Bible Groups - Gospel and Letters of John - navigation>
Gospel of John - Chapter 5
- Some argument about the order of chaps 5 & 6: geography continuity better if reversed. But is seems
John needed to establish Jesus' Sonship and powers before the claims in chap 6.
- First ‘public’ discourse in John, on a Sabbath.
- Themes, in response to charges of civil disobedience and making himself equal to God:-
- the life-giving power of Jesus’ word;
- God does not judge - people judge themselves by hoe they relate to Jesus;
- divinity of Jesus and oneness of God - unable to reconcile - Jesus insists that he is dependent on
and obedient to the Father: he can do nothing unless it is in accord with the Father's will.
- Image of a trial throughout John’s Gospel: Jesus on trial as lawbreaker and blasphemer, but his accusers
are on trial for preferring human glory to God’s glory, Jn 5:41-44. Jewish trial about “admissibility and
competence of witnesses”, rather than “investigation of facts”. Also, in ‘discourse world’, reflects
Johannine community seeing their accusers as being accused by Moses of disbelieving scriptures, v. 45.
- 1 In Jerusalem. Festival not named, but - as seen later - on the Sabbath.
- Normal for Jesus - as a Jew - to go up to Jerusalem for the major festivals - giving us an impression that
time is passing, and many other activities by Jesus have been omitted. Jesus also moving rapidly
between different places.
- 2 The sheep-pool with five porticos revealed by archaeology - the 5th portico divides the pool in half.
Would have been destroyed at time Gospel written, yet very accurate description. [“Gate” is understood,
not actually written: there must have been a gate on the NE wall where animals brought in for sacrifice.]
- Water again - an important theme for John.
- Called 'in Hebre' - ie Aramaic. Bethzatha = house of the Olive - or Bethesda = house of mercy. Could the
5 porticos be intended by the pool’s builders to bring to mind the 5 books of Moses, the Pentateuch?
John suggests that Israel is ill, resting in the law of Moses, where they should have found healing but
have failed to do so. Early Christian art often depicted man rising from the waters of baptism with a bed
on his back.
- 3 Cf homeless in our cities. Yet the Torah promises more in Jerusalem: Ex 23:11. Perhaps Jesus reacts
to this picture of marginalised humanity as he reacted to the extortion etc last time he was in Jerusalem.
- This miracle is similar to - follows immediately after - the healing of the official’s son. The theological
importance is similar, and reinforced - and again what Jesus said is given three times: “Take up your mat
and walk” - it is Jesus’ words that heal and give life.
- 4 Fourth verse, missing in oldest manuscripts, attributed the moving of the water to divine intervention -
an angel: whoever then first entered the water would be cured. Probably originally the water bubbled up
occasionally, and hence it was believed to have healing powers.
- 5 “38 years” - certainly a long time, so hope may have gone. Enough for a whole generation to have
passed - see Deut 2:14! 38 years wandering in the desert before reaching the promised land. We are not
told what his illness is. Jesus again appears to have supernatural knowledge - or may have asked!
- 6 Jesus initiates/invites, without being asked. “Do you desire to be made healthy” - you must want it,
and to be made healthy, not just cured.
- If the man is a representative Jew, Jesus addresses the Jews: “Do you want to be healed?” “Are you
satisfied with what the law of Moses can do for you?” Jesus first asks of us if we really want to be
changed - we have to want faith. It cannot come against our will.
- 7 Assumes the usual healing method - being put in the well when the water bubbles up - living water.
But this “life-giving” water only serves one person at a time - what a sorry picture of God. And noone in
38 years has taken pity on him. His mind is focussed on being cured of his illness - he has no idea who
Jesus is.
- 8 Three commands, which bring full health. No requirement for the man to show faith. Faith not always
required for healing. “Rise up” is perhaps a better translation - reminds of resurrection.
- 9 The healing is immediate - including all those wasted muscles. We are now told this took place on the
Sabbath.
- 10 Ex 31:12-15 - a very strong command, with death as the punishment.
- Jesus’ action on a Sabbath is moving into an area where God alone has a right to act. Sabbath was seen
as a joyful day, but hedged about with restrictions. Carrying a sleeping mat on Sabbath is against the law
(but not carrying a sick person on a mat!). God rested on the 7th day, so must we. It is God's day it must
be kept free from worldly pursuits (Jer 17:21ff; Neh 13:15). Both Jesus and the man he healed were Jews,
so 'the Jews' refers to those who opposed Jesus. These represent established religion - they represent us!
