CHAPTER 7

John 7:1. μετὰ ταῦτα] B. C. D. G. K. L. X. א Cursivas, Verss. Cyr. Chrys. have these words before περιεπ. So Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Considering the preponderance of testimonies, this arrangement is to be preferred. Were it an alteration in imitation of John 3:22, John 5:1, John 6:1, the καὶ deleted by Tisch. would be omitted to a greater extent, but it is wanting only in C.** D. א. and a few Cursives and Versions.

John 7:8. The first ταύτην is wanting in B. D. K. L. T. X. א.** Cursives, Verss. Cyr. Chrys. Rejected by Schulz and Rinck, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.; a mechanical addition, in imitation of what follows.

οὐκ] Elz. Lachm. read οὔπω, according to the preponderance of Codd. indeed (only D. K. M. א. and three Cursives have οὐκ), but against the preponderance of Versions (even Vulg. It.), most of which have οὐκ. Of the Fathers, Epiph. Cyr. Chrys. Augustine, Jerome have οὐκ. Porphyry, in Jerome, c. Pelag. ii. 17, already found οὐκ, and inferred from it the accusation of vacillation. Just on account of this objection, οὔπω was introduced.

John 7:9. αὐτοῖς] Tisch. αὐτός, following D.* K. L. T. X. א. Cursives, Cyr. Augustine, and several Versions. Testimony preponderates in favour of the Received Text, and this all the more, that αὐτός might have been easily written on the margin as a gloss from John 7:10.-

John 7:12. After ἄλλοι, Elz. Lachm. have δέ, which has many important witnesses against it, and is an interpolation.

John 7:15. Instead of καὶ ἐθαύμαζ. we must, with Lachm. and Tisch., read ἐθαύμ. οὖν, and still more decisively is οὖν confirmed after ἀπεκρ., John 7:16 (which Elz. has not).

John 7:26. After ἐστιν Elz. has again ἀληθῶς, against decisive testimony. An interpolation (which displaced the first ἀληθ. in some witnesses); comp. John 4:42, John 6:14, John 7:40.

John 7:31. The arrangement ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου δὲ πολλοὶ ἐπ. is, with Lachm., to be preferred. Tisch., following D. א., has πολλ. δὲ ἐπ. ἐκ τ. ὀ.

ὅτι] wanting indeed in B. D. L. T. U. X. א. Cursives, Verss. Cyr., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. But it was greatly exposed to the danger of being overlooked between ON and o, as well as because it was unnecessary.

For μήτι we must, with Lachm. Tisch., following decisive testimonies, read μή. In like manner, τούτων after σημ. is, with Lachm. Tisch., to be deleted. An addition to explain the genitive ὧν. For ἐποίησεν, ποιεῖ (Tisch.) is too weakly attested.

John 7:33. After οὖν Elz. has αὐτοῖς, against decisive testimony.

John 7:39. πιστεύοντες] Lachm. πιστεύσαντες, upon too weak and (in part) doubtful authority.

After πνεῦμα Elz. Scholz have ἅγιον, Lachm. δεδομένον (B. and a few Verss. and Fathers). Both additions are glosses; instead of δεδομ. there occur also δοθέν or acceptum, or ἐπʼ αὐτούς or ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς.

John 7:40. πολλοὶ οὖν ἐκ τ. ὄχλου] Lachm. Tisch.: ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου οὖν, following B. D. L. T. X. א. Verss. Origen. Rightly; the Received reading is an interpretation.

τὸν λόγον] Lachm. Tisch.: τῶν λόγων τούτων, according to preponderating witnesses. The genitive and plural were certainly more strange to the transcribers.

John 7:41. ἄλλοι δέ] Lachm. οἱ δέ, following B. L. T. X. Cursives, Verss. Origen, Cyril; Tisch. also, following weighty witnesses (even D. E. א.): ἄλλοι. The original reading is οἱ δέ, instead of which ἄλλοι was mechanically repeated from what precedes, sometimes with, sometimes without δέ.

John 7:46. οὓτως ἐλάλ. ἄνθρ. ὡς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρ.] Lachm. has merely: ἐλάλ. οὕτως ἄνθρ., following B. L. T. two Cursives, Copt. Origen, Cyr. Chrys. Aug. But how superfluous would have been the addition, and how easily might their omission have occurred in looking from the first ἄνθρ. at once to the second! The order, however, ἐλάλ. οὕτως (Tisch.), is attested by preponderating evidence.

John 7:49. ἐπικατάρατοι] Lachm. Tisch.: ἐπάρατοι, after B. T. א. 1, 33, Or. Cyr. Chrys. Rightly; the Received text is from the familiar passage, Galatians 3:10; Galatians 3:13.

John 7:50. ὁ ἐλθ. νυκτὸς πρὸς αὐτ.] Lachm.: ὁ ἐλθ. π. α. πρότερον (after B. L. T. א. al.). Νυκτὸς is certainly an explanatory addition (comp. John 19:39), which also has various positions in the Codd.; but πρότερον is so decisively attested, and so necessary, that Lachmann’s reading is to be regarded as the original one, although the whole ὁ ἐλθ.… αὐτόν is not to be deleted, as Tisch. (so א.*) thinks.

John 7:52. ἐγήγερται] Lachm. Tisch.: ἐγείρεται, following B. D. K. S. (in the margin) T. Γ. Δ. א. Cursives, Vulg. It. Syr. Goth. Aeth. Or. An early emendation of the historical error. Copt. Sahid. have the Future.

John 7:53, see on John 8:1.

John 7:1-2.[256] Μετὰ ταῦτα] after these transactions, chap. 6

Οὐ ΓᾺΡ ἬΘΕΛΕΝ ἘΝ Τ. ἸΟΥΔ. ΠΕΡΙΠ.] whither He would already have gone for the approaching Passover (John 6:4), had He not had been influenced by this consideration (comp. John 5:16; John 5:18). We must not assume from this, as B. Crusius does, that John regarded Judaea as the proper seat of the ministry of Jesus; nor, with Schweizer, make use of the passage to impugn the genuineness of John 6:1-26; nor say, with Brückner, that John here again takes up the theme of the hostility of the Jews, because this had not been dropped in what precedes (John 6:11; John 6:52), where so late as in John 7:30-31 even, a division among the disciples is mentioned, and does not immediately become prominent in what follows.

To this sojourn in Galilee, to describe which was beyond the plan of John’s Gospel, most of the narrative in Matthew 14:34-36 belongs. It lasted from a little before the Passover (John 6:4), which Jesus did not attend in Jerusalem, onwards to the next feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2); hence also the Imperfects.

δέ] leading on to what, nevertheless, afterwards induced Him to go to Jerusalem.

Ἡ ΣΚΗΝΟΠΗΓΊΑ] חַנ הַםֻּכּוֹח, beginning on the 15th Tisri (in October), and observed with special sacredness and rejoicing. Leviticus 23:33; Josephus, Antt. iii. 10. 4, al.; Plutarch, Symp. iv. 6. 2; Ewald, Alterth. p. 481 f.; Keil, Archaeol. I. § 85.

[256] As to Baur’s assaults on the historical character of the contents of chap. 7, see Hauff in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 124 ff. According to Baur, the object of chap. 7 is to show how the reasoning on which unbelief ventures to enter only becomes its own logical refutation.

John 7:3. The brothers (John 2:12; their names are given, Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3) were still unbelievers (John 7:5), because biassed by the prevailing Messianic views;[257] yet, allowing to themselves, because of the miracles, the possibility of His being the Messiah, they are anxious—partly, perhaps, for the sake of their own family—for the decision of the matter, which they thought might most appropriately take place at the great joyous feast of the nation, and which certainly must occur, if at all, in Jerusalem, the seat of the theocracy. A malicious and treacherous intention (ἵνα ἀναιρεθῇ παρᾶ τῶν ζητούντων ἀποκτεῖναι αὐτόν, Euthymius Zigabenus, also Luther) is imputed to them without any foundation. They are of cold Jewish natures, and the higher nature belonging to their Brother is as yet hidden from them. The light of faith seems not to have dawned upon them until after His resurrection, and by means of that event (1 Corinthians 15:7; Acts 1:14). This long-continued unbelief of His own earthly brothers (comp. Mark 3:21) is important in estimating the genuineness of the accounts given in Matthew and Luke of the miraculous birth and early childhood of Jesus.

καὶ οἱ μαθηταί σου] This expression entirely corresponds with the position of the brothers as outside the fellowship of Jesus. It does not say, “thy disciples there also” (so usually; even Baur, who takes it to refer to those who are first to be won over in Judaea), for the word there does not occur, nor “thy disciples collectively,” but simply, “thy disciples also.” They would be gathered together from all parts at the feast in Jerusalem, and He should let Himself and His works be seen by them also. It does not, indeed, clearly appear from this that coldness began to be exhibited towards Him within the circle of His disciples (Weizsäcker), but rather perhaps that Jesus had gone about in Galilee and worked miracles very much in secret, without attracting observation, and not attended by any great following, but perhaps only by the trusted twelve, which silent manner of working He was perhaps led to adopt by the lying in wait of the Jews (John 7:1). Comp. John 7:4 : ἐν κρυπτῷ. According to B. Crusius, the brothers speak as it nothing miraculous had been done by Him in Galilee. Contrary to the narrative; and therefore ἃ ποιεῖς cannot mean “what you are reported to have done” (B. Crusius), but “what thou doest,” i.e. during thy present sojourn in Galilee, although ἐν κρυπτῷ, John 7:4. According to Brückner (comp. Ebrard, and substantially also Godet), the brothers express themselves as if Jesus had made and retained no disciples in Galilee, and, indeed, with malicious and ironical allusion to the fact stated John 6:66, and to the report (John 4:1) which they did not believe. But, considering the long interval which elapsed between chap. 6 and John 7:2, such allusions, without more precise indication of them in the text, are all the less to be assumed. Luthardt attributes to the brothers the notion that in Galilee it was only the multitudes that followed Him, and that there was no such personal adherence to Him as had taken place in Judaea (in consequence of His baptizing). But it is incredible that they should entertain a notion so obviously erroneous, because the events which they were continually witnessing in Galilee, as well as those which they witnessed in Judaea on occasion of their journeys to the feast, must have been better known to them.

