before the copula is the usage of the New\n      Testament.\u201d\u2014Alford, on this verse.\n\n   22 See Patrizzi, iii. Diss. viii. 21.\n\n   23 Patriz.\n\n   24 The R. V. has \u201capprehended it not,\u201d with marginal alternative:\n      \u201covercame it not.\u201d\n\n   25 \u201cPluralis adhibetur ratione habita utrusque parentis.\u201d\u2014Beel, _Gr.\n      Gram._ \u00a7 273, note.\n\n   26 St. Thomas seems to prefer St. Augustine\u2019s peculiar view, that the\n      woman is here meant by \u201ccaro.\u201d The other opinion given above is\n      given by him only in the second place as an alternative.\n\n   27 Compare our expression: he acted _like_ a man.\n\n   28 Verba \u201ca Patre\u201d aeque jungi possunt nomini sive \u201cunigeniti,\u201d sive\n      \u201cgloriam.\u201d Si primum, sensus erit unigeniti, qui est ex Patre, neque\n      enim Verbum \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, quod continetur in \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 constructum\n      reperitur cum praepositione \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac.\u2014Patriz.\n\n   29 Patrizzi, following Kuinoel, contends that \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd (before) is\n      never used of priority in dignity; but see Alford, who cites Gen.\n      xlviii. 20, as well as Plato and Demosthenes, for this meaning.\n\n   30 Thus far, the prologue of our Gospel, of which Franzelin truly\n      says:\u2014\u201cSingula doctrinae capita de J. Christo vero Deo, Deique Filio\n      in unum quodamodo collecta verticem conspiciuntur. Hoc enim loco is\n      qui in tempore caro factus est, docetur esse Deus, Deus aeternus,\n      Deus creator universi, Deus auctor gratiae et ordinis\n      supernaturalis, Deus cui supremus cultus debetur.\u201d\u2014_De Verbo\n      Incarn._, Th. 8.\n\n   31 Simon, vel Symeon (Act xv. 14 sine var. lect. in Gr. codd., 2 Pet.\n      i. 1, \u05d0, A, K, L, P, &c.) \u05e9\u05c2\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df (exauditio, Gen. xxix. 33). \u201cNomen\n      Patris aut Jonas, \u1f38\u03c9\u03bd\u1fb6 (Matt. xvi. 17), aut \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 vel \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 (Joan\n      xxi. 15) legitur; Joan i. 43 codd. graeci alii \u1f38\u03c9\u03bd\u1fb6 alii \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 vel\n      \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5; unde prius nomen non essi nisi alterius corruptionem nec\n      quidquam cum nomine prophetae Jonae habere commune elucet.\u201d\u2014Corn.\n      iii. \u00a7 212, note 1.\n\n   32 _Publ. Life of our Lord_, vol. i., p. 185.\n\n   33 Consult also, as almost exactly the same, 2 Kings xvi. 10; Josue\n      xxii. 24; Matthew viii. 29; Matthew xxvii. 29; Mark i. 2.\n\n   34 See M\u2019Carthy, _Gospels of the Sundays_, p. 72.\n\n   35 Nisan, the first month of the sacred year of the Jews, corresponded\n      to the latter half of March and the first half of April.\n\n   36 \u201cAdditus ibi voci \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 articulus Nicodemum exhibet tanquam ex\n      Israelis doctoribus _excellentibus unum_.\u201d\u2014Beel., _Gr. Gram._, \u00a7 17,\n      4, adnot 3.\n\n   37 Smith\u2019s _Dictionary of the Bible_, 2nd edition, 1893.\n\n   38 Trench, _Studies in the Gospels_, p. 84.\n\n   39 The name Sichar is derived by some from _shikkor_ (\u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05e8), a\n      drunkard; by others _sheqquer_ (\u05e9\u05c2\u05e7\u05e8), a liar; the city of liars,\n      perhaps of _false_ worship.\n\n   40 \u201cVenit mulier ad puteum et fontem quem non speravit invenit.\u201d\u2014St.\n      Aug.\n\n   41 Massillon, in a beautiful Lenten Sermon on this subject, says:\n      \u201cNouvelle artifice, dont elle s\u2019avise pour d\u00e9tourner la question de\n      ses m\u0153urs, qui lui d\u00e9plait, et qui l\u2019embarasse, elle se jette\n      habiliment sur une question de doctrine.\u201d\n\n   42 Compare Acts xvii. 23, where the true reading is \u1f43 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd, agreeing\n      with the Vulgate.\n\n   43 Compare the saying, common in parts of Ireland: \u201cIt is long till\n      Hallow\u2010day.