John 5 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

5:2 Bethesda. The mss tradition is somewhat confused, with three names: Beth-zatha (א L 33 Eusebius); Bethsaida (66 75 B Ws); and Bethesda (A C 038 078 f1,13 ). The ms evidence is difficult, with all three having good support; however, the copper scroll at Qumran (3Q15) has given added support to Bethesda, with the meaning “house of the two springs.” Some scholars think this is likely the original reading (cf. Barrett, Brown).

5:3b-4 lay on the porches. The KJV, on the basis of the TR, adds material to v. 3a, “waiting for a certain movement of the water, for an angel of the Lord came from time to time and stirred up the water. And the first person to step in after the water was stirred was healed of whatever disease he had” (cf. NLT mg). This gloss, however, is missing from the oldest mss—as follows: omit 5:3b (66 75 א A* B C* L T cop); and omit 5:4 (66 75 א B C* D T Ws 33 cop). Several other mss have marks indicating that the scribes considered it doubtful (S 039 041 047 1079 2174 syrh). As a result, it is nearly unanimous among scholars that this was added later to the text. At the same time, it probably reflects an ancient tradition and is hinted at in the man’s response to Jesus in 5:7. It is probably a genuine tradition but was not written by John.

5:14 stop sinning, or something even worse may happen. Carson (1991:245-246) discusses attempts to avoid saying the man’s illness was not the result of sin: (1) “Stop sinning” only implies that the man was not chosen due to his moral perfection; nothing more is meant; (2) elsewhere illness and death occur for the glory of God, not due to sin (9:3; 11:4); (3) as in Luke 13:1-5 (the murder of Galileans and those on whom the tower of Siloam fell), terrible events are not always due to personal sin. But such is not the case here: (1) Much suffering in Scripture is due to specific sins (Acts 5:1-11; 1 Cor 11:30); (2) here “something even worse” is tied together with “stop sinning,” implying that the earlier illness was the result of sin; (3) Luke 13:1-5 does not address the suffering individual and so is irrelevant for this issue; (4) according to Scripture, the Fall has produced all suffering, and so it makes sense that some suffering will be specifically linked to sin; (5) in this context it is possible, indeed likely, that Jesus chose this invalid because his illness was tied to a specific sin.

Beginning with chapter 5, Jesus is seen interacting with four principal Jewish holy days or feasts: Sabbath (ch 5), Passover (ch 6), Tabernacles (ch 7–9), and Dedication/Hanukkah (ch 10). There are two themes. The main one is conflict, as the opposition intensifies and Jesus challenges the Jewish people with who he really is. The second is fulfillment, as each feast is replaced with the reality of Jesus as God’s Son and envoy, sent to provide the only basis for eternal life. In the midst of this, the Christological emphasis on Jesus as God’s envoy (ch 5), Bread of Life (ch 6), giver of the Spirit (ch 7), Light of the World (ch 8), giver of sight (ch 9), gate, and Good Shepherd (ch 10) grows steadily.

The geography of this section is difficult. Jesus returned to Jerusalem (5:1), went back to Galilee (6:1), then back to Jerusalem in 7:10, where he seemingly remained until his death. The Galilean ministry of the Synoptics, in which Jesus’ first trip to Jerusalem comes at his passion, is not recounted in John. The best explanation for this and the numerous trips to Jerusalem John records (2:13; 5:1; 7:10) is that he was deliberately trying to supplement the synoptic Gospels (cf. “Literary Style” in the Introduction) and show another side of Jesus’ ministry, namely his extensive ministry in Judea. Blomberg is largely correct when he says (1987:169), “A strong case can be made for the view that John describes the ministry of Jesus almost entirely in chronological order (though omitting numerous episodes), whereas the Synoptics are more topical in their structure, especially for Jesus’ Galilean and Perean ministries.”

