ememus panes, ut manducent hi?   Philip: Whence shall we buy
                                 bread that these may eat?

5. In the Synoptic Evangelists the disciples are represented as asking our
Lord to dismiss the multitude, that they may go and procure food. We may
reconcile with St. John’s account thus. They make a suggestion, as in the
Synoptic Evangelists. He then turns to Philip, as in St. John.

6. Hoc autem dicebat tentans     6. And this he said to try
eum: ipse enim sciebat quid      him: for he himself knew what
esset facturus.                  he would do.

6. *To try him.* “One kind of temptation leads to sin, with which God
never tempts anyone; and there is another kind by which faith is tried. In
this sense it is said that Christ proved His disciples. This is not meant
to imply that He did not know what Philip would say, but is an
accommodation to man’s way of speaking. For as the expression: _Who
searcheth the hearts of men_, does not mean the searching of ignorance,
but of absolute knowledge; so here, when it is said that our Lord proved
Philip, we must understand that He knew him perfectly, but that He tried
him in order to confirm his faith. The Evangelist himself guards against
the mistake which this imperfect mode of speaking might occasion, by
adding _For He Himself knew what He would do_” (St. Aug.).

7. Respondit ei Philippus:       7. Philip answered him: Two
Ducentorum denariorum panes      hundred pennyworth of bread is
non sufficiunt eis, ut           not sufficient for them, that
unusquisque modicum quid         every one may take a little.
accipiat.

7. The denarius was a Roman silver coin, whose value differed at different
times. From the year 217 B.C. till the reign of Augustus (30 B.C. to 14
A.D.) it was worth 8‐½_d._; afterwards, and, therefore, in the time of
Christ, it was worth about 7‐½_d._ See Smith’s _Lat. Dict. Calendarium_,
Tables viii. and ix. Two hundred denarii, then would be equal to about £6
5_s._, and yet what bread this would purchase would not suffice to give
even a little to each, so great was the multitude.

8. Dicit ei unus ex discipulis   8. One of his disciples,
eius, Andreas frater Simonis     Andrew, the brother of Simon
Petri.                           Peter, saith to him:
9. Est puer unus hic, qui        9. There is a boy here that
habet quinque panes              hath five barley loaves and
hordeaceos, et duos pisces:      two fishes: but what are these
sed haec quid sunt inter         among so many?
tantos?
10. Dixit ergo Iesus: Facite     10. Then Jesus said: Make the
homines discumbere. Erat autem   men sit down. Now there was
foenum multum in loco.           much grass in the place. The
Discubuerunt ergo viri, numero   men therefore sat down in
quasi quinque millia.            number about five thousand.

10. Christ tells the disciples to bid the multitude be seated “on the
green grass” (Mark vi. 39); and about 5,000 men (“not reckoning women and
children,” Matt. xiv. 21) sat down in companies “by hundreds and by
fifties” (Mark vi. 40).

11. Accepit ergo Iesus panes:    11. And Jesus took the loaves:
et cum gratias egisset,          and when he had given thanks,
distribuit discumbentibus:       he distributed to them that
similiter et ex piscibus         were set down. In like manner
quantum volebant.                also of the fishes as much as
                                 they would.

11. Having returned thanks for all the benefits of God, and particularly
for that which He was now about to bestow, Christ took and blessed the
loaves and fishes, and through His disciples distributed them to the
multitude (Matt., Mark, Luke). It is not said at what precise time the
loaves were multiplied or enlarged, whether in the hands of Christ, or of
the disciples. It may be, as Mald. supposes, that the increase began in
our Lord’s hands, and continued as far as necessary during the
distribution by the disciples. That it at least began in our Lord’s hands,
we think extremely probable, for thus He was more clearly shown to be the
author of the miracle.

12. Ut autem impleti sunt,       12. And when they were filled,
dixit discipulis suis:           he said to his disciples:
Colligite quae superaverunt      Gather up the fragments that
fragmenta, ne pereant.           remain, lest they be lost.

12. The disciples are told to gather up the fragments—(1) to teach us not
to neglect the gifts of God; (2) that the fragments might serve as a proof
and a memorial of the miracle which had been wrought.

13. Collegerunt ergo, et         13. They gathered up
impleverunt duodecim cophinos    therefore, and filled twelve
fragmentorum ex quinque          baskets with the fragments of
panibus hordeaceis, quae         the five barley loaves, which
superfuerunt his qui             remained over and above to
manducaverant.                   them that had eaten.

13. “Observe how the four Evangelists use the word κοφίνους, _baskets_, in
narrating this miracle, thus distinguishing it from a like one recorded
elsewhere by Matthew and Mark, in which there were seven loaves, and 4,000
men, and seven _panniers_ (σπυρίδας) of fragments. It is difficult perhaps
to point out distinctly how σπυρίς differed from κόφινος, but certain it
is that they did differ, else they would never have been so nicely
discriminated by the sacred writers in every instance” (M’Carthy: Gosp. of
the Sundays, fourth Sunday of Lent).(54)

14. Illi ergo homines cum        14. Now these men, when they
vidissent quod Iesus fecerat     had seen what a miracle Jesus
signum, dicebant: Quia hic est   had done, said: This is of a
vere propheta, qui venturus      truth the prophet that is to
est in mundum.                   come into the world.

14. *The prophet*, the Messiah, for whom their fathers and they had
yearned so long (Luke vii. 19).

15. Iesus ergo cum               15. Jesus therefore when he
cognovisset, quia venturi        knew that they would come to
essent ut raperent eum, et       take him by force and make him
facerent eum regem, fugit        king, fled again into the
iterum in montem ipse solus.     mountain himself alone.

15. Jesus, knowing their thoughts and intentions, withdrew to _the_
mountain, where He had already been earlier in the day (verse 3). And He
withdrew all alone, a circumstance which makes it extremely probable that
He rendered Himself invisible, else some of the crowd would have followed.

It may seem strange at first sight, how differently Christ treats the
Jews, on their recognising Him as the Messias, from the way He treated the
Samaritans in similar circumstances (iv. 42, 43). And yet His action in
the two cases is intelligible enough. The Jews looked for a Messias who
would improve their external condition, free them from subjection to any
foreign power, and set them up as a powerful nation. But the Samaritans
could have, and had, no such hope from the advent of a Jewish Messias.
With the Jews, as we see in the present instance, the intention was to
declare the Messias their King, and thus to throw off their allegiance to
Rome. The consequence, of course, would have been great political
excitement and rebellion, ending, doubtless, in the triumph of the Roman
arms. But no matter what the success of such a rebellion, it would have
prejudiced the Roman world against the teachings of Christ, and rendered
more difficult the recognition of the spiritual character of Christ’s
kingdom.

16. Ut autem sero factum est     16. And when evening was come,
descenderunt discipuli eius ad   his disciples went down to the
mare.                            sea.
17. Et cum ascendissent navim,   17. And when they had gone up
venerunt trans mare in           into a ship, they went over
Capharnaum: et tenebrae iam      the sea to Capharnaum: and it
factae erant: et non venerat     was now dark, and Jesus was
ad eos Iesus.                    not come unto them.

17. *They went over the sea.* Rather, *they were going*. From St. Matthew
we learn that Christ had told the disciples immediately after the miracle,
to go before Him across the lake, whilst He dismissed the crowd. St. Mark
adds that they were told to cross to Bethsaida; _i.e._, to the town of
this name, which was near Capharnaum. See above, i. 44. The direction of
the wind or some other motive may have induced them to go towards
Capharnaum, as St. John here tells us they did.

18. Mare autem, vento magno      18. And the sea arose by
flante, exurgebat.               reason of a great wind that
                                 blew.
19. Cum remigassent ergo quasi   19. When they had rowed
stadia viginti quinque aut       therefore about five and
triginta, vident Iesum           twenty or thirty furlongs,
ambulantem supra mare, et        they see Jesus walking upon
proximum navi fieri, et          the sea, and drawing nigh to
timuerunt.                       the ship, and they were
                                 afraid.

19. The stadium, a Greek measure, was nearly equal to an English furlong,
so that the distance here indicated was, at the least, almost three miles.
The exact length of the stadium was 625 feet, that of the English furlong
is 660 feet.

20. Ille autem dicit eis: Ego    20. But he saith to them: It
sum, nolite timere.              is I: be not afraid.
21. Voluerunt ergo accipere      21. They were willing
eum in navim: et statim navis    therefore to take him into the
fuit ad terram, in quam ibant.   ship: and presently the ship
                                 was at the land, to which they
                                 were going.

21. *They were willing therefore to take him into the ship.* ἤθελον here
is equivalent to an adverb (Kuin.), and the sense is: “They gladly took
Him into the ship” (boat), as St. Mark indeed tells us they did (Mark vi.
51). Or, if, with Winer, _Gr. Gram._, p. 586, it be admitted that θέλω
never has an adverbial force, except in the participle, then we would
explain that though at first afraid (verse 19), they were afterwards
willing to take Him into the ship, and took Him in.

22. Altera die, turba quae       22. The next day, the
stabat trans mare, vidit quia    multitude that stood on the
navicula alia non erat ibi       other side of the sea, saw
nisi una, et quia non            that there was no other ship
introisset cum discipulis suis   there but one, and that Jesus
Iesus in navim, sed soli         had not entered into the ship
discipuli eius abiissent:        with his disciples, but that
                                 his disciples were gone away
                                 alone.
23. Aliae vero supervenerunt     23. But other ships came in
naves a Tiberiade, iuxta locum   from Tiberias, nigh unto the
ubi manducaverant panem,         place where they had eaten the
gratias agente Domino.           bread, the Lord giving thanks.
24. Cum ergo vidisset turba      24. When therefore the
quia Iesus non esset ibi,        multitude saw that Jesus was
neque discipuli eius,            not there, nor his disciples,
ascenderunt in naviculas, et     they took shipping, and came
venerunt Capharnaum quaerentes   to Capharnaum seeking for
Iesum.                           Jesus.

22‐24. On the following day, the crowd on the eastern shore seek for Jesus
(verse 24), thinking Him to be still on that side of the lake, inasmuch as
He had not left by the only boat that was there on the preceding evening
(verse 22). Not finding Him, they take boats which had just arrived on the
eastern shore, and cross to the western shore to seek Jesus in Capharnaum,
where He usually abode at this time.

25. Et cum invenissent eum       25. And when they had found
trans mare, dixerunt ei:         him on the other side of the
Rabbi, quando huc venisti?       sea, they said to him: Rabbi,
                                 when camest thou hither?

25. When they found Jesus, they asked Him when He had come to Capharnaum,
being equally anxious, no doubt, to know _how_ He had come.

26. Respondit eis Iesus, et      26. Jesus answered them and
dixit: Amen, amen dico vobis:    said: Amen, amen, I say to
quaeritis me, non quia           you, you seek me, not because
vidistis signa, sed quia         you have seen miracles, but
manducastis ex panibus, et       because you did eat of the
saturati estis.                  loaves, and were filled.

26. Without answering their question, our Lord takes occasion from the
miracle of the preceding day to raise their thoughts to a higher and more
precious bread than that which He had miraculously given them. But first
He tells them that they followed Him, not because they had realized the
spiritual significance of His miracles, and believed Him to be God, but
merely, He implies, because they hoped for a gross material satisfaction,
such as they had experienced the preceding day. The Greek word, rendered:
_and were filled_, means literally; were satisfied with food, as animals
with fodder.

Having thus made known to them, that He knew their motive in following
Him, He goes on to tell them to labour not, that is to say, not so much,
for the food that perisheth as for that which endureth unto eternal life.
This food enduring unto eternal life (verse 27) we understand to be the
Blessed Eucharist.

But before giving our reasons for holding that reference to the Blessed
Eucharist begins here, and not merely at verses 48, 51, or 52, it is
desirable to indicate the Protestant interpretations of this discourse of
our Lord, and prove that they are untenable.

Most Protestants deny that there is any reference to the Blessed Eucharist
in this chapter; they hold that it refers merely to the reception of
Christ through faith; and through faith especially in the atoning efficacy
of His passion and death. It is of this faith in His passion that they
interpret the words: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and
drink His blood, you shall not have life in you,” (verse 54). Indeed they
are logically constrained either to deny that there is reference here to
the sacrament of the Eucharist, or else to abandon their teaching
regarding the nature and efficacy of the sacraments. On the one hand, if
they admit reference to the Eucharist, they see the difficulty of denying
the real and substantial presence of Christ in the sacrament; on the other
hand, holding, as they do, that the few sacraments which they retain,(55)
are not _causes_ of grace, as the Catholic Church teaches, but merely
signs or pledges of grace, and external notes of the Church, they find
themselves in direct conflict with our Lord, if His words are to be
understood of the sacrament of the Eucharist. For again and again
throughout this discourse He attributes salvation and grace to the eating
of His flesh and the drinking of His blood, in such a way as to leave no
room for doubt that whatever it is He speaks of, whether faith or the
sacrament of the Eucharist, it is the cause of grace. See, _e.g._, 27, 52,
55, 57, 59.

But besides those who deny that there is any reference to the Blessed
Eucharist in this chapter, there is a considerable number of Protestants
who take up even a more indefensible position. These admit the reference,
but contend that nothing more can be concluded from this or any other part
of Scripture than that Christ is _spiritually_ present in the Sacrament.
They will not admit that Christ is really and substantially present, much
less that the sacrament causes grace. Against the first class we shall
show that Christ refers, in this discourse, to the Blessed Eucharist; and
against the second, that His words prove that He is really and
substantially received in the sacrament.

