From: Busy Person’s Guide to John 1 to 10 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2019
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
credit is given and the text is not altered.
Busy Person’s Guide to the
New Testament:
Quickly Understanding John
(Volume 1: Chapters 7 to 8)
Chapter Seven
Because of the Anger of the Jerusalem Religious Leaders at
Jesus and the Pressure of His Own Kin to Do Something So Impressive that
Violence Would Ensue, This Time He Attends the Feast of Tabernacles in Secret (John
7:1-13): After this Jesus traveled throughout Galilee. He stayed out of Judea because the Jewish
leaders wanted to kill him. 2 Now the Jewish feast
of Tabernacles was near. 3 So Jesus’ brothers
advised him, “Leave here and go to Judea so your disciples may
see your miracles that you are performing. 4 For no one who seeks to make a reputation for himself does anything in
secret. If you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 (For not even his own brothers believed in him.)
6 So Jesus replied, “My
time has not yet arrived, but you are ready at any opportunity! 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I am testifying
about it that its deeds are evil. 8 You go up to the feast yourselves.
I am not going up to this feast because my time has not yet fully
arrived.” 9 When he had said this,
he remained in Galilee.
10 But when his brothers
had gone up to the feast, then Jesus himself also went up, not openly but in
secret. 11 So the Jewish leaders
were looking for him at the feast, asking, “Where is he?” 12 There was a lot of grumbling about him among the crowds. Some were saying,
“He is a good man,” but others, “He deceives the common people.” 13 However, no one spoke openly about him for fear of the Jewish leaders. --New English Translation (for comparison)
7:1 After these things Jesus walked
in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him. While
at the Passover in Jerusalem (5:1),
He had thoroughly irritated the local religious power structure leading to
their wish to have Him executed (5:16,
18). Truth was pre-eminent to Him,
however, both in Judea and back here in Galilee. Here the danger to His cause came not from
those who were open enemies but from those who claimed to be His
followers. Hence His startling words in
chapter 6. Having thoroughly
disenchanted those seeing in Him a earthly
revolutionary, now people were going to be interested in Him solely for His
teaching insight and miraculous power--or refuse to have anything to do with
Him at all. Between the region with many
disillusioned former followers and the region where those who wished Him dead
controlled so much, the path of prudence was to work on rebuilding His base of
support in Galilee.
7:2 Now the Jews’ Feast of
Tabernacles was at hand. Although it is much discussed as to how many actually
went to the three major Feasts each year, there is no controversy that this was
looked upon, informally at least, as the most joyful one of them. Even the vital Passover “only” commemorated
God’s past blessing upon the nation; this one celebrated God’s current
blessing upon the land as well. So
with the Feast of Tabernacles approaching, Jesus had to make the decision
whether to run the risks present in Jerusalem
while attending or stay behind.
Sidebar: The feeding of the thousands in the previous
chapter was when the Passover “was near” (6:4).
Since Tabernacles was in September, roughly five months have gone by at
this point.
Sidebar: The observance of the Feast. “The Feast
of Tabernacles . . . was the last great feast of the sacred year. It had its relation to the natural and
providential goodness of God. Just as the Passover commemorated the opening of
the harvest and the first fruits of the grain, and as Pentecost celebrated the
completion of the harvest, so the ‘Tabernacles’ implied the ingathering of the
fruit of the vine and of the olive, and summed up the joyful acknowledgments
for the whole year. . . . Joyfulness and astonishing ceremonial characterized
the festival. The city of palaces broke
out into booths of trees and leaves in every possible space, on walls and
housetops in courtyards, and even in wagons and on the backs of camels. The people carried their palm branches and
citrons in their hands, and great merriment . . . prevailed. It probably gathered up about it, as some
Christian festivals have done, other ancient or surrounding customs.
“The number of bullocks sacrificed during the seven
days--one fewer on each day, beginning with thirteen--amounted in all to seventy (13+12+11+10+9+8+7 = 70). This the rabbis regarded as referring to the seventy
nations of heathendom. Additional
peculiarities were conspicuous in the immense number of priests who were
required to take part in the sacrifices.
“The blasts of priests’ trumpets which regulated the
ceremonial, the great musical procession employed in bringing water from the
Pool of Siloam, then within the city wall, added another noticeable feature.
The water was brought in a golden goblet, and poured into a silver funnel,
which conveyed it by pipes to the Kedron, and was
thus supposed to bless the thirsty land.
This act was accompanied by singing the great Hallel, and the shouts and songs of Zion were heard far over hill and valley.
“At night time universal illumination prevailed,
and huge candelabra in the temple court shed a radiance over the whole
city. These peculiarities of the feast
rendered it the most popular, if not the most sacred, of all the feasts
([Josephus,] Antiquities 8:04,
1, Ἐορτὴ ἁγιωτάτη
καὶ μεγίστη). It was a time when the national sentiment
often burst into fierce flame. Various
historic glories of the past were called to remembrance, and spiritual
privileges were symbolized in the ritual.”
(Pulpit Commentary)
7:3 His brothers therefore said
to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may
see the works that You are doing. There are two opposite ways to interpret this
plea. On the one hand, one could
argue that Jesus had become an embarrassment to His brothers, so much so that
they urged him to leave Galilee. That way they would be freed from having to
explain / excuse His actions. That way
He could “make a fool of Himself” somewhere else and not cause any further
scorn to be inflicted upon them. Jesus’
insistence that they go in verse 8 can easily be
read as meaning that they were inclined not to go this year because of this
very embarrassment response.
Alternatively
one can suspect that they had the same worldly King concept that Jesus had so
forcefully discouraged. By pushing Him
before the audiences in Judea--and especially in the
proverbial “city of the King” (i.e., Jerusalem)--they
hoped to reignite those passions for a political Messiah that He so recently
had undermined. Look through Jesus’
words once again: He had crushed the
effort not by explicitly rejecting that option but by
giving teaching that the crowds could not accept. Even if there had been an explicit
rejection, they could still have hoped that He would “change His mind” when
offered a “second chance” in Galilee and in the very
city where, by right, He should be ruling.
Sidebar: Their words seem a clear concession that Jesus
already had a significant body of “disciples” in that region however unwise it
was for Him to have remained there--or for them to be saying much of anything
about it publicly. But if He were just
there to embolden the embers of the fire that remained!
7:4 For no one does anything in
secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these
things, show Yourself to the world.” After
all, Galilee was insignificant and unimportant in the
religious scheme of things and in the public perception. Doing His “works” (7:3) there was the same as
virtually doing them “in secret.” If He
was really anyone spiritually important, let Him manifest Himself to what we
today would call the “real world.”
(Although not the intent, their attitude reveals much of the inferiority
feeling that Galileans felt toward Judeans and which the latter willingly and
enthusiastically encouraged.)
Sidebar: “If You do these
things” can be taken in the sense that they had not witnessed any of the
miracles and all they knew of them was second hand. Alternatively that they are challenging Him
to shake off His reticence and do them in a manner and place where everyone
could see for themselves: “If” not in a
literal but a rhetorical sense: “If You really do these things prove it to everyone by
showing Yourself to the world in Jerusalem.”
7:5 For even His brothers did not
believe in Him. Lest there be
any misunderstanding as to their motives, John tells us that His brothers “did
not believe in Him.” Is that believe in
His miracles and that He had been commissioned by God or believe in
what He really was and really wanted--in His spiritual agenda rather
than the temporal / regal one they preferred?
The language would fit either.
In other
words it could refer not to an absolute lack of faith but a partial
and distorted lack of faith: they
didn’t reject His miracle working ability and the legitimacy of His teaching in
the abstract, but wanted Him to be the regal revolutionary as well . . .
the role He rejects in the previous chapter.
Hence if He went to Jerusalem
they hoped that another massive miracle like the feeding of the 5,000 would
occur and ignite the local enthusiasms just as they had done in Galilee. Going in their company would run the risk of
them trying to manipulate the situation where He would have to act in a way
that would ultimately substitute political action for the spiritual goals
and purposes that were His core intent.
7:6 Then Jesus said to
them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always
ready. It simply
wasn’t His time to do what they advised and bring things to a head in Jerusalem. In contrast, they could do whatever
they wished whenever they wished because “your time is always ready.” Jesus had to move by a different
schedule. (Not to mention different
goals and purposes!) He knew He was
going to ultimately meet His death in that city and at the hand of the
religious leadership, but it was never the time for Him to promote a
revolutionary overthrow--which was totally absent from all of His plans. Nor was it time for the carrying out of what
was His actual agenda, a sacrificial death in Jerusalem. Hence the explanation: “My time has not yet fully come” (verse
8). It would, but not immediately.
7:7 The world cannot hate you, but
it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. The world found nothing in Jesus’
kin to hate because they had not publicly rebuked the world for its “evil”
misconduct. In contrast, Jesus had
boldly taken it on. Note how Jesus found
the reason for rejection of Him as being fundamentally a basic character
fault rather than any intellectual failure. This was applicable on two levels. As to the “world” in the sense of people in
general, they want to do whatever pleases them.
The word “sin” is something that is irrelevant to anything they choose
to do--no matter how evil it is. To note
the existence of sin causes them to “hate” you in revulsion at your truth
telling. It is an intolerable act to
challenge their assumptions and behavior.
They worship, if you will, at only one altar--themselves.
True as
this is, Jesus’ personal danger did not come from this societal source but from
the religious leaders of His “religious world” who hated
Him. Genuine disagreements existed of
course, but among the most important “players” in the religious landscape,
these faded into virtual insignificance:
Jesus was a danger to their ego, prestige, and dominance over the
religious landscape. Hence their
opposition lay not in the search for truth but in a
evil search for continued (and undeserved) power and influence.
7:8 You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.” The word “yet” is omitted
by the critical text that is widely preferred by most translations. In behalf of its genuineness, however, it
should be noted that
only two sentences later that we read that He did go: Would even an uninspired writer make this
blatant a mistake so quickly?
It appears
that what the kin have said is out of their implicit desire for all of
them to go together. With them in
the mood they are, they seem determined to find a way to force Him to act in Jerusalem
in a way that He has no desire to act.
So--assuming we should accept the critical text on this point at all--He
urges them on their way with this unspoken gloss in His intentions: “I am not going up to this feast with you,
for My time has not yet full come to bring My earthly
mission to its intended conclusion.” And
that is exactly what transpires. They
have their own agenda and, if they are permitted to get away with it, it will
fundamentally undermine His own.
7:9 When He had said these things to
them, He remained in Galilee. 10 But when His
brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it
were in secret. Even after
they had left for Jerusalem--presumably
along with the bulk of the locals who were going and who would have rapidly
spread word of His presence if He were with them--Jesus remained awhile behind
in Galilee.
Keeping a low profile so attention would not be drawn to His presence,
He was able to later make the pilgrimage to the city without it becoming
publicly noted. He became little more
than “a face lost in the crowd,” which would have been impossible if He had
left with either His family or a large group traveling together from Capernaum.
He may have
traveled with only a few of His apostles and/or taken a route to Jerusalem
smaller numbers journeyed on. In the
first case, the rest of the apostles would have been sent ahead--those with the
greatest enthusiasm for this popular Feast.
The departure could have been later in the same day or a day or so
later. All we know for certain is that
the seven day Feast was already half over before He drew attention to Himself
by teaching in the Temple (verse
14).
Sidebar on
the alternative routing He could easily have used: “Judging from
His practice at another time (John 4:4), He would go through Samaria, while the caravan would go on the Eastern side of
the Jordan.” (Ellicott’s
Commentary for English Readers)
7:11 Then the Jews sought Him at the feast, and said,
“Where is He?” Obviously after His arrival, word did seep
out. After all, His apostles would have
been there as well and a goodly number of other disciples. Sooner or later even those who had not
traveled with Jesus would have encountered Him or others who had done so. Since the religious authorities were making
no effort to hide their desire to confront Jesus (note the demand for “Where is
He?”), word would surely have leaked back to them as well. In turn, they would have sent out further
inquiries seeking more specific information as to where He was but they only
succeeded when He was ready for a public confrontation in the Temple
(verse 14).
Sidebar on
“sought:” “The
[Greek] imperfect: kept seeking;
persistently sought for Him.” (Vincent’s
Word Studies) This was not a casual
interest, but an impassioned one. He had
humiliated them previously and they regarded that as intolerable. If it was humanly possible, they would
find Him--and make Him regret it.
It is far from impossible that the authorities had
already been making this effort from the time that the first Galileans
arrived--working on the natural assumption that a Man of such piety had
to show up. When they heard confirmation
of His presence, the effort would have intensified.
7:12 And there was much complaining
among the people concerning Him. Some said,
“He is good”; others said, “No, on the contrary, He deceives the people.” Some thought Him a “good” man and others that
He was one of those lying charlatans that periodically set out to deceive the
people for their own advancement--or out of their own delusions. Those who considered Him “good,” obviously
appreciated the insight of His teaching and judged His miracles to be
genuine. Those arguing “He deceives the
people” could argue that they were produced by the power of the Devil (Matthew 12:24) and that His words might sound
perceptive--but how could they be truly sound when the most prestigious of the
city’s religious authorities repudiated them?
