Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 5:37
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
37 40. The connexion of thought in the next few verses is very difficult to catch, and cannot be affirmed with certainty. This is often the case in S. John’s writings. A number of simple sentences follow one another with an even flow; but it is by no means easy to see how each leads on to the next. Here there is a transition from the indirect testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus given by the works which He is commissioned to do ( Joh 5:36), to the direct testimony to the same given by the words of Scripture (Joh 5:37-40). The Jews were rejecting both.
which hath sent me, hath borne witness ] There is a difference of tense in the Greek which should be retained: the Father which sent Me (once for all at the Incarnation) He hath borne witness (for a long time past, and is still doing so) of Me.
Ye have neither, &c.] These words are a reproach; therefore there can be no allusion (as suggested in the margin) to the Baptism or the Transfiguration. The Transfiguration had not yet taken place, and very few if any of Christ’s hearers could have heard the voice from heaven at the Baptism. Moreover, if that particular utterance were meant, ‘voice’ in the Greek would have had the article. Nor can there be any reference to the theophanies, or symbolical visions of God, in O.T. It could be no matter of reproach to these Jews that they had never beheld a theophany. A paraphrase will shew the meaning; ‘neither with the ear of the heart have ye ever heard Him, nor with the eye of the heart have ye ever seen Him, in the revelation of Himself given in the Scriptures; and so ye have not the testimony of His word present as an abiding power within you.’ There should be no full stop at ‘shape,’ only a comma or semi-colon. Had they studied Scripture rightly they would have had a less narrow view of the Sabbath ( Joh 5:16), and would have recognised the Messiah.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The Father himself …hath borne witness of me – This God had done,
- By the miracles which Jesus had performed, and of which he was conversing.
- At the baptism of Jesus, where he said, This is my beloved Son, Mat 3:17.
- In the prophecies of the Old Testament. It is not easy to say here to which of these he refers. Perhaps he has reference to all.
Ye have neither heard his voice – This difficult passage has been interpreted in various ways. The main design of it seems to be clear – to reprove the Jews for not believing the evidence that he was the Messiah. In doing this he says that they were indisposed to listen to the testimony of God. He affirmed that God had given sufficient evidence of his divine mission, but they had disregarded it. The first thing that he notices is that they had not heard his voice. The word hear, in this place, is to be understood in the sense of obey or listen to. See the notes at Joh 5:25. The voice of God means his commands or his declarations, however made; and the Saviour said that it had been the characteristic of the Jews that they had not listened to the voice or command of God. As this had been their general characteristic, it was not wonderful that they disregarded now his testimony in regard to the Messiah. The voice of God had been literally heard on the mount. See Deu 4:12; Ye heard the voice of the words.
At any time – This has been the uniform characteristic of the nation that they have disregarded and perverted the testimony of God, and it was as true of that generation as of their fathers.
Nor seen his shape – No man hath seen God at any time, Joh 1:18. But the word shape, here, does not mean God himself. It refers to the visible manifestation of himself; to the appearance which he assumed. It is applied in the Septuagint to his manifesting himself to Moses, Num 12:8; With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently; in Greek, in a form or shape the word used here. It is applied to the visible symbol of God that appeared in the cloud and that rested on the tabernacle, Num 9:15-16. It is the same word that is applied to the Holy Spirit appearing in bodily shape like a dove, Luk 3:22. Jesus does not here deny that God had appeared in this manner, but he says they had not seen – that is, had not paid attention to, or regarded, the appearance of God. He had manifested himself, but they disregarded it, and, in particular, they had disregarded his manifestations in attestation of the Messiah. As the word hear means to obey, to listen to, so the word see means to pay attention to, to regard 2Jo 1:8; 1Jo 3:6, and thus throws light on Joh 14:9; He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. I am a manifestation of God – God appearing in human flesh, as he appeared formerly in the symbol of the cloud; and he that regards me, or attends to me, regards the Father.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 37. The Father himself – hath borne witness] That is, by his prophets.
Ye have neither heard his voice] I make these words, with Bp. Pearce, a parenthesis: the sense is-“Not that my Father ever appeared visibly or spake audibly to any of you; but he did it by the mouths of his prophets.” Lately, however, he had added to their testimony his own voice from heaven, on the day of Christ’s baptism. See Mt 3:17.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Hath borne witness of me; not only in my baptism, and at my transfiguration by an audible voice from heaven, but by the voice of his prophets, by whom he spoke to your fathers.
Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape; you have no knowledge of him, nor any acquaintance with him. It is expounded, Joh 5:38, Ye have not his word abiding in you: for though indeed God appeared to the Jews in no shape or similitude; yet they (that is, their forefathers) had heard his voice, Deu 4:12, speaking out of the midst of the fire, Joh 5:33. God, being an incorporeal Being, hath no such organs of speech as we have, by which we declare our minds unto others; but God had formed an audible voice, by which he revealed his will unto the Jews; so as it could only be said of the Jews of that generation and their forefathers, from the time of giving the law, that they had not heard his voice; for, Exo 20:19, they then desired that Moses might speak to them, and that God would speak no more immediately. Accordingly, he did by the prophets speak to them; but they would not believe them, no, not when he spake to them by his Son, who knew his will, Heb 1:1,3.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
37. the Father himself . . . hathborne witness of menot referring, probably, to the voice ofHis baptism, but (as seems from what follows) to the testimony of theOld Testament Scripture [CALVIN,LUCKE, MEYER,LUTHARDT, &c.].
neither heard his voice,&c.never recognized Him in this character. The words are”designedly mysterious, like many others which our Lord uttered”[STIER].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the Father himself, which hath sent me,…. Not only the works he gave him to do, and which he did, but he himself in person:
hath borne witness of me; not only in the writings of Moses, and the prophecies of the Old Testament, but by an audible articulate voice from heaven, at the time of Christ’s baptism, Mt 3:17; which was a full testimony of the sonship of Christ, and of the Father’s well pleasure in him; and which was repeated at his transfiguration on the mount, Mt 17:5; and the sonship of Christ is the grand thing which the three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, testify of, 1Jo 5:7;
ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape; for the voices that were heard, and the forms that were seen under the Old Testament dispensation, from the first of this kind in Eden’s garden, to the incarnation of Christ, which are ascribed to God, or to a divine person, were either by the ministry of angels, or they were voices uttered by the Son of God, or forms assumed by him, who often appeared in an human form, as a prelude of his incarnation; so that it was unusual, and wonderful, and remarkable, that the Father should bear a testimony to the sonship of Christ by a voice from heaven; and which therefore ought to be attended to, and received as a sufficient and valid testimony.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
He hath borne witness ( ). (that one; cf. John 5:35; John 5:38), not . Perfect active indicative of , the direct witness of the Father, besides the indirect witness of the works. Jesus is not speaking of the voice of the Father at his baptism (Mr 1:11), the transfiguration (Mr 9:7), nor even at the time of the visit of the Greeks (Joh 12:28). This last voice was heard by many who thought it was thunder or an angel. The language of Jesus refers to the witness of the Father in the heart of the believers as is made plain in 1John 5:9; 1John 5:10. God’s witness does not come by audible “voice” () nor visible “form” (). Cf. John 1:18; John 6:46; 1John 4:12. is perfect active indicative of , to hear, and is perfect active indicative of , to see. It is a permanent state of failure to hear and see God. The experience of Jacob in Peniel (Ge 32:30) was unusual, but Jesus will say that those who have seen him have seen the Father (Joh 14:9), but here he means the Father’s “voice” and “form” as distinct from the Son.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Himself [] . The best texts substitute ejkeinov, he; reading, “the Father which sent me, He hath born witness.” So Rev.
Voice – shape. Not referring to the descent of the dove and the voice from heaven at Jesus ‘ baptism, but generally and figuratively to God ‘s witness in the Old Testament Scriptures. This is in harmony with the succeeding reference to the word.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And the Father himself, which hath sent me,” (kai ho pempsas me pater)”And the Father who has sent me,” in the flesh, Gal 4:4-5; Joh 3:17; Joh 3:34; Act 3:26; 1Jn 4:9-10.
2) ”Hath borne witness of me.” (ekeinos memartureken peri emou) “That one has testified or borne witness concerning me,” at my birth, when the angels of mine bore witness audibly to the Shepherds, Luk 2:9-14; and I spoke at His baptism and at His transfiguration as follows:
3) “Ye have neither heard his voice at any time,” (oute phone autou popote ekekoate) “You all have never either heard or really given heed to his voice at any time,” but ignored it and rebelled against it, Mat 3:17; Mat 17:5.
4) “Nor seen his shape.” (houte eidos autou heorakate) ”Nor have you seen or recognized a form of him in any way,” in and through me, and the works that I do, for the one who saw Jesus, as the Son of God, saw the Father, Joh 14:7.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
37. And the Father who hath sent me. To limit this statement, as some have done, (108) to the voice which was heard at his baptism, (Mat 3:17,) is a mistake; for he says in the past tense, that the Father ( μεμαρτύρηκε) testified, in order to show that he did not come forward as an unknown person, because the Father had long ago distinguished him by such peculiar marks that, bringing them along with him, he might be recognized. I explain, therefore, that God testified concerning his Son, whenever in past times he held out to the ancient people the hope of salvation, or promised that the kingdom of Israel would be fully restored. In this manner the Jews must have formed an idea of Christ from the Prophets, before he was manifested in the flesh. When having him before their eyes, they despise and therefore reject him, they show plainly that they have no relish for the Law, with which Christ also reproaches them; and yet they boasted of their knowledge of the Law, as if they had been brought up in the bosom of God.