I. CHRIST REFERS IN THIS DISCOURSE TO THE BLESSED EUCHARIST.(56)

We may premise that no more appropriate occasion could have been chosen by
Christ for promising this heavenly bread than the day following that on
which He had multiplied the bread in the desert; and we know that it was
Christ’s practice to explain His doctrines as they were suggested by
circumstances. Thus, after curing the _centurion’s_ servant, He foretells
the vocation of the _Gentiles_ (Matt. viii. 6‐13); after expelling the
unclean spirit, He describes the power of Satan (Matt. xii. 22‐45); after
asking for water, He speaks of the water of life to the Samaritan woman
(John iv. 10, and foll.); after healing the paralytic, He predicts the
general resurrection (John v. 28); and after curing the man born blind, He
denounces the blindness of the Pharisees (John ix. 41). It was quite in
accordance with Christ’s practice, then, to predict the Blessed Eucharist
on the present occasion: and that He did so is proved by the following
arguments:—

(1) If St. John did not mean to record here a reference to the Blessed
Eucharist, then he does not mention that sacrament at all, for he does not
allude, unless perhaps very obscurely (xiii. 1) to its institution. But it
is very improbable that our Evangelist omits all mention of this sacrament
in his Gospel. For if, as we shall prove, this sacrament contains the body
and blood of Christ, there was a reason why St. John should mention it in
order to confirm the faithful against the Docetae who denied the reality
of Christ’s human nature. Nor does it at all weaken this argument to say
that the Docetae who denied the reality of the body in which Christ had
walked and talked, would not be likely to be convinced by a reference to
His body present in the Eucharist. For St. John wrote, not to convert
heretics, but to confirm against heresy Christians who believed in the
real presence.

(2) Christ’s words (27, 52) can refer only to the Eucharist. For He speaks
of a food which was still to be given _in the future_, whereas His
_doctrines_, and His _Person_ as the object of faith, had been given
already.

(3) His words: “Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of
the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you”
(verse 54), could be understood only in a literal sense, and so
understood, they must refer to the Blessed Eucharist. For, if Christ had
spoken in a figurative sense, it should be in that figurative sense which
was known and recognised among the Jews. Now, the recognised figurative
sense of eating a man’s flesh was to do him some serious injury,
especially by calumny.(57) Such a figurative sense, however, would be
absurd here; and hence Christ must have been understood, and must have
spoken, in the literal sense. See Wiseman’s _Lect. on the Euch._, pp.
77‐91.

(4) The disciples understood our Lord to speak of a real eating of His
flesh and blood, such as takes place only in the Eucharist, and understood
Him correctly. Their words (verse 61), and their departure for ever from
Him (verse 67), show that they understood Him of a real eating; otherwise
why should they be offended or desert Him? What had He said that was new,
or hard to take in, if He merely spoke of the necessity of faith in
Himself or His doctrines? Their action, then, shows in what sense the
disciples understood Him; and His action in permitting them to depart,
shows they understood Him correctly.

(5) The Jews understood Him of a real eating, which was quite different
from belief in His doctrines or in Himself, and which has no meaning
unless in reference to the Eucharist. “_How_ can this man give us _His
flesh_ to eat?” they said (verse 53); and His solemn asseveration,
negatively (verse 54), and positively (verse 55), shows that He is
inculcating the very truth which they had questioned, and which they were
bound to accept on His testimony, even though they could not see _how_ it
was to come to pass.

II. CHRIST SPEAKS OF A REAL, ORAL RECEPTION OF HIS BODY AND BLOOD, AND NOT
MERELY OF A SPIRITUAL RECEPTION THROUGH FAITH EXCITED BY THE SACRAMENT.

(1) The manna with which Christ compares the bread that He will give
(verses 49, 50, 59) was really eaten; therefore, also the bread, which is
His flesh (verse 52), is to be _really_ received.

(2) After the Jews had murmured, Christ declared His flesh to be _truly_
meat, and His blood to be _truly_ drink (verse 56), and therefore it must
be truly and really received.

(3) In any sense other than the literal, Christ’s meaning would be
obscure, and His words misleading; and our Evangelist, according to his
ordinary practice (i. 41, 42; ii. 21; iv. 2; xii. 33), would explain. But
he does not explain; therefore the language is not obscure, and therefore
the literal sense was meant.

(4) See arguments (3), (4), and (5) for the preceding proposition.

And now, having satisfied ourselves that there is reference to the Blessed
Eucharist in this chapter, and to a real, oral reception of Christ in the
sacrament, let us try to decide where that reference begins. Some (as
Wiseman, _Lect. on Euch._, p. 51, and foll.) say at verse 48; others, at
51; and others, at 52. But it seems much more probable that the reference
begins before any of these points; and Wiseman is certainly mistaken when
he states, on page 48: “That Protestants and Catholics are equally agreed
that the discourse, as far as the 48th or 51st verse refers entirely to
believing Christ. St. Cyril of Alex., Theophy., Toletus, Lucas of Bruges,
had held, before Wiseman’s time, that the reference to the Blessed
Eucharist begins in verse 27”; and since his time, Beelen, Perrone,
Corluy, Franzelin,(58) and others have held the same.

The most probable view seems to be that from verse 27, wherever there is
question of the bread (verses 27, 32, 33, 35, ... 59), the Blessed
Eucharist is meant. Christ began in verse 27 to promise the Blessed
Eucharist, but the Jews interrupted Him (verse 28), and their interruption
raised the question of faith in Him, so that He digressed for a time from
His main purpose to explain the necessity of faith, in order to ensure a
fruitful reception of the Eucharist. But though we admit this digression,
we hold that wherever Christ refers to the bread to be given, He means the
Blessed Eucharist, and that the reference to it begins in verse 27. For—

(1) In verse 27 He speaks of a food that was still _to be given in the
future_, just as in verse 52, where all Catholics admit there is question
of the Eucharist.

(2) This food was to be given by the Son of Man, Christ Himself; and
though in verse 32 the Father is said to give it, this is naturally
explained by saying that the Father gives us in the Incarnation what
Christ gives in a sacramental form in the Eucharist.

(3) The food in verse 27, is a food for which, as we shall see, faith is a
_preparation_; therefore, not itself faith.

(4) In verses 32, 33, there is question of a bread that cometh down from
heaven, and giveth life to the world, and in verse 59, of a bread to which
the very same properties are attributed; and in both cases this heaven‐
descended, life‐giving bread is contrasted with the manna. Is it not
natural, then, to conclude, remembering that both passages belong to the
same discourse, that the same bread is meant in both instances?

And now we have seen—(1) that there is reference to the Blessed Eucharist
in this discourse; (2) to a real reception of Christ in it; and (3) that
the reference most probably begins in verse 27. Having got so far, it will
not be very difficult to interpret the discourse, and to this we proceed
at once.

27. Operamini non cibum qui      27. Labour not for the meat
perit, sed qui permanet in       which perisheth, but for that
vitam aeternam, quem Filius      which endureth unto life
hominis dabit vobis. Hunc enim   everlasting, which the son of
Pater signavit Deus.             man will give you. For him
                                 hath God, the Father, sealed.

27. *Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that ** which
endureth unto life everlasting.* As our Version indicates, the meat is the
object for the attainment of which they are exhorted to do their part. The
meaning cannot be that they are to _make_ the food by believing, as if the
food were faith; for they had not _made_ the bread in the desert the
previous day, nor were they thinking of making it now, but they were
trying, _striving to obtain it_. This sacramental food will endure _in its
effects_ unto eternal life. This food *the Son of Man will give*; _i.e._,
Christ as man will give us His flesh; but since the food is to endure in
its effects unto _eternal life_, mere man could not give such; and hence
it is added that the Father who is God has sealed with the impress of
Divinity (August., Tolet.) the Son of Man, who therefore, being God as
well as man, can give a food that will endure unto eternal life.

28. Dixerunt ergo ad eum: Quid   28. They said therefore unto
faciemus ut operemur opera       him: What shall we do that we
Dei?                             may work the works of God?
29. Respondit Iesus, et dixit    29. Jesus answered, and said
eis: Hoc est opus Dei, ut        to them: This is the work of
credatis in eum quem misit       God, that you believe in him
ille.                            whom he hath sent.

28‐29. Some of His hearers now interrupt Christ, not however to inquire
what this food was, but to ask what they must do on their part in order to
perform the works which they take it for granted _God requires_, before
they may receive such food. Christ’s answer is, that in order to obtain
it, so that it may remain unto eternal life, they must believe in Himself.
So too is it even now; the sinner may sacrilegiously receive the Lord into
his breast, but it is only for Him who believes (and acts accordingly)
that the Sacrament endureth unto eternal life.

30. Dixerunt ergo ei: Quod       30. They said therefore to
ergo tu facis signum ut          him: What sign therefore dost
videamus, et credamus tibi?      thou show that we may see, and
quid operaris!                   may believe thee? what dost
                                 thou work?
31. Patres nostri                31. Our fathers did eat manna
manducaverunt manna in           in the desert, as it is
deserto, sicut scriptum est:     written, _He gave them bread
Panem de coelo dedit eis         from heaven to eat_.
manducare.

30‐31. Christ having declared the necessity of faith in Himself, they now
ask for motives of credibility, and point to the great standing miracle
wrought for their fathers in the desert. But whereas He had demanded faith
in Himself: “That you believe _in Him_ whom He hath sent” (verse 29), they
seem to miss the point, and speak not of believing in Him, but merely of
believing Him, believing what He may have to say to them. They did not
mention Moses, nor was the manna given by Moses; but our Lord’s reply
shows that the comparison between Himself and Moses was in their minds. It
is as if they said: You call upon us to believe you on the strength of the
miracle wrought yesterday in the desert, whereas Moses fed our _whole
race_ for _forty_ years with a bread _from heaven_. These people who speak
thus, are probably different persons from those who on the preceding day
recognised Christ as the Messias (verse 14).

32. Dixit ergo eis Iesus:        32. Then Jesus said to them:
Amen, amen dico vobis: Non       Amen, amen, I say to you:
Moyses dedit vobis panem de      Moses gave you not bread from
coelo, sed Pater meus dat        heaven, but my Father giveth
vobis panem de coelo verum.      you the true bread from
                                 heaven.
33. Panis enim Dei est qui de    33. For the bread of God is
coelo descendit, et dat vitam    that which cometh down from
mundo.                           heaven, and giveth life to the
                                 world.

32‐33. They had asked for some great miracle (comp. Matt. xii. 38), but
since they had already had sufficient evidence to enable them to believe,
Christ does not gratify their desire, but proceeds to declare that it was
not Moses who gave the manna, but God (see Ps. lxxvii. 21‐24); so that
their tacit comparison of Moses with Himself is baseless. He then goes on
to declare that His Father giveth them the true bread from heaven. This
means, as we have already explained, that the Father gave us in the
Incarnation what Christ gives us in the Eucharist, namely, the Person of
the God‐man. That it is true or perfect bread, He proves from the fact
that it comes, not like the manna from the clouds, but from heaven itself,
and that it not merely _sustains_ the life of _one people_, but _gives_
life to the _world_.

34. Dixerunt ergo ad eum:        34. They said therefore unto
Domine, semper da nobis panem    him: Lord, give us always this
hunc.                            bread.
35. Dixit autem eis Iesus: Ego   35. And Jesus said to them: I
sam panis vitae, qui venit ad    am the bread of life: he that
me, non esuriet: et qui credit   cometh to me shall not hunger;
in me, non sitiet unquam.        he that believeth in me, shall
                                 never thirst.

34, 35. They at once ask that He would give them this bread always. They
evidently think that He speaks of some excellent food like the manna,
which would support their corporal existence, and they desire to be
constantly supplied with it. But as they know not _what_ they ask, nor
_how_ they should be disposed to receive it, He tells them—(1) What the
bread is, namely, Himself; and (2) what is required for a proper and
fruitful reception of it, namely, faith in Himself. The words: *He that
cometh to Me*, mean the same thing as: *He that believeth in Me*. The
believer shall *never thirst*; because, if he act upon his belief, he will
receive Christ in the Eucharist, and be spiritually filled, never again to
thirst, except through his own fault.

36. Sed dixi vobis, quia et      36. But I said unto you, that
vidistis me, et non creditis.    you also have seen me, and you
                                 believe not.
37. Omne quod dat mihi Pater,    37. All that the Father giveth
ad me veniet: et eum qui venit   me shall come to me; and him
ad me, non ejiciam foras:        that cometh to me, I will not
                                 cast out.

36, 37. Christ again, as in verse 26, reproves their want of faith, and
declares that those who believe in Him, do so through the grace of the
Father; and all such He receives and rejects not.

38. Quia descendi de coelo,      38. Because I came down from
non ut faciam voluntatem meam    heaven, not to do my own will,
sed voluntatem eius qui misit    but the will of him that sent
me.                              me.
39. Hac est autem voluntas       39. Now this is the will of
eius qui misit me, Patris: ut    the Father who sent me; that
omne quod dedit mihi, non        of all that he hath given me,
perdam ex eo, sed resuscitem     I should lose nothing, but
illud in novissimo die.          should raise it up again in
                                 the last day.
40. Haec est autem voluntas      40. And this is the will of my
Patris mei, qui misit me: ut     Father that sent me; that
omnis qui videt Filium, et       every one who seeth the Son,
credit in eum, habeat vitam      and believeth in him, may have
aeternam, et ego resuscitabo     life everlasting, and I will
eum in novissimo die.            raise him up in the last day.

38‐40. He declares the reason why He does not reject such: because He came
down on earth to do His father’s will; and that will is that all who
recognize in Him the Son of God and believe in Him as such (acting
according to that belief), should be raised up to a glorious life on the
last day.

41. Murmurabant ergo Iudaei de   41. The Jews therefore
illo, quia dixisset: Ego sum     murmured at him, because he
panis vivus, qui de coelo        had said, I am the living
descendi.                        bread which came down from
                                 heaven.
42. Et dicebant: Nonne hic est   42. And they said: Is not this
Iesus filius Ioseph, cuius nos   Jesus the son of Joseph, whose
novimus patrem et matrem?        father and mother we know? How
Quomodo ergo dicit hic: Quia     than saith he, I came down
de coelo descendi?               from heaven?
43. Respondit ergo Iesus, et     43. Jesus therefore answered
dixit eis: Nolite murmurare in   and said to them: Murmur not
invicem:                         among yourselves.

41‐43. The Jews, by whom the Scribes and Pharisees perhaps are meant, now
murmur because He claims celestial origin, whereas they fancy they know
Him to be an ordinary man, born in the ordinary way of an earthly father
and mother. He merely reproves their murmuring without replying to their
difficulty, and proceeds to declare the necessity of grace.

