764
Vil.
qMt.viiar.17. ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, γνώσεται περὶ τῆς
isd. i. 25.
τ Here only in Ν.Τ., freq. in Job.
> ” οὐκ εστιν.
5 Rom. ii. 14, etc. t vill. 48.
lal “ , lal - ὑμῶν "ποιεῖ τὸν νόµον; τί µε ζητεῖτε ἀποκτεῖναι; ”
διδαχῆς, ' πότερον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν, ἢ ἐγὼ ἀπ᾿ ἐμαυτοῦ λαλῶ. 18. 6 dd’ ἑαυτοῦ λαλῶν, τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἰδίαν ζητεῖ: 6 δὲ {ζητῶν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ πέµψαντος αὐτὸν, οὗτος ἀληθής ἐστι, καὶ ἀδικία ἐν αὐτῷ 19. 08 Μωσῆς δέδωκεν ] ὑμῖν τὸν νόµον, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ
20. "᾿Απεκρίθη
” Ν 9 a - ὁ ὄχλος καὶ etme, “΄Δαιμόνιον ἔχεις: τίς σε ζητεὶ ἀποκτεῖναι ;~
3 , > A ΔΝ a 21. ᾽Απεκρίθη 6 “Ingots καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, ““Ev ἔργον ἐποίησα, καὶ
1 «δωκεν in BD; δεδωκεν in SLT.
man willeth to do His will, he shall know concerning the teaching, whether it is of God (or from God) or I speak from myself.” As Jesus everywhere asserts (v. 46, xviii. 37), he who thirsts for God will recognise Him as God’s messenger; he who hungers for righteous- ness is filled in Jesus; he who is of the truth hears His voice. The teaching of Jesus is recognised as Divine by those whose purpose and desire it is to be in harmony with God.—Ver. 18. There are also two different kinds of teachers: the one ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ λαλῶν, speaks his own mind, teaches his own ideas, does not represent God and reveal His mind; because he τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἰδίαν ζητεῖ, “seeks his own glory,’’ which of course cannot be reached by representing him- self to be merely the herald of another’s glory. The other style of teacher is described in the words 6 δὲ ζητῶν .. . ἔστιν. Plainly He who seeks the glory of Him whose ambassador He is, has no interest in falsifying matters to advance His own interests. If His aim is to advance the glory of Him who has sent Him, He will truthfully deliver His message ; ἀληθής ἐστι, καὶ ἀδικία . . . and injustice, dishonesty, is not in Him. The application of this general principle to Jesus was obvious.—Ver. 19. οὐ Μωσῆς . . . ἀποκτεῖναι., The connec- tion is not obvious, but seems to be this: You reject my teaching, but that is not surprising, for you reject Moses’ also (cf. ν, 39, 45-47). ‘‘ Did not Moses give you the law?” or, “Hath not Moses given you the law?” [the point of interrogation should be after the first vémov; none after the second]. “Yet none of you keeps it. If you did you would not seek to kill me.” Was there not a former revelation of God which should have prevented you from thus violently rejecting my teaching ?—Ver. 20. This, some of the crowd think
mere raving. He is a monomaniac labouring under α hallucination that people wish to kill Him.—Aatpéviov
. ἀποκτεῖναι; This question, repudi- ating the idea that any one seeks to slay Him, needs no answer and gets none.—Ver. 21. Jesus prefers to expose the unjustifiable character of the hostility which pursued Him (ver. 16). Referring to the miracle wrought at Bethesda, and which gave occasion to this hostility, He says ἕν épyov... σαββάτω. One single work I did and ye all marvel [are horrified or scandalised] ; for this same object, of imparting health, Moses gave you circumcision, an ordi- nance that continues through all the generations and regularly sets aside the Sabbath law. If circumcision is per- formed, lest the law of Moses be broken, are ye angry at me for making a man every whit whole [or rather, for making an entire or whole man healthy] on the Sabbath day? The argument is obvious ; and its force is brought out by the anti- thetical form of the sentence: the ἕν ἔργον of the healing of the impotent man is contrasted with the continuous ordi- nance of circumcision, and so the aorist is used of the one, the perfect of the other. In νετ. 23 περιτομὴν λαμβάνει is contrasted with ὅλον ἄνθβωπον ὑγιῆ, the partial and symbolic with the complete and actual soundness. The argument is all the more telling because a “‘ vis medi- catrix,”” as well as a ceremonial purity (but vide Meyer), was ascribed to circum- cision [‘ praeputium est vitium in cor- pore’’}. Wetstein quotes from a Rabbi a singularly analogous argument: ‘Si circumcisio, quae fit in uno membrorum 248 hominis, pellit Sabbatum, quanto magis verum est, conservationem vitae Sabbatum pellere?” The parenthesis in ver. 22, οὐχ ὅτι . . . πατέρων, is ap- parently thrown in for accuracy’s sake, lest some captious persons should divert