9.The Failure to Arrest Jesus (7:45-52)

9.The Failure to Arrest Jesus (7:45-52)

JOHN 7

Ν. THE FIFTH DISCOURSE —

THE LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT (7:1-52)

The opposition to Jesus grows. At first it might have been thought possible that people would in time come to make Jesus their Leader. The events of the preceding chapters show that this will not be the case. From now to the end of the public ministry John depicts a steadily deepening hostility. In this chapter and the next he has a good deal to tell us about the arguments used by Jesus' enemies. This may well be his way of saying that the objections raised to Jesus' messianic claims all had their answers.¹

It had now become dangerous for Jesus to appear in Judea (v. 1), so that his appearance at Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles had to be carefully arranged. Even so it was a feat of courage, and an attempt was actually made to arrest him. But, though danger was in the air, Jesus continued on his appointed path. He went up to the feast in due course, and gave the teaching that was appropriate to the occasion. The great advance was in his teaching on the Spirit. Some aspects of this have come before us earlier, but on this occasion Jesus brings out that when the Spirit is within anyone that person overflows in abounding life. Spirit-filled people cannot but be a blessing to other people.

The Feast of Tabernacles was a feast of thanksgiving primarily for the blessings of God in harvest, but there was also special reference to the blessings the people received during the wilderness wanderings, the time when God manifested himself in the tabernacle. It may be this that gives significance to John's recording of the happenings in this chapter. Neither in the tabernacle in the wilderness, nor in the temple that replaced it, was God fully manifested. The final and perfect manifestation of God was in Jesus, whose ministry would result in God's dwelling neither in a tent nor in a temple, but in people's hearts by his Spirit.

1. Jesus' Discussion with His Brothers (7:1-9)

1After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life. 2But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. 4No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." 5For even his own brothers did not believe in him. 6Therefore Jesus told them, "The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. 7The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because 1 testify that what it does is evil. 8 You go to the Feast. I am not yet^a going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come." 9Having said this, he stayed in Galilee.

a. 8 Some early manuscripts do not have yet

The hatred of his opponents meant that Jesus could no longer move openly. He must be circumspect lest he run into the kind of trouble that would hinder his mission. Thus he rejected the invitation of his unbelieving brothers to go up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles. To do as they suggested would be to provoke trouble. While he was ready to die when the time came,² he would not thrust himself into precipitate action. He awaited the proper time for any action that he might take.

1 "After this" is an indefinite note of time.³ It gives no indication of how much time had elapsed. The period between Passover (6:4) and Tabernacles, however, shows that the interval was about six months. This is instructive for John's method. He records nothing at all that happened during this period.

He is not writing a complete history, but making a selection for a definite twofold purpose, that of bringing out the messiahship of Jesus and that of bringing people to faith. Despite the passage of months, the hostility of Jesus' opponents persisted. So forbidding was their attitude ("waiting" is misleading; the verb means "were seeking" and the continuous tense gives the thought, "kept on seeking") that Jesus withdrew from Judea altogether. He "went around" (the word means "walked") in Galilee. The verb indicates the itinerant ministry of a rabbi moving among the people with his disciples. "Purposely" signifies that he set his will against walking in Judea.⁴ For "the Jews" see on 1:19.

2 John is fond both of time notes and of references to feasts; we find both here. "The" feast is defined as the Feast of Tabernacles, a usage that is paralleled in the Mishnah and elsewhere.⁵ The name "tabernacles" refers to the custom of building leafy shelters to be lived in during the festival, a feature to which Goodspeed's rendering, "the Jewish camping festival," draws attention (though this translation obscures the fact that the feast had deep religious significance).

3-5 For Jesus' "brothers" see on 2:12; they did not believe in him (v. 5; the imperfect tense gives their continuing attitude). But they challenge him to appear publicly at the feast. "So that your disciples may see⁶ the miracles you do" is somewhat puzzling. It appears to mean that the brothers had seen Jesus perform miracles, and that they now wish that his disciples should see this sort of thing too. But there is no indication in the previous narrative that the brothers had seen any sign that the disciples (or some of them) had not. It may be that the brothers are pretending to superior knowledge. It may be that they are ironic. It may be that they are thinking of disciples in other places than Galilee, or perhaps his disciples as a whole. Many would be gathered in Jerusalem for the feast, and Jesus could make contact with them then. It may be that they have in mind the defections mentioned in 6:66, and suggest that Jerusalem is the best place to retrieve the situation. More likely they mean that the signs wrought by a messianic claimant must be wrought in the holy city⁷ and not simply in remote places. It is only as the Messiah openly performs the messianic signs that he is the Messiah.⁸ They point out that no one who claims to be a public⁹ figure (Berkeley, "to be in the limelight") can establish himself by working in secret. There is no implication that Jesus had hidden himself of set purpose. But Galilee was far from the capital, and anything done there would be "secret" as far as the dwellers in the metropolis were concerned. And such things as messianic claims must be established in the capital city before the religious leaders.¹⁰ To act in Galilee accordingly was to act "in secret." The brothers challenge Jesus to produce miracles in the nation's heart and center. Their action is like that of Mary in chapter 2, and even more like that of the multitude who tried to make a king of him (6:15).¹¹ It implies a belief that he could work miracles,¹² coupled with a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of his mission, a complete lack of faith in the only sense that matters.¹³ They had no idea that Jesus' mission, in its very nature, must be unpopular.¹⁴ We should not overlook the importance of this for an understanding of the difficulties under which Jesus labored. Many a man faced with cruel opposition in public life has been sustained by the faith and the faithfulness of his kith and kin. Jesus was denied this solace.

"These things" is not explained. But the expression points to the works wherein Jesus showed forth his glory, and by implication if no more claimed a special position for himself. If he claims to be the Messiah, the brothers are saying, then let him tell it to the world. This may be another example of John's irony. Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and would in due course be manifested to the world, and that in a way far fuller than they could comprehend. But their words arose from unbelief. "Did not believe" denotes a continuing attitude. They had no faith and their words must be understood in the light of that.

6 Greek has two words for "time," and that used here¹⁵ often refers to time not simply in its chronological sequence, but with reference to the events that take place in it. Used in this way, it is time in its qualitative rather than its quantitative aspect. It points to the suitable time, the right time, the favorable opportunity. In the present context it must refer to the time for going up to the feast. It was not the right time for Jesus to go up. He would not get the opportunity he sought if he went up with the brothers at the beginning of the feast. It was better for him to wait till the crowds assembled so that he could suddenly come among them (in the spirit of Mai. 3:1). Cf. Barclay: "to arrive with the crowds all assembled and expectant gave Him a far better opportunity than to go at the very beginning. This simply shows us Jesus choosing His time with careful prudence in order to get the most effective results." It is not impossible that John saw more in it than this. John's picture of Jesus is of one steadily moving on to meet his divinely appointed destiny. If this is in mind here, the meaning will be that Jesus' time, his God-appointed time, had not yet come (see on 2:4). Yet we should not overlook the facts that John normally uses the word "hour," not "time," to express this thought, and that the context at least in part is against it.¹⁶ But there is one feature of the context that strongly favors it, namely the following verse, which speaks of the world as hating Jesus but not the brothers. Odeberg points out that "To the Jews it was a self-evident truth that every man had his time."¹⁷ To affirm that they had no particular "time," but that their "time" was always present was accordingly striking and novel teaching. What gives it point is the fact that the world as such did not recognize Jesus. It was not interested in his "time.'' In this respect the brothers joined with the world. Since the world (and the brothers) have cut themselves off from the divinely appointed "time" all times are alike to them. The brothers are set in strong contrast to Jesus.¹⁸ They had no divine commission to discharge. Their only duty was to be faithful Jews. For this there was little point in a careful choice of time. One time was as good as another. The brothers' "time" was that when they would show themselves to be faithful Jews by going up to the feast. Their advice came out of their own situation and was completely irrelevant to the situation of Jesus accordingly.¹⁹

7 The contrast with the brothers continues.²⁰ Jesus takes up their word "world," but uses it in a very different sense. The world not only does not, but cannot hate them. How could it? They belong to it. Its hate is not for such (cf. 15:19). But Jesus is in a different position. Him it does hate. The reason is the unfailing testimony that he bears against it ("testify" is in a continuous tense, as is "hates"; both point to ongoing activities). Jesus marks himself off from the world by his continuous testimony that the world's deeds are evil. The evildoer does not care to have his sin rebuked, and the hatred of which Jesus speaks is the inevitable result.

8 The difference in the "times" of Jesus and his brothers, and that in the attitude of the world to him and to them, lead to a difference in conduct. Jesus tells the brothers to go up to the feast. That is the natural thing to do in their position. But he is not in their position. Therefore he is not²¹ going up. There is a difficulty here, for after saying this Jesus does later go to Jerusalem. It is important accordingly to notice that the use of the present tense does not exclude subsequent action of a different kind. Jesus simply says that the brothers should go (the implication being "go now"),²² and he separates himself from them. Moreover, what they are urging him to do is to go up to keep the feast. This Jesus did not do, neither then nor later. He was absent for a good part of the ceremonies, perhaps for all of them. He went up to give certain teaching, not to observe the feast in the manner of a pilgrim. He is refusing to go up at their request and with a view to accomplishing what they set before him, but he is not refusing to go up to Jerusalem.²³ He is working out the implications of his messiahship in his own way, not theirs. He tells his brothers that for him "the right time has not yet come."²⁴ This means that the events in the time of which he speaks have not yet approached their consummation. Until they do he will not act.²⁵ And much will happen before he can make that public claim that his brothers try to foist on him at this moment.

9 Jesus has made his position clear. And having done so, he acts in accordance with it. When the brothers go up to the feast he stays where he is, in Galilee.

2. The Reaction of the Multitudes (7:10-13)

10However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. 11 Now at the Feast the Jews were watching for him and asking, "Where is that man?" 12Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, "He is a good man." Others replied, "No, he deceives the people." 13But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews.

It is apparent that the brothers were not alone in the thought that it would be natural for Jesus to be in Jerusalem for this feast. There was comment on his absence, or rather on the fact that he was not known to be present, for John introduces the section in which he tells us of the discussion by informing us that Jesus did go up to Jerusalem. It is apparent that his ministry is having an effect. The people are divided. They do not know what to say. But the hostility of the hierarchy is now plain and serious, so that open discussion is inhibited.

10 Jesus differentiated himself from his brothers. They went up to the feast, but he did not go up with them. But after they had gone, he went up also. But he did not go up in the way they suggested. John is clear that others do not lay down the pattern for Jesus. He is supremely the master of every situation. So in this case he went up when he was ready and in the way he chose. "Not publicly" takes up the "show yourself to the world" (v. 4) and rejects it.²⁶ Jesus' going up is not the going up the brothers had counselled. "As it were in secret" should probably be read; it is not quite as definite as "in secret" (NIV)²⁷ would have been, and probably indicates that, though he took care to avoid undue publicity, Jesus did not go up in such a way that his presence was completely unknown to all others (Kleist and Lilly, "not so as to attract attention, but incognito"). Mark also tells us that Jesus' last journey to Jerusalem was without publicity (Mark 9:30). What John is saying is that Jesus did not go up with the pilgrim caravan. We see how large such a group might be from the incident in Luke 2 when Joseph and Mary looked for the boy Jesus throughout an entire day. Nothing could be more public than to travel in such a company. Jesus eschewed such a conspicuous method of travel and went up privately.

11 For "the Jews" see on 1:19. Here the expression signifies the enemies of Jesus; "were watching . . . and asking" are continuous tenses. They kept looking for him and asking where he was. John does not tell us why they were so sure that he would be there. Possibly they discerned a fitness for his message about the feast; possibly they reasoned that he had been absent from the city on some previous feasts and thus might be expected to be present this time.