44. Nemo potest venire ad me,    44. No man can come to me,
nisi Pater qui misit me          except the Father, who hath
traxerit eum: et ego             sent me, draw him, and I will
resuscitabo eum in novissimo     raise him up in the last day.
die.

44. No one can believe in Him, unless the Father draw him; _i.e._, by
preventing and assisting grace. We have here a clear proof against the
Pelagians, for the necessity of grace in order to faith. It must be borne
in mind that, though we are drawn by God, we are drawn by impulses of
grace which we are free to resist.(59)

45. Est scriptum in prophetis:   45. It is written in the
Et erunt omnes docibiles Dei.    prophets: _And they all shall
Omnis qui audivit a Patre, et    be taught of God_. Every one
didicit, venit ad me.            that hath heard of the Father
                                 and hath learned, cometh to
                                 me.

45. Christ declares _how_ we are drawn by the Father, namely, by an
illumination of the intellect and motion of the will, so that we hear
(“audivit”) and obey (“didicit”). *It is written in the Prophets: And they
shall all be taught of God.* The Jewish Scriptures were divided into the
Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographers, and the reference here is to the
portion written by the Prophets. The phrase: *They shall all be taught of
God*, which is found substantially in Isaias, liv. 13, implies direct
Divine teaching through the influence of the Spirit upon the mind and
heart, and indicates not merely one Divine communication, but an
established relationship, for the faithful who allow themselves to be
drawn, are life‐long pupils in the school of God.

46. Non quia Patrem vidit        46. Not that any man hath seen
quisquam, nisi is qui est a      the Father, but he who is of
Deo, hic vidit Patrem.           God, he hath seen the Father.

46. *Not that any man hath seen the Father.* It is, says St. Augustine,
“as if He said: Do not when I tell you: Every man that hath heard and
learned of the Father, say to yourselves: We have never seen the Father,
and how then can we have learned from Him? Hear Him then in Me, I know the
Father, and am from Him.”

47. Amen, amen dico vobis: Qui   47. Amen, amen, I say unto
credit in me, habet vitam        you: He that believeth in me
aeternam.                        hath everlasting life.

47. Having pointed out the necessity of faith (verse 29), its sufficiency
(verse 35), and the necessary condition to it, namely, the grace of God
and correspondence therewith (verses 44, 45), He now solemnly repeats what
He had declared in verses 35 and 37, that he who believes in Him shall
have eternal life. The present tense, *hath everlasting life*, need create
no difficulty here: for he who believes will receive the Blessed
Eucharist, the food “that endureth unto everlasting life,” (verse 57); and
the present tense is so used to indicate the certainty with which the
result will follow.

48. Ego sum panis vitae.         48. I am the bread of life.
49. Patres vestri                49. Your fathers did eat manna
manducaverunt manna in           in the desert, and are dead.
deserto, et mortui sunt.
50. Hic est panis de coelo       50. This is the bread which
descendens: ut si quis ex ipso   cometh down from heaven: that
manducaverit, non moriatur.      if any man eat of it, he may
                                 not die.
51. Ego sum panis vivus, qui     51. I am the living bread,
de coelo descendi.               which came down from heaven.

48‐51. Before quitting this portion of His discourse, and going on to
declare _how_ He is the bread of life, Christ sums up what He has said,
repeating again the proposition laid down in verse 35: “I am the bread of
life;” again comparing and preferring the Blessed Eucharist to the manna
(49, 50 compared with 32, 35); and combining in one the two propositions
contained in verses 35 and 38, namely, that He is the bread, and that He
came down from heaven. In verse 50 where it is declared that he who eats
this bread shall not die, the meaning is, that the Blessed Eucharist, _of
its own nature_, is calculated to save us from the death of the soul, and
to secure even for our bodies a glorious resurrection. Sin, of course, may
rob it of its glorious effects.

52. Si quis manducaverit ex      52. If any man eat of this
hoc pane, vivet in aeternuum:    bread, he shall live for ever:
et panis, quem ego dabo, caro    and the bread that I will
mea est pro mundi vita.          give, is my flesh for the life
                                 of the world.

52. Having summed up the preceding portion of His discourse, Christ now
proceeds to declare _how_ He is the bread of life. Till now He had
contented Himself with declaring that He is that bread, and with pointing
out the chief disposition necessary to receive Him worthily; now He goes
further, and points out _how_ He will be the bread of life; namely, by
giving His flesh, that is, His whole human nature (i. 14), to which the
Divine nature is inseparably united, to be received in the Blessed
Eucharist. Thus He gradually unfolds the mystery, reserving till the last
supper the further knowledge, that this reception of His body and blood
was to take place in a sacramental manner.

*And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.*
Many Greek MSS. read: “And the bread that I will give is My flesh, _which
I will give_ for the life of the world.” If the words “which I will give”
be genuine, we would explain them not in reference to the sacrifice of the
cross, but in reference to the sacrifice of the Eucharist, in which Christ
is given for us and to us. Compare St. Luke: “This is My body, which is
_given for you_” (Luke, xxii. 19), and especially Luke xxii. 20, where the
Greek text shows that it is the blood _as in the chalice_ (and not as on
Calvary) that is said to be offered in sacrifice. But the words more
probably are not genuine; they are omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Westcott, and Hort, and by the Revised Version, as well as by
the Vulgate.

Though not merely Christ’s flesh, that is, His humanity (i. 14), but also
His Divinity, is received in the Blessed Eucharist, His human nature is
specially mentioned, lest it should be thought that He is the living bread
only as God, or merely spiritually. “Dixerat enim,” says St. Thomas on
this verse. “Quod erat panis vivus; et ne intelligatur quod hoc ei esset
in quantum est Verbum, vel secundum animam tantum, ideo ostendit quod
etiam caro sua vivificativa est: est enim organum divinitatis suae: unde,
cum instrumentum agat virtute agentis, sicut divinitas Christi
vivificativa est, ita et caro virtute Verbi adjuncti vivificat; unde
Christus tactu suo sanabat infirmos.” Besides, as St. Thomas adds, since
this Sacrament is commemorative of our Lord’s Passion (“For as often as
you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death
of the Lord,” 1 Cor. xi. 26), His “flesh” is mentioned to remind us of the
weakness of that human nature wherein it was possible for Him who was God
to suffer.

53. Litigabant ergo Iudaei ad    53. The Jews therefore strove
invicem, dicentes: Quomodo       among themselves saying: How
potest hic nobis carnem suam     can this man give us his flesh
suam dare ad manducandum?        to eat?
54. Dixit ergo eis Iesus:        54. Then Jesus said to them:
Amen, amen dico vobis: Nisi      Amen, amen, I say unto you;
manducaveritis carnem Filii      Except you eat the flesh of
hominis, et biberitis eius       the son of man, and drink his
sanguinem, non habebitis vitam   blood, you shall not have life
in vobis.                        in you.
55. Qui manducat meam carnem,    55. He that eateth my flesh,
et bibit meum sanguinem, habet   and drinketh my blood, hath
vitam aeternam: et ego           everlasting life: and I will
resuscitabo eum in novissimo     raise him up in the last day.
die.

53‐55. The Jews *therefore* (_ergo_, not enim), because of what He had now
said, disputed among themselves, evidently taking different views of what
He had said; but Jesus, far from retracting, solemnly insists upon what He
had just said, and declares negatively (verse 54), and positively (verse
55), not only the possibility, but the _necessity_ of receiving His body
and blood. It does not follow from verse 54, as the Utraquists falsely
contended, that Communion under both kinds is necessary; for Christ is
received whole and entire under either species. Under the species of bread
only the body is present _in virtue of the words of consecration_, and
similarly under the species of wine only the blood; but since Christ’s
body is now a _living_ body, it follows that in the Blessed Eucharist,
where the body is, there also are the blood and the soul _in virtue of the
natural connection_ between the parts of a living body, and there, too,
the Divinity, _in virtue of the hypostatic union_. See Decrees of the
Council of Trent, sess. xiii., ch. 3. The precept is to receive both body
and blood, but not necessarily under both species. For, as the Council of
Trent (sess. xxi., cap. 1) points out, Christ attributes the same effects
to eating in verses 55, 58, 59, as He does here to eating and drinking.
See also 1 Cor. xi. 26, where he who eats _or_ drinks unworthily, is said
to be guilty of _both_ body and blood. The precept of Christ, then, is
obeyed whether one or both species be received, and it is a disciplinary
matter entrusted to the care of the Church, whether the faithful are to
receive under one or both species.

Seeing, then, that there is no obligation for the faithful to receive the
Blessed Eucharist under both species, it may be asked why does Christ
mention both species? We reply, that He does so to signify that in the
Blessed Eucharist there is a perfect repast, which ordinarily supposes the
presence of both meat and drink; and, perhaps, also to indicate that this
sacrament is commemorative of His death, in which His body and blood were
separated.

Nor do verses 54 and 55 afford any proof that the Blessed Eucharist is
necessary, _necessitate medii_ unto salvation, like Baptism (John iii. 5).
For—(1) Baptism is declared to be absolutely necessary for all, “unless a
man be born again;” here the Blessed Eucharist is declared necessary only
for those who are capable of receiving a precept, “Unless you eat,” &c.
(2) From the nature of the case, Baptism, being a new _birth_, is
absolutely necessary for all who are to live the new spiritual life; and
as many as are born, must be _born again_ in order to live the higher
life; but the Blessed Eucharist is not the introduction to a new life, but
a means of nourishing the life already acquired. Hence for children who
have already acquired that spiritual life in Baptism, and cannot lose it
because incapable of sinning, the Blessed Eucharist cannot be necessary to
salvation, nor even for adults can it be absolutely necessary as a means,
if there be, as there are, other means of retaining the life already
acquired.

56. Caro enim mea, vere est      56. For my flesh is meat
cibus: et sanguis meus, vere     indeed: and my blood is drink
est potus.                       indeed;
57. Qui manducat meam carnem,    57. He that eateth my flesh
et bibit meum sanguinem, in me   and drinketh my blood, abideth
manet, et ego in illo.           in me, and I in him.

57. In the Blessed Eucharist we are united to Christ, and His humanity
remains in us until the sacred species become corrupted; His divinity,
until mortal sin is committed, and He is expelled.

58. Sicut misit me vivens        58. As the living Father hath
Pater, et ego vivo propter       sent me, and I live by the
Patrem: et qui manducat me, et   Father: so he that eateth me,
ipse vivet propter me.           the same also shall live by
                                 me.

58. The sacred union between Christ and the communicant is compared to the
ineffable union between Him and His heavenly Father.

*The living Father.* This is a unique instance of this title, but we
frequently find: _The Living God_, Matt. xvi. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16, &c. *And
I live by* (διὰ τὸν παπέρα) *the Father*. It is to be noted that διὰ is
followed by the accusative, not the genitive. If, then, we are to regard
it as meaning here what it ordinarily means when followed by the
accusative, and as the Vulgate seems to take it, the sense would rather
be: As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live _on account_ of the
Father, so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live _on account_ of Me.
This would mean that as complete devotion to the Father is the object of
the life of the Incarnate Son (the Son _as sent_), so complete devotion to
the Son shall be the object of the life of him to whom Christ shall have
united Himself in the Blessed Eucharist. Others, however, think that διὰ
is here equivalent to _through_, or _by_, as in our Rheims Version. The
sense then is: as Christ lives through the eternal life communicated to
Him in His eternal generation by the Father; so, in some way, the
communicant shall live in virtue of the spiritual life communicated to him
or sustained in him because of his union with Christ in the Blessed
Eucharist.

59. Hic est panis qui de coelo   59. This is the bread that
descendit. Non sicut             came down from heaven. Not as
manducaverunt patres vestri      your fathers did eat manna,
manna, et mortui sunt. Qui       and are dead. He that eateth
manducat hunc panem, vivet in    this bread shall live for
aeternum.                        ever.

59. This verse concludes and unites the principal points of the discourse.
Compare verses 32, 41, 49, 50, 52, 55. Hence it confirms the view we have
followed regarding the unity of subject throughout the discourse.

*He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.* With this encouraging and
glorious promise, made not to any one people, nor to any class as such,
not even to all believers, but to each one (note the change from the
plural to the singular: _your fathers ... He that eateth_) who shall
worthily receive, and duly profit by the Blessed Eucharist, the discourse
ends.

60. Haec dixit in synagoga       60. These things he said
docens, in Capharnaum.           teaching in the synagogue, in
                                 Capharnaum.

60. Because of the solemn importance of the discourse, the place where it
was delivered is noted. At Tell Hûm (see above on ii. 12) the ruins of a
large synagogue are still to be seen.

61. Multi ergo audientes ex      61. Many therefore of his
discipulis eius, dixerunt:       disciples hearing it, said:
Durus est hic sermo, et quis     This saying is hard, and who
potest eum audire?               can hear it?

61. The effect of the _discourse_ upon many of the disciples is recorded.
*Hard* (σκληρός), _i.e._, harsh, hard to accept.

62. Sciens autem Iesus apud      62. But Jesus knowing in
semetipsum quia murmurarent de   himself, that his disciples
hoc discipuli eius, dixit eis:   murmured at this, said to
Hoc vos scandalizat?             them: Doth this scandalize
                                 you?

62. The Evangelist notes, according to his custom, that their thoughts
were known to Christ.

63. Si ergo videritis Filium     63. If then you shall see the
hominis ascendentem ubi erat     son of man ascend up where he
prius?                           was before?

63. *If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?*
The sense according to some, is: If you shall see Me ascending into
heaven, it will then be easier to believe My doctrine, seeing I am Divine;
and you shall at the same time understand, that it is not in a bloody
manner (as you suppose) that you are to eat My body. Thus He would correct
their too carnal interpretation of His words, and point at the same time
to a reason why the true sense, however difficult, was to be accepted.
Others think that Christ’s words increase the difficulty, the sense being,
if you are scandalized now, because I say, _while present with you_, that
I will give My body, how much more will you be scandalized when you see
that body taken away into heaven, and are yet asked to believe that it is
to be eaten on earth? It is argued in favour of this opinion, that the
form of Christ’s reply: “Does this scandalize you? If _therefore_,” &c.,
indicates that their difficulty would then be greater. So Mald., Tolet.,
Beel., Corl. We may remark, as against the Nestorians, that language could
not signify more clearly than this verse signifies the unity of Person in
Christ. The Son of Man will ascend to heaven where as Son of God He is
from all eternity. “Filius Dei et hominis unus Christus ... Filius Dei in
terra suscepta carne, Filius hominis in coelo in unitate personae.” St.
Aug. on this verse.