Originally these rules were attempts to prevent secularisation of the Sabbath - 'Keep Sunday holy!' But
the regulations became so many and detailed the real meaning of the day was lost - as it could be for us if
it is just the day for going to Church.
- Literally “the mat”, not “your mat” as Jesus said: it is now just an object of illegality.
- 11 Perhaps witnessing rather than passing the buck: is he beginning to believe, like the official checking
at what time his son was cured? Or is he left totally unmoved by being healed? And reinserts the “your”
omitted by the Jews. But omits “rise”, Jesus’ invitation to re-birth.
- Authority claimed from Jesus: posing the problem many Christianised Jews must have faced - whose law
to obey? Was Jesus really divine, and therefore had authority to change the Sabbath laws? What should
the Sabbath mean to Christians? But while in the synoptics the emphasis is on Jesus' mastery over the
Sabbath, here it is on Jesus' legality in working on the Sabbath, because God may do so, and hence he is
claiming the lawfulness of doing God's work, because he is the Son of God.
- 12 This could be a surprise to them - they may not have seen the cure.
- Literally “your mat” - accepting the “your”, but contemptuously asking who is 'this fellow'. Jesus words
repeated for the third time, with overtones of illegality: commanding someone to carry a mat on the
Sabbath.
- 13 Now uses “healed” rather than “cured”: healed is commonly used in Septuagint for “restored to a
right relationship with God”. See Jn 12:40. Indicates to readers a heavenly healing, rather than earthly
cure.
- Surprising lack of interest in the identity of the one who healed him - do we also forget once the crisis
has passed?
- 14 When/why did Jesus disappear? Accidentally, or to test the cured man’s belief/courage? Does Jesus
sometimes leave us to struggle alone and so strengthen our faith? Again it is Jesus’ initiative to find him.
Same verb “find” as in find the messiah, Jn 1:41. How long an interval we do not know - an hour, a day?
Jesus sought him out again and draws attention to the cure - which is permanent, unlike perhaps some
others by the pool. Made “healthy” or “whole”. 'Stop sinning' implies he had been sinning, and was
continuing to do so. No indication what. Perhaps believing in a fitful God who heals only the first who
can enter the pool after an unpredictable ruffling of its waters. Or more likely a warning that you do not
remain whole/at rights with God unless you continue to renew yourself in Jesus - else you may end up in
a worse state (Lk 11:26). The Jerome considers that for John sin is failing to believe in Jesus (Jn 16:9).
Flanagan seems to think the man had not appreciated what had been done to him - but he has gone into
the temple - to give thanks? Jesus here seems to support the Jewish belief that illness may arise from sin,
even though he denies elsewhere that it always does so. The eternal consequences of sin are indeed
'something worse' than any physical handicap. Was the man witnessing to Jesus’ powers, or betraying
him? We are left in doubt. But in the two previous signs at Cana, supplicants come to Jesus and persist
through to faith and rejoicing. Here Jesus seeks out the man, but with doubtful response. Perhaps the
healed man symbolises those who are invited by Jesus but who are unwilling to be born again/from
above.
- 15 An innocent act, or a betrayal? Probably trying to justify himself and avoid being stoned. But
interesting contrast: the Jews asked him who told him to take up his mat; he replies that it was Jesus who
made him well: they emphasise the offence, he the healing.
- 16 Whereas the Jews’ response on Jesus previous visit to Jerusalem was unclear, Jn 2:20-25, it is now
crystal-clear: they choose the Sabbath law rather than Jesus and start persecuting him. 'Persecute' and
'prosecute' same word, so unclear how formal it was, but it was serious. The tense makes it clear that
Jesus was in the habit of doing such things on the Sabbath.
- 17 Jesus answers the charge: he is now on trial. For the Jews, God ceased his creative work on the
Sabbath (Ex 20:8-11), but some rabbis believed his work of supporting the universe continues on
Sabbath, and many Jews believed his work of ruling and judging the world, and of course giving and
taking life, continue on the Sabbath. The synoptics emphasise that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mk
2:28), but here Jesus' response is different, bringing out the close personal relationship between Jesus and
'His' Father. “And I also am working”: Jesus claims God as his father, and also that he is doing his
father’s work like God’s Sabbath work - a clearly understood claim to be equal to God, doing what only
God does and exercising God’s judgement. “My Father” instead of the usual “Our Father in heaven" is
also offensive - suggests familiarity. God's resting on the Sabbath is not idleness - and neither should it be
for us.