\u201d\n\n   44 Our Lord was probably baptized by John between the middle of October\n      and the 25th December: \u201cQuae quum ita sint, dies baptismi fuerit\n      oportet inter medium Octobrem interque viii. Kal., Januar,\u201d\n      Patrizzi, _Diss._ xlvii., c. i. 11.\n\n   45 It is not certain which is the correct reading, whether \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 or \u1f21\n      \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 (a feast, or _the_ feast). Nearly all the critics are against\n      reading the article. So Lachmann, Tisch, Westc., and Hort; and, so\n      too, the Protestant Revised Version. Still, there are a great many\n      ancient authorities, among them the Codex \u05d0 (Sinait.) in favour of\n      reading the article. But even if the reading were certain, it would\n      still be doubtful what feast is meant.\n\n   46 The passage is regarded as spurious by Tisch., Tregell., Westc., and\n      Hort, and by the Rev. Vers.\n\n   47 \u201c\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd haud raro est verbum forense, atque significat\n      accusare.\u201d\u2014Kuin.\n\n   48 \u201cUnde secundum Augustinum, demonstrare Patrem Filio, nihil aliud est\n      quam Patrem generare Filium. Et Filium videre quae Pater facit,\n      nihil aliud est quam Filium esse et naturam a Patre recipere.\u201d\u2014St.\n      Thom. on verse 20.\n\n   49 \u201cEst argumentum ab humano modo sumptum, respectu hominum illorum,\n      qui se amant, hi enim mutuo sibi omnia communicant, nihil sibi\n      occultant, et cum revera Pater summe diligat Filium, utitur hoc\n      argumento ut signo, et probatione propter nos, non autem quod causa\n      sit cur omnia demonstret,\u201d\u2014Tolet. For other explanations, Corl.,\n      page 118, may be consulted.\n\n   50 Mald. thinks that the principal reference in verses 21 and 25 is to\n      the _general_ resurrection.\n\n   51 \u201cDeus eam (potestatem judiciariam) communicare noluit nec congrue\n      potuit puro homini, sed Christo soli, qui Deus est et homo. Ipse\n      enim ut Deus, summam habet auctoritatem judicandi; ut homo vero\n      habet facultatem judicium hoc visibiliter coram hominibus salvandis\n      et damnandis exercendi.\u201d\u2014A Lap.\n\n   52 \u201cNam ipse, qua Deus, idem numero habet judicium, eandem numero\n      mentem et voluntatem divinam quam habet Pater; qua homo vero, totus\n      regitur a deitate et verbo inhabitante, ut aliud judicare et velle\n      nequeat quam id quod ejus deitas, quasi praeses, judicat et vult.\u201d\u2014A\n      Lap.\n\n   53 The inspiration of the prophets, though usually attributed to the\n      Holy Ghost, is, like every work that is not terminated in God\n      Himself, common to the three divine Persons, and is here referred to\n      the Father, since Christ is addressing the Jews, who knew nothing of\n      the Holy Ghost, and would not value His testimony.\n\n   54 From Juvenal we learn that in Rome the cophinus was carried about\n      with them by the Jews: \u201cJudaeis Quorum cophinus foenumque\n      supellex.\u201d\u2014_Sat._ iii. 14.\n\n   55 Calvin retained Baptism, Eucharist, and Holy Orders; Zwingli,\n      Baptism, Eucharist, and Matrimony; Luther, in the Confession of\n      Augsburg, Baptism, Eucharist, and Penance; and the Anglican Church,\n      in the 25th of the Thirty\u2010nine Articles, Baptism and the Eucharist.\n\n   56 Though it is not _defined_ that there is reference to the Blessed\n      Eucharist in any part of the 6th chapter of St. John, still, since\n      the Council of Trent understood the passage (52\u201059) in this sense\n      (Sess. xiii., cap. 2), as did nearly all the fathers who commented\n      on the chapter, it would be rash for a Catholic to deny that the\n      Blessed Eucharist is promised in the passage 52\u201059.\n\n   57 \u201cDe hac significatione inter philologos nulla est dubitatio, confer\n      Psal. xxvi. (_Hebr._ 27) 2; Job xix. 22; Mich. iii. 3.\u201d\u2014Franz., _De\n      Euch._, Thes. iii., p. 22, note.\n\n   58 Though Franz. holds that the discourse from verse 35\u201047 regards\n      _faith_ in Christ, yet he holds that the Blessed Eucharist is\n      referred to in verse 27.