John 5:45

Joh_5:45-47

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

The day of judgment is likened to a trial, and we learn that with every verdict there will be given reasons which shall satisfy the intelligent creation. When we read of books and witnesses, we may be sure there will be evidence we shall not be able to contradict.

1. Conscience will probably be the great accuser. This may now be torpid; but circumstances constantly occur to show that it is not dead.

2. Conscience now awakens with memory, and so it will be then; and so memory will reproduce every action, and conscience will determine its character. Addressing Himself to Jews, our Lord, notwithstanding the testimony of His miracles, avers that He will not accuse them for their infidelity. There were such clear attestations in the writings of Moses to Himself, that it would be sufficient only to produce them. And what a forgetfulness of the element of their religion, and what a stifling of conscience must there have been ere they could profess to trust in a lawgiver whose laws they set at nought!

I. Our Lord makes it A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE ON MENS BELIEVING MOSES, THAT THEY SHOULD BELIEVE IN HIM.

1. The law and the gospel, therefore, must be parts of the same system.

(1) If you consider the law as a system of types, and compare it with the gospel as the antitype, it seems impossible to avoid being struck by the correspondence.

(2) The gospel furnishes us with the character in which the law is written, and thus enables us to decipher its hieroglyphics.

2. How can we account for this? Not by chance; for there is not here and there an accidental resemblance. But when it is the business of a lifetime to find out all the reciprocities, and the impossibility of a lifetime to detect one disagreement, we are compelled to believe that, whoever constructed the gospel, formed it for the purpose of adapting it to the law.

3. Let us see how the argument stands.

(1) The founders of Christianity must, if impostors, have laboured to give plausibility to their system by assimilating it to the law; but in order to success, they must have had unbounded familiarity with the Mosaic institution and unbounded ingenuity in giving substance to shadows.

(2) Had the apostles been learned rabbis, they would not have been equal to this; but they were unlearned peasants.

(3) The only theory on which we can account for this mutual adaptation, is that both come from God.

4. Consequently, to reject one is to reject both. The Jews, indeed, had no such acquaintance with the gospel as we have; but they had abundant opportunity of noting the correspondence of Christ with the Messianic prophecies. They rejected the former, and hence the latter also.

5. To follow the same line of thought further. The Bible, though composed in different ages and by different writers, is an uniform book, presenting throughout the same truths, though with a great variety of exhibition and marked by a surprising similarity of style. This is convincing alike of the unity and Divinity of its authorship, and to believe one part of it is to believe the whole.

II. THE FORCE OF THE REASONING THAT IF MOSES WERE NOT BELIEVED NEITHER WOULD CHRIST BE.

1. We are wont to think that were Christ to speak and work now as He did eighteen hundred years ago, that His ministry would result in widespread conviction of unbelievers and conversion of sinners. But if the fact that the Jews resisted the writings of Moses proved that there was no hope of them being overcome by the words of Christ, we might infer that those who reject the preaching of Christs ministers would reject Christ Himself. The amount of necessary resistance would not be greater in the one case than the other, except that the Jews had an incomplete, but Christians have a perfect Bible. But would not Divine eloquence and miracles be more powerful than the written Word? No.

(1) Because the Holy Spirit is the Agent of conversion in either case.

(2) Because there being no respect of persons with God, one generation is dealt with by the same laws as another; and we have no right to believe that in handling a miracle the Spirit would apply a greater effort than in handling the Word.

(3) In resisting the writings of Moses the Jews had resisted the Holy Spirit speaking in those writings, and henceforward, in resisting the word of Christ, they were to resist the Spirit speaking in those words. And so now the Spirit turns upon us sufficient evidence to convince, but not to compel.

(4) To think that we should be converted by miracle who are unconverted by Scripture is to apologize for infidelity by throwing the blame upon God. It holds good to-day, If we will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither shall we be persuaded though one rose from the dead. (H. Melvill, B. D.)

Christs testimony to the Bible

There is much controversy about the Book. It will be interesting, amid the din and tumult, to find out what Christ thought of it. If He makes it out to be a good Book, I shall continue my faith in it. If He is hesitant or doubtful, I shall not hesitate to give it up.

I. IN REGARD TO OTHERS.

1. He commended it as an object of study.

(1) Without one word of caution. He points to it as you would point your child to a garden, where you give him liberty to roam where and eat what it may. If there was a pit there, or a poisonous serpent, and your child came to harm, you would be to blame. So Christ sends us to the Bible, and takes the entire responsibility.

