Commentary on John 7:53–8:11
Jesus the Temple at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7)
Vs. 1 μετὰ ταῦτα All the events recorded in John 6 take place in Galilee or the neighborhood and not in Judaea. But the notice is inserted here because it explains what follows.
περιεπάτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ The greater part of the Galilean ministry of our Lord as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels should probably be inserted here. περιεπάτει implies a lengthy ministry, and as there is no sufficient reason for assuming that the Passover mentioned in 6:4 was the one immediately preceding that of 11:55, we may assume as long an interval as the facts seem to demand. St. John and the Synoptists dovetail incidents together. He recognized the ministry in Galilee which he does not relate, and they recognize the ministry in Jerusalem (e.g. Matt 23:37; Luke 13:34).
οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in St. John: 1) distinguished from the Galileans; 2) points especially to the ruling powers of Judaism and ὁ οχλός, the crowd (see 7:32).
Vs. 2 ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων This was not in itself an unnatural way of expressing ‘the Feast of the Tabernacles’ because it was called the festival par excellence (so Smith’s Dictionary, s.v.), see Josephus, Ant. viii.4.1: ‘The feast of tabernacles happened to fall at the same time, which was celebrated by the Hebrews as a most holy and most eminent feast.’ But the expression in Philo, Sept. no. 23 refers to the Feast Day of Atonement, and not (as in Smith’s Dictionary s.v. Tabernacles, p. 1423) the Feast of the Tabernacles. This occurred five days before the Feast of the Tabernacles on the 10th of Tishri. It was sufficiently prominent to attract the notice of the heathen—see Plato, Sympos. iv.16 (Op. Moral. p. 672 sq.), who regards it as a sort of Dionysian Festival. Still if ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων alone had been used it might have referred to the Passover.
Hence, ἡ σκηνοπηγία is added. It is called this in the LXX frequently and in Josephus, and Philo, Sept. no. 24. Our Lord is present here at Tabernacles, 10:22 at the Dedication, and 5:1 at some other festival (ἑορτή, without the definite article), perhaps Purim.
Vs. 3 οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ Observe: 1) not ‘some of his brethren’?; 2) nor ‘had not a true and perfect belief.’ This is therefore fatal to James’ theory. Contrast his language here with his language to the Apostles (15:19, see Godet). There are two hypotheses remaining: 1) sons of Joseph and Mary; 2) sons of just Joseph. I prefer the latter view because 1) the charge of our Lord to St. John; and 2) tradition. His brethren here not disiples but in Acts 1:14 they are gathered with the disciples and James especially becomes a very prominent person in the Christian Church. Here apparently an historical incongruity but not a contradiction. But 1 Cor 15:7 links the two notices together strengthened by the Gospel of the Hebrews in Jerome, Vir. Ill. 2. See my Galatians, p. 260, first edition.
καὶ οἱ μαθηταί σου Some perhaps resident in Jerusalem, but it may be others going to the Festival (4:45). It would be a great opportunity to manifest himself. What is the force of καί here? I would not take καί with οἱ μαθηταί but keep it separate i.e. besides participating in the festival you may also manifest yourself to your disciples.
Θεωρήσουσιν See Winer, sec. xli p. 304. Comp. e.g. John 17:2 denoting continuity.
Vs. 4 γάρ τι ἐν κρυπτῷ ποιεῖ καὶ ζητεῖ αὐτὸς ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι (the correct order). The contrast then is between τι and αὐτός. If he wishes himself to be known, he should not conceal his work. Note the reading αὐτό B, D, Memph, Theb. (not א).
ἐν παρρησίᾳ in public. See Col 2:15. Generally used in its stricter sense with εἶναι.
Vs. 5 ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτόν Note their embarrassment, but also their familiarity. Their hesitation appears from the context. See Godet. The εἰ of vs. 4 does not imply disbelief, but simply suspension of belief.
Vs. 6 Ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμὸς οὔπω πάρεστιν, ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὁ ὑμέτερος πάντοτέ ἐστιν ἕτοιμος. ‘I will manifest myself when the time for manifesting myself comes. As for you one time is as safe as another. You have no persecution to fear, and no glory to gain.’ To be compared with 2:3—Jesus’ response to his mother. The same desire, to make our Lord manifest Himself, and in both cases a similar rebuke is administered and in similar language. Comp. οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου in 2:4, and yet here as there, the Lord apparently complies. We must look for the same implication (?).
‘You ask me to go up and take part in the great festivity of the year, to manifest myself to the world and to claim the glory which is mine. My hour is not yet come. This is no time of festivity for me. The great feast in which I shall take part is yet distant. The season of triumph has not arrived. I go not up to take part in this feast.’
Vs. 8 Various readings to be noticed.
εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν T.R. adds ταύτην which must be omitted.
οὐκ T.R. has οὔπω.
And in vs. 10 εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνέβη B.M.T. and T.R. have τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνέβη εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν. All these changes must be made in deference to the MSS, irrespective of the sense.
ἐγὼ οὔπω ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην The ταύτην becomes emphatic in the correct reading that excludes it from the earlier passage. Comp. Luke 9:51. If this explanation is correct, the οὔπω would be out of place, and in fact originates in an entire misapprehension of the meaning, which misapprehension has created the difficulty. I have remarked on two of the three various readings and now take the third.