12-13 "Whispering" is cognate with the verb rendered "grumble" (6:41, 43, 61, where it meant grumbling about Jesus), and it may indicate discontent here; more probably NIV is correct. It probably signifies quiet discussion, " 'whispering,' suppressed discussion in low tones, in corners, and among friends" (Dods). The crowds²⁸ were divided in their opinions, but it was not safe to speak up about Jesus, so they kept their voices low.²⁹ "He is a good man" indicates an awareness of his character and a lack of perception of his Person (cf. Mark 10:17). Those who thought of him as leading the multitude astray did not go into details.³⁰ Presumably they held that his signs and his preaching, while ostensibly setting forth the divine, cloaked sinister designs. Those who followed such teaching could not but be led astray. The role of "the crowds" throughout this chapter should not be overlooked. Except in chapter 12 there is nothing like it in this Gospel. The term denotes the uninformed majority, wanting to do the right thing but not sure what it was. They are distinguished from "the Jews" (which here must mean the religious leaders, for the crowds were Jews themselves), and also from the disciples of Jesus (see further on v. 25). Some of them differed sharply³¹ from the view that Jesus was a good man. John concludes this part of his narrative with the information that "fear of the Jews" prevented free and open discussion.³² This represents the high point of hostility so far reached. The opposition is rising. Since the people who were afraid were themselves Jews it is clear that John's "the Jews" does not refer to the whole nation; it signifies the leaders, hostile to Jesus.

3. Righteous Judgment (7:14-24)

14Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the temple courts and begin to teach. 15The Jews were amazed and asked, "How did this man get such learning without having studied?" 16Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. 17If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. 18He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him. 19Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?" 20"You are demon-possessed," the crowd answered. "Who is trying to kill you ? " 21 Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath ? 24Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."

When the feast was at its height Jesus came out of his seclusion and taught in the Temple.³³ His opening address is a call to make serious judgments and not simply snap decisions on the basis of surface appearance. He points out that if anyone is really in earnest he will know whether his teaching is divine in origin or not. But in this situation the people are trying to kill him and thus break the very law they profess to uphold.³⁴ Their consideration for the outward letter of the Law (as shown in their concern for circumcision) contrasts sharply with their carelessness about the deeper things to which the Law points (as shown in their attitude toward Jesus' healing on the Sabbath). Their values are wrong. They are superficial. They do not understand the meaning of the law they profess to honor, and therefore they do not recognize that the authority of Jesus is the very authority of God.

14 Jesus waited until the feast was halfway through³⁵ before going up to the Temple. No reason is given for this choice of time. We may conjecture that he wished to teach at the climax of the festivities but not to be involved in the whole of the celebrations. When he went up there was no attempt at concealment or at remaining in semi-seclusion. He taught³⁶ in the Temple, which was just about as public an activity as was possible. Nothing is said about the subject of his discourse.

15 His hearers were surprised, which seems to indicate that many of them had never heard Jesus teach before this, and indeed, John has not recorded any previous teaching of Jesus in Jerusalem. He has told us that Jesus had been in the capital before, that he had done "signs" there, and that he had defended himself when accused of making himself "equal with God.^,י But in any case many of his audience on this occasion would be pilgrims from centers where Jesus had never been. They express astonishment at Jesus' "learning" (basically knowledge of Scripture)³⁷ when he had never³⁸ "studied," that is, been a disciple attached to a rabbi (see the reference to Peter and John as "unschooled," Acts 4:13). "He had not gone through the system" (Guthrie). They would not have been surprised at his knowing a little Scripture. The Bible was read regularly in the synagogues, and the Shema' (Deut. 6:4-5) at any rate was memorized by all. Probably most people could quote some parts of the Bible. The surprise would be at the fact that Jesus could carry on a sustained discourse apparently in the manner of the rabbi s, and perhaps also with the amount of Scripture he could quote. "This man" is contemptuous (Moffatt renders, "this uneducated fellow"). MacGregor points out that "The Evangelist would see something intensely dramatic in this picture of the Jews confronted by the Incarnate Logos and yet treating him as an 'uneducated fellow'!" It is a highly ironical situation.

16-17 Jesus assures them that the origin of his message is divine. Had he said that he was self-taught, or that he needed no teacher, or the like, he would have been discredited immediately. The age did not prize originality. The rabbinic method was to cite authorities for all important statements. So Jesus did not claim to be the originator of his³⁹ message. It does not stem from any earthly source. It stems from him who sent him (again the thought that John so often repeats, that Jesus was sent from God; see the note on 3:17). Jesus goes on to affirm that any really sincere person would know this. It is not something that can be learned only by those who are expert in theological niceties. Anyone who really wills to do the will of God (i.e., whose whole will is bent in this direction; it is the set of the life that is meant) will have the spiritual discernment required. This means more than ethical determination. It involves faith (as in 6:29).⁴⁰ Such a one will know whether this teaching is divine in origin or whether it bears the stamp, "Manufactured in Nazareth."⁴¹ His hearers had raised the question of his competence as a teacher. He raises the question of their competence as hearers.

18 The Jews can verify Jesus' statement from their own observation. Anyone whose message originates with himself seeks his own advancement. He can do no other. But the person who is concerned with the interests of the One who sent him is different (see on 4:34 for Jesus' concern to do the Father's will). The one who seeks the glory of God is true.⁴² Jesus does not say that he speaks the truth, but that he is true (cf. 14:6). And of him that is true he further says that there is no unrighteousness in him. The negative way of putting it may be meant to point a contrast with the Jews in whom there certainly was unrighteousness.

19 Jesus develops this thought. It was a favorite cause for self-congratulation among the Jews that they were the recipients of the Law (cf. Rom. 2:17). But now Jesus points out that there is a difference between receiving and keeping the Law. Moses gave them the Law, but none of them keeps it (Paul points out that there is profit in circumcision only when the Law is kept; being a Jew is not simply a matter of pride of race, Rom. 2:25-29). Far from keeping the Law they are seeking to put Jesus to death (cf. v. 1). Or Jesus may mean that from time to time all of them break the Law because of conflicting regulations of the type he is about to cite (v. 22). He has done no more than they all do, yet they seek to kill him. Against this interpretation is the fact that the example that substantiates the point is not cited until three verses later, so the former interpretation is to be preferred.

20 The "crowd" will be largely the pilgrims who came up from various places for the feast, not the Jerusalem mob. This multitude professes to know nothing of the plot,⁴³ and it attributes Jesus' words to demon possession. In the Synoptic Gospels we frequently meet with cases of demon pos-session, but there are none in John.⁴⁴ But John mentions a number of accusations, like this present one, that Jesus is demon-possessed and that this is the explanation of what he says (8:48-52; 10:20-21).⁴⁵ The accusation is made, of course, in the Synoptics also (Mark 3:22, etc.).

21 Jesus answers by referring them to "one miracle" (really "one work"; see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13), which he did. This does not, of course, mean that he had done only one miracle, but it singles one out for attention. He does not specify more exactly, but as he goes on to refer to the Sabbath there is no doubt that he is referring to the curing of the man by the pool Bethesda that caused such a discussion about Jesus' attitude to the Sabbath (5:19י). It is the only miracle John has described that Jesus did in Jerusalem (though cf. 2:23). He recalls the astonishment with which they had greeted this miracle.

2-23 "Because"⁴⁶ indicates that the true meaning of the institution of the Sabbath and of circumcision is seen in Jesus' action. He is not transgressing the Law of Moses, but fulfilling its deepest meaning. He has spoken of Moses as the giver of the Law (v. 19), and he now goes on to speak of him in connection with circumcision. He immediately points out that circumcision did not originate with Moses, but with the patriarchs. But it was included in the Law of Moses, and it was in accordance with the precepts of that Law that the Jews governed their practice in cirumcising. So binding did they regard the command to circumcise on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3) that they held this to override the Sabbath (cf. Mishnah, Shab. 18:3; 19:1, 2; Ned. 3:11). Thus, though they would scrupulously avoid all manner of things that even remotely looked like work lest the Sabbath be profaned, they had no hesitation in carrying out the ritual requirement of circumcision on that day. Had they understood the significance of what they were doing they would have seen that a practice that overrode the Sabbath in order to provide for the ceremonial needs of a man justified the overriding of the Sabbath in order to provide for the bodily healing of a man.

This is a most important point for an understanding of the Sabbath controversy between Jesus and his legalistic opponents. He was not arguing simply that a repressive law be liberalized. Nor was he adopting an anti-Sabbatarian attitude, opposing the whole institution. He pointed out that his action fulfilled the purpose of the original institution.⁴⁷ Had his opponents understood the implications of the Mosaic provision for circumcision on the Sabbath they would have seen that deeds of mercy such as he has just done were not merely permissible but obligatory. Moses quite understood that some things should be done even on the Sabbath. The Jews had his words but not his meaning. They misinterpreted the significance of the Sabbath. Jesus draws them back to the basic reason for its institution. He asks why they should be wrathful when he has done a deed of mercy if a ritual act not only may, but must, be performed on that day. "Healing the whole man" puts some emphasis on the completeness of the cure. The man had been in need, and Jesus fully met his need. Some exegetes understand "the whole man" to include the moral cleansing implied in 5:14 in contrast with the purely ritual requirement of circumcision. There may be something in this though we must not press the latter part of the proposition. The Jews did not regard circumcision as "purely ritual," but saw it as having profound significance. The Greek seems to mean, "made an entire man healthy," that is, circumcision is concerned primarily with one member of the body, whereas Jesus has made a complete man healthy.⁴⁸

24 In the light of their practice Jesus calls on them to judge, not in accordance with the outward appearance (C. B. Williams, "Stop judging superficially"), but in accordance with right. "Stop judging" brings out the meaning of the present imperative; it implies that they were guilty of wrong judgment and urges them to mend their ways. Again, the aorist imperative "make" (the Greek means "judge") directs urgent attention to the specific example.⁴⁹ Jesus is not laying down a general rule (though admittedly the words may well be applied generally). He is telling his hearers how they should estimate this specific case.

4. Is This the Christ? (7:25-31)

25At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, "Isn't this the man they are trying to kill? 26Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ^a? 27But we know where this man is from; when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from." 28Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29but I know him because I am from him and he sent me." 30At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come. 31Still, many in the crowd put their faith in him. They said, "When the Christ comes, will he do more miraculous signs than this man ? "

a. 26 Or Messiah; also in verses 27, 31, 41 and 42

Jesus' teaching made a favorable impression, such a favorable impression, indeed, that some of his hearers wondered whether the rulers' failure to arrest him was due to a recognition that he really was the Christ, the Messiah. This leads to some discussion of the origin of the Christ. It is clear that there was much uncertainty about Jesus, and a variety of reactions to his message.

25-26 In this chapter a number of groups of people are referred to. "The Jews" (vv. 1,11 etc.; see on 1:19) denotes the religious leaders of the nation who were Jesus' enemies. These men were trying to be rid of him, apparently quite openly. Then there is "the crowd" (vv. 20, 31, etc.), the throng of pilgrims who did not know a great deal about either the plans of the authorities or the teachings of Jesus. They are ready to listen to him and even to believe in him (v. 31). "The people of Jerusalem" (the word "Jerusalemites" is found only here and in Mark 1:5 in the whole New Testament) are apparently a third group, the Jerusalem mob. They were not the instigators of the plot to arrest Jesus, but they knew about it, as their words here show. Their question, "Isn't this the man . . . ?" looks for the answer, "Yes." They were sure that Jesus was the man. Why, then, was no action taken? They were impressed by Jesus' words and by his manner. He spoke openly⁵⁰ despite the plan to kill him. So they put two and two together. He was apparently immune from arrest, for no one even spoke to him, let alone took action against him (cf. Phillips, "It's amazing — he talks quite openly and they haven't a word to say to him"). They began to wonder whether this indicated that their leaders really⁵¹ knew that Jesus was the Christ (see on 1:20, 41). At the same time their question looks for the answer "No"; they raise the possibility only to dismiss it.

