John 7 - Expositor's Bible Commentary - Abridged

5. The visit to Jerusalem (7:1–52) a. The journey (7:1–13)

1 Although the writer evidently knew of Jesus’ later Galilean ministry, he chose not to record it. He shows that Jesus did not return to Judea at once after the feeding of the multitude, because his life would be in danger. Ever since the healing of the paralytic in Jerusalem, his opponents had been attempting to kill him (5:18); and as time progressed, their hatred increased (7:19, 30, 32, 44; 8:59; 10:39; 11:8, 53) until they finally accomplished his death. From this point the opposition to Jesus becomes increasingly prominent in this gospel.

2 The Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated in the autumn (Lev 23:33–36; Dt 16:13–14), beginning five days after the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) and lasting eight days. Each family constructed a temporary shelter of branches to live in for the period of the feast. This typified the years of wandering in the desert before the people entered the Promised Land. The feast itself was a joyful time of thanksgiving for the harvest they now enjoyed. It was one of the three annual feasts at which attendance was required of all Jewish men (Dt 16:16).

3–5 Because the gathering in Jerusalem brought together pilgrims from every section of Palestine, Jesus’ brothers saw an excellent opportunity for him to acquire some publicity, especially since he seemed to have such miraculous powers. They advised him to join the crowds in Jerusalem so that he might enhance his reputation and gain more followers, though their suggestion may have been more sarcastic than serious, since they did not believe in him (v.5). In other words, they may have been suggesting he abandon the idealism of teaching multitudes in obscurity and of risking death.

6 Jesus’ reply strongly resembles the one he gave his mother at the wedding in Cana of Galilee (2:4). He did not live by the chance of casual opportunity but by a divine calendar predetermined by the Father. For this reason the world did not understand his action, and the difference in standards created both misunderstanding and hostility.

7 Again Jesus asserted that he did not belong to this world. The world regarded him as an alien and an antagonist because he condemned its evil works (see also 15:18–21; 17:14, 16).

8–11 Jesus did not plan to go immediately to Jerusalem; he would wait until “the right time.” His brothers may have intended to make a show of his arrival (cf. v.4), and Jesus wanted to avoid this. Therefore, his secret departure for Jerusalem was not an act of deception. It was an attempt to avoid unwelcome publicity. Jesus’ enemies were watching for him, obviously for the purpose of arresting him (cf. v.1).

12–13 Public opinion was divided. The people who favored him were intimidated by the religious hierarchy, which was hostile toward Jesus. The atmosphere was tense, and Jesus did not wish to precipitate a crisis at this time.

b. The popular debate (7:14–36)

14 Jesus remained in seclusion until the feast was half completed and then appeared in the temple court to teach. His absence during the first half of the week had aroused the curiosity of the pilgrims who had expected that he would come in order to take advantage of the eager crowds (see comments on 6:14–15). But Jesus had passed the apex of his popular ministry, and many of his disciples had turned from him (6:66–67).

15 Even Jesus’ critics admitted his acumen and learning. They could not comprehend how he could have acquired such knowledge without engaging in formal rabbinical study (cf. Mk 1:22).

16 Jesus insisted that his teaching did not originate with himself but came from God. As the perfect man and messenger of God, he gave all credit to the Father who had “sent” him (see comment on 5:30).

17–18 “If any one chooses to do God’s will” means there must be a definite act of the human will in order to do God’s will—a settled, determined purpose to fulfill it. Spiritual understanding is not produced solely by learning facts or procedures; rather, it depends on obedience to known truth. Obedience to God’s known will develops discernment between falsehood and truth.

19 Jesus accepted the fact that Moses transmitted the Law to Israel and acknowledged the authority of that Law. He accused his opponents, who claimed to be champions of the Law, of failing to keep it. His charge that they were plotting to kill him should be interpreted in the light of Jesus’ own teaching on the sixth commandment that the sin of hatred and anger is essentially murder (Mt 5:21–22; cf. Jn 7:44–45).

20 The response of the crowd to Jesus’ accusation shows that the decision of the rulers had not been widely publicized. The people were bewildered by his statement. Curiously, the only allusions in John to demonic activity are accusations made against Jesus (8:48–52; 10:20; cf. Mt 9:34; Mk 3:22; Lk 11:5).