[257] Hengstenberg is not deterred even by this passage from recognising in these brothers of Jesus His cousins (the sons, he thinks, of Cleopas and Mary; but see on John 19:25), and from maintaining, with all the arbitrariness and violence of exegetical impossibilities, that three of them, James, Simon, and Judas, were apostles, in spite of vv. 3, 5, 7 (comp. John 15:19). Against every attempt to explain away the literal brothers and sisters of Jesus, see on Matthew 1:25; Matthew 12:46; 1 Corinthians 9:5; also Laurentius, N. T. Stud. p. 153 ff.; comp. Pressensé, Jesus Chr. p. 287.

John 7:4. “For no one does anything in secret, and is thereby personally striving to he of a frank, open-hearted nature;” i.e. no one withdraws himself and his works also into quiet secrecy, and yet strives frankly to assert his personal position (as you must do if you are the Messiah). The two things are, indeed, contradictory! On ἐν παῤῥησ. comp. John 11:54; Wis 5:1; and Grimm, Exeg. Handb. p. 110 f.; Ephesians 6:19; Php 1:20; Colossians 2:15. The word does not signify “manifest” or “known” (De Wette, Godet, and most others), but it means the opposite of a shy and timid nature, which shrinks from playing the part of a fearless and frank character.

τὶ] is the simple aliquid, not magnum quid (Kuinoel and others); and καί does not stand for ὅς, so that αὐτός would be superfluous (Grotius, Kuinoel), but is the simple “and,” while air αὐτός[258] is ipse, thus putting the person attributively over-against the work (Herm. ad Vig. p. 735; Fritzsche ad Rom. II. p. 75), and not merely resuming the subject (Lücke, Tholuck), as also it must not be taken in Matthew 12:50.

As to εἶναι ἐν, versari in (Bernhardy, p. 210), thus designating the adverbial predicate as permanent, see Buttmann, N. T. Gr. p. 284 [E. T. p. 330].

εἰ ταῦτα ποιεῖς] answers to the τὰ ἔργα σου ἃ ποιεῖς, John 7:3, and to οὐδεὶς … ποιεῖ, John 7:4, and therefore, according to the context (comp. also the consequent clause, which corresponds with καὶ ζητεῖ αὐτὸς, κ.τ.λ.), refers to the miracles which Jesus did in Galilee. Ταὐτα has the emphasis: “If thou doest these things, i.e. if thy work consists in such wonderful deeds as thou art performing here in Galilee, do not act so foolishly as to confine thyself with such works within so narrow and obscure a range, but present thyself openly before the world, as thou must do in Judaea, which during the feast is the theatrum mundi.” Σεαυτόν, like the preceding αὐτός, gives prominence to His person, as opposed to His work. But the εἰ is not expressive of doubt (Euthymius Zigabenus: εἰ ταῦτα σημεῖα ποιεῖς καὶ οὐ φαντάζεις; Lücke, De Wette, and most: as if we were to supply, if it be really as we hear; comp. also Brückner, who considers that it is intended to intimate in a disagreeable manner that the fact was doubtful), it is argumentative; the brothers know that His works are of an extraordinary kind, as was evident to them in Galilee (ποιεῖς denotes a permanent course of action; Bernhardy, p. 370); and they consider it absurd that He should withdraw Himself personally from the place whither all the world was flocking.

[258] The reading αὐτό (Lachm. following B. D.*) is only an error in transcription. Ebrard, who maintains its genuineness, yet marvellously renders: “but he strives, that it may take place openly.” καί, meaning “but,” is said to be Johannean; it is really neither Johannean nor Greek at all, but simply wrong. The frequent Greek use of it in John in the sense of “and yet” is something quite different; see on ver. 29.

John 7:5-6. For not even His brothers, whom we might have expected to have been foremost, etc.; otherwise they would not have urged Him to the test of a public appearance. They urged this upon Him all the more, because He had absented Himself from the previous Passover at Jerusalem,—a fact which could not have been unknown to them.

ἐπίστ. εἰς αὐτ.] in the ordinary sense; they did not believe in Him as the Messiah. To take the words to mean only the perfect self-surrender of faith, which they had not yet attained to (Lange, Hengstenberg), is an inference necessitated by the mistaken notion that these brothers were not literally brothers (see on Matthew 12:46; Acts 1:14; Mark 3:31; 1 Corinthians 9:5). Nonnus admirably says: ἀπειθέες οἷάπερ ἄλλοι, Χριστοῦ παμμεδέοντος ἀδελφειοί περ ἐόντες. See John 7:7.

ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμός] cannot mean the time to make the journey to the feast (Luther, Jansen, Cornelius a Lapide, and most expositors); the antithesis ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ὑμ. demands a deeper reference. It is, according to the context, the time to manifest myself to the world, John 7:4, by which Jesus certainly understood the divinely appointed yet still expected moment of public decision concerning Him (comp. John 2:4), which did come historically at the very next Passover, but which He now felt in a general way was not yet come. Thus the explanation of Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Lampe, and most others, who refer the words to the time of His passion, is not wrong, only that this is not actually expressed, but was historically the fulfillment of what is here said. The corresponding ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ὑμέτερος in like manner means the time for showing themselves openly to the world, which the brothers might do at any time, because they stood in no opposition to the world (John 7:7; John 15:19).

John 7:7-8. οὐ δύναται] “psychologically it cannot, because you are in perfect accord with it.” “One knave agrees with another, for one crow does not scratch out the eye of another crow,” Luther; τὸ ὅμοιον τῷ ὁμοίῳ ἀνάγκη ἀεὶ φίλον εἶναι, Plato, Lys. p. 214 B; comp. Gorg. p. 510 B.

ὁ κόσμος] not as in John 7:4, but with a moral significance (the unbelieving world). Comp. here 1 John 5:19.

ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω, κ.τ.λ.] not an indefinite answer, leaving the matter spoken of uncertain (Hengstenberg), but, as the Present shows, a direct and categorical refusal: I, for my part, do not go up. Afterward He changed (John 7:10) His intention not to go up to the feast, and went up to it after all, though as secretly as possible. Porphyry’s reproach (in Jerome) of inconstantia is based upon a correct interpretation, but is not in itself just; for Jesus might alter His intention without being fickle, especially as the particular motive that prompted the change does not appear. In the case of the Canaanitish woman also, Matthew 15:26 ff., He changed His intention. The result of this change was that once more, and for some length of time before the last decision, He prosecuted His work by way of opposition and instruction at the great capital of the theocracy. The attempt to put into οὐκ the sense of οὔπω, or to find this sense in the context, is as unnecessary as it is erroneous. Either the Present ἀναβ. has been emphasized, and a νῦν introduced (Chrysostom, Bengel, Storr, Lücke, Olshausen, Tholuck), or ἀναβ. has been taken to denote[259] the manner of travelling, viz. with the caravan of pilgrims, or the like; or the meaning of ἑορτήν has been narrowed (Apol.: Οὐ ΜΕΤᾺ ἹΛΑΡΌΤΗΤΟς; Cyril: ΟὐΧ ΟὝΤΩς ἙΟΡΤΆΖΩΝ), as, besides Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 113, and Lange,[260] Ebrard’s expedient of understanding the feast “in the legally prescribed sense” does; or οὐκ has been regarded as limited by the following ΟὔΠΩ (De Wette, Maier, and most), which is quite wrong, for ΟὔΠΩ negatives generally the fulfilment of the ΚΑΙΡΌς in the present (i.e. during the whole time of the feast). So little does the true interpretation of the οὐκ justify the objection of modern criticism against the evangelist (B. Bauer: “Jesuitism;” Baur: “the seeming independence of Jesus is supposed thus to be preserved;” comp. also Hilgenfeld), that, on the contrary, it brings into view a striking trait of originality in the history.

Observe in the second half of the verse the simple and emphatic repetition of the same words, into which ΤΑΎΤΗΝ, however, is introduced (see the critical notes), because Jesus has in view a visit to a future feast. Observe also the repetition of the reason already given in John 7:6, in which, instead of ΠΆΡΕΣΤΙΝ, the weightier ΠΕΠΛΉΡΩΤΑΙ occurs.

[259] Comp. Bengel, Luthardt (who would supply “as ye think”), Baumgarten, p. 228; Baeumlein; in like manner Godet, who explains ἀναβαίνω, “I go not up as King Messiah.” As if one had only to foist in such interpolations!

[260] See his Leben Jesu, II. 927: He did not actually visit the feast, but He went up in the second half of the week of the feast, and not before. Jesus never resorted to any such subtleties.

John 7:10. Ὡς δὲ ἀνέβ.] Aor. pluperfect; Winer, p. 258 [E. T. p. 343].

ὡς ἐν κρυπτῷ] He went not openly (φανερῶς; comp. Xen. Anab. v. 4. 33: ἐμφανῶς, instead of which ἐν ὄχλῳ follows), but so to speak secretly (incognito), not in the company of a caravan of pilgrims, or in any other way with outward observation, but so that His journey to that feast is represented as made in secrecy, and consequently quite differently from His last entry at the feast of the Passover. On ὡς, comp. Bernhardy, p. 279; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1004. Otherwise in John 1:14 (against B. Crusius). The context does not intimate whether Jesus took a different road (through Samaria, for instance, as Hengstenberg with Wieseler, according to Luke 9:51 ff., supposes), De Wette, Krabbe, and early writers, but shows only that He was without any companions (except His disciples, John 9:2). Baur (also Hilgenfeld) finds in οὐ φαν., ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐν κρυπτῷ, something Docetic, or at least (N. T. Theol. p. 367) bordering upon Gnosticism (besides John 8:59, John 10:39, John 6:16), which it is easy enough to find anywhere if such texts are supposed to be indications. See, on the contrary, Brückner.

This journey finally takes Jesus away from Galilee (i.e. until after His death), and thus far it is parallel with that in Matthew 19:1, but only that far. In other respects it occurs in quite a different historical connection, and is undertaken with a different object (the Passover). The journey, again mentioned in Luke 9:51 ff., is in other respects quite different. The assumption that Jesus returned to Galilee between the feast of Tabernacles and the feast of the Dedication (Ammon, Lange; see on John 10:22), is the result of a forced attempt at harmonizing, which exceeds its limits in every attempt which it makes to reconcile the Johannean and the synoptic accounts of the last journey from Galilee to Judaea. Comp. also Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 491, ed. 3.

John 7:11-12. Οὖν] For He did not come with the Galilean travellers.

οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι] not all the people (Hengstenberg, Baeumlein), but the opposing hierarchy; John 6:41; John 6:52, John 7:13; John 7:15. Their search is prompted by malice, not by aimless curiosity (Luthardt); see John 7:1; John 7:13. On ἐκεῖνος, which means the well-known absent one, Luther well remarks: “Thus contemptuously can they speak of the man, that they cannot almost name Him.” The people’s judgment of Him was a divided one, not frank and free, but timid, and uttered half in a whisper (γογγυσμός, murmuring, John 7:32).