(2) Authoritatively; not with a polite wish, but with a command. We want to do away with the imperative mood, and are inviting people to be courteous enough to let the sunlight into their chambers. If you have any doubt about your Bible, then go like a crouching dog and ask people to kindly listen to your tale. But if it be in your heart as the life of your life, then speak it boldly and lovingly.

(3) Completely. He does not say, When you come upon anything that taxes your fancy, put that into the waste-paper basket, and go on; when you meet with a difficulty, pass it by, and accept what you can accept; when something appears incredible, reject it, and pass on to what you can accept. Had there been anything wrong there I know, because I know His truth and nobleness, that He would have told me of it.

2. He declared its absolute integrity, and exactly as a truth-speaking man would do. Persons came to Him with a difficulty, and in His answer there is this parenthesis: The Scriptures cannot be broken. This was not special pleading. The subject had no reference to Scripture. The remark is casual and unstudied, and one on which those who examine witnesses place great reliance. He had the opportunity of making annotations, of saying, I now refer to the moral parts, or I am speaking eclectically; but His whole assumption, on the contrary, broadens out into an infinite confidence in the integrity of the Scriptures.

3. He taught that it contains the great answers to all the great questions of the soul

(1) As regards duty. A man came to Him, asking, What shall I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus instantly replied, What is written in the law? and showed that that great question had been answered from the beginning.

(2) As regards destiny. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus He showed that the men of olden time did not go down to hell without warning. If they hear not Moses, etc.

II. IN REGARD TO HIMSELF. He was not a mere lecturer about the Bible.

1. He fled Himself to it in the time of His temptation and agony. It is written. In His great crisis He goes to the Bible; He has it in His heart; He quotes it as if He had written it.

2. Coming out of the wilderness into society, we find Him even quoting it in self-vindication. Again and again He said to learned men, Have ye never read? To His own disciples, How is it that ye do not understand? And when He began to read, their hearts began to burn. They had been reading the Scriptures, and yet had made nothing of them, like many today. Read it with Christ, and you will find His person, claims, promises, vindicated everywhere.

3. Christ found Himself in the whole Bible. Had ye believed Moses, etc. Beginning at Moses, etc. And what is the Old Testament testimony to Him? That He is Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, Sovereign, Friend; the same to-day, yesterday, and for ever. Then search the Scriptures; read them through.

1. This alone will qualify you for criticizing it.

2. This alone will give you solid comfort and eternal life. (J. Parker, D. D.)

The unity of the Bible an argument for its Divinity

In reading the Bible I seem always to hear the same voice: whether the volume is informing me how the unshapen chaos resolved itself at the Creators bidding into symmetry and life--or men, who, familiar with the scenes, are gathering centuries into sentences; or the lawgiver is arranging the ceremonies of the mystic volume; or historians are discoursing of battles and captivities; or evangelists describing the institutions, and apostles unfolding the doctrines of Christianity--I seem always to hear the same voice, as though the words of John, the exile in Patmos, were the echo of those of Moses, the leader of Israel. There is vast difference in the subjects successively, touched on; but, notwithstanding, there is a tone which I always recognize, and which always impresses the feeling that I am hearkening to the same speaker. There seems no change in the instrument, though continual change in the sound; as if at one time the whirlwind swept the chords, that I may be astonished with the utterance of wrath and devastation, and at another they were touched by an angels hand, that I might be soothed by the melody of mercy. There is the same scheme carried on by the wanderings of patriarchs, the sacrifices of priests, the ambition of kings, and the sufferings of martyrs. The same style is preserved by the poet in his hymns, by the prophet in his visions, the lawgiver in his codes, the historian in his annals; so that, as though the Author never died, but appeared at one time in one character, and another in another, the Bible comes to me as the dictate of one mind, and the writing of one pen. Inspiration only accounts for this; but we cannot imagine any other solution. And if (for it is on this our text bids us fasten) there be such a sameness between the Jewish and Christian dispensations, that all the types in the one find exact antitypes in the other, and thus the two have such a relationship, that they compose one uniform system, we must receive both or reject both. If we believe Moses we must believe Christ, and if we believe Christ we must believe Moses; and this serves to vindicate what might otherwise seem difficult, that no Jew can truly believe his own religion and yet deny the Christian religion. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me. (H. Melvill, B. D.)