\u2014_De Euch. Thes._, iii., p. 15.\n\n   59 \u201cNoli te cogitare invitum trahi; trahitur animus et amore ... Ramum\n      viridem ostendis ovi, et trahis illam. Nuces puero demonstrantur et\n      trahitur.\u201d\u2014St. August.\n\n   60 See, _e.g._, above iii. 6: What is born of the spirit is spirit;\n      _i.e._, spiritual.\n\n   61 Even Renan, who had held this view in the _Vie de Jesus_ abandoned\n      it in a later work: _Les Evangiles_, Appendix, page 542.\n\n   62 That James the brother of the Lord was an Apostle, is proved from\n      Gal. i. 19. See also Acts ix. 27, 28. Now Jude, the author of the\n      short Epistle which bears his name, who is commonly referred to as\n      identical with Jude the Apostle, calls himself a brother of James\n      (only James the Less, the brother of the Lord, and well\u2010known bishop\n      of Jerusalem can be meant). Jude 1; hence, two at least, of the\n      brothers of the Lord mentioned by Matthew (xiii. 55), Mark (vi. 3),\n      were Apostles: and since the Apostle Simon is mentioned side by side\n      with them in the four lists of the Apostles, it is fairly concluded\n      that he was their brother Simon; hence three of these brethren of\n      the Lord were Apostles.\n\n   63 Evangelistaries are selections from the Gospels for the purpose of\n      liturgical reading.\n\n   64 \u201cRelate ad stylum haec praesertim notantur; pro particala \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd quam\n      amat Joannes, semper adhibetur \u03b4\u03ad; deinde occurunt vocabula (vel\n      phrases), quibus Joannes nullibi utitur: \u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd,\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, et \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd.\u201d\u2014Corn., Introd.,\n      iii., p. 235, n. 3.\n\n   65 _e.g._, ix. 21\u201028, \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f15\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9; \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bd.\n\n   66 \u201cRien dans le morceau ne fait disparate avec le style du quatri\u00e8me\n      Evangile.\u201d\u2014Renan, _Vie de Jesus_, ed. 18, page 500.\n\n   67 _Theiner_, i., pp. 71\u201077.\n\n   68 So the Protestant Revised Version, which in the margin gives as an\n      alternative: How is it that I even speak to you at all?\n\n   69 It is hardly necessary to remind the reader that the present of this\n      verb means to place, and hence the perfect means, I have placed\n      myself, or stand.\n\n   70 Besides the Pharisees believed that only the _good_ souls passed\n      into other bodies. See Josephus, _Ant._, viii. 1, 3; _B. Jud._, ii.\n      8, 14.\n\n   71 That \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c9 is often used of merely civil worship in the Old\n      Testament is not denied by anyone; and that it is so used in the New\n      Testament also, see Matt. xviii. 26, where it is far more probable\n      that \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 (\u201cadorabat,\u201d not \u201corabat,\u201d as Vulg.) is the correct\n      reading.\n\n   72 \u201cSignificat enim haec phrasis primo securitatem, secundo fiduciam,\n      tertio libertatem conversandi ubilibet, suo munere fungendi, et\n      quaelibet negotia peragendi pro Christo et per Christum.\u201d\u2014A Lap.\n\n   73 \u201cPatres omnes ... intelligunt de uno pastore _in terris existente_\n      qui _visibiliter_ pascat et regat.\u201d\u2014Suarez, _De Fide_, Tract. 1,\n      Disp. 9, Sect. 6, n. 3.\n\n   74 \u201cLectio Vulgatae ita foret exponenda: Pater _quod_ dedit mihi,\n      divinam naturam secum identicam, id _majus_ est rebus omnibus,\n      adeoque omnibus creaturis potentius; ideoque nemo potest oves rapere\n      de manu mea, sicut nec de manu Patris, nam _Ego et Pater unum\n      sumus_.... Ceterum si duo versiculi in Vulgata complexive sumuntur,\n      exprimunt quum Patris omnipotentiam tum Filii cum Patre\n      consubstantialitem; quae duo dogmata etiam in originali textu\n      habentur, licet alio modo. Ergo duae lectiones _dogmatice_\n      concordant substantialiter.\u201d\u2014Corl.