John 7

CHAPTER VII

IV

Jesus’ Attestation in Open Conflict with the Jews, Chapters 7–10

The entire fourth part of John’s Gospel deals with the ministry in Jerusalem and includes two Jewish festivals, the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication. Comparing 6:4 and 7:2, we see that the interval between chapters six and seven is a little more than six months, from early April to the second half of October, thus about six months before the final Passover. We may divide this part into ten sections.

I.Jesus Goes to the Feast of Tabernacles, 7:1–13.

II.Jesus’ Testimony Stirs the Authorities to Order his Arrest, 7:14–36.

III.Jesus’ Testimony Impresses the Officers Sent for his Arrest, 7:37–52.

IV.Jesus Proves his Testimony True and Warns his Opponents, 8:12–30.

V.Jesus’ Testimony Culminates in an Effort to Stone him, 8:31–59.

VI.Jesus Attests Himself by Healing a Blind Beggar, 9:1–12.

VII.Jesus’ Attestation through the Blind Beggar Nonpluses his Opponents, 9:13–34.

VIII.Jesus’ Testimony Concerning Spiritual Sight and Blindness, 9:35–41.

IX.Jesus’ Testimony Concerning his Flock, 10:1–21.

X.Jesus’ Attestation as the Messiah at the Feast of Dedication, 10:22–42.

I. Jesus Goes to the Feast of Tabernacles, 7:1–13

John 7:1

1 And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for he was not willing to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him. The three imperfect tenses point to continuous situations. Instead of remaining in the populous Lake region in Galilee Jesus went to the more distant parts of the country, as far as the Phoenician border in the northwest, down into the region of the Ten Cities (Decapolis) in the southwest, and up to the extreme north; Matt. 15 and Mark 7:1–8:10. Thus Jesus prudently avoids the opposition that developed in Capernaum and in the populous Lake region. The murderous temper of the authorities in Jerusalem (5:18) is mentioned as the reason why Jesus avoided Judea also. This had developed a year ago, at the preceding Feast of Tabernacles (see 5:1), when Jesus had last been in Jerusalem.

Jesus knows that the determination to kill him has not changed in the capital; when he returns thither he knows the danger he will expose himself to. When we now see him, nevertheless, visiting Jerusalem on two festival occasions, this means that his attestation at the capital has not yet been completed and that in spite of the danger he intends to finish also this task. But he is prudent enough to choose two festival occasions when the crowds of pilgrims from all over the land fill the city and afford a measure of protection for him; for large numbers of these visitors were at least favorably inclined toward Jesus, and the authorities at Jerusalem hesitated to outrage them by laying violent hands on him.

John 7:2

2 Now the feast of the Jews was near, the Feast of Tabernacles. John had no special reason for naming this festival in 5:1, but now he adds the name, because in the words of Jesus which he intends to report reference is made to certain customs connected with this particular festival (7:37, etc.; 8:12; 9:7). “Tabernacles,” ἡσκηνοπηγία (σκηνή, “tent,” plus πήγνυμι, “to join or build”), was celebrated from the 15th to the 22nd of Tisri, our October, in commemoration of Israel’s passage through the desert, and was made a festival of thanksgiving for the season’s harvest of grain, fruit, and wine. The men were required to attend it at Jerusalem. Booths and tents, thousands of them outside of the walls, were occupied for a week; and in postexilic times many symbolic features were added, to some of which Jesus refers.

John 7:3

3 His brethren, therefore, said to him, Depart hence and go into Judea, in order that thy disciples also may view thy works which thou art doing. For no one does anything in secret and seeks himself to stand out in public. If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world. On these “brethren” compare 2:12. These relatives of Jesus urge him as they do in view of the approaching festival. Evidently they had learned from Jesus that he was making no preparation to attend this festival in the capital.

They think that Jesus is largely wasting his efforts in these remote parts of Galilee, his place is on the grand stage in the heart of the nation. They say “Judea” and not at once Jerusalem, because they have in mind that Jesus should be in the midst of the great crowds of pilgrims proceeding from Galilee to Judea. This, of course, includes the grand entry into the capital city. For the Jew the great world-stage was Jerusalem. When these brethren add, “in order that thy disciples also may view thy works which thou art doing,” they do not mean that the number of Jesus’ disciples in Galilee has dwindled down to negligible proportions and that he was not winning disciples of any consequence by working in the borders of Galilee. “Thy disciples” is general. Practically all of them would flock to Jerusalem for the coming festival, now more than ever drawn by the expectation of seeing and of hearing Jesus there.

The implication in the ἵνα clause is that if all these disciples gathered in one mass they could really do something for Jesus in forcing through his Messianic claims, whereas nothing of consequence could be accomplished by traveling around in the borders of Galilee. Moreover, we must not miss the other implication, that the brethren of Jesus would like to see their great relative in a grand triumph at the capital with the nation bowing at his feet. They suggest that the works he is now doing are of such a kind that, if they are done on this lofty stage, will certainly bring this triumph to pass.

John 7:4

4 Their argument, too, is sound: “For no one does anything in secret and seeks himself to stand out in public.” They see Jesus scattering his efforts among small groups of people in these remote parts and describe this as working ἐνκρυπτῷ, “in secret,” in a kind of private way. This they feel is not the proper method for one whose aim is αὑτὸςἐνπαρρησίᾳεἶναι, “himself to stand out in public.” While παρρησία often means unrestrained freedom of speech; with εἶναιἐν it means the public eye. These brethren were right: Jesus claimed to be the Messiah of the nation and had himself repeatedly said that he was sent “to the world.” Then, evidently, his place and the scene of action were not in the distant parts of Galilee but in Jerusalem at this coming festival.

“If thou doest these things” is a condition of reality. Like the previous reference to “thy works which thou art doing” in v. 3 this conditional clause asserts on the part of these brethren that the works of Jesus are sufficiently great. No fault is found with them, other supposedly greater works are not demanded, for all that these brethren suggest is a grander stage, one on which these works can be displayed as they deserve to be. Hence these brethren urge Jesus, “Manifest thyself to the world!” “To the world” is the complete opposite of “in secret.” Perhaps they had heard the term κόσμος from Jesus himself; for Jesus indeed intended to do nothing less: he would manifest himself to “the world” and not merely, as these relatives of his most likely understood it, to the world of Judaism but to the world of all nations and all times.

Generally this proposal of the brethren of Jesus is viewed as a repetition of the temptation offered to him by the 5, 000 who wanted to carry him to the capital as king, 6:15. But the propositions are quite different. The 5, 000 think of making Jesus a king by their action; these brethren say nothing about a king and urge Jesus to an action of his own. So also the response of Jesus to his brethren differs entirely from the action with which he replied to the 5, 000. The fact is, these brethren, with their imperfect insight into the real mission of Jesus, are in their way not far from the plan which only six months later Jesus actually carried out in his own superior way when he made his royal entry into the capital on Palm Sunday.

John 7:5

5 Before giving us the reply of Jesus John explains: For even his brethren were not believing in him. The force of οὑδέ, “not even,” R. 1185, is that, although these men were related to Jesus, they could not as yet be counted among the true believers. The imperfect tense “they were not believing” refers to more than the duration of their non-belief; the tense is open and points to an outcome which in their case eventuated in true faith. The way in which these brethren are impressed by the works that Jesus is doing places them in the general class indicated in 2:25; 4:45; and 6:2. In his confession Peter emphasized the words of Jesus (6:68), and in this the brethren could not yet join. But they remained with Jesus, were present with him now, and had not left like the many in 6:66. On the one hand, they themselves do not count themselves among “thy disciples” (v. 3), and they venture to criticize Jesus for working “in secret”; but on the other hand, they propose plans by which they think Jesus will succeed.

The names of these brethren are James, Joses, Jude, and Simon, Matt. 12:46; Mark 6:3. The complete openness with which John reports their unbelief as continuing as late as six months before Jesus’ death is noteworthy in various ways. John tells the true facts; a fabricator would omit at least a fact like this if he knew of it, or would alter it in some way. In the face of the fact that these relatives of Jesus were not among the believers, the assumption, which is still advocated, that two of the four had been chosen by Jesus when he selected the Twelve, namely James and Jude, becomes untenable. Even the inferior reading ἐπίστευσαν instead of ἐπίστευον cannot alter this conclusion; for so certainly did none of the brethren belong to the Twelve that they are not counted even among the “disciples” in the wider sense. All the rest of the evidence is to the same effect, Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, I, 105; II, 240, etc. What is true is the fact that all these brethren came to faith, apparently after the resurrection of Jesus, and that James became the first bishop of the Jerusalem church and the writer of one of the New Testament Epistles, and his brother Jude the writer of another.

John 7:6

6 Jesus, therefore, says to them, My right time is not yet at hand; but your right time is always ready. We must note that Jesus does not reject the suggestion of his relatives as such, namely that at one of the festivals he enter Jerusalem as the Messiah, manifesting himself in the most public manner possible. All he does is to point out that the proper time (καιρός) has not yet come. In a manner he even excuses his brethren for urging him to proceed with this manifestation at the approaching festival. They are judging Jesus according to their own standard. Their καιρός or proper time is always ready.

It makes little or no difference what time they select. They have no set mission to carry out. The case of Jesus is altogether different. The term καιρός is relative, the right time for a certain thing; the close contrast “my right time” and “your right time” also requires a parallel in the things for which these times are the right ones. This parallel cannot be the right time for going to the present festival, the fact, that the brethren were free to go at any time, but that Jesus had to wait and to go later. This restricts everything to the point of time, which is minor, and loses the main point, which is that for which the time is to be used.

Likewise, the mere going to the festival cannot be meant, for this, too, is a minor action. If Jesus were going to the festival like the rest of the pilgrims, he certainly might go with them. This, however, is not what his brethren urge upon him but something decidedly greater, namely that now is the right time to make himself manifest to the world. On this point Jesus tells his brethren that for him the right time to do this has not yet arrived; but as far as they are concerned, who still belong to the world, it makes no difference when the world sees who they are.

John 7:7

7 That this is the thought of Jesus we see when he adds: The world cannot hate you, but me it hates, because I bear testimony concerning it, that its works are wicked. This is the vital difference between Jesus and his brethren, decisive also for “the right time” in regard to him and them, in v. 6. Their relation to the world (ὁκόσμος, ungodly men as a great body or unit) is different. While the term “world” here refers specifically to its present hierarchical representatives in Jerusalem, it, nevertheless, embraces all men who are spiritually like them. In the very nature of the case it would be a psychological impossibility for the world to hate these brethren of Jesus, for they themselves were still part of the world. That does not necessarily mean that they, too, were filled with murderous hate against Jesus; but it does mean that in their hearts an opposition to Jesus lurked which was capable of being inflamed into violent action.

Let us apply Matt. 5:12, etc. Even the authorities in Jerusalem at first showed only a hostile attitude (2:18) and not until Jesus’ second visit advanced to violent plans (5:18). Thus, although “the world” embraces all forms of opposition to Jesus, from the silent “no” in the heart to the vociferous “Crucify!” of the mob, all these forms are essentially agreed and thus support and acknowledge each other. When, therefore, Jesus tells these brethren that the world cannot hate them, this should shock them—it so plainly implies that they still belong to the world and not to God and to his Son.

The case of Jesus is quite the opposite (adversative δέ); “but me it hates.” Yet not merely because he does not and never did belong to the world, which fact also would serve as an explanation; but because of the mission of Jesus to change and thus to save the world. Jesus might have said, “yet me it cannot but hate”; he is content to state the fact only, “me it hates.” And then he points to that feature in his mission which invariably arouses hatred when men determine to turn against him, namely his testimony regarding the wicked works of the world. This testimony is the application of the divine law to the sinner (3:19, 20; 4, 16–18), which intends to crush the heart in contrition, that it may bow to the pardon of grace. Where this testimony is spurned, the ἔργαπονηρά remain, to be used against the world as the decisive evidence that damns. And at the top of these wicked works is the most wicked of all, the hate of the Savior and all the manifestations of that hate.