Observe the change of number: ἐν τοῖς ὄχλοις: among the multitudes (the plural here only in John); τὸν ὄχλον: the people.

ἀγαθός] upright, a man of honour, no demagogue, seeking to make the people believe falsely that He was the Messiah. Comp. Matthew 27:63.

John 7:13 is usually, after Augustine, only referred to the party who judged favourably (so also Lücke, De Wette, Ewald, Baeumlein; not B. Crusius, Brückner, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Godet). All the more arbitrarily, because this was first mentioned, and because the general expression ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ is quite against any such limitation; οὐδεὶς onwards to αὐτοῦ can only be taken as corresponding to the γογγυσμὸς ἐν τοῖς ὄχλοις, John 7:12, which refers to both parties. Both mistrusted the hierarchy; even those hostile in their judgment were afraid, so long as they had not given an official decision, that their verdict might be reversed. A true indication of an utterly Jesuitical domination of the people.

διὰ τὸν φόβον] on account of the fear that prevailed.

John 7:14. Τῆς ἑορτ. μεσ.] when the feast was half way advanced, ἤγουν τῇ τετάρτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (or thereby): ἑπτὰ γὰρ ἡμέρας (yet see on John 7:37), ἑώρταζον αὐτήν, Euthymius Zigabenus. Jesus was already, before this, in the city (John 7:10), but in concealment; now He goes up into the temple. The text does not say that He had only now come into Jerusalem. μεσοῦν (comp. Exodus 12:29; Jdt 12:5; 3Ma 5:14) only here in the N. T., but very common in the classics. That the day was just the Sabbath of the feast (Harduin, Bengel, Kuinoel, Wieseler, Synopse, pp. 309, 329) is uncertain, as μεσούσης is only an approximate expression. For the rest, the discourses which follow, and the discussions onwards to chap. 10, are not (with Weizsäcker) to be ranked as parallel with the synoptical accounts of proceedings in Jerusalem, but are wholly independent of them, and must be attributed to the vivid recollections of the evangelist himself regarding a time unnoticed by the Synoptics. Over and above this, we must, as an historical necessity, expect to find many points of resemblance in the several encounters of Jesus with His Jewish opponents.

John 7:15. Οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι] as in John 7:11; John 7:18. The teaching of Jesus produces a feeling of astonishment even in the hierarchy; but how? Not through the power of His truth, but because He is learned without having studied. And with a question upon this point, they engage in conversation with Him, without touching upon what He had taught. The admission, indeed, which is contained in their question, and that, too, face to face with the people, is only to be explained from the real impression produced upon their learned conceit, so that they ask not in the spirit of shrewd calculation, but from actual amazement.

γράμματα] not the O. T. Scriptures (Luther, Grotius, and many), but literas, (theological) knowledge, which, however, consisted in scriptural erudition. Jesus had doubtless exhibited this knowledge in His discourse by His interpretations of Scripture. Comp. Acts 26:24; Plato, Apol. p. 26 D: οἴει αὐτοὺς ἀπείρους γραμμάτων εἶναι, and the citations in Wetstein. Upon διδάσκειν γράμματα, used of teachers, see Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 299.

μὴ μεμαθ.] though he has not learned them (Buttmann, N. T. Gk. p. 301 [E. T. p. 350 f.]), perhaps in a Rabbinical school as Paul did from Gamaliel. The members of the Sanhedrim do not thus speak in conformity with the author’s representation of the Logos (Scholten); they know, doubtless, from information obtained concerning the course of His life, that Jesus had not studied; He was reckoned by them among the ἀγράμματοι and ἰδιῶται, Acts 4:13. This tells powerfully against all attempts, ancient and modern, to trace back the wisdom of Jesus to some school of human culture. Well says Bengel: “non usus erat schola; character Messiae.” This autodidactic character does not necessarily exclude the supposition that during His childhood and youth He made use of the ordinary popular, and in particular of the synagogal instruction (Luke 2:45). Comp. Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 120 f., and in particular Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 427 ff.

John 7:16. Jesus at once solves for them the riddle. “The contradictory relation: that of learning in the case of one who had been uninstructed, would be found in my teaching only if it were mine,” etc.

ἡ ἐμή and οὐκ ἐ. ἐμή are used in different senses: “the teaching which I give,” and “it is not my possession, but God’s;” how far, see John 7:17, comp. John 5:19; John 5:30.

τοῦ πέμψ. με] a carefully-chosen designation, because the Sender has communicated to His messenger, and continually communicates what He is to say in His name.[261]

οὐκ … ἀλλά] here also not: non tam … quam, but simply excluding human individuality. Comp. John 8:28, John 14:24.

[261] Bengel (in Wächter in the Beitr. z. Beng. Schrifterklär. 1865, p. 125). “If we may speak after the manner of men, the heavenly Father gives him a collegium privatissimum, and that upon no author.” This relation, however, does not justify such onesided exaggerations as those of Delitzsch, Jesus u. Hillel, 1866.

John 7:17. The condition of knowing this is that one be willing—have it as the moral aim of his self-determination—to do the will of God. He who is wanting in this, who lacks fundamentally the moral determination of his mind towards God, and to whom, therefore, Christ’s teaching is something strange, for the recognition of which as divine there is in the ungodly bias of his will no point of contact or of sympathy; this knowledge is to him a moral impossibility. But, on the contrary, the bias towards the fulfilling of God’s will is the subjective factor necessary to the recognition of divine doctrine as such; for this doctrine produces the immediate conviction that it is certainly divine by virtue of the moral ὁμοιότης and ὁμοιοπάθεια of its nature with the man’s own nature. Comp. Aristotle, Eth. ix. 3, iii. 1 : τὸ ὅμοιον τοῦ ὁμοίου ἐφίεται. See also on John 3:21 and John 15:19. It is only in form, not in reality, that the τὴν ἀγάπην τ. θεοῦ ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, John 5:42, differs from the θέλειν τὸ θέλημα τ. θεοῦ ποιεῖν here, for this latter is the moral praxis of the love ot God. Accordingly, we certainly have in this passage the testimonium internum, but not in the ordinary theological sense, as a thing for those who already believe, but for those who do not yet believe, and to whom the divine teaching of the Lord presents itself for the first time.

The θέλῃ is not superfluous (Wolf, Loesner, and most), but is the very nerve of the relation; note the “suavis harmonia” (Bengel) between θέλῃ and θέλημα. The θέλημα αὐτοῦ, however, must not be limited either to a definite form of the revelation of it (the O. T., Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Bengel, Hengstenberg, Weiss, and most), or to any one particular requirement (that of faith in Christ, Augustine, Luther, Erasmus, Lampe, Ernesti, Storr, Tittmann, Weber, Opusc., and most expositors; comp. the saying of Augustine, right in itself, intellectus est merces fidei), which would contradict the fact that the axiom is stated without any limitation; it must be taken in its full breadth and comprehensiveness—“that which God wills,” whatever, how, and wherever this will may require. Even the natural moral law within (Romans 1:20 ff; Romans 2:14-15) is not excluded, though those who heard the words spoken must have referred the general statement to the revelation given to them in the law and the prophets. Finally, it is clear from John 6:44-45, John 8:47, that willingness to do God’s will must be attributed to the gift and drawing of the Father as its source.

περὶ τῆς διδ.] concerning the teaching now in question, John 7:16.

ἐγὼ ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ] I of myself, thus strongly marking the opposite of ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. Comp. John 5:30. The classical expression πότερον … ἤ occurs only here in the N. T.

John 7:18. Here is the characteristic proof and token, given almost in syllogistic form, that He spoke not of Himself.

τὴν δόξ. τ. ἰδ. ζητ.] that is, among others. Comp. John 5:41.

ὁ δὲ ζητῶν, κ.τ.λ.] minor premiss and (οὗτος, κ.τ.λ.) conclusion, in which, instead of the negative, “He speaks not of Himself,” we have the positive, “the same is true,” etc. But this positive conclusion is logically correct, both in itself, because ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ λαλεῖν is throughout the context regarded as something untrue and immoral (Grotius: “sua cogitata proferens, cum Dei mandatum prae se ferat”), and with reference to the hierarchy, and some of the people, who took Jesus to be a deceiver. Observe further, that ὁ δὲ ζητῶν, κ.τ.λ., is in the form of a general proposition, corresponding with the opposite proposition, ὁ ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ λαλῶν, κ.τ.λ.; but it is derived exclusively from the relation of Jesus, and is descriptive therefore of no other than He.

ἀδικία] improbitas, immorality of nature, a stronger antithesis to ἀληθής than ψεῦδος, for which τινὲς in Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Bengel, B. Crusius, Maier, and many take it,—a view which cannot be justified by the inexact LXX. translation of Job 36:4 (Psalm 52:4; Theod. Micah 6:12). Ἀδικία is the inner (ἐν αὐτῷ) moral basis of the ψεῦδος. For the contrast between ἀλήθεια and ἀδικία, see Romans 1:18; Romans 2:8; 1 Corinthians 13:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:12; see also on John 8:46. An allusion to the charge of breaking the Sabbath (Godet) is not indicated, and anticipates what follows, John 7:21.

John 7:19. There is no ground for supposing that some unrecorded words on the part of the Jews (Kuinoel and many others), or some act (Olshausen), intervened between John 7:18-19. The chain of thought is this: Jesus in John 7:16-18 completely answered the question of the Jews, John 7:15. But now He Himself assumes the offensive, putting before them the real and malicious ground of all their assaults and oppression, namely, their purpose to bring about His death; and He shows them how utterly unjustifiable, on their part, this purpose is.

The note of interrogation ought to be placed (so also Lachm. Tisch.) after the first τὸν νόμον; and then the declaration of their contradictory behaviour is emphatically introduced by the simple καὶ. In like manner John 6:70.

οὐ Μωϋσῆς, κ.τ.λ.] The emphasis is upon Μωϋσ. as the great and highly esteemed authority, which had so strong a claim on their obedience.

τὸν νόμον] without limitation; therefore neither the commandment forbidding murder merely (Nonnus, Storr, Paulus), nor that against Sabbath-breaking simply (Kuinoel, Klee. So once Luther also, but in his Commentary he refers to Romans 8 : “what the law could not do,” etc., which, indeed, has no bearing here), which, according to Godet, Jesus is said to have already in view.

καὶ οὐδεὶς ὑμ. ποιεῖ τ. νόμον] so that you, all of yon, are liable to the condemnation of the law; and instead of seeking to destroy me as a law-breaker, you must confess yourselves to be guilty.