You have never heard his voice. After having complained that they do not receive him, Christ breaks out in still more severe language against their blindness. When he says that they had never heard the voice of God, or seen his shape, these are metaphorical expressions, by which he intends to state generally that they are utterly estranged from the knowledge of God. For as men are made known by the countenance and speech, so God utters his voice to us by the voice of the Prophets, and, in the sacraments, takes, as it were, a visible form, from which he may be known by us according to our feeble capacity. But he who does not recognize God in his lively image, plainly shows by this very fact that he worships no Deity but what he has himself contrived. For this reason Paul says, that the Jews had a vail placed before their eyes, that they might not perceive the glory of God in the face of Christ, (2Co 3:14.)
(108) “ Aucuns s’abusent.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(37) Hath borne witness of me.The marginal reference interprets this testimony of the Father by the voices from heaven spoken at the Baptism and on the Mount of Transfiguration Both are indeed illustrations, and are naturally suggested by the imagery of voice and shape in the latter half of the verse; but one was at this moment in the future, and the other was a definite event which would have required a more definite reference. The Greek, indeed, distinguishes between the Incarnation at a definite point in time and the witness which was continuedAnd the Father Himself which sent Me (not hath sent Me) hath borne witness of Me.
His voice and His shape are both general, and the at any time extends over the whole duration of previous revelation. Literally the clause is, Voice of Him ye have not at any time heard, nor shape of Him have ye seen. The reference to the revelation of the Old Testament Scriptures is, moreover, demanded by the immediate context, while the voice at the Baptism and the Transfiguration are not only absent from the present circle of thoughts, but also from St. Johns Gospel. Jesus is answering a charge of breaking Gods law, and of making Himself equal with God because he has claimed Gods fatherhood in word for Himself, and has manifested it in life-power for man. That charge was but an example of their unreceptive spirit. Through the whole history of the nation. He had been revealing Himself to them. Through the chief knowledge-giving senses, eye and ear, they should have learnt in that past history to see God in the act of mercy, to hear Him in the word of love. They jealous for Gods honour! Ah! it was then as it had been ever. Voice of God they could not hear. Vision of God they could not see.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
37. Father himself borne witness By giving him a miraculous incarnation, rendering him a living miracle; by an audible voice at his baptism; by dwelling in him with all the Godhead bodily, and speaking to the world through him; and by accompanying him with signs and wonders.
Nor seen his shape His shape you have not seen; you have only seen the effects of his divine power attached to my person, and in testimony to my divinity.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me.”
Furthermore the Father had Himself borne witness to Jesus. He had done it through the voice at His baptism (Mar 1:11). He had done it through His Spirit continually testifying to men’s hearts that Jesus was from God, for ‘he who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself’ (1Jn 5:10). And He has also spoken of Jesus through their very Scriptures. Furthermore He also witnesses to Him through the works of power that Jesus does. But the truth is that they will not hear the testimony because their hearts are hardened.
Jesus may well rather have had in mind here by His reference to the Scriptures, all the Old Testament promises with regard to the coming David, the coming Servant of YHWH found there, especially as propounded in Isa 9:6. In the Scriptures there was a constant stream of testimony to the One Who was coming and what He was going to do under the hand of God.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
“You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that bear witness to me, yet you refuse to come to me that you might have life.”
Here Jesus is contrasting his listeners with Moses who both heard God’s voice and saw His form ( although not seeing Him in the fullness of His being). See Exo 33:11; Exo 33:17-23. They saw themselves as ‘in Moses’ seat’ but by their refusal to hear Him were demonstrating that far from being like Moses they were actually rejecting Moses. In spite of searching the Scriptures they were blind to what the Scriptures actually revealed. So they were not only unlike Moses in that they had not seen God’s form or seen His face, demonstrating their inferior standing as compared with Moses, but their failure to respond positively to Him demonstrated that, unlike Moses, they did not have the word of God abiding in them. For had they had God’s word abiding in them they would have responded to the One Who was His Word.
His listeners would certainly immediately recognise in these words a reference to Moses. Moses was the one who above all heard God’s voice and saw His form (Exo 33:11; Exo 33:23; Deu 34:10). And these Jewish leaders gloried in Moses. They laid great stress on the Law of Moses. They claimed to sit in the seat of Moses. They even looked for the coming of a prophet like Moses. And yet they were revealing by their attitude how far from being like Moses they really were. For God had borne witness to Him through Moses, and if only they would really be willing to hear Moses and the Prophets, then they would believe Him, for both spoke of Him. These are God’s witnesses.