The alteration in order seems very slight, but it is very important. They went up to the feast. He simply went up. So far as regards the festival his attendance was worthless. He seems not to have arrived until after the festival had begun. He does not appear in public (and the festival was especially a public festival, a man could not keep it without being observed) until the middle of the time. He had therefore not fulfilled the injunction of the Law, had not kept the festival.
This seems to be an adequate explanation of the passage. At all events we must look for some meaning that is hidden beneath the surface, such a meaning being in entire accordance with the general tenor of this Gospel. On the other hand, the prima facie interpretation that exposed our Lord’s words to a charge of inconsistency (so Porphyry) or deceit (as some moderns have ventured to say), is clearly not so accordant. If there is one thing that one places above all others, it is that the Evangelist is drawing a portrait of a man in which he is concerned that there is no untruth, and no vacillating or shadow of turning. And the prima facie interpretation supposes a blot on this portrait so obvious, so palpable that it is inconceivable that the painter was blind to it (see 11:4).
This remark is equally applicable whether we suppose the Gospel to have been written by St. John, according to the belief of the Church and all antiquity, or to be a forgery. I will only add in conclusion that these very obscurities, these very perplexities (see e.g. 2:8 (?)sq.) are a valuable testimony to the veracity of the witness and therefore to the authenticity of the Gospel.
Vs. 10 Not ἐν κρυπτῷ but ὡς ἐν κρυπτῷ. Not as one of the great processions of pilgrims (comp. 1:14; Luke 2:44), but in the quiet way in which a man might go who wishes to escape observation, and pass unnoticed. ὡς softens the expression. It describes the manner rather than the motive.
Vs. 12 γογγυσμὸς not here denoting complaint. It is indicative of a sound, like murmuring, a suppressed under-current of language, so again vs. 32 γογγύζοντο. See 2 Sam 19:10 (not the LXX). The Attic is ζονθορυσμός, here in its primary sense with παρρησίᾳ.
Ἀγαθός ἐστιν, not ὁ Χριστὸς ἐστι. They did not dare to venture so far as this. Notice it is τὸν ὄχλον not τὸν λαόν, the crowd, not ‘the people.’
Vs. 13 οὐδεὶς ‘We are the ones who were disposed to believe in his claims, for those who disbelieve do not need to suppress their disbelief.’
Vs. 14 τῆς ἑορτῆς μεσούσης The festival lasted seven days or (including the holy convocation at the end) eight days. See below on vs. 37 τῇ μεγάλῃ τῆς ἑορτῆς. The view of Wiesler (Synops. pp. 279, 299) that this was a Sabbath day depends on the year A.D. it took place, and he seems to aim at greater definiteness in his chronology than the circumstances allow.
τὸ ἱερόν here but ναός Matt 23:35; Rev 11:1.
Vs. 15 γράμματα The teaching of the schools. So γραμματεύς. See Acts 26:24 τὰ πολλά σε γράμματα, much learning. This is said of St. Paul, but of the Twelve we have Acts 4:13 that they were ἀγράμματοί εἰσιν καὶ ἰδιῶται (compare the common Greek sense of ἰδιῶται). They had attended no rabbinical schools, had no university degree, or as we might say, had no diploma for teaching.
Vs. 17 ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν The English translation is inadequate. ‘Has a will to do the will, and so is in union with God’s will.’
Γνώσεται because he is en rapport with Christ’s teaching, because he like our Lord is seeking God’s will, God’s glory, and not his own. Therefore, his spirit reads the Spirit of Christ.
Vs. 18 οὗτος ἀληθής ἐστιν The sense of ἀληθής in the New Testament, and especially in St. John’s Gospel. It comprises the whole sphere of moral duty, refers to acts and character, as well as the words and hence the opposite of ἀδικία. See references in Meyer e.g. Rom. 1:18; 2:8.
Vs. 19 This passage is unhindered by an explanation. Its explanation is found in the incidents that occurred preceding his visit to Jerusalem, see 5:16. Note the naturalness of this.
Note vss. 19sq. οὐ Μωϋσῆς ἔδωκεν and again in vss. 22sq. Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν. Two different arguments here: 1) You who break the Law are not the persons to complain of a breach of the Law; 2) One ordinance supercedes another. The Sabbath according to the Law itself is made to give way to circumcision.
Μωϋσῆς the form of the name. Hebrew מֹשֶׁה, hence commonly in Greek, especially in profane sources. See Exod. ii.10 וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמֹו מֹשֶׁה וַתֺּאמֶר כּי מִן־הַמַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ׃. Name related to his being drawn out of water. The form Μωϋσῆς comes from the Alexandrian Jews anxious to give a Coptic derivation. But see Josephus, Ant. ii. 9.6. See Gesenius but do not trust his references without investigation.
Vs. 20 Δαιμόνιον ἔχεις ‘you are infatuated.’ Comp. 10:20. Some evil spirit is persecuting you, placing these strange thoughts into your mind.
Vs. 21 πάντες θαυμάζετε διὰ τοῦτο For the combination καὶ ἐθαύμασεν διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν see Mark 6:6, and see Rev. 17.7 Διὰ τί ἐθαύμασας.