τί] why? i.e. with what right? The emphasis cannot be upon the enclitic με (against Godet).

John 7:20. This interruption, no notice of which, seemingly (but see on John 7:21), is taken by Jesus in His subsequent words, is a characteristic indication of the genuineness of the narrative.

ὁ ὄχλος] the multitude (not the same as the Ἰουδαίοι, see John 7:12), unprejudiced, and unacquainted with the designs of the hierarchy, at least so far as they referred to the death of Christ, consisting for the most part, probably, of pilgrims to the feast.

δαιμόνιον] causing in you such perverted and wicked suspicions. Comp. John 8:48, John 10:20. An expression not of ill-will (Hengstenberg and early writers), but of amazement, that a man who taught so admirably should imagine what they deem to be a moral impossibility and a dark delusion. It must, they thought, be a fixed idea put into his mind by some daemon, a κακοδαιμονᾶν.

John 7:21-22. Ἀπεκρίθη] The reply of Jesus, not to the Ἰουδαῖοι (Ebrard), but to the ὄχλος (for it is really addressed to them, not in appearance merely, and through an inaccurate account of the matter on John’s part, as Tholuck unnecessarily assumes), contains, indeed, no direct answer to the question put, but is intended to make the people feel that all had a guilty part in the murderous designs against Him, and that none of them are excepted, because that one work which He had done among them was unacceptable to them all, and had excited their unjustifiable wrath. Thus He deprives the people of that assurance of their own innocence which had prompted them to put the question to Him; “ostendit se profundius eos nôsse et hoc radio eos penetrat,” Bengel.

ἓν ἔργον] i.e. the healing on the Sabbath, John 5:2 ff., the only miraculous work which He had done in Jerusalem (against Weisse[262]) (not, indeed, the only work at all, see John 2:23, comp. also John 10:32, but the only one during the last visit), for the remembrance of which the fact of its being so striking an instance of Sabbath-breaking would suffice.

καὶ πάντες θαυμάζετε] πάντες is correlative with ἕν, “and ye all wonder” (Acts 3:12), i.e. how I could have done it as a Sabbath work (John 5:16); it is the object of your universal astonishment! An exclamation; taken as a question (Ewald), the expression of disapprobation which it contains would be less emphatic. To put into θαυμάζετε the idea of alarm (Chrysostom), of blame (Nonnus), of displeasure (Grotius), or the like, would be to anticipate; the bitterness of tone does not appear till John 7:23.

διὰ τοῦτο] connected with θαυμάζετε by Theophylact, and most moderns (even Lücke, Tholuck, Olshausen, De Wette, B. Crusius, Maier, Lange, Lachmann, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Baeumlein, Ebrard, Godet; among earlier expositors, Beza, Casaubon, Homberg, Maldonatus, Wolf, Mill, Kypke, etc.; see on Mark 6:6); but Syr. Goth. Codd. It., Cyril, Chrysostom, Nonnus, Euthymius Zigabenus, Luther, Castalio, Erasmus, Aretius, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Jansen, Bengel, Wetstein, and several others, also Luthardt, and already most of the Codices, with true perception, place the words at the beginning of John 7:22 (so also Elzevir); for, joined with θαυμάζετε, they are cumbrous and superfluous,[263] and contrary to John’s method elsewhere of beginning, not ending, with διὰ τοῦτο (John 5:16; John 5:18, John 6:65, John 8:47, John 10:17, al.; see Schulz on Griesbach, p. 543). Only we must not take them either as superfluous (Euthymius Zigabenus) or as elliptical: “therefore hear,” or “know” (Grotius, Jansen, even Winer, p. 58 [E. T. p. 68]); the former is inadmissible, the latter is neither Johannean nor in keeping with what follows, which does not contain a declaration, but a deduction of a logical kind. We ought rather, with Bengel (“propterea, hoc mox declaratur per ΟὐΧ ὍΤΙ, nempe non quia”) and Luthardt, following Cyril, to regard them as standing in connection with the following οὐχ ὅτι. With this anticipatory διὰ τοῦτο, Jesus begins to diminish the astonishment which His healing on the Sabbath had awakened, showing it to be unreasonable, and this by the analogy of circumcision, which is performed also on the Sabbath. Instead of simply saying, “because it comes from the fathers,” He puts the main statement, already introduced by ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦΤΟ, and so important in the argument, both negatively and positively, and says, “Therefore Moses gave you circumcision, not because it originated with Moses, but (because it originated) with the fathers, and so ye circumcise” (ΚΑῚ consecutive), etc.; that is, this ΟὐΧ ὍΤΙ, on to ΠΑΤΈΡΩΝ, serves to show that circumcision, though divinely commanded by Moses in the law, and thus given to the Jews as a ritualistic observance, was not Mosaic in its origin, but was an old patriarchal institution dating back even from Abraham. The basis of its historic claim to validity lies in the fact that the law of circumcision precedes the law of the Sabbath, and consequently the enjoined rest of the Sabbath must give way to circumcision.[264] Even the Rabbins had this axiom: “Circumcisio pellit sabbatum,” and based it upon the fact that it was “traditio partum.” See Wetstein on John 7:23. The anger of the people on account of the healing on the Sabbath rested on a false estimate of the Sabbath; comp. Matthew 12:5. From this explanation it is at the same time clear that οὐχ ὅτι … πατέρων is not of the nature of a parenthesis (so usually, even Lachmann). Of those who so regard it, some rightly recognise in the words the authority of circumcision as outweighing that of the Sabbath; while others, against the context, infer from them its lesser sanctity as being a traditional institution (Paulus, B. Crusius, Ewald, Godet). Others, again, take them as an (objectless) correction (De Wette, Baeumlein), or as an historical observation (equally superfluous) of Jesus (Tholuck, Hengstenberg, and earlier expositors) or of John (Lücke, cf. Ebrard). Above all, it would have been very strange and paltry to suppose (with Hengstenberg) that Jesus by this remark was endeavouring, with reference to John 7:15, to do away with the appearance of ignorance.

Μωϋσῆς] Leviticus 12:3.

οὐχ ὅτι] not as in John 6:46, but as in John 12:6.

ἐκ τοῦ Μωϋσέως] Instead of saying ἐξ αὐτοῦ, Jesus repeats the name, thus giving more emphasis to the thought. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 6. 1, ad Anab. i. 6. 11.

ἐκ τῶν πατέρων] Genesis 17:10; Genesis 21:4; Acts 7:8; Romans 4:11.

ἐν Σαββ.] if it be the eighth day. Comp. the Rabbinical quotations in Lightfoot. Being emphatic, it takes the lead.

[262] How does he make out the ἓν ἔργον? It is the one miracle which Christ came to accomplish (Matthew 12:38; Matthew 16:1 sqq.; Luke 11:29 ff.), described by Him metaphorically as a Sabbath healing; this the evangelist has taken for a single miraculous act. See Evangelienfr. p. 249.

[263] This accounts for the omission of διὰ τοῦτο in א Tisch. deletes it, and with א* reads ὁ Μωϋσ. (with the article).

[264] The patriarchal period wag indeed that of promise, but this is not made prominent here, and we cannot therefore say with Luthardt: “Jesus puts the law and the promise over-against one another, like Paul in Galatians 3:17.” There is no hint of this in the text. Judging from the text, there rather lies in οὐχ ὅτι, κ.τ.λ., the proof that, in the case of a collision between the two laws, that of circumcision and that of the Sabbath, the former must have the precedence, because, though enjoined by Moses, it already had a patriarchal origin, and on account of this older sanctity it must suffer no infringement through the law of the Sabbath. Nonnus well describes the argumentation by the words ἀρχεγόνῳ τινὶ θεσμῷ.

John 7:23. Περιτομήν] Circumcision, without the article, but placed emphatically first, corresponding with ὅλον ἄνθρωπον in the apodosis.

ἵνα μὴ λυθῇ, κ.τ.λ.] in order that so the law of Moses be not broken (by the postponement of the rite), seeing that it prescribes circumcision upon the eighth day. Jansen, Bengel, Semler, Paulus, Kuinoel, Klee, Baeumlein, wrongly render ἵνα μή “without,” and take ὁ νόμ. Μωϋσ. to mean the law of the Sabbath.

ἐμοὶ χολᾶτε] towards me how unjust! On χολᾶν, denoting bitter, violent anger (only here in the N. T.), comp. 3Ma 3:1; Artemid. i. 4; Beck, Anecd. p. 116.

ὅτι ὅλον ἄνθρ. ὑγ. ἐπ. ἐν σαββ.] The emphasis of the antithesis is on ὅλον ἄνθρ., in contrast with the single member in the case of circumcision. We must not, therefore, with Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 157 f., find here the antithesis between wounding and making whole; nor, with B. Crusius, that between an act for the sake of the law, on account of which circumcision was performed, and one for the sake of the man himself; similarly Grotius. In ὑγ. ἐποίησα, further, there must necessarily be expressed an analogy with what is done in circumcision, which is therefore equally regarded as a cure, and a healing, not with reference to the subsequent healing of the wound (Cyril, Lampe), for περιτ. is circumcision itself, not its healing; nor with reference to the supposed medical object of circumcision (Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, Lücke, Lange; comp. Philo, de Circumcis. II. 210 f.; see, on the contrary, Keil, Archaeol. I. 309 f.), no trace of which was contained either in the law or in the religious ideas of the people; but with reference to the purification and sanctification wrought upon the member by the removal of the foreskin.[265] In this theocratic sense, a single member was made whole by circumcision; but Christ, by healing the paralytic, had made an entire man whole, i.e. the whole body of a man. The argument in justification, accordingly, is one a minori ad majus; if it was right not to omit the lesser work on the Sabbath, how much more the greater and more important! To take ὅλον ἄνθρ., with Euthymius Zigabenus 2, Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, and Olshausen, as signifying body and soul, in contrast with the σάρξ, on which circumcision was performed, is alien to the connection, which shows that the Sabbath question had to do only with the bodily healing, and to the account of the miracle itself, according to which Jesus only warned the man who had been made whole, John 5:14.

[265] Comp. Bammidbar, R. xii:i. 203. 2 : “praeputium est vitium in corpore.” With this view, which regards the foreskin as impure,—a view which does not appear till a late date (Ewald, Alterth. p. 129 f.),—corresponds the idea of the circumcision of the heart, which we find in Leviticus 26:41, Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6, and often in the prophets and the N. T., Romans 2:29, Colossians 2:11, Acts 7:51.