When the brethren of Jesus say, “Manifest thyself to the world!” they little think what “the world” implies for Jesus. Yes, the right time for thus manifesting himself is coming, but it means that then the hate will rise to its highest pitch and that due to it Jesus will die. The assumption that at this time Jesus is still unaware of this final result is obviated by 2:19–22; and the view that the details of the tragedy are still hidden from him is answered by all the advance announcements that Jesus made of his passion.

John 7:8

8 Thus Jesus says to his brethren: Do you go up to the feast; I do not go up to this feast, because my right time has not yet been fulfilled. And having said this to them, he remained in Galilee. Jesus tells his brethren to go to he feast, and they no doubt went. As regards himself he states that he is not going “to the feast.” Yet v. 10 informs us that he went after all, not publicly but in secret, and, as v. 14 shows, so as to arrive in the midst of the celebration. For Jesus to say that he is not going, and then for him to go after all, impresses many as being a contradiction, which they then attempt to remove. They forget the connection in which Jesus says that he is not going.

The interchange with his brethren deals not with an ordinary attendance of Jesus at the approaching festival but with an attendance which would make this festival the right time for Jesus to manifest himself to the world. The latter Jesus declines. He tells his brethren, “You go up to the feast!” namely in your customary way. Of himself he says, “I do not go up to this feast,” namely to make “this feast” what you suggest. Whether he will go at all or not is another matter. He may stay away altogether; but if he goes, it will not be to make of this feast what his brethren propose.

The pointed demonstrative “this feast” is in contrast with another feast, namely the coming Passover, which will, indeed, be the right time for Jesus to manifest himself to the world.

That this is the meaning of his words appears in the reason why Jesus declines to go to this feast: “because my right time has not yet been fulfilled.” Six additional months will fill up that measure; then, and not until then, will Jesus carry out what at this feast would be untimely. We need only to understand what Jesus really declines to do, then even the appearance of a contradiction between his words and his subsequent act disappears.

Then, too, the proposed solutions for the supposed contradiction are unnecessary. One of the most ancient is a slight change in the reading, οὕπω in place of οὑκ; as if Jesus means to say, “You go on up now, I am not yet going but will follow later on.” But this change in the reading is valueless unless we suppose a contradiction and make this change in the reading the means for its removal. The moment we understand Jesus aright, “not yet” would refer to the right time for the manifestation to the world—this right time is not the present festival but another that is not far off. Other solutions for the supposed difficulty are less convincing. One is that Jesus changes his mind, first deciding not to go at all, then deciding to go at least for the latter part of the feast. Another is, that the Father changes the mind of Jesus for him, ordering him to go after he himself has resolved not to go and after he had told his brethren that he would not go.

But such a Christ and such a Father the Gospels do not know: a Christ who changes no to yes; but note ἐγώ—this festival is not the right time for him to go up as they were proposing. What Jesus declines is not an attendance at the coming feast but to make this feast the time for what his brethren suggest. Note that the demonstrative “this” appears only when Jesus speaks of himself.

With this correct view of the declination agrees not only the previous context but also the subsequent, the quiet way Jesus chose for going, his late arrival, and the continuance of the clash with the authorities without decisive issue. We have no reason whatever to assume that Jesus changed his mind, first deciding not to go at all, then deciding to go at least for the latter part of the feast. Or that his Father changed his mind for him, ordering him to go after he himself had resolved not to go. Since no problem exists, we need no solution.

John 7:9

9 Jesus, accordingly, remained behind in Galilee, the aorist merely noting the fact.

John 7:10

10 Now when his brethren were gone up to the feast, then he, too, went up, not publicly, but as it were in secret. His brethren wanted him to go as publicly as possible. This Jesus refused to do. His plan was to go as quietly as possible. So he delays until his brethren have gone with the crowds of pilgrims, until the roads are deserted, and then he goes with only the Twelve to accompany him. The emphasis is on the way in which Jesus goes up, and οὑφανερῶς is in direct Contrast to φανέρωσονσεαυτὸντῷκόσμῳ in v. 4. This is even enhanced by adding the positive: “as it were (ὡς) in secret.” After everyone had gone who intended to go, this was easy.

John 7:11

11 The situation in Jerusalem is now described. The Jews, therefore, were seeking him at the feast and were saying, Where is that one? These are the authorities, the members of the Sanhedrin (v. 48), as distinguished from the citizens of Jerusalem (v. 25), and also from the ὄχλος (v. 12; 20; 31, 32; 49). In what follows we must keep these three parties in mind. The rulers were nonplused by the absence of Jesus. They were well informed regarding his activities in Galilee during the past year since he had last been in Jerusalem (5:1) and had incurred their deadly hatred by ordering a man to carry his bed on the Sabbath and by making himself equal with God (5:18).

They fully expected him at this festival and even instituted search for him. Note the durative imperfects “were seeking,” “were saying,” which at the same time indicate that the outcome will presently be stated.

John 7:12

12 And murmuring concerning him was much among the multitudes. Some were saying, He is a good man; while others were saying, No; on the contrary, he is deceiving the multitude. Perhaps John uses the plural “multitudes” because he at once speaks of two parties. The ὄχλος or ὄχλοι are the hosts of pilgrims who had come for the festival from near and far. John himself explains the extensive “murmuring” that was going on among these visitors concerning Jesus. He was the general subject of discussion, and two opinions were widespread.

Those who favored Jesus called him ἀγαθός, the masculine adjective meaning “a good man,” one who is excellent, in the sense that he brings benefit. This fits the type of miracles which distinguish Jesus, conferring healing, deliverance, and help. This estimate was weak and poor enough; too weak to form the basis of faith. The fact that a large portion of the pilgrims should hold a contrary opinion comes as a surprise. These contradict the others with a flat “no” and mark their judgment as the direct opposite by ἀλλά, which after a negative has the force of “on the contrary.” And, indeed, they assert that he “deceives the multitude,” is intent on misleading it. They must refer to his teaching and imply that this is false and that his miracles are used only to cover up the falseness.

Neither side could convince the other, and the two imperfects ἔλεγον allow the dispute to remain unsettled.

John 7:13

13 The fact that this talk about Jesus never rose beyond a subdued “murmur” John explains. No one, however, was speaking with openness concerning him because of the fear of the Jews, the rulers in the capital. This evidently refers to both parties alike. The authorities had not yet rendered an official opinion or verdict. Hence no one felt sure of himself. Here παρρησία has its more usual meaning: freedom to say anything. The genitive “of the Jews” is objective, R. 500. John’s remark casts a light on the spiritual slavery in which the Sanhedrin and other Jewish authorities kept the nation. Compare v. 49 and 9:34. Woe to those who did not yield to this domination!

II. Jesus’ Testimony Stirs the Authorities to Order his Arrest, 14–36

John 7:14

14 In a quiet way, without any demonstration whatever, Jesus arrives in the city. Now when the feast was already half over, Jesus went up into the Temple and began teaching. The genitive absolute τῆςἑορτῆςμεσούσης (from μεσόω, to be in the middle), together with ἤδη, “the feast being already in its middle,” i.e., half over with, shows at how late a time Jesus appeared in the courts of the Temple. On the other two occasions when he had appeared in Jerusalem he at once made his presence felt by deeds that acted like a public challenge, cleansing the court of the Temple (2:13, etc.), and sending a healed man through the streets with his couch on his shoulder on the Sabbath (5:9, etc.). On neither occasion had he assumed the quiet role of a teaching rabbi. But this is what he now does.

The imperfect is here ingressive: “he began to teach.” What followed we are told presently. He found some convenient place, where he sat on the pavement under some porch or balcony, the Twelve and a group of hearers sat cross-legged in a circle about him, and he quietly began his instruction. On what subject he spoke John does not state.

Among those present, perhaps standing on the fringe of the seated group, were a few of the ruling class. Here was the man they were seeking. But they found him using only the ordinary privilege of a rabbi, teaching a group of interested hearers. We may take it that this group grew rapidly, for presently the ὄχλος utters an exclamation, v. 20.

John 7:15

15 After listening awhile to the teaching of Jesus the Jews start their interference. The Jews, therefore, wondered, saying, How does this fellow know letters, not having learned? These Jews had never before heard Jesus teach as a rabbi. But this wondering of theirs is not surprise because of the ability of Jesus to teach the Scriptures although, as they knew, he had never studied in any of the rabbinical schools. If they had felt such surprise they would have hidden it and would never have credited Jesus with ability along this line before a crowd of pilgrims assembled about Jesus. Moreover, οὗτος is highly derogatory and means “this fellow.” By γράμματα they mean litteras in the Jewish sense, the rabbinical study of the Old Testament writings.

We need not change the sense of θαυμάζειν into offended wondering. What surprises them, they say, is that a man who has had no proper education should presume to teach in public and palm himself off as one who is versed in Scriptural learning. Their question is a general exclamation addressed not to Jesus but to the multitude. It charges Jesus with incompetency, with utter lack of proper qualifications for being a great religious teacher. The purpose of the rulers is to discredit Jesus before his audience. The force of their question is: “This fellow does not know what he is talking about because he has never studied in any of our Jewish schools.”

We meet the same charge today when any man dares to contradict the “scientific” critics of Christ and the gospel. At once he is branded by them as an ignoramus, incompetent to speak on these subjects because he is not one of their guild, who has pre-empted “scientific” learning and does not bear the stamp of their approval. The object is to impress the crowd, and the secret object is to maintain their own authority by crying down the man who challenges it. Those commentators are mistaken who think that the marvelling of these Jews is genuine and that they are really surprised at Jesus as being “ein schrift-kundiger Volkslehrer,” “ein wirksamer Haggadist,” “ein genialer Autodidakt.” Instead of being a self-taught genius, they make him out the very opposite: dass er als unbefugter Pfuscher an Stelle der alleinberechtigten Gelehrtenweisheit nur eigene Einfaelle vorbringe und fuer Weisheitslehre ausgebe. The proceeding of these Jews is the height of cunning. They seek to shift the question: How true and genuine is the teaching of Jesus? to: What great and accredited schools has Jesus attended?

They also count on the fact that the teaching of Jesus differs completely from that which the people have been accustomed to receive from the rabbis, both in contents and in form. To tell the people that Jesus has never attended a school of any standing for training rabbies, that he has no degree or certificate from such an accredited school, would certainly have its effect upon the ignorant.

John 7:16

16 The Divine Origin of Jesus’ Doctrine, 16–24.—Without the slightest hesitation Jesus meets the wicked charge of the rulers. And he, too, does not direct his words to these rulers in particular but to all who are gathered before him and have heard the charge. These wise Jews, Jesus intimates in his answer, have certainly heard aright: the entire doctrine of Jesus is totally different from the arid refinements and empty distinctions of the rabbis, and it is plain to any man who has ears to hear, that Jesus has never “learned” from such teachers. Nobody needs to tell the people this. Jesus, therefore, answered them and said (see 1:48), My doctrine is not mine, but his that did send me. He has in mind the substance of what he is teaching; διδαχή corresponds to ἐδίδασκε.

The adjective in ἡἐμὴδιδαχή is stronger than the possessive pronoun would be. The wonderful feature about the doctrine Jesus taught is that it is not his own at all, in the sense that he, like some human philosopher, had himself invented, had produced it by his own human brain. On the contrary (ἀλλά after a negative), it is “his that did send me,” it belongs wholly to his great Sender. Jesus is only the mouthpiece, the spokesman, of that Sender. By rejecting and trying to discredit this teaching of Jesus these Jews are by no means dealing with Jesus alone but with the Sender of Jesus, with God himself. It is no wonder that God’s great doctrine is wholly different from the speculations of the rabbis.

If that is any discredit to the doctrine of Jesus, he accepts the discredit; but woe unto those who offer this discredit! See what they betray concerning themselves. They have never “learned” (v. 15; also 6:45) in God’s school at the feet of the great teachers and prophets whom God sent them in the Old Testament. If they had, they would at once recognize the doctrine of Jesus as being that of God; but now they blindly slander it and try to turn others from it.