27 They do a little reasoning on their own account. "But⁵² this fellow," they say, "we know where he comes from," and they proceed to lay it down that the origin of the Christ is a mystery.⁵³ This was not universally held. The scribes in Matthew 2 do not seem to have been at a loss when Herod asked them where the Christ should be born. They were able to assure him on the basis of prophecy that Bethlehem was the spot. Yet it must be borne in mind that they could tell him no more. Family, circumstances, and all the rest apparently remained completely unknown so that their knowledge did not really take them very far. Later in this chapter some of the crowd show a similar knowledge of the prophecy about Bethlehem (vv. 41-42; Jesus' association with Galilee puzzled them). But there were divergent ideas in this matter. While some appealed to prophecies like that cited by Herod's scribes, others must have interpreted these same Scriptures differently, for they ascribed to the Christ a mysterious supernatural origin and a sudden appearance on the scene. Some passages might be interpreted of a sudden appearance (e.g., Dan. 9:25; Mai. 3:1), and this line is developed in some of the apocryphal books.⁵⁴ It is typical of John's irony that he leaves the objection without comment. Those who know the truth about Jesus' origin know that it is baseless.⁵⁵

28 Jesus uses their comment for some further teaching on his mission. It is probable that we should understand John's "therefore" (NIV, "then") to refer back to the immediately preceding "no one will know where he is from" rather than to "speaking publicly" in the face of the desire of his enemies to kill him. "Cried out" indicates a loud shout. Jesus is giving the greatest publicity to this piece of teaching. The verb, as John uses it, always seems to introduce with emphasis a saying of some importance (1:15; 7:37; 12:44). It may also indicate here that Jesus spoke with some emotion. He agrees that they know him and that they know where he came from, but this is almost certainly ironical: "So you know me and my origin!" While there is a sense in which this is true (they knew that he came from Nazareth), there is a more important sense in which it is not true (they did not know that he came from God, and this is the important point).⁵⁶ Jesus proceeds to enlighten them. As in verse 16, he has disclaimed originality for his teaching, so here he disclaims responsibility for his mission. He did not set out on any self-chosen task. On the contrary, he was sent (see on 3:17), and that by One who is true. These last words should not be overlooked. The Jerusalemites did not accept the fact of Jesus' divine mission. In their minds no one sent him; he was acting on his own initiative. But Jesus insists that he was sent by a real person (cf. Goodspeed, "someone who is very real, whom you do not know, has sent me"; C. B. Williams, "the One who has sent me exists as the Real One"). As often in this Gospel, a word will have a deeper meaning than appears on the surface. God is "true" with all that that means (see on v. 18).⁵⁷ But the Jerusalemites cannot be expected to know all this because they do not really know God. Had they known God they would have recognized him whom God sent. The thought is repeated elsewhere that they do not know the Father (8:19, 55). The implication is plain: if they do not know the Father who sent him, how can they be expected to know the Christ whom the Father sent?

29 Jesus' "I" is emphatic and in sharp contrast with the preceding "you." He does not share the ignorance of the Jerusalemites. He knows the Father (see on 4:18). He gives a twofold account of this, namely in connection with his origin and his mission. He came out from a state of existence with the Father, and he was sent⁵⁸ by the Father to accomplish the Father's purpose, another expression of one of the dominant ideas of this Gospel.

30 This saying aroused varied reactions.⁵⁹ On account of it (NIVs "At this" should be "therefore") his enemies sought to arrest⁶⁰ him. But God is over all. His purpose is worked out. People cannot prevent it. The time for Jesus' death was not yet, and⁶¹ his enemies could not bring that time forward no matter how they might try.⁶² For Jesus' "hour" (NIV, "time") see on 2:4.⁶³

31 But (there is a contrast with the preceding) among the uncommitted multitude all this had an effect precisely the opposite of that on Jesus' enemies. Many of them came to believe on him (see on 1:12,41). The reason for their faith was not profound: they could not conceive that when the Christ came he would do more miracles than Jesus did (their question, "will he do more miraculous signs . . . ?" expects the answer "No"). But throughout this Gospel it is better to believe on the basis of miracles than not to believe at all, so there is no condemnation of this faith as inadequate.

5. An Attempt at Arrest (7:32)

32The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering such things about him. Then the chief priests, and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him.

32 It is not without its interest that the Pharisees heard all this but that it was "the chief priests and the Pharisees" who took action. The Pharisees would have their finger on the public purse rather than the chief priests who were more remote. And the Gospels indicate that the Pharisees were more active in opposing Jesus, and therefore more likely to be taking an interest in what he said and did. But the chief priests were in the place of power. More effective action was possible by combining with them. So the band of police sent to arrest Jesus came from them as well as from the Pharisees.⁶⁴ The combination points to the Sanhedrin as usually in John (cf. v. 45; 11:47, 57; 18:3). In view of the sequel it is likely that the command was not to arrest Jesus immediately, but to watch for a favorable moment. The authorities may well have hesitated to provoke a riot among the pilgrims who supported Jesus. There was, of course, only one "chief priest." But since the Romans had taken to deposing and appointing the principal ecclesiastic there were quite a few ex-chief priests who apparently retained the courtesy title. The title seems also to have been extended to others of the chief-priestly families, so that it came to denote quite a party.⁶⁵ This is John's first use of the term. MacGregor maintains that for John "the 'high-priests' practically correspond to the Synoptic Sadducees." For "whispering" see on 6:41; the verb usually conveys the thought of a muttered complaint, but here, as in verse 12, the thought will simply be that of lowered voices. It was not prudent to speak openly of Jesus, especially if one's opinion of him was favorable. So those who believed spoke softly. John speaks more often of the "temple guards" than do the Synoptists.⁶⁶ Nothing more is said of these officials until verse 45, and in particular John does not say whether they had any direct contact at all with Jesus.

6. Jesus' Return to the Father (7:33-36)

33Jesus said, "I am with you for only a short time, and then I go to the one who sent me. 34You will look for me, but you will not find me; and where I am, you cannot come. "35The Jews said to one another, "Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks? 36 What did he mean when he said, 'You will look for me, but you will not find me,' and 'Where I am, you cannot come'?"

The thought that Jesus will be taken from this world one day rings through this section. John includes some teaching from Jesus on the subject, teaching that, as might be expected, is misunderstood by the crowds.

33 It is not clear to what John's "therefore" refers (and NIV simply drops it). It may follow on from the threat of arrest; Jesus was being threatened; "therefore" he spoke of his removal in due course to a place beyond the reach of his persecutors. Or it may be that verse 32 is to be taken as a parenthesis. The multitudes were talking about Jesus' miracles (v. 31); "therefore" he turns the discussion to his death, which was the most significant topic for faith. Or again, it may be that these words refer back to the last previously recorded words of Jesus (in v. 29). There he spoke of the Father as having sent him; "therefore" he now goes on to the thought of his return to the Father.⁶⁷ But, whatever be the connection, Jesus is expressing his unconcern at the plot. His life and his death are determined by the Father, not the Pharisees. It is true that in due course he will return to him who sent him, where the thought is that of the accomplishment of a mission, with a hint also that his proper and natural abode is not here. But any suggestion that his enemies are in control is excluded.

34 Enigmatically Jesus refers to his death. When he is⁶⁸ with the Father they will look for him, but he will be secure from their approaches. Lenski cites Amos 8:11ff. and Proverbs 1:24ff.; he adds: "This terrible seeking comes when the day of grace is past." There is a sharp contrast between the "I" and the "you." Jesus and his opponents are of different order. They cannot reach him when he is in his natural place. This points to their ultimate loss. As Bultmann puts it, "It is not Jesus whom they will destroy, when they remove him, but themselves" (p. 307).

35 The Jews wonder among themselves. The saying puzzles them. Their "we" is emphatic: "Where can he possibly go that we won't find him?" They suggest as a hypothetical possibility in Jesus' mind a journey to the Dispersion, a technical term for the large number of Jews who at this time were dispersed throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.⁶⁹ Ever since the exile to Babylon there had been Jews living outside Palestine. When permission to return from Babylon was given many availed themselves of it, but many also did not. This evidently set something of a precedent, for in later days quite large numbers of Jews were to be found in cities throughout the Empire. Those in Alexandria were especially numerous.⁷⁰ They speak of going to the Dispersion, but of teaching not the Dispersion but the Greeks. This would seem to mean going to the Jewish synagogues and making them the springboard for a mission outward to the Greeks. It is, of course, the method that the first Christian preachers actually employed (as we see in Acts). These Jews, however, dismiss the method as too fantastic to be considered a proper activity of the Messiah, which is another example of John's irony.⁷¹ It is not without its interest that John has recorded a misunderstanding as to the origin of the Messiah on the part of some (vv. 26-27). Now he matches it with a misunderstanding as to his departure.

36 The Jews repeat Jesus' words of verse 34, this being noteworthy as one of the very few places in this Gospel where words are repeated exactly (see on 3:5 for John's habit of variation). It is clear that the saying puzzled them greatly. And it not only puzzled them; it apparently made them uneasy. Was there perhaps some meaning in it that still eluded them? Was the Man from Nazareth mocking them? Should they have understood more?⁷²

7. A Prophecy of the Spirit (7:37-39)

37On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "If a man is thirsty, let him come to me and drink, 38Whoever believes in me,^a as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

a. 38 Or If a man is thirsty,/let him come to me./And let him drink,/who believes in me

Jesus kept his great saying for the climax of the Feast. Chrysostom thought that more people were gathered together then, and this is not unlikely. Tabernacles was a festival rich in symbolism and popular appeal, and the symbolism forms the background to our Lord's saying. The principal features of the observance, in addition to the erection of the leafy bowers (in which the people camped out) and the offering of sacrifices, appear to have been these.⁷³ The people carried with them bunches of leaves called lulabs.⁷⁴ There was apparently a disagreement between the Sadducees and the Pharisees over the correct interpretation of Leviticus 23:40: "On the first day you are to take choice fruit from the trees, and palm fronds, leafy branches and poplars. ..." The Sadducees took the words to refer to the material out of which the booths for the observance of the feast were to be constructed, while the Pharisees held them to mean that the worshipers were actually to carry branches of the trees named as they entered the Temple. The Pharisaic interpretation prevailed among the people, and accordingly each worshiper in the procession would carry a lulab in the right hand and a citron in the left. The lulab symbolized the stages of the wilderness journey (marked by different kinds of vegetation), and the fruit the fruit of the goodly land that God had given his people. As certain Psalms were recited the worshipers shook their lulabs.⁷⁵ The rejoicing was marked further by the flute-playing and dancing that went on for most of the feast and by bringing in young willow branches and arranging them around the altar (Sukk. 4:5). The tops thus were bent over the altar, forming a leafy canopy. The recital of the words, "O Lord, save us; Ο Lord, grant us success" (Ps. 118:25), is probably to be understood as a prayer for rain and a fruitful season. On each of the seven days of the feast a priest drew water from the pool of Siloam in a golden flagon and brought it in procession to the Temple with the joyful sounding of the trumpet. There the water was poured into a bowl beside the altar from which a tube took it to the base of the altar. These symbolic ceremonies were acted thanksgivings for God's mercies in giving water in past days (probably looking right back to the smiting of the rock in the wilderness and then on to the giving of rain in recent years). They were also an acted prayer for rain for the coming year.⁷⁶ It is also significant that the words of Isaiah are associated with these ceremonies: "With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation" (Isa. 12:3).⁷⁷ The Mishnah says, "He that never has seen the joy of the Water-drawing has never in his life seen joy" (Sukk. 5:1). The Jerusalem Talmud connects the ceremonies and Isaiah 12:3 with the Holy Spirit: "Why is the name of it called, The drawing out of water? Because of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, according to what is said: 'With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation' "⁷⁸

Jesus' words are to be understood against this background. Until now nothing has been recorded of his teaching at this feast, for all his words in this chapter hitherto have been replies to the accusations of his foes. But now, at the culmination of the greatest feast of the Jewish year, he unfolds its significance in terms of the life he came to bring. He takes the water symbolism of the feast and presses it into service as he speaks of the living water that he will bestow. The people are thinking of rain and of their bodily need. He turns their attention to the deep need of the soul and to the way he would supply it. In chapter 4 we have had references to the living water, but here only is the explanation given in terms of the Holy Spirit.

37 It seems that the feast at one time went on for seven days (Deut. 16:13), but there came to be an eighth day even though it could be mentioned separately from the seven (Lev. 23:36). It is not quite clear whether it was the seventh day or this eighth day that was the climax of the whole celebration, and that John says was "the last and greatest day of the feast."⁷⁹ Once again he tells us that Jesus "cried" (see on v. 28; NIV has "said in a loud voice"). The word indicates that importance is attached to the saying. It is proclaimed loudly and emphatically, perhaps also with emotion, so that all might hear and all might heed. Jesus is also said to have stood (the verb means "was standing" rather than "rose to his feet"). A teacher usually sat with his disciples, so that the Master's posture as well as his voice called attention to his words as important. Moreover, he was thus in a position to make the maximum number of people see and hear him. In words reminiscent of those in 4:10 Jesus gives the invitation to the thirsty to come to him and drink. There is the implication that the thirsty soul will find that Jesus fills the need that cannot be supplied elsewhere. The appropriateness of the words at this feast is that, throughout the seven days, libations were made in the Temple with water brought from the pool of Siloam (Sukk. 4:9). but on the eighth day no water was poured, and this would make Jesus' claim all the more impressive. At the same time his primary reference may be not to the Temple rite, but to the supply of water from the rock in the wilderness. That water supplied the physical needs of the Israelites, whereas no one drank from the water poured out of the golden ewer.⁸⁰ Whichever way we take it, the festal observance has included an acted prayer for water and Jesus is proclaiming the answer to the prayer in a way the worshipers would never have expected.

