John 7 - The NIV Application Commentary on the Bible: One-Volume Edition

The Beginning of the Festival (7:1–13). Jesus has been avoiding Judea because he knows the depth of hostility waiting for him there. It is not inappropriate to hear cynicism in the encouragement of Jesus’s brothers for him to attend the autumn festival. They may be reminding him of his religious obligation (despite the danger) or even pushing him to place his messianic identity into full public view. Either way, they do not believe in him (v. 5) and do not see in the Jerusalem visit a fruitful disclosure of the truth about him.

When Jesus says that he will not “go up” to the festival, he explains that he cannot because it is not yet his time (v. 8). Jesus’s brothers take his words at face value. They see things from an earthly perspective and assume that Jesus is simply going to avoid the feast. Jesus intends no deception and attends the feast on his own, keeping his identity as quiet as possible in order to avoid those who would like to harm him.

Jesus’s arrival brings controversy and division. The crowd is “whispering”—gongysmos (v. 12), a word that reminds us of 6:41 and the desert grumbling (Exod 17:3; Num 11:1). In their search for Jesus, some from the crowd describe him as “good” while others describe him as a deceiver, a fraud (John 7:12). But overshadowing all is the fear of the common person for the Jewish leaders (not “the Jews” in general), who have decided to kill him.

The Middle of the Festival (7:14–36). At the midpoint of the feast, Jesus enters the temple courts for the first time and teaches publicly. Questions are launched by Jesus’s listeners that permit him to describe his identity and mission more completely. But the questions disclose how little his audience really understands. Three scenes are anchored to three questions with three ironic answers.

Scene One (7:14–24). Educational standards for rabbis were well established in the first century. Jesus possessed no such credentials. The Jewish leaders, in effect, wish to see these, and Jesus complies by saying that his diplomas are divine. God has taught and commissioned him; God has given him the things he teaches. Moreover, Jesus explains that if their lives are in harmony with God, they will recognize the character and source of his teaching.

The Jewish notion of authority was specialized. Authority was passed down and conferred from rabbi to rabbi through ordination. Jesus’s problem is that he is not ordained. What is the source of his authority? Jesus’s answer is clear: his authority stems directly from God. Unlike a rabbi, Jesus is authorized to speak much like a prophet because he bears the words of God, not religious tradition.

It is clear from verse 19 that the Sabbath debate of chapter 5 still dominates Jesus’s relation with these authorities. Jesus here returns to his line of argument expressed then: those who do not keep the law of Moses in its entirety should be reluctant about judging others. On more than one occasion the New Testament reports that some people were so intent on their hostility toward Jesus that they made plans to kill him. In these months before Passover, Jesus has to be cautious, protecting himself from those who want to assassinate him. “You are demon-possessed” likely carries no theological weight and can simply be translated, “You’re crazy!” (v. 20).

Jesus now expands his line of reasoning. If a boy can be partially healed on the Sabbath in this context, why should not a man be completely healed on the Sabbath? Jesus sees himself not simply liberalizing the law but fulfilling what the law was meant to do—to bring renewal and redemption to God’s people.

Scene Two (7:25–31). Once again the ironic misunderstanding of the crowd is displayed by their statement in verse 27: “We know where this man is from; when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from.” The crowd is examining Jesus on an earthly level and thinks that since they can trace Jesus’s human origins, he is disqualified from messianic status.

Jesus leaves the confusion unchallenged but goes on to make his claim more astounding. He has come from God, whom he knows with unparalleled intimacy. This is paramount to a divine claim that breaks with all the canons of Judaism. Jesus is claiming to know God and be something of a personal liaison or confidant—a Son!—who now has authority in Jerusalem not by virtue of his education alone (scene one) but also by virtue of his origins (scene two). It is Jesus’s ontological status with the Father that empowers not simply what he does but who he is.

The episode with the crowd comes to a dramatic climax with a division within their ranks. It is a division we see throughout the Gospel, where some express openness to Jesus while others either deny him or attempt to inflict harm. Some in the crowd try to arrest him for making divine claims, but their efforts are frustrated. Jesus is sovereign over his life and will choose when his time has come.

Scene Three (7:32–36). The first two scenes raised ironic earthly questions about Jesus’s schooling and Jesus’s background, both of which found an unexpected answer: heaven. In scene three the audience shifts to the chief priests and Pharisees, who enlist police from the temple to arrest Jesus. No doubt it leads Jesus to think about his death at their hands.

Jesus will view his as a departure, a “going away” that will put him beyond the world’s reach since he will have returned to heaven. As in the previous scenes, this statement inspires earthly misunderstanding. The Jewish leadership speculate that Jesus is simply leaving Israel. But Jesus is talking about where they cannot go—heaven.

The Last Day of the Festival (7:37–52). Each day of the feast witnessed a water ceremony in which a procession of priests descended to the south border of the city to the Gihon Spring. Judaism saw this water ceremony on multiple levels. On the one hand, it was a plea to God for rain since the autumn is a time of threatened drought in Israel. On the other hand, it was a source of rich symbolism. In the desert, God brought water from a rock, and here water was flowing from the sacrificial rock altar of the temple. Ezekiel and Zechariah had visions of rivers flowing from the temple in a miraculous display of God’s blessing (Ezek 47; Zech 14:8). In a drought-stricken land, it was a spectacular vision of water, life-giving water flowing from God’s life-giving temple.