Vs. ٢٢ Here we have διὰ τοῦτο not διὰ τὸ ἔργον, for in this sense we should rather have expected δι’ αῦτο. On the other hand, nothing can be made of διὰ τοῦτο if it goes with what follows. There are two ways of taking it: 1) connecting it with οὐχ ὅτι—‘for this reason,’ not ‘because’ etc. But though διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι is a common expression διὰ τοῦτο οὐχ ὅτι is not. The negative makes all the difference, and it makes no sense. 2) detaching οὐχ ὅτι . . .’ ‘I do not say that. . . . etc.’ But then διὰ τοῦτο is quite out of place, and has no meaning. It cannot refer to anything. Note that א omits διὰ τοῦτο.
οὐχ ὅτι seems to be inserted in order to anticipate a possible objection. True, circumcision was older than Moses, was inherited from the patriarchs. This only makes the case stronger. The older institution overrides the Mosaic ordinance. A fortiori the principle of charity, which is previous to any ordinance, is even more ancient. On οὐχ ὅτι see e.g. Phil 3:12; 4:11, 17.
ἐν σαββάτῳ etc. It was universally allowed that a son of a Hebrew could be circumcised on a Sabbath day, but different teachers decided in different ways as to whether it was right to circumcise the son of a Gentile. See the references in Wettstein and John Lightfoot. ‘Circumcision supercedes Sabbath’ is the rabbinical way of putting the maxim. The argument of our Lord here is found in some rabbis, e.g. in a saying attributed to Rabbi Eliezer the son of Azariah. See Wettstein.
Vs. 23 ἵνα μὴ λυθῇ etc. The Law was read every seventh year at the Feast of the Tabernacles (Deut 31:10sq.). This might possibly have been a sabbatical year, but there is nothing very distinctive or special in the allusion here, and no such reference is needed. There seems however to have been given a special prominence to the reading of the Law at the Feast of the Tabernacles generally (see e.g. Neh 8:18).
ὅλον ἄνθρωπον ὑγιῆ ἐποίησα Both words are emphatic. Comp. Col 2:11 ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός. See Godet, p. 173.
Vs. 24 κρίνετε do not go on judging; κρίνατε judge once for all; τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν, which is one.
Vs. 26 μήποτε Can it possibly be that?
Vs. 27 ὁ δὲ Χριστός etc. Perhaps founded on Is 53:8, ‘His generation who shall declare. . . .’ On the prevailing belief that obscurity should hang over the person of the Messiah until he was manifested in some remarkable way, see Justin Martyr, Dialog. sec. 9,110.
Vs. 28 ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ Perhaps added with a tacit allusion to Mal 3:1. The Lord whom they sought had suddenly come to his temple, and they hesitated and questioned.
Κἀμὲ οἴδατε Must be treated as an interrogative, or at least ironical. Comp. 8:14.
καί ‘and yet,’ as in vs. 30 καὶ οὐδεὶς etc.
ἀληθινός genuine, real, not ἀληθής that is used in 8:26. The two passages point to the difference between the two. ἀληθινός describes the intrinsic passive character possessed in contrast to the counterfeit, ἀληθής the outward active manifestation of the character and so its antonym is lying. Hence ἀληθής may be used for ἀληθινός but not conversely.
Vs. 30 καὶ οὐδεὶς and yet no one. No miracle intended, but the over-ruling providence of God asserted in the natural actions of men.
Vs. 31 μήτι (B.M.T. and T.R.) as μήποτε in vs. 26.
Vs. 35 εἰς τὴν Διασποράν See Franckel, Morals(?)schrift 1853, p. 413. The word ‘Diaspora’ is abstract before it is concrete. In a concrete sense, it is always the Jewish (or Christian) Dispersion. See Judith 5:19; and James 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1. It does not refer to the heathen scattered abroad. It has two nuances: 1) either the dispersed nation itself Ps 146:2 οἰκοδομῶν ῾Ιερουσαλὴμ ὁ Κύριος, καὶ τὰς διασπορὰς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἐπισυνάξει; Isaiah 49:6 καὶ εἶπέ μοι· μέγα σοί ἐστι τοῦ κληθῆναί σε παῖδά μου τοῦ στῆσαι τὰς φυλὰς Ἰακὼβ καὶ τὴν διασπορὰν τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἐπιστρέψαι· ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε εἰς διαθήκην γένους, εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν τοῦ εἶναί σε εἰς σωτηρίαν ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς. See also 2 Macc 1:27 ἐπισυνάγαγε τὴν διασπορὰν ἡμῶν, ἐλευθέρωσον τοὺς δουλεύοντας ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι, τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους καὶ βδελυκτοὺς ἔπιδε, καὶ γνώτωσαν τὰ ἔθνη, ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν. 2) or of the nation among which they are dispersed, 1 Pet 1:1 and here.