We can
easily see why Jesus regarded this as a good time to keep a low
profile--especially in light of His brothers’ apparent grim determination that
He ought to do some spectacular miracle while there (note our comments on
verses 3-4). He would encounter His foes
not at a time and location of their preference, but of His own (verse
14).
Sidebar: This was not the conversation of a few, but of
many: “Complaining among the people”
is found in John in the Greek plural only in this place. Hence it can rightly be rendered as
“widespread whispering about Him” (NIV), “much muttering about Him among the
people” (ESV), and “among the mass of the people there was much muttered debate
about Him” (Weymouth).
7:13 However, no one spoke openly of Him for fear of the
Jews. The opposition of the
chief clerics was sufficient to discourage any public manifestation of
enthusiasm for Him. Like many times in
the current twenty-first century, the open discussion of the Lord and His will
has to be done cautiously because of the danger of retribution. Back then it predominantly came from those
who falsely claimed to be leaders of God’s flock. Even today many church leaders walk in their
repressive steps and blatantly refuse to accept the moral teaching of Jesus and
the apostles He inspired--and suppress those who try to be faithful. These might justly be called the “enemy
within” the people of God. Today, in our
secularized society, the repression even more savagely comes from government or
employer--the truth having to be “whispered” rather than joyfully shouted--but
even tyranny can not be listening all the time!
And it frightens them.
Only Half Way Through the Feast Does Jesus Openly Let His
Presence Be Known and He Bluntly Accuses the Authorities of Desiring to Kill
Him (John 7:14-24): 14 When the feast was
half over, Jesus went up to the temple courts and began to teach. 15 Then the Jewish leaders were astonished and said, “How does this man
know so much when he has never had formal instruction?”
16 So Jesus replied, “My
teaching is not from me, but from the one who sent me. 17 If anyone wants to do God’s will, he will know about my teaching,
whether it is from God or whether I speak from my own authority. 18 The person who speaks
on his own authority desires to receive honor for himself; the one who desires
the honor of the one who sent him is a man of integrity, and there is no
unrighteousness in him. 19 Hasn’t Moses given you
the law? Yet not one of you keeps the
law! Why do you want to kill me?”
20 The crowd answered,
“You’re possessed by a demon! Who is trying to kill you?” 21 Jesus replied, “I performed one miracle and you are all amazed. 22 However, because Moses gave you the practice of circumcision (not that
it came from Moses, but from the forefathers), you circumcise a male child on
the Sabbath. 23 But if a male child is
circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is
not broken, why are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on
the Sabbath? 24 Do not judge according
to external appearance, but judge with proper judgment.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
7:14 Now about the middle of the
feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught.
Mid-way through the feast, Jesus invited a confrontation by
openly entering the temple and teaching there.
Since the feast was a week long, this would occur around the third or
fourth day (note the “about” in the dating).
How long He had been in the Jerusalem
area we do not know--only the time that He made it publicly known to one and
all. If one has to speculate where He
was staying at this point, nearby Bethany would be the most likely since He had
friends there: Mary, Martha, and Lazarus
(Luke 10:38-42; 11:1, 5).
Sidebar: Oddly enough this is the first time John
explicitly refers to sustained teaching by Jesus in the temple. Even when He had driven the animals out
during an earlier visit, we read only a brief explanation why He did so (John 2:16) and the answer to only a single question
(John 2:18). Here we encounter sustained teaching.
7:15 And the Jews marveled, saying, “How does this Man
know letters, having never studied?” Since
the “Jews” in verses 11 and 13 are clearly the hostile faction of the
Sanhedrin, it is virtually certain that here, also, they are of the same
group. They might passionately dislike
this strange Galilean, but they could not help but “marvel” that someone could
be so knowledgeable without having undergone a lengthy period of formal study,
such as they had been through. This couldn’t
be, but it clearly was.
In the
apostle Paul they recognized a well schooled individual who had learned in
detail under the tutelage of the famed Gamaliel in
Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), but this Jesus was from the intellectually and
spiritually destitute Galilee--and that was not just their prejudiced
viewpoint, but also reflective of the fact that few if any opportunities
to be schooled by a religious “expert” would have been available. Yet Jesus clearly had perception and insight,
however much they might disagree with it.
7:16 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. Jesus’ explanation for the
oddity of His unexpected skill at teaching and the insight it provided was
simple: He was merely teaching God’s
doctrine. It wasn’t something He had originated
such as rabbis would do in their learned opinions which were supposedly interpretations
of Divine law. All too often it was
their speculative “bending” of it to permit or require what Scripture had not
even hinted at in any responsible exegesis.
In contrast, Jesus’ teaching was direct Divine Law itself, relaying the
teaching of the Heavenly Father “who sent Me.”
Endorsing
them and their skill, His critics “sent out” rabbis to teach; in vivid contrast
it was the heavenly Father who had sent Jesus out to teach. So He “trumps” His foes on both the source
of His teaching (the Father) and also on who sent Him out / commissioned Him to
go and teach (again the Father).
7:17 If anyone wills to do His
will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I
speak on My own authority. Some
people in every age are genuine doubters but moved by sincerity. Many others, however, are motivated by
pre-existing disposition to refuse any teaching that is new to them or contrary
to their preferences and no amount of evidence will change their minds. Jesus directly challenges such
individuals: If they truly wish to do
God’s will, then they will give it the consideration it deserves. The result will be that have no doubt as to
whether Jesus originated this teaching or whether it had been given Him by the
Father. It bore in its contents and
emphases that which humanly invented teaching would not. A primary example is the person who wants to
draw all attention to his own authority, position, and correctness
rather than it being an accurate reflection of what God truly wants, i.e., . .
. .
7:18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but
He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness
is in Him. The individuals
who--if they were honest--had to admit that their teaching had originated
through their own thinking and reasoning were, however inadvertently, also
admitting that they were seeking their “own glory.” Although the traditions were claimed to be a
divine fence around the Torah, the fact remained that they had been invented
by uninspired individuals such as themselves.
It came through their own wisdom and insight
and could claim nothing more for it. And
they had no problem in stressing that it was what “we”--the speaker or the
priestly/scholarly class he was aligned with--“knew” the truth to be. Demanding and convincing others of that,
built up their own pride and arrogance even further for rejecting it
meant rejecting them as well.
In
contrast, Jesus sought solely the glory of God in whom there is “no
unrighteousness” of any kind. That is a
slap at their willingness to use raw power to do violence to Him—even kill Him
(5:19). It also alludes to their willingness to
unjustly hinder others from fulfilling the moral obligations that the Law of
Moses (which they claimed to champion) laid down on His people--Mark
7:9-13; providing there only a single example, He pungently adds, “many
such things you do.”
7:19 Did not Moses give you the law,
yet none of you keeps the law? Why do
you seek to kill Me?”
Truth be told, they themselves were not obedient to
the law of Moses even though they vigorously insisted
they were the only proper and authorized interpreters of it. So who were they, then, to try to kill the
One who was faithfully observing it (verse 20b)? What is the evidence to justify it?
This
inconsistency made them blatant hypocrites not just on the grounds of a
widespread laxity toward obedience in general, but specifically
in regard to the proper grounds for the death penalty they sought to
inflict. Judges were supposed to be “able men, such as fear God, men of
truth, hating covetousness” (Exodus 18:21): The reverential fear of God would rule out
consciously doing wrong to those who came under their jurisdiction; they were
to be ones who sought the “truth” about any accusation rather than simply
seeking an excuse to justify their own hostile intentions--as they were in the
case of Jesus. In a similar vein Jehoshaphat warned the judges of his day that they were to
“take care” in how they carried out their judgment. They were to avoid the taint of any
“iniquity” becoming involved and there was to be “no
partiality nor taking of bribes” (2 Chronicles 19:7).
They should be well aware of their own sin and failures
(David’s standard in Psalms 51:3) lest they act against others too harshly
or unwisely. If even kings were to
avoid the “shedding [of] innocent blood and practicing oppression and violence”
(Jeremiah 22:17), how much more so the religious leaders of the
nation! But rather than be honest
and honorable judges they try character assassination and plot His death. . .
.
7:20 The people answered and said,
“You have a demon. Who is seeking to
kill You?” These words are typically read as the onlookers’
observation and the term translated “people” changed to “the crowd:” hence shock that He
could accuse them of such extreme behavior.
But why would He accuse the crowd of seeking to kill Him (verse
19) when it was the religious leaders at fault?
Would the genuinely non-committed be upset at all that He had healed on
the Sabbath (verse 23)? Shall we mention
that others present were well aware that there were those that wished death to
be inflicted upon Jesus (verse 25)?
Hence if we are to read “people” in a broad sense at all,
surely it must be as those elements of the crowd who felt ties of loyalty
and obligation to the leadership. If
we were to think in terms of contemporary Rome we would be speaking in terms of “clients” standing
by the reputation of their “patrons” and defending them--or, in this case, denying
what they know/suspect to be the case to protect their reputation.
Either referring to the onlookers or to the religious
leaders, technically, there may even be a tiny amount of
“truthfulness” in their words: Few if
any may have uttered the word “kill” to the non-elite. But how about “bring to justice,” “punish as
He deserves to be punished,” “punish Him the way a rebel against God’s
appointed spiritual leaders should be?”
Wouldn’t such euphemisms carry the same assumption of death?
And those
who came to the conclusion they sought the execution of Jesus (verse 25) would
have come to that very justified deduction even when such euphemisms were being
used. That those closed aligned to the
religious leadership would ever admit such an intent to Jesus Himself,
however--of course not!
7:21 Jesus answered and said to them, “I did one work, and you all marvel.
This refers to His daring to perform a miracle (“one
work”) at a time they insisted was improper--of healing on the Sabbath day (7:23).
This was flat outright wrong so far as they were concerned and they had
“marvel[led]” at His audacity. It is especially fascinating that this had
happened at a significantly earlier Feast and not during this one (John
5:1-16). In their minds, it remained a
burning insult just as much as if it had been done the previous day. The adage “evil hearts never forget”
seems one that applies here. Are they
upset more at the “wrong day” of healing or His “infamous behavior” of daring
to do it in their city?
7:22 Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it
is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. They themselves would gladly
“circumcise a man on the Sabbath day” even though it was clearly “work.” These two statements from the Talmud, for
example, confirm this belief:
“Everything required for circumcision may be completed on the Sabbath;”
“The healing of a sick man dangerously ill, and circumcision, break through the
Sabbath sanctity.” Hence there are some
“works” that are not only proper but even essential to do on the Sabbath
day.
The Cambridge
Bible for Schools and Colleges suggests the implicit reasoning is
this: “Circumcision
originated with the Patriarchs, and was a more ancient institution than the
Sabbath. When, therefore, the two
ordinances clashed, the younger had to give place; it was more fit that the
Sabbath should be broken, than that circumcision should be administered on the
wrong day. If then the Sabbath could
give way to a mere ceremonial observance, how much more might it give
way to a work of mercy? The law
of charity is older and higher than any ceremonial law.”
After all, the Divine principle of mercy long preceded
the revelation of the Mosaical system. Even God’s creation of Eve was an act of mercy
for Adam--so that he would not have to suffer from loneliness due to lack of
human company (Genesis 2:18). Noah found mercy in God’s sight when
He decided a depraved world had to be eliminated (Genesis 6:8, 18-19). God showed His desire to provide mercy to
one and all by promising to bring a redeemer (Christ) to earth in
fulfillment of the promise made to ancient Abraham (Genesis 12:3)
God provided mercy to Joseph as well: Even while he was a slave in Egypt he was blessed with such success that even his
master recognized it (Genesis 39:1-4).
To his brothers (who had sold him into slavery) he afterwards said, “It
was not you who sent me here, but God” . . . who did so to preserve the life of
his entire extended family (Genesis 45:7)--surely an act of profound mercy
though it did not seem such at first!
Hence Jesus’ Sabbath miracles exhibited a pattern of Divine mercy that
existed long before Moses commanded circumcision.
7:23 If a man receives circumcision
on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry
with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? To do God’s will required circumcision on the eighth day after birth
(Leviticus 12:3), even if it turned out to be the Sabbath. Yet they were willing to be outraged at Him
even though God’s ongoing demand for mercy just as firmly demanded that a man
could be healed on the Sabbath.
Sidebar on
the intensity of their indignation: “Angry. The word occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament. It
signifies bitter and violent resentment.”
(Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)
7:24 Do not judge according to
appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”
Their problem was a lack of perceptivity. Instead of judging by mere superficial
“appearance,” they needed to be sure that their reasoning was based on
“righteous” premises and attitudes. And
not just the envious desire to destroy the credibility of Someone
who could make a far better case than they did.