\n\n   75 \u201cPraesens adhibetur ad significandum id quod _jam jam_ eventurum\n      est, aut quod quis jam in eo est ut faciat.\u201d\u2014Beel., _G. G._, 41, 2,\n      a.\n\n   76 The bodies of the wicked also shall be raised on the last day, but,\n      as A Lap. says: \u201cQuia resurgent ad tormenta Gehennae, hinc vita\n      eorum potius mors dicenda est, quam vita.\u201d\n\n   77 The Perfect here has a Present signification. \u201cPraesentis temporis\n      loco Perfectum adhibetur eatenus tantum quatenus verbo perfecti\n      temporis significatur actio quaepiam aut conditio, quae praeterito\n      tempore incepta nunc perdurat quaeque adeo sui initium tantum\n      praeterito tempore habeat.\u201d\u2014Beel., _Gr. Gram._, \u00a7 41, 4 a.\n\n   78 By its original institution, the office of High\u2010priest was to be\n      held for life; but we know from Josephus that the High\u2010priest was\n      frequently deposed by the Romans. \u201cPraetor in Judaeam missus est\n      Valerius Gratus; qui Ananum Pontificatu privavit, et eum Ismaeli\n      Phabi filio tribuit, atque hunc non multo post abdicavit, et id\n      munus Eleazaro Anani Pontificis filio commisit. Uno autem anno post\n      sacerdotium huic ademtum Simoni Camithi filio tradidit; cumque is\n      dignitatem non ultra anni spatium tenuisset, Josephus, cui etiam\n      Caiphae nomen fuit, ei successit.\u201d\u2014Josephus, _Antiq._, xviii. 2, 2.\n\n   79 \u201cDubium non est, quin Matthaeus et Marcus, ut explicent quo modo\n      Judas ad traditionem pervenerit, narrationem hanc parenthetico modo\n      illis, quae de Pharisaeorum et sacerdotum consilio tradunt,\n      inseruerint.\u201d\u2014Corn., iii., p. 296, note n. So too Coleridge, _Life\n      of our Life_, vol. ii., p. 46: \u201cThe two earlier Evangelists give\n      their accounts of that supper out of its place, and in immediate\n      connection with the Passion of our Lord, for the obvious reason that\n      it was an incident of that supper, which finally determined Judas to\n      betray our Lord to His enemies, and thus to bring about His death.\u201d\n\n   80 So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., West & Hort. The R. V. has: Suffer her to\n      keep it against the day of my burying, and in margin: Let her alone;\n      it was that she might keep it.\n\n   81 It is frequently mentioned as a proof of our Lord\u2019s humility that He\n      condescended in this hour of triumph to ride upon an ass; and the\n      context in the prophecy of Zachary quoted above seems to favour this\n      view. Still there is good reason for supposing that the ass was\n      commonly used by nobles in the East (see, _e.g._, Judg. v. 10, x. 4;\n      3 Kings i. 33), and that for this reason, Christ may have used it in\n      the hour of His triumph.\n\n   82 See, _e.g._, John xviii. 28, where we are told that the Jews, on the\n      morning of the crucifixion, abstained from entering the hall of\n      Pilate, \u201cthat they might not be defiled, but that they might _eat\n      the pasch_.\u201d\n\n   83 Matt. xxvi. 17\u201020; Mark xiv. 12\u201017; Luke xxii. 7\u201014.\n\n   84 See Coleridge, _Passiontide_, Part ii., p. 33.\n\n   85 _Passiontide_, Part ii., pp. 40\u201042.\n\n   86 Since the Jews removed all leaven from their houses on the 14th\n      Nisan, that day seems to have been called the first day of Azymes.\n      It was _during_ that day that the last supper was _prepared_, but it\n      was during the following _night_ (Exod. xii. 8), and therefore when\n      the next Jewish day had already commenced, that it was eaten.\n\n   87 The following are the passages from which the objections are\n      drawn:\u2014John xiii. 1; xiii. 29; xviii. 28; xix. 14, 31.\n\n   88 See the able article, by Dr. Molloy, in _I. E. Record_, vol. ix.,\n      pp. 445\u2010464.\n\n   89 The reader may consult with profit _I. E. Record_, vol. x., pp.\n      110\u2010114.\n\n   90 \u201cAdhuc coenabatur quum Dominus surrexit et pedes lavit discipulis\n      suis.\u201d\u2014St. Aug.\n\n   91 Anyone who desires fuller information on the rites of the Paschal\n      Supper will find it in Maclean\u2019s account given by Dr. Walsh in the\n      note referred to above.