John 7:24. This closing admonition is general, applicable to every case that might arise, but drawn by way of deduction from the special one in point. According to the outward appearance, that act was certainly, in the Jewish judgment, a breach of the Sabbath; but the righteous judgment was that to which Jesus had now conducted them. Upon ὄψις, id quod sub visum cadit, res in conspicuo posita, see Lobeck, Paralip. p. 512. It does not here mean visage, as in John 11:44, and as Hengstenberg makes it, who introduces the contrast between Christ “without form or comeliness,” and the shining countenance of Moses. On κρίνειν κρίσιν δικαίαν, comp. Tob 3:2; Susannah 53; Zechariah 7:9.

John 7:25-27. Οὖν] in consequence of this bold vindication. These Ἱεροσολυμῖται, as distinct from the uninitiated ὄχλος of John 7:20, as inhabitants of the Holy City, have better knowledge of the mind of the hierarchical opposition; they wonder that the Sanhedrim should let Him speak so boldly and freely, and they ask, “After all, do they not know in very deed that this” etc.? This, however, is only a momentary thought which strikes them, and they at once answer it themselves.

πόθεν ἐστιν] does not denote the birth-place, which was known both in the case of Jesus (John 7:41) and of the Messiah (John 7:42), but the descent; not, indeed, the more remote, which in the case of the Messiah was undoubted as being Davidic, but (comp. John 6:42) the nearer—father, mother, family (Matthew 13:55). Comp. John 19:9; Homer, Od. p. 373: αὐτὸν δʼ οὐ σάφα οἶδα, πόθεν γένος εὔχεται εἶναι; Soph. Trach. 1006; Eur. Rhes. 702; Heliod. iv. 16, vii. 14.

ὁ δὲ Χρι.] is in antithesis with τοῦτον, and it therefore takes the lead. The popular belief that the immediate ancestry of the Messiah would be unknown when He came, cannot further be historically proved, but is credible, partly from the belief in His divine origin (Bertholdt, Christol. p. 86), and partly from the obscurity into which the Davidic family had sunk, and was supported, probably, by the import of many O. T. passages, such as Isaiah 53:2; Isaiah 53:8, Micah 5:2, and perhaps also by the sudden appearance of the Son of man related in Daniel 7 (Tholuck), and is strongly confirmed by the description in the book of Enoch of the heavenly Messiah appearing from heaven (Ewald). The passages which Lücke and De Wette quote from Justin (c. Tryph. pp. 226, 268, 336, ed. Col.) are inapplicable, as they do not speak of an unknown descent of the Messiah, but intimate that, previous to His anointing by Elias, His Messiahship was unknown to Himself and others. The beginning of Marcion’s Gospel (see Thilo, p. 403), and the Rabbinical passages in Lightfoot and Wetstein, are equally inapplicable.

John 7:28-29. The statement in John 7:27, which showed how utterly Christ’s higher nature and work were misunderstood by these people in consequence of the entirely outward character of their judgments, roused the emotion of Jesus, so that He raised His voice, crying aloud (ἔκραξεν, comp. John 1:5, John 7:37, John 12:44, Romans 9:27; κράζειν never means anything but to cry out; “clamores, quos edidit, magnas habuere causas,” Bengel), and thus uttered the solemn conclusion of this colloquy, while He taught in the temple, and said: κἀμὲ οἴδατε, κ.τ.λ. The ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ διδάσκων is in itself superfluous (see John 7:14), but serves the more vividly to describe the solemn moment of the ἔκραξεν, and is an indication of the original genuineness of the narrative.

κἀμὲ οἴδατε, κ.τ.λ.] i.e., “ye know not only my person, but ye also know my origin.” As the people really had this knowledge (John 6:42), and as the divine mission of Jesus was independent of His human nature and origin, while He Himself denies only their knowledge of His divine mission (see what follows; comp. John 8:19), there is nothing in the connection to sanction an interrogatory interpretation (Grotius, Lampe, Semler, Storr, Paulus, Kuinoel, Luthardt, Ewald), nor an ironical one (Luther, Calvin, Beza, and many others; likewise Lücke, Tholuck, Olshausen, B. Crusius, Lange, and Godet, who considers the words “légèrement ironique,” and that they have “certainement [?] une tournure interrogative”), nor the paraphrase: “Ye think that ye know” (Hengstenberg). Least of all can we read it as a reproach, that they knew His divine nature and origin, yet maliciously concealed it (Chrysostom, Nonnus, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Maldonatus, and most). No; Jesus allows that they have that outward knowledge of Him which they had avowed in John 7:27, but He further—in the words καὶ ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ, κ.τ.λ.—sets before them the higher relationship, which is here the main point, and which was unknown to them.

καὶ ἀπʼ ἐμ. οὐκ ἐλήλ.] and—though ye think that, on account of this knowledge of yours, ye must conclude that I am not the Messiah, but have come by self-appointment merely—of myself (αὐτοκέλευστος, Nonnus) am I not come; comp. John 8:42. This καί, which must not be regarded as the same with the two preceding, as if it stood for καὶ ὅτι (Baeumlein), often in John connects, like atque, a contrasted thought, and yet. See Hartung, Partikell. I. 147. We may pronounce the and with emphasis, and imagine a pause after it. Comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 29 B; Wolf, ad Leptin. p. 238.

ἀλλʼ ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς] but it is a real one who hath sent me, whom ye (ye people!) know not.[266] Ἀληθινὸς is not verax (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Luther, Stolz, Kuinoel, Klee, B. Crusius, Ewald, and most), but, according to the invariable usage of John (see on John 1:9), a real, genuine one, in whom the idea is realized. The substantive belonging to this adjective is not πατήρ, which Grotius gets out of πόθεν; but, according to the immediate context, it is to be inferred from ὁ πέμψας με, namely πέμπων, a real sender, a sender in the highest and fullest sense (comp. Matthiae, p. 1533; Kühner, II. 602). We cannot take ἀληθ. by itself as absolutely denoting the true essential God (Olshausen, Lange, Hengstenberg; comp. Kling: “one whose essence and action is pure truth”), because ἀληθινός in the Johannean sense is not an independent conception, but receives its definite meaning first from the substantive of which it is predicated.

John 7:29. I (antithesis to ὑμεῖς) know Him, for I am from Him, have come forth from Him (as in John 4:46); and no other than He (from whom I am) hath sent me. This weighty, and therefore independent κἀκεῖνός με ἀπέστ., not to be taken as dependent upon ὅτι, comprehends the full explanation of the πόθεν εἰμί in its higher sense, which was not known to the Ἱεροσολυμιταῖς, and, with the ἐγὼ οἶδα … εἰμί, bears the seal of immediate certainty. Comp. John 8:14.

[266] Of course in a relative sense, as in John 4:22. If they had possessed the true and full knowledge of God, they would then have recognised the Interpreter of God, and not have rejected Him for such a reason as that in ver. 27. Comp. John 8:54-55; Matthew 11:27.

John 7:30. Οὖν] Because He had so clearly asserted His divine origin and mission, His adversaries regarded this as blasphemy (comp. John 5:18).

The subject of ἐζήτουν is Ἰουδαῖοι, the hierarchy, as is self-evident from the words and from the contrasted statement of John 7:31.

καί] as in John 7:28.

ὅτι οὔπω, κ.τ.λ.] because the hour appointed for Him (by God—the hour when He was to fall under the power of His enemies) was not yet come; comp. John 8:20. The reason here assigned is that higher religious apprehension of the history, which does not, however, contradict or exclude the immediate historical cause, viz. that through fear—not of conscience (Hengstenberg, Godet), but of the party who were favourably inclined to Christ, John 7:31—they dared not yet lay hands on Him. But John knows that the threads upon which the outward history of Jesus runs, and by which it is guided, unite in the counsels of God. Comp. Luthardt, I. 160.

John 7:31. According to the reading ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου δὲ πολλοί (see the critical notes), ὄχλος stands emphatically opposed to the subjects of ἐζήτουν in John 7:30. Δὲ after three words, on account of their close connection; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 378; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. 397.

ἐπίστ. εἰς αὐτ.] not only as a prophet (Tholuck), or as one sent of God (Grotius), but conformably with the fixed sense of the absolute expression (comp. John 7:5), as the Messiah. What follows does not contradict this, but rather sustains their avowal that they see realized in Jesus their ideal-miracle of the promised Messiah; and, accordingly, ὁ Χριστὸς ὅταν ἔλθῃ does not imply any doubt on their part as to the Messiahship of Jesus, but refers to the doubt of the opposite party. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus John 2 : θῶμεν, ἕτερον εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν, ὡς οἱ ἄρχοντες λέγουσιν, etc.

ὅτι] might be regarded as giving the reason for their faith (Nonnus: μὴ γὰρ χριστὸς, κ.τ.λ.), but more simply as recitative.

μή] yet not more signs, etc.? To the one miracle wrought in Jerusalem (John 7:21) they added the numerous Galilaean miracles, which they, being in part perhaps pilgrims to the feast from Galilee, had seen and heard.

John 7:32-34. The Pharisees present hear how favourable are the murmured remarks of the people concerning Jesus, and they straightway obtain an edict of the Sanhedrim (οἱ Φαρισ. κ. οἱ ἀρχιερ.,

οἱ Φαρισ. first, for they had been the first to moot the matter; otherwise in John 7:45), appointing officers to lay hands on Him. The Sanhedrim must have been immediately assembled. Thus rapidly did the ἐζήτουν of John 7:30 ripen into an actual decree of the council. The thing does not escape the notice of Jesus; He naturally recognises in the officers seeking Him, who were only waiting for a suitable opportunity to arrest Him, their designs against Him; and He therefore (οὖν) says what we have in John 7:33-34 in clear and calm, foresight of the nearness of His death,—a death which He describes as a going away to God (comp. on John 6:62).

μεθʼ ὑμῶν] Jesus speaks to the whole assembly, but has here the hierarchy chiefly in his eye; comp. John 7:35.

πρὸς τὸν πέμψαντά με] These words are, with Paulus, to be regarded not as original, but as a Johannean addition; because, according to John 7:35-36, Jesus cannot have definitely indicated the goal of His going away, but must have left it enigmatical, as perhaps in John 8:22; comp. John 13:33. Had He said πρ. τ. πέμψ., His enemies could not have failed, after John 7:16-17; John 7:28-29, to recognise the words as referring to God, and could not have thought of an unknown ποῦ (against Lücke, De Wette, Godet). There is no room even for the pretence “that they acted as if they could not understand the words of Jesus,” after so clear a statement as πρὸς τ. πέμψ. με (against Luthardt).