τῶν Ἑλλήνων therefore is not = Ἑλληνιστων, a sense which it never has in the New Testament. See the v.l. in Acts 9:29; 11:20. ‘Greeks and Grecian’ in the A.V. But whether Ἑλλήνων means: 1) Greeks strictly speaking as opposed to the Babylonian dispersion, or other dispersions (so John Lightfoot, see his remarks), or 2) it means Gentiles e.g. Mark 7:2 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἦν Ἑλληνίς, Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει (the Syriac appears to have Aramaean for Ἑλληνίς here, but this may be doubtful). The latter seems more in accord with New Testament usage. The word has lost its sense of nationality and suggests that of religion, thus οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην (Gal 3:28); τῶν Ἑλληνιστῶν πρὸς τοὺς Ἑβραίους (Acts 6:1).
Three remarks may be made respecting this incident in John: 1) The idea may have had a point of departure in the incident of the festival. The 70 bullocks, see Num 39:17sq. were explained to represent the 70 nations. See John Lightfoot, Temple Service I, p. 975; 2) The Evangelist respects this saying, because there was a divine irony over-ruling it. It was an unconscious prophecy said in mockery, like Caiaphas’s words in 11:50; 3) St. John, as the head of the Greek (Gentile) church takes special notice of what refers to Gentiles (e.g. 12:20).
Vs. 37 Ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ μεγάλῃ τῆς ἑορτῆς What is meant by this is: 1) the last of the seven days, i.e. strictly speaking the last of the feast; 2) the eighth day, the holy convocation that follows on the seven. There seems however to have been no special sanctity about the seventh day. The first was apparently much more important than the seventh. Though Buxtorf, Sym. Jud. xvi, p. 327 gives a pre-eminence to it in his descriptions of the modern Jewish celebrations of the Feast of the Tabernacles, so too Groddeke (?) in Light xviii, p. 534. On the other hand, it is supposed that the eighth day did not properly belong to the feast, which later was seven days. But though the festival is sometimes spoken of as a seven day festival, and the eighth day is not named (cf. e.g. Deut 16:13sq; Ezek 45:25), yet elsewhere the eighth day is regarded as part of the festival and a special prominence given to it. See Num 39:35; Zech 8:18. See 2 Macc 10:6 καὶ μετ᾿ εὐφροσύνης ἦγον ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ σκηνωμάτων τρόπον, μνημονεύοντες ὡς πρὸ μικροῦ χρόνου τὴν τῶν σκηνῶν ἑορτὴν ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς σπηλαίοις θηρίων τρόπον ἦσαν νεμόμενοι. Cf. Josephus, Ant. iii.4; Succah, iv.4, 8, 9; v.6. B.T. Succah 48.1 and on Jewish interest generally, see Meyer and the discussion below.
On the eighth day especially see Ewald, Altest. p. 404. On this eighth day the people packed up their tents and repaired to the Temple. Note the symbolism. The living in tents symbolized the wilderness life, itself a deliverance from bondage. But the eighth and last day would be taken to signify the end of these wanderings, when they settled in the land of promise (see Dachs, Succah p. 368). See Philo, Sept. sec. 24, p. 298M, and the discussion in Light, xviii, p. 492. See especially Iken. In 1rst ed. New Test. II, p. 377, 379, 380, and Monuments p. 377; and John Lightfoot I, p. 979.
Vs. 37 εἱστήκει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἔκραξεν λέγων To be taken with 8:12 Πάλιν οὖν αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν, the pericope 8:1-11 being omitted.
Ἐάν τις διψᾷ etc., the ceremonial. Not suggested in the Law but still a most important part of this festival. The libation of water (see Lightfoot, I, p. 977; and Succah iv.1,9.10; v.1). Water is taken from the pool of Siloam, in a golden pitcher, through the water gate to its altar, a direct line from the stream. See Succah v.1. Succah iv.1 speaks of hymns and praise on the 8th day, but see R. Jehuda in iv.9 (see Gem. Hier. Light, xviii, p. 472 and p. 466); comp. Tosephta Succah iii.3 (xviii, p. 384). There was a discussion about whether this part of the ceremonial was part of the Law or not (Gem. Hier. p. 468).
As for the spiritual meaning Gem. Hier. p. 480 and see Is 12:3. In Tosephta iii.4 (ib. p. 384) the ceremony is connected with the prophecy in Ezek 47. See passages in Wettstein also.
Thus it seems to have a Messianic bearing. It spoke of a stream of running, life-giving water that should issue from the Temple rock, and serve the nations. It recalled and remembered the type of water issuing from the rock smitten by Moses, which rock St. Paul understood to be the Christ (1 Cor 10:4 γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός).
And this is the force of the Lord’s declaration here. These ceremonials were σκιά, shadows of the coming things. He was the true antitype, the living rock from which issued the perennial stream, the fountain coming forth from the house of the Lord (Joel 3:18), the fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Zech 13:1), the living water going out from Jerusalem (Zech 14:8), ‘the waters going from under the threshold of the house’ such that everything should live whither the current cometh (Ezek 47:1, 9).
Vs. 38 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ The common interpretation. The grammar involves 1) an anacoluthon ὁ πιστεύων . . . ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος. This in itself is no serious objection (see e.g. 6:39) if the sense required it, BUT, 2) the correspondence between the type and the antitype clearly requires that the living water should issue from Christ, not from the believer.