- In whatever way the Jews “persecuted” Jesus, he responds by upping the ante: they may not have heard
his claim that God is his Father the previous time (Jn 2:16), but this time they do, and their purpose
escalates to seeking to kill Jesus.
- 18 The Jews had not missed Jesus' calling God 'his own Father', so making himself equal with God. Jesus
was not teaching that God was Father of all, but that he was 'his' Father in a special sense. Claiming that
he was of the same nature as the Father, and hence equal. Hence blasphemy, as well as breaking the
Sabbath. “breaking the Sabbath” - literally “tearing down” - same verb as used for “tearing down the
temple”: Jn 2:19. The battle lines are drawn: the twin pillars of the Jewish state, temple and Sabbath, are
to be torn down. And the Jews assume they know that Jesus is a criminal, deserving death, and not from
God, deserving discipleship.
- Readers know that the Logos has been equal to God from the beginning (Jn 1:1), but we still puzzle about
the relationship between Jesus the man and God: John is trying to draw this out - Jesus does not here
claim to be God, but to be equal to God, and to have been given all power by God, including that over
life and judgement. In v.16 & v.18 the imperfect tense is used - repeated actions in the past. These
questions of Sabbath meaning for Christian Jews and Jesus' divinity were probably the same questions
that the Johannine community faced in dialogue with their Jewish neighbours.
- 19 3rd discourse begins. Critically important: nowhere else do we find Jesus making such formal,
systematic statement of his unity with his Father, his divine commission, and the proofs of his
Messiahship. It is only because his relationship to the Father is what he says it is that he is able to offer
rebirth from above, living water, and the bread of life. 3 sections about his relationship to the Father; his
function as judge of all; and the witnesses to establish his claims.
- "Gave them this answer" and double “Amen” to emphasise importance of following text. Claims creative
power of God. Skills learned by Jesus by seeing the Father working - unique perspective, as from
learning carpenter's skills from Joseph. Repeated by him, with the full power given to him - not copied,
but the same deeds in virtue of his same nature. Not just that he does not act independently of the Father:
he cannot do so. He can do only the things he sees the Father doing. Uninterrupted communion between
Father and Son. In Jesus we see God. 'Cannot do anything of himself': not reducing his authority, but
declaring unvarying resemblance of his power and will to that of the Father (Chrysostom). Subordination,
but the tremendous claim that the Son does "whatever the Father does". Both lowly obedience and deity.
His authority is no less than the authority of God. "The Son" is in absolute relationship with "The Father".
Not 'I' whom you reject, or 'Son of Man' or Son of God' which emphasise Jesus' human or divine nature
relative to man.
- 20 Disclosure of relationship taken a step further. “loves” - continuous - here affection (philei), rather
than the love (agape) which the Father has for the world (3:16). Love for the Son mentioned later in
10:17. Love always gives, never withholds, so the Father shows the Son all the things that he does - and
the Son does them - he acts only in accord with God's revelation. And so expects to be shown more and
then to do more - ie giving life and judging, which will truly cause his hearers to be astonished.
- The Son is not the Father, but sees everything that the Father does.
- What “greater works”? Raising from the dead? Judging? Total rejection of the Law? Perhaps things
revealed to Jesus but not yet to us?
- “astonished”: in John means uncomprehending surprise - negative.
- 21 No surprise - accepted that the Father gave life and raises people from the dead (Ezek 37:13; Deut
32:39; 1 Sam 2:6; 2 Kings 5:7). Shocking, surprising claim that Jesus also does this. And moreover the
Son takes people who are bodily alive but spiritually dead and raises them to new life, with judgement
taking place even now. But only those 'to whom he is pleased to give it': the Son gives life where he
chooses, not where people choose. The Greek here indicates a two-part process: first one is raised, then
one can be given life again. Both Father and Son create and give life: “God”.
- 22 The Son judges: “Lord”. The two divine activities of God that continue even on the Sabbath - giving
life and judging - are claimed by the Son: mercy & justice, or “grace & truth” (1:17) and “wrath” (3:36).
- Surprising claim that Jesus is given authority to judge instead of the Father - the Father no longer judges.
Because people judge themselves by how they respond to Jesus.
