John 5:37

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 a new testimony of the Father: otherwise, why should He substitute for the present beareth witness (John 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 αὐτός, Himself, emphasized as it is, strongly sets forth the personal character of this new testimony: God has spoken Himself. This is the reason why the reading αὐτός seems to me preferable to the ἐκεῖνος, he, of the Alexandrian authorities. What is this personal testimony? De Wette and Tholuck, 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 οὐ... πώποτε, 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 John 5:37 to the testimony of God in the Old Testament, the book in which He manifests Himself and Himself speaks. John 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 (John 5:37); but you should at least have received the testimony which God gives in the Scriptures” (John 5:38).

If this were the thought, however, an adversative particle could not be wanting at the beginning of John 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 (John 1:18). Jesus uses the former in John 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 (John 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 (John 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 (John 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 John 5:37 Jesus employs the term φωνή, the personal voice, the symbol of immediate revelation, while in John 5:38 He makes use of the word λόγος, word, the term in use to denote the revelation handed down to the people. The direct connection of John 5:37 with John 5:38 by καί, and, presents no more difficulty from this point of view.