\n\n   92 \u201cQuam enim Romani togam aut pallium, id est summan vestem, Graeci,\n      ui ex Plutarcho discimus, \u03c4\u03bf \u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd appellabant.\u201d\u2014Mald, _in loco_.\n\n   93 Matt. xxvi. 25: \u201cAnd Judas that betrayed him, answering said: Is it\n      I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said _it_,\u201d presents\n      considerable difficulty, as Judas appears to be there distinctly\n      pointed out. Some have held that only the traitor himself heard\n      Christ\u2019s reply; but it is difficult to see how some of the others\n      close to Jesus should not also hear it. Hence we prefer to hold that\n      these words, though recorded by St. Matt. before his account of the\n      institution of the Blessed Eucharist were in reality not spoken till\n      after the dipped bread had been given to the traitor.\n\n   94 Dr. Walsh, _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, pp. 137, 138.\n\n   95 It is read by Lachm., Tisch., Tregel., Westc., and Hort, and by the\n      Revised Version as well as the Vulgate.\n\n   96 The quantity of the third syllable in this word varies. Strictly it\n      ought to be long, the word being derived from the Greek \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2;\n      but in ecclesiastical Latin it is generally short, and spelled with\n      _i_ instead of _e_, as in the _Veni Creator_: Qui diceris\n      Paraclitus.\n\n   97 \u201cEx dictis colligitur duo ad missionem proprie dictam concurrere,\n      alterum, sempiternam processionem personae, quae mittitur; alterum,\n      externam aliquam efficientiam, sive sub sensus incidat, ut cum,\n      homine suscepto. Verbum hominibus apparuit, aut sub columbae specie\n      Spiritus Sanctus, sive interius sit nec aspectabile quod agitur, ut\n      cum Spiritus S. ad fidelium quemque demittitur.\u201d\u2014Perrone, _De\n      Trin._, cap. vi., Scholion 4, note 3.\n\n   98 See also A Lap. _in loco_. Some who hold that this was spoken _on\n      the way_ to Gethsemane, think that the mention of the vine was\n      suggested by the sight of a vine as Christ and the Apostles passed\n      along.\n\n   99 See Less. of Thir. Noct. Comm. Marty. (Temp. Pasch.)\n\n  100 \u201cNon eo modo illi in ipso, sicut ipse in illis. Utrumque autem\n      prodest, non ipsi, sed illis. Ita quippe in vite sunt palmites, ut\n      viti non conferant, sed inde accipiant unde vivant, ita vero vitis\n      est in palmitibus, ut vitale alimentum subministret eis, non sumat\n      ab eis. Ac per hoc, et manentem in se habere Christum et manere in\n      Christo, discipulis prodest utrumque, non Christo. Nam praeciso\n      palmite potest de viva radice alius pullulare; qui autem praecisus\n      est, sine radice non potest vivere.\u201d\u2014St. Aug. _in loc._\n\n  101 \u201cNon utique ipso die Pentecostes, sed _tempore_ adventus Spiritus\n      Sancti paulatim, ac per gradus inducti sunt in omnem veritatem, ut\n      ex manifestis factis et ex ipsis verbis constat: _inducet_ in omnem\n      veritatem \u1f40\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2.\u201d\u2014_Franz._ _De Trad._, p. 267. note 1.\n\n  102 See Franz., _De Div. Trad. Thes._, xxii. 11.\n\n  103 \u201cSemper itaque audit Spiritus Sanctus quia semper scit: ergo et\n      scivit, et scit, et sciet; ac per hoc et audivit, et audit, et\n      audiet: quia sicut jam diximus, hoc est illi audire quod scire, et\n      scire illi hoc est quod esse. Ab illo igitur audivit, audit, et\n      audiet a quo est: ab illo est a quo procedit.\u201d\u2014St. Aug. on this\n      verse, _Tract._ 99.\n\n  104 \u201cUno verbo: Spiritus Sanctus aeternaliter audit et accipit a Filio\n      cum respectu ad effectum in tempore, qui tum quando Christus\n      loquebatur, promittebatur adhuc futurus; ideo auditio et acceptio\n      quae aeternaliter et ideo etiam tunc est, quando existit effectus,\n      potuit propter hanc operationem et propter effectum futurum ad extra\n      enuntiari in forma temporis futuri.\u201d\u2014Franz., _De Trin. Thes._,\n      xxxii. i. 4 c.