38 There is uncertainty as to the sentence division here, and this affects the sense. If we delete the full stop at the end of verse 37 the passage will mean, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me, and let him that believes in me drink."⁸¹ Those who accept this view usually hold that the next section, "as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him," refers not to the believer, but to Christ. Indeed, part of the reason for preferring this punctuation is the desire to refer these words to the Lord. Two main reasons are given for this way of taking the words: (a) it is hard to find a scriptural passage that refers the source of the living water to the believer, and (b) Christ, not the believer, is in fact the source of the living water. This position cannot be ruled out as absolutely impossible, but the punctuation of NIVseems preferable.⁸² The statement about thirst calls for one about drinking, but it does not call for one about faith. The words about faith go better with what follows.⁸³ It does not seem that any really satisfactory reason has been given for separating "and drink" from the previous words. It is the thirsty, not the faithful, who need to drink. In fact, to come to Jesus and drink is to believe. There is no difference in meaning. To invite the believer to drink is thus tautology. It is also worth noting that the construction "he who believes" is common in John and seems always to indicate the present possession of life (3:18, 36; 6:35, 47; 11:25; 12:44; 14:12).

But the biggest difficulty is in accepting the change of subject involved if we take the words "streams of living water will flow from within him" to refer to Christ. However we punctuate, it does seem as though "him" is the same person as the preceding "he" (NIV, "whoever"). We need strong reasons for taking it otherwise. Again, while it is true that the living water has its ultimate source in Christ, yet the believer is mediately a source to others.⁸⁴ And, while it is true that it is hard to find an Old Testament passage that unambiguously prophesies that rivers of living water will flow from the believer, it is also true that it is harder still to find one that says this of Christ. Some are suggested (Exod. 17:6; Ps. 105:41; Ezek. 47:1; Joel 3:18), but a good imagination is required to find in any of these a prophecy that Christ would become the source (some see significance in the reference to water, as well as blood, proceeding from the Savior's side, 19:34, but this is farfetched). And, if the Old Testament does not speak explicitly of living water as proceeding from the believer, at least there are passages that refer to spiritual blessing for God's people under the symbolism of water. Some regard the water as outgoing, which is consonant with the view that the blessing is passed on. Perhaps the most relevant is "You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail" (Isa. 58:11; see also Prov. 4:23; 5:15; Isa. 44:3;⁸⁵ 55:1; Ezek. 47:Iff.; Joel 3:18; Zech. 13:1; 14:8).⁸⁶ The meaning of our passage, then, in accordance with such Old Testament prophecies, appears to be that when anyone comes to believe in Jesus the Scriptures referring to the activity of the Holy Spirit are fulfilled.⁸⁷ On the day of Pentecost Peter claimed the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel (Acts 2:16ff.); it is something like this that we should understand here. Verse 38 carries on the thought of verse 37. The drinking of which Jesus there spoke is possible only to one who comes in faith. And faith has its results. When the believer⁸⁸ comes to Christ and drinks, that believer not only slakes his thirst but receives such an abundant supply that veritable rivers flow from him.⁸⁹ This stresses the outgoing nature of the Spirit-filled life. In contrast to the men of Qumran there is nothing of the piety of the pond about Christianity. The covenanters (of this very period) had withdrawn into the wilderness to become the people of the Lord. They became ingrown. They seem to have made no attempt to influence others and thus to bring the blessing to them. Just as the Dead Sea receives the Jordan, but gives nothing out and thus becomes lifeless and arid, so the Dead Sea sect sought to receive the blessing of the law of God and to keep it for themselves.⁹⁰ And in the process they became sterile. Not so the true Christian.⁹¹ Believers are not self-centered. As they receive the gift of God, so they pass it on to others. Or to put the same thought in another way, when people believe they become servants of God and God uses them to be the means of bringing blessing to others.⁹² "Living water" is the gift of Christ in 4:14. Here we must think of the gift as divine in origin, but as channeled through believers.

39 John explains Jesus' cryptic utterance. It concerns the Spirit, and the Spirit would be given to them that put their trust in Christ. The explanation is important. "Living water" is not elsewhere explained, and the expression is not a common one (other than for its use for running water as against the stagnant water of a pool or the like).⁹³ This explanation helps us interpret passages like chapter 4. The expression translated "the Spirit had not been given" is difficult. There is nothing in the Greek corresponding to "given" and a more literal rendering would be "for it was not yet Spirit."⁹⁴ This probably points to the period after Pentecost. The gift of the Holy Spirit to the infant church that day transformed everything, so that all that followed might be called the era of the Spirit. The Bible does not speak of the Spirit as totally inactive until that point; there is much about him in the Old Testament and the Gospels. But nothing can compare to his activity in the apostolic age. Then it "was Spirit" in a way it had never been before. John tells us that it was the work of Jesus that made the difference. It was not yet Spirit because Jesus had not yet been glorified.⁹⁵ Calvary is the necessary prelude to Pentecost. Once again John refers to the cross in terms of glory, not of shame. Once again he sees the cross and the glory as one. And he views the atoning work of Christ as the necessary prelude to the work of the Spirit. While we must not try to dissect the believer's experience too minutely, it is yet plain that sin must be dealt with before we can enter life in the Spirit. It is repeated in this Gospel that the Spirit could not come during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry (16:7). But when that work was consummated the Spirit was given (20:22; Acts 2).⁹⁶

8. Division (7:40-44)

40On hearing his words, some of the people said, "Surely this man is the Prophet." 41 Others said, "He is the Christ." Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? 42Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family^a and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" 43Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.

a. 42 Greek seed

As throughout this chapter, there is division over Jesus' words. Here John records a tendency to accept him on account of his words and a tendency to reject him on account of his connection with Galilee.

40 John returns to the opinions of the multitude. Some⁹⁷ of them were so much impressed by Jesus' words (for "words" see on 14:24) that they affirmed him to be "the Prophet" (i.e., the prophet of Deut. 18:15). The persistence of references to this prophet in this Gospel is remarkable (cf. 1:21, where see note; 1:25; 6:14). Evidently there was a considerable section of the Jews who looked for the prophet's appearance. The attitude recorded here is more logical than that of 6:14. There people saw the prophet in Jesus on account of the "sign" they saw him perform, whereas here it is his words that impress. The words of a prophet are more characteristic than any doing of miracles.

41 Others in the crowd took the further step of seeing in Jesus none less than the Christ (see on 1:41). But the first group (or perhaps a third group) countered with a question as to the origin of the Christ. Their question is so phrased as to expect the answer "No." It was agreed that the Christ did not come from Galilee (in v. 52 it is accepted that not even a prophet came from Galilee, how much less the Christ?). This confidence is interesting in contrast with the attitude behind Matthew 2:23, which speaks of Scripture being fulfilled in the fact that "He will be called a Nazarene." Though that passage has difficulties of its own it certainly does not rule out the possibility of a Galilean Christ.

42 The objectors back up their case with an appeal to the Bible. "The Scripture" usually refers to a specific passage, but there is no place where the Old Testament says precisely this. It seems that the general tenor of several Old Testament passages is in mind (e.g. 1 Sam. 20:6; 2 Sam. 7:12ff.; Ps. 89:3-4; Mic. 5:2, etc.). The expectation shows that the Exile was not held to have put an end to the possibilities of the Davidic line. In due course, when God sent his Messiah, he would be of that line, and, indeed, come from the very town of Bethlehem. Incidentally the description of Bethlehem as "the town where David lived" somewhat overstates the case. David was born there and was brought up there, but after Saul took him to be with him (1 Sam. 18:2) there is no record of his ever returning there. Nearly all the significant events of his life took place elsewhere. It is not without its interest that these members of the crowd could cite such Scripture spontaneously. There must have been strong messianic expectations, such that messianic predictions were eagerly sought out. We have here another example of Johannine irony.⁹⁸ How strange that these people were citing as an objection to Jesus' messiahship just that fact which they required to attest it, had they but known the facts of the case.⁹⁹

43-44 There was thus a "division."¹⁰⁰ The crowd of pilgrims was not unanimous in its views of Jesus. Some thought him to be a prophet, some the Christ, and some wanted to arrest him (v. 44; it would appear that this refers to the crowd and not to the police spoken of in vv. 32, 45-46). No actual attempt at arrest is described, simply the will¹⁰¹ to do it. John leaves us in no doubt as to the intention of this group. But nothing came of it. Though he does not repeat the reason he has given in verse 30 concerning an earlier attempt, we must understand that to operate here also. No arrest could take place before his "hour" had come.

9, The Failure to Arrest Jesus (7:45-52)

45Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, "Why didn't you bring him in?" 46"No one ever spoke the way this man does," the guards declared. 47 "You mean he has deceived you also?" the Pharisees retorted. 48"Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law — there is a curse on them." 50Ni-codemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51"Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?" 52They replied, "Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet^a does not come out of Galilee."

a. 52 Two early manuscripts the Prophet

The abortive attempt of the Temple police to arrest Jesus brings Nicodemus before us once more, this time in discussion with the Sanhedrin. His defense of Jesus is not exactly spirited, but it is a defense of sorts. And it induces his colleagues to give expression to the objection to Jesus' messiahship based on his supposed Galilean origin (mentioned for the third time in this chapter!). It would seem that this objection must have been widely bruited, and John, in pursuance of his declared aim of showing that Jesus is the Messiah, notes that it is not new, and goes on to provide material for its refutation.

45 The "temple guards" (referred to in v. 32) now return to the Sanhedrin¹⁰² with their mission unfulfilled. Apparently their orders had been not simply to make an arrest (for then they would surely have pressed through the crowd and would have been stopped only by physical force), but to look for a favorable opportunity of apprehending Jesus. The authorities wanted an arrest but not a riot. They had waited for some time (v. 37 points to a time later than does v. 14» the previous time note, which apparently covers v. 32). But no such opportunity as they sought presenting itself, they now returned to the Sanhedrin. Nothing is recorded of any report they may have made, but it was obvious that they had no prisoner, so they were met with a question as to the reason.

46 The reply of the officials stresses the effect Jesus' teaching had on them. No man ever spoke like this.¹⁰³ It is curious that they do not mention the crowd, the hostility of a section of which was presumably a big factor in their failure to make the arrest. They simply tell of the effect of Jesus' words on them and let it go at that. This must have taken some courage, since they must have known that it would expose them to the rebuke (and the disciplinary action) of the Sanhedrin. Some mention of the hostility of the crowd, or a section of it, would have served as an excuse, palliating their offense to some extent. But they had been deeply impressed by Jesus, and they said so.¹⁰⁴ That, and that alone, was the basic reason for their failure to carry out their orders. If the shorter reading in this verse be the true one,¹⁰⁵ we have a typical Johannine double meaning. The officers will mean "Never did another man speak like this," while John will understand their words as "Never did one who was no more than a man speak like this."¹⁰⁶

47-49 The Pharisees were apparently irritated by this answer, and took the initiative in replying (the chief priests might have been expected to be the ones to rebuke their servants). Their question expects the answer "No": "Surely you are not deceived also?" is the sense of it. The "also" indicates that they know that some were deceived, and they are trying to distance their officers from those who have gone astray (RSV, "Are you led astray, you also?"). The perfect tense in the verb "led astray" (NIV, "has deceived") points to a continuing state. GNB renders, "Did he fool you, too?" which brings out the stupidity of the position as the Pharisees saw it. A further question implying the negative answer shows how unthinkable it is that any leading person should believe in Jesus¹⁰⁷ ("any" is singular; not so much as one has believed). The "rulers" are here distinguished from the Pharisees and will denote the Sadducees in general or the high priestly party in particular. The explicit rejection of the idea that any of the Pharisees believed may give us something of Nicodemus's reason for coming at first by night. Plainly the Pharisees were set in opposition to Jesus, and this supports the thought that his motive then was one of timidity. The multitude is contrasted with the rulers and the Pharisees. It is characterized as not¹⁰⁸ knowing the Law. This does not mean either that it was not interested in the Pentateuch, or that it did not have a reasonable working knowledge of Scripture (in v. 42 some at least show acquaintance with passages of Scripture that do not immediately strike the casual reader). It means that they did not know the Law in the way the Pharisees did. These students discerned 613 commandments in the Law, and they set themselves the task of meriting their salvation by trying to keep them all.¹⁰⁹ Even this was not the whole task, for they added the entire corpus of oral tradition concerning the Law (which governed the interpretation of biblical passages). It was small wonder that ordinary pious people, like the crowd of pilgrims, simply gave up the task. Their knowledge of the Bible could not be compared with that of the Pharisees. And because it could not, their practice could not be the same as that of these zealous exponents of the traditions. Inevitably, then, the crowds failed to comply with what the Pharisees thought of as necessary rules, and thus they came under severe condemnation. They were "accursed"¹¹⁰ (Deut. 27:26 speaks of him "who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out" as "Cursed").¹¹¹

50-51 Apparently there was no dissentient voice, and this provoked Nicodemus into speaking up. There is something dramatic in the way John introduces this. The leaders denied that any important person believed in Jesus, and Nicodemus immediately spoke up. They condemned the multitude for not knowing the Law, and Nicodemus immediately put his finger on their own disregard for the Law (there is perhaps more Johannine irony here: the guardians of the Law do not keep the Law!). John characterizes Nicodemus in two ways, as having formerly come to Jesus and as being one of the Pharisees. It is this double character which causes him to speak in this situation. But, though he speaks up in defense of Jesus, he takes a very cautious line. He does not commit himself. He does not bear witness as do so many in this Gospel.¹¹² Yet the temper of the meeting must be borne in mind. Plain testimony to Jesus would undoubtedly have enraged the majority further. Nicodemus may have judged that Christ's cause would best be served by pointing these angry men to a legal weakness in their position. His question looks for a negative answer. He is sure of his point. He reminds them that according to their law the accused must first be heard in person.¹¹³ The judges must "know" (NIV, "find out") what he does. The implication is clear that these judges do not really know what Jesus does. Nicodemus is of opinion that they ought not to give sentence until they do.