The impossibility of inventing the correspondence between Moses testimony and Christs work

We should like to see a company of acute and scientific reasoners, but ignorant of Christianity, sit down to the study of the books of Leviticus and Exodus; they shall be told, These books are full of types, and emblems, and figures, and ceremonies, and you must strive to devise a simple religious system, which shall give significance to every item of this symbolic array; there are mysterious intimations, we will tell them, in every page, couched in parabolic language, or under sacrificial institutions, and your endeavour must be to invent a scheme of theology which shall afford a plausible and rational explanation of all that is thus obscure. Now do you honestly think that our company of ingenious and intelligent writers would make much way with their task? Can you believe that, as the result of their joint labours, there would be sent into the world any scheme of religion which should fix the plain meaning, or at least afford a clue, to all the mysteries of the books of Exodus and Leviticus? Yet this is precisely what is done by the system of Christianity; done with so unvarying a carefulness, that you cannot find a point to which there is nothing corresponding. The men, moreover, who effected this were ignorant and illiterate; so that the books were compiled when there was none of those human appliances which at best would but ensure the most limited success. What alternative, then, have we but that of admitting a supernatural interference, and ascribing to God the whole system of Christianity? (H. Melvill, B. D.)

Christ in the Old Testament and in the New

Christ was in the faith of the patriarchs like corn in the ear; in the faith of the law like corn grown into flower; but since the Incarnation He is in our faith completely as when corn is made into bread. (Bernard.)

.

THE HISTORICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN CHAPTERS 5. AND 6.--Our Lord is in Galilee. It has been, perhaps, a year since the healing at Bethesda. His ministry in Galilee has gone forward, as described by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, including many miracles, the Sermon on the Mount, the early parables, and the mission of the twelve. Returning from this mission, on which they went two and two throughout Galilee, teaching and healing, the twelve were weary and worn, as Jesus Himself had been when He reclined beside Jacobs well. So He compassionately said to them (Mar_6:31), Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest awhile. That project led to his feeding the five thousand. This is the first narrative in which John has been parallel to all three of the other Gospels (Mat_14:13-33; Mar_6:31-52; Luk_9:10-17), and it will not be so again until the triumphal entry. Johns chief object is to present the Saviours discourses, and he probably gives this one Galilean event in common with the other Gospels only by way of introducing the great discourse on the Bread of life. (J. A. Broadus, D. D.)

The moral connection between Chapters 5 and 6.

The record of a critical scene in Christs work in Galilee follows the record of the critical scene at Jerusalem. At Jerusalem Christ revealed Himself as the Giver of life; here He reveals Himself as the Support and Guide of life. In the former case the central teaching was upon the relation of the Son to the Father; in this case it is in the relation of Christ to the believer. The episode contains the whole essence of the Galilean ministry. It places in decisive contrast the true and false conceptions of the Messianic kingship, the one universal and spiritual, the other local and material. (Bp. Westcott.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 5:45. Do not think that I only will accuse you to the Father — Our Lord proceeds to caution them against supposing, “that in rejecting him they sinned against no person but him, and that he alone would accuse them to the Father for their infidelity; for that Moses, in whose laws they trusted to have salvation, was likewise dishonoured by it, inasmuch as he wrote of him, namely, under the names of the Seed of Abraham; Shiloh; and a Prophet like to himself whom God would raise up unto them from among their brethren, and whom he commanded them to hear. Wherefore, seeing they refused to believe in him, Moses would accuse them as guilty of disbelieving his writings.” “This,” says Dr. Doddridge, “is one of the most expressive passages that can be imagined, in which Moses, their great lawgiver, is represented as looking down with indignation upon these elders, who gloried in being the most distinguished of his disciples; and seeing how injuriously they treated Jesus, the great Prophet, turning himself to God with a severe accusation against them, and urging his own predictions as an aggravation of their inexcusable infidelity.” For had ye believed Moses — Had ye believed his writings, which are daily read in your synagogues; you would have believed me — For these writings describe me not by types and figures only, but by particular and direct prophecies. See the margin. But if ye believe not his writings — Which it is plain from your conduct that you do not, though they are daily in your hands, and you strenuously assert their divine authority; how shall ye believe my words — I have no reason to be surprised that you do not credit me upon my own testimony. Thus Jesus asserted his own personal dignity, as the Son of God and Judge of the world, at the same time that he proposed the evidences of his mission from God with such strength of reason, perspicuity, and brevity, as are unequalled.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who is their accuser?—not Christ, but their own Moses, Joh_5:45-47.