\n\n  105 \u201cIgitur in _significatione formali_ illud _meum_, quod Spiritus\n      veritatis dicitur accipere communicatum a Filio, est absoluta\n      sapientia cum respectu ad extra, ad doctrinam scilicet inspirandam\n      et annuntiandam. At profecto sapientia absoluta _identice ac\n      realiter_ est ipsamet essentia divina.\u201d\u2014Franz., _Thes._, xxxii. i. 4\n      b.\n\n  106 There is a clear and important difference between the two words for\n      asking used in this verse. \u1fbd\u0395\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c9 always in classical, and\n      generally in Hellenistic Greek, means to interrogate, to question.\n      In Hellenistic Greek it sometimes means to request, to petition, as\n      in verse 26 below; but even then there is a distinction which is\n      carefully observed throughout the New Testament between it and\n      \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9. \u1fbd\u0395\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c9 is used of the request of an equal, or at least of a\n      familiar friend, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9 of the supplication of an inferior. Hence\n      Christ never once uses the latter word in reference to His own\n      asking of the Father.\n\n  107 \u201cResuscita me, ut innotescas toti orbi per me.\u201d\u2014St. Aug.\n\n  108 All theologians admit that the happiness of the blessed consists\n      _radically_ in the vision of God; but while many Thomists hold that\n      it consists _essentially_ in this, other theologians hold that it\n      consists in acts of the will, as of love and joy, as well as of the\n      intellect.\n\n  109 Christ\u2019s human soul enjoyed the beatific vision from the first\n      moment of the incarnation; but the connatural effects of this upon\n      His body were suspended during His mortal life.\n\n  110 \u201c_Aoristus_ ... indicat peractam rem esse aut nunc aut olim, hoc\n      est, aliqua praeteriti temporis parte, quae _indefinita_\n      relinquitur. _Perfectum_ sicut in classica graecitate, ita et in\n      graecitate N. Testamenti adhiberi solet ad significandam actionem\n      plane praeteritam, quae aut nunc finita est, aut per effectus suos\n      durat.\u201d\u2014Beel., _G. G._, \u00a7 41.\n\n  111 So Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc., Hort, and the Revised\n      Version.\n\n  112 Or more correctly: \u201cfor we all partake of one bread.\u201d\n\n  113 Fourth Edition, London, 1859.\n\n  114 \u201cEst autem in Graeco sensus hujus sententiae apertior: non enim\n      habetur particula copulativa, sed illativa, et non est praeteritum,\n      sed aoristus primus qui saepe plusquam perfecti significationem\n      habet. Sensus ergo est: _Miserat_ igitur eum Annas ligatum ad\n      Caipham Pontificem, est enim locutio revertentis ad narrationem\n      praetermissam, et particula illativa indicat quae relata sunt,\n      fuisse facta postquam missus est Christus ab Anna ad Caipham.\u201d\u2014Tol.,\n      _in loc._\n\n  115 We shall not be far from the truth, if we say that the Paschal\n      Supper began about 7 p.m.; that Jesus retired to Gethsemani about\n      10; that He was arrested between 11 and 12; that the midnight trial\n      was over about 2 a.m.; and that day dawned about 4.30.\n\n  116 Maimonides, _De Pasch._, vi. 1, says: \u201cQui cadaver reptilis tetigit,\n      aut reptile, aut _quid aliud simile_ die decima quarta, is lavatur,\n      et postquam lotus est, pro eo pascha mactant, et sub vesperam, quum\n      sol ei occubuit, _pascha comedit_.\u201d\n\n  117 We read in the Mishna, which is the oldest portion of the Jewish\n      Talmud, and was composed about the beginning of the third century:\n      \u201cSacrificium festi Chagigah (\u05d7\u05d2\u05d9\u05d2\u05d4) adducebatur ex grege et jumento,\n      agnis et capris, masculis et feminis; et comedebatur per _duos dies_\n      et unam noctem.\u201d (Mish., _Pesachim_, vi. 4.)\n\n  118 Jesus till now had been outside, for it is well known the Roman law\n      required that the criminal should be present to hear the charges\n      brought against him. See Acts xxiv. 2.\n\n  119 We prefer to render: \u201cThou sayest it, _for_ (\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9) I am a king;\u201d and\n      thus St. John\u2019s version of Christ\u2019s reply is more like that of the\n      other Evangelists.