The Scribes and Pharisees especially believed that by meditation in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets they could obtain eternal life as those who by doing so proved that they were within the covenant. And they claimed to represent Moses. But, says Jesus, how far from being like Moses they were. Let them consider this. Moses heard the voice of God, Moses saw the form of God, proving his supreme prophetic status. So they should all the more carefully listen to Moses, for they have neither heard the Father’s voice nor seen His form.
And yet there is an irony in these words in that they had in fact ‘heard His voice and seen His face’ without being aware of it, because He Himself was among them as One Who spoke with the voice of God directly, and through Whom they could see the form of God, for, as He will later inform His disciples, ‘he who has seen Me has seen the Father’ (Joh 14:9). Thus their sin is all the greater in that they have had a greater privilege than Moses and yet have refused to hear and see. We can compare here Jesus’ words to His disciples, “Blessed are the eyes which see what you see. For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which you hear, and have not heard them” (Luk 10:24). The Pharisees had seen them as well, but they had closed their eyes and ears to what they saw and heard.
How unlike Moses they are, He is saying. They are like the people of Israel of old who when they heard the voice of God (Deu 4:12) asked that they should hear it no longer but that it should be conveyed to them through Moses (Deu 5:24-27). And then in the end they did not listen to Moses. And now the Judaisers are the same. Unlike Moses they do not have God’s word abiding in them, for if they had, they would have believed in the One Whom God has sent. They pretend to be ready to hear Moses, but they are not.
And yet they have had a unique opportunity, the greatest possible opportunity, For the One Who makes God known has come (Joh 1:18), the One Who has the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (Joh 1:14), and they have heard His voice and seen His face, but in their blindness they have failed to recognise it..
They search the Scriptures, believing that meditation in them will bring them eternal life. For example, in the rabbinic tractate Pirqe Aboth (“The Sayings of the Fathers”), we read, “He who has acquired the words of the Law has acquired for himself the life of the world to come.” (Pirqe Aboth Joh 2:8) and “Great is the Law for it gives to those who practise it life in this world and in the world to come.” (Pirqe Aboth Joh 6:7). These illustrate the kind of things they said and believed.
Yet, He points out, it is these very Scriptures which bear testimony to Him. So with all their confidence in the Scriptures it is clear that they do not listen to their testimony, and that their search is therefore in vain, for they refuse to come to Him for the life that they seek. The word ‘refuse’ suggests more than just lack of understanding. The reason they do not come is because they do not want to listen. The voice is speaking within but their hearts are hardened.
So we discover that there are a number of witnesses to Jesus:
1). John the Baptiser
2). The Works of Jesus
3). The inner voice from God
4). Moses
5). The Scriptures
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 5:37-38. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, &c. “Nor have you any reason to dispute the testimony which the Father hath thus given me, though you have never heard his voice, nor seen his form; as being one whom no man hath seen or can see. For he has testified the same concerning me in his word, where he has spoken of me in the clearest manner. But, notwithstanding the submission that you profess to his authority, you will not be persuaded to receive the testimony he has given; and after all that he has said, it is still evident that you have not his word cordially abiding in you; nor do you shew a due regard even to those former revelations which you acknowledge as divine; for, notwithstanding all the reasons which are there given to induce you to it, you do not believe him, whom he hath sent, with, a much fuller and clearer discovery of himself than any of his former messengers have brought.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 5:37 . From the works which testified that He was the Sent of God, He now passes to the witness of the Sender Himself; therefore from the indirect divine testimony, presented in the works, to the direct testimony in the Scriptures. And the Father Himself, who hath sent me, hath borne witness of me . The subject, which is placed at the beginning of the sentence, the independence (immediateness) expressed by , together with the Perfect ., unite to prove that there is no longer any reference here to the previous testimony, that of the works , by which God had borne testimony (against Augustine, Grotius, Maldonatus, Olshausen, Baur, and most others). Quite arbitrary, and in opposition to the account of the baptism given by John , is the view which others take, that the divine witness given in the voice at the baptism , Mat 3:17 (but see rather Joh 1:33 ), is here meant (Chrysostom, Rupertius, Jansen, Bengel, Lampe, Paulus, Godet). While Ewald ( Johann. Schr . I. 216) includes together both the baptism and the works, Hengstenberg adds to these two the witness of Scripture likewise; others, again, “ the immediate divine witness in the believer’s heart , by means of which the indirect testimony of the works is first apprehended” (De Wette, B. Crusius, Tholuck), the “drawing” of the Father, Joh 6:14 , comp. Joh 6:45 , Joh 8:47 . But there is not the slightest indication in the text that an outward, perceptible, concrete, and objective witness is meant; nay more, in the face of the following connection ( ). The only true interpretation in harmony with the context is that which takes it to mean the witness which God Himself has given in His word, in the Scriptures of the O. T . (Cyril, Nonnus, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Beda, Calvin, Kuinoel, Lcke, Lange, Maier, Luthardt). In the O. T. prophecies, God Himself has lifted up His voice and revealed His form.