21–22 Jesus is not saying that he did only “one miracle,” for he had performed several by this time; but these were of little interest to the “Jews.” The reference to circumcision on the Sabbath shows that the issue of healing on the Sabbath (vv.23–24) was central to Jesus’ controversy with the Jewish rulers. Thus, the “one miracle” refers to the healing of the paralyzed man at the Pool of Bethesda (5:1–18).

23–24 Circumcision was initiated by Abraham (Ge 17:9–14) and explicitly commanded in the law of Moses (Lev 12:3). Because it had to be observed on the eighth day after birth, it was allowable on the Sabbath. Jesus argued that if a rite symbolizing purification were permitted on one member of the body, why should he not be allowed to make the entire person whole and clean on the Sabbath? “Stop judging” implies that his enemies should cease making superficial pronouncements on his work and that they should evaluate it objectively.

25–27 The people were confused about the conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities. They wondered why he wasn’t censored if he was such a threat to the nation. The reason the authorities did not promptly have him arrested was that they were uncertain of the sentiments of the people and that an arrest could cause an uprising that would most assuredly bring disciplinary action from the Romans (cf. Mt 26:3–5).

The people themselves were uncertain of Jesus’ real identity. They knew the authorities sought to kill him, but their reluctance to act led the people to conclude that perhaps there was some validity to Jesus’ messianic claim. What further confused them, however, was that they believed the Messiah would rise up out of total obscurity, that no one would “know where he is from.” Such an attitude reflected an ignorance of the prophetic Scriptures (see Mic 5:2; Mt 2:5).

28–29 In the midst of all this confusion, Jesus replied positively. His first statement may be ironic—“So you know me and where I am from, do you?” The people must have been aware of his boyhood in Nazareth and no doubt considered him to be the son of Joseph and Mary (6:42). Jesus’ reply was a renewed affirmation of his origin in God and his divine commission. His assertion evoked the dual response of belief and unbelief (cf. vv.41–44).

30 Jesus’ enemies attempted to seize him, but they failed because the hour of crisis had not come. Not only did “the time” restrain him from sudden independent action (2:4), but it assured him of divine protection until the moment for action came (cf. Lk 22:53).

31 The response of many was belief, though it was hesitant. They did not affirm his messiahship but cautiously suggested that the Messiah would perform no more miracles than Jesus did. Consequently they tended to believe that he might be the promised leader they anticipated.

32 The favorable reaction of those who believed prompted the chief priests and Pharisees to action. To delay longer might result in more people turning to Jesus. The attempted arrest was official since the temple guards constituted the arresting party.

33–35 Jesus’ reply to the action gave a hint of his coming death. The declaration that he would go where he could neither be followed nor found excited the curiosity of the crowd. They surmised that he expected to leave Palestine and to minister among the Dispersion and the Gentiles.

36 The perplexity of the crowd over Jesus’ answer was echoed later by Simon Peter, who, upon hearing him speak similar words, said, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you” (13:37). The crowd could not follow Jesus because of their ignorance of his true identity and purpose; Simon was incapable because he lacked the necessary courage.

c. The climactic appeal (7:37–44)

37 The climax of the controversy came “on the last and greatest day of the Feast” of Tabernacles. According to the law, the feast was held for seven days, followed by an eighth day of spiritual observance, including an offering to God (on this feast, see comments on Lev 23:33–44). Whether the “last day” was the seventh or the eighth day is not clear. If it refers to the eighth day, it makes the appeal of Jesus in this section all the more meaningful. He took the opportunity to make a public announcement concerning himself and his claims.

38 The celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles included a daily procession of priests from the temple to the Pool of Siloam, from which they drew water that was poured out as a libation at the altar, accompanied by a recitation of Isa 12:3: “With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.” This offering of water memorialized God’s provision for the thirsty people in the wilderness, but the water had been poured out and had left them unsatisfied. Now Jesus appeals to the individual: “Whoever believes in me.” He was requiring an individual response of faith rather than a collective observance of a ritual. In the light of v.39, which connects the manifestation of the Spirit with the believer, it seems most likely that “from within him” refers to the believer, rather than to Christ.

If “as the Scripture has said” refers to a particular OT passage, it is impossible to locate it. The OT has numerous allusions to water, but none accords exactly with this utterance. Certainly Isa 12:3, quoted above, is a possibility; similar imagery with reference to “the pouring out” of the Holy Spirit occurs in Isa 32:15; 44:3; Eze 39:29; Joel 2:28–32. Jesus took the symbolism of the OT and applied it to the gift he intended to bestow on the disciples after his passion was completed (cf. Jn 14:16–17, 25–26; 15:26; 16:12–15).