Though in all these misdoings he is their Admonisher, (in order to be their Saviour, as he must be their final Judge,) he is not their Accuser. Their true accuser is their own Moses. Christ is the gospel, and Moses is the law, and the law condemns. Their own Old Testament is the indictment. Through its representative, Moses, it charges them with rejecting the true Messiah. And as in rejecting the Messiah they reject the propitiation for sin, so they stand exposed to the indictment from Moses as wholly guilty before the Father.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:45-46 Jesus’ fifth and final witness was Moses, the founding father of Judaism. John had already compared Jesus with Moses (1:17; see also 6:14-15). The Jewish leaders were ignoring Moses’ clear words about the Messiah (e.g., Deut 18:15).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 5:45. Μὴ δοκεῖτε, do not think) A new argument against the unbelief of the Jews, and one most suitable to establish His conclusion.—ἐγώ, I) in particular and only, just as if Moses were on your side. I am a reconciler [not one come to condemn].—ὑμῶν, you) who do not believe in Me.—Μωσῆς, Moses) i.e. the writings of Moses. Luk 16:29, [Abraham to the rich man] “They have Moses and the prophets” [i.e. their writings]; 2Co 3:15, “When Moses is read.”—εἰς ὃν ὑμεῖς ἠλπίκατε, in whom ye have placed your trust) Joh 5:39.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_5:45-47. In concluding, Jesus sweeps away from under their feet the entire ground and foundation upon which they based their hope, by representing Moses, their supposed saviour, as really their accuser, seeing that their unbelief implied unbelief in Moses, and this latter unbelief made it impossible for them to believe in Jesus. This last completely annihilating stroke at the unbelievers is not only in itself, but also in its implied reference to the cause of the hostility of the Jews (Joh_5:15), maxime aptus ad conclusionem, Bengel.

μὴ δοκεῖτε] as you might perhaps believe from my previous denunciation.

κατηγορήσω] not of the final judgment (Ewald and early writers), where certainly Christ is Judge; but in general, Jesus, by virtue of His permanent intercourse with the Father, might at any time have accused them before Him.

ἔστιν ὁ κατηγ. ὑμ.] The emphatic ἔστιν: there exists your accuser Moseshe as the representative of the law (not of the whole of the O. T., as Ewald thinks); therefore not again the future, but the present participle used as a substantive, expressing continuous accusation.

ὑμεῖς] has tragic emphasis.

ἠλπίκατε] ye have set your hope, and do hope; comp. Joh_3:18, and see on 2Co_1:10. As a reward for their zeal for the law, and their obedience (Rom_2:17 ff; Rom_9:31 f.), the Jews hoped for the salvation of the Messianic kingdom, towards the attainment of which Moses was accordingly their patron and mediator.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 5:45 . μὴ δοκεῖτε … These words bear in them the mark of truth. They spring from Jesus’ own consciousness of His intimacy with the Father. To suppose that the Jews feared He would accuse them, is to suppose that they believed Him to have influence with God. Chiefly in view is the fact that Moses will accuse them. They thought they were defending Moses’ law in accusing Christ for Sabbath-breaking: but, on the contrary, they were themselves open to the accusation of Moses; εἰς ὅν ὑμεῖς ἠλπίκατε , in Vulgate “Moyses in quo vos speratis”.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 45-47. “Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, Moses, on whom ye have set your hope. 46. For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words.”

After having unveiled to them the moral cause of their unbelief, Jesus shows to His hearers the danger to which it exposes them,—that of being condemned in the name of that very law, on the observance of which they have founded their hopes of salvation. It is not He, the Messiah rejected by them, it is Moses himself, in whose name they condemn Him, who will demand their condemnation. Jesus pursues them here on their own ground. His word assumes an aggressive and dramatic form.

He causes to rise before them that grand figure of the ancient deliverer, to whom their hopes were attached (εἰς ὅν), and transforms this alleged advocate into an accuser. The words: that I will accuse you, show that, already at that time, a sentiment of hostility to His own people was imputed to Jesus. It was His severe discourses which gave rise to this accusation. ῎Εστι, is very solemn: “He is there, he who...” The words: on whom you hope, allude to the zeal for the law, which the adversaries of Jesus had manifested on this very day; this zeal was their title, in their eyes an assured title, to the Messianic glory. “It will be found that this Moses, whom you invoke against me will testify for me against you.” What an overturning of all their ideas! Meyerand Weiss claim that the words: who will accuse you cannot refer to the last judgment, since Jesus will then fill the office, not of accuser, but of judge. But Jesus does not enter into this question, which would have had no meaning with people who did not recognize Him as the Messiah. To the Father: who will judge by means of Christ.