ζητήσετέ με, κ.τ.λ.] not of a hostile seeking, against which is John 13:33; nor the seeking of the penitent (Augustine, Beza, Jansen, and most), which would not harmonize (against Olshausen) with the absolute denial of any finding, unless we brought in the doctrine of a peremptory limitation of grace, which has no foundation in Holy Scripture (not even in Hebrews 12:17; see Lünemann, in loc.), and which could only refer to individuals; but a seeking for help and deliverance (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Calvin, Aretius, Hengstenberg; comp. Luthardt, Ewald, Brückner). This refers to the time of the divine judgments in the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 20:16 ff; Luke 19:43, al.), which were to ensue as the result of their rejection of Jesus. Then, Jesus means, the tables will be turned; after they had persecuted and killed Him who now was present, they then would anxiously long, but in vain, for Him, the absent One,[267] as the wonder-working helper, who alone could save them from the dire calamity. Comp. Proverbs 1:28. The prophecy of misfortune involved in ζητήσετέ με, κ.τ.λ. is not expressly declared; but it lies in the thought of retribution which the words contain,—like an enigma which the history was to solve; comp. John 8:21. Theodoret, Heracleon (?), Maldonatus, Grotius, Lücke, De Wette, take the whole simply as descriptive of entire separation, so that nothing more is said than: “Christum de terris sublatum iri, ita ut inter viros reperiri non posit,” Maldonatus. The poetical passages, Psalm 10:15; Psalm 37:10, Isaiah 41:12, are appealed to. But even in these the seeking and finding is not a mere figure of speech; and here such a weakening of the signification is all the more inadmissible, because it is not annihilation, as in those passages, which is here depicted, and because the following words, καὶ ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ, κ.τ.λ., describe a longing which was not to be satisfied. Luke 17:22 is analogous.

καὶ ὅπου εἰμὶ, κ.τ.λ.] still more clearly describes the tragic οὐχ εὑρήσ.: “and where I (then) am, thither ye cannot come,” i.e. in order to find me as a deliverer, or to flee to me. Rightly says Euthymius Zigabenus: δηλοῖ δὲ τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς καθέδραν. The εἶμι (I go), not found in the N. T., is not the reading here (against Nonnus, H. Stephens, Casaubon, Pearson, Bengel, Wakefield, Michaelis, and most). Comp. John 14:3, John 17:24.

[267] They would long for Him in His own person, for Jesus the rejected one, and not for the Messiah generally (Flacius, Lampe, Kuinoel, Neander, Ebrard), whom they had rejected in the person of Jesus (comp. also Tholuck and Godet),—an explanation which would empty the words of all their tragic nerve and force.

John 7:35-36. An insolent and scornful supposition, which they themselves, however, do not deem probable (therefore the question is asked with μή), regarding the meaning of words to them so utterly enigmatical. The bolder mode of teaching adopted by Jesus, His universalistic declarations, His partial non-observance of the law of the Sabbath, would lead them, perhaps, to associate with the unintelligible statement a mocking thought like this, and all the more because much interest was felt among the heathen, partly of an earnest kind, and partly (comp. St. Paul in Athens) arising from curiosity merely, regarding the oriental religions, especially Judaism; see Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 110 f. ed. 3.

πρὸς ἑαυτούς] the same as πρὸς ἀλλήλους, yet so that the conversation was confined to one party among the people, to the exclusion of the others. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 20.

οὗτος] contemptuously, that man!

ὅτι] not to be arbitrarily supplemented by a supposed λέγων put before it, or in some other way (Buttmaim, N. T. Gr. p. 305 [E. T. p. 358]); but the simple because: “Where will this man go, because, or seeing, that we are not (according to his words) to find him?” It thus states the reason why the ποῦ is unknown.

εἰς τ. διασπ. τ. Ἑλλ.] to the dispersion among the Greeks. Comp. Winer, p. 176 [E. T. p. 234]; and upon the thing referred to, Schneckenburger, N. T. Zeitgesch. p. 94 ff. The subjects of the διασπορά are the Jews,[268] who lived beyond Palestine dispersed among the heathen, and these latter are denoted by the genitive τῶν Ἑλλήν. Comp. 1 Peter 1:1, and Steiger and Huther thereon. Differently in 2Ma 1:27; LXX. Psalm 146:2. The abstract διασπορά is simply the sum-total of the concretes, like περιτομή and other words. See 2Ma 1:27. Ἕλληνες in the N. T. invariably means the heathen, Gentiles, not the Hellenists (Graecian Jews), so even in John 12:20; and it is wrong, therefore, to understand τῶν Ἑλλήν. of the latter, and to take these words as the subject of the διασπορά (Scaliger, Lightfoot, Hammond, B. Crusius, Ammon), and render διδάσκ. τ. Ἑλλ.: “teach the Hellenists.” The thought is rather: “Will Jesus go to the Jews scattered among the Gentiles, in order to unite there with the Gentiles, and to become their teacher?” This was really the course of the subsequent labours of the apostles.

John 7:36. τίς ἐστιν] Their scornful conjecture does not even satisfy themselves; for that they should seek Him, and not be able to come to Him—they know not what the assertion can mean (τίς ἐστιν, κ.τ.λ.).

[268] Not the heathen, as if ἡ διασπ. τ. Ἑλλ. were the same as Dispersi Graeci (Chrysostom and his followers, Rupertius, Maldonatus, Hengstenberg, and most). Against this Beza well says: “Vix conveniret ipsis indigenis populis nomen διασπορᾶς.”

John 7:37. As the eighth day (the 22d Tisri) was reckoned along with the seven feast days proper, according to Leviticus 23:35-36; Leviticus 23:39, Numbers 29:35, Nehemiah 8:18, as according to Succah, f. 48. 1, the last day of the feast is the eighth, it is clear that John meant this day, and not the seventh (Theophylact, Buxtorf, Bengel, Reland, Paulus, Ammon), especially as in later times it was usual generally to speak of the eight days’ feast of Tabernacles (2Ma 10:6; Josephus, Antt. iii. 10. 4; Gem. Eruvin. 40. 2; Midr. Cohel. 118. 3). In keeping with this is the very free translation ἐξόδιον (termination of the feast), which the LXX. give for the name of the eighth day, עֲצֶרֶת (Leviticus 23:36; Numbers 29:35; Nehemiah 8:18), i.e. “assembly;” comp. Ewald, Alterth. p. 481.

τῇ μεγάλῃ] the (pre-eminently) great, solemn. Comp. John 19:31. The superlative is implied in the attribute thus given to this day above the other feast days. Wherein consisted the special distinction attaching to this day? It was simply the great closing day of the feast, appointed for the solemn return from the booths into the temple (Ewald, Alterth. p. 481), and, according to Leviticus 23:35-36, was kept holy as a Sabbath. The explanation of ἐξόδιον in Philo, de Septenario, II. p. 298, that it denoted the end of the yearly feasts collectively, has as little to do with the matter (for τῇ μεγάλῃ has reference only to the feast of Tabernacles) as has the designation יוֹם טוֹב in the Tr. Succah, for this means nothing more than “feast day.” If, indeed, this day had, according to Tr. Succah (see Lightfoot, p. 1032 f.), special services, sacrifices, songs, still no more was required than to honour it “sicut reliquos dies festi.” Its μεγαλότης consisted just in this, that it brought the great feast as a whole to a sacred termination.

The express designation of the day as τῇ μεγάλῃ is in keeping with the solemn coming forth of Jesus with the great word of invitation and promise, John 7:37-38. The solemnity of this coming forth is also intimated in εἱστήκει (He stood there) and in ἔκραξε (see on John 7:28).

ἐάν τις διψᾷ, κ.τ.λ.] denoting spiritual need[269] and spiritual satisfaction, as in John 4:15, in the conversation with the Samaritan woman, and in John 6:35; Matthew 5:6. We are not told what led Jesus to adopt this metaphorical expression here. There was no need of anything special to prompt Him to do so, least of all at a feast so joyous, according to Plutarch, Symp. iv. 6. 2, even so bacchanalian in its banquetings. Usually, a reason for the expression has been found in the daily libations which were offered on the seven feast days (but also on the eighth, according to R. Juda, in Succah iv. 9), at the time of the morning sacrifice, when a priest fetched water in a golden pitcher containing three logs from the spring of Siloam, and poured this, together with wine, on the west side of the altar into two perforated vessels, amidst hymns of praise and music. See Dachs, Succah, p. 368. Some reference to this libation may be supposed, because it was one of the peculiarities of the feast, even on the hypothesis that it did not take place upon the eighth day, derived either from the old idea of pouring out water (1 Samuel 7:6; Hom. Od. μ. 362, al., so De Wette); or, according to the Rabbis (so also Hengstenberg), from Isaiah 12:3, a passage which contains the words sung by the people during the libation. But any connection of the words of Jesus with this libation is all the more doubtful, because He is speaking of drinking, and this is the essential element of His declaration. Godet arbitrarily interpolates: “He compares Himself with the water from the rock in the wilderness, and represents Himself as this true rock” (comp. 1 Corinthians 10:4).

[269] Luther: “a heartfelt longing, yea, a troubled, sad, awakened, stricken conscience, a despairing, trembling heart, that would know how it can be with God.”

John 7:38. The πίνειν is brought about by faith; hence the statement progresses: ὁ πιστεύων, κ.τ.λ.

καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γρ.] is simply the formula of quotation, and cannot belong to ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ, as if it denoted a faith which is conformable to Scripture (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Calovius, and most); ὁ πιστ., on the contrary, is the nominative absolute (see on John 6:39), and καθὼς εἶπεν, κ.τ.λ., belongs to the following ποταμοὶ, etc., the words which are described as a declaration of Scripture. There is no exactly corresponding passage, indeed, in Scripture; it is simply a free quotation harmonizing in thought with parts of various passages, especially Isaiah 44:3; Isaiah 55:1; Isaiah 58:11 (comp. also Ezekiel 47:1; Ezekiel 47:12; Zechariah 13:1; Zechariah 14:8; Joel 3:1; Joel 3:20; but not Song of Solomon 4:12; Song of Solomon 4:15). Godet refers to the account of the rock in the wilderness, Exodus 17:6, Numbers 20:11; but this answers neither to the thing itself (for the subject is the person drinking) nor to the words. To think in particular of those passages in which mention is made of a stream flowing from the temple mount, the believer being represented as a living temple (Olshausen), is a gloss unwarranted by the context, and presents an inappropriate comparison (κοιλίας). This last is also in answer to Gieseler (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 138 f.), whom Lange, L. J. II. p. 945, follows. To imagine some apocryphal or lost canonical saying (Whiston, Semler, Paulus; comp. also Weizsäcker, p. 518; Bleek, p. 234, and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 331), or, as Ewald does, a fragment of Proverbs no longer extant, or of some such similar book, is too bold and unnecessary, considering the freedom with whieh passages of Scripture are quoted and combined, and the absence of any other certain trace in the discourses of Jesus of extra-canonical quotations, or of canonical quotations not now to be found in the O. T.; although, indeed, the characteristic ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ itself occurs in none of the above-named places, which is certainly surprising, and not to be explained by an inappropriate reference to Song of Solomon 7:3 (Hengstenberg). But this expression, “out of his body” considering the connection of the metaphor, is very natural; the water which he drinks becomes in his body a spring from which streams of living water flow, i.e. the divine grace and truth which the believer has received out of Christ’s fulness into his inner life, does not remain shut up within, but will communicate itself in abundant measure as a life-giving stream to others, and thus the new divine life overflows from one individual on to others. As represented in the metaphor, these ποταμοί take their rise from the water which has been drunk and is in the κοιλία, and flow forth therefrom in an oral effusion;[270] for the effect referred to takes plaee in an outward direction by an inspired oral communication of one’s own experience of God’s grace and truth (πιστεύομεν, διὸ καὶ λαλοῦμεν, 2 Corinthians 4:13). The mutual and inspired intercourse of Christians from Pentecost downwards, the speaking in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, the mutual edification in Christian assemblies by means of the charismata even to the speaking with tongues, the entire work of the apostles, of a Stephen and so on, furnish an abundant historical commentary upon this text. It is clear, accordingly, that ΚΟΙΛΊΑ does not, as is usually supposed, denote the inner man, man’s heart (Proverbs 20:27; Sir 19:12; Sir 51:21; LXX. Psalm 40:9, following A.; comp. the Latin viscera), but must be left in its literal meaning “belly” in conformity with the metaphor which determines the expression.[271] The flowing forth of the water, moreover, is not to be understood as something operating upon the subject himself only (B. Crusius: “his whole soul, from its very depth, shall have a continual quickening and satisfaction,” comp. Maier), but as describing an efficacy in an outward direction, as ἐκ τ. κοιλ. shows, and therefore is not the same as the similar passage, chap. John 4:14. If we join ὁ πιστ. εἰς ἐμέ with inverts, πινέτω, αὐτοῦ must refer to Christ; and this is the meaning that we get: “He that thirsteth, let him come to me; and he that believeth in me, let him drink of me: for to me refers what the Scripture hath said concerning a river which shall flow forth from Jehovah in the time of the Messiah.” So Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 229 f., and Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 166. But against this it is decisive, first, that he who believes on Jesus has already drunk of Him (John 6:35), and the call to come and drink must apply not to the believer, but to the thirsty; and secondly, that the expression ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ would be unnecessary and unmeaning, if it referred to Jesus, and not to him who has performed the ΠΙΝΈΤΩ (Nonnus, ΔΙᾺ ΓΑΣΤΡῸς ἘΚΕΊΝΟΥ).

ὝΔΩΡ ΖῶΝ, as in John 4:10; ΖῶΝΤΟς ΔῈ, ἬΓΟΥΝ ἈΕῚ ἘΝΕΡΓΟῦΝΤΟς, ἈΕΙΚΙΝΉΤΟΥ, Euthymius Zigabenus.

Observe further the ΠΟΤΑΜΟΊ emphatically taking the lead and standing apart; “not in spoonfuls, nor with a pipe and tap, but in full streams,” Luther.

[270] Comp. ἐρεύξομαι, Matthew 13:35.

[271] Already Chrysostom and his followers took κοιλίας as equivalent to καρδίας; a confounding of the metaphor with its import. Hofmann’s objection (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 13), “that the water here meant does not go into the belly at all,” rests solely upon the same confusion of the figure with its meaning. According to the figure, it conies into the κοιλία because it is drunk, and this drinking is in like manner figurative. When Hofmann finds indicated in the word even a springing place of the Holy Spirit within the body, he cannot get rid of the idea of something withia the body as being implied in κοιλία, because the text itself presents this figure as being in harmony with that of the drinking; unless, indeed, the concrete expression is to give way to an exegetical prudery foreign to the text itself, and is to be blotted out at pleasure. κοιλία in no passage of the N. T. means anything else than body, belly.—Strangely out of keeping with the unity of the figure, Lange, following Bengel (comp. also Weizsäcker), now finds in κοιλία an allusion to the belly of the golden pitcher (see on ver. 37), and Godet to the inner hollow of the rock whence the water flowed, so that ἐκ τ. κοιλ. αὐτοῦ corresponds with מִמֶּנּוּ, Exodus 17:6. So inventive is the longing after types!

John 7:39. Not an interpolated gloss (Scholten), but an observation by John in explanation of this saying. He shows that Jesus meant that the outward effect of which He spoke, the flowing forth, was not at once to occur, but was to commence upon the reception of the Spirit after His glorification. He,—self-evidently, and, according to the οὗ ἔμελλον, undoubtedly meaning the Holy Spirit,

He it was who would cause the streams of living water to flow forth from them. John’s explanation, as proceeding from inmost experience, is correct, because the principle of Christian activity in the church, especially in its outward workings, is none other than the Holy Spirit Himself; and He was not given until after the ascension, when through Him the believers spoke with tongues and prophesied, the apostles preached, and so on. Such overflowings of faith’s power in its outward working did not take place before then. The objection urged against the accuracy of John’s explanation, that ῥεύσουσιν may be a relative future only, and is not to be taken as referring to that outpouring of the Spirit which was first to take place at a future time (De Wette), disappears if we consider the strong expression ποταμοὶ, κ.τ.λ., John 7:38, to which John gives due weight, inasmuch as he takes it to refer not simply to the power of one’s own individual faith upon others, so far as that was possible previous to the outpouring of the Spirit, but to something far greater and mightier—to those streams of new life which flowed forth from the lips of believers, and which were originated and drawn forth by the Holy Ghost. The strength and importance of the expression (ποταμοὶ, κ.τ.λ.) thus renders it quite unnecessary to supply ποτέ or the like after ῥεύσουσιν (in answer to Lücke); and when Lücke calls John’s explanation epexegetically right, but exegetically incorrect, he overlooks the fact that John does not take the living water itself to be the Holy Ghost, but simply says, regarding Christ’s declaration as a whole, that Jesus meant it of the Holy Spirit, leaving it to the Christian consciousness to think of the Spirit as the Agens, the divine charismatic motive power of the streams of living water.

It remains to be remarked that the libation at the feast of Tabernacles was interpreted by the Rabbis as a symbol of the outpouring of the Spirit (see Lightfoot); but this is all the less to be connected with the words of Jesus and their interpretation, the more uncertain it is that there is any reference in the words to that libation; see on John 7:37.

οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα] nondum enim aderat (John 1:9), furnishing the reason for the οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν as the statement of what was still future. The ἦν, “He was present” (upon earth), is appropriately elucidated by δεδομένον (Lachmann; see on Acts 19:2); Jesus alone possessed Him in His entire fulness (John 3:34). The absolute expression οὔπω ἦν is not, therefore, to be weakened, as if it were relative (denoting merely an increase which put out of consideration all former outpourings), as Hengstenberg and Brückner take it, but “at the time when Christ preached He promised the Holy Spirit, and therefore the Holy Spirit was not yet there,” Luther. Comp. Flacius, Clav. II. p. 326: “sc. propalam datus. Videtur negari substantia, cum tamen accidens negetur.” See also Calvin. For the rest, the statement does not conflict with the action of the Spirit in the O. T. (Psalm 51:13; 1 Samuel 16:12-13), or upon the prophets in particular (2 Peter 1:21; Acts 28:25; Acts 1:16); for here the Spirit is spoken of as the principle of the specifically Christian life. In this characteristic definiteness, wherein He is distinctively the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, the πν. τῆς ἐπαγγελίας (Ephesians 1:13), τῆς υἱοθεσίας (Romans 8:15), τῆς χάριτος (Hebrews 10:29), the ἀῤῥαβὼν τῆς κληρονομίας (Ephesians 1:14), the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 8:11), and according to promise was to be given after Christ’s exaltation (Acts 2:33), He was not yet present; just as also, according to John 1:17, grace and truth first came into existence through Christ. The reason of the οὔπω ἦν is: “because Jesus was not yet glorified.” He must through death return to heaven, and begin His heavenly rule, in order, as σύνθρονος with the Father, and Lord over all (John 17:5; 1 Corinthians 15:25), as Lord also of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18), to send the Spirit from heaven, John 16:7. This sending was the condition of the subsequent εἶναι (adesse). “The outpouring of the Spirit was the proof that He had entered upon His supra-mundane state” (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 196); and so also the office of the Spirit to glorify Christ (John 16:14) presupposes, as the condition of its operation, the commencement of the δόξα of Christ. Till then believers were dependent upon the personal manifestation of Jesus; He was the possessor of that Spirit who, though given in His fulness to Christ Himself (John 3:34), and though operating through Him in His people (John 3:6, John 6:63; Luke 9:55), was not, until after Christ’s return to glory (Ephesians 4:7-8), to be given to the faithful as the Paraclete and representative of Christ for the carrying on of His work. See chap. 14–16. Chap. John 20:21-22 does not contradict this; see in loc. The thought of an identity[272] of the glorified Christ with the Holy Spirit might easily present itself here (see on 2 Corinthians 3:17; and likewise Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 155). But we must not, with De Wette, seek for the reason of the statement in the receptivity of the disciples, who did not attain to a pure and independent development of the germ of spirit within them until the departure of Jesus; the text is against this. As little can we regard the σάρξ of Christ as a limitation of the Spirit (Luthardt), or introduce the atonement wrought through His death as an intervening event (Messner, Lehre d. Ap. p. 342; Hengstenberg and early writers); because the point lies in the δόξα of Christ (comp. Godet and Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 286 f.), not in His previous death, nor in the subjective preparation secured by faith. This also tells against Baeumlein, who understands here not the Holy Spirit objectively, but the Spirit formed in believers by Him, which τὸ πνεῦμα never denotes, and on account of λαμβάνειν cannot be the meaning here.