52 But the Sanhedrin is in no mood for legal niceties. "Are you from Galilee, too?" they ask (the force of the question is "Surely you are not from Galilee, too?"). They exhort their colleague to make a search. He will find that no prophet came from Galilee. They were angry men, and men who had been balked of their prey, so their answer is not a careful one. They overlook Jonah,¹¹⁴ who was a Galilean (2 Kings 14:25; other prophets may also have come from Galilee; there is uncertainty about the origin of some). And they ignore the power of God to raise up prophets wherever he wills.¹¹⁵

For the commentary on 7:53-8:11 see the Appendix.

——————————————————

1. Dodd points out that in chapters 7 and 8 there is a strongly polemical tone, with the enemies of Jesus having more to say than at any other place in the four Gospels. This is doubtless, as he says, in order to bring out the constant pressure of the opposition Jesus met (note the repeated statements that Jesus' life was in danger, 7:1, 13, 19, 25, 30, 32, 44; 8:37, 40, 59). It should also be noted that "The evangelist has brought together here most of what he has to say in reply to Jewish objections against the messianic claims made for Jesus" (IFG, p. 346). Messiahship is central for John. This section of his Gospel shows that objections to the messiahship of Jesus can all be met.

2. Calvin reminds us that "it was not right for Him to rush headlong into danger," but that also "He did not turn aside a hair's-breadth from the course of His duty." From this he draws the moral, "We must always beware that we do not for the sake of life lose the purpose for living."

3. For μετά ταῦτα see on 2:12.

4. Abbott points out that θέλω with the present infinitive here and in v. 17 stresses continuity, "he did not wish to continue teaching (περιπατειν)..."; "If any one be willing to continue doing (ποιεΐν) his will," whereas the aorist πιάσαι in verse 44 refers to a particular act (2498).

5. See Ma'as. 3:7; Bikk. 1:6, 10; Shek. 3:1; 6:3, etc. Similarly Josephus says that Tabernacles was considered "especially sacred and important by the Hebrews" (Ant. 8.100), and again, "this is a festival observed by us with special care" (15.50). The place the feast held is shown by the fact that it (and not one of the others) was chosen as the test in Zech. 14:16-19. Knox's rendering, "one of the Jewish feasts, the Feast of Tabernacles, "misses the emphasis. This was not "a" feast. It was "the" feast." We see this when Tabernacles is the one feast emphasized in Zech. 14:16-19. Tabernacles was the great feast held when the harvest was finally gathered in, not only the grain crops but also the grapes and the olives (Exod. 23:16 calls it "the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in your crops from the field"; see also Lev. 23:33ff., 39ff.; Deut. 16:13ff.). There are references to the feast as lasting for seven days (e.g., Lev. 23:34), and also to the eighth day (as in Lev. 23:36), from which the conclusion is drawn that an original feast of seven days had been extended by one day. Together with the note of thanksgiving for harvest the feast commemorated the goodness of God to his people during the wilderness wanderings. The tents, or leafy bowers, which gave the feast its name, were erected in the courts of houses or on the roofs. Plummer points out that this custom "involved much both of the discomfort and also of the merriment of a picnic." He goes on to remark that the distinctions between rich and poor were thus largely obliterated for the duration of the merrymaking.

6. The construction is ἵνα with the future indicative, which may put a slight emphasis on the actuality of the seeing. Abbott thinks that "there may be an intention to blend purpose with assured result" (2690).

7. Cf. Jesus' remark, "surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!" (Luke 13:33). The brothers were right in seeing Jerusalem as the proper place for the manifestation of the essence of the Messiah's work. They were wrong in their conception of what that work was and how it should be manifested.

8. For this Jewish idea cf. S. Mowinckel, "they mean, come forward, and perform openly the Messianic works and miracles. . . . According to Jewish thought, it is only then that He will become Messiah in the full sense of the term. Before that time we may say that He is but Messias designates, a claimant to Messianic status" (He That Cometh [Oxford, 1959], p. 303).

9.έν παρρησία. The noun is often used in the New Testament with the meaning "boldness," and its use here may be meant to indicate that Jesus' conduct was not courageous. In John the word is mostly used of speech (7:13, 26; 10:24; 11:14; 16:25, 29; 18:20), and the meaning is "open," "not obscure." But John also uses the word in the sense "public," as here (11:54; it is not impossible that some of the references to speech have this meaning). The basic idea in the word (παν compounded with ρήσις) is freedom of speech, the attitude of being completely at home, when the words flow freely. This may lead to the idea of boldness, or confidence, or openness. In all John uses the word 9 times, and it is found 4 times in 1 John. Since the New Testament total is 31, it is clear that it is a Johannine word. The highest total in any other book is 5 times in Acts.

10. "Certainly, speaking absolutely, they were right: the Messianic question could not be decided in Galilee" (Godet).

11. Brown points out that in this section of the Gospel there are parallels to the Synoptic temptation stories. In 6:15 people try to make him king, just as Satan tempted him with the offer of all the kingdoms of the world. In 6:31 they ask for miraculous bread, which is not unlike Satan's suggestion that he turn stones into bread. Now they want him to go to Jerusalem and show his power, which reflects the same spirit as the suggestion that he jump from the pinnacle of the Temple. We are justified in thinking that the temptations narrated so graphically by Matthew and Luke recurred throughout Jesus' ministry.

12. Bernard strangely understands the passage as ironical. He thinks the brothers were sceptical about Jesus' power. By contrast MacGregor comments: "The brothers' challenge does not so much imply doubt concerning the reality of Jesus' works as a hint that a change of method is necessary."

13. "Their supreme misunderstanding lies in their distinction between secret and public, which covers a false distinction between glorious and inglorious (vv.41-44), bold and cowardly. There will be a public ministry of Jesus in Jerusalem . . . but it consists in the public exposition of the sin of the world and the provocation of its hatred. . . . There is also a glorious display of power, but it consists in secret obedience to the will of the Father and in the transmission of the truth to the disciples in private . . . and is displayed completely in the death of the Christ" (Hoskyns). Bultmann comments that there is always an ambiguity in the revelation, so that the very works that the world finds insufficient are the fulfillment of its demand. It is, of course, still the case that the world is unable to discern the hand of God in the events in which it is concerned.

14. "His destiny was not popularity but the hatred of the world, a hatred such as no one else could experience, since he alone brought the world into judgement" (Barrett, p. 309).

15. The word is καιρός, which occurs in this Gospel only in this passage (here and in v. 8) and in the spurious 5:4. The other word is χρόνος. Sometimes there is a determined attempt to differentiate between them, as in J. A. T. Robinson, In the End God (London, 1950), or J. Marsh, The Fulness of Time (London, 1962). This matter has been subjected to a very critical examination by J. Barr in The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961) and in Biblical Words for Time (London, 1962). He makes it clear that the differences have been exaggerated, but he does not deny them altogether. Thus in the latter book he sums up in these terms: "In many contexts the two words are interchangeable, apart from the stylistic preference for καιρός. For the lapse of time, with an adjective of quantity, χρόνος is usual; for cases like 'the time for figs', and for 'opportunity', καιρός is used. The strong eschatological expectation, and the sense of fulfilment of past eschatological promises, produces frequent contexts like 'the time is coming', in which ό καιρός is usual. The sense of 'season', both for natural and sacred seasons, appears a few times for καιρός. In two passages both χρονός and καιρός appear together, probably with no appreciable difference in meaning" (p. 121). In the present passage καιρός is clearly the appropriate word.

16. Wright expressly differentiates this verse from those referring to the "hour." Those refer to "the end of the Ministry of Jesus on the Cross," he thinks, but καιρός means that "the occasion did not seem as yet opportune to Jesus to manifest Himself to the world (v,4)." Similarly Bernard thinks that καιρός "stands for the moment of opportunity, the fitting occasion, rather than for the 'predestined hour' (ώρα), on which the Fourth Gospel dwells with such insistence.... The fitting time had not yet come . .. and by this is meant not the hour of His Passion, but rather the best time for that public manifestation of Himself as Messiah, which He would make when He went up to the Feast of Tabernacles." A. Guilding is another who draws attention to the distinction from ώρα. She thinks that the words of this verse "bring instantly to mind the Markan summary of the Lord's preaching Πεπλήρωται ό καιρός, και ήγγικεν ή βασιλεία τοϋ θεοϋ (Mark 1.15). . . . The time, then, is the time of the coming of the Messiah predicted by the prophets" (The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship [Oxford, 1960], p. 99). But καιρός is by no means as specific as this. There are many occurrences of καιρός in the New Testament, and there seems no reason to think that Mark 1:15 is in mind here. Moreover, this interpretation overlooks the fact that the καιρός in Mark 1:15 is fulfilled, whereas that in the present passage is not. Cf. Schnackenburg, "The καιρός is the moment of challenge, the call for his own decision in the face of God's summons. Jesus knows that he is not yet summoned by his Father to the journey to Jerusalem, which will mean for himself the decision to accept death.

17. FG, p. 279.

18. " M y " is ό έμός, and "your" is ό υμέτερος. The use of the possessive adjective rather than the genitive of the pronouns may be significant. See on 3:29 for John's use of possessives.

19. Cf. Bultmann, Jesus' saying "is a complete rejection of the world's view of the matter. It does not mean, 'not now, but later', but asserts that the time (the 'now') of the revelation cannot be determined at all from the world's point of view" (p. 292).

20. ύμάς and the emphatic έμέ are set in immediate contrast. The opposition is not to be missed.

21. ούκ is read by D Κ Lat syr^s.c boh arm eth geo etc., οΰπω, "not yet," by p66 75 P BLTWFA0 f l f l3 etc. The third century neo-Platonist Porphyry spoke of an inconstancy at this point, and this may have given rise to the variant οΰπω (so IB). Hendriksen argues that the context so strongly favors the meaning "not yet" that the attestation of οΰπω (which is by no means meager, to say the least) should be accepted. But it is doubtful whether he allows sufficient weight to the maxim difficilior lectio potior. If the original read οΰπω, why should anyone alter it to ούκ? I cannot find any convincing answer, so I incline to the reading ούκ. Cf. also GNT, p. 426, Metzger, p. 216. NIV has

"not yet," but "not" is accepted by NRSV, GNB and REB.

22. Cf. Chrysostom, " 'How then,' saith some one, 'went He up after saying, " I go not up?" ' He said not, once for all (καθάπαξ), '1 go not up,' but, 'now,' that is, 'not with you' " (48.2; p. 174).