It is said indeed that the believer himself becomes a new source of life to others. This is true, but it has nothing to do with this context. For not only does the correspondence of the type and the antitype require it, but the very expressions in the passage itself: 1) πινέτω—drinking; 2) ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτόν (vs. 39); 3) the quotation. There is nothing to which the words ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ can well refer. An apocryphal saying is out of the question. Our Lord never quotes such passages as Is 12:3 or 44:3 where the believer is spoken of as the recipient. These texts do not at all meet the case. Is 58:11 is nearer in sense, where the faithful himself is compared to a never-failing well, but this is wide in expression. Alford (following others) seems to have the right idea, referring to the prophetic passage describing the stream issuing from Jerusalem. But he does not see that these sorts of passages almost require that the reference be to the giver, not the receiver. With the corrected punctuation we have πινέτω ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ, corresponds with ὃ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτόν (vs. 39). The Spirit flows from Him, as the living water from the rock, and they drink of the stream and they receive the Spirit.
Origen, Opus II, p. 779E refers ῥεύσουσιν etc. to the believer, but Chrysostom (see Tisch.) is evidently aware of different modes of punctuation. Cureton Syriac is wanting. Peshitto and Egyptian seem to defend our punctuation, like the Greek.
αὐτοῦ the rock, or the Temple as prefiguring Christ. He is probably not quoting any one passage (the one that’s nearest Zech 14:8) but gives the meaning of several. The Lord might have pointed to the rock, thus making the reference at once intelligible.
κοιλίας Referring primarily to the hollow center of the rock, but secondarily to the Christ. Of κοιλίας as the seat of affections, nothing in the LXX, but ref. to Plutarch, Epictetus, Polybius, etc.
ὕδατος ζῶντος a double meaning; comp. 4:10, 11. On the first meaning see e.g. Gen 26:19 καὶ ὤρυξαν οἱ παῖδες Ισαακ ἐν τῇ φάραγγι Γεραρων καὶ εὗρον ἐκεῖ φρέαρ ὕδατος ζῶντος.
Vs. 39 περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος The gift of the Spirit is spoken of as ἐξέχεεν ‘poured out.’ Acts 2:17, 33; 10:45; Tit 3:6. Here again the metaphor is much better perceived by referring αὐτοῦ to the divine source himself. Compare 15:26 ὃ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται.
οὔπω γὰρ ἦν Πνεῦμα Not the Spirit as the source for this is eternally existent, but the Spirit as manifested, as poured out; comp. Acts 19:2 οἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτόν Ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ εἰ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον ἔστιν ἠκούσαμεν.
Additions: 1) ἅγιον (both B.M.T. and T.R.). It has very considerable support but wanting in some key authorities. Obviously, an interpolation; 2) δεδομένον; 3) επ’ αὐτός, both even more obviously interpolations.
Vs. 40 ὁ προφήτης comp. 1:21, 25; 6:14; Deut 18:15. The Apostles identified the prophet predicted by Moses with our Lord (Acts 3:22; 7:37). But the national expectation generally seems to have looked on him as a forerunner or a companion of Messiah.
The truthfulness of the narrative here: 1) the mode of expression, ὁ προφήτης. The popular idea has to be supplied to explain it; 2) the fact that the prophet and the Christ are separated, even though to the Christian Apostle himself they would be identified.
Vs. 42 ἡ γραφή Micah 5:2 (Bethlehem); Isaiah 11:1; 23:5, David. It has been strangely argued (de Wette and others), that the birth at Bethlehem was unknown to St. John. This admits of direct refutation: 1) if the inference is good for one clause, it must be good for the other. Therefore, the Evangelist must also have been ignorant of the descent from David. No one would venture to assert this. Thus the argument proves nothing, because it proves too much; 2) the fallacy of the argument is shown by parallel instances e.g. Luke 4:22 Οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὗτος; though Luke himself knows Joseph is not his father. The parallel is exact.
On the other hand, I should argue for the passage itself (independently of other considerations) that the Evangelist did know of the birth in Bethlehem, for he puts very prominently forward the prophecies about Bethlehem, prophecies generally believed to point to the Messiah. For this reason alone, it is very awkward to dispose of, if they were not fulfilled in the birthplace of our Lord, and yet he says not a word in refutation of this interpretation. It is clear, therefore, that he considered these questioners had got hold of a truth, though they were at a loss because they did not know how it was fulfilled in Jesus.
ἔρχεται ‘Is destined to come.’ The present tense denotes the certainty. It is used especially of Christ’s advent (1 Thess 5:2 and where he is called ὁ ἐρχόμενος Matt 11:3; John 1:15, 27; 3:31; 6:14?) and of his attendants e.g. Elijah (Matt 17:10 ὅτι Ἡλείαν δεῖ ἐλθεῖν πρῶτον).
Vs. 45 Ἦλθον etc. When? Probably synchronous with and not subsequent to the event related in the last paragraph as e.g. John 18:25-27. The case before us is an exact parallel. The sending of the attendants is related (see vs. 32). The Evangelist is relating two synchronous chains of incidents, and he takes one link of each in succession.
Thus then 8:12 Πάλιν οὖν αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν etc. is part of the links as continuous with 7:44.