John 7:17

17 As far as recognizing the fact that this doctrine is of God is concerned, no difficulty whatever is encountered. Simply apply the right touchstone. It is useless merely to reason and to argue about it intellectually, if for no other reason than that man by nature is spiritually blind and cannot even know the things of God, since they are spiritually discerned. Jesus is far from submitting his doctrine to the decision of blind human reason, which, indeed, constantly endeavors to usurp the authority of a judge in spiritual things. No; the right touchstone is a living experience with the doctrine of Jesus. Such an experience at once makes plain and convinces us inwardly that this doctrine is of God.

If anyone shall will to do his will, he shall know concerning the doctrine whether it is of God or whether I am talking from myself. The condition of expectancy has the regular form, ἐάν with the subjunctive (protasis) followed by the future indicative (apodosis). Whenever a case like this occurs, that a man wills to do God’s will, the result follows, he realizes that the doctrine is of God (the article to indicate the doctrine here in question, R. 757). The present subjunctive θέλῃ indicates more than a single volition; it denotes a durative and lasting course. The Greek abuts θέλῃτὸθέλημα, “shall will the will,” and the present infinitive ποιεῖν means “to carry out” God’s will in a consistent course. “His will” is objective, what God wills; “shall will” is subjective, accepting by our will what God wants carried out by us.

This will of God is faith on our part. “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he did send,” John 6:29; compare 6:40. Before the coming of Jesus this faith was to believe the promises concerning Jesus, after his coming this faith is to believe the fulfillment of these promises in Jesus. God’s will is that we believe, our willing to carry out his will is our actual believing by his grace. The entire thought of Jesus would be perverted if we should take it that God’s will here refers to the law and our doing of the law; and correspondingly that our willing to do his will is our setting out to meet the requirements of that law. The doctrine of Jesus centers not in the law but in the gospel, in God’s will of pardoning and saving grace. Again, it would be a perversion of the thought of Jesus if we conceived his meaning to be that we are to do God’s gracious will by means of our own natural ability.

Nothing is farther from his mind than that God commands us to believe and that we then obey by believing. Man’s will as it is by nature cannot possibly itself resolve to do this will of God, i.e., to believe. So far is God from expecting this that ever in the very revelation of his gracious will his own divine will comes with efficacious power to set our will free and to move it to accept his will, i.e., to believe. The efficacy of his will our will may resist obdurately and persistently but always without excuse, and thus only with the most damnable guilt. When Jesus speaks of our willing to do God’s will, he means that willing which God by his grace works in us through his Word and his Spirit.

This willing (believing) is the touchstone: “he shall know concerning the doctrine whether it is of God or whether I am talking from myself.” “Know” means “realize,” not by means of mere intellectual processes, not by reasonings and arguments but by the actual experience of letting God’s will move his will. When God’s will sets the human will free and fills it with new power, then, and then alone, a man knows God’s will, what it really is, by having experienced in his own will what God’s will does. In no other manner can this knowledge be attained. If your will is moved by God’s will as this will graciously reaches out and changes your will; if your will is moved from sin toward Christ and the salvation he brings; if, thus moved, it finds the curse and the shackles of sin gone, a new, heavenly power filling it and working in it: then you will realize, indeed, that the doctrine which brought this heavenly will to you is “of God” (ἐκ, derived from him) and that in uttering it Jesus is not talking (λαλῶ) “from himself” (ἀπό, from notions he has invented).

John 7:18

18 But as far as the person of Jesus and his doctrine are concerned, a more general criterion is at hand. He that talks from himself seeks his own glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that did send him, this one is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. To the Jews it was axiomatic that all genuine religious teaching emanated from God, and that therefore every genuine religious teacher must teach as commissioned, authorized, and sent by God. Whoever, therefore, as a religious teacher presented anything emanating from himself instead of from God could do so only by arrogating to himself the glory and the honor that belong to God; he would “be seeking his own glory.” Thus Jesus says: “he who seeks (not his own glory by offering his own supposed wisdom but) the glory of him that did send him (as a teacher, by teaching only what he is commissioned to teach—this being God) this one (οὗτος, only he and no other) is true (ἀληθής, verax, namely, as a teacher, not false, lying), and no unrighteousnes is in him” (he can be charged with no wrong or unfaithfulness in his office as a teacher).

The application of this axiom is easy. First, as regards Jesus. He sought only the glory of God, 5:19; 7:16. Sincere people could have no difficulty on that point. To insinuate that because he had not been educated in the rabbinical schools he is a spurious teacher is base slander. Its worst feature is the substitution of a false test for religious teachers.

This slander puts the authority and the praise of the rabbis in place of God and his glory. Jesus insists on the true criterion. The moment this is applied the divinity of his teaching is established beyond question. But this axiom holds good also for the opposite. How about these Jewish rulers and their religious teaching as it is now being urged in opposition to Jesus? They are notorious seekers after their own glory and honor.

They oppose Jesus for the very reason that they fear to lose their position of honor and of power among their people. Even Pilate, six months later, knew that “for envy” they had delivered him, Matt. 27:18. It is evident that as teachers they are not “true” and not void of “unrighteousness.” This is the inner reason for their hostility to Jesus, the cause of their blindness to the divinity of his doctrine. Here again we touch the will as being the real domain in which the battle is fought, and in what follows we see how Jesus continues his attack upon this central citadel.

John 7:19

19 In verses 17 and 18 Jesus lays down axiomatic principles. The first is regarding the doctrine: anyone may test the doctrine and by his own experience with it convince himself that it is of God. The second is regarding the teacher: anyone may test the teacher. If he seeks God’s glory alone (by teaching the true faith which gives all honor and praise to God alone) he is a true teacher with no unrighteousness to discredit him as a teacher; but if he is after his own glory and his personal advantage he is a false teacher and stands revealed as such. Defense and offense are combined in the enunciation of these principles. But now, with a sudden turn, Jesus takes the offensive.

Like a bolt of lightning he drops the charge of the grossest kind of ἀδικία or unrighteousness upon the heads of the Jewish rulers. Did not Moses give you the law? That sounds innocent but is ominous. Of course, Moses gave them the law, all of it as comprised in the five books of Moses (the Torah or “Instruction”) and specifically its moral regulations in the Ten Commandments. And the great boast of these Jewish rulers was that they sat in Moses’ seat (Matt. 23:2) as teachers and guardians of the law and as “disciples of Moses” (9:28). This reference of Jesus to Moses and the law is a masked battery.

Two annihilating volleys will roar out from it: these Jews, boastful exponents of the law, breaking the law in the most horrible manner; these Jews, supreme teachers of the law, circumcise on the Sabbath in order not to violate the law and yet charge Jesus with violation when on the Sabbath he extends a blessing far greater than circumcision.

And none of you does the law by no means asserts only that these rulers, like all men, are sinners in a general way. For if that disqualifies them as guardians of the law, no man could ever be a true teacher of the law. Like the previous question about receiving the law from Moses, this assertion about their not living up to the law still has a harmless look. For Moses himself, through whom the law was given, was a sinner in the general sense of the word, and so were all the great prophets who taught the law. The question and the assertion have a specific bearing.

Why are you seeking to kill me? The briefest, simplest kind of a question but devastating in its effect. Its implication is that these rulers are even at this very time plotting and scheming to murder Jesus. The question is stronger than an assertion would be. This “why” is addressed to these Jewish rulers as the exponents, guardians, and teachers of the law, into whose keeping Moses gave the law. This unanswerable “why” reveals what these enforcers of the law were doing with that law in planning the murder of Jesus, sent to them of God with the doctrine of God.

Compare 5:18. Consternation sealed the lips of the Jews; silence reigned. We may imagine how the eyes of all the pilgrims turned toward and for a moment searched the faces of their rulers. This was the ἀδικία that branded them as the type of teachers they were and as the kind of teaching they offered. Is murder of God? is murder the teaching of God’s law? Murder is of the devil; and murder and lying are twins, 8:44.

These Jews expected to have an easy victory over Jesus by pointing out that he had no professional training. In their attack they felt secure behind the plausibility of their insistence on proper qualifications for public teachers, behind the secrecy which hid their real motive for attacking Jesus. In a flash they now stand exposed as criminal law-breakers.

John 7:20

20 The citizens of Jerusalem, at least those in touch with the rulers, know of the plot against Jesus, v. 25. But the pilgrims that came from all parts of the country are entirely innocent. When Jesus suddenly and publicly casts into the face of the rulers their scheme to kill him, these pilgrims are astounded and horrified. The multitude answered, Thou hast a devil! Who is seeking to kill thee? The adjective δαιμόνιον, here used as a noun, means some kind of evil spirit.

The exclamation does not voice ill will but impatient surprise that a man like Jesus, whom so many of the ὄχλος admired, should utter a charge involving what seemed to them a moral impossibility. Surely, some evil spirit must be clouding his mind with the mental aberration and fixed idea that he is being persecuted. The added question shows how unthinkable it seems to the pilgrims that their rulers should be seeking to kill Jesus. But—the rulers stand there silently, with the eyes of the crowd searching their faces. That silence speaks loudly.

John 7:21

21 In v. 19 Jesus addresses only the rulers; now he ignores them—he is done with them. Jesus answered and said unto them, αὑτοῖς, plural because of the collective antecedent ὁὄχλος. On the use of the two verbs see 1:48; also note that ἀπεκρίθη = er nahm das Wort. This does not imply that Jesus makes a direct reply to the question of the multitude. In no way does Jesus qualify or alter the charge that the rulers are seeking to kill him; on the contrary, he involves also the multitude to a certain degree, because they, too, were angry with Jesus because of the miracle wrought on the Sabbath. That miracle, wrought a year ago (5:2, etc.), which first caused the rulers to plot his death (6:18), Jesus now discusses.

One work I wrought, and you all wonder because of it. Jesus means “one” especially that still causes wonderment; many other miracles of his produced no such effect. It is not the greatness of the deed that causes this wondering as compared with other miracles of Jesus. We must construe: “you all wonder because of it,” διά. We need not here bring in the constructions of θαυμάζειν with ἐπί or περί, because these prepositions place the surprise or wonder on the thing itself that is wrought. In this instance it is not the fact that Jesus healed a man impotent for thirty-eight years that causes the marvelling.

It is not in any sense the miracle itself but something connected with the miracle, hence the preposition διὰ, “because” Jesus performed this deed on the Sabbath, and “because” he made the man carry his bed on the Sabbath. The thought is not complete, not even correct, without the phrase διὰτοῦτο, “because of this.”

The moment this is understood we shall not connect this phrase with the next sentence, as is done by a number of codices, by the ancients, by some of the moderns, by our versions, and by others. The claim that the phrase is superfluous when it is attached to v. 21 arises from the fact that its sense is not understood; for “you all are marvelling” is not what Jesus wants to say but “you all are marvelling because of this,” i.e., the feature that you fail to understand and that upsets you, that I should do such a work on the Sabbath.

John 7:22

22 Moses has given you the circumcision (not that it originates with Moses but with the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. The emphasis is on Moses, on this great authority to whom all Israelites bowed. Jesus holds up Moses to the pilgrim crowd, as a moment ago he pointed their rulers to this same Moses (v. 19). If, however, we draw the phrase διὰτοῦτο to v. 22, the emphasis would be transferred to this phrase. Instead of saying: “Moses (no less an authority) has given you the circumcision, … and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath,” Jesus would say: “For this reason has Moses given you circumcision, not because it originates with Moses, but with the fathers; and you circumcise,” etc. But if this were the sense intended, the sentence should read: “Not for this reason has Moses given you circumcision, that it originates with him but that it originates with the fathers,” etc., οὑδιὰτοῦτο … ὅτι … ἀλλὰὅτι, and the second ὅτι could not be omitted.

Such a statement, however, would not be true. The Jews did not circumcise on the Sabbath because this rite originated with the fathers and not with Moses. The historical origin of circumcision (ἐκ) is a side issue; i.e., the fact that the rite is older than Moses. Nor did Moses embody circumcision in the law because the patriarchs already had the rite but because God wanted him to command it in the law. If the point of origin and age were urged by Jesus, he would have said that the Sabbath goes back much farther than circumcision, to God himself and to the very week of creation. What Jesus does point out is that Moses gave the Israelites circumcision, Moses as the agent of God, and that thus—very properly—they circumcise on the Sabbath whenever the eighth day after birth happens to occur on a Sabbath.