Jesus’ Claims to Have Come from God Causes An Unsuccessful Attempt to Seize Him (John 7:25-36): 25 Then some of the
residents of Jerusalem began to say, “Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill? 26 Yet here he is, speaking publicly, and they are saying nothing to
him. Do the rulers really know that this
man is the Christ? 27 But we know where this
man comes from. Whenever the Christ comes, no one will know where he comes
from.”
28 Then Jesus, while
teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “You both know me and know where I
come from! And I have not come on my own
initiative, but the one who sent me is true.
You do not know him, 29 but I know him,
because I have come from him and he sent me.”
30 So then they tried to
seize Jesus, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come. 31 Yet many of the crowd believed in him and said, “Whenever the Christ
comes, he won’t perform more miraculous signs than this man did, will he?”
32 The Pharisees heard
the crowd murmuring these things about Jesus, so the chief priests and the
Pharisees sent officers to arrest him. 33 Then Jesus said, “I will be with you for only a little while longer, and
then I am going to the one who sent me. 34 You will look for me but will not find me, and where I am you cannot
come.”
35 Then the Jewish
leaders said to one another, “Where is he going to go that we cannot find
him? He is not going to go to the Jewish
people dispersed among the Greeks and teach the Greeks, is he? 36 What did he mean by saying, ‘You will look for me but will not find me,
and where I am you cannot come’?”
--New English
Translation (for comparison)
7:25 Now some of them from Jerusalem said, “Is this not He whom they seek to kill? Those from other areas--even in Judea--were
less likely to be plugged into the local “grape vine” and realize just how
great the threat was. Official denial or
not, word spread among some of the Jerusalemites that Jesus was on their
“target list.” Hence these folk wondered
whether this man might be the individual the leaders were seeking to
destroy. And how might the word have
reached them? For one thing blunt and
candid language might have been inadvertently spoken among those without their
anti-Jesus bias.
Then
there were the servants. What people
with status often forgot was that their “lowly” servants had ears to hear and
barring the sternest direct prohibition would have had no reason not to share
with outsiders their latest nugget of “inside information.” Then there were the servants who were slaves
who had even less vested interest in maintaining the
“good face” of their masters. We know
there were such in geographic Palestine in the first century--Herod the Great
had slaves and rebels against maintaining his family in power were sold into
it--but there seems no way to make a decent estimate of what percentage of the
population were in bondage. In all of
these ways the rumor probably spread.
7:26 But look! He speaks boldly, and they say nothing to
Him. Do the rulers know indeed that this
is truly the Christ? Since
Jesus had just dared to speak both publicly and “boldly” without the rulers
providing effective contradiction, might their private attitudes be different
from their public face? Or might their
views have changed? This was a far from
illogical deduction. Jesus’ opponents in
the city included the religious intellectuals of the day. If Jesus could be “taken apart” in
public confrontation, they had both the ability to do so and the vested
interest as well. They had failed so far
and, even in failure, they retained the power to arbitrarily arrest and punish
. . . and they hadn’t done that either.
7:27 However, we know where this Man is from; but when
the Christ comes, no one knows where He is from.” Weighed
against the pro-Jesus logic was one powerful factor: How in the world could He be
the Christ? They knew the region and
town Jesus was from but “no one knows” where the Messiah would come from.
Sidebar: We have an obvious tension here between their
conviction of the “unknowability” of the origin of
the Redeemer and the fact that prophecy had spoken of “where” the
Messiah would be born, i.e., Bethlehem
(Micah 5:2). The text was so interpreted
in the first century itself (Matthew 2:4-6).
Indeed in a later confrontation it is stressed that the Messiah is the
descendent of David (John 20:40-43). Accept that and it would be a natural
deduction that He would be born in the same city as well (Luke 2:4).
For some
the fact that He did not live there carried the connotation that moving
anywhere else ruled out His being the prophesied figure. In other words living for most of His life in
Galilee was used as an objection against the possibility that He could be the
prophesied figure at all (as in John 7:41-43).
But these
objectors are ignoring Micah 5:2 entirely and go much further to challenge
whether the origin place can possibly be known at all. Perhaps they had latched onto “who will
declare His generation” in Isaiah 58 as describing His ancestry rather than
dying without fathering any earthly children.
Or perhaps they thought the glory and grandeur of the Messiah required
such a background out of
“nowhere.”
We know
from non-Biblical sources that there was a strain of thought that He
would, in effect, majestically appear out of “nowhere” rather than being
someone with long settled roots in the countryside. Trypho the Jew is
quoted by Justin Martyr as embracing that kind of scenario: “But Christ--if he has indeed been born, and
exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know himself, and has no power
until Elias come to anoint him and make him manifest to all.” One of the rabbis quoted in the Talmud
must take for granted something very akin to this for he argues that “three things are wholly unexpected--Messiah, a
god-send, and a scorpion.”
Clearly
some such line of reasoning about the “unknown” origins of the Messiah was
being branded about in the city and He makes a public response to it in verses
28-29. But those words seem aimed not so
much at these folk as toward those already hostile for the former are
ambivalent and hardly the ones who would immediately try to arrest Him (verse
30).
7:28 Then Jesus cried out, as He
taught in the temple, saying, “You both know Me, and you know where I am from; and I have not come of
Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. In the temple He emphatically insisted
that if they would but stop and think about it, they would “know [= recognize]
where I am from” and how that He had not come ministering, preaching, and
healing out of His own initiative but because it was His Father’s will. The root of the problem was that they simply
did not “know” (= understand / comprehend / acknowledge) this. They saw the evidence but failed to grasp
what it implied as to His true origin.
From the varied supernatural acts He performed, having roots in Nazareth
or not, how could that be His true place of origin? (Cf. John 1:1.)
For that
matter they didn’t really know all that much about His Father either: “whom you do not know” is directly applied to
Him. They repeatedly bent the words of
Scripture to fit their preferences (consider the examples given in Matthew
5): They arrogated to themselves the
right to do so because of their position and supposed spiritual/intellectual
development. Even when the Father’s
power allowed the Son to work powerful and impressive miracles,
that was not enough to convince them that His raw power gave Him
profoundly greater authority than their faulty exegesis. Clearly, they truly did not “know [=
recognize, understand]” the Father either.
And if they misunderstand both Father and Son what is left
then? A fundamental
ignorance or blindness unfortunately.
Sidebar: “Cried out” argues impassioned and emphatic
speech. This was not a mere intellectual
discussion; it involved just how much power the Father had given Him. Compare Matthew 28:18: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”
7:29 But I know Him, for I am
from Him, and He sent Me.” The perceptivity they
lacked Jesus claimed for Himself. In
contrast to them, Jesus had both come “from” God and been “sent” by Him as
well. His critics of any type could
claim neither. This could be taken in
two ways--though in Jesus’ case they both overlap: (1) How could anyone who had done and said
what He had, have mere earth side roots?
(An allusion to His supernatural origin discussed in the prologue to the
gospel.) (2) He had been specially commissioned by God not
just as a prophet but as the Messiah. (As Messiah He was “sent” on a commission “from” Him.) This was the apparent interpretation put on
it by those who “believed” (accepted) His claims (verse 31). However the power brokers were outraged. . .
.
7:30 Therefore they sought to take Him; but no one laid a
hand on Him, because His hour had not yet come.
At this point we find a paradox that the author leaves
unexplained: on the one hand they wished
to seize Jesus; on the other hand no one did so. The reason was that “His hour had not yet
come.” That was the reason or purpose
for which their attempt was frustrated; but the means by which it was
accomplished are passed by.
This was
not some new idea on the part of the religious power brokers. “The tense is [Greek] imperfect, marking the continuance
of efforts to take Him.” (Ellicott’s
Commentary for English Readers) Yet they decline to “grab Him” themselves
perhaps fearing that only the “officers”/police of the Temple
(verse 32) would have the physical strength to assure that they did not lose control
over Him as quickly as it was gained.
After all, unconvinced and perhaps irate members of the crowd were
sympathetic to Jesus and might not recognize them and wrest the Lord free. Perhaps even their “gut feelings” temporarily
held them back: “There were political considerations, there were lingering and
coruscating [= intense] fires of enthusiasm burning in the hearts of those who
had seen His great works; and probably an awe, a superstitious fear, of some
stroke of his reputed power held them back.”
(Pulpit Commentary)
7:31 And many of the people believed
in Him, and said, “When the Christ comes, will He do more signs than these
which this Man has done?”
In contrast to the situation
before His arrival in Jerusalem--when only “some” spoke praise of Him (verse
12)--the numbers had now dramatically increased: “Many” of the masses now “believed in”
Jesus for a very practical reason: Could
the Messiah possibly do “more signs” that this Man had done? Since it was unimaginable, Jesus must be the Messiah
or (far less likely) at least some one so specially endowed by God to be worthy
of their honor and following. They are
trying to show others the folly of their doubts which they themselves do not
share.
Sidebar: Our text shows that miracles were expected to
be performed by the Messiah. The roots
of this conviction likely lie in the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah
35:5-6: “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb sing. . . .”
Jesus
embraced this miracle working criteria as evidence for His claims. When challenged by John’s query through his
disciples whether He was really the Messiah (Matthew 11:3), He responded for
them to provide him the evidence on which to make a decision: “Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: The blind see and the lame
walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf
hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached
to them” (verse 4-5).
7:32 The Pharisees heard the crowd murmuring these things
concerning Him, and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take
Him. The Pharisees were a
minority in the Sanhedrin and, at key points (Acts 23:8), were far closer to
Jesus’ teaching than the Sadducees who dominated the institution. Yet all this was too much for them as
well. So they consulted “the chief
priests” (= mostly Sadducees) and they all supported the sending of “officers”
(= temple police) to arrest the Lord.
Sidebar: We have no definition of exactly who “the
chief priests” were. It is “a phrase often occurring in the writings of Luke, and
here for the first time in this Gospel [and] cannot be confined to the official
‘high priest,’ but may include the ex-high priests, perhaps the heads of the
twenty-four courses of priests and the chiefs of the priestly party, though
there is no proof of it.” (Pulpit
Commentary)
7:33 Then Jesus said to them, “I shall be
with you a little while longer, and then I go to Him who sent Me. Using
the decision to try to arrest Him as a jumping off point, John notes that Jesus
conceded that He would not be with them much longer. They might not arrest Him today but eventually
they will succeed. (Lesson: Don’t interpret any escape today as a
permanent one.) This, however, would not
stop Him returning to God. Whatever the
future might hold, it is not going to, in any way,
disrupt His relationship with the Father.
Sidebar: He would die some six months later, at
Passover.
7:34 You will seek Me and not
find Me, and where I am you cannot come.” A logical question that would
derive from His claim that He would soon be departing (verse 33), would be to
where? At that point they might
still wish to “find” Him, but they were forbidden access to where that
was.
In the
temporal terms they thought of, His leaving meant going into the Greek speaking
and Gentile dominated world (verse 35).
Whether for supportive purposes or hostile ones--the latter is
specifically in mind--nothing, of course, prevented them from following to such
places. For them to be unable to have
access would require that He be under the protection of someone powerful in
that distant location who would keep them from bothering Him.
Literally
speaking, His words fit that kind of situation, but Jesus was thinking in
spiritual terms instead: His enemies
took pride in being servants of God, but they would be faced with the situation
of Jesus being with the Father and their own entrance
denied. Any victory they might seem to
gain over Him would destroy their acceptability to the very God they
worshipped.
Sidebar: The expression “you cannot come” varies in
application according to context. In
John 8:21 it also refers to not going
to the heavenly place Jesus will and the natural accompaniment of that
reality: you “will die in your
sin.”
In John
13:33, however, Jesus intentionally quotes the words to His apostles: “Little children, You
will seek Me; and as I said to the Jews, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come,’
so now I say to you.” Note the shift in
meaning: His rabbinic foes could not
follow Him to heaven because their sin and murder excluded them. In contrast, His own apostles could not
follow Him there--yet . . . because it was not time for them to die and
He had plans for them to spread His word throughout the world (Matthew
28:18-20).
7:35 Then the Jews said among themselves, “Where does He
intend to go that we shall not find Him? Does He intend to go to the Dispersion among
the Greeks and teach the Greeks? If they
had interpreted Jesus’ remarks on a spiritual level they would have been
incensed rather than mystified. In this
case, interpreting things “literally” defused the anger. They wondered—longingly? Hopefully??—that
Jesus might be announcing plans to journey among the “Dispersion,” the Jews
scattered around the Gentile world.
Perhaps He even intended to be a missionary to the Greeks as well. Either way, He would be someone else’s
problem and not theirs.
7:36 What is this thing that He
said, ‘You will seek Me and not find Me, and where I am
you cannot come’?” The
ominous overtones of His warning bothered them and they continued to wonder
just what He meant. Since He was
addressing sworn enemies, it must have dawned on them that whatever it
meant it was nothing complimentary to them.
Jesus Speaks of the Coming Gift of the Spirit (John
7:37-39): 37 On the last day of the
feast, the greatest day, Jesus stood up and shouted out, “If anyone is thirsty,
let him come to me, and 38 let the one who believes in me drink. Just as the scripture says, ‘From
within him will flow rivers of living water.’