The two verses, Joh 5:46-47, prove the thesis of Joh 5:45, by showing, the first, the connection between faith in Moses and faith in Christ; the second, the no less necessary connection between the two unbeliefs in the one and in the other. In other words: Every true disciple of Moses is on the way to becoming a Christian; every bad Jew is on that towards rejecting the Gospel. These two propositions are founded on the principle that the two covenants are the development of one and the same fundamental thought and have the same moral substance. To accept or reject the revelation of salvation at its first stage, is implicitly to accept or reject it in its complete form. This is exactly the thesis which St. Paul develops in Rom 2:6-10; Rom 2:26-29.

The words: wrote of me, allude to the Proto-gospel, to the patriarchal promises, to the types such as that of the brazen serpent, to the Levitical ceremonies which were the shadow of things to come (Col 2:17), more especially to the promise Deu 18:18 : “I will raise up unto them a prophet like unto thee;”—this last promise, while including the sending of all the prophets who followed Moses, finds its consummation in Jesus Christ.— Ye would believe on me: in me as the one whom Moses thus announced. In truth, many of the prophecies had not yet found in Jesus their fulfillment. But we must think especially of the spirit of holiness in the law of Moses and the theocratic institutions, which found in Jesus its full realization. Moses tended to awaken the sense of sin and the thirst for righteousness, which Jesus came to satisfy. “To give access to this spirit, was to open one’s heart in advance to the great life-giver” (Gess).

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

XXXI.

Vv. 45-47.

1. Meyer and Weiss hold that the last judgment is not referred to in these verses, because Christ is represented as the judge on that day, and therefore cannot be spoken of as an accuser in connection with it. Keil affirms the opposite, saying that, as the Jews did not acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah or the judge, this consideration can have no weight in the decision of the question. The true view of this matter is, not improbably, to be found as we observe the peculiarity of the thought of this chapter and of other parts of this Gospel which are kindred to it. This writer does not leave out of view the final judgment, but his mind moves in the sphere of the present and permanent inward life, and the end is only the consummation. In a certain sense, therefore, judgment is present, though it is also in a certain sense future. The mind of the hearer or reader is left to pass from the one to the other, and thus to include both.

2. Moses is here spoken of as the foundation of the Jewish legal system and thus as, in a sense, the foundation or centre of the Old Testament. It may be that, according to this view of the matter, he and his writings are referred to as if including the whole idea of the Old Testament Scriptures; see Joh 5:39. If the reference is to the Pentateuch only, the allusion is doubtless to Deu 18:15, and the other points which Godet mentions in his note.

That this first formal discourse of Jesus, which is recorded in this Gospel, is intended by the evangelist to serve as testimony to his readers cannot be questioned. That it is, in this respect, an advance upon what has preceded, is also clear. The relation of Jesus to the Father is here set forth— not indeed as fully as it is in later chapters, but in a part of the unfolding of its true idea, and as it is not in the conversation with Nicodemus. The occasion on which this discourse was given, it must be remembered, was a year, or nearly a year later than that conversation, and much must have been done and said by Jesus in the interval. That Jesus in the opening of the second year of His ministry should have advanced in His teaching as far as this discourse might indicate, cannot justly be regarded as improbable. It was, moreover, with the leading Jews that He carried on this discussion, not with the common people. If the deeper truths respecting His person and His relations to the Father were to be set forth in His earthly ministry at all—and how strange it would have been, if no such declaration had been made,—it would seem that, at this time, the beginnings of the full teachings might appear. The discourse of this chapter stands no less truly in its legitimate and natural historical position, as related to the teachings of the chapters which precede and follow, than it does in its proper place in the progress of the testimony, which the author brings before his readers in proof of the great doctrine of his book.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This denial doth not put away that which is here said, but correcteth it, as if Christ said, the Jews shall have no sorer an accuser than Moses.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Do not think I will accuse you to the Father--"My errand hither is not to collect evidence to condemn you at God's bar."

one that accuseth you, even Moses, &c.--"Alas! that will be too well done by another, and him the object of all your religious boastings--Moses," here put for "the Law," the basis of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 45. Do not think that I will accuse you] You have accused me with a breach of the Sabbath, which accusation I have demonstrated to be false: I could, in return, accuse you, and substantiate the accusation, with the breach of the whole law; but this I need not do, for Moses, in whom ye trust, accuses you. You read his law, acknowledge you should obey it, and yet break it both in the letter and in the spirit. This law, therefore, accuses and condemns you. It was a maxim among the Jews that none could accuse them but Moses: the spirit of which seems to be, that only so pure and enlightened a legislator could find fault with such a noble and excellent people! For, notwithstanding their abominations, they supposed themselves the most excellent of mankind!