- Note that in 3:17-21 judgement itself is self-imposed by each person - Jesus mission is not to judge but to
save - but He has the authority to judge.
- 23 Authority to judge is granted “ that all may honour the Son as they do the Father”. “honour” here
includes implication of royalty - Jesus as King. Failing to honour Jesus is failing to honour God, so very
serious. Very close to asserting deity. Stresses the unity of Father and Son. What is done to one is done to
the other.
- 24 Again the emphatic double Amen: attention now shifts from “seeing” to “hearing” Jesus and
believing the one who sent him - not yet believing in Jesus, as in 20:31. Eternal life comes (now) to the
person who hears Jesus and believes (not 'in') the Father: if you believe the Father you accept Christ. You
cannot believe what the Father says and turn away from the Son. Judgement comes here and now. They
have already passed out of the state of death and into life, and so will not come into judgement on the
last great day. To have eternal life now is to be secure throughout eternity. Has already now passed from
death to life: eternal life is not just something following death, but a current reality. Death means both
all the elements in an individual’s life which block the flow of God’s life in that person, and - to the
Jews - slavish loyalty to the Law and to dead social systems which have now run out of life-giving power,
like the ritual purification jars, and the Temple which has been destroyed when this Gospel was written.
The alternative is to be found in Johannine community, ie discipleship gatherings centred on the life-giving power of Jesus. This verse is not just a statement of fact, but a also challenge to hear Christ's call
and take the step of faith - a call to decision.
- 25 “the hour is coming and is now”: Cf 4:23 - news of the imminent new community that was offered to
the Samaritans is now offered to the Jews. Again realised eschatology: eternal life is already here for
those who accept Jesus. The spiritually dead now have an opportunity to hear - and take heed of - Christ.
Rare use of 'Son of God': John prefers to let actions speak more than words.
- 26 Vv. 26-27, centre of chiasm vv. 19-30: claims that Jesus has receives both powers from God.: God’s
creative life power and God’s royal power of judgement. (Chiasm: Vv. 19-23, 30: Son can do nothing on
own; Vv. 24-25, 28-29: hour is coming when dead hear voice). OT clear that life derives from the Father
(Gen 2:7; Deut 30:20; Job 10:12; 33:4; Ps 36:9, Ps 42:8). Jews accepted that all life comes from God -
except God's own life, which is inherent in his being. So for Jesus to claim that he too has been given life
in himself is to claim a share in this life, to have the same kind of life within himself as that which the
Father has within himself - again a claim to unity with the Father.
- 27 Final judgement is in the hands of God alone. But this authority has been given to the Son. Repeats
the claim of divine prerogative of final judgement.
- But 'because he is Son of Man' unclear. No definite articles. Perhaps Christ is final judge of men because
he shares our nature. But this seems an inadequate qualification. Perhaps it is Jesus' usual self-designation: he is the heavenly figure to whom all authority is given (Dan 7:14). But finally men judge
themselves by their attitude to Jesus.
- 28 The climax to this section: it is the voice of the Son that will call the dead from their graves. All the
dead will rise. The future resurrection of the dead and final judgement will still come, even though
eternal life can be had now. If you are mystified by this metaphorical giving life to the dead (spiritually
dead but physically living) people, wait until you experience the literal resurrection of the dead. All the
dead will hear his voice.
- 29 All will come out of the tomb, but then be divided according as they have lived. Not works gaining
salvation, but responding negatively leads to damnation. The lives we lead are the test of the faith we
profess.
- But if all of this is true, that Jesus does what the Father does because he is of the same nature as the
Father, then is not Jesus God, so there are two Gods? The Christian tradition is certain both of the
divinity of Jesus and the oneness of God, but has not succeeded in reconciling these fully. The best John
can do is to insist on Jesus' divinity while insisting on his dependence and obedience to the Father. We
too are involved in the author's predicament. Jesus is divine, but he is not the Father; and the Father is
God. No wonder early Christians had difficulty explaining this to the Jews.
- 30 Jesus’ judgement is just because it focuses on true morality, not on what the Law says. This section
(opening argument of trial) closes with the opposing standards of morality upon which each party in the
“trial” will judge the other. Judeans’ charges given in 5:10, 16 ,18. Vv. 19-47 gives witnesses for Jesus
and summarises Jesus’ case against the Judeans. Judeans’ witnesses in 7:15-24.
- 31 “Witness” (here translated as testimony) used 11 times in Vv. 31-39 - this part of the “trial” is the
witnesses’ testimony.