64. Spiritus est, qui            64. It is the spirit that
vivificat: caro non prodest      quickeneth: the flesh
quidquam: verba quae ego         profiteth nothing. The words
locutus sum vobis, spiritus et   that I have spoken to you, are
vita sunt.                       spirit and life.

64. Many interpretations of this verse have been advanced. The following
two are the most probable, intrinsically and extrinsically:—

(1) *The spirit* is the spirit of man elevated and ennobled by grace; *the
flesh*, the corrupt dispositions and weak thoughts of human nature unaided
by grace (see Rom. viii. 5, 6); and the meaning of the verse is; it is the
mind illumined by grace that quickeneth to faith and to a proper
understanding of My words; the mind or human nature by itself is of no
avail in such matters; the words which I have spoken to you are _to be
understood by_ the mind quickened and illumined by grace. So St. Chrys.,
Teoph., Wisem., Perr., M’Ev. But there are serious difficulties against
this view—(1) “caro” is then taken metaphorically in this verse, while
throughout the context it has been taken literally of the flesh of Christ;
(2) the explanation of the words “are spirit and life” is unnatural.

(2) Others take *the Spirit* of the Divinity of Christ, *the flesh* of His
humanity considered apart from the Divinity; and the meaning of the verse
then is: it is My Divinity that quickeneth, and maketh My flesh a meat
enduring unto eternal life; the flesh if separated from the Divinity would
profit nothing; the words which I have spoken to you regard My life‐giving
Divinity as united to My humanity. In this view, as Mald. explains it,
“life,” by a Hebraism, is equivalent to an adjective signifying _life‐
giving_, as may be inferred from the beginning of the verse, where it is
said that it is the Spirit _that giveth life_.(60) Hence “Spirit and life”
is equivalent to _life‐giving_ Spirit, and the latter part of the verse
means that Christ’s words have reference to His life‐giving Divinity in
union with His humanity. So, too, St. Cyril of Alex., Beel., Corl. We
prefer this view, and hold that Christ here gives the key to the solution
of the difficulty on account of which His disciples had murmured (verse
62). He had closed His discourse with words attributing eternal life to
the eating of His flesh (verse 59); they murmured accordingly, thinking it
absurd or incredible that such effect could follow from such a cause as
the eating of a man’s flesh; and in verse 64 He explains that His flesh is
the flesh of the Man‐God, which therefore through the quickening influence
of the Divinity with which it is united, is capable of producing such
marvellous effects.

There is not a shadow of probability in the interpretation put upon this
verse by the Sacramentarians. They explained the verse to mean: that the
_figurative_ sense of what He had said regarding the necessity of eating
His flesh and blood profits, but that the _literal_ sense would profit
nothing. Thus they professed to find in these words an assurance that
Christ had not spoken of a real eating of His flesh in the Eucharist, but
only of a spiritual reception of Himself through faith. In reply to this
we say—(1) that throughout the rest of the Bible “spiritus” and “caro” are
not even once used of a figurative and literal sense; (2) if Christ here
gave the explanation which our adversaries suppose, how is it that, as we
learn from verse 67, many of His disciples retired notwithstanding, and
walked with Him no more? In such an explanation all their difficulty would
be removed, and they would be taught that it was only of a figurative
eating by faith that Christ had been speaking. How then account for their
departure? But it was different in the explanation we have given above. In
our view, Christ, still insisting on a real reception of His flesh, merely
explains how it is that such real reception can lead to such glorious
results.

65. Sed sunt quidam ex vobis,    65. But there are some of you
qui non credunt. Sciebat enim    that believe not. For Jesus
ab initio Iesus qui essent non   knew from the beginning who
credentes, et quis traditurus    they were that did not
esset eum.                       believe, and who he was that
                                 would betray him.

65. In the view we hold regarding verse 64, the connection of this verse
with it is: the fact that I am God explains what you find difficult in My
words (verse 64); but some of you do not believe Me to be God; and hence
your difficulty (verse 65). To indicate Christ’s Divine knowledge, the
Evangelist adds that He knew _from the beginning_, &c.

66. Et dicebat: Propterea dixi   66. And he said: Therefore did
vobis, quia nemo potest venire   I say to you, that no man can
ad me, nisi fuerit ei datum a    come to me, unless it be given
Patre meo.                       him by my Father.

66. Christ’s words in this verse are to be connected closely with the
beginning of the preceding, the intervening words of the Evangelist being
parenthetical.

*Therefore did I say to you.* The allusion is to what was said above
(verse 44), which is substantially the same as what is said here, since to
be drawn to Christ by the Father is nothing else than to be given grace by
the Father to come to Christ. It might seem at first sight that these
words excuse the incredulity of those whom Christ addresses; but it is not
so. For, the reason they had not been drawn by the Father was because they
_would_ not, because they had not followed the promptings of grace. See
above on verse 45. “Peccabant tamen qui nolebant venire, id est credere in
Christum, tum quia habebant gratiam sufficientem, qua possent credere si
vellent, etsi non haberent efficacem, qua reipsa et actu crederent; tum
quia humiliter non petebant a Deo gratiam efficacem, qua actu crederent:
tum quia sua superbia aliisque peccatis illa gratia se fecerant indignos,
imo pervicaces Dei gratiam et fidem repellebant et refutabant” (A Lap. on
this verse).

67. Ex hoc multi discipulorum    67. After this many of his
eius abierunt retro: et iam      disciples went back; and
non cum illo ambulabant.         walked no more with him.

67. Had Christ in the preceding discourse spoken only of faith, surely,
all‐merciful and loving as He is, He would have made His meaning clear,
before allowing many of His disciples to depart from Him for ever. It was
only, then, because they understood Him correctly, and refused to believe
Him, that He allowed them to depart.

68. Dixit ergo Iesus ad          68. Then Jesus said to the
duodecim: Numquid et vos         twelve: will you also go away?
vultis abire?

68. *The twelve.* These are spoken of as well known, though this is the
first mention made of their number in this Gospel.

*Will you also go away?* While the question implies that such desertion
was to be feared, its form implies a negative answer, and suggests that in
the case of the chosen twelve such conduct ought to be impossible.

69. Respondit ergo ei Simon      69. And Simon Peter answered
Petrus: Domine, ad quem          him: Lord, to whom shall we
ibimus? verba vitae aeternae     go? thou hast the words of
habes:                           eternal life.
70. Et nos credidimus, et        70. And we have believed and
cognovimus quia tu es Christus   have known that thou art the
Filius Dei.                      Christ the Son of God.

69‐70. Peter replies for all the Apostles (not knowing the unbelief of
Judas), and confesses the truth of Christ’s doctrine, and, according to
the Vulgate reading, the Divinity of Christ. It is very doubtful, however,
whether the Vulgate reading here is correct. The oldest Greek MSS. read:
“And we have believed and know that Thou art the _Holy One_ (ὁ ἅγιος) of
God.” Whether in the mind of St. Peter this latter form of the words meant
a full confession of Christ’s Divinity, or only that He was the Messias,
it is difficult to say. It would seem indeed from the praise bestowed upon
Peter by our Lord (Matt. xvi. 16) on an occasion subsequent to this, that
then for the first time Peter fully confessed Christ’s Divinity.

71. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne   71. Jesus answered them: Have
ego vos duodecim elegi, et ex    not I chosen you twelve; and
vobis unus diabolus est?         one of you is a devil?

71. Peter had answered as he thought for all the Apostles, but Christ
shows that He knows to the contrary. *A devil*, that is to say a sinner
inspired by the devil (viii. 44), Judas was (_est_) even then.

72. Dicebat autem Iudam          72. Now he meant Judas
Simonis Iscariotem: hic enim     Iscariot, the son of Simon:
erat traditurus eum, cum esset   for this same was about to
unus ex duodecim.                betray him, whereas he was one
                                 of the twelve.

72. The Evangelist explains who was meant. “The name Iscariot has received
many interpretations, more or less conjectural, but it is now universally
agreed that it is to be derived from Kerioth (Josh. xv. 25) a city in the
tribe of Judah, the Hebrew אישׂ קרִות ’īsh Kerīyoth passing into
Ἰσκαριώτης” (Smith’s _B. D._, 2nd Ed.). In this view, Judas, unlike the
other Apostles (Acts ii. 7), was from the Province of Judea.

CHAPTER VII.

    1. *Christ remains in Galilee.*

    2‐10. *His brethren urge Him to go up to Jerusalem to the Feast of
    Tabernacles with them; this He declines to do, but goes afterwards
    privately.*

    11‐13. *The chief men among the Jews look out for Him at the
    Feast, and express different opinions regarding Him.*

    14‐24. *In the middle of the festival Christ goes up to the temple
    and teaches.*

    25‐29. *Comments of some of the people of Jerusalem; Christ’s
    reply.*

    30, 31. *Different opinions of the people regarding Him.*

    32‐36. *Jealously of the Sanhedrim, which sends officers to arrest
    Him.*

    37‐39. *Christ’s words on the eighth day of the feast, and St.
    John’s authentic interpretation.*

    40, 41. *Different opinions among the people regarding Him.*

    44‐49. *Though some were anxious to arrest Him, no one durst, not
    even the officers who had been sent for that purpose; consequent
    indignation of the Priests and Pharisees.*

    50‐52. *Nicodemus interposes in Christ’s favour; reply of the
    other members of the Sanhedrim.*

1. Post haec autem ambulabat     1. After these things Jesus
Iesus in Galilaeam, non enim     walked in Galilee, for he
volebat in Iudaeam ambulare,     would not walk in Judea,
quia quaerebant eum Iudaei       because the Jews sought to
interficere.                     kill him.

1. Instead of “Galilaeam,” “Judaeam,” read “Galilea,” “Judaea” (Abl.) in
the Vulgate. The sense is that Christ continues to remain in Galilee.

2. Erat autem in proximo dies    2. Now the Jews’ feast of
festus Iudaeorum scenopegia.     tabernacles was at hand.

2. See note on verse 1.

3. Dixerunt autem ad eum         3. And his brethren said to
fratres eius: Transi hinc, et    him: Pass from hence and go
vade in Iudaeam, ut et           into Judea: that thy disciples
discipuli tui videant opera      also may see thy works which
tua, quae facis.                 thou dost.

3. *His brethren said to him: Pass from hence, and go into Judea, that thy
disciples also may see thy works which thou dost.*

Who are these brethren of Jesus?

(1) Not the children of Joseph and Mary, born to them after the birth of
our Lord, for this opinion of Helvidius was condemned as _heretical_ in
the Council of Lateran (649 A.D.), and is opposed to the universal and
constant tradition of the Church.(61)

(2) Not the children of Joseph by a previous marriage; for this opinion
too, though not heretical, and though held by some of the fathers, is
opposed to the common opinion of Catholics, according to which St. Joseph
lived and died a virgin.

(3) These brethren were _cousins_ of our Lord. The term “fratres”
(ἀδελφοὶ) is used in the Sacred Scriptures of many who are not children of
the same parents. Thus it is used of fellow‐countrymen, Rom. ix. 3, 4; (2)
of co‐religionists, Rom. i. 13; (3) of relations who were not, however,
members of the same family, Gen. xiii. 8, xiv. 4. In these verses of
Genesis, Abraham and Lot are referred to as _brethren_, though the former
was uncle to the latter (Gen. xii. 5).

In Matthew xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3, James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude, are named
as brethren of our Lord; but whether they are the same cousins who are
referred to here by St. John, is disputed. Of those mentioned by SS.
Matthew and Mark, James, Jude, and probably Simon, were Apostles;(62) and
hence, on account of verse 5, some say it is not these, but other cousins
of our Lord, who are here referred to by St. John. However, there need be
no difficulty about admitting that the faith of the Apostles was still
imperfect, especially if we adopt what seems the more probable reading in
vi. 70. See Matthew xvii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15.

These brethren of the Lord say to Him, that He ought to go up to
Jerusalem, where there would be a concourse of people to witness His
miracles.

4. Nemo quippe in occulto quid   4. For there is no man that
facit, et quaerit ipse in        doth anything in secret, and
palam esse: si haec facis,       he himself seeketh to be known
manifesta teipsum mundo.         openly. If thou do these
                                 things, manifest thyself to
                                 the world.
5. Neque enim fratres eius       5. For neither did his
credebant in eum.                brethren believe in him.

5. As already explained, if we regard the three Apostles as included among
the brethren, we may understand here that their faith was still
_imperfect_; if other cousins of our Lord are meant, they may have been
wholly without faith.

6. Dicit ergo eis Iesus:         6. Then Jesus said to them: My
Tempus meum nondum advenit:      time is not yet come; but your
tempus autem vestrum semper      time is always ready.
est paratum.

6. There are many opinions as to what is meant by _His time_, here
referred to by Christ. Some say it is the time of His passion; others, the
time for manifesting Himself to the world; and others, the time for going
up to Jerusalem. The latter opinion seems to us the most natural and most
probable.

7. Non potest mundus odisse      7. The world cannot hate you;
vos: me autem odit, quia ego     but me it hateth: because I
testimonium perhibeo de illo     give testimony of it, that the
quod opera eius mala sunt.       works thereof are evil.

7. His brethren might go up to Jerusalem at any time, for they, even if
some of them were Apostles, had not yet incurred the odium of the _wicked_
world (John xv. 18, 19).

8. Vos ascendite ad diem         8. Go you up to this festival
festum hunc: ego autem non       day, but I go not up to this
ascendo ad diem festum istum,    festival day: because my time
quia meum tempus nondum          is not accomplished.
impletum est.
9. Haec cum dixisset, ipse       9. When he had said these
mansit in Galilaea.              things, he himself staid in
                                 Galilee.
10. Ut autem ascenderunt         10. But after his brethren
fratres eius, tunc et ipse       were gone up, then he also
ascendit ad diem festum non      went up to the feast, not
manifeste, sed quasi in          openly, but as it were in
occulto.                         secret.