” 39 (Now he said this
about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were going to receive, for the
Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.) --New English Translation (for comparison)
7:37 On the last day, that
great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out,
saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. There was a spiritual
thirst that Jesus could provide for and which was available to one and
all. We read of no questioning of Him
about the meaning of these words--perhaps because He presents it as an
illustration of what the Old Testament teaches (verse 38). (Subtext:
If you understand the Torah and prophets so well, you should be
able to understand this as well!)
What He has
in mind to “drink,” and which comes uniquely from Him, seems clearly to be the
gift of salvation. By “drinking” His
word--hence obeying it--we are given redemption from our sins. Jesus had used this imagery earlier with the
Samaritan woman: “The water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of
water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:34).
Hence we drink, so to speak, from the Fount of Life. Or as Jesus explains it in Revelation
21:6: “I
will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who
thirsts.”
Sidebar: Whether this is the seventh day of the feast
or the eighth depends upon how we calculate its length. Technically the feast was for seven days, but
it was followed the next day by another special occasion as well: “Also day
by day, from the first day until the last day, he read from the Book of the Law
of God. And they kept the
feast seven days; and on the eighth day there was a sacred
assembly, according to the prescribed manner” (Nehemiah 8:18).
In establishing the Feast in Leviticus 23:33-43 it is
specified as seven days long but with that additional Sabbath at the end
of it; as it is summed up concisely in verse 39: “Also on the fifteenth day of the seventh
month, when you have gathered in the fruit of the land, you shall keep the
feast of the Lord for seven days; on the first day there
shall be a Sabbath-rest, and on the eighth day a Sabbath-rest.”
7:38 He who believes in Me, as
the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” Note that just as Jesus gives us
abundantly we, in turn, share this abundance with others. Hence the text describes not just His own primary role in the process but our secondary one as
well. When a person has the belief
necessary to embrace Jesus, then out of his inward nature will flow abundant
blessings to enrich the lives of others as well. They will gush out not in sporadic acts but
as if they were “rivers” that “flow[ed]” outward constantly. An abundant and unending
supply.
Sidebar: These words are found nowhere in the Old
Testament so Jesus must be referring to the teaching of scripture rather
than quoting a specific text, i.e., summing up what it taught. The appropriateness of the language in
application to followers of Jesus: Isaiah
58:11 refers to how the obedient are “like a spring of water, whose waters do
not fail.” They always have it available
and in abundance. The Proverbist speaks of how “he who waters will also be
watered himself” (Proverbs 11:25).
The
appropriateness of the language in application to Jesus Himself since HE is the
one from whom the water ultimately originates in both the previous and
following verses: Isaiah 44:3-4
speaks of how Deity “will pour water on him who is thirsty and floods on the
dry ground” and how this will be accompanied with the “pour[ing
out of] My Spirit” on their descendants.
Combining the ideas of abundant water and salvation is found in the
prophecy of first century events found in Zechariah 13:1: “In
that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and
for the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
for sin and for uncleanness.”
We have in Joel 3:18 the promise of how “all the brooks of Judah shall be flooded with water; a fountain shall flow
from the house of the Lord.” In
Zechariah 14 the idea of God ruling as “King over all the earth” (verse 9) is
depicted as the result of how “in that day it shall
be that living waters shall flow from Jerusalem, half of them
toward the eastern sea and half of them toward the western sea; in both
summer and winter it shall occur,” i.e., it will be constant and year
round. It is not hard to see how Jesus’
words could be summing up the imagery of these verses, especially when the last
three texts concern waters originating in Jerusalem where Jesus was worshipping
and teaching. And it is from Jesus
that the water pours out for them to drink (verses 37 and 39) and allows them
to do the same for others.
7:39 But this He spoke concerning
the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was
not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John applies the--to us--vague
words of Jesus quite specifically: what
the Lord had in mind was the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the dominant interpretation, this would
mean that by belief they would receive it . . . through their belief in Him
they would share the blessings of “physically” receiving that Spirit along with
all others who embraced Jesus as well.
In what is
a far sounder interpretation, the idea is that when we receive what the Holy
Spirit itself gives, then we become live, flowing rivers pouring out
good to others--knowledge of how to be saved in particular. What we are driving at is illustrated in Acts
2:38-39 where what is promised in baptism is not receiving the Spirit itself
into our hearts but receiving the gift the Spirit provides . . . which
is identified as redemption in that text:
“Repent, and
let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission
of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Having just mentioned salvation, what more
logical thing would “the gift of the Holy Spirit” possibly be
than redemption itself . . . of salvation by being converted? It perfectly fits the text. By its very nature, anything else becomes
speculative. “For the promise is to you
and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the
Lord our God will call [i.e., this applies to everyone who in the future
becomes a Christian as well].”
To make
this gift of the Spirit in John 7 the gift of inspiration would work only of
that minority blessed with this gift while verse 39 speaks as if addressed to all
who become Christians. If we make it
some vaguer gift of the Spirit itself what role does it serve in our
lives? To be more exact, what provable
role . . . since assuming a specific role is profoundly easier than
trying to find scriptures that prove it. In contrast the gift of the Spirit and
salvation are clearly linked together in Acts 2.
The Crowd Has Vigorously Divided Opinions about Whether
Jesus Is the Promised Messiah (John 7:40-44): 40 When they heard these words, some of the crowd began to say, “This really is
the Prophet!” 41 Others said, “This is
the Christ!” But still others said, “No, for the Christ doesn’t come from Galilee, does he? 42 Don’t the scriptures
say that the Christ is a descendant of David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?” 43 So there was a division in the crowd because of Jesus. 44 Some of them were wanting to seize him, but no
one laid a hand on him. --New English Translation (for comparison)
7:40 Therefore many from the crowd, when they heard this
saying, said, “Truly this is the Prophet.”
Opinion was divided among those favorably inclined. John first mentions those who thought He
might be the special Prophet God had promised to send: “I will raise
up for them a Prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren, and
will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command
Him” (Deuteronomy 18:18). This
possibility had been brandied about previously of both Jesus (John 6:14) and John the Baptist (John 1:21).
But that wasn’t the only possibility of course. . . .
7:41 Others said, “This is the Christ.” But some said, “Will the Christ come out of Galilee? Obviously
there were those who distinguished between the promised Prophet and the Messiah
for the latter is offered up as an alternative--as is the case of the Pharisee
questioners of John the Baptist (John 1:19-24).
(Not all did, of course.) However
even for those tempted to make Jesus the long promised Messiah, there was an
obvious geographic problem: How
could the Messiah possibly come out of despised Galilee
of all places? Especially
when prophecy had spoken of Him coming out of Judea. . . .
7:42 Has not the Scripture said that
the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” The scriptures had
explicitly spoken of the Christ coming from Bethlehem
(Micah 5:2), so if Jesus was the Messiah, why was He connected by
everyone with Galilee?
Why was He even living in Galilee? Three times in this gospel He is called
“Jesus of Nazareth” (1:45; 18:5, 7)
and it was the title above Him when He was crucified (19:19).
Hence either
they were unaware of His being born in Bethlehem
or they were convinced that, having been born there, the Messiah would stay
there--or at least have continuing visible ties to it. Overlooked is the Messianic prophecy in
Isaiah 9:1-2 on how the Messiah would bring “a great light” to the people of Galilee. That would not preclude Him doing important
work in Judea as well, but would argue that part
of His function was to be of special spiritual advantage to their northern
compatriots. Hence making that His home
and long-term basis of operations would be quite congenial to His goals even
though He was born further south in Bethlehem.
7:43 So there was a division among the
people because of Him. Their
disagreements (“division”) could not be bridged; they couldn’t come to a
consensus. Supporters of Jesus were
divided between those who considered Him the pre-eminent prophesied “Prophet”
to come (verse 40) and those who thought He was the “Messiah” (verse 41)--in addition
to being the Prophet or (more likely) because they regarded the two as
synonymous. The only protest against
either is in regard to whether He met the criteria for being the Messiah. For some the objection was quite serious for
they found no way to deal with it. For
any who wanted Him arrested and punished (verse 44) the objections were a tool
rather than an honest dissent.
Sidebar on
“division:” “Schisma, whence our word ‘schism.’ It means a serious and possibly violent
division: John 9:16, 10:19; 1 Corinthians 1:10,
12:25; compare Acts 14:4, 23:7. In the New Testament it is never used in the
modern sense of a separation from the Church, but of parties in the Church.
In the Synoptists it is used only in its
original sense of physical severing: ‘a worse rent is
made;’ Matthew 9:16; Mark
12:21.” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)
7:44 Now some of them wanted to take
Him, but no one laid hands on Him. It
was this division that made it unfeasible to seize Him: The bulk of the crowd were
all appreciative of Jesus; their only question was how great He was in
the spiritual scheme of things. Faced
with arrest (verses 45), waiverers between these
opinions might shift--in their pure numbers and the potentially volatile
spirituality of the Feast--into vehement supporters and the arrestors have to
flee for their own safety. Furthermore,
the arrestors were themselves impressed by the Lord (7:46)--so much so they felt absolutely no confidence in intervening
regardless of their orders.
Those Sent to Arrest Jesus Come Back Empty Handed Because of
How Much His Words Had Impressed Them (John 7:45-53): 45 Then the officers returned to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said
to them, “Why didn’t you bring him back with you?” 46 The officers replied, “No one ever spoke like this man!” 47 Then the Pharisees answered, “You haven’t been deceived too, have
you? 48 None of the rulers or
the Pharisees have believed in him, have they? 49 But this rabble who do not know the law are accursed!”
50 Nicodemus, who had
gone to Jesus before and who was one of the rulers, said, 51 “Our law doesn’t condemn a man unless it first hears from him and learns
what he is doing, does it?” 52 They replied, “You aren’t
from Galilee too, are you? Investigate
carefully and you will see that no prophet comes from Galilee!” --New English Translation (for comparison)
7:45 Then the officers came to the chief priests and
Pharisees, who said to them, “Why have you not brought Him?” Note
that the power brokers weren’t intending a mere imprisonment until He had His
hearing: They were (enthusiastically)
waiting for Him to be dragged before them now. They wanted to be rid of His insufferable
opposition once and for all. To their
shock, though, the officers assigned to the arresting party returned
without the One they were sent to arrest (7:32). We don’t know how specific their instructions
had been: It could have been a blunt
“arrest Jesus!” or it could have been “find an excuse to arrest
Jesus”--i.e., find something He says or does that could be plausibly interpreted
as going across the line of propriety and respect for the Temple. If the latter, their reason to be listening
closely to the Lord’s words were magnified and actually laid the foundation for
why they couldn’t do what they were ordered. . . .
7:46 The officers answered, “No man
ever spoke like this Man!” In
essence, they responded that they were awed by the Man and the power of His
message. (The size of the crowd and its
enthusiasm for Him probably helped as well!)
There was something in the “what” and the “how” He said things that
thoroughly impressed them. Doubtless these
Temple police had previously heard
countless scores of people speaking about the scriptures throughout the years,
but they had never heard anyone like this.
7:47 Then the Pharisees answered them, “Are you also
deceived? To the Pharisees
this reaction meant they had been “deceived” just like the others. Although “fooled” (Holman), “led astray”
(NASB), and “deceived” (GW) are also responsible translations, the venom behind
the leaders’ rhetoric surely gives it the implicit overtone of “deluded” (Weymouth). They had to be “deceived” (or worse)
for there was no rationale reason not to act.
How could there even be a protective fig leaf when those who were
spiritual experts rejected His teaching and claims?
Of course
they didn’t ask, “what impressed you so”--and then
proceed to refute it. First of all, that
had never worked well in dealings with Jesus.
Furthermore, that would imply that these police had a right to
make spiritual decisions rather than merely yield to their supposed
“betters.” Hence the rebuke. . . .
7:48 Have any of the rulers or the
Pharisees believed in Him? How
could He possibly by right when all the evidence of both authority
(rulers) and piety (Pharisees) rejected Him?
This was not a “factional” issue within the Sanhedrin--Pharisees versus
Sadducees--but one where both sides regarded Jesus with thorough disdain. Those of the most societal, religious, and
political importance all agreed. How
could that powerful a consensus possibly get it wrong? We don’t need to examine the evidence
further; you don’t need to examine the evidence at all. We have already decided it for you.
7:49 But this crowd that does not
know the law is accursed.” The
crowd that reacted favorably was “accursed” and worthless because they were
nothing short of ignorant: they “did not
know the law” at all! Hence their opinion
meant nothing. The experts had spoken
and the “rabble” (as we today would describe them) not only could, but should
be dismissed out of hand.