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

45. Think not that I shall accuse you to the Father. This is the way in which we ought to deal with obstinate and hardened persons, when they learn nothing by instruction and friendly warnings. They must be summoned to the judgment-seat of God. There are few persons, indeed, who openly mock God, but there are very many who, believing that God, whom they oppose as enemies, is gracious to them, amuse themselves at their ease with empty flatteries. Thus, in the present day, our Giants, though they wickedly trample under foot the whole doctrine of Christ, haughtily plume themselves on being the intimate friends of God. For who will persuade the Papists that Christianity exists anywhere else than among them? Such were the scribes, with whom Christ is here disputing. Though they were the greatest despisers of the Law, yet they boasted of Moses in lofty terms, so that they did not hesitate to make use of him as a shield in opposing Christ. If he had threatened that he would be a powerful and formidable adversary to them, he knew that this would have been treated with the utmost contempt; and, therefore, he threatens that an accusation, drawn up by Moses, will be preferred against them.

Moses, in whom you trust. There are some who think, that Christ here points out the distinction between his own office and that of Moses, because it belongs to the Law to convict men of being unbelievers. But this is a mistake; for Christ did not intend that, but only intended to shake off the confidence of hypocrites, who falsely boasted of entertaining reverence for Moses; just as if a person in the present day, in order to foil the Papists with their own weapon, were to say, that they will find no enemies more decidedly opposed to them than the holy doctors of the Church, under whose authority they falsely and wickedly take shelter. Let us also learn from it, that we ought not to glory in the Scriptures without a good reason; for if we do not honor the Son of God by the true obedience of faith, all whom God hath raised up to be his witnesses will rise up against us as accusers at the last day. When he says, that they trust in Moses, he does not accuse them of superstition, as if they ascribed to Moses the cause of their salvation; but his meaning is, that they do wrong in relying on the protection of Moses, as if they had him to defend their wicked obstinacy.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(45) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father.—His words were words of direct accusation, which must have cut to the very quick. He had come from the Father, and it might have seemed to follow from what He said, that He would accuse them to the Father. He guards against this misinterpretation. Love cannot accuse; He cannot be an accuser. He is ever a judge, only because love must judge hatred, and light must judge darkness, by revealing it. (Comp. Note on Joh_3:19.) And yet the very revelation of love and light condemns hatred and darkness. The heart, then, needs no accuser, for it accuses itself; it needs no sentence, for it condemns itself. There is no penalty so fearful as that of the soul which is awakened to its own sin, and cannot itself forgive that sin, and, therefore, cannot receive the forgiveness of the Infinite Love, which always forgives. Their accusation was their rejection of light and love in the past, and Moses was their accuser. This is the thought of the following verses.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

45. Do not think] As you might be disposed to do after hearing these reproaches.

that I will accuse you] If this refers to the day of judgment (and the future tense seems to point to that), there are two reasons why Christ will not act as accuser (1) because it would be needless; there is another accuser ready; (2) because He will be acting as Judge.

there is one] Your accuser exists already; he is there with his charge. Note the change from future to present: Christ will not be, because Moses is, their accuser.

in whom ye trust] Literally, on whom ye have set your hope.

45–47. Do not appeal to Moses; his writings condemn you.

Thus the whole basis of their confidence is cut away. Moses on whom they trust as a defender is their accuser.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For had ye believed Moses,.... The doctrine of Moses, and what he says in his writings:

ye would have believed me; for there is an agreement between Moses and Christ; Christ is the end of the law of Moses, and in him is the accomplishment of his writings:

for he wrote of me; in the books written by him, Christ is spoken of, as the seed of the woman, that should bruise the serpent's head; as the seed of Abraham, in whom all nations of the earth should be blessed; as the Shiloh, to whom the gathering of the people should be; and as that prophet, who should be like unto himself, to whom the people of Israel should hearken; and he wrote many things typically of Christ; and indeed, the whole Mosaic economy was typical of Christ, as the epistle to the Hebrews shows: and therefore disbelieving Christ, was disbelieving Moses; who therefore would be an accuser of them, and a witness against them.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

Ver. 45. Do not think that I] That is, that I only.