πρὸς τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ Φαρισαίους also vs. 32 οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (not as T.R. which reverses the order of the two nouns). They were two distinct classes, but in this case they have made common cause, and are accordingly regarded as a combined body in the two passages.
Vs. 47 Here again as above in vs. 32. The Pharisees are the active turbulent people, the prime movers. The ‘rulers’ are diligent to follow their dictation and put themselves at the head of the opposition to our Lord. Comp. 11:46, 47.
ὁ ὄχλος οὗτος The rabbinical phrase is am ha’aretz of the uninstructed multitude, as opposed to the wise, the educated few. See the references in Wettstein and Lampe. Targum Euma (?) on Hos 4:14.
ἐπικατάρατοί i.e. they came under the curses of Deut 27 etc. (Ewald). See the interpolation in D after Luke 6:4.
Vs. 50 πρότερον 3:1sq.
νυκτός Must be omitted here (against T.R. and B.M.T.).
Vs. 51 ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ See Deut 1:16sq.
τὸν ἄνθρωπον Comp. 2:25.
Vs. 52 Μὴ καὶ σύ etc. Said contemptuously, ‘We did not know that God sent a Galilean; for a Galilean too you must be, for no one but a Galilean could be favorably disposed towards this Jesus.’ The Galileans, a tumultuous people, were constantly intrigued with rumors of false Messiahs.
ἐραύνησον See Tischendorf, Prob. pp. xliv, xlix (ed. 7). This is the general reading of א as well as A, B, C.
ἐγείρεται א, B, D, T, Lact., Syr. Peshit., Arm. have this reading which is undoubtedly right, but T.R., B.M.T. have ἐγήγερται.
It is said that the Evangelist has erred because: 1) several ancient prophets were from Galilee (at all events Elijah and Jonah were from Galilee); 2) But this is answered by saying the mistake is not the Evangelist’s but the speakers.’ In their indignity they were either forgetful or unscrupulous. But the objection and the answer are beside the text. They apply to ἐγήγερται but not to ἐγείρεται. And it is surprising that critics reading ἐγείρεται should entertain such a view. There is no presumption from Scripture, and there is the very contrary of a presumption from the ignorance of the Galilean people, that we are to expect a prophet from Galilee (see the Talmudic writers). It is the Galilee of the present, not the Galilee of the past with which the speakers are concerned. We are not however to take προφήτης as ὁ προφήτης.
[Lightfoot, with the vast majority of New Testament scholars in the last 150 years, realized that John 7:53–8:11 was not an original part of this Gospel, and therefore he skips to 8:12 at this point, but first gives his rationale for doing so. Even though the material in this excursus comes later in the John manuscript, it is better to put it here, maintaining the numerical order, since searchers will look here for his comments. (BW3)]
Excursus: The Question of the Authenticity of John 7:53–8:11
The pericope about the woman caught in adultery, found most often at John 7:53–8:11, cannot be genuine, both on grounds of external and internal evidence.
External Evidence: 1) it is wanting in the following important witnesses—א, A, B, C, T, L, X, Δ, 33. Of these there is a gap in A, C, but the space is insufficient for the pericope. In L and Δ there is more than enough space; 2) it is also wanting in various versions—Peshitto, Harcleon Syr., Memphis, Theb., Goth. Arm. On this see Tregelles; 3) Origen in his John Commentary (iv, p. 299) runs on continuously from 7:52 to 8:12. Tertullian, de pud. 6 would not have made the statement he did if he had this passage in his text. Of the other Greek Fathers, while Chrysostom betrays knowledge of the existence of this story (viii, p. 306), neither he nor Eusebius, Theodosius of Mop., Cyril of Alex. (see Cramer’s Catena), nor Apollin. recognize it as part of the text of the Fourth Gospel. The testimony of Eusebius is especially important, as a collector and sifter of manuscripts. Yet the natural influence from his discussion of Papias is that he himself had not seen this pericope in any manuscript. On the possible exception of Euthymius, Sac. XII, see Tregelles, but it is quite clear from the evidence that it was not generally known or recognized by the Greek Fathers for many centuries after Papias. In short there is no evidence that it appeared in St. John’s text before the fourth century. When it finally does occur, it appears in three or four different places and with numberless lexical variants, which is always a suspicious sign, especially when it cannot be explained by any known text critical means or interpretations of how it could have been omitted or moved.
Internal Evidence. The awkwardness of the connection between 7:52 and 53, and 8:11 and 12. On the fact that it interrupts the discussion of the elements of the Feast of Tabernacles, specifically the water and light images, see the commentary below. The phrase at the beginning of the pericope is very awkward in connection with what went before Καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ (7:53), and 8:12 hardly fits with what has just been said in 8:11. One would have to ask—To whom is vs. 12 addressed (the woman, the crowd) when it says Πάλιν οὖν αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς? But at this juncture, the crowd, the elders, the woman had left. There was no one there. Furthermore, John 7:53–8:11 has no bearing on the leading ideas of St. John’s Gospel. Every incident, every comment in this Gospel tends to bring out the Person of Christ.
