After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. The first verse of this chapter raises the most difficult, perhaps, and most controverted, of all questions touching the Harmony of the Gospels and the Duration of our Lord's ministry.
After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Three Passovers are distinctly mentioned in this Gospel as occurring during our Lord's public ministry: the first in John 2:13, when Jesus paid His first official visit to Jerusalem; another, quite incidentally mentioned in John 6:4; and the last, when Jesus went up to become "our Passover, sacrificed for us" (John 12:2; John 12:12; John 13:1-2). If no other Passover occurred than these three, during Christ's public life, then it could not have lasted more than two years and a half: whereas, if the feast mentioned in the first verse of this chapter was a Passover-making four in all-then the duration of our Lord's public ministry was toward three years and a half. That this feast was a Passover, was certainly the most ancient opinion, and it is the opinion of the great majority of critics, (being that of Irenoeus, as early as the second century, Eusebius and Theodoret, among the fathers; and of Luther, Beza, Maldonat, Grotius, Lightfoot, La Clerc, Lampe, Hengstenberg, Greswell, Robinson, Tholuck in his 6th Edition, and apparently in his 7th and last, Middleton, Trench, Webster, and Wilkinson, etc.) Those who object to this view all differ among themselves as to what other feast it was, and some of the most acute have given up the hope of determining which it was. (So Lucke, at length, DeWette, and Alford.) That it was a Pentecost (as Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom and Theophylact, among the fathers; and Erasmus, Calvin, and Bengel have since thought) is inadmissible, as this Feast-which occurred 50 days after the Passover, or toward the end of May-will appear too late, if we consider that our Lord returned to Galilee in the month of December or January (John 4:35).
The Feast of Tabernacles (as Cocceius and Ebrard) is, for the same reason, still more out of the question, as it did not occur until the end of September. All these theories are now given up, by those who object to the Passover, in favour of the Feast of Purim, which was observed rather less than a month before the Passover. (So Keppler-who first suggested it, but doubtfully-and now Hug, Olshausen, Wieseler, Meyer, Neander, Tischendorf, Lange, and Ellicott.) But there are very strong objections to this view. First, The Feast of Purim was celebrated over all the country equally with the capital; none went up to Jerusalem to keep it; and the observance of it consisted merely in the reading of the book of Esther in the different synagogues, and spending the two days of it in feasting (Esther 9:21-22): whereas the "multitude" referred to in John 5:13 seems to imply that it was one of those greater festivals that drew large numbers from the provinces to the capital.
It is difficult, indeed, to see why our Lord should have gone up to Jerusalem expressly to keep a feast of this nature, as the words of the first verse clearly imply. For though He was there at the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22) - which also was not a principal one-He did not go on purpose to keep it, but was there, or thereabouts, at any rate. But once more the Impotent Man, healed at this feast, was healed on the Sabbath-and by comparing John 5:9 and John 5:13, one would naturally conclude that this Sabbath was one of the days of the Feast; whereas there is good reason to believe that the Purim was so far from being celebrated on a Sabbath, that when it fell on that day, it was put off until after it was over. The only objections to its being a Passover worth noticing are two. First, that our Evangelist, when he means a Passover, expressly names it; whereas here he merely calls it "a feast of the Jews:" and next, that if this be a Passover, it leaves too little time between this one and that of John 6:4, and further, that since Jesus confessedly did not go up to Jerusalem at the next Passover, mentioned in John 6:4 - "because the Jews sought to kill Him" (John 7:1) - it would follow that our Lord was about a year and a half absent from Jerusalem-a thing hard to believe.
These objections are certainly weighty; but they are not insuperable. We lay no stress upon the fact that the definite article х hee (G3588) heortee (G1859)], 'the feast of the Jews' is found in several manuscripts - (eight uncial, and two of the best cursive ones) - supported by the two ancient Egyptian versions; because this reading does not have support enough. At the same time it must be observed that all who held to this reading certainly understood the feast intended to be the feast, by way of distinction from all the rest, that is, the Passover. But even with the article omitted, it has been shown by Middleton (Greek Article I., 3: 1) and Winer (19: 2. b.) that its presence is implied, and the sense definite, just in such cases as the present. As to the shortness of the interval between the Passover of John 5:1 (supposing it to be one) and that of John 6:4, it does not follow that the interval of time was short, because the events recorded between them in this Gospel are so few; since it is manifest that our Evangelist, until he comes to the final scenes, confines himself almost wholly to what had been omitted by the other Evangelists.
To them, therefore, we are to go for the Galilean events which occurred between those Passovers. Finally, as to the long interval of a year and a half between this His second Passover (if so it be), and the Feast of Tabernacles, after the third one, when He next went up to Jerusalem (John 7:2; John 7:10), the reason given for it, in John 7:1, appears sufficient; and as He was to take His final leave of Galilee not very long after, He would have abundant occupation there to fill up the time, while His continuing either in the capital or its neighhourhood nearly all the time between the Feast of Tabernacles and His final Passover-a period of about seven months-would sufficiently compensate for His longer absence from it at an earlier period. On a review of the whole evidence, then, we are decidedly of opinion that the ''Feast" here referred to by our Evangelist was THE PASSOVER-and consequently, the second of four occurring during our Lord's public ministry.