, . . .] Reproach of want of susceptibility for this testimony, all the more emphatic through the absence of any antithetic particle. Neither a voice of His have ye ever heard, nor a form of His have ye ever seen . With respect to what God had spoken in the O. T. as a testimony to Christ ( . ), or as to the manner in which, with a like purpose, He had therein given His self-manifestation to the spiritual contemplation (He had made known his ; comp. , Phi 2:6 ), to the one ye were spiritually deaf , to the other ye were spiritually blind . As the first cannot, conformably with the context, be taken to mean the revealing voice of God within, vouchsafed to the prophets (De Wette), so neither can the second refer merely to the Theophanies (in particular, to the appearances of the Angel of the Lord, Hengstenberg) and prophetic visions, [221] but to the entire self-revelation of God in the O. T. generally , by virtue of which He lets Himself be seen by him who has eyes to see; a general and broad interpretation, which corresponds with the general nature of the expression, and with its logical relation to . . . The Jews could not have heard the voice at the baptism , nor could they have seen the form of God as the Logos had seen it, Joh 1:18 , Joh 3:13 ; and for this reason neither the one meaning nor the other can be found in the words (Ewald). Every interpretation, moreover, is incorrect which finds in them anything but a reproach, because Jesus speaks in the second person, and continues to do so in Joh 5:38 , where the tone of censure is still obvious. We must therefore reject the explanation of B. Crusius: “never hitherto has this immediate revelation of God taken place;” and that of Tholuck: “ye have not received a more direct revelation than did Moses and his cotemporaries (Num 12:8 ; Deu 4:15 ; Deu 5:24 ), but ye have not received within you the witness of the revelation in the word,” an artificial connecting of Joh 5:37 with Joh 5:38 , which the words forbid. Paulus and Kuinoel (comp. Euthymius Zigabenus) likewise erroneously say that “Jesus here concedes , in some degree, to the Jews what they had themselves wished to urge in objection , viz. that they had heard no divine voice, etc. Comp. Ebrard (in Olshausen), who imports the idea of irony into the passage.
[221] Jesus could not reproach His opponents with not having received prophetic revelations, such as Theophanies and Visions, for these were marks of distinction bestowed only on individuals. This also against Weiss, Lehrbegr . pp. 104, 105.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Ver. 37. Hath borne witness of me ] By the voice from heaven, and the descending of the Holy Ghost in the shape of a dove,Mat 3:16Mat 3:16 ; yet ye have neither heard his voice, nor seen his shape. Who so blind as he that will not see? Isa 42:19 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
37 39. ] The connexion of these verses has been much disputed. I believe it will be found to be this: ‘The works of which I have spoken, are only indirect testimonies; the Father Himself, who sent Me, has given direct testimony concerning Me. Now that testimony cannot be derived by you, nor any man, by direct communication with Him; for ye have never heard His voice nor seen His shape. (Or perhaps have not heard His voice, as your fathers did from Sinai, nor seen His visional appearance, as the Prophets did.) Nor ( Joh 5:38 ), in your case , has it been given by that inward witness (ch. Joh 3:33 : 1Jn 4:13-14 ) which those have (and had in a measure, even before the gift of the Spirit see inter alli [85] ., Psa 51:11 ) in whom His word abides; for ye have not His word abiding in you, not believing on Him whom He hath sent. Yet ( Joh 5:39 ) there is a form of this direct testimony of the Father, accessible even to you; ‘ search the Scriptures ,’ &c. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Lampe, Bengel, &c., understand to refer to the voice at our Lord’s baptism: but, as Lcke observes, forbids this. I may also add that the perfect, , excludes it. Had reference been to a distinct event , it must have been , and (Lcke) .
[85] alli = some cursive mss.
Observe that the testimony in the Scriptures is not the only, nor the chief one, intended in Joh 5:37 , but (as De Wette well maintains) the direct testimony in the heart of the believer; which, as the Jews have not , they are directed to another form of the Father’s testimony, that in the Scriptures .
, either indicative (Cyril, Erasm., Beza, Lampe, Bengel, Kuinoel, Lcke, Tholuck, Olshausen, De Wette), ‘ Ye search the Scriptures, for ye believe ye have &c., and they are they that testify of Me, and ( yet , Joh 5:40 ) ye will not come to Me that ye may have life: ’ or imperative (Chrys., Theophyl., Euthym [86] , August., Luther, Calvin, Wets [87] ., Paulus, Stier), in which case generally a period has been placed after , and a fresh sentence begins at .
[86] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
[87] Wetstein.