As chapter 5 opens, we see Jesus going down to Jerusalem for “one of the Jewish holy days.” This holy day is unidentified. In spite of attempts to link it with Purim or Passover or the Day of Atonement, it is intentionally left unnamed as the emphasis here is on the Sabbath, not a particular feast (though some Jews considered the Sabbath an official festival). When he arrived, he went to “the pool of Bethesda” near “the Sheep Gate.” This gate was a small opening on the north wall northeast of the Temple through which sacrificial animals were brought. The pool itself has been excavated near St. Anne’s Church on the northeastern side of the old city. “Bethesda” is a transliteration from the Hebrew, meaning “house of outpouring.” It apparently was a pair of pools with four “covered porches” or colonnades surrounding it and a fifth between the pools. When Jesus arrived, there were “crowds of sick people” lying on the porches. The added verses (5:3b-4; see note) that crept into the KJV were certainly not part of the original text but are probably historically correct in terms of first-century Jewish tradition. The many sick and crippled people were present because of a tradition related to the periodic bubbling of the pool, which held that an angel periodically stirred up the pool, offering healing to the first person to reach the water.

When Jesus arrived, he met a man who had been crippled for 38 years (5:5). This does not mean he had been at the pool for all that time but probably indicates that he had come regularly for many years. When Jesus saw him, he supernaturally “knew” that the man had been ill for a long time. In John, Jesus’ omniscience has been demonstrated before (1:47-48; 2:25; 4:17-19, 29, 39) and once again is center stage. As in all of the encounters thus far, Jesus elicits a response, “Would you like to get well?” This question seems rather silly—of course he would! But Jesus wanted him to get involved in the process.

The man’s situation was hopeless. He had no one to help him reach the water when it was stirred up; he could only lie there in abject sorrow. His deep-seated desire for wholeness is seen in the fact that he apparently came regularly in spite of the futility of it all. Someone else always beat him to the pool, but he still came in the hope that someone would show up to help him. Judging from his response to Jesus, he hoped Jesus might be that man to help him get to the pool. Indeed, help had arrived, but not the kind he expected.

Jesus’ command must have shocked him: “Stand up, pick up your mat, and walk!” (5:8). One can only imagine his feelings as he felt the healing power of God flow through his emaciated body. His crippling disease was not just taken away; his muscles were given back their strength. The healing was total (so Barrett, Whitacre). The “mat” would have been a light, straw-filled sleeping mattress of the type used by the poor. He was able to get up that instant, roll up his mattress, and walk around. What excitement and surprise it must have caused! The healing was done apart from the pool, and it was not an angel but the Son of God who was at work.

This healing, however, raised a problem: It was the Sabbath, and the religious leaders were scandalized that their oral tradition had been breached. The Torah said that one could not work on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees had developed elaborate rules as to what constituted work. Their determination was that work on the Sabbath was allowable only in life-threatening situations, so Jesus was breaking the law. Furthermore, the man was carrying his mat, and that was also work. The rabbis had developed 39 classes of prohibited work, the last of which was carrying anything from place to place (m. Shabbat 7:2; 10:5). The man was in trouble because he had been healed!

The man was in a bind now, and three elements of the unfolding situation show he was insensitive to the spiritual reality of the scene: First, he said that he was told to carry his mat by the one who had healed him (5:11). In so doing, he was shifting the blame from himself to Jesus and showing himself to be not only weak but self-serving. Second, when the authorities demanded to know who “said such a thing as that,” he showed that he had not even bothered to learn the name of the one who had healed him. He was so self-centered that he was not even interested in the healer, unlike the crowds (who were enamored with Jesus whenever they just witnessed a miracle, let alone experienced one) and the leaders who turned their attention to Jesus. In the meantime, “Jesus had disappeared into the crowd,” obviously not wanting to start another controversy. This was a common practice of his (6:15; 8:59; Mark 7:33; 8:23).