\n\n  120 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03c9 indeed belongs to late Greek, and is derived from the\n      Latin flagellum.\n\n  121 We know not what kind of thorns was used for the crown. Benedict\n      XIV. says that in his time it could not be decided from any relics\n      of the thorns known to exist to what species they belonged.\n\n  122 \u201cJesus igitur flagellis caesus spinisque coronatus fuit, ante quam\n      Pilatus eum capite damnaret. Non ergo est dubium, ordinem in his\n      referendis a Matthaeo et a Marco minime esse observatum.\u201d\u2014Patriz.\n\n  123 See above on xiii. 1.\n\n  124 That a division of the night into four watches existed, is proved\n      from the New Testament. See, _e.g._, Mark xiii. 35: Luke xii. 38.\n\n  125 Whether St. John numbers the hours of the day according to the\n      Jewish or modern method it is extremely difficult to decide from his\n      Gospel. In only four passages (i. 39; iv. 6; iv. 52; and xix. 14)\n      does he refer to distinct hours of the day, and to these passages\n      the patrons of both opinions appeal. In John iv. 6 we read that it\n      was \u201cabout the sixth hour\u201d when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the\n      well, and if we are right in holding that it was then the month of\n      December (see above on iv. 35), this would go to show that our\n      Evangelist numbers according to the Jewish method. For at 6 a.m. or\n      6 p.m. it would be dark, and it is wholly improbable that Jesus in\n      the darkness would have held conversation alone with the woman.\n\n  126 Dr. Walsh, _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, note 35.\n\n      We have not mentioned the view of those who hold that the error from\n      transcription occurred in St. Mark and not in St. John, and that we\n      ought to read \u201csixth\u201d instead of \u201cthird\u201d in St. Mark xv. 25. For, as\n      Patrizzi well points out, if St. Mark had written \u201csixth\u201d in verse\n      25, he would not, after describing the mocking of Christ upon the\n      cross, say in verse 33: \u201cAnd when the _sixth hour was come_ there\n      was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour.\u201d If error\n      has crept in, then, it is not in St. Mark.\n\n  127 Cyrene was \u201cthe principal city of that part of Northern Africa,\n      which was anciently called Cyrenaica, and also (from its five chief\n      cities) Pentapolitana. This district was that wide projecting\n      portion of the coast (corresponding to the modern Tripoli) which was\n      separated from the territory of Carthage on the one hand, and that\n      of Egypt on the other.\u201d\u2014Smith\u2019s _B. D._\n\n  128 The following questions also are disputed:\u2014(_a_) Whether Christ had\n      the crown of thorns upon Him while He hung on the cross; (_b_)\n      whether He was entirely naked; (_c_) whether four nails or three\n      were used, that is to say, whether His feet like His hands were\n      nailed separately or were placed one over the other, with one nail\n      piercing both.\n\n  129 Darras, _Hist. Eccles._ vol. v., says that P. Drach was able to\n      trace all the Hebrew characters, and that they agree exactly with\n      St. John\u2019s version of the title.\n\n  130 The sponge is still preserved in Rome, in St. John Lateran\u2019s.\n\n  131 Longet, _Physiologie_, t. ii., p. 701.\n\n  132 St. Matt. on this point need create no difficulty, for although he\n      says that an angel rolled back the stone from the mouth of the\n      sepulchre and sat upon it (probably _outside_ the sepulchre), yet he\n      does not say that the women were addressed by the angel while he sat\n      upon the stone, nor even that he was seen by them while he was in\n      that position. That he was seen by the guards, one of whom may have\n      been afterwards converted and have told this incident, is plain from\n      St. Matt.: but we are free to suppose that when the angel addressed\n      the women (Matt. xxviii. 5), he may have been already within the\n      sepulchre, as in St. Mark.