I believe the imperative sense only will be found to cohere with the previous verses: see above, where I have given the context. And no other sense will suit the word , which cannot be used, as in the indicative it would be, with blame attached to it, ‘ ye make nice and frivolous search into the letter of Scripture; ’ but, as . in ref. Ps., implies a thorough search (see also 1Pe 1:11 ) into the contents and spirit of Scripture. Besides, the emphatic position of before , while it does not absolutely necessitate the imper. sense, makes it much more probable than the indic., which would be conveyed by . . Luthardt (ii. 21) remarks, that the almost unanimous verdict of the Greek Fathers (Cyril however is a remarkable exception) for the imper. decides him in its favour.
. . ] Ye (emphatic) imagine that in them (emphatic) ye have eternal life (Schttgen quotes testimonies from the Rabbis: “ Qui acquirit sibi verba legis, is acquirit sibi vitam ternam, &c .”); but they, like all other secondary ordinances, have a spiritual end in view, and that end is to testify, from first to last (it is their office , ) of ME.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 5:37 . But over and above the evidence of the works , , “And the Father who sent me has Himself also testified”. Where and how this testimony of the Father’s separate from the works has been given, is explained, Joh 5:38 ; Joh 5:40 But, first, Jesus states how it has no been given: . It is not by coming into your midst in a visible form and speaking as I speak that the Father has testified. “His voice you have never heard: His form you have never seen.” It is not by sensible sights and sounds the Father has given His testimony. [This interpretation is however ignored by most: by Meyer, who thinks the reference is to their insensibility to the revelation of God in Scripture; by Westcott, who says “the Jews by their disbelief of Christ failed to hear and see Him”; by Godet, who finds “a declaration of man’s natural impotence to rise to the immediate and personal knowledge of God”. Reference to the baptism is put out of the question by . The reference to the two chief forms of prophetic revelation (Weiss) is too remote.]
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
hath sent = sent (at a definite time).
hath borne. And still bears.
neither . . . nor. Greek. oute . . . oute.
seen. Greek. horao. App-133.
shape = form. Greek. eidos. Compare Luk 3:22; Luk 9:39.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
37-39.] The connexion of these verses has been much disputed. I believe it will be found to be this: The works of which I have spoken, are only indirect testimonies; the Father Himself, who sent Me, has given direct testimony concerning Me. Now that testimony cannot be derived by you, nor any man, by direct communication with Him; for ye have never heard His voice nor seen His shape. (Or perhaps have not heard His voice, as your fathers did from Sinai,-nor seen His visional appearance, as the Prophets did.) Nor (Joh 5:38), in your case, has it been given by that inward witness (ch. Joh 3:33 : 1Jn 4:13-14) which those have (and had in a measure, even before the gift of the Spirit-see inter alli[85]., Psa 51:11) in whom His word abides; for ye have not His word abiding in you, not believing on Him whom He hath sent. Yet (Joh 5:39) there is a form of this direct testimony of the Father, accessible even to you;-search the Scriptures, &c. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Lampe, Bengel, &c., understand to refer to the voice at our Lords baptism: but, as Lcke observes, forbids this. I may also add that the perfect, , excludes it. Had reference been to a distinct event, it must have been ,-and (Lcke) .
[85] alli = some cursive mss.
Observe that the testimony in the Scriptures is not the only, nor the chief one, intended in Joh 5:37, but (as De Wette well maintains) the direct testimony in the heart of the believer;-which, as the Jews have not, they are directed to another form of the Fathers testimony, that in the Scriptures.
, either indicative (Cyril, Erasm., Beza, Lampe, Bengel, Kuinoel, Lcke, Tholuck, Olshausen, De Wette), Ye search the Scriptures, for ye believe ye have &c., and they are they that testify of Me, and (yet, Joh 5:40) ye will not come to Me that ye may have life: or imperative (Chrys., Theophyl., Euthym[86], August., Luther, Calvin, Wets[87]., Paulus, Stier), in which case generally a period has been placed after , and a fresh sentence begins at .
[86] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
[87] Wetstein.
I believe the imperative sense only will be found to cohere with the previous verses:-see above, where I have given the context. And no other sense will suit the word , which cannot be used, as in the indicative it would be, with blame attached to it,-ye make nice and frivolous search into the letter of Scripture; but, as . in ref. Ps., implies a thorough search (see also 1Pe 1:11) into the contents and spirit of Scripture. Besides, the emphatic position of before , while it does not absolutely necessitate the imper. sense, makes it much more probable than the indic., which would be conveyed by . . Luthardt (ii. 21) remarks, that the almost unanimous verdict of the Greek Fathers (Cyril however is a remarkable exception) for the imper. decides him in its favour.