The third and final element is the most unfortunate of them all, one that is quite ironic (5:14-15)—the man reported Jesus to the authorities! Jesus’ compassion had led him to find the man, to whom he said: “Now you are well; so stop sinning, or something even worse may happen to you” (5:14). It is common in healing miracles for physical transformation to lead to spiritual transformation. In many miracle stories, the verb sōzō [TG4982, ZG5392] has this double meaning, indicating both to “heal” and “save” (cf. Mark 5:34; 6:56; 10:52; and parallels). Jesus challenged the man to get right with God lest he face divine judgment for sin, which is far worse than simple illness. This was more than a moral challenge. Jesus offered the man life from above (3:3, 5; so Whitacre). He had shown a glimmer of faith when he responded to Jesus’ command by getting up and carrying his mat. Now he had to make the second step and turn from sin to God. He had to choose between life and judgment. There was no middle ground. This is the key message of the book—light or darkness, life or judgment. We must all make the same choice as this man, and that choice will determine whether we receive eternal life or face eternal death. Sadly, this man made the wrong choice. Rather than respond to Jesus, he “went and told the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had healed him.” He betrayed Jesus to his enemies. This does not mean the man was another Judas; he acted in ignorance—but ignorance in this book is tantamount to rejection (Cf. 1:10). Metzner (1999:179-180, 190-191) shows that this man, who never came to faith, represents Jewish unbelief. Unlike the man born blind (9:17, 25, 30-33, 36-38), he showed no movement from spiritual dullness to belief. He failed to respond to Jesus’ offer and so provided the worst example yet of those encountered by Jesus. This was no studied rejection. He simply remained in ignorance and thus in unbelief (see Moloney, Keener, Köstenberger).

5:17 Jesus replied. This is the only place in John (with 5:19) where “replied” (or “explained”) is in the middle voice, suggesting a legal setting in which one is giving a defense against charges (so Brown, Morris, Michaels, Whitacre).

My Father. This begins a remarkable run in the use of patēr [TG3962, ZG4252] (father), which occurs 9 times in 5:17-26. John has a remarkable predilection for using “father” language to highlight the intimate relation between Jesus and God. Of the 414 uses of patēr in the NT, John contains 136 of them. Jesus calls God his Father 100 times in John versus 3 times in Mark, 4 in Luke, and 31 in Matthew (EDNT 3.53). There are two emphases in this title in John. First, it partakes of the “Abba” theme, a term rarely used in Jewish prayers because it is a family term, expressing a deep intimacy and a sense of sonship (DJG 619). This usage stressed the unique unity and love between Jesus and God. Second, it has a polemical connotation in chs 5–8, where it leads to Jewish opposition due to Jesus’ claim to the special status of Son of God—the only revelation of the transcendent God (DJG 274).

5:18 equal with God. While the equality is strongly emphasized, the context also stresses Jesus’ subordination to the Father. Jesus does what he sees the Father doing (5:19), and his authority is given by God (5:21, 22). The two aspects, equality and subordination, are interdependent aspects of Jesus as the God-man. As God, he is equal to the Father; as a human being incarnate in this world, he is subordinate to the Father (cf. Keener 1999).

5:19-30 Blomberg (2001:112-113) sees a chiastic pattern here with salvation (5:24-25) as the central point: thesis (the Son doing what the Father does, 5:19-20a, 30); right and wrong ways to be “astonished” or “surprised” (5:20b, 28-29); illustrations about life and judgment (5:21-22, 26-27a); the purpose for God’s actions (5:23, 27b); salvation (5:24-25).

5:20 the Father loves the Son. This is the only place in John where phileō [TG5368, ZG5797] is used for the love between the Son and the Father (elsewhere agapaō [TG25, ZG26] is used). While some think there is a difference of meaning, with phileō [TG5368, ZG5797] here indicating “a more strongly affective love” (Schnackenburg, Whitacre), it is more likely that the two verbs are synonymous in meaning in John (Brown, Bruce).

5:27 Son of Man. This is the only place in the NT where “Son of Man” appears without the definite article, and many have interpreted this as “mortal” or “human” after the use of “son of man” in Ezekiel (an expression for his mortality). The idea is that Jesus can judge human beings because he himself is human. However, definite predicate nouns coming before the verb regularly lack the article—this is the case here. Additionally, the “someone like a son of man” in Dan 7:13 is also anarthrous, and this is an allusion to that passage (Bruce, Morris, Carson, Michaels, Whitacre).