On this final day of celebration, Jesus steps into public view and makes his most stunning pronouncement of the feast. This announcement parallels symbolically what Jesus did in John 6 at Passover. Just as earthly bread led to memories of heavenly bread (manna), which concluded with Jesus offering himself as the bread of life (John 6:35), so now Jesus is doing the same. Needed rainfall and water ceremonies lead to memories of miraculous desert water, water given from heaven, which concludes with Jesus’s offering himself as the source of the water of life.

The punctuation of 7:37–38 has inspired numerous debates among scholars. The NIV punctuates the verses to make the believer the one in whom the living water is flowing. A second Western or christological punctuation views Christ as the source of the living water. The second christological view is compelling for a number of reasons. Not only is it grammatically defensible, but theologically it fits the literary setting of both John 6 and 7, wherein Jesus supplies the spiritual gifts promised in the festival.

Another difficulty in this passage is the Scripture citation in verse 38. Most scholars believe we have a composite quotation describing visions of the coming blessings of the messianic age. John also has in mind the desert water image of the rock struck by Moses at Meribah to feed the Israelites and their flocks (Num 20:2–13).

At the Feast of Tabernacles, then, Jesus is saying he is not only the new temple and source of living water but also the eschatological rock that, when struck, will yield life-giving water. Is it any surprise that when Jesus is struck on the cross with a spear, his “belly” (literal translation of koilia in John 7:38) yields blood and water (19:34)?

John’s theological comment in verse 39 is likewise critically important. He explains that Jesus was referring to the Holy Spirit in this pronouncement. This gift of the Spirit is not available during Jesus’s earthly ministry. It must await his “glorification” in order to be distributed. As we watch the passion story unfold, we will do well to observe how the Spirit becomes a signal feature of Jesus’s departure from the world and return to the Father.

We next meet Jews who hold that the Messiah will fulfill prophecy, descend from David, and be born in Bethlehem. The crowd only knows that Jesus is from Galilee, and if the prophetic fulfillment is important Jesus is disqualified. But this is misunderstanding at work once again. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Thus, once more knowledge about Jesus is just out of reach of those trying to grasp it.

The complete frustration of the Sanhedrin becomes clear. Even the temple police are impressed with Jesus. Nicodemus speaks up, urging caution and fair play. The Sanhedrin’s objection that Jesus cannot be a prophet since he has come from Galilee is outlandish and unfounded. The prophets Jonah and Nahum came from this very place.

The Woman Caught in Adultery (7:53–8:11). This story has numerous arresting details that richly repay careful study and provide excellent insight into the thought and ministry of Jesus. The setting of the story must have been typical of Jesus’s ministry in Jerusalem, particularly during his final visits there. On this particular day, the group with Jesus is joined by Pharisees and teachers of the law.

The religious leaders are making a legal claim: they possess strong testimony from two witnesses who saw the couple in a sexual context. The two witnesses had to see these things at the same time and place so that their testimonies would be identical. Such evidence virtually required the witnesses to set a trap. The law also expected that if a person witnessed another about to commit a sin, compassion required them to speak up. These witnesses stand silently, neglecting their moral obligation to give guidance to the woman. They want to catch her and use her.

We must ask if the woman is married or betrothed to another man. A woman who is sexually unfaithful to her fiancé was to be stoned to death along with her lover. Unfaithful wives were likewise, but the law did not indicate the method of death. In the present passage, the woman therefore must be engaged. But if so, where is her lover? If they were caught in the act, he was caught too. The accusers have permitted him to get away clean.

These witnesses bring the woman to Jesus before a crowd and heap public shame on her. They could have kept her to one side and brought her case to Jesus privately. But their approach to the problem indicates that they wish to trap Jesus, and her personal life is incidental. They have no interest in a trial. They are thinking about a public lynching, and they want Jesus to make a judgment.

It is impossible to know what Jesus wrote in the dust. For some interpreters, Jesus was simply drawing to give himself added time. If his writing seemed to stall things, 8:7 indicates that these men persist to force the question of judgment on him before the crowd. Jesus responds with his often-quoted statement, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” This does not mean that this woman’s accusers must be sinless or morally perfect in order to bring charges against the woman. In such a case, accusations would be impossible at any time. This is simply a direct reference to Deuteronomy 13:9 or 17:7, which says that those who witness a crime and bring home a successful accusation must be the first to stone the victim.

But then the accusers must engage in self-examination. The world of antiquity was little different from our own when it came to sexual sins. Women who transgressed social mores could find themselves in legal jeopardy much more quickly than their partners. Jesus may thus be cutting through the double standard in order to force the men to reflect on their own hypocrisy.

Jesus resumes his writing, and the religious leaders begin departing one by one. John uses an imperfect verb here to build a picture of one teacher departing, who is then followed by a succession of people eventually walking away, so that the accusers arrayed against the woman crumble bit by bit. No doubt they are stunned, and perhaps the audience is embarrassed. But in the end, Jesus and the woman are left alone.

Because Jesus must have been sitting and the woman standing, he now straightens up (v. 10) and speaks to her for the first time. His questions do not imply that the woman is innocent since in verse 11 he warns her to cease a sinful life that has been her habit. He simply points to the absence of accusers. They have disappeared. Her response shows considerable respect for Jesus. Jesus’s final words again do not imply innocence, but they do reflect his sovereignty to forgive sin. The story’s crisp ending captures the seriousness with which Jesus views sin and judgment—even the sin of those who accuse the woman—and his gracious, forgiving outlook on those who are caught in its grip.