. .] Ye (emphatic) imagine that in them (emphatic) ye have eternal life (Schttgen quotes testimonies from the Rabbis: Qui acquirit sibi verba legis, is acquirit sibi vitam ternam, &c.);-but they, like all other secondary ordinances, have a spiritual end in view, and that end is to testify, from first to last (it is their office, ) of ME.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 5:37. ) Himself [independently of, and, in weight of testimony] beyond the works.-, hath borne witness) Past time. That testimony is recorded ch. Joh 1:32-33, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He, etc.-, neither) In the beginning of verses 36 and 37 is described [the Fathers] testimony concerning Jesus Christ: at the close of 37 and in 38 is described the unbelief of the Jews.- , His appearance) This corresponds with the first chapter of Ezekiel, where there is described at large the appearance of the likeness of the glory of God [Joh 5:28], seen by Ezekiel, who presently after also heard the voice of God. And that whole chapter was the Haphtara [portion, or lesson of the Prophets, appointed for the day] of the feast mentioned in the first verse. [They had not seen or heard Him at any time, as the prophets (for instance Eze 1:28), much less as the Christ had. Comp. Joh 1:17, Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ; Joh 6:46, Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He which is of God, He hath seen the Father.-Not. Crit. and V. g.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 5:37
Joh 5:37
And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form.-When God spake, they refused to hear his voice, and they had not seen him.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
seen Cf.
(See Scofield “Joh 1:18”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Joh 5:32
borne: Joh 6:27, Joh 8:18, Mat 3:17, Mat 17:5
Ye have: Joh 1:18, Joh 14:9, Joh 15:24, Exo 20:19, Deu 4:12, 1Ti 1:17, 1Ti 6:16, 1Jo 1:1, 1Jo 1:2, 1Jo 4:12, 1Jo 4:20
Reciprocal: Jdg 13:22 – we have Isa 26:10 – and will not Jer 13:11 – but Zec 4:9 – and Mat 21:32 – repented Mar 1:11 – there Mar 9:7 – This Joh 6:46 – any Joh 10:36 – sent Joh 17:3 – and Jesus Act 15:8 – bare Heb 7:25 – he is 2Pe 1:17 – God 1Jo 4:14 – the Father
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
No man in normal flesh ever saw the form or person of God, for to do so would mean his death (Exo 33:20). But God wished human beings to have the testimony of Him, hence he furnished it by aiding the Son to perform the miraculous works.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 5:37. And the Father which sent me, he hath home witness concerning me. As if Jesus said: And thus, in the abiding gift of the works, it is the Father that sent me that hath borne witness of me.Hath borne witness corresponds with hath given; each points to the continued possession of a gift bestowed, the Fathers abiding presence with Him whom He sent and sealed (chap. Joh 6:27). Hence we must not suppose that a new witness of the Fatherdirect (as some say), in contrast with the mediate testimony of the worksis here intended. If the works include the whole manifestation of the Son, the whole of the tokens of the Fathers presence in Him and with Him, they are no mediate testimony; no testimony can be more direct.
Never have ye either heard a voice of him or seen a form of him. The Father has borne witness, but they have not known His presence. In the words of Jesus He has spoken, and the ear not closed through wilfulness and unbelief would have recognised the voice of God. In the actions and the whole life of Jesus He has manifested Himself, and the spiritual eye, the man pure in heart, would have seen God. It had been otherwise with the Jews. Whilst our Lord had been working in their midst they had heard no voice of the Father, they had seen no form of Him. This was a proof that they had never received in their hearts Gods revelation of Himself. Had they done so, had they (to use our Lords figurative language,no doubt suggested by the thought of the words which He had spoken and the miracles which He had shown to them) ever been acquainted with the Fathers voice, they would have recognised it when Jesus spoke: had the eyes of their understanding ever been enlightened so as to see God, they would have seen the Father manifested in their very presence in His Son. What is in these two clauses couched in figurative terms the next clause expresses clearly.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here our blessed Saviour produces again the testimony of his Father, that he was the true and promised Messias: this was given him both at his baptism and his transfiguration: when God the Father owned Christ to be his Son, by an audible voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Which testimony the Jews ought the more to have regarded, because though their forefathers had heard the voice of God at certain times, Exo 20:1; Deu 4:1 yet they in their times had never heard his voice.
Learn hence, That the Father’s immediate testimony of Christ from heaven, is greater than all the testimonies given to him here on earth; greater than John’s, greater than his miracles. The presence of the glorious Trinity, when that testimony was given, Matthew 3 ult. made that witness most awful and solemn.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Ver. 37. And the Father who sent me, himself hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form.
It is clear, whatever Olshausen, Baur and others may say, that Jesus here speaks of anew testimony of the Father: otherwise, why should He substitute for the present beareth witness (Joh 5:36), which applies to the miracles which Jesus at present performs, the perfect hath borne witness, which can only denote a testimony given and completed.The pronoun , Himself, emphasized as it is, strongly sets forth the personalcharacter of this new testimony: God has spoken Himself. This is the reason why the reading seems to me preferable to the , he, of the Alexandrian authorities. What is this personal testimony? De Wette andTholuck, understand by it the inner voice by which God testifies in the heart of man in favor of the Gospel, the drawing of the Father to the Son. But it is impossible from this point of view to explain the perfect hath borne witness, and very difficult to account for the following expressions, His voice, His form, which so evidently refer to a personal manifestation. Chrysostom, Grotius, Bengel (I myself, in the former editions), refer this expression to the testimony of God at the baptism of Jesus, which very well answers to this condition.