As a result of the lame man’s testimony, the leaders “began harassing Jesus for breaking the Sabbath rules” (5:16). The verb may indicate that this is not the first time Jesus had done so, possibly reflecting the many Sabbath violations recorded in the Synoptics. At any rate, the “persecution” (the verb behind “harassing”) began. This is the first time in John’s Gospel that actual persecution is mentioned (Cf. 7:1, 19-20, 25-26, 30, 32, 44, 45; 8:37, 40, 59; 11:8, 53, 57). To the charge of Sabbath violation, Jesus responded simply, “My Father is always working, and so am I.” To modern readers, this is a simple response that says that Jesus was doing his Father’s work. In a Jewish context, it meant a great deal more; it implied equality with God. The rabbis taught that only God can work on the Sabbath, alluding to the creative nature of God as part of his ceaseless activity in the world (Exodus Rabbah 30:6, so Barrett). At issue is the statement in Genesis 2:2 that God “rested from all his work” on the seventh day. But if he ceases working every Sabbath, how does the universe continue running? Therefore, God must work on the Sabbath. But then does he break his own law, becoming a Sabbath breaker? No, because as God he alone is exempt from this rule. Jesus’ claim to work as well is tantamount to a claim to be God’s equal. Moreover, he made his claim even more clear by stating that God was his Father. The Jews addressed God as “our Father” in their synagogue prayers, but Jesus “appeared to be claiming God as ‘his own Father’ in an exceptional, if not exclusive sense” (Bruce 1983:127). This was blasphemy to the leaders, so they tried “all the harder to find a way to kill him” (5:18). This is also the first time that their resolve to execute Jesus is mentioned.

The rest of this section (5:19-30) clarifies the right of Jesus to claim equality with God. Jesus’ response is that the power of life and judgment belong only to God, yet they have been turned over to the Son. Jesus addresses two aspects of this reality: realized eschatology in 5:19-24 (i.e., these powers are his now), and final eschatology in 5:25-30 (i.e., he controls the final judgment, so Brown). In 5:19, we have what Lightfoot calls a “defense of Christian monotheism”: Jesus does not act independently of the Father but rather is at all times dependent on him. He is equal yet in his incarnate state “does only what he sees the Father doing.” While some (e.g., Dodd) call this a hidden parable, it is better to see this as an illustration built on the idea of a son as an apprentice learning his father’s trade—something Jesus did when he was apprenticed to his stepfather Joseph, learning to become the village carpenter at Nazareth (so Beasley-Murray, Carson). Here, Jesus viewed himself as the ultimate apprentice to his true Father. Jesus is at one and the same time the one and only God (1:14, 18) and submissive as his Son. Both are critical to a proper understanding of the second member of the Trinity.

Verses 19-23 develop this thesis via four consecutive gar [TG1063, ZG1142] (“for”) clauses. The first (5:19b) explains that sonship demands unity of action: “Whatever the Father does, the Son also does.” The emphasis here is on the unity of the Father and the Son in terms of action. As Westcott says (1881:85), “His action is not only coincident but coextensive with the action of the Father . . . not in imitation, but in virtue of His sameness of nature.” He is at the same time one with the Father and dependent on the Father. Thompson (2001:69-72) develops the uniqueness of the filial relationship between Jesus and God: John never uses “son” (huios [TG5207, ZG5626]) of the disciples—only “child” (teknon [TG5043, ZG5451]). In every aspect the Father and the Son are inseperable. She notes two points: (1) God’s actions are uniquely concentrated toward and through the Son; (2) God’s activity is all-embracing with respect to the Son, especially in terms of life-giving power. At the same time, the Son’s submission to the Father is also highlighted. There is an ontological unity and yet a functional subordination within the Godhead (cf. commentary on 3:17; note on 14:28).