Sidebar: “The
writings of the Rabbis are full of scorn and contempt for the untutored
multitude, whom they called ‘am
hāāretz, ‘people of the
earth,’ as opposed to those instructed in the Law, whom they called ‘ām kōdesh, ‘holy
people.’ These words in John 7:39 are an
expression of this contempt.” (Ellicott’s
Commentary for English Readers)
Vincent’s Word Studies provides two examples from
the rabbinic writings of such attitudes:
“the ignorant is impious; only the learned shall have part in the
resurrection.” That is insulting;
passing into the outright vicious, vile, and abominable is this one: “He shall not take a daughter of the people
of the earth, because they are an abomination, and their wives are an
abomination, and concerning their daughters it is said” and then the rabbi quotes Deuteronomy
27:21, “Cursed is the one who
lies with any kind of animal.”
7:50 Nicodemus (he who came to
Jesus by night, being one of them) said to them, Nicodemus did not feel confident
enough to defend Jesus openly, but He did feel the need to speak up in
some manner and since they claim to be pious advocates of law he reminds them
of what they law has to say . . .
7:51 “Does our law judge a man before it hears him and
knows what he is doing?” This
would be common justice: Since when can
a person be condemned by authority before hearing His defense and examining the
evidence of those who have seen and heard His actions and disagree with
them? You may “hate his guts,” but he
still has the right to mount His defense.
“He was not arraigned; he was not heard
in self-defense, and not a single witness was adduced.” (Barnes’ Notes)
The Torah itself had demanded, “Hear the cases between your brethren,
and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the
stranger who is with him” (Deuteronomy 1:16). Proper
judges were to be profoundly different from these men who had already decided
the entire matter. Proper judges were to
be careful to “judge with just judgment” and neither “pervert justice” nor
“show partiality” (Deuteronomy 16:18-19). “In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor”
(Leviticus 19:15). And a text
that was even more relevant here, “Keep yourself far from a false
matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous” (Exodus 23:7).
7:52 They answered and said to him,
“Are you also from Galilee? Search and
look, for no prophet has arisen out of Galilee.” Even this
voice of responsible moderation angered them.
There was no need to hear Jesus’ testimony or that of anyone else. (Their mentality: “Keep your mouth shut Jesus while we convict
you.”) After all, the scriptures had
never spoken of a prophet arising from there.
So one couldn’t now either, could he?
As to Nicodemus, he was acting insufferably: such nonsense was what one would only expect
from someone from that area; no one else would be foolish enough to argue such
a thing.
They ignore
the fact that Jonah was a prophet from a community in Galilee
(2 Kings 14:25) and Nahum may have
been as well. Hosea’s mission was to the
Northern Kingdom, which included Galilee,
though we have no hint of where he was actually born. Even if not born there, God had the inherent
power and right to choose a prophet from anywhere He wished. Indeed, would it have been appropriate for
none at all to have come from that region and only other areas be blessed?
7:53 And everyone went to
his own house. Frustrated, the group broke up and went to
their individual homes. Although the
“critical text” rejects this verse, what else could have happened since
they took no more immediate steps against the Lord? Their meeting having failed to accomplish their
goal, what choice did they ultimately have but to go home? That these quite natural words would just
happen to fit here--when they actually come from a totally unrelated
source . . . well, isn’t that probability incredibly low? Furthermore if it came from a different
source, then we haven’t the slightest hint of what came between the
breaking up of the Sanhedrin meeting and the breaking up and resultant home
going referred to here. Surely it must
have been a major event! Is such an
omission probable either?
Chapter Eight
His Enemies Attempt to Use a Woman Seized in the Act of
Adultery As a Tool Against Jesus (John 8:1-11): 1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning
he came to the temple courts again. All
the people came to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 The experts in the law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been
caught committing adultery. They made her stand in front of them 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of
adultery. 5 In the law Moses commanded us to
stone to death such women. What then do you
say?” 6 (Now they were asking
this in an attempt to trap him, so that they could bring charges against him.)
Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground with his finger. 7 When they persisted in asking him, he stood up straight and replied,
“Whoever among you is guiltless may be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Then he bent over again and wrote on the ground.
9 Now when they heard
this, they began to drift away one at a time, starting with the older ones,
until Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up straight and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no
one condemn you?” 11 She replied, “No one,
Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn
you either. Go, and from now on do not
sin any more.” --New English
Translation (for comparison)
8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Jesus
spent the night on the Mount of Olives. It is nowhere else mentioned in this gospel
but 18:1 does refer to its location without mentioning the name--roughly a mile
east of the city. “Jesus
often met there with His disciples” (18:2). “He was accustomed” to going there (Luke 22:39).
The specific location on the Mount was called “Gethsemane”
(Matthew 26:36).
John 7:53-8:12 are omitted by critical texts though
they are found in, numerically, hundreds of later manuscripts. Some reject the genuineness of the passage
entirely, while others believe that it has somehow been misplaced from some
other location in the story. Either way,
the forgiving mind frame and determined opposition to injustice masquerading as “justice” (cf.
verse 8) is exactly the type of attitude one would expect Jesus to have
shown. Likewise the attitude that is manifested
by “the scribes and Pharisees” (verse 3) clearly represents what we would
expect from them as well.
But what
exactly were they up to? Were they
hoping that Jesus would openly let the woman escape unpunished? Can’t you hear the rumor mill quickly
spreading “this man Jesus is so contemptuous of moral behavior that He doesn’t
even believe that a woman caught in adultery should be punished! How can He possibly be right in the other
things He teaches in opposition to the religious establishment?”
Or are they
(also?) hoping to get Jesus to endorse the death penalty for extreme violations
of the Law? It is easy to imagine them
then arguing, “Just as He committed her to death for violating the Law, we had
to commit Him to death as well for His false teaching. His own example set the precedent for it!”
Or were
they trying to get the Lord in trouble with the Romans who did not provide for
such a death in their own system of punishments? Inciting “mob rule” would make a nice
accusation. Or simply
to establish a bad reputation for Him?
That way when they themselves drag Him there with their own false
accusations, the Romans would already be predisposed to be rid of this
“troublemaker.”
8:2 Now early in the morning He
came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and
taught them. He put Himself
there before many had arrived in order to have a good long day teaching. This early arrival also occurred the week He
was crucified (Luke 21:37-38) and
was likely His norm whenever He attended one of the annual feasts in the
city.
Those
listening “sat down” around him to listen.
They did so since the Temple
floor was flat and it was not courteous for others to be “towering” over the
one they were listening to. This way
they also became a visibly self-defined group studying together while others
passed on about their own business. If
others wanted to join a “study group” they could easily see where one was
meeting.
8:3 Then the scribes and
Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, This itself was brazen
hypocrisy. They had conspicuously not
brought the man involved. Although the
Old Testament authorized death for adultery, it was death for both
parties and not one: “The man who commits adultery
with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his
neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to
death” (Leviticus 20:10). “If a man is
found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the
man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from
Israel” (Deuteronomy 22:22). Although
stoning is not specified, its mention in connection with sexual misconduct in 22:24 argues this was the case here as well. Compare Ezekiel 16:38-40 where an analogy is
made between punishing idolatry by stoning (and/or “sword”) and punishing
sexual unfaithfulness in a similar manner.
Where,
therefore, was the male? His absence
tells us that something in this entire situation “stinks.”
Sidebar: This is the only time “scribes” are mentioned
in this gospel.
8:4 they said to Him, “Teacher,
this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Hence her guilt was unquestionable
since she was caught while committing adultery. So why had they let the man get away? Was he a friend of theirs? Did they really think that when two people
were involved in some evil that one could only punish one of them and that be considered fair and equitable justice?
Sidebar: We have no way of proving how common adultery
was in geographic Palestine in that age, but Jesus’ description of His
contemporary society argues that it may have occurred quite often: “An evil and adulterous generation
seeks after a sign” (Matthew 12:39); “whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in
this adulterous and sinful generation” (Mark 8:38). On the other hand must be weighed the fact
that this language can also be used for compromising one’s moral integrity in
general rather than just through this specific action: “Adulterers
and adulteresses! Do you not know
that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever
therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God”
(James 4:4). Is there any doubt that
this was Jesus’ evaluation of His contemporary world--that
it suffered from a general lack of moral earnestness?
8:5 Now Moses, in the law,
commanded us that such should be stoned.
But what do You say?” Jesus had been known to take views
that many regarded—unjustly—as a repudiation of the teaching of the Pentateuch
(Genesis to Deuteronomy). How then would
He react to this particular teaching of the Torah? Would He dare reject it? If so, they could accuse him of laxity and of
openly refusing to embrace its teaching.
Sidebar: It should be noted that there was a common
rabbinic opinion preserved in the Talmud that the proper means of putting to
death was strangulation; stoning was to be limited to only those cases where it
was explicitly commanded. Their question
argues that there was also a strong dissent from this view.
8:6 This they said, testing Him,
that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the
ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. This was not an honest enquiry for
His judgment; it was intended as a “test” of how He would react. Jesus refused to become involved but only
bent down and started writing. But
writing what? Speculations on this have
been numerous. A text
that condemned arbitrariness and injustice? Certainly not embarrassment at the mention
of sexuality for this was an age far more like ours than like the Victorian,
which encouraged such interpretations.
Sidebar: The problem with this or His writing anything
at all is that the “floor” of the Temple
was stone. He could however act as if
writing. Either way His action was a
manifestation of virtual contempt for what they were doing: note in this connection, that He wrote “as
though He did not hear them” at all . . .
as intentionally ignoring them, as exhibiting a visual disdain.
On the
other hand, dust does accumulate, even on the floors of a holy Temple
and that could have been written on.
Indeed, Jesus’ writing on the ground can itself be
taken as inferential evidence that not all of the flooring was yet
installed--or was undergoing some major construction. Also arguing in support of that conclusion,
where did His enemies find “stones to throw at Him” at the end of this chapter
when there is no hint of prior preparation by bringing them with them into the Temple
(8:59)?
8:7 So when they continued asking
Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is
without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” If Jesus meant they had to
be sinless, then no offense would have been punishable. Hence the interpretive gloss seems required,
“He who is without sin among you in this matter. . . .” They were playing games with the death
penalty and He knew it and they knew it.
Only if they could honestly say they had no guilt in this affair were
they justified in inflicting death. Less
likely would be the reading, “He who is without having committed this very
sin themselves, let him be the first to throw a stone.” Even so the weakness of “human nature” found
in so many, argues that the latter guilt is quite possibly present as
well.
Sidebar: Since she had been grabbed in the very act of
adultery (verse 4), at least some of these were witnesses and the Law required
that in cases of the death penalty that the witnesses were to be the first to
throw the stones (Deuteronomy 17:7).
Although this is speaking of idolatry in particular, it is hard to see
how they could have avoided the application of this principle to other cases as
well.
They
argue that she deserves death, so He challenges them with the demand “then do
it!” But they don’t really care about
doing it; they are simply out to use this case to undermine Jesus’
reputation. She is nothing more than a
handy and available tool to do so.
8:8 And again He stooped down and
wrote on the ground. Having said what He had to say, Jesus returned
to His writing on the ground. The name of the man who they had so carefully avoided bringing
before Him? Nothing else could
have been more appropriate unless perhaps the names of their own number
who were known to have committed the same offense. Perhaps even with this very woman?
Sidebar: As early as Jerome (347-420 A.D.) the first
written speculation appears as to what it was.
Jerome’s conclusion was the same as one tenth century manuscript inserts
into the text: He “wrote on the ground
the sins of each one of them.”
8:9 Then those who heard it, being
convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with
the oldest even to the last.
And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. Their guilt began to work on their
nerves and the oldest (either in age or the most knowledgeable and mature)
drifted out first, followed one after the other by the remainder. Finally only Jesus and the accused were
left. Remember that Jesus had been
teaching when these folk had interrupted Him.
Pure curiosity would have been sufficient to keep them there to hear His
response even if other factors were not present.
Sidebar: Although “being convicted by their
conscience” is omitted by the “critical text” as inadequately documented, why
else would they have left? They
were involuntarily driven to the recognition that she wasn’t the only one in
the present company deserving of severe censure.
8:10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but
the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of
yours? Has no one condemned you?” Till now the conversation has been about her; now it
becomes one with her. The first step is
to implicitly make her realize that He is well aware of just how serious an
offense she was accused of. Just because
they had walked away did not mean that she was innocent.
Sidebar: The mercifulness of the Messiah had been
predicted (Isaiah 42:3) and Jesus lived by that standard: “A bruised reed He will not break, and
smoking flax He will not quench, till He sends forth justice to victory”
(Matthew 12:20). In the context that Matthew
quotes the text, it is in regard to healing a handicapped man on the Sabbath in
spite of rabbinic tradition which would have prohibited it.
8:11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I
condemn you; go and sin no more.” Since
there was no one left accusing her, Jesus did not need to make any personal
judicial style judgment as to whether to “condemn” her. But He made plain that He was fully aware
that she was not without guilt: “go and
sin no more.” You escaped the penalty
this time; never put yourself in such danger again . . . which automatically
has to carry the weight of “by never committing the same sin again.”