The statement, however, that no less an authority than Moses gave circumcision, requires an explanation lest it be misunderstood. Jesus is not speaking historically but from the legal standpoint. Historically the fathers, i.e., the patriarchs, already had circumcision prior to Moses. Its origin dates back thus far. But legally the Israelites were held to this rite since the time of Moses, the great lawgiver of Israel. Hence the statement, “not that it is of Moses but of the fathers,” is parenthetical, in the nature of an elucidation.

This shows that in the main clause the emphasis on “Moses” dare not be shifted as it would be by placing the phrase before “Moses.” But we also should not find other thoughts in the parenthetical statement, either that circumcision has more weight than the law because it antedates the law and because it is derived from the fathers; or that it has less weight than the law because it consists only of a tradition from the fathers. Such notions confuse the plain sense of what Jesus desires to convey.

The examples adduced for the use of διὰτοῦτο at the head of a statement, such as 5:16 and 18; 6:65; 8:47; 10:17; etc., have no bearing on the present case because they all have ὅτι following: “for this reason … that,” etc. Really analogous examples are those that illustrate οὑχὅτι … ἀλλά, such as 6:46; 12:6; 2 Cor. 1:24; 3:5; 7:9; Phil. 4:11 and 17; 2 Thess. 3:9. All these are parenthetical in their very nature. On the formula οὑχὅτι on see R. 1429. To regard the parenthesis as superfluous is an indication that its purpose is not fully understood. It makes clear that circumcision is binding only as a legal requirement irrespective of its origin.

The effort to explain διὰτοῦτο as an ellipsis is unfeasible: “For this reason I say to you, Moses has given,” etc.; or: “For this reason hear, or know, Moses,” etc. Jesus is here not making an authoritative announcement but is only repeating admitted facts, that Moses has given the circumcision (the article pointing to the rite as one that is well known), and that circumcision is performed on the Sabbath.

John 7:23

23 Now just as these facts are beyond dispute, so should be their application to the deed of Jesus. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, in order that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? Jesus puts the application in the form of a question, in order the more effectively to appeal to the judgment of his hearers. This question brings out the true point which ought to be decisive for the judgment of his hearers. It appears already in v. 22 when Jesus says that Moses “has given” you the circumcision. This rite was a good gift from God through Moses, not a burden, not an infliction, not a work done for God.

So Jesus now continues and asks, if a man “receives” the circumcision on the Sabbath, receives this gift or blessing. Jesus does not ask, “if you circumcise a man on the Sabbath,” for this is not a question of so much labor in administering the rite. He also adds the purpose clause, “in order that the law of Moses may not be broken,” for it is the law itself which requires that the gift be bestowed even if the day be the Sabbath, Lev. 12:3. In other words, to withhold the gift because the day happens to be the Sabbath would be a violation (λυθῇ, a dissolution) of this law. The emphasis is again on “Moses” and it shows that in v. 22 “Moses” is the emphatic word. “If” (εἰ with the indicative) is a condition of reality; for Jesus takes it that the rite is thus received as a blessing, and his hearers certainly agree with him.

Now the path is clear for the application to the healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath. The emphasis on the genitive “of Moses” is matched by the emphasis on the dative “with me,” and for this reason the two are abutted in the Greek. What is an inviolable law in the case of Moses, can that be a cause for anger with me? In v. 21 Jesus uses only the verb “wonder,” here he now employs the stronger term “to be angry.” These people wonder that Jesus should heal a man on the Sabbath and are gravely displeased with him as a result. Yet Jesus had done a deed that was essentially identical with what Moses had commanded and the Jews practiced as a matter of course; for just as the circumcision of the bodily member is a blessing received by the child, so the healing of the entire body was a blessing received by the impotent man. The identity, however, lies not in the sanitary features of the two blessings, the one concerned with a single member of the body, the other with the entire body.

The Scriptures show no trace of hygienic or sanitary valuation of circumcision. As part of the ceremonial law this rite effects the religious purification of the organ of procreation, and thus Jesus pairs it with the restoration of the entire body of the impotent man. The identity here stressed lies in the fact that both are blessings, the one affecting a single member, the other the entire body. By ὅλονἄνθρωπον, “an entire man,” Jesus does not refer to both body and soul but to the body alone. What Jesus did for the impotent man’s soul by warning him not to fall into sin again was unknown to the Jews and may not have been done on the Sabbath at all, nor would such a warning have transgressed their conception of the sanctity of the Sabbath.

The argument is thus quite simple: on the one hand, a beneficial act involving one member; on the other hand, a beneficial act involving the entire body. The force of the argument, however, is increased in two ways. Whereas Moses commands circumcision also on the Sabbath, these Jews will not so much as permit a healing on the Sabbath. The conferring of a benefit means so much to Moses that he will not let even the Sabbath stand in the way; the conferring of a benefit means so little to the Jews that they misuse the Sabbath and force it to stand in the way. This point in the argument operates a majori ad minus. On the other hand, the benefit for the bestowal of which Moses commands that it be conferred even on the Sabbath is small (one bodily member), whereas the benefit for the bestowal of which these Jews forbid its being conferred on the Sabbath is by comparison great (the entire body).

This point in the argument operates a minori ad majus. The combination of the two points in the presentation of the argument is unusual and utterly convincing. It goes to the very root of the matter and does not, after the fashion of the rabbis, deal merely with the superficial wording of the law. If the multitude would only use Moses it would not abuse Jesus.

John 7:24

24 Therefore the closing admonition: Do not keep judging according to appearance but render the right judgment. This is not a general injunction against forming superficial judgments but a demand to render the right judgment in the present case. Hence the article τὴνκρίσιν. We may also translate the present imperative, “Stop judging superficially!” for it forbids what these people were already doing. The preposition κατά indicates the norm, namely the mere appearance of the act Jesus had performed. Looked at only from the outside, this act might seem to be in contravention of the law. But mere appearance is never to be the norm for directing our verdicts. The very law itself, which these people cited against Jesus, should teach them to follow a different course.

In the second clause the correct reading is the aorist κρίνατε, which also matches the article τὴνδικαίανκρίσιν (an accusative of inner content, or cognate accusative, R. 478): “judge the right judgment” in this case, the one governed by the norm of right (δίκη). This aorist plus the article restricts the command to the case in hand. The reading κρίνετε is due, it seems, to the use of the same present tense in the first clause and to the idea that Jesus here voices a general rule for deciding any and all cases. Righteous judgment will see in the man carrying his bed no violation of the Sabbath law but a publication of the astounding blessing he had received on the Sabbath through the grace of God.

The answer of Jesus is misconceived when circumcision and the miracle of Jesus are considered exceptions to the sabbatical law. The law itself demanded circumcision also on the Sabbath and not by way of exception. Circumcision on the Sabbath was as much a law as the observance of Sabbath rest. And the miracle is placed on a par with the former. Likewise, Jesus does not abrogate the Sabbath by his miracle. Jesus keeps the Sabbath law as given by Moses, but he refuses to be bound by the rabbinical regulations which had been added to the Mosaic law. These were unwarranted human additions, to which Jesus could never bow.

Moses upholds Jesus, and Jesus Moses. Both are here shown to be true teachers of God, teaching nothing of their own but only what he who commissioned them gave them to teach; and thereby they honored him in the highest degree. But “the Jews” (rulers), who opposed Jesus and only imagined that they were supporting Moses, who even planned to murder Jesus in flagrant violation of Moses; and in lesser degree “the multitude” (pilgrims), who were displeased with Jesus—are shown to be gravely in the wrong.

John 7:25

25 The Divine Origin of Jesus’ Person, 25–30.—After dealing with the rulers and then with a crowd of pilgrims Jesus answers also a number of the citizens of Jerusalem, who raise the question regarding his person and tell themselves that he cannot be the Christ. Some of the citizens of Jerusalem accordingly were saying, Is not this he whom they are seeking to kill? These “Jerusalemites,” as John calls them, live in the city. “Accordingly” connects what these citizens say with what they are witnessing at the moment. They are a part of the crowd that confront Jesus. No interval occurs between v. 24 and v. 25. The imperfect ἔλεγον is descriptive; they were most likely a little group and were speaking quietly to each other, certainly not so that either the pilgrims or the rulers heard their remarks.

These citizens are better posted than the pilgrims who live elsewhere and visit the city only on great occasions. So they are well informed about the intention of the rulers to kill Jesus, while the pilgrims are shocked to hear of this intention (v. 19). But the situation these citizens are witnessing puzzles them. “Is not this he whom they are seeking to kill ?” They feel sure that this is, indeed, the man (οὑ at the head of the question).

John 7:26

26 And behold, with openness he speaks, and nothing to him do they say. Can it be that the rulers have, indeed, realized that this is the Christ? First the astonishing fact, then an explanation that would, indeed, explain the fact but that is presented as certainly being out of the question. Here to the astonishment of these citizens is Jesus speaking in public (παρρησίᾳ), and here are some of the rulers (οἱἄρχοντες), and they do not say a thing (οὑδέν) to him, namely to apprehend him and to carry out their determination to kill him. The rulers had, indeed, said something (v. 15), but Jesus had promptly closed their mouths, and they had kept them closed. “Nothing to him do they say?” means nothing to prevent him from speaking with freedom, nothing like declaring him under arrest, nothing like a criminal charge to justify arrest.

The possibility flashes into the minds of these citizens that their rulers have changed their minds about Jesus. The very clash, however, which they have just witnessed (v. 15–19) settles any such possibility. The very question in which they utter it carries in it their own denial, for μή implies a negative answer in their own minds: “Can it be ever (μήποτε)?” No, it cannot be. The Greek has the aorist ἔγνωσαν, “did come to realize,” whereas the English idiom prefers the perfect tense; see the excellent discussion in R. 843, etc. This is due to the fact that in the Greek the perfect does not like the English perfect indicate an action just recently completed. The sense of ἀληθῶς is “indeed,” or “really”; but the second ἀληθῶς in the textus receptus (A.

V.) must be cancelled: “that this is the very Christ” (“is truly the Christ”), the promised Messiah. All the evidence is to the contrary—the rulers have not changed their minds about Jesus.

John 7:27

27 Moreover, these citizens agree on this point with the rulers. On the contrary, him we know, whence he is; but the Christ, when he comes, no one will know whence he is. The negation in the minds of the citizens (μήποτε in v. 26) is matched by the adversative (ἀλλά) at the head of v. 27: No, the rulers have not realized, etc.; “on the contrary,” they could not, for even these citizens know that Jesus cannot possibly be the Christ. Why not? The mighty evidence of his miracles, all the power of his teaching, and the impact of his personality inevitably felt in both, count for nothing with these men of the metropolis, who refuse to be impressed as were the pilgrim crowds, especially those from Galilee. They have their own little criterion for rejecting Jesus’ claims. “Him we know, whence he is; but the Christ, when he comes, no one will know whence he is.” This Jewish notion about the expected Messiah, with which in the minds of these wiseacres Jesus does not accord, they imagine keeps them from being deceived by Jesus.

We have no evidence that the rulers use the same line of argument. On the contrary, like some of the multitude (v. 41, 42), the rulers apply a different criterion, namely, that Jesus hails from Galilee whereas the Scriptures say that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, of the seed of David, in Judea (v. 52).

The efforts to trace the notion of the citizens in Jewish literature have produced no satisfactory results. In the middle of the second century Justin puts into the mouth of the Jew Tryphon the opinion: “But the Messiah, even when he is born and exists somewhere, is unknown and does not even know himself, and has no power until Elijah anoints him and makes him know to all.” Jewish literature, however, nowhere makes Elijah anoint the Messiah. Justin’s version of Tryphon’s opinion makes no reference to the origin of the Messiah, “whence he is,” but states only that neither the Messiah nor anyone else will know him as the Messiah until Elijah anoints him. The assumption that the notion of the citizens is derived from the low state of the house of David at the time, supported possibly also by Scripture statements like Isa. 53:2 and 8; Mal. 3:1, “shall suddenly come to his Temple,” is too farfetched to merit consideration.