\n\n  133 The difficulty against this view, from the fact that St. Matt.,\n      according to the Vulgate Version, represents these women as coming\n      to the tomb on the _evening_ of the Sabbath (Vespere sabbati),\n      disappears, if we admit that the Vulgate rendering of the Greek\n      phrase, \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd is incorrect, or, at least, misleading, and\n      should rather be post sabbatum, as the phrase is explained by Mald.,\n      Cornely (iii. p. 301, note S), Kuin., Bloomf., and the majority of\n      commentators. Certainly we are convinced that Magdalen did not visit\n      the tomb on Saturday evening; for had she done so, she must have\n      learned that the tomb was guarded and the stone that closed it\n      sealed, and she and her companions would not come as they did on\n      Sunday morning, saying to one another: \u201cWho shall roll away the\n      stone for us?\u201d Had she been at the tomb on Saturday evening, she\n      could not have hoped to be allowed to roll away the stone, which was\n      sealed and guarded; or, if she hoped for this permission from the\n      soldiers, then there would have been no room for the difficulty as\n      to who should roll away the stone, as the soldiers, if they\n      permitted its removal, might be counted upon to remove it for women.\n\n  134 It is the common belief that Jesus appeared first of all to the\n      Blessed Virgin, though the appearance to Magdalen is the first\n      mentioned in the Gospels. Estius and some other great commentators,\n      however, deny that He appeared to the Blessed Virgin, and hold that\n      as he appeared in order to confirm the faith of those to whom he\n      appeared, there was no need that He should appear to the Blessed\n      Virgin.\n\n  135 \u201cUnde secundum naturam suam palpabile est corpus gloriosum, sed ex\n      virtute supernaturali hoc ei competit ut cum vult non palpetur a\n      corpore non glorioso.\u201d\u2014St. Thomas, _Summ. Theol._, Suppl., q. 83,\n      art. 6.\n\n  136 \u201cSi quis dixerit verba illa Domini Salvatoris: Accipite Spiritum\n      Sanctum; quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis; et quorum\n      retinueritis, retenta sunt: non esse intelligenda de potestate\n      remittendi et retinendi peccata in Sacramento Poenitentiae, Sicut\n      Ecclesia Catholica ab initio semper intellexit; detorserit autem,\n      contra institutionem hujus Sacramenti, ad auctoritatem praedicandi\n      evangelium, anathema sit.\u201d\u2014Sess. xiv., Can. 2, _De Poen._\n\n  137 This reading, however, is not certain, some critics read the perfect\n      \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03ce\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (remissa sunt). So Tisch., Treg., Westc. & Hort., and\n      Lachm.\n\n  138 Some, who admit the authenticity of verses 1\u201023, deny that of verses\n      24 and 25.\n\n  139 The miraculous draught of fish in chapter xxi. was not intended to\n      confirm the faith of the disciples, which now needed no\n      confirmation, but to typify the fecundity of the Church over which\n      Peter was about to be placed.\n\n  140 By \u201cclausulam\u201d he means the last two verses of the chapter.\n\n  141 So, too, Hesych. and Lidd. and Scott take \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9 as stronger than\n      \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1fb7\u03c9, so that the two words correspond to \u201camare\u201d and \u201cdiligere\u201d\n      respectively, as the Vulgate makes them. The distinction between the\n      two Latin words is well recognised. Thus Cicero (Ep. Fam. xiii. 47),\n      writing to one friend about another says: \u201cUt scires illum a me non\n      _diligi_ solum verum etiam _amari_.\u201d\n\n  142 _I.e._, belonging to him in virtue of his office.\n\n  143 _I.e._, extending _directly_ over all the faithful, and not merely\n      mediately through their several bishops. (See Franz., _De. Eccl.\n      Thes._, x. iii. 2 c.)\n\n  144 \u201cCrux enim solebat ita a cruciariis portari, ut brachia ligno\n      transverso funibus extensa alligarentur.\u201d\u2014Corl.","title":"The Gospel of St. John","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":157720}