He
has not said “you are forgiven” for she has provided no evidence that she seeks
it. However He is not going to let her
get away with either the delusion that she has (somehow) “conned” the Lord or
that He is unaware that her life needs some serious correction. Hence the admonition to
avoid such evil in the future.
What
we have no idea of is whether she had the wisdom to embrace both that
admonition and warning--because the words carry both undercurrents. One can never change the past, but only the
future. And then only if one is wise
enough to accept that it needs to be done.
In the Temple Jesus Rebukes His Foes for Not Accepting the
Evidence in His Behalf—The “Testimony” of Both Jesus As Well As the Heavenly
Father (John 8:12-20): 12 Then Jesus spoke out
again, “I am the light of the world. The
one who follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of
life.” 13 So the Pharisees
objected, “You testify about yourself; your testimony is not true!” 14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true,
because I know where I came from and where I am going. But you people do not know where I came from
or where I am going. 15 You people judge by
outward appearances; I do not judge anyone.
16 “But if I judge, my
evaluation is accurate, because I am not alone when I judge, but I and the
Father who sent me do so together. 17 It is written in your law that the testimony of two
men is true. 18 I testify about myself and the Father who sent me testifies about me.”
19 Then they began asking
him, “Who is your father?” Jesus
answered, “You do not know either me or my Father. If you knew me you would know my Father too.”
20 (Jesus spoke these words near the offering box while he was teaching in
the temple courts. No one seized him
because his time had not yet come.) --New English
Translation (for comparison)
8:12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world.
He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness,
but have the light of life.” Jesus
spoke to the listeners, affirming that He was the embodiment of the “light” the
world needed. The one who followed as a
disciple would escape the moral and spiritual “darkness” that filled the world
and would have the “light of life” within.
His teaching “lit up” the difference between right and wrong and
stressed the importance of true piety while condemning the “pretend piety” that
came from embracing humanly invented religious traditions.
This fits
in well with the theme of condemning sin in verse 11. What was true of that woman was also true of
all of them: avoiding moral blot was
essential. The “darkness” that Divine
light strips of its hiding place for evil is language repeatedly found--Romans
13:12; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Ephesians 5:11; etc.
Sidebar: This description was especially
appropriate--odd as it may sound to the modern mind--because of the Feast where
it occurred and because of the Messianic connection of the language. “In John
8:20, we are told that Jesus spake these words in the
Treasury. This was in the Court of the
Women, the most public part of the temple.
Four golden candelabra stood there, each with four golden bowls, each
one filled from a pitcher of oil by a youth of priestly descent. These were lighted on the first night of the
Feast of Tabernacles. It is not unlikely
that they may have suggested our Lord's figure, but the figure itself was
familiar both from prophecy and from tradition.
“According to tradition, Light
was one of the names of the Messiah. See
Isaiah 9:1; Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6; Isaiah 60:1-3; Malachi
4:2; Luke 2:32 [where the imagery was applied to the newborn Jesus: “a light to bring revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of Your people Israel”].” (Vincent’s
Word Studies)
8:13 The Pharisees therefore said to Him, “You bear
witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true.” Certain Pharisees decided to
attack Jesus’ credibility on the ground that what He had to say—His
“witness”—was simply not true. But they
give no ground beyond the fact that He was describing Himself. Now if they were speaking of and bearing
witness of their own piety, well there wouldn’t have been anything wrong
with that!
Some find
much more here. . . . that they are consciously
quoting the words of Jesus Himself. But
the context of John 5:31 is much
different, as can immediately be seen if we include the next two verses: “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is
true.
You have sent to
John, and he has borne witness to the
truth.”
In other words: If I am the only one who says this, My word is arguably not reliable. But you have far more; you have the testimony
of both Me and John the Baptist. In our current text the identity of a
different--and even greater--second witness is invoked: You have the testimony of both Me and that of
the Father as well (verse 18). This
probably refers to God’s testimony through Jesus’ miracles (compare Hebrews 2:4
in regard to the apostles) and the predictions made in Scripture of His
coming.
8:14 Jesus answered and said to
them, “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is
true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know
where I come from and where I am going. Even
if their exaggeration that the only witness He had was Himself
were true—and it wasn’t—that still did them little good. At least He knew the truth about where He had
come from and where He was returning while they grasped neither. And it is really hard to guess which would
horrify them more if they had understood: That He really had come from the
Father or that He was returning to the Father to receive His praise and
kingdom?
8:15 You judge according to the
flesh; I judge no one. Their
own reasoning skills failed. They fell
into the trap of judging “according to the flesh:” superficially, or according to the
standards embraced by their non-scriptural religious tradition, or according to
what appealed to their natural/fleshly instincts. The point would be the same in regard to all
of these. Jesus refused to judge anyone
in such a manner. His standards
were profoundly different.
8:16 And yet if I do judge, My
judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father
who sent Me. Even if they
insisted that He, indeed, was guilty of “judging” in some supposedly “negative”
and “improper” sense, at least He could be sure that His actual “judgments”
were always ones shared by the Father who had sent Him. Hence they can’t be truly prejudicial in any
case.
There is
always a difference between having a “judgment” on any matter and being sure
that one has the right judgment.
Jesus always embraced the right one because He embraced the “judgments”
His Heavenly Father made. He never tried
to make His own unique and separate ones.
“I can of Myself do nothing. As
I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous,
because I
do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 5:30).
8:17 It is also written in your law that the testimony of
two men is true. What
establishes valid evidence? The Mosaical law required the word of at least two witnesses
and He finds no problem with this principle.
In a very real sense it was “His law” as well since He was also a
Jew. However, they were the ones
that were trying to use it against Him so it was only fair to label it “your
law” since, in their conceited minds, they were the
only ones in the discussion who were “really” its advocates and defenders.
He was in
no way denying the authority of the Mosaical Law for
it was still in effect (Matthew 5:17-18) and He defends its true intent and
purpose in the Antitheses of that same chapter of Matthew that promptly follows
this assertion. The real rejecter
of Moses was not Jesus but His “clerical” critics (John 5:45-47).
Sidebar: There is a subtle change here in the citation
of the Old Testament that some have suggested is intended to carry an
additional rebuke: “Not so much a quotation as a reference to Deuteronomy 19:15 [and] Deuteronomy 17:6. Note that the Law speaks of ‘two or
three witnesses:’ here we have ‘two men.’ The
change is not accidental, but introduces an argument à fortiori: if
the testimony of two men is true, how
much more the testimony of two Divine Witnesses. Compare ‘If we receive the witness of men,
the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He hath
testified of His Son’ (1 John 5:9).” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)
8:18 I am One who bears witness
of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.” In spite of their claim that there
was no other witness on Jesus’ behalf (verse 13), in reality there were
actually two of them that Jesus chooses to mention (omitting that of John the
Baptist)—both Jesus Himself and the Father.
Jesus bore witness of the truth and validity of what He taught and the
Father backed it up--through the signs He empowered Jesus to perform among
other things. Not to mention the
heavenly voice at His baptism by the Baptist and the Messianic prophecies God
revealed through the Old Testament prophets.
8:19 Then they said to
Him, “Where is Your Father?” Jesus
answered, “You know neither Me
nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.” The critics took the “father”
reference as meaning His physical father and enquired where he might be. In effect they challenge, “Let us hear what
he has to say!” However Jesus had
repeatedly spoken of His Father as God in heaven (John 5:22-24, 30, 37-38; 6:38-39;
7:16-18). Hence it is possible (though less likely)
that their protest challenges “let your supposed heavenly father manifest
Himself here and now.” But would that
have dissolved their hostility?
At a later Feast, God did
speak from heaven and the audience of listeners in the Temple
were torn between whether it was mere thunder or
whether “an angel has spoken to Him” (John 12:26-30). Yet neither this nor His miracles changed
official opinion at all: “Although He
had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him” (12:37).
The large minority of religious officials who realized what it all meant
were too fearful to openly say so (12:42-43). So if the Father had spoken on this earlier
occasion, it would hardly have changed the situation.
Jesus’
response in the current verse implies that if they had truly understood
(“known”) Him, they would already have recognized (“known”) the validity of
what He had to say. They would also have
understood (“known”) that His heavenly Father embraced the same things as
well. Today we would use the idiom, “We
are not on the same wave length so you simply don’t understand what the Father
and I say!”
8:20 These words Jesus spoke in the
treasury, as He taught in the temple; and no one laid hands on Him, for His
hour had not yet come. This was apparently not a building per se but the area
where the money was given to the Temple
through thirteen large containers accessible to the public (Mark 12:41-44).
Although obviously kept secure, no guard and no one else took the
opportunity to seize Him since the time (“hour”) for that had not yet
arrived. The “undercurrent” of this
verse is surely that the providential hand of God was assuring that premature
action would not be taken. There would
be a time when Jesus would die but this wasn’t it.
His Enemies Insist His Teaching Is Obscure; He Responds That
He Is Teaching the Same Things He Always Has (John 8:21-30): 21 Then Jesus said to them again, “I am going away, and you will look for
me but will die in your sin. Where I am going you cannot come.” 22 So the Jewish leaders
began to say, “Perhaps he is going to kill himself, because he says, ‘Where I
am going you cannot come.’ ”
23 Jesus replied, “You
people are from below; I am from above.
You people are from this world; I am not from this world. 24 Thus I told you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that
I am he, you will die in your sins.”
25 So they said to him,
“Who are you?” Jesus replied, “What I
have told you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge about you, but the Father who
sent me is truthful, and the things I have heard from him I speak to the
world.” 27 (They did not
understand that he was telling them about his Father.)
28 Then Jesus said, “When
you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and I do nothing
on my own initiative, but I speak just what the Father taught me. 29 And the one who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I
always do those things that please him.” 30 While he was saying these things, many people believed in him. --New English Translation (for comparison)
8:21 Then Jesus said to them again, “I
am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in
your sin. Where I go you cannot come.” The most likely
interpretation is that they would eventually seek what Jesus is but
which they deny, i.e., the Messiah:
“He meant, that after his ascension
into heaven, when the Roman armies were spreading desolation and death in every
corner of the land, they would earnestly desire the coming of the Messiah, in
expectation of deliverance, but should perish for their sins, and under the
guilt of them, without any Savior whatsoever, and be excluded for ever from
heaven.” (Benson Commentary) The kind of Messiah they wanted was never
intended nor ever would be.
If you take the desire to mean “seek Jesus himself,”
then the idea would likely be along this line:
They reach the point where it becomes impossible because they “cannot
cease from sin” any longer (2 Peter 2:14). In other words, if you postpone doing
the right thing long enough, you may find that it is too late to accomplish
that goal at all. You may harden your
heart for so long that you’ve self-destroyed the ability to change and
repent: Hence “you will seek Me and [yet] will die in your sin” because you are no longer
able to manifest true and full repentance.
Sidebar on
the immediate relevance of Jesus’ remark about how “I am going away:” “It was, let
us again remind ourselves, the last day of the feast, and now its closing hours
have come. That thronging multitude
would be before the close of another day, leaving Jerusalem to spread itself through all the extent of Palestine and the Dispersion.
He also is going away. Many of
them will never see Him again. Before
another Feast of Tabernacles He will, in a deeper sense, be going away. They will seek Him, but it will be too late. There is in all the discourse the solemn
feeling that these are the last words for many who hear Him.” (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)
8:22 So the Jews said, “Will He
kill Himself, because He says, ‘Where I go you cannot
come’?” The assertion
of their spiritual death (8:21)
surely annoyed them, but they were perplexed by His strange claim that where He
was going they could not follow. Earlier
when He had made a similar claim they wondered whether He intended to go out
among the Jews scattered throughout the Roman world (7:32-36).
But the
current response of possible suicide was not an illogical thought since this
was a “place” they definitely would not follow, nor even try to. “The issues
of life are in the darkness of the future.
Who can know the hour of His own departure? There is only one class of persons who can
speak with certainty of thus going away, and these are persons who by their own
act fix the limit of their own lives.” (Ellicott’s
Commentary for English Readers) But are
their words serious or simply another way of showing their contempt for Him?
8:23 And He said to them, “You are
from beneath; I am from above. You are
of this world; I am not of this world. Jesus’
origin was completely different from that of His critics. They came from the earth and “this world”
while He was “from above” and was “not of this world.” The facts that they knew full well were that
He was both “of” and “from” this world--Nazareth
in particular. Hence the blatant denial
of these self-evident facts required that His listeners conclude that He was
not using the language in an earthly and physical sense. He had to have shifted to a different
application of the language. And in the
contrast between “this world” and “from above,” what implication can it be carrying other than heaven itself?
8:24 Therefore I said to you that
you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you
will die in your sins.” They
wished to think in terms of where He was going, but Jesus wanted to center
their minds on their sin instead. “You
will die in your sins,” he repeated, because a refusal to acknowledge Jesus as
the long predicted Coming One made it inevitable.