The citizens think that they are fully informed “whence” Jesus is. They have found out all about his long residence in Nazareth, his family connection (1:45; 6:42), especially also his career in Galilee during the past year since his last visit to Jerusalem. Thus they feel that they know all about him. No reason appears for restricting “whence” to the family of Jesus exclusive of his home and his residence, for the two always go together. But this very information is proof to them that he cannot be the Messiah. For their picture of the Messiah—however they may have obtained it—is that “when he comes, no one will know whence he is,” i.e., from what town and province and from what family.

Not that his origin will forever be shrouded in mystery, but that it will be unknown “when he comes,” or at the time of his public appearance. This type of reasoning has often been followed by men who imagine themselves to be superior to others. They pick some flaw and fasten on that and refuse to consider the real and decisive facts, however great and convincing these may be.

John 7:28

28 The cool and self-satisfied way in which these citizens dispose of Jesus arouses him to make the most energetic reply. Jesus, accordingly, cried out, teaching in the Temple and saying, Both me you know and know whence I am?! And (yet) I have not come of myself, but one that is real is he that did send me, whom you do not know. With a loud voice, showing how deeply he was affected, Jesus cried out. What moves him is not the argument of these citizens but the superficiality and shallowness which satisfies them for disposing of his person and his office. The position of the subject, ὁἸησοῦς, between the two participles διδάσκωνκαὶλέγων shows that the phrase “in the Temple” is not to be drawn to the main verb: “he cried out in the Temple,” but that it must be drawn to the two participles: “teaching in the Temple and saying.” The participles, however, cannot indicate the time: while still teaching and speaking in the Temple; or: before he left the Temple court.

For v. 14 has already given us this information, and no reason appears for repeating it here. These are modal participles, describing the loud crying of Jesus. “He cried out” draws attention to the fact that he was deeply moved thus to raise his voice; the participles add that he did this as teaching and making a declaration (λέγων) here in the Temple, the central place designed for this very purpose. In this loud cry we are still to hear the teacher and speaker engaged in his Temple work. John writes this preamble to Jesus’ words as a witness who was present, who heard and saw what took place.

The fact that Jesus cried out as he did should dispose of the idea that Jesus merely acknowledges what the citizens claim to know, namely, whence he is, which naturally involves also who he is: “You know both me and know whence I am.” Why should Jesus lift up his voice in order to make such an admission? His ordinary tone of voice would have sufficed for that. The emotion indicated on the part of Jesus makes it quite certain that his first words are an exclamatory question. In fact, Jesus cannot admit that these citizens really know him, for their own little argument shows that they do not, and Jesus tells them in no uncertain way that they do not. Note the emphasis brought out by the two καί: “Both me you know and know whence I am?!” This matches exactly the words of these citizens. Not that Jesus actually heard what they said to each other; he understood of his own accord exactly what they said.

They claimed to know “him, whence he is,” him, that he cannot possibly be the Christ, that he must be an imposter, deceiving the people (v. 12), not sent of God, but foisting himself upon the people; and this because they know his home town and his family and are sure because of this knowledge of theirs. The force of Jesus’ cry is: “So you think you know me since you are sure you know my home and family!” The question is debated as to whether these words contain a tinge of irony or not. The blanket denial that Jesus never employs irony is untenable. Equally unwarranted is the claim that irony is incompatible with a loud tone of voice, for many an exclamation is even sarcastic. In the present case the irony is sufficiently marked by the fact that these wise citizens treat as supremely significant something that has no significance at all.

The fact that Jesus grew up in Nazareth in the home of Joseph and Mary reveals nothing about his true origin and mission, and the assumption of the citizens that it reveals everything only demonstrates their foolish ignorance. With a third καί, used adversatively, Jesus himself testifies “whence he is”: “and I have not come of myself, but one that is real is he that did send me, whom you do not know.” The emphasis is on the positive clause, which the negative clause only aids in stressing. And in this positive clause the point is the reality of the great Sender of Jesus: “he is real that did send me.” The predicate ἀληθινός opposes the idea which these citizens hold, that Jesus has come on his own initiative, that at best he only imagines that he is sent. His Sender, he testifies, is not a phantasy of his mind, a being whom he has invented, but One who is actual and real. This evident contrast, furnished by the negative clause, dare not be altered. Jesus is not comparing two senders, one who is such in the highest degree and one in an inferior degree; or one who has genuine authority to send and another whose authority may be called in question. Likewise ἀληθινός does not mean ἀληθινὸςΘεός: he that did send me is “the true God.” While Jesus refers to God, the predicate “real” states only that as a Sender the person of whom Jesus is speaking is “real,” One who actually exists.

The full impact of this testimony lies in the relative clause, “whom you do not know.” We must note the emphatic pronoun ὑμεῖς, “you,” such as you are. These citizens boast of their knowledge: “him we know whence he is.” This supposed knowledge Jesus first calls in question: “Me you know?! and you know whence I am?!” meaning: You do not know me, nor do you know whence I am! Then Jesus denies this supposed knowledge: this Sender, who is real, “whom you (being what you are) do not know.” In spite of the Scriptures which these citizens had they do not know God (5:38), proof of which is the fact that, when God sent them his own Son, they failed to recognize that Son and the fact that God had sent him. They know a couple of minor and external things about Jesus, his home town and his family; with this shallow knowledge they could never know either his person or his mission. To know these they would have to know God, as God actually had revealed himself—and him they do not know.

John 7:29

29 These citizens are blind regarding the vital point; not so Jesus. I know him because I am from him; and he did commission me. The reading with δέ has insufficient support: “Yet I know him.” This means that ἐγώ is not meant to be in contrast with the preceding ὑμεῖς, but in contrast with the following ἐκεῖνος: “I know him, … and he did send me.” It is true that Jesus places his knowledge overagainst the ignorance of these citizens. But we must add that the knowledge Jesus has is of an entirely different kind from that which these citizens might have had and failed to have. They could and should have known God from his Word, but Jesus was not dependent upon this source for his knowledge of God. He knows God in an immediate manner: “because I am from him.” In παρʼ αὑτοῦ lies an original παρʼ αὑτῷ.

He who is “from God” was originally “with God.” Compare 1:18; 3:13; 6:33, 38, 46, 50, and 58. Before his incarnation Jesus was with God in heaven and thus he now says of himself, “I am from God.” The knowledge he has of God is that which he brought with him from heaven (1:18).

Certain texts have: ὅτιπαρʼ αὑτῷεἰμι, “because I am with him.” The textual evidence has not established this as the true reading. The claim that παρʼ αὑτῷ was changed into παρʼ αὑτοῦ because the former conveys an “inconvenient” meaning is unwarranted; for Jesus utters the same thought in 3:13 (the last clause: “he who is in heaven”; see the explanation of these words), and, of course, might use it again. The “inconvenience” of this thought is rather in the minds of the moderns, who do not admit that Jesus can at the same time be present both on earth and with God in heaven. For this reason they eliminate this thought from 3:13, and the παρʼ αὑτῷ in the present passage they refer to the communion of Jesus with God, supporting their view by a reference to 8:29, μετʼ ἐμοῦ, God’s communion with Jesus—although the prepositions as well as the contexts differ. In order to clear up the matter we must note that the primary question at issue is πόθενἐστίν, “whence Jesus is.” In v. 27 this indirect question is twice repeated by the citizens, and in v. 28 Jesus takes it from their lips. When answering this question Jesus brings in the point of knowledge; because the citizens do not know God, therefore they know neither Jesus nor whence he is; Jesus, however, knows God because he is “from him,” παρʼ αὑτοῦ, even as also God sent him. We thus see that it is not enough for Jesus to say that he is “with God,” for, while this would show that he knows God, it would not state “whence he is.” Therefore Jesus says that he is “from God,” which does both, namely, proves his origin from heaven and thus his direct knowledge of God.

When Jesus testifies that he is “from him” he already declares his mission, namely, that he is sent as the Messiah. But he states this directly, “and he did commission me.” This is an independent statement which is no longer governed by ὅτι. It forms part of the answer to the question “whence” Jesus is. Note how ἐγώ and ἐκεῖνος are emphatically balanced: “I am from him; he did commission me.” In other words, this God, whom these citizens do not know, Jesus knows so well, for Jesus came from him, and that God did himself send and commission Jesus. In the completest way the question, whence Jesus is, is thus answered. And at the same time these citizens are shown why they know nothing of Jesus’ origin although they think they know everything, and why Jesus knows what is hidden from them.

The issue is squarely drawn: on the one side utter ignorance and empty boast of knowledge, on the other complete and self-evident knowledge; on the one side a spurious deduction, on the other firsthand testimony to the fact; on the one side vain and empty denial that Jesus is the Christ, on the other the assured reality that he is, indeed, the Christ. While it is brief, this testimony of Jesus is most direct and to the point and at the same time highly dramatic.

John 7:30

30 It intensifies the hostility of the citizens. Therefore they were seeking to arrest him; and no one laid his hand upon him because his hour had not yet come. No change of subject is indicated. The irritated citizens of Jerusalem (v. 25), passively averse to Jesus up to this point, are now filled with the desire to aid the authorities in apprehending the man who had contradicted them. The imperfect ἐζήτουν leaves the outcome of this desire open; the following aorist οὑδεὶςἐπέβαλον reports that the desire proved abortive. No one had the courage actually to lay his hand on Jesus.

The scene is overdrawn when these citizens are made to press in on Jesus “in wild rage” in order to drag him to prison. We are told only what was in their hearts. When it came to action, they hesitated. So also we read nothing about “an invisible wall of protection surrounding Jesus” so that he “remained untouched in the midst of his raging enemies.” But instead of reporting the secondary reason why no one laid his hand upon Jesus, John at once points to the primary reason why these citizens were restrained from carrying out their desire. “His hour had not yet come,” the time set by the Father for Jesus to be delivered into the hands of his enemies. On this occasion the invisible hand of God restrained his foes by opening no way for them to carry out their design. We may take it that the citizens were afraid of the pilgrim multitudes who thronged the Temple courts during the festival.

It was God’s hand that protected Jesus, but that hand used natural means.

John 7:31

31 Jesus Warns the Jews regarding his Departure, 31–36.—The encounter sketched in v. 14–24 took place on the day in the midst of the feast when Jesus first appeared in the Temple. The clash with the citizens seems to have followed almost immediately on the same day. verse 37 takes us to the last day of the feast. The intervening paragraph, v. 31–36, evidently reports an incident that occurred on one of the days between these two events. For the Sanhedrin has had time to call a meeting and to issue an order to the Temple police to take Jesus into custody. We must begin a new paragraph with v. 31. This verse states what moved the Pharisees to stir the Sanhedrin into action with the result that Jesus publicly warns all concerned that he will soon return to his Sender, at which announcement the rulers scoff.

But of the multitude many believed on him; and they were saying, The Christ, when he shall come, certainly will do no greater signs than this man has done? Not all, but a goodly number of the pilgrims gathered for the feast, believed in Jesus. The connective δέ contrasts these with the citizens of Jerusalem who had advanced to decided hostility. But we cannot conclude from the fact that Jesus only taught on this visit to Jerusalem and wrought no miracles that the faith of these pilgrims was the result of his words. We are compelled to connect the character of the faith of these people with the confession they make, and this shows that their faith as yet rested only on the signs and had not yet embraced the teaching of Jesus. It resembled the faith of those mentioned in 2:23; and again in 4:45; and was inferior to the faith of those mentioned in 4:41.

The imperfect ἔλεγον describes how they question one with another. Note how ὁΧριστός is placed emphatically forward. The question is really abstract; it supposes the coming of the Christ and then asks whether he could do greater signs than Jesus had already done. We must regard πλείονα, not as a reference to mere number: “more signs,” but to a plus qualitate, as S. Goebel states: “greater signs.” For this use of the term compare Matt. 6:25; 12:41; also Matt. 21:36; Heb. 3:3; 11:4; Rev. 2:19. The question with μή indicates that in the minds of these pilgrims the supposition must be denied.

They cannot imagine that the Messiah, whoever he may be, would work signs that exceeded those Jesus “did work,” the historical aorist to express the past fact. Among those present there must have been many who had seen some of these signs, and, no doubt, they told of them and exchanged reports. In ὧν the antecedent is drawn into the relative, and the case of the antecedent is retained: τούτωνἅ, R. 720.