8‐10. Christ here seems to say that He will not go up to Jerusalem for the
feast, and yet He went. Various answers to this difficulty have been
given:—(1) Many ancient MSS. and versions, instead of “Non (οὐκ) ascendo”
read “_Nondum_ (οὔπω) ascendo;” _i.e._, I go not up _yet_. However, as
this is the easier reading to explain, and as the other is equally well
supported by ancient authority, we are inclined to believe that the more
difficult (οὐκ) is the true reading. Hence (2) others say that our Lord
used an ambiguous phrase: I go not up, meaning I go not up _now_ (but
shall go afterwards). (3) The correct explanation seems to be that
insinuated by our Evangelist. Christ said: I go not up (as you desire, in
your company, and publicly); then when He went up, it was not publicly,
but, as it were, in secret.

11. Iudaei ergo quaerebant eum   11. The Jews therefore sought
in die festo, et dicebant: Ubi   him on the festival day and
est ille?                        said: Where is he?

11. The leaders of the Jews seek Him at the feast, but, through contempt,
do not name Him.

12. Et murmur multum erat in     12. And there was much
turba de eo. Quidam enim         murmuring among the multitude
dicebant: Quia bonus est. Alii   concerning him. For some said:
autem dicebant: Non, sed         He is a good man. And others
seducit turbas.                  said: No, but he seduceth the
                                 people.
13. Nemo tamen palam             13. Yet no man spoke openly of
loquebatur de illo, propter      him, for fear of the Jews.
metum Iudaeorum.

13. *Openly* (_palam_) does not fully express the force of the Greek word,
which seems to mean here _with open approval_.

14. Iam autem die festo          14. Now about the midst of the
mediante, ascendit Iesus in      feast, Jesus went up into the
templum, et docebat.             temple, and taught.

14. The festival lasted for eight days, so that this would be the fourth
or fifth day.

15. Et mirabantur Iudaei,        15. And the Jews wondered,
dicentes: Quomodo hic litteras   saying: How doth this man know
scit, cum non didicerit?         letters, having never learned?

15. From this verse it is plain that Christ had never attended any of the
Jewish schools, where the _Scriptures_ (γράμματα) were explained.

16. Respondit eis Iesus, et      16. Jesus answered them and
dixit: Mea doctrina non est      said: My doctrine is not mine,
mea, sed eius qui misit me.      but his that sent me.

16. The sense is: The doctrine I preach has not been excogitated by Me; I
have received it from My Father. As man, Christ had received His knowledge
through the beatific vision, and by infusion into His human soul, and as
God, He had received it from the Father from all eternity.

17. Si quis voluerit             17. If any man will do the
voluntatem eius facere,          will of him: he shall know of
cognoscet de doctrina utrum ex   the doctrine, whether it be of
Deo sit, an ego a meipso         God, or whether I speak of
loquar.                          myself.
18. Qui a semetipso loquitur,    18. He that speaketh of
gloriam propriam quaerit: qui    himself, seeketh his own
autem quaerit gloriam eius qui   glory: but he that seeketh the
misit eum, hic verax est, et     glory of him that sent him, he
iniustitia in illo non est.      is true, and there is no
                                 injustice in him.

17, 18. In proof that His doctrine is from God, He appeals to two
arguments:—(1) If they will only follow the will of God, and believe,
_experience_ will teach them that His doctrine is divine. (2) The fact
that He seeks not His own glory, but the glory of the Father, is a proof
that His doctrine is the doctrine of the Father, and, therefore a proof
that He is veracious, and does not deceive (_injustitia_ in illo non est).
This second argument, as Mald. points out, is based upon what does, not
upon what should, happen among men. When men preach doctrines of their own
invention, they generally seek their own glory.

19. Nonne Moyses dedit vobis     19. Did not Moses give you the
legem: et nemo ex vobis facit    law, and _yet_ none of you
legem?                           keepeth the law?
20. Quid me quaeritis            20. Why seek you to kill me?
interficere? Respondit turba,    The multitude answered and
et dixit: Daemonium habes:       said: Thou hast a devil; who
quis te quaerit interficere?     seeketh to kill thee?

19, 20. Most probably Christ begins here to defend Himself against the
charge of violating the Sabbath, which the Jews had brought against Him on
a former occasion (v. 16, 18), and which they still remembered against
Him.

He uses an “argumentum ad hominem”: You do not keep the law yourselves,
why then seek to kill Me, even for what you allege to be a violation of
it? Some among the crowd were even then anxious to kill Jesus, as His
words prove, and to these He directs His words; but there were many
present who had no such intention, and some of these reply, *Thou hast a
devil*. They may have meant that He was possessed, or simply that He was
raving, out of His senses.

21. Respondit Iesus, et dixit    21. Jesus answered and said to
eis: Unum opus feci, et omnes    them: One work I have done;
miramini.                        and you all wonder:
22. Propterea Moyses dedit       22. Therefore Moses gave you
vobis circumcisionem: (non       circumcision (not because it
quia ex Moyse est, sed ex        is of Moses, but of the
patribus) et in sabbato          fathers); and on the sabbath‐
circumciditis hominem.           day you circumcise a man.
23. Si circumcisionem accipit    23. If a man receive
homo in sabbato, ut non          circumcision on the sabbath‐
solvatur lex Moysi: mihi         day, that the law of Moses may
indignamini quia totum hominem   not be broken; are you angry
sanum feci in sabbato?           at me because I have healed
                                 the whole man on the sabbath‐
                                 day?

21‐23. He proceeds to show by sober reasoning, that they ought not to
blame Him for having healed the man on the Sabbath.

The *one work* of verse 21 is the healing of the man on the Sabbath day
(v. 9, 16). Some prefer to connect “propterea” with verse 21: “and you all
wonder on account of it.” But it is better to connect it, as in the
Vulgate, with what follows. The sense is: it was on this account Moses
gave you circumcision; namely, because it had been handed down from the
Patriarchs (Gen. xvii. 10), not because it was properly a part of the law.
If then a man may receive circumcision on the Sabbath, _and yet_ the law
regarding the observance of the Sabbath is not violated thereby, are you
angry with Me because, doing the will of God, I made a man whole, both
body and soul, on the Sabbath? In this explanation, “ut” (ἵνα) is ecbatic,
denoting a consequence. See Gen. xxii. 14; John x. 17; Apoc. xiii. 13.
Others, however, give the particle its ordinary telic force, and explain
thus: If then a man may receive circumcision on the Sabbath, _in order
that_ the law commanding circumcision to be performed on the eighth day be
not violated, are you angry, &c.? Both explanations are probable, and
leave the argument unchanged.

24. Nolite iudicare secundum     24. Judge not according to the
faciem, sed iustum iudicium      appearance, but judge just
iudicate.                        judgment.

24. *According to the appearance*; _i.e._, take no account of persons, but
judge according to the merits of the case.

25. Dicebant ergo quidam ex      25. Some therefore of
Ierosolymis: Nonne hic est       Jerusalem said: Is not this he
quem quaerunt interficere?       whom they seek to kill?
26. Et ecce palam loquitur, et   26. And behold he speaketh
nihil ei dicunt. Numquid vere    openly, and they say nothing
cognoverunt principes quia hic   to him. Have the rulers known
est Christus?                    for a truth that this is the
                                 Christ?

25, 26. Some of the people of Jerusalem (the correct reading is
Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν) said: can it be that they have discovered that He is really
Christ?

27. Sed hunc scimus unde sit:    27. But we know this man
Christus autem cum venerit,      whence he is: but when the
nemo scit unde scit.             Christ cometh, no man knoweth
                                 whence he is.

27. And yet this cannot be, for we know this man whence he is; but when
the Christ cometh no man knoweth whence He is. This erroneous opinion of
theirs may have arisen from Micheas, v. 2: “His going forth is from the
beginning from the days of eternity;” and Mal. iii. 2: “And who shall be
able to think of the day of His coming?”

28. Clamabat ergo Iesus in       28. Jesus therefore cried out
templo docens, et dicens: Et     in the temple, teaching and
me scitis, et unde sim scitis:   saying: You both know me, and
et a meipso non veni, sed est    you know whence I am, and I am
verus qui misit me, quem vos     not come of myself; but he
nescitis.                        that sent me is true, whom you
                                 know not.

28. The meaning is: You know Me as man, and you know My parents, and yet I
come not of My own authority, but sent by My Father, who therein shows
Himself true to His promises.

29. Ego scio eum: quia ab ipso   29. I know him, because I am
sum, et ipse me misit.           from him, and he hath sent me.

29. He declares His Divine knowledge of the Father, His eternal
generation, and mission in time.

30. Quaerebant ergo eum          30. They sought therefore to
apprehendere: et nemo misit in   apprehend him: and no man laid
illum manus, quia nondum         hands on him, because his hour
venerat hora eius.               was not yet come.

30. They rightly understand Him to claim to be Divine, and as a
consequence seek to apprehend Him; but the time for His sufferings had not
yet arrived, and so they were powerless.

31. De turba autem multi         31. But of the people many
crediderunt in eum, et           believed in him, and said:
dicebant: Christus cum           When the Christ cometh, shall
venerit, numquid plura signa     he do more miracles than these
faciet quam quae hic facit?      which this man doth?

31. Many of the multitude—in contrast with their leaders—believed in Him.
*When the Christ cometh, shall he*, &c. The question, expecting, as it
does, a negative answer (numquid), suggests that Jesus must be the Christ.

32. Audierunt pharisaei turbam   32. The Pharisees heard the
murmurantem de illo haec: et     people murmuring these things
miserunt principes et            concerning him: and the rulers
pharisaei ministros, ut          and Pharisees sent ministers
apprehenderent eum.              to apprehend him.

32. *Rulers*, rather chief priests (ἀρχιερεῖς). The *ministers* were
officers attendant upon the Sanhedrim, or engaged about the temple. See
verses 45, 46; xiii. 3, 18, 22; xix. 6; Acts v. 22, 26. As the Sanhedrim
was made up of chief priests, Pharisees, and Scribes, probably it was the
Sanhedrim that sent these ministers to apprehend Christ.

33. Dixit ergo eis Iesus:        33. Jesus therefore said to
Adhuc modicum tempus vobiscum    them: Yet a little while I am
sum: et vado ad eum qui me       with you: and _then_ I go to
misit.                           him that sent me.

33. Omit “eis” (to them). Christ’s words were probably directed not merely
to the ministers, but to all the people. *Yet a little while I am with
you*, _i.e._, almost six months more after this feast of Tabernacles, and
then He would go to the Father.

34. Quaeretis me, et non         34. You shall seek me, and
invenietis: et ubi ego sum vos   shall not find me: and where I
non potestis venire.             am, _thither_ you cannot come.

34. *You shall seek me, and shall not find me.* Some think these words
were fulfilled at the siege of Jerusalem, when many of the Jews must have
looked in vain for help from Him whom they had put to death.

Others, like Maldonatus, say the statement is conditional: even if you
sought me, you should not find me, after a little while.

Since the same words: “You shall seek me,” were afterwards addressed to
the Apostles (xiii. 33), it is not likely that the reference is to seeking
Him at the destruction of Jerusalem, for the Apostles did not seek Him
then. It would also seem from xiii. 33 that the view of Maldonatus just
stated is not probable, for in xiii. 33 there is not a conditional
statement, but simply a prediction that the Apostles would seek Him. Hence
we take it that in the text before us also, there is a prediction that the
Jews after His departure would, when in distress and tribulation, desire
to see Him once more among them. Doubtless, many Jews afterwards had such
a desire, but it was in vain, for He had gone to Him that sent Him.

*And where I am* (= shall be) *thither you cannot come*.

These words too were afterwards addressed to the Apostles (xiii. 33), and
we believe in the same sense as here. The meaning is that until death at
least the separation would be complete, for He would be no longer here,
and where He would be they could not join Him. Some take the words: “You
cannot come,” as meaning here that the Jews on account of their sins could
_never_ enter heaven. But since, as we have said, the same words were
afterwards addressed to the Apostles, the view we have adopted seems more
probable.

35. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad      35. The Jews therefore said,
semetipsos: Quo hic iturus       among themselves: Whither will
est, quia non inveniemus eum?    he go, that we shall not find
numquid in dispersionem          him? will he go unto the
gentium iturus est, et           dispersed among the gentiles,
docturus gentes?                 and teach the gentiles?

35. *The dispersed among the Gentiles*, _i.e._, the Jews scattered among
the Gentiles, or more probably the Gentiles themselves (Ἑλλήνων, not
Ἑλληνιστῶν) scattered over the world. The concluding words of the verse:
“and teach the Gentiles” render the latter view the more probable.

36. Quis est hic sermo, quem     36. What is this saying that
dixit: Quaeretis me, et non      he hath said: You shall seek
invenietis: et ubi sum ego,      me, and shall not find me; and
vos non potestis venire?         where I am, you cannot come?
37. In novissimo autem die       37. And on the last _and_
magno festivitatis, stabat       great day of the festivity,
Iesus, et clamabat, dicens: Si   Jesus stood and cried, saying:
quis sitit, veniat ad me, et     If any man thirst, let him
bibat.                           come to me, and drink.
38. Qui credit in me, sicut      38. He that believeth in me,
dicit scriptura, flumina de      as the scripture saith, _Out
ventre eius fluent aquae         of his belly shall flow rivers
vivae.                           of living water_.

37, 38. On the last day, the great day of the feast, that is, the eighth
day, Jesus cried aloud to the people assembled at the temple. His words
mean: If anyone thirst spiritually, let him come to Me by faith, and grace
shall be abundantly poured into his soul. The words: *Out of his belly*,
&c., are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament; but, as signifying the
abundance of grace in the new dispensation, they convey the sense of many
passages of the Old Testament. See Is. xli. 18, xliv. 3.; Ezech. xxxvi.
25; Joel ii. 28.

39. Hoc autem dixit de           39. Now this he said of the
Spiritu, quem accepturi erant    Spirit which they should
credentes in eum: nondum enim    receive who believed in him:
erat Spiritus datus, quia        for as yet the Spirit was not
Iesus nondum erat                given, because Jesus was not
glorificatus.                    yet glorified.