The second “for” clause (5:20) states that this union of action is grounded in the love of the Father. As a result of that depth of love, God “shows him everything he is doing.” In other words, the sharing between Father and Son is absolute, with nothing held back. In 5:19, Jesus “sees” what the Father is doing, and here the flip side is stressed, with the Father showing everything he is doing. This reciprocal knowledge is based on reciprocal love. Here we see the basis of the omniscience Jesus had demonstrated several times (1:42, 47-48; 4:18). In fact, Jesus adds that the revelation from the Father will enable him to do even “greater works” than the healing of the lame man. Probably this points to the next two verses, which describe how the Father will give the Son authority over life and judgment. The greatest miracle of all is the gift of eternal life (Cf. 14:12). The purpose of this (hina [TG2443, ZG2671], “in order that”) is so they can “truly be astonished,” noting the many times the people marvel at the knowledge and power of God in Jesus (3:7; 4:27; 5:28; 7:15, 21). The surprise and wonder they feel are a step toward faith and are part of encountering God in Jesus.

The other two gar [TG1063, ZG1142] (for) clauses that explain the unity of Father and Son provide two illustrations of the “work” they share (5:21-23)—namely, authority to give life and to judge. As stated above, the Father “shows” all things, and the Son “sees” them and then “does” them. Here the Father “gives life” via resurrection, and the Son “gives life to anyone he wants.” The raising of the dead was considered the special provenance of God (1 Sam 2:6; 2 Kgs 5:7), and later Judaism believed this power would not even be given to the Messiah (b. Ta’anit; The Eighteen Benedictions; cf. Köstenberger 2004:187). Elijah is the sole exception (1 Kgs 17:17-24) but only because God chose him to be such. Jesus transcends Elijah because he shares the divine power of life and gives it to “anyone he wants,” a reference to divine sovereignty over life. This gift is both spiritual life now and final resurrection.

The final gar [TG1063, ZG1142] clause in 5:22 (“In addition,” NLT) goes beyond the idea of 5:21, that Jesus has God’s power in giving life. Here, Jesus makes the surprising statement, “The Father judges no one” but instead “has given the Son absolute authority to judge.” Throughout the Old Testament and in Judaism, Yahweh alone is the final Judge. Jesus is saying that the power of life and judgment has now been passed to him, the Son (cf. the note on 3:17 regarding the possible contradiction with that verse). This hardly means that God ceases to be the final Judge, for according to Revelation 20:11-15, God is on the white throne at the final judgment. Rather, he has shared that authority with Jesus, who became the earthly Judge of all in his ministry and who will share in the final judgment. The purpose of this is that the Son may have the same “honor” (timaō [TG5091, ZG5506]) as the Father. While the Son is dependent on the Father (5:19-20), he is also equal to the Father in authority over life and judgment (5:21-22); they have equal honor and glory. To honor the Father is to honor the Son; to refuse the Son is to refuse the Father. This becomes a major facet of Jesus’ teaching in John: one cannot believe or honor God without believing in and honoring Jesus (5:38, 43-44; 7:16-17; 8:19, 28, 42, 47; 10:38; 14:1), and the Son is the only path to God (14:6). As Carson brings out (1991:255), there is a salvation-historical progression here. Abraham, Moses, and David honored God with their lives, but now the final stage in the history of redemption has arrived. To try to honor God while rejecting his Son (as many Jews did at that time) is now a logical impossibility. The Messiah has come; he is the focus of the divine plan, the only one worthy of worship.

Jesus concludes the first half of his retort with another double amēn [TG281, ZG297] saying (5:24, “I tell you the truth,” see note on 1:51) leading to a solemn, critical truth: if Jesus is indeed one with God (5:19-23), then “eternal life” can come only as a result of listening to and believing in him. Like 3:16, 31ff, this sums up themes introduced earlier. This is the Johannine Gospel in embryo, and it builds on the implications of 5:21-23. Since Jesus (as the Sent One; cf. note on 3:17) is God’s “premiere agent in the world” (Burge), he has divine power over life and judgment; so the only way to participate in life and avoid judgment is to hear and believe. In John, hearing Jesus’ word is a critical step to believing in him, as seen in 1:37, 40 (the Baptist’s disciples hear and follow) and 4:42 (the Samaritan villagers hear and believe, cf. also 6:63, 68). When Jesus encounters people with the claims of God, a faith-decision is the natural result. Those who respond “have eternal life” and “will never be condemned for their sins” (5:24). Note once more the already/not-yet tension of John. Eternal life is a present possession here; the believers have already “passed from death into life,” though they have not yet begun their final life in eternity. The process is presented as a change of realms in which the believer has moved from one realm to the other. This concept is also utilized in Romans 5:12–6:11, in which death is personified as an evil force that reigns over mankind, while the believer is united to the death of Christ and therefore changes realms to live a new life in Christ. We who were dead in sin have now found life in Christ.