John 7:32

32 For fear of the rulers no open demonstration was made in favor of Jesus, proclaiming him as “the Christ”; the pilgrims contented themselves with quiet talk. The Pharisees heard the multitude murmuring these things concerning him; and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers in order to arrest him. The Pharisees (see 1:24) were the great guardians of the law. Some of these moved among the pilgrims and heard this quiet talk. The genitive indicates the persons heard and is here modified by a predicative participle: τοῦὄχλουγογγύζοντος. These Pharisees at once reported to the rulers and stirred them to action.

The term “Pharisees” denotes a numerous party among the Jews (see 1:24), but “the chief priests and the Pharisees” is John’s designation for the Sanhedrin, the highest court of the nation, 7:45; 11:47, and 57; 18:3. Some of Pharisees who brought the report concerning the talk among the pilgrims may also have been members of the Sanhedrin. John sketches only sufficient of the situation to permit his readers to understand the following words of Jesus and the reaction which they caused. So he reports only that the Sanhedrin sent its police officers to arrest Jesus. Whether the Sanhedrin just happened to be in session, or whether a special meeting was called, and what the deliberations were that ended in the order of arrest, is omitted. This legal and official order, issued by the proper court of jurisdiction to its lawful police force, marks a definite stage in the proceedings of the authorities against Jesus.

In 5:18; 7:1 and 20 we learn only that the Jewish leaders “were seeking to kill” Jesus, i.e., that this was their desire and design. Now they take the first official and legal steps toward that end. As the sequel shows, this order of arrest is not peremptory, to bring Jesus in forthwith. The officers are to watch for their opportunity; for the Sanhedrin fears to enrage the pilgrims who are favorable to Jesus. This might prove dangerous. The Sanhedrin generally reckoned with the consequences.

John 7:33

33 The order is issued. The connective οὗν shows that in some way Jesus is fully aware of the serious move. Before him are the ὄχλος, as usual, some of the Ἰουδαῖοι or members of the Sanhedrin (v. 35), and the ὑπηρέται or police watching their chance. Jesus, therefore, said, Yet a little while I am with you and I am going away to him that did send me. We must cancel αὑτοῖς: he said “to them” (A. V,).

While “the Jews,” namely the Sanhedrists present, make a response (v. 35), this is not addressed to Jesus but to each other, it is a kind of scoffing uttered only so that Jesus, too, shall hear and be wounded the more. We may then say that the words of Jesus are intended for all present, in particular for “the Jews.” With perfect calmness and assurance Jesus delivers his answer to the move that has been made against him, but a sorrowful tone of deep pity vibrates through his words.

Jesus speaks as one whose course is fully planned and will be completed in due order. He will yet remain with these people for a short time; then his task will be finished, and he will go back to his great Sender. The underlying thought is that nothing which these Jews, his enemies, may do will change that program in the least. In a short time he will complete his mission and return to his Sender to make his report. The emphasis is first on “little” (actually only six months remain) and next on “I am going away.” Jesus says that he himself will stay yet awhile and then will leave. As far as the Jews are concerned, their actions do not count.

There is something majestic in the words. When he again mentions “him that did send me” he speaks as the Messiah engaged in his Messianic mission, back of which is God himself. The other thought is that the Jewish authorities want to be rid of Jesus, at once if possible, and that their wish will, indeed, be fulfilled by Jesus himself, though not at once. But his leaving will not be as they desire. It will not be a mere killing him as a man and thus an ending of his career. Jesus will complete his mission and then, after everything has been finished for which he came to earth, he will return to his Father in heaven.

John 7:34

34 But this leaving has another side, one pertaining to the enemies of Jesus, one dreadful to contemplate. You shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am you cannot come. Luther writes, “These are terrible words, I do not like to read them.” Back of them lies the rejection of Jesus, God’s Messiah, by the Jewish nation. “You shall seek me” cannot refer to a hostile seeking, for Jesus will be exalted at his Father’s right hand. It cannot refer to a seeking for help to alleviate the calamities that will descend upon the nation, for Jesus nowhere intimates that he is a political or a military deliverer. A repentant seeking is also excluded, for Jesus adds, “and you shall not find me,” and elucidates this in 8:21, “You shall seek me and shall die in your sins.” This is the seeking of despair which always comes too late. Amos 8:11, etc., describes it: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord.

And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.” Again Prov. 1:24, etc.: “Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at naught all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; when your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: for that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord: they would none of my counsel, they despised all my reproof. Therefore they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.” This terrible seeking comes when the day of grace is past. “Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts as in the provocation,” Heb. 3:15. Note the juxtaposition of ἐγώ and ὑμεῖς—in heaven and blessedness, I, you amid death and damnation.

John 7:35

35 While Jesus addresses those present in the most direct way, no direct reply is made to him. Only the rulers speak, but to each other not to him. They had not fared very well in their last attempt (v. 15) when Jesus had promptly silenced them (v. 16–19). The Jews, therefore, said to themselves, Where is this fellow about to go that we shall not find him? He certainly is not about to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and to teach the Greeks? What is this word which he said, You shall seek me and shall not find me, and where I am you cannot come?

The phrase πρὸςἑαυτούς, “to themselves,” means “to each other”; πρὸς is reciprocal. These Jews want the crowd to understand that they do not deem Jesus worthy a reply. What they remark to each other is intended as insulting mockery. They act as though they did not hear the words, “to him that did send me,” with all that these words implied. They heard well enough and understood fully. But in order to mock Jesus and to ridicule the prophetic threat in his words, they pretend to be mystified.

So he is going to run off somewhere and hide where they will not find him? On ποῦ for “whither” see R. 299 (b); ὅτι is made causal, B.-D. 456, 2; R. 1205 “probably”; consecutive is much better, R. 1001. Well, about the only place that could be would be the Diaspora among the heathen Greeks, some distant country where scattered Jews live among the heathen Greek population. Smaller and larger groups of Jews were scattered far and wide over all the Roman Empire; see the list in Acts 2:9–11. The genitive “of the Greeks” is called objective of place, R. 495, 500, etc., and is translated “among the Greeks.” These genitives look like simple possessives: the Diaspora which the Greeks have. The form of the question implies a negative answer.

Yet this does not mean that the Jews suggest “no” as the answer. Their question is intended as a sneer, and its negative turn with μή intends to make the sneer more cutting.

This is brought out by the addition, “and to teach the Greeks,” τοὺςἝλληνας, pagan Greeks, not Hellenized Jews, which would be Ἑλληνισταί. The thought in the negative question is that Jesus, rejected by the acknowledged Jewish authorities at the capital, might turn to the Jews scattered in other lands, and, finding himself rejected also by these, would have left only pagan Greeks among whom to play the Messiah. Thus for the statement of Jesus that he will soon go away to his Sender the Jews would substitute the wild notion that, if he does go away, the only choice he would have is to go to the pagan world. This sneer intends to reduce the Messiahship of Jesus to a bald absurdity. We, therefore, do not need the explanation that the Jews did not understand Jesus when he spoke about his Sender; or that these Jews were other individuals who had not faced Jesus before. Nor is the claim warranted that Jesus never uttered the phrase “to him that did send me,” but that John added it of his own accord.

It is correct, however, that John records this sneer of the Jews because the gospel afterward took exactly the course sneeringly suggested by these Jews. Paul carried it to the Dispersion and to the Gentiles, and John himself labored in Ephesus and wrote his Gospel in the very language of the Greeks.

John 7:36

36 When the Jews inquire of each other, “What is this word which he said ?” etc., they merely continue their pretense of being mystified, and this is the reason why Jesus pays no further attention to them. The police officers stood by but received no hint to step in and to take Jesus into custody. Whether this inaction was due to the effect of the calm and deliberate attitude of Jesus and to the force of his words or merely to the outward situation, the presence of too many friends of Jesus in the multitude, who will say?

III. Jesus’ Testimony Impresses the Police Sent for His Arrest, 37–52.

John 7:37

37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus was standing, and he cried, saying, If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and let him drink. The question whether this last and great day of the feast is the seventh or the eighth day is of minor importance. John specifies the day, not merely because he vividly remembers it but evidently because the significance of the day and of the ritual connected with it are reflected in the words of Jesus. We join the majority in deciding for the eighth day, although the question is still being debated. The details of the argument deal chiefly with Lev. 23:36; Neh. 8:18; Josephus, Ant. 3, 10; and the Mishna treatise entitled Succa. The fact that the festival commonly comprised eight days ought no longer to be contested.

The chief point, as all acknowledge, is the greatness of the day in question. Those who contend for the seventh must show that this exceeded the eighth. Yet it lacked the convocation which distinguishes the eighth day. The greatest number of sacrifices were offered on the first day, and this number decreased day by day, so that on the seventh day very few were offered. The eighth day had the special distinction that it was the last festival day in the entire Jewish church year and was called “the last good day” (Succa IV, 8), “the sacred close of the year” (Josephus), ἐξόδιον (LXX), a free translation of ‘Atzerch, “Festive Convocation” (Lev. 23:36; Num. 29:35; Neh. 8:18). At least since the time of the Maccabees (2 Macc. 10:6) the eighth day accords best with John’s designation, “on the last day, the great day of the feast.”

The action of Jesus accords with the greatness of the day. “He was standing and he cried” (compare v. 28). He now performed the role of a public herald, no longer that of a teacher, who usually was seated. The pluperfect εἱστήκει is imperfect in sense and describes the action of standing, while the aorist ἔκραξε notes the fact that Jesus shouted. Both are finite verbs and thus make both actions equally important. The crowds surging in the Temple court made it necessary for Jesus to seek some prominent place where he could stand above the people and be generally seen and to lift up his voice so that as many as possible might hear him. Oriental orators still sit while they are speaking. In the great mosque at Damascus and again in the mosque of the dancing dervishes in Constantinople the author heard the Koran expounded by speakers who were seated cross-legged on a small elevated platform, the audience being seated cross-legged on the floor around them.

Jesus shouts into the ears of the great crowd, “If anyone shall thirst,” etc., (present subjunctive, “shall be thirsting”). The condition of expectancy implies that some will, indeed, thirst, yet the indefinite singular sounds as though Jesus does not expect that many will thirst. He refers to spiritual thirsting (4:14; 6:53–56), which, however, does not emanate from ourselves but, like the coming and the drinking, is the effect of the presence of Jesus, of his call and offer of living water (grace and salvation). He awakens the desire for spiritual satisfaction, even as he also satisfies this desire.

Each morning during the seven days of the feast, at the time of the sacrifice, a priest proceeded to the fountain of Siloah with a golden pitcher, filled it with water, and, accompanied by a solemn procession, bore it to the altar of burnt sacrifice, pouring the water, together with the contents of a pitcher of wine from the drink offering, into two perforated flat bowls. The trumpets sounded, and the people sang Isa. 12:3, “Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.” Compare the author’s Eisenach Old Testament Selections, 701, etc. Late Jewish authorities report that this was done also on the eighth day. In the debate as to whether Jesus has this ceremony in mind when uttering his cry we need not be in doubt. It commemorated the water that gushed out of the rock at Meribah and that was intended to quench the thirst of the multitude in the desert, although the symbolic ceremony in the Temple repeated only the pouring out. Symbols seldom re-enact every feature.

Water is not directly mentioned but is certainly implied in thirsting and in drinking. This water is usually identified as the Word. But 4:10 (which see) shows that the water which Jesus has in mind is life, and thus his Word is the means for bestowing it. Coming and drinking are merely two sides of one action, namely, believing in Jesus. This call to come and to drink is full of efficacious drawing power. Whoever does come and drink is moved thereto by the Word and the gift held out to him.

The two present imperatives ἐρχέσθω and πινέτω are aoristic presents not durative or linear actions; see R. 864, etc., especially the three examples of imperatives in Luke 7:8, at the bottom of 865, under “specific presents.” We are to come and to drink once only—then we shall never thirst again. Life, once received, lives on and on; we need not receive it over and over again. The figure of birth (3:3–5) is more adequate in this respect, as natural birth is without repetition. In the case of eating and drinking the explanation must be added that repetition is not necessary (4:14; 6:35) because in nature hunger and thirst recur, and we are compelled to eat and to drink daily.