The “He” is
in italics to convey to us the caution that, though it is not found in the
Greek text, the assertion is regarded by the translators as essential to
complete the thought. Without the
addition, however, the point could easily be that He embraces the classic name
for God: I Am. “The words
had a sacred history which told of the revelation of Jehovah to Moses (Exodus 3:14). Uttered as
they were by Him who had just claimed to be ‘from above’ and to be ‘not of this
world,’ and uttered as they were within the precincts of Jehovah’s Temple, and
in the presence of His priests and people, they may well have carried to their
minds this deeper meaning, and have been intended as a declaration of His
divine existence.” (Ellicott’s
Commentary for English Readers)
8:25 Then they said to Him, “Who are You?” And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. “Who are you?” was the obvious
response to verse 24. Inherently He had
to be something extraordinary or there was no rationale way that dying in sin
could possibly be the result of rejecting Him.
Their response also made sense if they are suspicious of the words “I
Am” in the previous verse as somehow hinting of His deityship.
And
Jesus’ answer was equally obvious: I’m
exactly what I’ve been telling you from the very beginning of My ministry. At least
if you’ve been paying attention and haven’t found an excuse to totally ignore
or reject everything I’ve had to say.
In
one sense this is a dodge of the question for it does not give a direct answer
but, in another, it is a very appropriate response as well. After all, He had repeatedly presented
Himself as sent from God, a unique spokesman for God, and with a relationship
with God that no one else had. They might
not grasp the full implications of all this, but if they accepted it in any meaningful
sense at all, they would have become disciples and worried about its full
significance at some other date.
8:26 I have many things to say and to judge concerning
you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the
world those things which I heard from Him.” Admittedly, there was much more Jesus desired
to teach and “judge” (= correct, reprove, rebuke, criticize] concerning them
and their theology and behavior, but of one thing they could rest assured: the only things He would teach—no matter how
startling or impossible they might seem—would be that which He had personally
“heard” from God. Hence His judgment
would perfectly reflect that of the Father and there would be absolutely no
divergence.
8:27 They did not understand that He
spoke to them of the Father. To
us, reading the text from John’s perspective, the reasoning is obvious. From their standpoint, they were left
confused who this person was who was teaching the Lord. Indeed, the nature of Jesus’ absolutely
authoritative teaching was an issue secondary in potential explosiveness only
to the claim to be the Messiah--it was a claim of correctness so perfect that
any teaching of theirs which contradicted it had no change of being right. Hence on many occasions it was better to use
double-edged language that would be obscure at the time but understandable
after the resurrection.
8:28 Then Jesus said to them, “When
you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I
do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I
speak these things. When
they honored (“lift up”) Jesus the way He should be, then they would recognize
who He was and that His teaching was strictly that which His Father had given
Him. Of course the flip side of this was, if they never do so, then they will never be
able to recognize that what He does perfectly reflects the will of the heavenly
Father.
If the
“lift up” refers to the crucifixion, then the idea is that by permitting
Himself to be crucified, He will prove that He has done only what the Father
wants Him to do. After all, no rational
human being wants to go out and have himself painfully and humiliating killed--and
in public on top of that. In this case
“know” takes on the sense of “proving” rather than “convincing” . . . whether
they are willing to let their eyes see the evidence that is there or not.
8:29 And He who sent Me is with Me. The
Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those
things that please Him.” In
spite of whatever dangers and trials would yet come, Jesus felt the absolute
confidence that His Father would never leave “me alone.” But there was also a reciprocal element in
this as well. The Father could just as
confidently be assured that Jesus would always conform His own ways to those of
the Father--habitually, on every occasion; it was His way of life. On earlier occasions Jesus had insisted that
He did the will of His Father (4:34;
6:38) but here He makes the claim
even more emphatic by adding the forceful word “always.”
If Jesus
were a mere mortal--even just a “normal” prophet--would these words be fully
true? Would they not tempt us to say
“exaggerated,” “demented” or “blasphemous” in response to such an all
encompassing claim? Indeed don’t the
words seem to require the concept of “sinless” as well if we accept them as
fully true?
8:30 As
He spoke these words, many believed in Him.
Not “all” but still a significant number were convinced by this
discussion that they should “believe” in Him as God’s
spokesman--though the words also carried much “conceptual freight” beyond this
bare minimum. Even so they made a
fundamental commitment, however much it would need to be developed and built
upon in the future. Much like the temple
police in the preceding chapter, they clearly responded with the conviction
that “no man ever spoke like this Man” (7:46).
Sidebar: This gospel stresses that belief was
repeatedly the reaction of crowds to His words:
2:23; 6:14 (by implication); 7:31;
10:42; 11:45.
Those Who Faithfully Follow Jesus’ Teaching Will Be Freed From
Their Sin (John 8:31-38): 31 Then Jesus said to those Judeans who had believed him, “If you continue
to follow my teaching, you are really my disciples 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
33 “We are descendants of
Abraham,” they replied, “and have never been anyone’s slaves! How can you say, ‘You will become free’?”
34 Jesus answered them,
“I tell you the solemn truth, everyone who practices sin is a slave of sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the family forever, but the son remains
forever. 36 So if the son sets you
free, you will be really free. 37 I know that you are
Abraham’s descendants. But you want to
kill me, because my teaching makes no progress among you. 38 I am telling you the things I have seen while with the Father; as for
you, practice the things you have heard from the Father!”
--New English
Translation (for comparison)
8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed
Him, “If you abide in My word,
you are My disciples indeed. What
was important was not temporary adherence, but permanent commitment. Hence if they continued to “abide in My word”--respecting and obeying it--they would thereby
prove themselves His true disciples. His
enemies weren’t going to listen to Him in the first place. The challenge would be those willing to be
His followers at the moment and whether they would continue to want to be
weeks, months, and years in the future. The challenge of spiritual persistence, if you will. “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments,” John
himself stresses in one of his epistles (2 John 1:6).
Some who
were temporarily enchanted by Him had already reversed course (John 6:66) and
the potential was always there if one insisted on personal preference in
doctrine and morals rather than ongoing loyalty. Or if one yielded to the
pressure of powerful leaders or friends.
8:32 And you shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free.” By
being His disciples over an extended period of time (= “if you abide in My words,” verse 31), they would learn “the truth”--more of
it and more completely--and it would “free” them from their sin and
ignorance. That spiritual journey had
just begun and would continue throughout their discipleship.
8:33 They answered Him, “We are
Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You
say, ‘You will be made free’?” Remember
that these words are addressed to those who had begun to believe on Him (verse
31). The idea of their not being “free,”
however, rubbed some the wrong way. As
descendants of Abraham, they insisted we “have never been in bondage to
anyone.” Their annoyance overcame their
memory: what of Abraham’s immediate
descendents in Egypt? What of the two foreign captivities that the
nation had been carried into in past centuries?
What of the current Roman occupation?
(Nehemiah 9:27-28 forcefully refers to such oppressions happening
repeatedly--it wasn’t merely a one time event.)
If one had
to, one could try to defend their verbal folly this way: They may have (mentally) been making a
very subtle distinction between being slaves and being under the control of
others. Of those then alive, all
were under some indirect control of the Romans but very few of them (if
any) may have been counted as slaves of anyone.
But there
are slaveries that involve no chains, no markings, and no obligatory special
attire. And that is what Jesus has in
mind. Slavery to sin
in any of its many forms. And
their people had unquestionably fallen prey to that repeatedly in the
past: Remember the popularity of
idolatry that plagued the nation time and again?
Sidebar: Although He addresses the next few verses to
those who accepted Him,
we find the crowd wanting “to kill Me” in verse 37. Had they already that much rejected
His words? The answer lies in the fact
that those Jews already hostile to Jesus have rejoined the
discussion. There is no mention of them having
left during the preceding digression and Jesus’ words in this mid-section
are only addressed to “those Jews who believed Him” (verse 31). The others merely listened--but their
annoyance and rage clearly had not diminished.
Hh
8:34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. Jesus responded to their
denial by stressing that He was not speaking of political freedom or even of
human temporal freedom. Rather he was
speaking of the slavery that results from a person
being controlled by sin. That is
a slavery that is voluntarily produced and maintained. No one else sells into it; you sell
yourself. The apostle Paul makes much
the same point in Romans 6:16, “Do you not know
that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s
slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of
obedience leading to righteousness?”
Sidebar on “commits sin:”
“The Greek word is a present participle, expressing the continuance of
the deeds of sin. It means, not simply
the committing individual sins, from which no man is free, but the state of the
life which is [ongoingly] sinful; the state which is
opposed to doing the will of the Father, and is expressed in other words as
‘working iniquity’ (Matthew 7:21-23.).”
(Ellicott’s Commentary for the English Reader)
8:35 And a slave does not abide in
the house forever, but a son abides forever. Inherently
a slave has a different relationship to the Master than a son. The son is always going to be there, but a
slave has no inherent right to be so.
He/she could be sold, moved to different lodging, or otherwise rejected
(as happens in Genesis 21:10).
8:36 Therefore if the Son makes you free,
you shall be free indeed. A
son could have the authority to free the slave if given permission by his
father. And Jesus, as God’s Son, could
break them “free indeed” from the chains that bound them to immorality and
corruption in whatever forms it besieged their lives. And as a free person you have the right to
remain in the same household permanently because you share freedom in common
and (adopted--Galatians 4:4-5; Ephesians 1:5-6) sonship
with the same Father.
8:37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you
seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. Jesus did not deny that they were
Abraham’s descendants. On the other hand
it was equally clear that they weren’t trying to imitate the patriarch’s
character but, instead, were determined to murder Him. Not because He was a threat to the public
order. Not because He was a threat to
the life of any one, but simply because they refused to accept His teaching
(“word”)--which, by the way, they repeatedly were unable to refute. But if He’s dead, they won’t have to worry
about that, will they?
8:38 I speak what I have seen
with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.” The source of their
teachings differed. Jesus’ teaching
originated with what He had “seen” with His father while theirs originated with
what they had seen from their father.
By implication the difference, of course, is between the heavenly Father
of Jesus and the “Satanic” one (verse 44) they were in their ignorance and
blindness following. At the same time
they were convinced they were the bedrock of orthodoxy! If we become so convinced that we are right
that we refuse to consider contrary evidence fairly--even when we suspect it is
wrong--then are we much better than they?
There is a profound difference between being alert to deception by evil
and false doctrine and blinding ourselves to our own potential for intellectual
and spiritual limitations.
Jesus' Enemies Were Living in the Way of Their Satanic “Father”
and Not the Heavenly One
(John 8:39-47): 39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father!” Jesus replied, “If you are
Abraham’s children, you would be doing the deeds of Abraham. 40 But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth I
heard from God. Abraham did not do this! 41 You people are doing the deeds of your father.”
Then they said to Jesus, “We were not born as a result of
immorality! We have only one Father, God
himself.” 42 Jesus replied, “If God
were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God and am now
here. I have not come on my own
initiative, but he sent me. 43 Why don’t you
understand what I am saying? It is
because you cannot accept my teaching.
44 “You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your
father desires. He was a murderer from
the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him.
Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar
and the father of lies.
45 “But because I am
telling you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who among you can prove me guilty of any sin? If I am telling you the truth, why don’t you
believe me? 47 The one who belongs to
God listens and responds to God’s words.
You don’t listen and respond, because you don’t belong to God.”
--New English
Translation (for comparison)
8:39 The answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. Jesus had not, in
the previous verse, explicitly denounced His foes as having a “Satanic” father,
but that is what He had in mind (verse 44).
Although left ambiguous, His critics could easily tell that whatever He
meant was derogatory. Hence they take
Jesus’ concession that Abraham was their “father” (verse 37) and try to use
that to neutralize the accusation.
So far as they were concerned, since
“Abraham is our father” that automatically proved they were walking in
the right footsteps of faith and action.
Not so, responds Jesus. If they
were truly Abraham’s offspring in behavior rather than just genetically
they would be performing the kind of “works” carried out by Abraham--exhibit
the kind of behavior he did. Paul
develops this kind of distinction between ancestry defined genetically
and ancestry defined behaviorally when he
argues “nor are they all children because they are of the seed of
Abraham” (Romans 9:7; context verses 6-9).
8:40 But now you seek to kill Me,
a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. They wished to kill Him even
though He never deviated from the truth that God had delivered to Him. In contrast, Abraham had never acted in such an
irresponsible manner. Whether He was
always happy with His instructions from God or not, he was still willing to do
his honest best to carry them out. Hence
they needed to look somewhere else to find someone who embodied the kind of
rebellion, rejection, and repudiation that they exhibited.
Sidebar on
Jesus’ description of Himself: “A man (ἄνθρωπον). Used only here by the Lord of Himself. To this corresponds His calling the Devil a
manslayer at John 8:44. Perhaps,
too, as Westcott remarks, it may suggest the idea of the human sympathy which,
as a man, He was entitled to claim from them.”