The second half of the passage (5:25-30) repeats the themes of life and judgment. The already/not-yet tension is again apparent in “the time is coming, indeed it’s here now” (so Carson), which repeats the idea from 4:23. The new Kingdom age has arrived in Christ, and the spiritually “dead will hear (his) voice” and “live.” The afterlife the Jews anticipated has already become a reality, and eternal life is a present possession as well as a future certainty for those who believe. Apart from Christ, all people are already dead in sin, and the only hope for life is his life-giving word (6:63, 68; 10:3, 16, 27; 11:43). The life of the final resurrection is available in the here and now for those who listen and believe. Note once more that faith comes by hearing (as in 5:24 above). Jesus alone has the words that call forth life.

The basis for this power is seen in 5:26-27, which restates Jesus’ authority to give life and to judge (Cf. 5:21-23). Both stem from the Father. First, the Father has “life in himself” (5:26) and so grants the Son the authority to have “life in himself” (the same exact language is repeated in the Gr.). This is more than just “life-giving power.” The Father and the Son possess life; it is internal to their being and inherent in who they are. The functional aspect (the power to give life) flows out of the ontological (they are life). Thompson (1999:20-21) says this verse is the key to the Johannine idea of the Father–Son relationship; the Father, who gives life, passes this authority on to his Son. Second, “the authority to judge” has also been passed from the Father to the Son (Cf. 5:22). The positive side (give life) and the negative side (pronounce judgment) are closely intertwined and depend on the faith-decision. Jesus came to save, not to judge (3:17), but his coming forces an encounter with God and demands a faith-decision. That decision determines whether we face judgment or find life. This power to judge belongs to God but has been passed to the Son “because he is the Son of Man.” This is most likely a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where the “someone like a son of man” is given “authority, honor, and sovereignty over all the nations of the world.” Jesus has dominion over this world and therefore is given power to judge by God. Carson (1991:257) sees three strands coming together here: Jesus is the apocalyptic Son of Man, who is given dominion over this world; he is fully human and one with humanity, so has complete understanding; and he is the revelation of God (the living voice) and so judges those who reject that revelation.

This life and judgment is not just present but also future (5:28-29). For this reason, Jesus added, “Don’t be so surprised”—the same thing he said to Nicodemus (3:7). Such divine truths are difficult to comprehend and produce amazement, but anyone who comes to know Jesus will not be surprised that he has such power. Jesus’ hearers had difficulty comprehending his power to give life and judge in the present, so he turned to a subject they were familiar with—final judgment and everlasting life. He controls that as well and stated that “the time is coming when all the dead in their graves will hear the voice of God’s Son.” (Note the absence of “it’s here now” [5:25] in Jesus’ clarified reference to the Eschaton, or “end” of world history, here.) This is a clear reference to the Parousia, when he will “come down from heaven with a commanding shout” (1 Thess 4:16). Then all mankind will be divided into two groups (cf. the parable of the wheat and the weeds in Matt 13:24-29, 36-43)—those who have “done good” and those who “continued in evil.” The one will inherit “eternal life”; the other “will rise to experience judgment.” Ridderbos (1997:201) speaks of this as an “apocalyptic compensation” for people’s reactions in the “now” of 5:25 but argues even more strongly for an inseparable union between the present state and the future reality. In 3:21, those who “do what is right” joyfully come to the Light; here they find their reward, eternal life. They have resurrection life now (cf. Rom 6:4-5), as well as the promise of everlasting life in the future. Those who prefer evil are under indictment now (5:22-24) and will rise to everlasting judgment (5:29; cf. Rev 20:11-15).