39. The Evangelist gives an authentic interpretation of our Lord’s words:
*For as yet the Spirit was not given*. These words explain why our Lord
spoke of the abundant outpouring of the Spirit as _still to come_, for the
Holy Ghost was not yet given, inasmuch as Christ was not yet glorified
(xvi. 7). When it is said that the Holy Ghost was not yet given, the
meaning is, that He was not yet given so _abundantly_, so _manifestly_, or
so _universally_, as He has been since the first Pentecost. It is not
meant that the Holy Ghost had not been given to the just of the Old
Testament. They, as well as we, had the grace of the Holy Ghost in their
souls; moreover, according to the common teaching of the fathers and
theologians, they, like the just now, had the Holy Ghost united to their
souls, not merely by His grace, but also by a substantial union. This
union is not, however, peculiar to the Holy Ghost, but is common to the
Three Divine Persons, by reason of their unity of nature, and is only by
appropriation attributed to the Holy Ghost. See Franz., _De Trin., last
Disp._; Corl., pp. 198, 199.

40. Ex illa ergo turba cum       40. Of that multitude
audissent hos sermones eius,     therefore, when they had heard
dicebant: Hic est vere           these words of his, some said:
propheta.                        This is the prophet indeed.
41. Alii dicebant: Hic est       41. Others said: This is the
Christus. Quidam autem           Christ. But some said: Doth
dicebant: Numquid a Galilaea     the Christ come out of
venit Christus?                  Galilee?
42. Nonne scriptura dicit:       42. Doth not the scripture
Quia ex semine David, et de      say: That Christ cometh out of
Bethlehem castello, ubi erat     the seed of David, and from
David, venit Christus?           Bethlehem the town where David
                                 was?
43. Dissensio itaqua facta est   43. So there arose a
in turba propter eum.            dissension among the people
                                 because of him.
44. Quidam autem ex ipsis        44. And some of them would
volebant apprehendere eum: sed   have apprehended him: but no
nemo misit super eum manus.      man laid hands upon him.

40‐44. The Evangelist notes the difference of opinion among the crowd.
Some believed Him to be _the Prophet_ promised to Moses (Deut. xviii. 18);
others (wrongly distinguishing between the Prophet and the Messias) held
Him to be the Messias; others doubted (verse 41); others remained wholly
incredulous (verse 44). In verse 42, three different passages of Sacred
Scripture are combined: “of the seed of David” (Is. xi. 1); “from
Bethlehem” (Mich. v. 2); “the town where David was” (1 Kings xvii. 12).

45. Venerunt ergo ministri ad    45. The ministers therefore
pontifices et pharisaeos. Et     came to the chief priests and
dixerunt eis illi: Quare non     the Pharisees. And they said
adduxistis illum?                to them: Why have you not
                                 brought him?
46. Responderunt ministri:       46. The ministers answered:
Numquam sic locutus est homo,    Never did man speak like this
sicut hic homo.                  man.
47. Responderunt ergo eis        47. The Pharisees therefore
pharisaei; numquid et vos        answered them: Are you also
seducti estis?                   seduced?
48. Numquid ex principibus       48. Hath any one of the rulers
aliquis credidit in eum, aut     believed in him, or of the
ex pharisaeis?                   Pharisees?
49. Sed turba haec, quae non     49. But this multitude that
novit legem maledicti sunt.      knoweth not the law, are
                                 accursed.

45‐49. The officers, who had been sent a few days before to apprehend
Christ (see above, 14, 32), or perhaps other officers, return and bear
favourable testimony to Him, for which they are rebuked by the Pharisees.

50. Dixit Nicodemus ad eos,      50. Nicodemus said to them, he
ille qui venit ad eum nocte,     that came to him by night, who
qui unus erat ex ipsis.          was one of them.
51. Numquid lex nostra iudicat   51. Doth our law judge any
hominem nisi prius audierit ab   man, unless it first hear him,
ipso, et cognoverit quid         and know what he doth?
faciat?
52. Responderunt, et dixerunt    52. They answered and said to
ei: Numquid et tu Galilaeus      him: Art thou also a Galilean?
es? Scrutare scripturas, et      Search the scriptures, and see
vide quia a Galilaea propheta    that out of Galilee a prophet
non surgit.                      riseth not.

50‐52. Nicodemus (iii. 1, 2) interposes in Christ’s favour; to whom the
members of the Sanhedrim impatiently reply that no prophet had ever arisen
in Galilee, thus disposing, as they thought, of Christ’s claim to be a
prophet. But they were wrong in their assumption that Christ had been born
in Galilee (see Luke ii. 4‐7), and equally wrong in the conclusion they
drew that, being a Galilean, He could not be a prophet. For the Sacred
Scriptures had nowhere said that a prophet could not arise in Galilee;
nay, they prove that the prophet Jonas was a Galilean, 4 Kings, xiv. 25.

53. Et reversi sunt              53. And every man returned to
unusquisque in domum suam.       his own house.

53. See next chapter.

CHAPTER VIII.

    1‐2. *Christ having spent the night on the Mount of Olives,
    returns in the morning to the temple and teaches.*

    3‐11. *The story of the woman taken in adultery.*

    12‐20. *Discourse of Christ with the Pharisees in the treasury.*

    21‐29. *He upbraids them for their incredulity, and foretells His
    own crucifixion.*

    30‐50. *Many believed in Him, but others remained incredulous
    (33), and to these He says that they are not the children of
    Abraham, but of the devil.*

    51‐59. *Challenged by the Jews, He declares Himself greater than
    Abraham; and when they were about to stone Him for this
    declaration, He hides Himself.*

Authenticity of John vii. 53‐viii. 11.

This is the second of the three passages in our Gospel, whose authenticity
has been seriously questioned. See Introd. VI. We shall sum up the
evidence by which the critical question must be decided, and then say what
we think as to the genuineness of the passage.

Evidence against Authenticity.

1. _Manuscripts._—The passage is wanting in the four oldest Greek MSS.
that we possess, viz., in B, א, A, C; the two former of which are thought
by critics to belong to the fourth, and the two latter, to the fifth
century; also in four other _uncial_ MSS., in more than sixty _cursives_,
and in thirty‐three Evangelistaries.(63) In about fifty other MSS., though
read, it is marked as doubtful.

2. _Versions._—It is wanting in the best MSS. of the “Vetus Itala;” in the
“Simple” and “Figured” Syriac; in most MSS. of the Coptic; in all of
Gothic, and in some of the Armenian.

3. _Fathers._—The passage is not commented upon by any of the Greek
fathers that wrote upon this Gospel.

4. _Internal evidence_ is said to prove the passage spurious, because of
the use of many words and phrases not elsewhere used by St. John.(64)

Evidence in favour of Authenticity.

1. _Manuscripts._—The passage is found in seven _uncial_ MSS. (one of
which, D, though itself only of the sixth century, is thought to represent
the text of the Gospels as it stood in the second century); in more than
three hundred cursives, and in six Evangelistaries.

2. _Versions._—The passage is found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Arabic,
Persian, Ethiopic, Syriac of Jerusalem, Slavic, and Anglo‐Saxon.

3. _Fathers._—_The passage_ is read by nearly all the Latin
fathers—Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo the Great, Chrysologus, Sedulius,
Cassiodorus, &c.; and in the _Apostolic Constitutions_, a work of the
third, or, at the latest, the fourth century.

4. _Internal Evidence_—(_a_) Christ’s merciful treatment of the adulteress
harmonizes beautifully with His declaration immediately after (viii. 15),
that at His first coming He condemned no man. (_b_) It is inconceivable
how a passage _of this nature_ could ever have found its way into so many
MSS., unless it was written by St. John. On the other hand, it is easy to
see how, though genuine, it came to be omitted in many MSS., through the
fear that Christ’s merciful treatment of the adulteress might encourage
sinners. This is exactly what St. Augustine says:—“Nonnulli modicae fidei,
vel potius inimici verae fidei, credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari
mulieribus suis, illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit,
abstulerunt de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui
dixit: ‘Jam deinceps noli peccare’ ” (St. Aug., _De Conj. Adult._, 2, 7).

As regards the arguments _against_ the passage, we believe that the reason
given by St. Augustine in the words just quoted, explains the absence of
the passage in so many MSS., versions, and fathers. As to the internal
arguments against the passage, it must be admitted that a number of words
are used here which are not met with elsewhere in the writings of St.
John; but then the subject is peculiar, and besides in many other passages
which are unquestioned, we meet with several words not used elsewhere by
the Evangelist.(65) Even Renan admits that there is nothing in the passage
that is at variance with the style of the fourth Gospel.(66)

Conclusion.

From the evidence, which has been impartially laid before the reader, we
hold we are justified in concluding that even on mere critical grounds the
passage is more probably genuine. Some, as Franzelin (_De Sacra. Script._,
Thes. xix., pp. 466, 467), go farther, and hold, that since the decree of
the Council of Trent (Sess. iv.), which defined all the sacred books of
the Bible, and _all their parts_, as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be
canonical, it is not lawful for any Catholic to question the authenticity
of this passage. They argue that this passage constitutes a _part_ (not
merely a “particula”) of the Gospel of St. John, and is, therefore,
covered by the decree of Trent. Nor can it be said in reply that the
Council, in the words “cum omnibus suis partibus,” meant to define the
authenticity of the Deuterocanonical fragments of the _Old_ Testament
only, for the Acts(67) of the Council show that these words were intended
to refer especially to the fragments of the Gospels.

To conclude, then, we hold that we are not only critically justified in
accepting John vii. 53‐viii. 11, as authentic, but that it is extremely
probable that as Catholics we are _bound_ to accept it.

Text.

1. Iesus autem perrexit in       1. And Jesus went unto mount
montem Oliveti:                  Olivet.

1. In contrast to those who retired to their homes (vii. 53), Jesus
retired to Mount Olivet, where He often spent the night in prayer (Luke
xxi. 37; vi. 12). Mount Olivet, separated from Jerusalem by the brook of
Cedron, was a Sabbath day’s journey from the City (Acts i. 12); that is to
say, about seven and a‐half stadia, and therefore less than an English
mile.

2. Et diluculo iterum venit in   2. And early in the morning he
templum, et omnis populus        came again into the temple,
venit ad eum, et sedens          and all the people came to
docebat eos.                     him, and sitting down he
                                 taught them.

2. Early on the morning that followed the eight days of the Feast of
Tabernacles (see vii. 37), He came again to the temple, and all the people
who were assembled in the City from the various parts of Palestine, came
to Him, and He was teaching them.

3. Adducunt autem scribae et     3. And the scribes and
pharisaei mulierem in            Pharisees bring unto him a
adulterio deprehensam: et        woman taken in adultery; and
statuerunt eam in medio.         they set her in the midst,

3. While Jesus was engaged in teaching the people, the Pharisees bring to
him a woman who had been caught in adultery, *in the very act*, as we
learn from the Greek of verse 4.

4. Et dixerunt ei: Magister,     4. And said to him: Master,
haec mulier modo deprehensa      this woman was even now taken
est in adulterio.                in adultery.
5. In lege autem Moyses          5. Now Moses in the law
mandavit nobis huiusmodi         commanded us to stone such a
lapidare. Tu ergo quid dicis?    one. But what sayest thou?

5. It is not stated anywhere in the Pentateuch that the adulterer and
adulteress should be _stoned_, but it is, that they should be put to death
(Lev. xx. 10). Doubtless the death was by stoning, as is indicated in
Ezech. xvi. 38‐40.

6. Hoc autem dicebant            6. And this they said,
tentantes eum, ut possent        tempting him, that they might
accusare eum. Iesus autem        accuse him. But Jesus bowing
inclinans se deorsum, digito     himself down, wrote with his
scribebat in terra.              finger on the ground.

6. They hoped to entrap our Lord; for if he acquitted the woman they could
charge him with being an adversary of the Mosaic Law (Lev. xx. 10); while
if He condemned her to death, they could charge Him with defying the Roman
Law, which at this time denied to the Jews the right of inflicting capital
punishment (John xviii. 31). What Jesus wrote it is impossible to say.
Probably it was His intention to signify by this turning away to something
else that He wished not to have anything to do with the matter in
question.

7. Cum ergo perseverarent        7. When therefore they
interrogantes eum, erexit se,    continued asking him, he
et dixit eis: Qui sine peccato   lifted up himself and said to
est vestrum, primus in illam     them: He that is without sin
lapidem mittat.                  among you, let him first cast
                                 a stone at her.

7. *Let him first cast a stone at her.* The deep wisdom of this answer
gave them no ground for charging Him with opposition to any law, and at
the same time referred them to their own guilty consciences. He does not
say that sinners may not be punished by sinners, but implies that it was
not seemly that they who were guilty of the same or greater sins should be
the accusers of the poor wretch who stood before them.

8. Et iterum se inclinans,       8. And again stooping down, he
scribebat in terra.              wrote on the ground.

8. Having shamed them by this appeal to the tribunal of their conscience,
He again stooped down to write, probably to afford them an opportunity to
depart.

9. Audientes autem unus post     9. But they hearing _this_
unum exibant, incipientes a      went out one by one, beginning
senioribus: et remansit solus    at the eldest. And Jesus alone
Iesus, et mulier in medio        remained, and the woman
stans.                           standing in the midst.
10. Erigens autem se Iesus,      10. Then Jesus lifting up
dixit ei: Mulier, ubi sunt qui   himself, said to her: Woman,
te accusabant? nemo te           where are they that accused
condemnavit?                     thee? Hath no man condemned
                                 thee?
11. Quae dixit: Nemo, Domine.    11. Who said: No man, Lord.
Dixit autem Iesus: Nec ego te    And Jesus said: Neither will I
condemnabo: vade, et iam         condemn thee. Go, and now sin
amplius noli peccare.            no more.

11. *Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.* Doubtless the
treatment of her accusers by Christ, and abundant grace poured into her
soul, had already moved the woman’s heart to repentance, and Christ,
exercising His Divine power, absolved her from her sin. He did not condemn
her, but, in telling her to sin no more, He showed that she had done what
was wrong, and warned her as to the future. Thus the incident shows the
boundless mercy of Christ for sinners, His hatred of sin, and, what St.
John probably had chiefly before his mind in recording it, Christ’s Divine
power to forgive sin.