23. Several commentators draw attention to the parallels in 2:4 where Jesus refuses to be constrained to perform a miracle, though subsequently he does perform it, and 11:6, when, on being told of Lazarus's illness he goes up at what is the wrong time as people would think. On the present passage Barrett says, "John's ούκ άναβαίνω merely negatives the request of the brothers, and does not negative absolutely the intention of Jesus to go to Jerusalem at the proper time." Cf. Godet, "Jesus begins here by refusing to go up to Jerusalem in the sense in which He was urged to do so (that of manifesting Himself to the world), in order to go up afterwards in a wholly different sense." Temple says, "when He appears at the feast it is not as one of the pilgrim worshippers but as a Prophet." It is plain that Jesus' words refer specifically to the suggestion made by the brothers and to the whole of that suggestion. He is refusing to go up in the way they suggest, that is with a view to manifesting Himself openly. At the next Passover this would happen. In the meantime Jesus declines to do as the brothers suggest. Hoskyns thinks there is a subtle play on words, άναβαίνω is used not only of going up to Jerusalem to feasts, but also for Jesus' going up to the Father (3:13; 6:62; 20:17), and Hoskyns relates this to use of ΰψόω for the lifting up of Jesus on the cross (3:14, etc.) "In the Evangelist's thought the death and resurrection form one act of ascension or lifting up to the Father. . . . Jesus does not go up to Jerusalem to the Feast of Tabernacles, but His ascent for the salvation of the world is deferred by the will of the Father until the Time of the more significant feast of the Passover." This, however, seems too subtle. If that is what Jesus meant he certainly misled the brothers.

24. Harold Blair finds a reference to Jesus' rejection by the people: "Jesus had something to say which by its very nature must rouse hatred and antagonism; not only must his message be said, it must be acted out stage by stage until his people had seen the whole picture. There would come the inevitable end: he would be rejected. But he must be rejected on his own terms, no less. Above all he must not be rejected on a misunderstanding. 'My time', he said, 'is not yet fulfilled' " (The Ladder of Temptations [London, 1960], p. 96).

25. Notice the repetition from v. 6, "The right time for me has not yet come . . . for me the right time has not yet come," and for similar repetitions of the negative in this Gospel see 5:19, 30; 5:30 and 6:38; 5:34, 41; 13:33, 36. Similarly the Jews take up a negative of Christ and repeat it in 7:34-36; 8:21-22.

26. "Not publicly" is ού φανερώς, recalling φανέρωσαν σεαυτόν of v. 4. It does not mean "furtively," but "without being a member of a pilgrim cavalcade." The first time John records Jesus as going up to a feast it is as purifier of the Temple (2:13ff.), then as one of the pilgrims (5:Iff.), here alone for the purpose of giving a prophetic message, and finally as King (12:12ff.).

27. ώς is read by ρ⁶⁶ ρ⁷⁵ Β L WO etc., so its attestation is not meager, but a copyist may have inserted it. Metzger's committee favored putting the text in brackets to indicate doubt (p. 217).

28. The plural ΰχλοι (if this is the right reading) is found here only in John. It may denote groups of pilgrims from various places.

29. Amplified renders, "There was . . . much whispered discussion and hot disputing." There is nothing in the Greek to correspond to the last two words and they represent an unlikely interpretation. There were varied opinions, but the discussion was guarded.

30. The accusation persisted among the Jews. In the Talmud we read "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged"; two reasons are given, sorcery and "he enticed Israel to apostacy" (Sanh. 43a).

31. οΰ, άλλά represents a radical contradiction, "Not at all," "on the contrary." For οΰ see on 1:21.

32. παρρησία, which the crowd did not attain here, is the very word used in v. 26 of Jesus' way of speaking.

33. Cf. Dodd, "Choosing His own time, He goes up μεσούσης τῆς έορτής. What does this mean but a fulfillment of the prophecy, The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple' (Mal. iii.1)? It is the Day of the Lord, which according to Zech. xiv, the Feast of Tabernacles foreshadows. We have here a striking instance of the characteristic Johannine irony. On the surface, we are reading about a rustic prophet who leaves the obscurity of the provinces to appeal to the great public of the metropolis. But the words φανέρωσεν σεατόν τω κόσμω have a weight disproportionate to the ostensible situation. In their deeper meaning they are an appeal to the Messiah to manifest Himself to Israel. But if we go deeper still, they speak of the manifestation of the eternal Logos, as life and light, to the world of human kind" (IFG, p. 351). Dodd goes on to point out that here we have the Logos, in the world unknown, coming to and being rejected by his own. Lightfoot also sees a reference in this passage to Mai. 3:1, and finds in this the reason that Jesus did not go up with the pilgrims. For this chapter cf. J. R. Michaels, "The Temple Discourse in John," in R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney, New Dimensions in New Testament

Study (Grand Rapids, 1974), pp. 200-213.

34. Wayne A. Meeks regards the nature of Jesus' prophetic activity as the point at issue: "The whole argument of 7.15-24 turns on the question whether Jesus is the true prophet like Moses or whether he is the false prophet.... Jesus' hearers are placed before a dramatic decision, for while they are commanded to heed the true prophet upon pain of divine judgment (Deuteronomy 18.19), they are also commanded to put the false prophet to death (Deuteronomy 18.20; 13.6). The crowd therefore divides" (The Prophet-King [Leiden, 1967], p. 56).

35. της έορτής μεσούσης is not definite. It may mean the exact center of the feast, that is the fourth day. Or it may be a vague way of saying that Jesus came up sometime between the beginning (when the brothers wanted him to go up) and the last day, when he made his great proclamation (vv. 37ff.).

36. The imperfect έδίδασκεν is probably ingressive, "He began to teach."

37. "Get such learning" is more literally "learned letters," where γράμματα means primarily "sacred letters," that is Scripture. The term could apply to learning in general, and the article is required to make a reference to Scripture unambiguous; cf. τα ίερά γράμματα in 2 Tim. 3:15 or αί γραφαί, John 5:39. But there is no reason to think that there is an allusion to learning in general here, for the context clearly demands a meaning concerned with the understanding of Scripture. Berkeley renders "literature," and Ferrar Fenton "theology," but neither quite meets the situation.

38. The use of μή with the participle will not be to throw doubt on the proposition; μή here is really equivalent to ού. μή encroaches on the territory of ού in Hellenistic Greek, and there are few examples of ού with the participle in John (BDF 430 [1]).

39. έμή is emphatic (see on 4:32), which makes the disclaimer that he himself is responsible for the message all the more effective.

40. Augustine emphasizes the place of faith in understanding this saying: "under-standing is the reward of faith. Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand . .. what is 'If any man be willing to do His will'? It is the same thing as to believe" (29.6; pp. 184-85).

41. Cf. C. J. Wright, "It does not mean that if a man really centres his whole personality on doing the divine will as it is known to him, he will arrive at a perfectly articulated doctrinal position, or at dogmatic statements which will answer every perplexity of the logical intellect. It means that the truthful spirit comes to those truths of eternity by which Jesus lived and died. In other words, it is the truthful who recognise Him who is Truth."

42. άληθής is applied to God in 3:33; 8:26, and these are the only other places in this Gospel where a person is said to be true. This is another unobtrusive indication of the very high place John assigns to Jesus. He alone shares this quality with God.

43. "This is a lifelike touch. It was not the 'people,' but the 'Jews,' who had begun the plot; the people knew nothing of it" (Bernard).

44. It is possible that this is due to the fact that the ancient world knew large numbers of "exorcists." John writes with single-minded concentration on his theme that Jesus was the Christ, and it may well have seemed to him that to have written of Jesus casting out demons would scarcely have set forward this aim. It might also have had the disadvantage of causing some, at any rate, to class Jesus with those who cast their spells and muttered their enchantments in the endeavor to obtain power over demons. A similar motive, it might be countered, would inhibit John from recounting miracles lest Jesus be classed with the thaumaturgists. But John does not speak of "wonders"; he describes "signs." He is not interested in miracles as such, but in the spiritual significance of those he recounts. He relates incidents that point people to God, incidents pregnant with spiritual meaning. It is not immediately obvious how exorcisms are to be fitted into this pattern.

45. δαιμόνων is the word used in these passages (δαιμονίζομαι in 10:21). John uses διάβολος of Satan (8:44), of Judas (6:70), and of Satan's putting the thought of betrayal into Judas's heart (13:2).

46. Grammatically διά τοϋτο could be taken with v. 21, but most commentators agree that it belongs with v. 22. "It is contrary to Johannine usage to connect διά τοϋτο (v. 22) with θαυμάζετε, equating τοϋτο with εν έργον; and the suggestion of confusion in Aramaic (Torrey, 5) is not convincing" (Barrett). John often uses διά τοϋτο to begin a new section (cf. 5:16, 18; 6:65; 8:47; 10:17; 13:11; 16:15), but he never ends a section with it. Bernard prefers to take the expression with the preceding, and he cites 9:23; 13:11; 15:19; 16:15; 19:11 in support (on 9:23). But in all these cases διά τοϋτο heads a clause or a sentence. There is no example of John's using it to end a sentence (as, indeed, Bernard admits). Lenski argues very strongly for taking the expression with v. 21, but he does not look at the decisive argument that John never uses διά τοϋτο in this way else where. Moreover, he does not notice what seems to be the probable meaning. If the words be taken with v. 22 he thinks the meaning would be "For this reason has Moses given you circumcision, not because it originates with Moses, but with the fathers; and you circumcise." But this is surely not the meaning. Rather, Jesus is saying that the reason for Moses' prescribing of circumcision on the Sabbath was to give a precedent for such Sabbath activities as he had just engaged in. Alternatively, the words may mean that the circumcision Moses enjoined foreshadows the perfecting of "the whole man" that Jesus accomplishes. Godet sees here "the most piquant irony: 'Moses has in advance pleaded my cause before you, by making you all jointly responsible for the crime with which you charge me. . . . " '

47. J. D. M. Derrett argues that the Jews thought of circumcision as "perfecting of males" and concludes his study of this passage with "Circumcision notionally commences the perfecting of the supine male; Christ places the willing recipient of his grace on to the road indeed" (EQ, LXIII [1991], pp. 211-24).

48. Cf. Ryle: "Is it then just and fair to be angry with Me, because I have done a far greater work to a man on the Sabbath, than the work of circumcision? I have not wounded his body by circumcision, but made him perfectly whole. I have not done a purifying work to one particular part of him, but have restored his whole body to health and strength. I have not done a work of necessity to one single member only, but a work of necessity and benefit to the whole man." Field takes the view that " 'the whole of a man," in contrast to a single member," is the meaning (p. 93). Jesus may well be contrasting the cure wrought on the whole man with a work on but one of the members of the body, of which the Jews counted 248. Cf. the rabbinic saying (to justify healing on the Sabbath when life was endangered), " If circumcision, which attaches to one only of the two hundred and forty-eight members of the human body, suspends the Sabbath, how much more shall (the saving of) the whole body suspend the sabbath!" (Yoma 85b, Soncino edn., p. 421). It is possible also that there is in mind the thought that the foreskin was the seat of corruption in accordance with the adage praeputium est vitium in corpore. Jesus was doing more even than the removal of the foreskin signified when he healed "the whole man."

I. Abrahams regards Jesus' defense of his position here as "yet another instance of the Fourth Gospel's close acquaintance with Hebraic traditions" (Studies in pharisaism and the Gospels, first series [Cambridge, 1917], p. 135). He says, with respect to the whole method of Jesus' teaching as recorded in this Gospel: "My own general impression, without asserting an early date for the Fourth Gospel, is that the Gospel enshrines a genuine tradition of an aspect of Jesus' teaching which has not found a place in the Synoptics" (p. 12). Dodd also agrees that this passage shows a familiarity with rabbinic methods of reasoning (IFG,

p. 79).

49. Moule keeps open the possibility that the two imperatives in this verse are not used with strict regard for the tense (IBNTG, p. 135), though in a footnote he allows the interpretation I have adopted. Incidentally some MSS read κρίνετε in both places.

50. For παρρησία see n. 9 above. Here the thought is that Jesus is quite at home and unafraid.

51. "Really" translates άληθώς: "Do the rulers know truly?" "know for a certainty?"

52. άλλά is the strong adversative (a very common conjunction in this Gospel; see on 1:8). Abbott points out that "in most instances, a negative is expressed or implied in the context of a Johannine άλλά" (2055). In the present passage he says, "άλλά implies something quite different from that which has been suggested by the preceding context" (2057).

53. If we can insist on the force of the present tense in δταν έρχεται it will signify that at the very time that the Christ is coming people will still not know where he comes from.