Even Moses] So your faithful ministers (whom men pretend to love and reverence, but obey not their doctrine), these shall judge you.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Do not think that I will accuse you - Do not suppose that I intend to follow your example. They had accused Jesus of breaking the law of God, Joh 5:16. He says that he will not imitate their example, though he implies that he might accuse them.

To the Father - To God.

There is one that accuseth you - Moses might be said to accuse or reprove them. He wrote of the Messiah, clearly foretold his coming, and commanded them to hear him. As they did not do it, it might be said that they had disregarded his command; and as Moses was divinely commissioned and had a right to be obeyed, so his command reproved them: they were disobedient and rebellious.

He wrote of me - He wrote of the Messiah, and I am the Messiah, Gen 3:15; Gen 12:3; compare Joh 8:56; Gen 49:10; Deu 18:15.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

There will be no need of my accusing you, you will need no other accuser than that Moses for whom you have so great a reverence, and for whose sake you contemn me. Joh 9:28,29, they said, We are Moses’s disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. This Moses (saith our Saviour) will accuse you unto the Father.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Think not, he added, with one concluding and sweeping exposition of their relation to the old covenant and to himselfThink not, as ye might be disposed to do, that I will accuse you to (before; see Syriac kdom) the Father (not referring to the judgment day, where he will appear as Judge, but now), as One in intimate and awful relation with the Father, or as One whose words have set up a standard which is much loftier or severer than that which you are prepared to allow. He has charged them already with having missed the deepest teaching of their own Scriptures, with fastening on the letter rather than on the spirit of the Divine Word; that, though the prima article of t heir creed was the doctrine of "the only God," they had no love of God, no appreciation of God as the only Source of worthy glory, and therefore neither faith nor knowledge. They were snapping up worthless pretenders, and drinking the flattery of men rather than the approval of God. They were blind to the glory and deaf to the voice of the Father, and so would not come to him for life. These sad facts need not be, will not be, pressed against them, seeing that there is a primary accusation already laid. He that (or, there is one that) accuseth you, Moses, on whom ye have set your hope; (cf. 2Co_1:10) Moses himself, in that very Law which you are now making the ground of the rejection of my claims Moses is your accuser; Moses appears against you. "This," says Lange, "is the last and mightiest stroke." "Elenchus maxime aptus ad conclusionem" (Bengel); i.e. "The spirit of Moses is my vindication, the teaching of Moses is typical of mine, the institutions of Moses were symbolic of my coming and work. The predictions of Moses pointed out my coming. The mighty words of Moses will not save you, unless you penetrate to their inner meaning."

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

There is one that accuseth you - By his writings.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Think not that I will accuse you; that is, that I only will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses; that is, the writings of Moses, which you pretend to depend upon, and to trust to; for had you believed his writings, that is, the prophecies and types contained in his writings, you would have been led by them to believe in me; for they all pointed at me, and recieved their accomplishment in me; but if Moses cannot be heard by you, I must expect no authority with you.

Learn, 1. That the whole scope of Moses’s ceremonial law, was to point out and prefigure Jesus Christ; Christ was the sum of the law, as well as the substance of the gospel; he was Abraham’s promised seed, Moses’s great Prophet, Jacob’s Shilo, Esay’s Emanuel, Daniel’s Holy One, Zachary’s Branch, and Malachi’s Angel.

2. That such as believed the ancient prophesies before Christ came, did see their accomplishment in him, when he was come.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

45–47. There is one that accuseth you. Moses, whose testimony they failed to accept. If they rejected the testimony of Moses, whom they professed to reverence, how could they believe him of whom Moses spoke?

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

The one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have put your hope

"Moses" here is a metonym here that stands for the law itself. AT: "Moses accuses you in the Law, the very Law in which you have put your hopes" (See: Metonymy)

your hope

"your confidence" or "your trust"

If you do not believe his writings, how are you going to believe my words?

This remark appears in the form of a question to provide emphasis. AT: "You do not believe his writings, so you will never believe my words!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

my words

"what I say"

translationWords

accuse

Moses

hope

believe

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

45–47. Do not appeal to Moses: his writings condemn you.

Thus the whole basis of their confidence is out away. Moses on whom they trust as a defender is their accuser.

45. μὴ δοκεῖτε. ‘Think not, because I reproach you now, that it is I who will accuse you.’ If this refers to the day of judgment (and the future tense seems to point to that), there are two reasons why Christ will not act as accuser (1) because it would be needless; there is another accuser ready; (2) because He will be acting as Judge.