John 7:38

38 The lack of a connective between v. 37 and v. 38 is sufficient ground for assuming that the two verses are independent statements, not uttered consecutively but taken from separate parts of a longer discourse. That Jesus said more on this last day when he stood in a prominent position and cried out may well be assumed, compare “these words” in v. 40. verses 37 and 38, however, are too closely related in thought to be separated from each other. If anything at all intervened, it only expanded v. 37 and retained the inner connection with v. 38. He who comes to Jesus not only finds his own soul satisfied but also becomes a medium for conveying the same spiritual satisfaction to others—this, of course, when the work of Jesus shall be finished and the Holy Spirit given to believers after Pentecost, v. 39.

He that believes in me—even as the Scripture has said, out of his belly rivers of living water shall flow. The sense will not allow us to draw “he that believes in me” to v. 37, for Jesus bids the thirsty to come and to drink and not him who already believes and has his thirst quenched. It is equally impossible to refer αὑτοῦ, out of “his” belly, to the pronoun “me” in v. 37 and thus to have Jesus say that out of “his” belly these rivers shall flow. The anacoluthon is quite simple and fairly frequent, beginning the sentence with a nominative (a suspended subject, R. 437; a nominativus pendens, R. 459, 1130) and continuing with another subject while a genitive takes up the first. “He that believes in me” is literal and thus makes clear what the figurative coming to Jesus and drinking mean, namely to become a believer. The present substantivized participle ὁπιστεύων characterizes the person as one who continues trusting in Jesus. To the person thus described an astounding promise is held out, one mentioned in the Old Testament Scriptures and now restated by Jesus.

“Even as the Scripture did say” (the English requires “has said”) is not the formula for introducing a direct quotation from the Old Testament but one that reproduces Scripture thought. We may consider Isa. 58:11: “And the Lord shall … satisfy thy soul in drought, … and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, where waters fail not”; Zech. 14:8: “And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem,” this plural being individualized by Jesus; and other passages verbally close. A point that is often overlooked is the question why Jesus fortifies what he here promises the believers by anchoring this promise in the Old Testament Scripture. He does the same in 5:39; 5:46, 47; and 7:22. His entire mission and work, together with all the blessings he has come to bestow, are the fulfillment of God’s ancient promises, which fact proves beyond question the genuineness of his Messiahship. This reference to the Scripture is another direct answer to the rulers who scoff at his claims.

The fact that through Jesus every believer actually attains what God promised ages ago by the mouth of his holy prophets is the subjective evidence for the truth of Christianity. In the present case, however, the festival with its rites renews the old promises of God to the people, and what Jesus shouts to the multitude interprets and shows the fulfillment of these promises. This is the real bearing of the reference to the Scripture.

The emphasis is on ποταμοί (placed forward) and on ὕδατοςζῶντος (placed at the end), which the English cannot imitate. Actual “rivers” not mere trickles shall flow forth; and these shall consist of “living water” (4:10). It is commonplace to remark that “living” means “flowing” as opposed to stagnant, for rivers always flow. “Living water” is one of the allegorical expressions frequently used in the Scriptures, in which the figurative term is at once expounded by the non-figurative (see 4:10). We may analyze as follows: the fountain = Jesus (“let him come unto me”); thirsting, coming, and drinking, taken together = believing; the κοιλία receiving the water = the inner man; the water = true life; the flowing rivers = life-giving influence on others. The abundance of the latter is indicated by the plural “rivers,” saving influences in various directions and of different kinds. The ancients felt no impropriety in using κοιλία, which denotes the abdominal cavity and its contents, in a figurative way.

The American Committee of the R. V. translates “from within him” instead of “out of his belly”; but for the modern imagination the gain is small. “Belly” merely continues the figure already used in thirsting and in drinking (v. 38) and extended to “water.” All four expressions are to be understood spiritually.

In the figurative language of Jesus we must note certain features that are sometimes misunderstood due to the greatness and the strangeness of the realities that are pictured. At times the figure falls short, its imagery will not cover the reality; hence it is frankly abandoned and the reality itself is finally also stated, as in Matt. 25:30, “the outer darkness,” “the weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Again, the figure is utterly improbable, as in Matt. 21:37; no man would send his son under circumstances such as are narrated. Finally, a second figure is used to help out the first, as in Matt. 21:42–44, that of the stone (note the astonishing use in v. 44) completing that of the husbandmen. On this order Isaiah 4:14, one drink and a ceaselessly flowing inner spring—the entire realm of nature has no phenomenon like that. Similarly here, one drink to quench spiritual thirst; then rivers of water full of spiritual life flowing out in different directions. Whoever heard of one mouthful of water producing even one river? and whoever heard of one source sending out a number of rivers?

This breath-taking boldness in using imagery, with a single turn going from a drink to a number of rivers, subordinates the figures to the reality and at the same time impresses that reality in an unforgettable way. The idea of water is thus used in the fullest manner, being based on that drawn from Siloah and poured out at the altar.

In 4:14 the figure of the “spring” pictures only the fact that the believer will never thirst again; here the “rivers” picture the fact that the believer will resemble Jesus himself in that he will help to quench the thirst of many others. The story of the Acts has been scanned to find the fulfillment of the promise here made by Jesus. “What is the apostolic Word itself through which we believe (John 17:20); what are the confessions of the church, in harmony with which we believe; what are her hymns, her prayers, her sermons, all the testimonies of the faith and love in saving word and sacred conversation—what are they but rivers of living water flowing from the body of the church?” Besser.

John 7:39

39 John adds an explanation for the instruction of his readers. Now this he said concerning the Spirit whom they that believed in him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet present because Jesus was not yet glorified. The connective δέ indicates that this is a parenthetical remark. Πνεῦμα is used with and without the article after the manner of proper names. John is not elucidating the figurative language of Jesus; the rivers of living water are not identical with the Spirit, nor is the water of life that quenches spiritual thirst. Nor dare we suppose that those who at this time believed in Jesus, like the apostles, did so without the Spirit. The translation for οὕπωἦνΠνεῦμα, “not yet did the Spirit exist,” is entirely too strong.

The Spirit wrought throughout Old Testament times, in the work of the Baptist, and in the work of Jesus. And yet the believers “were about to receive” the Spirit; he “was not yet present,” as presently he would be, i.e., was not yet present thus. The reason is that “Jesus was not yet glorified.” That glorification would give them the Spirit.

The redemptive work of Jesus must first be completed, he must return to his Sender (v. 33), rise from the tomb, and ascend to heaven. Then, after all this work of Jesus was completed, he could at Pentecost send the Spirit upon his believers. And that Spirit would make rivers of living water flow from the believers throughout the New Testament era. Acts 1:8, “But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be my witnesses,” etc. No believer was ready or able to function as Jesus wanted him to function as long as he did not understand the sacrificial death of Jesus and his glorification. Prior to that completion of Jesus’ work all faith was like that of the Old Testament saints, a trust in the promise.

Jesus’ glorification would fulfill that promise. Then, too, he would send down the Spirit; things were not ready so that he could send him before that time. From that great day onward, even as the Acts report at length, salvation would flow out in great streams to the ends of the earth. The reading should be the aorist οἱπιστεύσαντες not the present participle; and the observation of R. 859 is valuable: this constative aorist is timeless, designating not merely those who up to this time, when Jesus spoke in the Temple, had believed, but also those who in future ages would believe in him.

John 7:40

40 John has finished his account of the testimony which Jesus delivered at the Feast of Tabernacles; he now records the effect in detail. Some of the multitude, therefore, who had heard these word were saying, This is of a truth the prophet. Here ἐκ is partitive for “some,” these constituting one class or one side. We see that an advance from v. 31 has been made, where the signs convince many in regard to Jesus; now the deciding factor is the words of Jesus, and nothing is said about the signs. “These words,” here the genitive (which is infrequent to indicate what is heard), are usually taken to mean the ones recorded in v. 38, 39, and, because they are so brief, it is assumed that John has greatly abbreviated the address of Jesus. Even then, since this chapter reports other words of Jesus, also uttered before the multitude (v. 16, etc.; 28, etc.; 33, etc.), these others should be included. The reaction of the multitude is thus indicated in v. 20; in v. 31; and now as final in v. 40–43. In distinction from the pilgrim multitude the citizens of Jerusalem totally reject Jesus, v. 25–27; certain ones in the multitude show the same vicious temper, v. 44 (compare v. 30).

The verdict of this first class is expressed with great earnestness, ἀληθῶς, “truly.” But when they call Jesus “the prophet,” this cannot mean “the Christ,” since another part of the multitude sets up this claim in contradiction to those first mentioned. Here, as in 1:21, “the prophet” is conceived to be a forerunner of the Christ. The Old Testament basis for the expectation of such a prophet is Deut. 18:15 and 18, 19. In John 6:14; Acts 3:22; 7:37, this prophet is identified with the Christ. By thus rating Jesus as “the prophet” this part of the multitude is at least deeply impressed and decidedly favorable to Jesus, although it is still far from the truth.

John 7:41

41 Others were saying, This is the Christ, the promised Messiah himself. The statement is positive and without qualification. These are believers, of course, with faith of varying degrees and quality. We see their helplessness when an objection is raised, which they seem unable to meet.

Some were saying, Why, out of Galilee the Christ certainly does not come? Did not the Scripture declare that the Christ comes out of the seed of David and from Bethlehem, the village where David was? The first group (ἐκτοῦὄχλου) and the second (ἄλλοι) are placed side by side since their convictions merely vary. The third group (οἱδέ) is placed in opposition to the second as though this had been designated by οἱμέν. They offer an argument for their conviction that Jesus cannot be the Christ which is couched in two questions, the first with μή implying a negative answer, the second with οὑ implying a positive answer. The insertion of γάρ (R. 1190), translated “why,” points to the proof that “out of Galilee” the Christ does not come, as all will admit.

Over against this negative they place the positive, the assurance derived from Micah 5:2; Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5, and from their synagogue instruction, that the birthplace of the Messiah must be Bethlehem. “The Scripture” is a comprehensive singular designation for the Old Testament canon, the final authority beyond which no Jew could go. The Davidic descent of the Christ is added in natural connection with Bethlehem which was also David’s birthplace.

Because of the long residence of Jesus in Nazareth he was commonly supposed to have been born there. Closer inquiry was not made. By recording without comment the appeal to the Scripture which these men make in regard to Bethlehem John intimates that their idea is correct. If their interpretation of the Scripture were incorrect, John would have pointed that out. He, too, accepts both the Davidic descent and Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus, but he knows that both are facts in regard to Jesus, of which these objectors, however, are not aware. “Where David was” refers to his stay in his father’s home in Bethlehem before he left that place in later years.

John 7:43

43 The three descriptive imperfects ἔλεγον in v. 40, 41 show us the discussion as it went on, each of the three parties making its claim. The aorist that now follows states the outcome. Accordingly there came to be a division in the multitude because of him. Neither party convinced the others; they were hopelessly divided. “In the multitude,” however, shows that the three parties consisted entirely of pilgrim visitors. The argument of the third party in regard to Bethlehem thus differs from that of the citizens of Jerusalem in v. 27, where the claim is made that the Messiah’s place of origin will not be known at all.

John 7:44

44 Certain ones of them, however, would have arrested him, but no one laid his hands on him. This fourth class must have been quite small (τινές), yet they were also pilgrims, possibly adherents of the Pharisees who had instigated the move to take Jesus into custody. The imperfect ἤθελον points to a will that was not carried into effect, as also the following aorist states. These violent opponents would like to have arrested Jesus and handed him over to the authorities, but, like the citizens in v. 30, they failed to act. Why, John does not say, but evidently for the same reason as that mentioned in v. 30. John varies his expressions slightly: in v. 30, “his hand,” now “his hands.” This closes the account of the effect of the testimony of Jesus on the pilgrim crowds who attended the feast. Note the extremes: some believe, others are ready to aid in killing Jesus.