But objection is rightly made because of the …, never, in the following words: and it would be to return to the testimony of John the Baptist, which Jesus had set aside, since the voice of God had not been heard except by the forerunner and everything rested, therefore, upon his testimony. We must, accordingly, take our position rather with the explanation of Cyril, Calvin, Lucke, Meyer, Luthardt, Weiss, Keil, who refer Joh 5:37 to the testimony of God in the Old Testament, the book in which He manifests Himself and Himself speaks. Joh 5:38-39 confirm this view. But how, from this point of view, can we explain the following clause? A reproach has been found here (Meyer, Luthardt, Keil); You are miserably deaf and blind, that is, incapable of apprehending this testimony; you have never inwardly received the divine word. This sense suits the context. But the expression: You have not seen his face would be a strange one to designate moral insensibility to the Holy Scriptures. Others see rather in these words a concession made to the hearers: for example, Tholuck: You have, no doubt, neither heard…nor seen…, for that is impossible; it is not this with which I reproach you (Joh 5:37); but you should at least have received the testimony which God gives in the Scriptures (Joh 5:38).
If this were the thought, however, an adversative particle could not be wanting at the beginning of Joh 5:38. But the expression: and you have not in you, on the contrary, continues the movement of the preceding clause. The expressions to hear the voice, see the form of God, denote an immediate personal knowledge of God (Joh 1:18). Jesus uses the former in Joh 6:46, to characterize the knowledge of God which He has Himself, in contrast with all purely human knowledge: Not that any one hath seen the Father, save He that is of the Father; he hath seen the Father. This declaration ought to serve as a standard for the explanation of the one before us. We shall say with Weiss:There is not here either a reproach or a concession; it is the simple authentication of a fact, namely, the natural powerlessness of man to rise to the intuitive knowledge of God. The thought of Jesus is, therefore: This personal testimony of God (Joh 5:37 a) has not reached you, first because no divine revelation or appearance has been personally given to you, as to the prophets and men of God in the Old Testament (Joh 5:37 b); and then because the word to which those men of God consigned their immediate communications with God, has not become living and abiding in you (Joh 5:38). Consequently the personal testimony of God, that which Jesus here means, does not exist for them. God has never spoken to them directly, and the only book, in which they could have heard His testimony, has remained for them, through their own fault, a closed book. We can well understand why in Joh 5:37 Jesus employs the term , the personal voice, the symbol of immediate revelation, while in Joh 5:38 He makes use of the word , word, the term in use to denote the revelation handed down to the people. The direct connection of Joh 5:37 with Joh 5:38 by , and, presents no more difficulty from this point of view.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 37
Ye have neither heard his voice, &c.; that is, You have not been willing to listen to him, or to see, nor (John 5:38) to obey his word.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Another witness to Jesus’ identity was the Father’s witness apart from Jesus’ works. The form that this witness took as Jesus thought of it is not clear. Perhaps He meant the witness that the Father had given at His baptism. However, John did not narrate that event in this Gospel, though he recorded John the Baptist’s witness of it (cf. Joh 1:32-34). Probably Jesus meant the Father’s total witness to Jesus including Old Testament prophecies, prophetic events and institutions, including His witness at Jesus’ baptism. He probably meant all of God’s anticipatory revelation about Jesus (cf. Heb 1:1). [Note: Lightfoot, pp. 146-47.] Jesus probably did not mean the Father’s witness through the Old Testament exclusively since He mentioned that later (Joh 5:39). Another improbable meaning is the internal witness of the Spirit (Joh 6:45; 1Jn 5:9-12). That idea seems too far removed from the present context.
In spite of the Father’s witness Jesus’ hearers had not heard it because of their unbelief. Unlike Moses and Jacob they had neither heard God’s voice nor seen Him (Exo 33:11; Gen 32:30-31) even though Jesus’ words were the Father’s words and those who saw Jesus had virtually seen God (Joh 3:34; Joh 14:9-10; Joh 17:8). Furthermore God’s word did not abide in them, as it had in Joshua and the psalmist (cf. Jos 1:8-9; Psa 119:11). Jesus was the living Word of God, and these Jews had little time for Him. The Jewish authorities had not grasped the significance of God’s previous testimony concerning the Son, which Jesus summarized here as threefold evidence. Jesus may have been implying that His critics were not true Israelites. They had not done what their forefather had done even though Jesus was a clearer revelation of God than the patriarchs had.