Then too we must consider the style of 7:53–8:11. St. John very often omits all connecting particles. When he inserts one, it is most frequently οὖν, as here in 8:12, 13, 19 etc. But in 7:53–8:11 all the sentences are strung together, οὖν is not once used, and the common connecting particle is δέ. Individual expressions in 7:53–8:11 are not often St. John’s language e.g. πᾶς ὁ λαὸς, καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς, οἱ γραμματεῖς καί etc. and many individual words e.g. ἐπέμενον, ἀναμάρτητος, κατελείφθη etc. These specific examples are however much less conclusive than the general different structure of the sentences.
But though not part of St. John’s Gospel, it appears to be an authentic narrative. Note its affinity to the Synoptic Gospels and their thrust. For example, the attempt of the scribes and the Pharisees to entangle our Lord in a question related to the Mosaic Law. His mode of dealing with their machinations, not by a direct reply, but by turning the problem back on themselves e.g. his moral treatment of the subject: 1) his declining to judge the case as an earthly judge; 2) his conviction of the moral hypocrisy of the woman’s accusers; 3) his holding out the hope, even there, of forgiveness.
But whence, how, and when was it interpolated into this Gospel?
WHENCE? It appeared in Papias and in the Hebrew Gospel (see Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii.39).
HOW AND WHERE? Perhaps it was added in the margins as a comment on 8:15, ‘But I judge no one’ (as suggested by Ewald, p. 271). The older manuscripts were written in single columns. Hence it was slipped into the text here in most manuscripts, but in at least two (see 225) after vs. 36 and in another at the end of the Gospel, set apart. In 69 and others (see Tisch.) it occurs at the end of Luke 21. The link of connection is different in the two cases. In St. Luke the connection is historical/chronological—the time and scene, and doctrinal—the function of Christ not to condemn. It is recognized by Jerome, who says, ‘In Evangel. . . . in multi et Graeci et Latinis codiatus etc.’ The Apostl. Constit. (perhaps the beginning of the fourth century) also recognizes it but it is by no means clear that they did not take it from Papias or from the Hebrew Gospel. It is commented on, at length, by St. Ambrose, Ep. xxv.II, p. 892 and though he does not mention St. John’s Gospel he would hardly have assumed it was from elsewhere. He does not seem to be aware of its doubtful provenance. This then may be regarded as the first distinct reference to the passage as in St. John’s Gospel. It seems however to have been received in the West prior to in the East, for D is connected with Western contexts. Eventually it was accepted in: 1) Greek; 2) Latin; 3) Syrian; 4) Armenian; 5) Egyptian Churches. Afterwards it got into Syrian Testaments in different form (see Bible and Orient, ii.53, p. 169). It appears in the Jerusalem Syriac lectionary and is read on the day of St. Pelagia (see Adler, p. 190). Augustine’s comment (de conj. adult. ii.7), plausible in itself, does not at all meet the circumstances of the case. In particular it does not satisfy either: 1) the external evidence (its absence in the early authorities), or 2) the internal evidence. Nor does it account for the difference in style or the confusion of sense.
The first extant manuscript in which it appears is D (sixth century). This accords with the character of D. It inserts traditions, some apparently authentic. For example, compare its rendering of Matt 20:28; Luke 6:4 (on the Sabbath); John 7:56; Acts 5:15, 39; 10:25; 11:1, 26; 12:10. Some of these traditions reflect local knowledge, so one infers Palestinian tradition. One must also consider the connection of D with the Latin manuscripts. The distinctives in these different texts may be explained either by different translations from the Hebrew Gospel or by interpolation from the version of the story given by Papias. The mistake of ecce homo being the motive of Christ stooping down and writing on the ground. His character was above feeling shame whereas other men were beneath feeling shame. On the motif of Jesus refusing to interfere compare Matt 15:22 and Luke 12:14 (‘who made me a judge’). The whole lesson is a contrast between God’s pure abhorrence of sin and man’s hypocritical allowance, between the depth of God’s mercy and the hardness of man’s judgment.
[In view of the great popularity and Christian use of the story, and because he thinks it may be an authentic story about Jesus, just not a canonical one, Lightfoot proceeds to comment on the passage and its textual criticism at some length. (BW3)]
Commentary on John 7:53–8:11
The question about the two textual traditions of the story is do they represent Papias and the Hebrew Gospel? I will take D as the basis for the exposition.
Vs. 53 Καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ A notice not explained by anything that went before it in this Gospel. Who went? The people gathered in the Temple for the Festival (7:37-44)? The chief priests and the Pharisees (7:45–8:52)? It should be the latter, but the contrast with Jesus is thus greater, and out of place here. Seemingly, in the original context, it was the dispersion of the multitude, perhaps after some discussion held, or some miracle wrought.
Vs. 1 εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν the only mention of it in St. John, but no argument can be founded on this fact. E.g. look at 18:1, though certainly it has no place there. Comp. Luke 21:37, 38. Historically, this is doubtless the right place for the incident. The narrative from which the interpolator took the story must have stood so.