John 7:45

45 At this point John reports how the order of the Sanhedrin to the Temple police to arrest Jesus broke down completely, so that the order was quietly dropped, and Jesus could remain in Jerusalem for some time after the feast was over. The officers, therefore, came to the chief priests and Pharisees; and these said to them, Why did you not bring him? The connective οὗν reverts to the inability of others besides the officers to lay hands on Jesus, though they are prompted by their own strong desire to do so. The officers were prompted only by the orders they had received. They now return to make their report. We may suppose that this occurred in the late afternoon of the eighth festival day.

By the next day the pilgrims would be on their homeward journey. The authorities thought that the arrest would have to be effected before the festival closed, assuming that otherwise Jesus, too, would leave together with the crowds. Thus we find the Sanhedrin in session, expecting that finally Jesus would now be brought in. The time for effecting the arrest having expired, the officers feel constrained to come and to make a report. They appear without Jesus and are at once faced with the peremptory question as to why they have not carried out their orders. In this verse one Greek article combines “the chief priests and Pharisees” as one class or one body, while in v. 32 two articles are used, “the chief priests and the Pharisees,” since the Pharisees were the ones that instigated the order for the arrest (v. 31) and thus appear as a distinct group of the Sanhedrin.

John 7:46

46 The officers replied, Never did a man so speak as this man. Some texts abbreviate this reply, “Never did a man speak thus.” The longer form seems the more likely in the mouth of men like these officers. Their reply is truly remarkable. They could truthfully have stated that they had failed because of the danger they would have incurred from the friendly part of the multitude always clustering about Jesus. The Sanhedrin itself feared these pilgrims, and, on receiving such a reply from their subordinates, could hardly have administered more than a mild rebuke. But whatever was the truth as regards the multitude, these officers had been restrained by something else, something that had made so deep an impression upon them that they openly avow it before the whole Sanhedrin, although they know in advance that they will be severely reprimanded and very likely even punished for admitting what they feel they must admit.

We must note these two points: the impression which lamed the hands of these officers, and then the impulse not to hide but openly to confess this impression. Both are due to Jesus.

The emphasis is on οὕτως, the manner in which Jesus spoke, and the verb ἐλάλησεν omits any reference to the substance of the thought that Jesus uttered. The authority, majesty, and power of the speaker restrained these officers, contrary to explicit orders; compare Matt. 7:28. They acknowledge that the manner of Jesus is superior to anything ever found in any other man. They are only one step from saying that this manner is superhuman, yea divine. Much as these officers felt constrained to obey their orders, a stronger influence had come over them—they simply could not and would not lay hands on a man who spoke as this man did. Thus another strange thing appears: the very tools through which the rulers planned to bring Jesus to prison and to death, by making this honest confession, disrupt the unity of the Sanhedrin and thus cause their own plan to be dropped.

The means defeat the end. God often plays with his enemies and makes their schemes ridiculous.

John 7:47

47 The rage of the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin now breaks loose. The Pharisees, therefore, answered them, Certainly you, too, have not been deceived? The emotion displayed in these μή questions is indicated by the context: protest, indignation, as here, scorn, excitement, sympathy, etc., R. 1175. While in the mind of the questioner the form with μή implies a negative reply, this very form often conveys the fear or the suspicion that the real reply will be the very opposite. Hence here we have the perfect tense “have been deceived” and thus are even now in this condition. Note also the emphatic καὶὑμεῖς, “even you—our own officers, who ought to stick to us and listen to us and not to the wily tones of another, one whom we despise. In this manner these Pharisees twist the reply of the officers, who say that never did a man speak so, οὕτως, by insinuatingly implying “so wily, with such cunning deceit.”

John 7:48

48 This they follow up. What, did anyone of the rulers believe in him or of the Pharisees? But this multitude, which knows not the law,—accursed are they! This time μή takes the negative answer as actually being granted. Observe the superior tone of these rulers over against their petty subordinates. What business have these dependents to follow impressions and thoughts of their own?

The aorist of the verb marks the past fact: not for one moment did any of these superior men put confidence in Jesus. So old is the argument, which still is current, that in religious matters men of power, authority, and learning cannot err, and that all humbler people ought to be guided by them without question. It was the argument which the lone monk of Wittenberg had to face. Could he alone be right when the pope, the emperor, and all the prelates and the princes held the contrary view? Could he alone be right, and they all be wrong?

John 7:49

49 This argumentative question is followed by a fierce invective: “But this multitude,” etc. The strong adversative ἀλλά is often equivalent to our No! We may translate with Zahn, “No; only this rabble,” etc. Likewise, in this connection where it is contrasted with the rulers, ὄχλος seems to be the equivalent of the Hebrew ‘am haaretz, die breite Schicht der Landbevoelkerung (Koenig, Hebraeisches und aramaeisches Woerterbuch), the country rabble, a scornful designation for the ordinary people, here the pilgrims from outlying parts. What are they over against the high and holy Pharisees, especially those in the great Sanhedrin?

“Which know not the law” = is so ignorant as not even to know the law much less carefully to observe it. But the holy Pharisees make this their absolute specialty. They are the authoritative custodians of the law; they know. And here these fools of officers were following that miserable, ignorant rabble instead of these high representatives and guardians of the law!

But the heat of the enraged Pharisees almost makes them blurt out what they certainly do not wish to admit. Their invective starts as though they would say, “But this multitude, which knows not the law, it believes in him.” A sudden shift avoids this damaging admission: “—accursed are they!” But by this veering even the sense is wrecked; for mere ignorance of the law on the part of common people who do not enjoy the advantages of the Pharisees cannot make them accursed. The real reason for cursing the multitude is not their ignorance but their listening to Jesus and their believing in him. Thus the Pharisees alter all betray themselves. No measures were as yet taken against people who believed in Jesus, but note 9:22. The Pharisees soon tried to make good their curse.

We hear no more about the officers. They seem to have escaped with the rebuke they had received.

John 7:50

50 But now the Sanhedrin hears another voice. Nicodemus says to them (he that came to him aforetime, being one of them), Surely our law does not judge the man unless it first has heard from him and has come to know what he does? If the avowal of the officers causes surprise, the objection of a member of the Sanhedrin itself must cause consternation. John’s λέγει, too, is vivid. The parenthesis makes us recall 3:1. A textual question is raised in regard to the words: “he that came to him aforetime,” especially also since the codices present different readings Yet the interference of Nicodemus cannot be understood unless we recall his former meeting with Jesus.

Merely to identify Nicodemus as “being one of them,” i.e., a ruler and a Pharisee (“of them” = the Pharisees, v. 47), would leave unexplained why he spoke out at this critical moment. It was not because he was one of them, for as one of them he would have remained silent; it was because he had been with Jesus.

John 7:51

51 Immediately after the Pharisees asserted so confidently that not one of their own exalted number believes in Jesus, Nicodemus, one of their number, speaks in defense of Jesus. Immediately after they boasted about themselves as being the great guardians of the law, one of their own number points out that they are violating that law. These clashes are highly dramatic. As a judge Nicodemus had both the right and the duty to remind his fellow-judges of the requirements of the law when they were forgetting them. He avoided every discourtesy, every appearance of arrogating to himself a judgment of his fellow-judges, by merely raising the question, thus allowing all to join in the answer. Yet it evinces courage for him to do even so much.

Some have called him timid, but this is a mistake; timidity would have closed his lips. By employing a question instead of making an assertion Nicodemus shows wisdom. Some questions answer themselves, and this is one of that kind. By using μή Nicodemus indicates what he on his part thinks the answer must be, but only so that he intimates that all the rest will agree with him. Actually they could not disagree. He, indeed, had to betray his friendliness toward Jesus by asking even this question that suggested so self-evident an answer.

Whatever odium may result to him from his colleagues he is ready to bear. He is a noble figure at this turn of affairs. By overplaying their hand the Pharisees in a manner force Nicodemus to the front. He probably would have preferred to say nothing, but his contact with Jesus had opened his eyes sufficiently to see the real character of what was now being enacted, and that gave him courage to speak. By speaking he was brought one step nearer to faith.

It is a mistake to think that Nicodemus uses “the law” as a pretext behind which he may hide. Quite the contrary; the Pharisees had mentioned “the law” and had cursed the people for not knowing it. For this reason Nicodemus refers to “the law.” The legal provisions in question are Exod. 23:1 and Deut. 1:16, etc. Moreover, these legal requirements are broader than “the law” as it was laid down for the Jews by God, they are part of the commonest human justice, which is followed even in pagan courts. Here we may remark that fanatical religious zeal on the part of men who claim great holiness for themselves often blindly violates the commonest ordinary justice when dealing with religious opponents. The scene occurring in the Sanhedrin this day has often been repeated since, and often without a Nicodemus to call a halt.

No, the law does not render a verdict on a man, κρίνει, until that man (the one in question, τὸνἄνθρωπον) is first heard in person by the court, and the court thus itself knows what he does. The verb κρίνει is indeterminate—according to the finding (γνῷ) the verdict may result either in acquital or in a fitting sentence of punishment. There must first be a proper trial. The man charged must first be heard, i.e., given an opportunity to make his defense. Only after all the evidence is in, including that of the man himself, after the court knows and has been able to make a just finding in the case, is the verdict rendered. The aorists ὀκούσῃ and γνῷ indicate actuality.

Both are legal terms, as is also κρίνει. “What he does,” τίποιεῖ, = what the real character of the man’s deed is, the court rendering a verdict accordingly. All this, Nicodemus implies, still holds for the Sanhedrin, whether the ὄχλος or Jesus be brought before its bar. The question arises whether Nicodemus was present when the order for the arrest of Jesus was issued, v. 32. We must assume that he was absent. Since so many judges made up the court, it no doubt frequently occurred that one or more were not in their places when a meeting was held. Some suppose that in spite of the full title “the chief priests and the Pharisees” in v. 32 only the executive managers had issued the order.

This is possible but doubtful.

John 7:52

52 The answer which Nicodemus receives is as passionate as that given to the officers. They answered and said unto him (see 1:48), Surely thou, too, art not of Galilee? Search and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee. Of course they know that he is not a Galilean, but by their question introduced with μή they insinuate that only on this supposition could they possibly understand his appeal to their legal obligations. Jesus hailed from Galilee, there, too, he had risen to great fame, and the Galilean pilgrims were the ones who especially acclaimed him at the festival. So the Pharisees, having no possible defense for their illegal procedure, substitute an insulting attack upon the motive of their monitor, namely, that he talks as though he, too, were from Galilee.

To this usual interpretation we must add, that since all the Galileans at the feast are members of “the multitude,” the Pharisees imply that Nicodemus must be no better and stand no higher in trying to defend the legal rights of the multitude and of Jesus. Does he want them to think that he is as ignorant as the multitude? Does he want to share the curse they had pronounced upon this ignorant rabble?

That is why they add the admonition that Nicodemus search and see for himself that no prophet arises out of Galilee, to say nothing of the Messiah himself. This reference to the gross ignorance of Nicodemus must be coupled with the charge of ignorance against the multitude, among which so many were friendly to Jesus. At the same time this is their return slap at Nicodemus, calling him desperately ignorant for having intimated ignorance of the law on their part, while they thus vindicate their own pretense to knowledge. The aorist imperative “search” enjoins a search that will go to the bottom of things and obtain the actual facts. They do not say whether Nicodemus is to search the Scriptures or only history in general. “See” means: “convince yourself!” The emphasis is on the phrase “out of Galilee.” The present tense ἐγείρεται, “arises,” reads like the general proposition that at no time Galilee can furnish a prophet. Some texts have the perfect ἐγήγερται, “has arisen,” which restricts the claim to the past and says nothing about future possibilities. “Arise,” whether the present or the perfect was used, is wider than to be born.

It seems almost incredible that these Pharisees did not know that Jonah hailed from Galilee, 2 Kings 14:25, and that most likely also Nahum and Hosea came from that country. If the present tense is taken in a restricted sense as excluding the past and the three prophets named, Isa. 9:1 (compare Matt. 4:15, 16) is in the way. As so often, blind passion made these men set up false and unwarranted claims which contradicted their own better knowledge. Whether Nicodemus further discussed the point we do not learn. The upshot of the proceedings was that at this time the Sanhedrin took no further action, so that Jesus, who remained in Jerusalem after the feast, continued his work.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.