12. Iterum ergo locutus est      12. Again therefore Jesus
eis Iesus, dicens. Ego sum lux   spoke to them, saying: I am
mundi: qui sequitur me non       the light of the world: he
ambulat in tenebris, sed         that followeth me, walketh not
habebit lumen vitae.             in darkness, but shall have
                                 the light of life.

12. We do not know whether this is a new discourse, or only a continuation
of that referred to above in verse 2. On Christ’s words here recorded, see
above on i. 5. They follow Christ, who believe in Him, and obey Him.

13. Dixerunt ergo ei             13. The Pharisees therefore
pharisaei: Tu de teipso          said to him: Thou givest
testimonium perhibes:            testimony of thyself: thy
testimonium tuum non est         testimony is not true.
verum.

13. *Thy testimony is not true*; that is to say, is not juridical, such as
ought to be accepted.

14. Respondit Iesus, et dixit    14. Jesus answered, and said
eis: Et si ego testimonium       to them: Although I give
perhibeo de meipso, verum est    testimony of myself, my
testimonium meum: quia scio      testimony is true: For I know
unde veni, et quo vado: vos      whence I came, and whither I
autem nescitis unde venio, aut   go: but you know not whence I
quo vado.                        come, or whither I go.

14. Christ’s answer is: though I bear testimony of Myself, My testimony
should be accepted, because I am God (I know whence I came, and whither I
go); self‐interest and self‐love can have no influence on Me, so as to
warp My judgment or weaken My testimony.

15. Vos secundum carnem          15. You judge according to the
iudicatis: ego non iudico        flesh: I judge not any man.
quemquam:

15. *You judge according to the flesh*; _i.e._, according to appearances,
as though I were a mere man; or, more probably, according to your carnal
ideas (Rom. viii. 4‐6); thinking Me an impostor, you condemn Me. *I judge
not any man.* The sense is that Christ at His first coming, condemned no
one, for it is of the judgment of condemnation there is question,
according to what seems the most probable view. Compare iii. 17; xii. 47.

16. Et si iudico ego, iudicium   16. And if I do judge, my
meum verum est, quia solus non   judgment is true: because I am
sum: sed ego, et qui misit me,   not alone, but I and the
Pater.                           Father that sent me.

16. The meaning is: if I did judge, My judgment would be just, because not
the judgment of a mere man, but identical with the judgment of My Father.
See x. 30; xiv. 10.

17. Et in lege vestra scriptum   17. And in your law it is
est, quia duorum hominum         written, that the testimony of
testimonium verum est.           two men is true.

17. Καὶ ... δὲ, indicate the transition in which He passes from speaking
of condemnation to speak of His testimony. Your law, He says, requires and
is satisfied with two Witnesses (Deut. xvii. 6).

18. Ego sum qui testimonium      18. I am one that give
perhibeo de meipso: et           testimony of myself: and the
testimonium perhibet de me,      Father that sent me, giveth
qui misit me, Pater.             testimony of me.

18. Now, two bear testimony to Me. Two _Persons_ bore testimony that the
man Christ, who spoke to the Jews, was God. The Son Himself, as God bore
this testimony by word and work, and the Father by the miracles that He
gave the Son to perform (v. 36).

19. Dicebant ergo ei: Ubi est    19. They said therefore to
Pater tuus? Respondit Iesus:     him: Where is thy Father?
Neque me scitis, neque Patrem    Jesus answered: Neither me do
meum: si me sciretis forsitan    you know, nor my Father: if
et Patrem meum sciretis.         you did know me, perhaps you
                                 would know my Father also.

19. To their question Jesus answers: *Neither me do you know, nor my
Father*. The sense is: You know not who I am, _that I am God_; if you knew
and recognised Me to be God, you would also know who My Father is, that He
must be God; and thus you would know the answer to your question, since
God dwells in heaven. On the use of “forsitan,” see above on iv. 10.

20. Haec verba locutus est       20. These words Jesus spoke in
Iesus in gazophylacio, docens    the treasury, teaching in the
in templo: et nemo apprehendit   temple: and no man laid hands
eum, quia necdum venerat hora    on him, because his hour was
eius.                            not yet come.

20. The Greek word translated by “treasury” is γαζοφυλακίῳ, derived from
the Persian _gaza_ (money), and φυλάσσω (to guard). This treasury was a
chest or safe for holding money (see Luke xxi. 1), but by metonymy the
name was given to the cloister in which it stood. This cloister was in the
court of the women. See above on ii. 14.

21. Dixit ergo iterum eis        21. Again therefore Jesus said
Iesus: Ego vado, et quaeretis    to them: I go, and you shall
me, et in peccato vestro         seek me, and you shall die in
moriemini. Quo ego vado, vos     your sin. Whither I go, you
non potestis venire?             cannot come.

21. It is doubtful whether this is a continuation of the preceding, or a
new discourse. For the meaning of the verse, see above on vii. 34. The
particular _sin_ referred to here is infidelity; but dying in infidelity,
meant dying in many sins besides; and hence the plural _sins_, is used in
verse 24.

22. Dicebant ergo Iudaei:        22. The Jews therefore said:
Numquid interficiet              Will he kill himself, because
semetipsum, quia dixit: Quo      he said: Whither I go, you
ego vado, vos non potestis       cannot come?
venire?

22. Josephus (_De Bello Jud._, iii. 8, 5) tells us that the Pharisees
believed that the lowest depths of hell are reserved for suicides. The
words of this verse may refer to that superstition; as if they said: does
He mean to go into the depths of hell, where we the children of Abraham
cannot, of course, follow Him? But the more simple explanation is: He
cannot escape from us wherever He may go on this earth. Does He then mean
to take His own life, that so He may be out of our reach?

23. Et dicebat eis: Vos de       23. And he said to them: You
deorsum estis, ego de supernis   are from beneath, I am from
sum. Vos de mundo hoc estis,     above. You are of this world,
ego non sum de hoc mundo.        I am not of this world.

23. Taking no notice of what had just been said, Jesus proceeds in His
discourse. *You*, He says, *are from beneath, I am from above* (see iii.
31); _i.e._, you are earthly in origin and nature, I am of heaven;
moreover, you are earthly in sentiment, you belong to the _wicked_ world
(see xv. 19), I do not belong to it. Thus He shows them there is a twofold
difference between Him and them; and unless by the supernatural principle
of faith they are lifted above their nature, and taken out of the wicked
world, they shall die in their sins, and shall never here or hereafter be
able to follow whither He goeth. Instead of _peccato_ (Vulg.) in the end
of verse 24, read _peccatis_. *For if you believe not that I am he.* “He”
is not represented in the Greek or Latin text, and ought not to stand in
the English. The predicate may be purposely suppressed in order to leave
the meaning, which was still sufficiently intelligible, obscure, and thus
afford no opportunity to His enemies of charging Him with blasphemy.

24. Dixi ergo vobis quia         24. Therefore I said to you,
moriemini in peccatis vestris:   that you shall die in your
si enim non credideritis quia    sins. For if you believe not
ego sum, moriemini in peccato    that I am he, you shall die in
vestro.                          your sin.
25. Dicebant ergo ei: Tu quis    25. They said therefore to
es? Dixit eis Iesus:             him: Who art thou? Jesus said
Principium, qui et loquor        to them: The beginning, who
vobis.                           also speak unto you.

25. This is a very obscure verse. Christ had just spoken of faith in
Himself; but in Himself _under what aspect_ He had not defined; and now in
the hope of evoking an answer for which they could punish Him, they ask:
*Who art thou?* His answer is purposely obscure. It is according to the
Greek text, τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι (or ὅ τι) καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; which is rendered in
the Vulgate: _Principium qui et loquor vobis_, and in our Rheims version:
*The beginning, who also speak unto you*.

About the meaning of this answer there is a great diversity opinion. Some
take the words affirmatively, others interrogatively; some understand τὴν
ἀρχήν as a substantive, others as an adverb; some regard ὅ τι as a
relative (that which), others as an interrogative = τί (how or why?) and
others again as a conjunction, ὅτι (for, or, because). The Vulgate
translator may have read ὅστις (who) instead of ὅ τι, or ὅτι; or possibly
“Qui et” of our Vulgate is a corruption of “quia,” which is found in the
oldest Vulgate MSS. The objection against the Vulgate and English
translations is that while τῆν ἀρχήν is an accusative, they _seem_ to
understand it as a nominative. Nor can it be replied, that it is attracted
into the accusative case of the relative which follows; for, apart from
the fact that there is no other instance of such attraction in St. John,
the explanation is inadmissible here, inasmuch as these translations
understand the relative not as an accusative, but as a nominative. A
better defence is that of St. Augustine, who would supply some such words
as: “Believe Me to be,” before the sentence, thus making _principium_ the
accusative after _esse_: Believe Me to be the beginning, &c.

(2) Others, understanding τὴν ἀρχήν in the same way as the preceding
opinion, take ὁ τι as a relative, and render: I am the beginning, that
which I also declare unto you. Here there is room for attraction, since
the relative is now taken as an accusative; but against such attraction is
the usage of St. John, as already stated.

(3) Others, taking τὴν ἀρχήν as an adverb (from the beginning), render: I
am from the beginning, from eternity, what I even declare unto you. But it
is objected to this view that τὴν ἀρχήν is not found elsewhere in Sacred
Scripture in this sense, and moreover that the verb λαλῶ (to discuss with,
to converse) is wrongly taken to be equivalent to λέγω (to declare). To
this latter point, however, it is replied that the two verbs are
frequently interchanged in later Greek.

(4) Others thus: Even that which I have also spoken to you from the
beginning.(68) But this view is open to the same objections as the
preceding.

(5) Others again: Essentially (or, in very deed) that which I speak unto
you. So Alford.

(6) Others: On the whole, why do I even speak with you? So St. Chrys.,
Corluy, &c.

(7) Others: Absolutely, or most certainly, that which I also tell you. So
Beel., Kuin, &c. Τὴν ἀρχήν is thus taken as equivalent to _omnino_, for
which sense Beelen quotes several classical writers.

We prefer the sixth and seventh opinions; but rather the seventh, since it
supposes Christ to answer their question, though in language purposely
obscure. In the sixth opinion, Christ vouchsafes no answer to their
question, and we should naturally expect an impatient interruption from
them immediately after, were that opinion correct.

26. Multa habeo de vobis         26. Many things I have to
loqui, et iudicare: sed qui me   speak and to judge of you. But
misit, verax est: et ego quae    he that sent me is true; and
audivi ab eo, haec loquor in     the things I have heard of
mundo.                           him, these same I speak in the
                                 world.

26. Some explain thus: I have many things to say of you, and to condemn in
you, _but with this only will I charge you now_, namely, that you are
guilty of incredulity, since He who sent Me is true (truthful), and I
speak His words, and yet you refuse to believe in Me. But the ellipsis
here is not sufficiently obvious; and, hence, we prefer to understand
thus: I have many things, &c., but My judgments will be just, and such as
cannot be gainsaid.

27. Et non cognoverunt quia      27. And they understood not
Patrem eius dicebat Deum.        that he called God his father.

27. The Greek is: _They knew not that He spoke to them of the Father_.

28. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Cum    28. Jesus therefore said to
exaltaveritis Filium hominis,    them: When you shall have
tunc cognoscetis quia ego sum,   lifted up the son of man, then
et a meipso facio nihil, sed     shall you know that I am he,
sicut docuit me Pater, haec      and that I do nothing of
loquor:                          myself, but as the Father hath
                                 taught me, these things I
                                 speak.

28. *Lifted up.* The reference is to Christ’s crucifixion as is clear from
xii. 32, 33. The substance of Christ’s prediction is, that after His death
they will come to recognise Him as God. We know how truly this prediction
was fulfilled, not merely in the centurion and his soldiers (Matt. xxvii.
54), and in the crowd that returned from Calvary, striking their breasts
(Luke xxiii. 48), but all along from that time through the preaching of
the Apostles. On the Father’s teaching the Son, see above on v. 19, 20.

29. Et qui me misit, mecum est   29. And he that sent me is
et non reliquit me solum, quia   with me, and he hath not left
ego quae placita sunt ei,        me alone: for I do always the
facio semper.                    things that please him.

29. *For.* “The word seems to be used as in Luke vii. 47, to indicate the
sign of the truth of the statement made, and not to give the ground of the
fact stated” (Westc.).

30. Haec illo loquente, multi    30. When he spoke these
crediderunt in eum.              things, many believed in him.
31. Dicebat ergo Iesus ad eos,   31. Then Jesus said to those
qui crediderunt ei Iudaeos: Si   Jews who believed him: If you
vos manseritis in sermone meo,   continue in my word, you shall
vere discipuli mei eritis:       be my disciples indeed.

31. Christ here lays down the test by which His disciples are to be known.
It is only when we accept His words, and conform our works thereto, that
we can be truly said to be His disciples.

32. Et cognoscetis veritatem,    32. And you shall know the
et veritas liberabit vos.        truth, and the truth shall
                                 make you free.

32. *The truth*; _i.e._, the whole body of revelation.

33. Responderunt ei: Semen       33. They answered him: We are
Abrahae sumus, et nemini         the seed of Abraham, and we
servivimus unquam: quomodo tu    have never been slaves to any
dicis: Liberi eritis?            man: how sayest thou: You
                                 shall be free?
34. Respondit eis Iesus: Amen,   34. Jesus answered them: Amen,
amen dico vobis: quia omnis      amen, I say unto you, that
qui facit peccatum, servus est   whosoever committeth sin, is
peccati:                         the servant of sin.
35. Servus autem non manet in    35. Now the servant abideth
domo in aeternum: filius autem   not in the house for ever: but
manet in aeternum:               the son abideth for ever:
36. Si ergo vos filius           36. If therefore the son shall
liberaverit, vere liberi         make you free, you shall be
eritis.                          free indeed.