ἔστιν ὁ κατ. Your accuser exists already; he is there with his charge. Note the change from future to present: Christ will not be, because Moses is, their accuser.

Μωυσῆς. See on Joh 1:17. Moses represents the Law. It was zeal for the Mosaic Law which stirred the Jews on this occasion.

ἠλπίκατε. On whom ye have set your hope; present result of past action. Ἤλπικα is spero not speravi: see on Joh 5:42 and comp. 1Ti 5:5. The Jews eagerly claimed him as their own (Joh 9:28-29).

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

45.] The work of Christ is not κατηγορεῖν, even as He is Judge;—but κρίνειν, by the appointment of the Father. And therefore—though He has said so much of the unbelief of the Jews, and charged them in the last verse with breach of the central law of God—He will not accuse them; nay, it is not needful;—for Moses, whom they disbelieved, while vainly hoping in him (see above on ver. 39),—ἐπαναπαυόμενοι νόμῳ, Rom 2:17,—already accused them: see Deu 31:21, Deu 31:26, and ch. 7:19.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

45. For μὴ δοκεῖτε, δοκῖτε always having reference in Jn. to a mistaken opinion, see on v. 39 above.

μὴ δοκεῖτε ὅτι ἐγὼ κατηγορήσω ὑμῶν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. It would appear that some of His hearers were beginning to be uneasy. He might be what He claimed to be, and if that happened to be so, would not His accusation of them to God be hard to rebut? So, in answer to these thoughts, expressed or unexpressed, He bids them be sure that His office at the Great Assize will not be that of Prosecutor. It has been said earlier in the chapter (v. 27) that He will be the Judge; but upon that no stress is laid here (cf. 12:47, 48; and see on 3:17).

Their prosecutor, or accuser, will be the person whom they expected to be their advocate, sc. Moses. Their national claim was that they were disciples of Moses (9:28; cf. 7:19), and Moses had given them the law of the Sabbath, the breach of which by Jesus had initiated this controversy (v. 16). Surely, Moses would defend their cause. But, on the contrary, they are told: ἔστιν ὁ κατηγορῶν ὑμῶν, Μωϋσῆς, εἰς ὃν ὑμεῖς ἠλπίκατε (cf. Deu 31:21).

This verse has all the marks of historicity. No one would think of inventing a denial by Jesus of the suggestion that He was to be the Accuser of the Jews at the Last Judgment. But it is quite natural in the context in which it appears.

εἰς ὃν ὑμεῖς ἠλπίκατε, “on whom you have set your hope,” i.e. in whom you hope, in quo uos speratis, as the Vulgate correctly renders. ἐλπίζειν does not occur again in Jn., but the use here of the perfect tense to indicate that the hope continues in the present and is not merely an emotion of the past, has parallels at 1Co 15:19, 2Co 1:10, 1Ti 4:10, 1Ti 5:5, 1Ti 6:17. The aor. ἤλπισα occurs only twice in the N.T., sc. 2Co 8:5, 1Pe 1:13, which is remarkable, as in the LXX the perfect ἤλπικα is never used, but always the aorist (e.g. Psa 7:1, Psa 16:1 etc.). Again, the constr. ἐλπίζειν εἴς σινα is rare in the LXX (cf. Psa 119:114, Psa 145:15, Isa 51:5), where the prep. ἐπί is nearly always used. In the N.T., too, we generally have ἐπί, but εἰς in Act 26:7, 2Co 1:10, 1Pe 3:5. Thus the only exact parallel in the Greek Bible to the phrase in this verse is εἰς ὅν ἠλπίκαμεν of 2Co 1:10, a sound Greek construction.1

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I will accuse [κατηγορησω] . From kata, against, and ajgoreuw, to speak in the assembly [αγορα] . Hence, properly, to bring an accusation in court. John uses no other verb for accuse, and this only here, Joh 8:6, and Rev 12:10. Once in the New Testament diaballw occurs (Luk 16:1, on which see note), signifying malicious accusation, and secret, as distinguished from public, accusation [κατηγορια] . Aijtiaomai occurs once in the compound prohtiasameqa, we before laid to the charge (Rom 3:9). This has reference especially to the ground of accusation [αιτια] . Egkalew occurs only in Acts, with the exception of Rom 8:33. It means to accuse publicly, but not necessarily before a tribunal. See Act 23:28, 29; Act 26:2, 7.

In whom ye trust [εις ον υμεις ηλπικατε] . A strong expression. Literally, into whom ye have hoped. Rev., admirably, on whom ye have set your hope.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.