ἑβδόμην ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ὁ πυρετός.
54. Ἔγνω οὖν 6 πατὴρ, ὅτι ἐν
~ a a ~ 9 a 3 ἐκείνη τῇ ὥρα, ἐν ᾗ εἶπεν αὐτῷ 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς, “OT 6 υἱός σου Li.
, ~ Καὶ ἐπίστευσεν αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ οἰκία αὐτοῦ ὅλη.
54. " τοῦτο πάλιν w ii. 1-12,
δεύτερον σημεῖον ἐποίησεν 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς, ἐλθὼν ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας eis
τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
VY. 1. ΜΕΤΑ ταῦτα ἦν ἑορτὴ 1 τῶν Ιουδαίων, καὶ ἀνέβη ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς
1 η εορτη ΝΟΕ ΕΗΙ, Memph. Theb. Cyr.-Alex. Tisch.
ABDGK Orig. Chrys. Tr.W.H.R.
journey. Atany rate it seems illegitimate to say with Weiss that ‘yesterday ” means before sundown; or to ascribe the father’s delay to the confidence he had in Jesus’ word. The discovery of the coincidence in point of time produces a higher degree of faith, ἐπίστευσεν αὐτὸς καὶ 4 οἰκία αὐτοῦ ὅλη. The cure brings into prominence this distinctive pecu- liarity of a miracle that it consists of a marvel which is coincident with an ex- press announcement of it.—Ver. 54. τοῦτο πάλιν ... τὴν Γαλιλαίαν. πάλιν δεύτερον a common pleonasm, ‘again a second’’; cf. xxi, 16. In Mt. xxvi. 42, πάλιν ἐκ δευτέρου; and Acts x. 15. By this note John connects this miracle with that at the wedding, ii. 1-10, of which he said (ii. 11) ταύτην ἐποίησε ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς. It does not mean that this was the second miracle after this return to Galilee, although the words might bear that interpretation. Why this note? Bengel thinks that attention is called to the fact that John relates three miracles wrought in Galilee and three in Judaea. Alford supposes that John wishes to note that as the former miracle had called forth the faith of the disciples, so this elicited faith from a wider circle.
Not only Strauss, Baur, and Keim but also Weiss and Sanday suppose that this is the same healing as is recorded in Mt. viii. 5-13. But the differences are too great. In the one it is a Gentile centurion whose servant is paralysed; in the other it is the son of a (probably Jewish) court official who is at the point of death from fever. In the one the cen- turion insists that Jesus shall not come under his roof; in the other the supplicant beseeches Him to do so. The half-faith ox the father is blamed; the extraordinary faith of the centurion is lauded.
Chapters v.-xi. depict the growth of ‘the unbeliet of the Jews. In this part of sthe Gospel three Judaean miracies and
εορτη without article
one in Galilee are related in full, and the impulse given by each to the hatred of the Jews is pointed out. These miracles are the healing of the impotent man (chap. v.), the miraculous feeding (chap. vi.), the cure of the man born blind (chap. ix.), and the raising of Lazarus (chap. xi.). This section of the Gospel may be divided thus :—
1. Chaps. v. and vi., Christ manifests Himself as the Life first in Judaea, then in Galilee, but is rejected in both places.
2. Chaps. vii. to x. 21, He attends the Feast of Tabernacles and manifests Him- self by word and deed but is threatened both by the mob and by the authorities.
3. Chaps. x. 22 to xi., Jesus withdraws from Jerusalem but returns to raise Lazarus, in consequence of which the authorities finally determine to slay Him.
CuHaPTER V. Fesus in Ferusalem manifests Himself as the Life by com- municating strength to an impotent man. —Ver. I. μετὰ ταῦτα, “after this”; how long after does not concern the narrative.—jv ἑορτὴ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. See critical note. Even if the article were the true reading, this would not, as Liicke has shown, determine the feast to be the Passover. Rather it would be Tabernacles, see W.H. ii. 76. Weare thrown upon general considerations :and that these yield a very uncertain result is shown by the variety of opinion ex- pressed by commentators. The feasts we have to choose from are: Purim in March, Passover in April, Pentecost in May, Tabernacles in October, Dedica- tion in December. It is chiefly between Purim and Passover that opinion is divided, because some feast in spring is supposed to be indicated by iv. 35. Against Passover it is urged that in chap. vi. another Passover is mentioned ; but this is by no means decisive, as John elsewhere passes over equally long intervals of time. Lampe, Lightfoot, Grotius, Whitelaw, and Wordsworth argue tor Passover: Tischendorf, Meyer,