33‐36. To Christ’s promise that the truth should make them free, some of
the crowd who remained incredulous, replied that they were never slaves,
to which Christ makes answer that they are the slaves of sin: and only
when the Son of God shall free them, shall they be truly free. Verse 35 is
an illustration drawn from ordinary life. As slaves who displease their
masters may be sold, or expelled from the household, so you who, instead
of serving God, are the slaves of sin, are, and shall remain, excluded
from the household of God here and hereafter.

37. Scio quia filii Abrahae      37. I know that you are the
estis: sed quaeritis me          children of Abraham: but you
interficere, quia sermo meus     seek to kill me, because my
non capit in vobis.              word hath no place in you.
38. Ego quod vidi apud Patrem    38. I speak that which I have
meum loquor, et vos quae         seen with my Father: and you
vidistis apud patrem vestrum,    do the things that you have
facitis.                         seen with your father.

38. *Your father*; _i.e._, the devil (see verse 44). Others understand
ποιεῖτε as an imperative; do then the works which you have seen with your
father (Abraham). But since the following verse proves that the Jews
understood Christ to speak of another father than Abraham, for this
reason, and because of verse 44, the first interpretation is preferable.
The sense then is: You do the works that you have learned from your father
the devil.

39. Responderunt, et dixerunt    39. They answered, and said to
ei: Pater noster Abraham est.    him: Abraham is our father.
Dicit eis Iesus: Si filii        Jesus saith to them: If you be
Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae     the children of Abraham, do
facite.                          the works of Abraham.

39. *If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.* The
Greek is: If you _were_ the (true) children of Abraham, you would do the
works of Abraham.

40. Nunc autem quaeritis me      40. But now you seek to kill
interficere, hominem qui         me, a man who have spoken the
veritatem vobis locutus sum,     truth to you, which I have
quam audivi a Deo: hoc Abraham   heard of God. This Abraham did
non fecit.                       not.
41. Vos facitis opera patris     41. You do the works of your
vestri. Dixerunt itaque ei:      father. They said therefore to
Nos ex fornicatione non sumus    him: We are not born of
nati: unum patrem habemus        fornication: we have one
Deum.                            Father _even_ God.
42. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Si     42. Jesus therefore said to
Deus pater vester esset,         them: If God were your father,
diligeretis utique me: ego       you would indeed love me. For
enim ex Deo processi, et veni:   from God I proceeded, and
neque enim a me ipso veni, sed   came: for I came not of
ille me misit.                   myself, but he sent me.

41, 42. Understanding Christ to mean that they were not true Jews, but
idolaters (πορνέια being frequently used of idolatry in the Bible; _e.g._,
Ezech. xvi. 15, foll.; see ii. 4, 5,), they protest that they are not
idolaters, and that they worship but one God. To this Christ replies, that
if they were true children of God, they would love Himself. *I proceeded
and came*, denote respectively the eternal generation, and mission in
time.

43. Quare loquelam meam non      43. Why do you not know my
cognoscitis? Quia non potestis   speech? Because you cannot
audire sermonem meum.            hear my word.

43. The sense is: why do you not understand My discourses (λαλιάν) on this
and on other occasions? The reason is, because you cannot, you _will not_,
receive My doctrine (λόγος). What we do not desire to hear, we are slow to
understand. Christ’s teaching, so opposed to flesh and blood, so much at
variance with all that the Jews had hoped for from their Messias, they
were very unwilling to accept. “Ideo audire non poterant, quia corrigi
credendo nolebant” (St. August.).

44. Vos ex patre diabolo         44. You are of _your_ father
estis: et desideria patris       the devil, and the desires of
vestri vultis facere. Ille       your father you will do. He
homicida erat ab initio, et in   was a murderer from the
veritate non stetit: quia non    beginning, and he stood not in
est veritas in eo: cum           the truth; because truth is
loquitur mendacium, ex           not in him. When he speaketh a
propriis loquitur, quia mendax   lie, he speaketh of his own:
est, et pater eius.              for he is a liar, and the
                                 father thereof.

44. At last He plainly tells them who their father is. *He was a murderer
from the beginning*, for he tempted Eve, and thus brought death upon the
human race, and he prompted Cain to slay Abel.

*And he stood not in the truth*; or rather, he _standeth_ not in the truth
(the perfect of this verb having a present signification. See Winer, _Gr.
Gram. N. T._, p. 342(69)), because there is no truth in his nature. St.
Augustine argued from this verse to prove the fall of the rebel angels:
“Ergo in veritate fuit, sed non stando cecidit, et de veritate lapsus
est.” But the conclusion is not warranted by this verse, for the true
meaning of ἕστηκεν, and the reason given by our Lord for the devil’s not
standing in the truth—namely, _because truth is not in him_, show that
there is no reference to the devil as he was before the fall, but only to
his nature and methods since. *Of his own*, _i.e._, in accordance with his
nature. *The father thereof*, namely, of _lying_. We thus, with Beelen,
refer αὐτοῦ (ejus) to ψεύδους (understood). “Αὐτοῦ, scil. ψεύδους quae vox
sumi debet ex antegressa ψεύστης in qua veluti continetur” (_Gr. Gram. N.
T._, page 104).

45. Ego autem si veritatem       45. But if I say the truth,
dico, non creditis mihi.         you believe me not.

45. Instead of “si” (Vulg.) the Greek has ὅτι (quia): because I speak the
truth.

46. Quis ex vobis arguet me de   46. Which of you shall
peccato? Si veritatem dico       convince me of sin? If I say
vobis, quare non creditis        the truth to you, why do you
mihi?                            not believe me?

46. Christ appeals to His integrity of character and innocence of life; as
if He said: it cannot be My life that prevents you from believing: so that
if My doctrine is true, you have no excuse.

47. Qui ex Deo est, verba Dei    47. He that is of God, heareth
audit. Propterea vos non         the words of God. Therefore
auditis, quia ex Deo non         you hear them not, because you
estis.                           are not of God.

47. “He assigns the cause of their not believing or obeying His words,
viz., because they are not of God. They are not children of God, sharers
in His spirit; but rather children of the devil, filled with his spirit”
(M’Evilly).

48. Responderunt ergo Iudaei,    48. The Jews therefore
et dixerunt ei: Nonne bene       answered and said to him: Do
dicimus nos quia Samaritanus     not we say well that thou art
es tu, et daemonium habes?       a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
49. Respondit Iesus: Ego         49. Jesus answered: I have not
daemonium non habeo: sed         a devil; but I honour my
honorifico Patrem meum, et vos   Father, and you have
inhonorastis me.                 dishonoured me.

48, 49. They say to Him that He is a Samaritan, and has a devil. The first
charge He passes over as unworthy of notice; to the second He replies
that, so far from having a devil, He honours His Father, while they
dishonour Himself. On account of His language, strange to them, and His
earnest fervour, they say that He is possessed; and He replies that His
words and manner are due to the fact that He is seeking the glory of His
Father.

50. Ego autem non quaero         50. But I seek not my own
gloriam meam: est qui quaerat,   glory: there is one that
et iudicet.                      seeketh and judgeth.

50. But though _you dishonour_ (the Greek has the present in end of 49)
_Me_, I will not seek to avenge the dishonour; the Father will avenge it.
See Deut. xviii. 19.

51. Amen, amen dico vobis: si    51. Amen, amen, I say to you:
quis sermonem meum servaverit,   If any man keep my word, he
mortem non videbit in            shall not see death for ever.
aeternum.

51. In verse 32, He promised freedom, now He promises immortality, to
those that hearken to His words.

52. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: Nunc   52. The Jews therefore said:
cognovimus quia daemonium        Now we know that thou hast a
habes. Abraham mortuus est, et   devil. Abraham is dead, and
prophetae: et tu dicis: Si       the prophets: and thou sayest:
quis sermonem meum servaverit,   If any man keep my word he
non gustabit mortem in           shall not taste death for
aeternum.                        ever.
53. Numquid tu maior es patre    53. Art thou greater than our
nostro Abraham, qui mortuus      father Abraham, who is dead?
est? et prophetae mortui sunt.   and the prophets are dead.
Quem teipsum facis?              Whom dost thou make thyself?

52, 53. The Jews accuse Him of preferring Himself to Abraham and the
prophets, to which He replies—

54. Respondit Iesus: Si ego      54. Jesus answered: If I
glorifico, meipsum, gloria mea   glorify myself, my glory is
nihil est: est Pater meus, qui   nothing. It is my Father that
glorificat me, quem vos          glorifieth me, of whom you say
dicitis quia Deus vester est.    that he is your God.

54. If I glorify Myself, _let it go for nought_; it is My Father, &c.

55. Et non cognovistis eum.      55. And you have not known
Ego autem novi eum: et si        him, but I know him. And if I
dixero quia non scio eum, ero    shall say that I know him not,
similis vobis, mendax. Sed       I shall be like to you, a
scio eum, et sermonem eius       liar. But I do know him, and
servo.                           do keep his word.

55. The Jews knew not the Father as the Father of Christ; moreover, they
knew Him not at all with a practical knowledge so as to serve Him.

56. Abraham pater vester         56. Abraham your father
exultavit ut videret diem        rejoiced that he might see my
meum: vidit, et gavisus est.     day: he saw it, and was glad.

56. *Abraham your father rejoiced*, &c. He leaves it to be inferred that
He, being the object of Abraham’s hope and joy, is greater than Abraham,
and still not opposed to him. Our Lord’s _day_ here is not the eternal
existence of the Son, nor the day of His death, nor Himself, the day‐star
of justice, but the day for which all the ancient just had so long prayed
and sighed: “_drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds
rain the just_” (Is. xlv. 8), the day or time of Christ’s mortal life on
earth. *Rejoiced that he might see* (ἵνα ἴδη). Most probably the meaning
is, that Abraham, after God had revealed to him that the Messias was to be
born of his seed, hoped and yearned in joyful confidence that he might see
Christ on earth. *He saw it, and was glad.* It would seem from these words
that Abraham saw in the way in which he had yearned to see. And since he
cannot have yearned to see Christ’s day merely by faith, for he already
saw it by faith; hence there must be question here of some other vision.
Mald., A Lap., and most commentators hold that Abraham’s mental vision was
elevated by God, so that from limbo he saw and knew that Christ was on
earth just as the angels and saints in heaven know what happens on earth
and in hell. The aorist tenses in the Greek (εἶδεν καὶ ἐχάρη), with their
past definite signification, are not easily reconciled with this view, and
hence others prefer to suppose that there is reference to some very
special revelation made to Abraham during his life on earth, in which he
saw with something more than the vision of ordinary faith the time and
various circumstances of Christ’s mortal life (compare Heb. xi. 13).

57. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad      57. The Jews therefore said to
eum: Quinquaginta annos nondum   him: Thou art not yet fifty
habes, et Abraham vidisti?       years old, and hast thou seen
                                 Abraham?

57. In saying Christ was not yet fifty years of age, they take an age
about which there could be no dispute, as if they said: at the very
outside Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? The
common opinion is that Christ died in his thirty‐fourth year, though,
strange to say, St. Irenæus held the singular view that he lived to be
fifty. (Iren., _Adv. Haer._, ii. 39, 40.)

58. Dixit eis Iesus: Amen,       58. Jesus said to them: Amen,
amen dico vobis, antequam        amen, I say to you, before
Abraham fieret, ego sum.         Abraham was made, I am.

58. In verse 56, He spoke of the day of His mortal life, now He declares
His eternity. *Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made*
(γενέσθαι, came into being), *I am* (ἐγώ εἴμι).

59. Tulerunt ergo lapides, ut    59. They took up stones
iacerent in eum. Iesus autem     therefore to cast at him. But
abscondit se, et exivit de       Jesus hid himself, and went
templo.                          out of the temple.

59. Understanding Him to claim to be eternal, as He really did, they took
up stones to stone Him, the Law commanding that a blasphemer, as they
accounted Him, should be stoned (Lev. xxiv. 16). But Jesus hid Himself,
most probably rendered Himself invisible, and thus passed out of the
temple, showing us that it is sometimes advisable, and conducive to the
greater glory of God, that we should flee from danger, even when we are
persecuted for God’s sake. Many ancient authorities add at the end of this
verse: “And going through the midst of them went His way, and so passed
by;” but more probably the words are a gloss.

CHAPTER IX.

    1‐7. *Jesus cures a man born blind.*

    8‐13. *Comments of the man’s neighbours, who bring him to the
    Pharisees.*

    14. *It was on the Sabbath day the cure was wrought.*

    15‐23. *Interview between the man and the Pharisees. They refuse
    to believe that he had been blind, and summon his parents in order
    to ascertain the truth. The parents declare that he had indeed
    been born blind.*

    24‐34. *Again therefore the Pharisees interrogate the man himself,
    and at length, wincing under his remarks and indignant with him
    for his favourable opinion of Jesus, they expel him from their
    assembly.*

    35‐38. *Jesus finds him, and now illumines the darkness of his
    soul.*

    39‐41. *The blindness of the Pharisees.*

1. Et praeteriens Iesus vidit    1. And Jesus passing by, saw a
hominem caecum a nativitate:     man who was blind from his
                                 birth.

1. Some think that the events about to be narrated occurred shortly after
Christ left the temple (viii. 59) and had been rejoined by His disciples,
who are supposed to have left when He disappeared. This view seems to us
more probable than that which places the events about to be narrated on a
different day from those referred to in the close of the preceding
chapter. When we are told that Jesus went out of the temple (viii. 59),
and passing by, saw a man blind from his birth, the natural inference is,
that the Evangelist is speaking of Christ’s passing along after He left
the temple. This view is confirmed too by the fact, that *Jesus* should
not be read in this verse, being spurious according to all critics, but
must be supplied from the preceding chapter.

The man was *blind from his birth*, so that it was no mere passing
affection of the eyes, from which he suffered; and thus the miracle was
the more striking.

2. Et interrogaverunt eum        2. And his disciples asked
discipuli eius: Rabbi, quis      him: Rabbi, who hath sinned,
peccavit, hic, aut parentes      this man, or his parents, that
eius, ut caecus nasceretur?      he should be born blind?

2. How the disciples knew the man had been *born blind*, we are not told.
To excite greater compassion, and probably to obtain alms, he may have
been himself proclaiming the fact. It was reasonable enough that the
disciples should think of the sins of the man’s parents as the reason why