[272] Tholuck. “the Spirit communicated to the faithful, as the Son of man Himself glorified into Spirit.” Php 3:21 itself speaks decisively enough against such a view. Wörner, Verhältn. d. Geistes, p. 57, speaks in a similar way of “the elevation of Christ’s flesh into the form of the Spirit itself,” etc. Baur, on the contrary, N. T. Theol. p. 385, says: “Not until His death was the Spirit, hitherto identical with Him, separated from His person in order that it might operate as an independent principle.”

John 7:40-43. Ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου οὖν ἀκούσαντες τῶν λόγων τούτων (see the critical notes), κ.τ.λ. Now, at the close of all Christ’s discourses delivered at the feast (John 7:14-39), these verses set before us the various impressions which they produced upon the people with reference to their estimate of Christ’s person. “From among the people, many, after they had heard these words, now said,” etc. With ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου we must supply τινές, as in John 16:17; Buttmann, N. T. Gr. p. 138 [E. T. p. 159]; Xen. Mem. iv. 5. 22; and Bornem. in loc. By ὁ προφήτης, as in John 1:21, is meant the prophet promised Deuteronomy 18:15, not as being himself the Messiah, but a prophet preceding Him, a more minute description of whom is not given.

μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τ. Γαλ., κ.τ.λ.] “and yet surely the, Messiah does not come out of Galilee?” Γάρ refers to the assertion of the ἄλλοι, and assigns the reason for the contradiction of it which οἱ δὲ ἔλεγον indicates. See Hartung, Partikell. I. 475; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 73. Christ’s birth at Bethlehem was unknown to the multitude. John, however, records all the various opinions in a purely objective manner; and we must not suppose, from the absence of any correction on his part, that the birth at Bethlehem was unknown to the evangelist himself (De Wette, Weisse, Keim; comp. Scholten). Baur (p. 169) employs this passage and John 7:52 in order to deny to the author any historical interest in the composition of his work. This would be to conclude too much, for every reader could ot himself and from his own knowledge supply the correction.

ἡ γραφή] Micah 5:1; Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5.

ὅπου ἦν Δ.] where David was. He was born at Bethlehem, and passed his youth there as a shepherd, 1 Samuel 16

A division therefore (ἑκάστου μέρους φιλονεικοῦντος, Euthymius Zigabenus) took place among the people concerning Him. Comp. John 9:16, John 10:19; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Acts 14:4; Acts 23:7; Herod. vii. 219: καὶ σφεῶν ἐσχίζοντο οἱ γνῶμαι. Xen. Sympos. iv. 59; Herod. vi. 109; Eur. Hec. 119; and Pflugk, in loc.

John 7:44. Ἐξ αὐτῶν] Those, of course, who adopted the opinion last named. The contest had aroused them. Τινές, standing first and apart, has a special emphasis. “Some there were among the people, who were disposed,” etc.

ἀλλʼ οὐδεὶς, κ.τ.λ.] according to John 7:30, through divine prevention (ἐπεχόμενος ἀοράτως, Euthymius Zigabenus). On ἐπιβάλλ. τ. χεῖρ., see on Acts 12:1.

According to De Wette (see also Luthardt), the meaning is said to be that they would have supported the timid officers, or would have acted for them. A gloss; according to John, they were inclined to an Acts of popular justice, independently of the officers, but it was not carried into effect.

John 7:45-46. Οὖν] therefore, seeing that no one, not even they themselves, had ventured to lay hands on Jesus.

οἱ ὑπηρέται] In accordance with the orders they had received (John 7:32), they had kept close to Jesus, in order to apprehend Him. But the divine power and majesty of His words, which doubtless hindered the τινὲς in John 7:44 from laying hands on Him, made it morally impossible for the officers of justice to carry out their orders, or even to find any pretext or justification for so doing; they were overpowered. Schleiermacher, therefore, was wrong in inferring that they had received no official orders to take Him.

τοὺς ἀρχιερ. κ. Φαρ.] by the non-repetition of the article, construed as one category, i.e. as the Sanhedrim, who must be supposed to have been assembled in session. When first mentioned, John 7:32, both divisions are distinguished with logical emphasis. See Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 373 f.

ἐκεῖνοι] the ἀρχιερ. κ. Φαρισ.; of the nearest subject, though remote to the writer. Winer, p. 148 [E. T. p. 196], and Ast, ad Plat. Polit. p. 417; Lex Plat. pp. 658, 659.

John 7:46. There is a solemnity in the words ὡς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρ., in themselves unnecessary. “It is a weighty statement, a strong word, that they thus meekly use,” Luther. “Character veritatis etiam idiotas convincentis prae dominis eorum,” Bengel. It is self-evident that Jesus must have said more after John 7:32 than John has recorded.

John 7:47-49. The answer comes from the Pharisees in the Sanhedrim, as from that section of the council who were most zealous in watching over the interests of orthodoxy and the hierarchy.

μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς] are ye also—officers of sacred justice, who should act only in strict loyalty to your superiors. Hence the following questions: “Have any of the Sanhedrim believed in him, or of the Pharisees?” The latter are specially named as the class of orthodox and most respected theologians, who were supposed to be patterns of orthodoxy, apart from the fact that some of them were members of the Sanhedrim.

ἀλλά] at, breaking off and leading on hastily to the antithetical statement that follows; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 15; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 78.

ὁ ὄχλος οὗτος] those people there, uttered with the greatest scorn. The people hanging upon Jesus, “this mob,” as they regard them, are there before their eyes. It is self-evident, further, that the speakers do not include their own official servants in the ὄχλος, but, on the other hand, prudently separate them with their knowledge from the ὄχλος.

ὁ μὴ γινώσκ. τ. νόμον] because they regarded such a transgressor of the law as the Prophet, or the Messiah, John 7:40-41.

ἐπάρατοί εἰσι] they are cursed, the divine wrath is upon them! The plural is justified by the collective ὁ ὄχλος, comp. John 7:44. The exclamation is to be regarded merely as a blindly passionate statement[273] (Ewald); as a haughty outbreak of the rabies theological, and by no means a decree (Kuinoel and others), as if the Sanhedrim had now come to a resolution, or at least had immediately, in keeping with the informal words, put in regular form (Luthardt) what is mentioned in John 9:22. Such an excommunication of the ὄχλος en masse would have been preposterous. Upon the unbounded scorn entertained by Jewish pride of learning towards the unlettered multitude (צם הארץ), see Wetstein and Lampe in loc.; Gfrörer in the Töb. Zeitschr. 1838, I. p. 130, and Jahrb. d. Heils, I. p. 240 f.

ἐπάρατος] (see the critical notes), not elsewhere in the N. T., nor in the LXX and Apocrypha; it is, however, classical.

[273] Not of an argumentative character, as if they had inferred their disobedience from their unacquaintance with the law (Ewald). Their frame of mind was not so reflective.

John 7:50-51. The Pharisees in the Sanhedrim had expressed themselves as decisively and angrily against Jesus, as if His guilt had already been established. But Nicodemus, who had secretly been inclined towards Jesus since his interview with Him by night, now raises a protest, in which he calmly, plainly, and rightly points the excited doctors to the law itself (see Exodus 23:1; Deuteronomy 1:16-17; Deuteronomy 19:15).

πρὸς αὐτούς] to the Pharisees, John 7:47.

ὁ ἐλθὼν … αὐτῶν] who had before come to Jesus, although he was one of them (i.e. of the Pharisees), John 3:1.

μὴ ὁ νόμος, κ.τ.λ.] The emphasis is on ὁ νόμος: “our law itself does not,” eta They had just denied that the people knew the law, and yet they were themselves acting contrary to the law.

τὸν ἄνθρ.] the man; the article denotes the person referred to in any given case; see on John 2:25. We are not to supply ὁ κρίτης to ἀκούσῃ (Deuteronomy 1:16-17) and γνῷ, for the identity of the subject is essential to the thought; but the law itself is regarded and personified as (through the judge) examining and discerning the facts of the case. For a like personification, see Plato, de Rep. vii p. 538 D. Comp. νόμος πάντων βασιλεύς from Pindar in Herod. iii. 38.

τί ποιεῖ] what he doeth, what the nature of his conduct is.

John 7:52. Thou art not surely (like Jesus) from Galilee, so that your sympathy with Him is that of a fellow-countryman?

ὅτι προΦήτης, κ.τ.λ.] a prophet; not; “no very distinguished prophet, nor any great number of prophets” (Hengstenberg); nor again: “a prophet has not appeared in Galilee in the person of Jesus” (Godet); but the appearance of any prophet out of Galiles is, in a general way, denied as a matter of history; hence also the Perfect. The plain words can have no other meaning. To Godet’s altogether groundless objection, that John must in this case have written οὐδεὶς προΦ., the reference to John 4:44 is itself a sufficient answer. Inconsiderate zeal led the members of the Sanhedrim into historical erro; for, apart from the unknown birth-places of many prophets, Jonah at least, according to 2 Kings 14:25, was of Galilee.[274] This error cannot be removed by any expedient either ertical[275] or exegetical; still it cannot be used as an argument aginst the genunieness of the Gospel (Bretschneider), for there was all the less need to add a correction of it, seeing that it did not apply to Jesus, who was not out of Galilee. This also tells against Baur, p. 169. The argument in ὅτι προΦ., κ.τ.λ. is from the general to the particular (“to say nothing of the Messiah!”), and is a conclusion from a negative induction.

[274] Not Elias also, whose Thisbe lay in Gilead (see Thenius on 1 Kings 17:1; Fritzsche on Tob 1:2; Kurtz, in Herzog’s Encyhl. III. p. 754). It is very doubtful, further, whether the Elkosh, whence Nahum came, was in Galilee or anywhere in Palestine, and not rather in Assyria (Michaelis, Eichhorn, Ewald, and most). Hosea came from the northern kingdom of Israel (Samaria); see Hosea 7:1; Hosea 7:5.

[275] By giving preference, namely, to the reading ἐγείρεται, according to which only the present appearance of a prophet in Galilee is denied (so also Tiele, Spec. contin. annotationem in loc. nonnull. ev. Joh., Amsterdam 1853). This ἐγείρεται would have its support and meaning only in the experience of history, because προφήτης, without the article, is quite general, and cannot mean the Messiah. This also in answer to Baeumlein.

John 7:53. Belonging to the spurious section concerning the adulteress. “And every one went”—every one, that is, of those assembled in the temple—to his own house; so that the end of the scene described in John 7:37 f. is related. Chap. John 8:1 is against the view which understands it of the members of the Sanhedrim, who separated without attaining their object (against Grotius, Lampe, etc., even Maier and Lange). Chap. John 8:2 forbids our taking it as referring to the pilgrims at the feast returning to their homes (Paulus).