(Vincent’s Word Studies)
8:41 You do the deeds of
your father.” Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we
have one Father—God.” If an
appeal to Abraham won’t work, then they’ll appeal to Yahweh Himself: They are His children and not just of
Abraham. After all they weren’t “born of
fornication,” i.e., have spiritual origins from any other source. As Westcott sums up the
point: “We
do not owe our position to idolatrous desertion of Jehovah. We are the
offspring of the union of God with his chosen people. Our spiritual descent is as pure as our
historical descent.” (quoted
by Pulpit Commentary) Implicit
subtext: Hence what they do must also be
the right thing.
8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth
and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. If they truly had a family
relationship with the Father, then they would “love” Jesus for He had come
forth from God. (Note the implicit,
barely hidden allusion to a pre-existence before coming to earth: “who being the
brightness of His glory and the express image of His
person”--Hebrews 1:3.) Instead of
embracing, they were conspiring against Him.
Even
accepting the element of validity in their argument--that in a sense
they deserved to be considered children of God--there was still a profound
difference between being children of and being faithful children
of. They do not automatically equate
each other. The Old Testament history
repeatedly illustrated this reality. Not
to mention its emphatic rejection of such behavior: Deuteronomy 4:25-27; Jeremiah 3:20; Nehemiah
1:8; Hosea 4:10-12; etc.
8:43 Why do you not understand My
speech? Because you are not able to
listen to My word.
What was the root of their lack of “understand[ing]”? It lay in the
fact that they could not overcome their preconceptions and carefully listen to
what He had to say. They could pay
enough attention to respond, but not enough to give it the careful and just
analysis it deserved--much less acceptance.
Nor probe the latent message lying just beneath the spoken words. One might well say that they “considered
themselves PhDs but wanted the message they heard explained on an elementary
school level.”
An
alternative approach is also possible:
In John 6 listeners pondered a “hard” (= “difficult,” NASB, NET)
teaching of Jesus (verse 60) and the Lord promptly pointed out the
problem: “Does this offend you?” (verse 61). They
couldn’t understand and accept because they disliked the teaching--as might be
happening in our current chapter as well.
This assumes that, on some level, they are
simultaneously “understanding but also refusing to understand
what they don’t want to hear in the first place.”
8:44 You are of your father
the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and
does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for
he is a liar and the father of it. Refusing
to let the father/son image drop, Jesus returned to it once again and this time
spells out exactly who He had in mind:
Their father was actually “the devil”.
This was demonstrated by several of their manifest weaknesses that the
devil himself had exhibited: (1) the fundamental “desires” and purposes were
the same; (2) he had been a “murderer” just like they wished to be against
Jesus; (3) neither stood “in the truth” of God because truth was not the prime
consideration in what motivated their behavior; (4) both were quite capable of
being “liar[s]” to further their interests and undermine those of others.
Sidebar--This
verse as powerful evidence of the objective reality and malignity of
Satan: Alford: “This is one
of the most decisive testimonies to the objective (outward) personality of the
devil. It is quite impossible to suppose
an accommodation to Jewish views, or a metaphorical form of speech, in so
solemn an assertion as this.” (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary) “It can scarcely be an economy, a concession
to ordinary modes of thought and language.
Would Christ have resorted to a popular delusion in a denunciation of
such solemn and awful severity?” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)
8:45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. Jesus implies that he was faced
with a paradoxical situation. They were
not unwilling to accept His message—if it were a different message. But because it was “the truth” and He refused
to alter it in any manner to make it acceptable to them, they refused to have
anything to do with it. A sad truth
about humanity: Just because you have
the truth on some important matter does not necessarily mean that you will be
able to get others to believe it. Even
when it is as clear cut as it could possibly be.
8:46 Which of you convicts Me of
sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you
not believe Me? They
knew full well that there was nothing sinful that they could point to in His
life. Why then did they refuse to
believe His teaching? One can easily
imagine a short pause at the end of the first question--giving them an
opportunity to respond if they dared try.
The reasoning here seems to be:
If I don’t have sin to discredit me, why won’t you accept the truth I teach? They have neither logic, scripture, nor
character to justify their defiance.
Sidebar: Some reconstructions of Jesus’ life have held
Him up as a fornicator or practicing homosexual. If there had been anything so
transparently a violation of moral right and wrong, Jesus would never have
dared make such a challenge.
Furthermore, they would have used it to gut His credibility.
8:47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do
not hear, because you are not of God.” He
who is fully committed to God will hear the words God speaks through
Jesus. They refused to heed that message
because they were not fully committed to God and His cause in the first
place. Their traditions and their rank
in the religious structure of the day held pre-eminence.
Sidebar: Jesus repeatedly in this gospel refers to how
His teaching had been given Him by the Father:
John 3:34; John 7:16; John 8:26; John 17:8,
His Enemies Are Horrified That He Insists that “Anyone [Who]
Obeys My Teaching . . . Will Never See Death” Because Even Abraham Died (John
8:48-59): 48 The Judeans replied,
“Aren’t we correct in saying that you are a Samaritan and are possessed by a
demon?” 49 Jesus answered, “I am
not possessed by a demon, but I honor my Father—and yet you dishonor me. 50 I am not trying to get praise for myself. There is one who demands it, and he also
judges. 51 I tell you the solemn
truth, if anyone obeys my teaching, he will never see death.”
52 Then the Judeans responded, “Now we know you’re possessed by a demon! Both Abraham and the prophets died, and yet
you say, ‘If anyone obeys my teaching, he will never experience death.’ 53 You aren’t greater than our father Abraham who died, are you? And the prophets died too! Who do you claim to be?”
54 Jesus replied, “If I
glorify myself, my glory is worthless.
The one who glorifies me is my Father, about whom you people say, ‘He is
our God.’ 55 Yet you do not know
him, but I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar
like you. But I do know him, and I obey his teaching. 56 Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was
glad.”
57 Then the Judeans
replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came
into existence, I am!” 59 Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus was hidden from
them and went out from the temple area.”
--New English
Translation (for comparison)
8:48 Then the Jews answered and said to Him, “Do we not
say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a
demon?” Jesus has given them
His opinion of them. Their own of Him is
equally strong: He was a Samaritan and
demon-possessed. Samaritans were scorned. A true Jew would never think of saying
the kind of things Jesus had uttered!
And He was so unquestionably wrong--even worse than an ignorant and no good Samaritan could get things wrong--He must be a
demon-haunted individual as well! Or as
similar minded critics accuse in Mark 3:22, “He is
possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out
demons.”
8:49 Jesus answered, “I do not have
a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. The response can be taken in either (or both) of two
ways: (1) As a simple rejection
of the demon charge, balanced by an insistence that He was the one who was
actually giving true “honor” (= respect and obedience) to God--not them. Or (2) it is inherently impossible for
a demon to give true honor to the heavenly Father as I do--therefore I am not
demon possessed: I respect the Father
and not Satan.
Either way,
instead of honoring and respecting such a person as Jesus, they regarded Him
with “dishonor”--disrespect and contempt--thereby dishonoring the heavenly
Father as well. This restraint under
insult reflects the mind frame the apostle Peter later referred to: “When He was reviled, did not revile in
return” (1 Peter 2:23).
Sidebar: “He does not
notice the charge of being a Samaritan.
For Him it contained nothing offensive, for He knew that Samaritans
might equal or excel Jews (John 4:39-42; Luke
10:33; Luke 17:16)
in faith, benevolence, and gratitude.” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)
8:50 And I do not seek My own glory;
there is One who seeks and judges. Now
only did Jesus not seek out His own reputation and advancement (“glory”), but
He recognized that there was One who would “judge”
whether that or any other claim was true.
In other words, answerability for both false claims and accusations
ultimately is to the heavenly Father.
Humans may successfully deceive each other--and themselves. But God can never be deceived.
8:51 Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.” Jesus
wished to emphasize this fact so He introduces it with “most assuredly”--i.e.,
this is “unquestionably and beyond any rational doubt.” (“I can guarantee this truth,” GW; “I tell
all of you emphatically,” ISV.) The
fact that they did not accept it changed nothing at all.
Note that “keeps” involves far more than merely hearing;
it involves doing it as well.
(“If you continue to follow My
teaching”--John 8:31, NET; “if you live
by what I say,” GW.) We may “believe” to our heart’s content; but it only
becomes salvational when it also involves implementing
what we claim to believe.
8:52 Then the Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You
say, ‘If anyone keeps My word he
shall never taste death.’ “Now
we know” = “by your own words you put the question beyond any shadow of
doubt! By your claims you prove you must
be demon possessed.” If they took their
words seriously, however, this was also an admission that what they had
previously said was mere empty bombast and simply said to find an excuse to
discredit Him. That their insulting
words were actually “true” made them feel even better!
Laying
aside their maliciousness, there was unquestionably a certain problem
with Jesus’ claim--if you took it as expressing a physical reality
rather than a spiritual one.
After all, both Abraham and the prophets had died and here was Jesus
insisting that mere obedience to His teaching would enable one to escape
death. So outrageous is this claim and
so self-evidently wrong that they build on their argument even further. . .
.
8:53 Are You greater than our father
Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets
are dead. Who do You
make Yourself out to be?” Were
they to seriously think that He was “greater” in authority and importance than
the prophets? Not to mention the father
of the nation, their great ancestor Abraham?
None of those could ever have done such a marvel and if anyone could, it
should have been them, shouldn’t it?
Thus is the thrust of their argument.
8:54 Jesus answered, “If I honor
Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My
Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your
God. This can be read two ways. First:
Jesus stressed that whether He gave praise (“honor”) to
Himself or not was actually irrelevant since God also honored Him. Second:
“If I am the only one to honor Myself, My claimed honor is a
worthless claim--but I’m not the only One.
The Father does as well.”
Regardless
of which way we take the words, they are counterbalanced with the affirmation
that His claim does not go unrecognized by the One who actually counts--the
Father Himself. So how could they refuse
to extend similar honor and recognition since they claimed Him as their God as
well?
8:55 Yet you have not known Him, but
I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know
Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. They had not truly “known” (=
understood) God and His intent; hence their spirituality was actually
superficial and lacked depth. Unlike
them, Jesus did have such a knowledge and it
was manifested by the fact that He faithfully did whatever His Father expected
rather than trying to find ways to avoid doing so.
8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to
see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Shifting to Abraham, that ancient
patriarch had seen in His mind the day--the Messianic age--when Jesus would
come and he had been exuberant (= “rejoiced”) to look forward to it. His own “day” (= time, age) was puny and
insignificant compared to this one yet in the future.
8:57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty
years old, and have You seen Abraham?” They responded that such was
arrogant nonsense: He was not even fifty
years old--not even gotten through the prime of life--so how could He possibly
have ever seen Abraham and had him react in this
manner? After all, those things happened
so many centuries before!
Actually
Jesus had not said that He Himself had met and seen Abraham on
earth, but that Abraham was jubilant to see His “day” coming in
the future. Others take this as meaning
that at that very hour Abraham knew, along with others awaiting in Paradise, that the
Messiah had arrived on earth. In either
case, the emphasis is on Abraham’s own experience.
But if they
were going to accidentally or on purpose misunderstand His words, He will throw
down an equally true but even greater challenge to their thinking. . . .
8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most
assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” In other words before Abraham was even
born, He Himself had existed. If Jesus had been alive that long, it would be
extraordinarily difficult to avoid considering Him “eternal” and “God.” Is it therefore any surprise that the words
“I Am” are usually interpreted as explicit affirmation of deityship since that was the classic Old Testament name for
God from the time of Moses (Exodus 3:13-14)?
Indeed, the reaction of His critics in the next verse strongly argues
that that was exactly how they understood the words as well. Their understanding was often “bent,” but in
this case they hit it “right on the nail.”
The
apostles, walking in that tradition, affirmed the eternal existence of Jesus as
well: “And
He is before all things, and in Him all things consist” (Colossians
1:17). “Being the
brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and
upholding all things by the word of His power . . .’ (Hebrews 1:3).
8:59 Then they took up stones to
throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through
the midst of them, and so passed by. Implicit
or explicit claims did not matter any longer; they were utterly out of
willingness to even listen to them. So
they started to pick up stones to throw at Him and destroy His life.
The effort
failed because somehow Jesus was able to be “hid” and pass through the crowd
without the attempt being successfully carried out. An overtone of supernatural protection would
not be surprising in light of what Jesus had just been claiming. Working from a different Greek text, a number
of translations, however, omit “going through the midst of them” and this could
argue things were not quite that dramatic.
On the other hand it would not be without precedent: Successfully “passing through the midst of
them” is certainly mentioned in regard to the men of the Nazareth
synagogue who had wanted to execute Him (Luke 4:28-30).
Strip the
text of this element of severe supernatural intervention and you would have
something along this line: “Here we need not suppose more than that He drew back
into the crowd away from those who had taken up stones.” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges) Yet to
“blend in” so successfully and so quickly, doesn’t that in itself
at least suggest a miraculous element as well?
And He still would have “gone through the midst of them”--not of
His enemies but of those more friendly and less hostile. Hence aren’t the words still logically
implied?