54. Thus 4 Ezra 7:28; 13:32; 2 Baruch 29:3 picture the Messiah as "revealed," and 4 Ezra 13: 1ff, views him as arising out of the sea (which, of course, implies a sudden appearance). The idea appears among the rabbis, for R. Zera taught that "Three come unawares: Messiah, a found article and a scorpion" (Sank. 97a; Soncino edn. p. 659). Justin in his Dialogue reports Trypho as saying, "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" (Dial, VIII; ANF, I, p. 199; this appears to be the only reference to an anointing of the Messiah by Elijah). The apocryphal texts are discussed by R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (London, 1899), and V. H. Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah (Edinburgh, 1886). While the sudden appearance of the Messiah is the most natural understanding of the apocryphal texts cited, they do not actually say in set terms that the origin of the Messiah is unknown. But the Jews expected the Messiah's work to begin suddenly when God willed it. Thinking as they did of the Messiah as a man, this involved that he be in the world, a grown man and ready for his task, before anyone knew him for what he was. Plummer thinks that the present passage means only that the Messiah's parentage "immediate and actual" would be unknown.

55. Lightfoot points out that their declaration had implications they were not prepared to face. "To admit the truth of the doctrine of the secret origin of the Messiah is, or should be, equivalent to the admission that all human judgement about it is, and is bound to be, inadequate; and this admission the Lord's opponents are not prepared to make." Lenski comments on their whole position, "This type of reasoning has often been followed by men who imagine themselves to be superior to others. They pick some flaw, and fasten on that and refuse to consider the real and decisive facts, however great and convincing these may be."

56. That this is the correct understanding of it appears from the fact that elsewhere Jesus explicitly denies that they know him (8:19), and apparently his origin also (8:41ff.). Some commentators think the statement here is not ironical, but that Jesus is simply agreeing that his opponents do know that he comes from Nazareth. This is possible, but scarcely seems adequate. Some take Jesus' words as questions, for example Moffatt, "You know me? you know where I come from ?" or Phillips, "So you know Me and know where I have come from?" (so also Torrey, RSV, etc.; NRSV, however, makes it a statement).

57. See on 1:9 for άληθινός. This is one of the places where Kilpatrick thinks άληθής should be read (with p⁶⁹ 544)

58. The change from πέμψας in the previous verse to απέστειλαν is not significant. See on 3:17.

59. Barclay reminds us that it still does: "Either, what Jesus said about Himself is false, in which case He is guilty of such blasphemy as no man ever dared to utter; or, what He said about Himself is true, in which case He is what He claimed to be and can be described in no other terms than the Son of God. Jesus leaves us with the definite choice — we must accept Him fully or reject Him absolutely. That is precisely why every man has to decide for or against Jesus Christ."

60. The verb πιάζω is not found in the other Gospels, but John uses it 8 times.

61. "But" renders καί, which is here equivalent to καίτοι, "and yet."

62. Calvin reasons from Christ's death to ours: "From this a general doctrine must be gathered; for though we live unto the day, the hour of every man's death has nevertheless been fixed by God ... we are safe from all dangers until God wishes to call us away."

63. Goodspeed emphasizes Jesus' mastery of the situation with his rendering "and yet no one laid hands on him, because he was not yet ready." Cf. the comment of Augustine: "that is, because He was not willing. ... He meant not therefore an hour in which He should be forced to die, but that in which he would deign to be put to death" (31.5; p. 190).

64. On the combination Strachan comments: "This is a significant combination. he chief priests belong to the sect of the Sadducees and concerned themselves with the Temple worship and revenues.... They were not closely in touch with the common people. The Pharisees were the popular religious leaders and concerned themselves with the synagogue, which was the real religious centre. They were in close touch with the popular mind. It is they who hear the 'murmurs' of popular opinion regarding Jesus. These two parties combine, when ecclesiastical and religious interests are threatened, to arrest Jesus."

65. See J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London, 1969), pp. 160ff.

66. John uses υπηρέτης, a word that means "servant," not "temple guard," though of course here it means the "servants" who made up that guard. John uses the term 9 times, while each of the Synoptists uses it twice. It is found elsewhere in the New Testament only 4 times in Acts and once in 1 Corinthians, so that John's use of the term is unusual.

67. John uses the word ύπάγω, which means simply "go" or "go away." But John uses it quite often of Jesus' "going" to the Father. He does this in all 17 times, which accounts for the fact that he uses this verb far more often than does anyone else in the New Testament (32 times; Matthew has it 19 times, Mark 15 times, and Luke 5 times). Here Jesus speaks of going to him who sent him (again in 16:5). Or he may speak of going to the Father (16:10), or to God (13:3). Or he may use the term absolutely and speak simply of going away (8:21). He can speak of knowing where he is going (8:14), or of the impossibility of being followed there (8:21). Again, he links the thought of his departure with that of a return (14:28).

68. It is possible to accent είμι and understand the sense as "go," here and in other passages, namely v. 36: 14:3; 17:24, but in no case does this seem likely, είμι is an obsolete form (there is no certain example of its use in the New Testament), and few take the possibility seriously. "Where I am" is surely the meaning. Temple puts emphasis on the present tense: "It is not merely where He will be that they cannot come, but where He is now, that is, in the bosom of the Father (i,18). When He came down out of heaven (vi,38), He did not leave Heaven, but all the while is in heaven (iii, 13). For Heaven is fellowship with the Father; from that fellowship He came down, or forth, into the world, yet He was never without it." Similarly Augustine, "He came in such wise that He departed not thence; and He so returned as not to abandon us" (36.9; p. 192). Lightfoot reminds us that this expression recurs at 12:26; 14:3; 17:24, and that "whither I go" is found in 8:14,21; 13:33. He thinks it probable "that a spiritual truth is being expressed both in terms of motion ('whither I go') and in terms of rest ('where I am'). Even now, when the Lord is standing before His opponents, they cannot come where He is, because they do not share His mind. For, in spite of what He has just said in 733, it is also true that separation from Him is caused not by distance in space, but by unlikeness of heart and mind and spirit." But the thought should not be held in such a way as to obscure the reference to his death.

69. Διασπορά is occasionally used of Christians (Jas. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1). But this is very unusual and there is nothing to indicate that the word should be taken in that way here.

70. With Jews dispersed in many countries it is curious that the dispersion "among the Greeks" is singled out. It may be, as W. C. van Unnik thinks, that this gives a clue as to the circle for which this Gospel was intended: "The Jewish Diaspora was spread all over the world: it would have been possible to speak about the dispersion in general; why is not Babylon, Egypt or Rome mentioned? There is only one explanation possible: because the writer was especially interested in this part of the world" (SE, I, p. 408). If this Gospel was written with a synagogue in a Greek environment specially in mind, there would be a natural interest in preserving any saying that referred to the Greeks.

71. "It is as if he would say: the Jesus who in the days of His flesh transcended the divisions of Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee, accomplished in spiritual presence with His Church an even wider liberation, an even more signal breaking down of racial barriers. What seemed so absurd to 'the Jews' was accomplished when Jesus returned to the Father" (Wright). Cf. also N. A. Dahl: "As often in the Fourth Gospel, the misunderstanding conveys the truth: Jesus was, indeed, going to the Father, and thus also going to the Greeks — through the word of his missionary witness" (Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, ed. W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder [London, 1952], p. 126).

72. As Westcott says, "In spite of all, Christ's words cannot be shaken off. They are not to be explained away. A vague sense remains that there is in them some unfathomed meaning." Cf. also Strachan: "Sarcasm, however, often conceals a deep perplexity. The speakers are still haunted by Jesus' words."

73. For the ceremonies of Tabernacles, cf. TDNT, IV, pp. 277-78.

74. A. Edersheim describes the lulab thus: "the lulav, or palm, with myrtle and willow branch on either side of it, tied together on the outside with its own kind, though in the inside it might be fastened even with gold thread" (The Temple [London, n.d.], p. 238; ch. 14 gives a description of the way the feast was observed). R. Ishmael laid down the requirement in these terms: "Three myrtle-branches (are needful) and two willow branches and one palm-branch and one citron" (Sukk. 3:4).

75. Sukk. 3:9 records a division of opinion; the school of Hillel advocated shaking at the beginning and end of Ps. 118 and at Ps, 18:25, while the school of Shamma if avored shaking also at Ps. 118:25.

76. Bernard cites a saying of Rabbi Akiba: "Bring the libation of water at the Feast of Tabernacles, that the showers may be blessed to thee. And accordingly it is said that whosoever will not come up to the Feast of Tabernacles shall have no rain."

77. So R. Ena (Sukk. 48b). Some say that the words were sung during the procession.

78. J Sukk. 5:1 (cited from A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship [Oxford, 1960], p. 2).

79. It is possible that the eighth day was not reckoned as part of the feast at all, in which case the seventh day would be "the great day." This is supported by the consideration that the ceremonies with water and lights seem not to have continued after the seventh day (Sukk. 4:1); the Talmud, however, cites R. Judah as saying that the ceremony of water libation continued for eight days (Sukk. 48b). But against it is the difficulty of seeing how the seventh day could be called "the last day" if the eighth day was observed at all. Further, the eighth day seems to be a special day like a Sabbath (Lev. 23:36), and Sukkah 5:6 with its mention of special sacrifices for this day supports the idea that the day was marked off from the others in New Testament times. Josephus also speaks of this feast as lasting eight days (Ant. 3.245; so also 2 Macc. 10:6). The fact that there was no water poured on the eighth day may better explain Jesus' words to them that lack water. On the whole it seems that the eighth day is more probable (though Edersheim favors the seventh). Incidentally, the eighth day was the last festival day in the Jewish calendar and is called "the last good day" (Sukk. 4:8). Similarly Philo speaks of it as "a sort of complement (πλήρωμα) and conclusion of all the feasts in the year" (De Spec. Leg. 2.213; Loeb edn. p. 439).

80. Godet favors this view, and he points out that it accords with the symbolism of this Gospel in terms of Old Testament figures: "In chap. ii. He had presented Himself as the true temple, in chap, iii., as the true brazen serpent, in chap, vi., as the bread from heaven, the true manna; in chap, vii., He is the true rock; in chap, viii., He will be the true luminous cloud, and so on, until chap. xix. where He will finally realize the type of the Paschal lamb."

81. IB indicates that this punctuation "alone makes sense," but this is far too cavalier. It ignores the difficulties in the way of this view and magnifies those in the way of the other. Hoskyns points out that part of our difficulty is that both ways of dividing the text are Johannine. He thinks the reference to Jesus as the source of the water of life is primary, but he sees the believer as becoming "a well of water springing up unto eternal life" (4:14; strictly it is not the believer but the water Jesus gives that is thus described). "The explanation of the possibility of a double punctuation and of the consequent obscurity both of the grammar and of the application of the citation is that the subsidiary meaning presses upon the primary meaning in the author's mind and this jostling causes a disturbance in the construction of the Saying."

82. This punctuation has the weighty support of p⁶⁶. Patristic evidence is divided, but modern critical editions of the Greek text all seem to favor this division, as do most translations, for example, NRSV, REB, GNB. G. D. Fee examines the problem and con-eludes that we should "decide in favour of the tradition of the English translations" (ExT, LXXXIX [1977-78], p. 117). See also Juan B. Cortes, CBQ, XXIX (1967), pp. 75-86 for a strong argument for a similar conclusion.

83. In a private communication Professor G. D. Kilpatrick points out that καθώς clauses show a strong tendency to follow their main clause, though this is less marked in John than elsewhere. Thus the rule is invariable in Matthew and Mark; in Luke it is followed 13 times out of 17 and in Acts 13 times out of 15; whereas in John it is followed 19 times (including one v.l.) and transgressed 13 times (though in several of the exceptions there is a resumptive word). When καθώς introduces a quotation there is no certain example of its not following the main clause, and it is never inserted in the middle of a quotation. From this he reasons that the main clause here ends at εις έμέ, and that the quotation begins with ποταμοί. The latter point may be accepted without setting off ό πιστεύων είς έμέ. It is true that this means having the καθώς clause precede, but the usage in John is not so regular, it would seem, as to preclude this.

84. For a roughly contemporary parallel Brown cites a saying of R. Akiba from Midrash Sirfe on Deut. 11:22: "The disciple who is beginning is like a well who can give only the water it has received; the more advanced disciple is a spring giving living water." Cf. also "Eleazar b. Arak is an ever-flowing spring" ('Ab. 2:8).