Concluding this section, Jesus returns in 5:30 to the theme of his dependence on the Father introduced in 5:19-20 (especially regarding his authority to judge) and switches back to the first person “I” of verses 19 and 24 for emphasis. In verses 19-20 he “sees” the Father; here he hears the Father; both mean he submits to his Father’s will. It is not his own power, but judgment occurs only “as God tells” him. It is his Father’s decision, passed on to the Son, so his hearers can be assured of complete justice. It is also his Father’s voice (“as God tells me”) and his Father’s will (“I carry out the will of the one who sent me”). Jesus is the divine envoy and herald of God. He does not act on his own. He conveys the decisions of God, and his judgment, therefore, is completely righteous and just (the double meaning of dikaia [TG1342, ZG1465] in 5:30). His judgment is “righteous” in the sense that it proceeds from the very character of God; it is “just” in the sense that it reflects divine justice in this world.

5:37 the Father who sent me has testified. Some think the witness of the Father is direct and specific, perhaps at Jesus’ baptism (but John does not record the voice of testimony at the Baptism in 1:32-33) or at Sinai and the giving of the Law (due to 5:37 and 39, but the context is insufficient for this). It is best to see the Father’s testimony as indirect or general—evident in Jesus’ incarnation, life, and ministry as well as in scriptural fulfillment (so Beasley-Murray, Köstenberger).

5:39 You search the Scriptures. The verb could be imperative, “search the Scriptures” (KJV) or indicative, “you are searching the Scriptures.” Most opt for the indicative, for as Dodd points out (1953a:329), it would be unnecessary for Jesus to urge the Jews to study their Scriptures since they had been doing so.

5:42 God’s love. Lit., “The love of God.” This is definitely an objective genitive (denoting the people’s love for God) rather than a subjective genitive (indicating God’s love for them). John 3:16 tells us “God loved the world so much,” but the problem here is that people have not returned that love.

5:44 the one who alone is God. Some mss have “the only One” (66 75 B W ita,b copsa,bo,ach) rather than “the only God” (א A D L 063 0210vid f1,13 33 ite syr ). While there are good mss behind both, it is possible the original term “God” was omitted in later copies due to transcriptional oversight, with the nomen sacrum for theos [TG2316, ZG2536] being accidentally omitted (so Metzger 1994:180). Comfort, however, argues for the shorter reading on the basis that the title “the only One” has the earliest support (66 75 B) and was an apt title for God in this context. Furthermore, scribes would be more inclined to add “God” than delete it (2007:[John 5:44]).

The idea of witness or testimony appears often in this Gospel (Cf. 1:7). Boice (1970:24) points out that 60 percent of the New Testament occurrences of the verb for “witness” (martureō [TG3140, ZG3455]) occur in John’s writings (47 of 77 times, with 33 in his Gospel). Boice links the theme closely with that of divine revelation. Witness refers to official, objective testimony to the truthfulness of God’s revelation in Jesus.

Jesus begins in 5:31 by saying that if he were to witness on his own behalf, his “testimony would not be valid.” Jesus was following the rabbinic principle that no one can testify for themselves (m. Ketubbot 2:9, so Brown). This is a common sense statement that simply means a person’s own testimony on his behalf cannot be trusted in a court of law (Cf. 8:18 for the seeming contradiction there). Deuteronomy 17:6 (cf. Deut 19:15) states that in a capital case (note that in 5:18, they were plotting to kill Jesus), two or three witnesses are needed to convict a person. As Schnackenburg brings out (1980:2.120), “Jewish legal procedure is not based on the interrogation of the accused but on the examination of witnesses.” Jesus realized that his claims of equality with God were not legally sufficient on their own. His point was that if they did not want to accept his word for it, he had four more to back it up. This passage first presents the witnesses (5:31-40) and then the unbelief of the Jews in rejecting these witnesses (5:41-47).