- First witness is Jesus himself. His own witness on its own is of no value: your testimony on your own
behalf is unlikely to be accepted. (Cf Jn 8:13; Deut 19:15). But not only is it insufficient if
unsubstantiated, but it would then be untrue if not supported by the Father, ie if he were to bear witness
'of himself'. Since he is stressing his oneness with Father, his testimony could not possibly be true unless
the Father supported it.
- 32 Suspense! 'Another' usually seen as referring to the Father. And his Father does support him: his
support is enough for Jesus, although it may not be enough for - or even be recognised by - the Jews. He
knows that this witness is true. It is important to him that there is an independent witness.
- 33 2nd witness is the Baptist. The Jews did not receive the Baptist - but they could have done so. They
have not been excluded. The Baptist's testimony is still available, and their knowledge of it continues.
His witness is not forgotten: it is permanent.
- 34 I do not need this testimony to prove my innocence, because I have my Father's testimony. I am here
so that you might be saved. Referring to the Baptist is to draw his hearers' attention to that which might
lead them to the truth. As happened to some of the Baptist's followers who now follow him.
- The self-judgement by the Judeans is not inevitable, if only they would acknowledge the truth of what
they hear. “receive”: proper direction is from above to below - we receive God’s word from above: Jesus
is right not to receive witness from below, even from John.
- 35 Jesus now testifies to the Baptist. John was (suggests he is now in prison or dead) a revelatory lamp
(1:31, Cf Ps 132:17) which burned (up?) - costly. Could also mean 'kindle', suggesting the Baptist's lamp
not sufficient in itself to be self-sustaining, as is Jesus. Members of the Sanhedrin exulted - overflowing,
enthusiastic happiness - in John for while? Perhaps too lighthearted merrymaking? They never took the
Baptist seriously. When? In Jerusalem? Transition from the Baptist to Jesus perhaps more gradual than
generally thought, with some members of Sanhedrin initially captivated by John “for an hour”, before
loyalty of John’s followers gradually transferred to Jesus, while Sanhedrin members grow more rigid and
murderous.
- These words addressed to Jesus’ persecutors who are the same people who questioned the Baptist (1:19),
ie members of the Sanhedrin. This trial is a serious matter.
- 36 3rd witness: Jesus’ own works: only 2 visible to Judeans mentioned so far: cleansing temple and
healing on sabbath. Perhaps others were known about? Perhaps invited to wait and see what is coming?
The Baptist could not witness fully to the Son, the works Jesus does are greater because they do.
Repeating 'works' for emphasis - they are very important. They are given to him by the Father, not
decided by himself. Noone else did them - they are the Father's works. They show their divine origin. EG
healing the lame man.
- 37 4th witness: the Father - how or when? Continuously through the scriptures. Denies the Jews’
experience of the face and voice of God through Moses in Exodus. The Jews have never heard or seen
God,
- 38 and they do not have God's word abiding in them (Ps 119:11). If they had they would accept Jesus'
word. Their unbelief in Jesus excludes hearing God's word, and is also why they do not have God's word
abiding in them - both senses are meant. The Father's witness is accessible only to those who believe in
the Son. We cannot weigh the witness of God first before deciding whether to believe in Jesus. First
believe in Jesus, then receive God's testimony. The truth of God in Jesus is self-authenticating. The
believer has an internal witness. The Judeans would claim their ancestors’ experience as their own.
Jesus’ argument is over the hypocrisy of claiming holiness simply by descent. Does each community
inherit the covenant as an established entity, or must it forge its own relationship with God? The
Judeans’ failure to believe in Jesus as one sent from God proves what they are missing: God’s word does
not dwell in them. Cf Deut 30:14. Jesus’ charge is that the Judeans also lack the word of Moses - a very
grave charge.
- 39 Possibly an imperative: “Search the scriptures....” Or good intentions of studying scriptures, trying to
find eternal life. But even studying the scriptures is fruitless without knowledge of God through Jesus.
And the Scriptures testify to Jesus - had they understood them right. But they read too literally, with
superstitious reverence for the letter, and never saw the great truths to which they pointed. Jesus shows
respect for sacred Scripture, but they have the wrong attitude (Cf Lk 13:34).
- 40 But if they were really looking for eternal life in the scriptures, they would recognise its presence in
Jesus. Big puzzle to Johannine community that the Judeans failed to recognise Jesus in spite of their
sincere search - continues to puzzle us why sincere searchers do not have faith.