85. The parallelism of this verse connects water and the Spirit: " I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants."

86. See also the discussion by Juan B. Cortes, CBQ, XXIX (1967), pp. 75-86.

87. There is a further ambiguity as to whether we should take the words "as the Scripture has said" with the preceding or the following. Chrysostom adopted the former course, but most commentators the latter. And they are surely right. There does not appear to be an Old Testament passage that explicitly foretells faith in Jesus, and in any case the emphasis is on the flowing of living water. It is this to which the words most naturally refer, and we need scarcely take the alternative seriously.

88. ὁ πιστεύων is a nominative absolute.

89. The Greek is έx της κοιλίας αύτοῦ, "out of his belly," that is "from his innermost being." Some scholars, finding great difficulty in seeing such a prophecy in Scripture, understand the "belly" to refer to Jerusalem. Thus I. Abrahams says that Zech. 14:8 is read in the synagogues in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles (on the first day). This speaks of waters going out from Jerusalem: "But as in Rabbinic tradition (Τ. B. Sanhedrin 37a, Ezekiel xxxviii.8, Jubilees viii.) Jerusalem was situated in the navel of the earth, John may be using belly as a synonym for Jerusalem" (Studies In Pharisaism, first series, p. 11). C. F. Burney sees a mistranslation of the original Aramaic. He points out that , "fountain," and ! , "belly," are identical if unpointed, and gives the meaning as.

"He that thirsteth, let him come unto Me;

And let him drink that believeth in Me.

As the Scripture hath said, Rivers shall flow forth from the fountain of living waters" (AO, p. 110).

C. C. Torrey denies that the two Aramaic words suggested by Burney could have been confused, and he says that Burney's reconstruction "is neither good Aramaic nor comes anywhere near accounting for our Grk." (Our Translated Gospels [New York and London, 1936], p. 110). He thinks that confusion has arisen between the Aramaic gawwah ("the midst of her"), and the masculine gawweh (which leads to the reading "out of his belly") (p. 111; unpointed, these forms would be identical). His translation runs, "As the Scripture says, Out of the midst of Her shall flow rivers of living water," and he appends a note explaining that "Her" is Jerusalem, and the scripture is Ps. 46:4-5. Against the whole idea is the difficulty that the New Testament sees Christ, not Jerusalem, as the source of blessing. The linguistics are not convincing enough to counterbalance this. See further Hendriksen's criticism of Torrey, and W. F. Howard's note (Μ, II, p. 475). SBk cites rabbinic evidence for the use of , "body" (which they say is equivalent to κοιλία), to mean "person." This may be significant, though it is fairly objected that this would naturally be translated σώμα rather than κοιλία. "Belly" is used in the Old Testament of the innermost feelings of a person; cf. Prov. 20:27. In Ps. 40:8 (LXX 39:9) Rahlfs accepts the reading κοιλίας (the Law is " in the midst of my belly"), though noting that Β has καρδίας; cf. v. 10. Chrysostom says of the present passage, "By 'belly' he here meaneth the heart" (51.1; p. 183; he proceeds to cite Ps. 40:10). So also Augustine: "The belly of the inner man is the conscience of the heart. Having drunk that water, then, the conscience being purged begins to live; and drinking in, it will have a fountain, will (32.4; p. 194). NRSV, GNB, Goodspeed, and others have "heart"; Phillips, "inmost heart"; Knox, "bosom." J. Behm also supports "heart" (TDNT, III, p. 788). Barclay gives Jesus' meaning as "Come to me; accept me; trust me; and I will put into you through my Spirit a new life which will give you purity and satisfaction, and which will take away all your frustrations and unsatisfied hungers and give you the kind of life you have always longed for and never had." This is true, but the words also point to the outgoing character of this life. Not only do believers receive blessing, but they become the source of blessing to others. Cf. Κ. H. Rengstorf, " In the image of the ποταμός this means that Jesus equips His disciples in such a way that the forces and fulness of life remain unrestrictedly at work, since the streams of living water flow via them into the world and are available for the thirsty so long as they believe" (TDNT, VI, p. 607). Thus the "innermost being" or the " life " is understood by many, both ancient and modern. It seems to meet the requirements of the passage better than any other suggestion thus far made.

90. Wright quotes from Bunyan,

"There was a man, the world did think him mad,

The more he gave away, the more he had."

Against this he sets the " 'rule' of the stagnant pool"

" . . . the good old rule

Sufficed! them, the simple plan,

That they should take who have the power,

And they should keep who can."

He adds: "This 'plan' defeats itself. The pool that only receives eventually dries up. The living waters that flow for the healing of others do not dry up, for their source is in the Divine life — in that 'Spiritual Rock' which is Christ."

91. Not so either, Judaism at its best. There is a saying of R. Meir: "He that occupies himself in the study of the Law for its own sake merits many things. . . . And it gives him kingship and dominion and discernment in judgment; to him are revealed the secrets of the Law, and he is made like to a never-failing spring and like to a river that flows ever more mightily" ('.Ab. 6:1). But it is significant that, whereas the rabbi speaks of the Law, Jesus speaks of the Spirit-filled life.

92. Cf. J. Behm: "the basic thought is that he who is touched by Jesus in the innermost recesses of his personal life will from thence send forth saving powers in superabundant measure (cf. v. 39; also Mt. 5:13ff.)" (TDNT, III, p. 789). In a footnote he says that the view which sees αύτοΰ as referring to Jesus and the blessing as proceeding from him "has the text very definitely against it" (n. 17).

93. Perhaps we should notice that water and spirit are combined in a number of places in the Dead Sea Scrolls, e.g., 1QS 4:20-21.

94. For a careful study of these words cf. S. H. Hooke, NTS, IX (1962-63), pp. 372-80. His conclusion is: "never until the Son of Man had ascended up where he was before, and the last Adam had become a life-giving spirit, had it been possible for the Spirit to enter into and become the life of the believer, producing in him the life of Jesus, as Paul says 'That the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh' (II Cor. iv.11)" (p. 380).

95. For John's idea of glory see on 1:14. This is his first use of δοξάζω, a verb he uses in all 23 times. In no other book does it occur more than 9 times (Luke), so it is clearly an important Johannine concept. John invariably uses it of the glorifying of the Son or the Father, and he sees this glorifying particularly in the cross.

96. Though there is nothing like this statement in the Synoptic Gospels, G. W. H. Lampe reminds us that it "is implicit in all the records" (SJT, V [1952], p. 168).

97.έx τοῦ δχλου is a partitive genitive, "some of the crowd."

98. "John often takes pleasure in reporting objections which, for his readers who are acquainted with the Gospel history, turn immediately into proofs" (Godet).

99. "But John's irony goes far deeper than this. The birth place of Jesus is a trivial matter in comparison with the question whether he is έx τῶν άνω or έx τῶν κάτω (8.23), whether he is or is not from God. Cf. 7.28 where though Jesus admits that his hearers know whence he came he emphasizes that human origins are irrelevant (άπ' έμαυτοῦ ούκ έλήλυθα), and 8.14 where Jesus denies that the Jews (truly) know whence he came — they judge κατά τήν σάρκα. See also 3.8 — no one knows whence comes and whither goes one who has been born of the Spirit. This refers primarily to Christians, but a fortiori to Jesus himself. It follows that all disputes about the birth place of the Messiah, the heavenly Man, are far wide of the point" (Barrett).

100. σχίσμα does not denote anything as thoroughgoing as a "schism" in our sense of the term. It points rather to a party or a faction, and it is used in the plural, for example, of the parties in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 1:10).

101"Wanted" translates ᾕθελον.

102. There is but one article in the expression τους αρχιερείς xαί Φαρισαίους, which points to the official body on which they sat together.

103. οὔτως puts the emphasis on the manner rather than the content of his teaching. Cf. Lenski: "The authority, majesty, and power of the speaker restrained these officers."

104. Dods draws attention to two remarkable things about this: "The testimony is notable, because the officers of a court are apt to be entirely mechanical and leave all responsibility for their actions with their superiors. Also it is remarkable that the same result should have found place with them all; for in view of the divided state of public opinion, probably five or six at least would be sent."

105. "Never did man speak so" is read by p66c p75 ^c Β L Τ W boh Or Chrys Cyr. The longer text adds "as this man speaks," but the shorter text seems preferable.

106. Cf. Barrett: "The stress appears to lie on the last word (i.e., άνθρωπος). The speech of Jesus is not the speech of a man. The constables were cowed by his superhuman authority. . . ?"

107. Cf. Barclay, "Their plea was: 'Nobody who is spiritually and academically of any account has believed on this Jesus. Only ignorant fools accept him.' It is indeed a terrible thing when a man thinks himself either too clever or too good to need Jesus Christ — and it can happen yet." It is worth noting, moreover, that in the light of 12:42 their statement is premature.

108. The choice of μή as negative is seen by Abbott as significant: "John could not have used ού without limiting the assertion to a particular crowd pointed out, whereas the meaning is 'This multitude (these and their like, this rabble) that knoweth not the law are accursed' " (2253). J. Louis Martyn comments: "That Billerbeck assembled the rabbinic teaching regarding the Am ha-Aretz in his comment on John 7:49 is no accident. That verse (cf. 9:34) is the most transparently accurate reference to the Am ha-Aretz in the whole of the New Testament" (History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel² [Nashville, 1979], p. 103, n. 150). The contempt felt for these people is expressed succinctly by the great Hillel, who said that an Am ha-Aretz "cannot be saintly" CAb. 2:6).

109. E. P. Sanders argues strongly that the Jews saw the Law as a great and good gift God had given them and that they did not really think they were saved by works (Paul and Palestinian Judaism [London, 1977]). This is a very valuable discussion, but it is doubtful whether Sanders gives sufficient attention to Jewish preoccupation with legal questions, whether or not they had fulfilled their obligation and the like. Jesus' attitude was very different.

110. While the participle γινώσκων is singular to agree with όχλος, the verb and predicate are plural, έπάρατοί είσιν. This will put some emphasis on the thought that every individual is included as accursed. Phillips translates έπάρατοί as "damned." This is the one use of the word in the New Testament.

111. For the contempt in which those expert in the Law held "the people of the land" see the passages cited in SBk, II, pp. 494-519.

112. Ryle is among those who commend rather than condemn Nicodemus: "Slow work is sometimes the surest and most enduring. Nicodemus stood firm, when Judas Iscariot fell away and went to his own place. No doubt it would be a pleasant thing, if everybody who was converted came out boldly, took up the cross, and confessed Christ

in the day of his conversion. But it is not always given to God's children to do so. . . . Better a little grace than none! Better move slowly than stand still in sin and the world!".

113. The rule is put in these words by R. Eleazar b. Pedath: "Unless a mortal hears the pleas that a man can put forward, he is not able to give judgment" (Exod. Rab. 21.3).

114. It is possible that emphasis should be placed on the present tense, "does not come." The Pharisees would surely have known where Jonah came from, and it may be that they were simply belittling the inhabitants of Galilee in their own day: "Search them out. See for yourself that a prophet never comes from people like these Galileans." It is certainly clear that the Galileans were commonly despised. There is, for example, a series of stories holding them up to mockery for their inexact speech in 'Erub. 53b. Yet the rabbis, too, could be more just than this. A saying of R. Eliezer is recorded: "There was not a tribe in Israel from which there did not come prophets" (Sukk. 27b.; Soncino edn. p. 121).

115. p⁶⁶ has a singular reading in that it inserts ό before προφήτης. If this were accepted there would be no difficulty, for the rulers would be saying that the prophet, the Messiah, does not come from Galilee. Long before the discovery of this MS Owen conjectured that this was the true reading (see Metzger, p. 219). Bultmann also favored this reading before p66 came to light, and the conjecture was regarded with some favor by C. K. Barrett (ExT, LXVIII [1956-57], pp. 176, 177). J. R. Michaels thinks that this is "almost certainly the correct text, or at the very least a true interpretation of what John really meant" (BT, 8 [1957], p. 154). G. D. Fee does not favor the reading and thinks the scribe tried to delete it (JBL, LXXXIV [1965], p. 68). E. R. Smothers argues for accepting it. The evidence of p?5 is not clear, for there is a lacuna. The editors think the article was there originally, but Β. M. Metzger is not convinced (ExT, LXXIII [1961-62], p. 202). The reading is attractive, but in view of the overwhelming evidence of all the rest of the MSS we can scarcely say more.

↑ Back to top