Vs. 5 ἐν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ Μωσῆς etc. There is some difficulty with this. In Deut 22:22, the punishment of stoning is ordered in the case of a betrothed virgin. Vs. 22 also says that an adulteress (purposely so called) is to be put to death. Perhaps the proximity of the latter story to the former and the similarity of the offense suggests the same punishment, but the rabbinical influence [here] is not the natural inference from Deut. discussions. And later (at all events) it is said to be a rabbinical maxim, but where no special mode of death was named, hanging (strangalato) can be understood. Lücke quotes Mamonides Sanhedr. vii.1 on this, but this I cannot verify. Alford got his reference to Mish. Sanhed. x from Lücke, and it responds to something, but the quote is different. See Lightfoot II, p. 563—if a daughter of Israel commits adultery after she is married, she must be strangled; if she is only betrothed, she must be stoned. The ordinances in the Mishnah however seem to make the distinction that stoning is the punishment for the one offense, strangling for the other. The references in the Mishnah are Sanhedr. vii.9; x.1, 6.
But: 1) our authority is probably older, on any showing, and as well informed as these rabbinical writers. And we find in other cases the authorities disputing among themselves and most agreed as to what the penalty was in other special crimes; 2) but this case may be an example of an act by a betrothed woman and not a married woman (see Philo, de Spec. Leg. sec. 12, II, p. 311M).
The Koran (see Sale, Koran I, p. 54, 88). Mohammed may have gotten the idea from this incident, but it does not follow that he had before him the Gospel of St. John, because he made large use of the Apocryphal Gospels.
Vs. 6 τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγον πειράζοντες αὐτόν etc. Omitted by D here, but it has a similar notice in vs. 4. In what did the tempting or trial consist? 1) The word πειράζοντες is used in Matt 16:1; Mark 8:11; Luke 4:16, tempt him to work a sign; 2) Matt 19:3; Mark 10:2 tempt him to pronounce on divorce in cases of adultery; 3) Matt 22:18; Mark 12:15; Luke 20:23, the tribute money; 4) Matt 22:35, which is the great commandment. In the first case there is no malice or treachery. It is simply an attempt to elicit his Messiahship (our Lord himself is said to test John 6:6). In the other cases, there is evil intent to entangle Him either with the Mosaic Law 2) and 4), or to entangle him with the civil government 3). Any entanglement with the civil government seems out of the question. It seems clear then that in John 7:53–8:11 we are talking about an attempt to entangle him with the Mosaic Law.
What then? He must either confirm the Law or abrogate it. The former would be contrary to his mission of mercy. The latter would condemn Him in the eyes of all who are zealous for the Law. The ‘testers’ doubtless reckoned on the former and at all events hoped, somehow or other (perhaps with no very definite view as to the result) ‘to entangle Him in his talk’ as in the case with the Law of divorce (see Ambrose, Epist. xxv who, unlike Augustine, is substantially correct in his interpretation).
Vs. 6 κάτω κύψας To what purpose? Not that of the conjecture of the ecce homo manuscript. As not wishing to be interrupted but preoccupied with his own thoughts. It is a sign to them, a sign that they do not take that the subject is intrusive, is alien to His work, alien to the purpose of His ministry. He refuses to be a judge. He came not to condemn sinners, but to save sinners. The supposed parallel passages in Wettstein (Aelian 31; Orest. 631) are not good. Meyer quotes Diogenes Laertius ii.127.
μὴ προσποιούμενος ‘as though he heard not’ A.V. which is correct. Only found in E, G, H, K (also B.M.T. and T.R.). It is however absent in D, which is probably the earliest manuscript with this narrative. The word means either: 1) to pretend not to, to dissemble, or 2) not to heed. Here it would have the latter sense. See Diogenes Laertius ix.29 and Menander in Steph. Thess. VI, p. 1990 (edition H+D). The other readings such as καὶ προσποιούμενος are from transcribers who do not understand the meaning of the phrase.
Vs. 7 Ὁ ἀναμάρτητος There are two possible interpretations: 1) Comprehensive—‘guiltless of breaking the Law in any respect’; 2) Special—‘free from all stain of impurity.’ Comp. 5:14 and vs. 11 below. No doubt it is the latter. It is not however referring to adultery, but to any slight violation of the sexual laws. It is an appeal to their consciences. His look aided the word. He pierced their hearts, read their thoughts, and they were conscious of this. See John 2:25.
τὸν λίθον E etc. (omitted in D). The first stone cast was to be by the principal witness (Deut 17:7; Acts 7:58).
Vs. 8 ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν It is vain to enquire what was written. Probably something unconnected with the scene before Him, if the view of the motive of the action is correct. One mss. adds at this point ‘and each one of them, their sins’ and so also in a Syriac version—Assem., Bible. Or. II, p. 170. St. Ambrose, Epistl. xxv conjectures it was their names. He quotes Jer 22:29—‘Is not my word like fire?’ says the Lord, ‘It breaks the rocks in pieces.’
Vs. 9 ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἕως τῶν ἐσχάτων When there was a movement among them, the younger would naturally make way for their elders to leave first, seniority being greatly regarded among the rabbis. The explanations which account for the notice by suggesting: 1) greater accumulation of the evidence of his mercy; 2) quicker presentation of our Lord’s meaning, are all out of place. κατέκρινεν (vs. 10) refers to judicially, for morally he does condemn her actions as μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε (vs. 11) makes clear. He does not say she does not deserve to be judged . . . , [but then so do her accusers, particularly the elders, who were responsible for maintaining the moral fabric of their community].