- 41 Jesus does not “receive” human glory, but you receive glory from one another. The Judeans are more
interested in glory from other people, so they miss the possibility of approval from God. For John these
glories are mutually exclusive: the fundamental option. You cannot have both the glory of “one another”
and the glory of God. When one is actually seeking God’s glory, one becomes disinterested in human
glory. Not so much judgmental as how people really are.
- 42 Now Jesus is the prosecution! The absence of his word bears witness against the Judeans. They have
worked out their religion and tried to fit God into it, without first seeking God's way. A frequent problem.
- 43 They accept the words and praise of other human beings, but not those of Jesus. He comes in his
Father's name, expressing what the Father stands for, and is not accepted, yet they accept people - such
as others who claim to be the messiah - who come in their own name.
- 44 "You" is emphatic. Not really concerned with the glory that comes from God - only interested in the
human glory they receive from one another. Issue is glory of self or glory of God. "The door of faith is
shut against all whose minds are filled with a vain desire for earthly glory" (Calvin). Glory from God is
impossible for people whose habit is to receive glory from each other - scripture study had become about
seeking fame by showing intellectual powers.
- 45 Worst of all, it is not I but Moses, on whom you rely, who will accuse you. Jesus has dealt with their
pride of Scripture, now he turns to their pride in Moses. They claimed to follow Moses, citing him in
their support when talking to the man born blind (9:28). Had they paid heed to what Moses said and
really believed, they would be eager to recognise the Saviour and would have believed Jesus. Moses'
writings pointed towards Christ (Cf 1:45). Therefore those who rejected the Christ also rejected Moses.
And if they did not really believe what Moses had written, which they studied constantly, how could they
believe the words of Jesus. But how much do we search our hearts when we read the Scriptures and
listen to sermons?
- 46 Judeans saw issue as Moses vs Jesus. But if they had believed Moses they would believe Jesus, for
Moses wrote about Jesus.
- 47 Jesus is not judging, but striving to save. But the Judeans are on the edge of self-judgment.
- John 5:19-47 - Third Person
- 19 Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for
whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.
- 20 The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing; and he will show him greater
works than these, so that you will be astonished.
- 21 Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever
he wishes.
- 22 The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son,
- 23 so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does
not honor the Father who sent him.
- 24 Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and
does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.
- 25 Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the
Son of God, and those who hear will live.
- 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself;
- 27 and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
- 28 Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his
voice
- 29 and will come out--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done
evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
- Notes: Reflective, timeless, Jesus given titles ‘Son of Man’, ‘Son of God’ - is there a difference between
when these are used?
- John 5:19-47 - First Person
- 30 I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek to do not my
own will but the will of him who sent me.
- 31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.
- 32 There is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that his testimony to me is true.
- 33 You sent messengers to John, and he testified to the truth.
- 34 Not that I accept such human testimony, but I say these things so that you may be saved.
- 35 He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.
- 36 But I have a testimony greater than John's. The works that the Father has given me to complete, the
very works that I am doing, testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me.
- 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or
seen his form,
- 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent.
- 39 You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that
testify on my behalf.
- 40 Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
- 41 I do not accept glory from human beings.
- 42 But I know that you do not have the love of God in you.
- 43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you
will accept him.
- 44 How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes
from the one who alone is God?
- 45 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set
your hope.
- 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
- 47 But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?
- Notes: Direct, passionate, Jesus gives himself no titles.
- Believing
- John uses 'believe' as a verb 98 times, hardly ever as a noun.
- Used in 4 ways: believing facts; believing what people or Scripture says; believing in or into Christ (36
times); and absolutely believing in the Christian sense (30 times).
- For John, faith or believing is an activity, and it takes people out of themselves, making them one with
Christ. 'Believing in' is how John brings out the moral element of personal trust, essential to Christianity.
Hence the frequent use of 'abiding' in places where 'believing' might have been used - very similar
meanings.
- Yet in some ways, 'believing facts about Jesus' differs only a little from 'believing in Jesus'. John's reason
for writing his Gospel is "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ ... and that by believing you may
have life in his name" (20:31).
- Conclude that the various meanings of 'believe' should not be distinguished too sharply. Essential is that
the activity of believing takes you out of yourself and makes you one with Christ. And really believing
the facts inevitably leads to the activity of believing and of trustful reliance on God.