In reality there is only one true witness, the Father, and the others are expressions of that one ultimate testimony. Jesus spoke of another witness (5:32, “someone else”) who was completely qualified to speak, and his testimony would be completely valid. This, of course, is the Father, whose testimony doesn’t appear until 5:37. As Whitacre says (1999:36), “only God, and those whom he uses, can testify to God.” There are four sets of witnesses.

John the Baptist is an especially relevant testimony because although he was not the light (1:8-9), he was “like a burning and shining lamp” (5:35), possibly an echo of Psalm 132:17-18, which promised that God had “prepared a lamp for [his] anointed” one (NASB) and would “clothe his enemies with shame.” The Baptist was that lamp, and his opponents would indeed know shame. That the Jewish people had been “excited for a while about his message” may indicate that he was in prison at this time or was perhaps already dead. The problem was that the excitement was short lived and did not fulfill the Baptist’s major purpose, faith in the true Messiah. The people joyfully listened for a while, but they were unwilling to find the permanent joy of turning to Jesus.

The results of this witness among the Jews were disheartening. First, they had “never heard his voice,” as Moses had at Sinai (Exod 33:11), or as the prophets and especially Jesus had. The Greek text has “never at any time,” indicating that the people refused God’s voice in Moses, the prophets, and Jesus. Second, they had never “seen him face to face” (lit., “seen his form”), which means they had refused to see God in Jesus (1:18; 14:9), so they stood guilty before God. They had both seen and heard God when they encountered Jesus, but they rejected the witness. Third, they did “not have his message in [their] hearts.” Jesus is the Word of God (1:1-18), the living revealer of the Father, but they refused his message. Moses received the Ten Commandments on Sinai; Joshua studied the “Book of Instruction” (Josh 1:8); and the psalmist hid God’s word in his heart (Ps 119:11). In contrast, the people of Jesus’ day rejected that Word of God in Jesus; their hearts were closed to the truth. The reason was that they did not believe in the one whom God sent. The witness of God was all around them and is still open to those with the eyes of faith, but these people closed their hearts to it and rejected the true witness.

In contrast, they freely welcomed the many messianic pretenders of the era (5:43). It is estimated that there had been as many as 64 claimants around this time (cf. Morris), and they all had their followers. It is ironic that the claimant with one of the smallest groups of adherents (the only groups of disciples mentioned numbered 12, 72 [Luke 10], 120 [Acts 1], and 500 [1 Cor 15]) is the one true Messiah. The worldly self-centeredness of the false messiahs struck a responsive chord in many people’s hearts. Therefore, it is “no wonder [they] can’t believe,” for like the false messiahs they sought “honor [from] each other” rather than from God (Cf. 12:43). Their whole life was a constant striving for human attention rather than pleasing God. They served a false God, mankind, but as Jesus said, one cannot “serve two masters” (Luke 16:13). As believers today, we also must ask to what extent we seek honor for ourselves rather than seeking glory only for (and from) God.

Jesus then presented Moses, the prosecuting attorney who would accuse them “before the Father” (5:45). Jesus is the Judge (5:22, 30; 9:39), and he will not need to bring the charges, for that role will be assumed by the one most qualified of all, the very Moses who gave Israel the Torah. To Israel, Moses was the very savior who had freed them from the Egyptians and given them the law by which they stayed right with God. Jesus was saying that they had fooled themselves, for Moses would be the very one to bring evidence against them. Salvation for Israel centered on four things: the law, the land, the Temple, and the covenant. Moses was responsible for giving them the law, bringing them to the land, and establishing worship in the Tabernacle (Israel’s first Temple structure). If they had really “believed Moses,” though, they would have believed in Jesus because he “wrote about [Jesus]” in Deuteronomy 18:15, the prophecy of the final messianic prophet (Cf. 1:21; 4:19 and commentary). The Jewish people prided themselves on the centrality of Scripture, particularly the Torah, in their lives. Yet they were rejecting the very one Moses had prophesied about. Thus, they rejected Moses’s writings when they rejected Jesus. No wonder they could not accept Jesus’ words; they had rejected the words of Moses himself. Thus, Moses will stand up against them in the final judgment and accuse them of unbelief.