39 John’s statement shows that the passion of Christ was the important aspect of Jesus’ revelation about the Holy Spirit, for it divided the era of law from that of the Spirit (1:17). The prophecy of Ezekiel (36:26–27) concurs with this.

This is the first use of “glorified” (GK 1519) in John, a distinctly Johannine verb, occurring twenty-three times. Often it refers to establishing status or enhancing a reputation (8:54; 12:28; 13:32; 14:13; 15:8; 16:14; 17:1, 4, 5, 10; 21:19). In this particular context it refers to Jesus’ death, which, despite all appearances, would be the entrance to glory for him (7:39; 11:4; 12:16, 23; 13:31; cf. Php 2:8–9).

40–41 “The Prophet” (GK 4737) is presumably an allusion to the prediction of Moses that after him another prophet would appear who would command the attention of the people and who would bring them a further revelation from God (Dt 18:15). Moses explained that the prophet would not be accompanied by the frightening manifestations of Sinai, the great voice and the fire. He would rather be a fellow countryman, familiar to them, and one on their own level. Some regarded Jesus as this Prophet, hoping at the same time that he would lead them in a new Exodus and overcome their enemies; others suggested that he might be the Messiah.

42–44 The ignorance of the crowd in Jerusalem concerning Jesus is revealed by their uncertainty about his origin. On the basis of Scripture, they decided that Jesus could not be the Messiah since Mic 5:2 said the Messiah would come from Bethlehem and Jesus came from Nazareth. The confusion was such that no decision was made concerning his person and no action was taken to arrest him. Perhaps this is another illustration of Johannine irony, for Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The very passage that convinced his critics that he could not be the Messiah was one of the strongest to prove that he was.

d. The rejection by the leaders (7:45–52)

45 This text indicates that the chief priests and Pharisees had sent an arresting party, who failed in their mission. Since the high priest belonged to the Sadducean party, the coalition of the Pharisees and Sadducees was significant. These two groups were strongly opposed to each other in doctrine (Ac 23:7), but their common animosity toward Jesus induced them to combine for action against him.

46 The report of the guards sent to arrest Jesus showed that he had a strong influence on all who listened to him. His teaching had so overawed them that they could not carry out their orders. Their statement to the Jewish leaders implied that Jesus must be more than an ordinary human being.

47–49 The Pharisees were irate when the guards returned without Jesus. Their question implied a negative answer: “No one of the Pharisees has believed in him, has he?” And their other statements reveal their religious snobbishness. They assumed that nobody could be right except themselves. If they did not believe in Jesus, he must be unreliable and his claims must be fraudulent.

50–51 Nicodemus reappears in the gospel at this point (cf. Ch. 3). His tentative question, “Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?” was not an open declaration of faith in Jesus. Rather, it was a protest raised on a legal technicality. Nicodemus may have felt that if he championed Jesus’ cause unequivocally, he would lose his case; but if he raised a legitimate legal objection, he might prevent drastic action.

52 The scornful and snobbish reply “Are you from Galilee, too?” intimates that Nicodemus was taking the stand of the crude and ignorant Galileans who were gullible enough to trust in the wandering prophet, Jesus. The statement “a prophet does not come out of Galilee” seems inconsistent with the fact that some of the OT prophets, like Jonah, did originate from northern Israel.

6. The woman taken in adultery (7:53–8:11)

Although this narrative is included in the sequence of the outline, it can hardly have belonged to the original text of this gospel. It is absent from most of the oldest copies of the gospel that precede the sixth century and from the works of the earliest commentators. But this does not mean that it is unhistorical. Its coherence and spirit show that it was preserved from a very early time, and it accords well with the known character of Jesus.

7:53–8:1 Presumably an unknown group of people who had gathered in Jerusalem to listen to Jesus now dispersed, while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, where he spent the night. This does not fit well with the preceding text because Jesus was not present at the meeting of the Sanhedrin mentioned in 7:45–52.

2–5 The present episode took place in the temple court at dawn. The entire affair had the appearance of trickery, a trap specially prepared to catch Jesus. The Sanhedrin forced their way into the center of the group and interrupted Jesus’ teaching by bringing a woman before him. The guilt of the woman was indisputable; she had been “caught in the act of adultery,” and Jesus did not challenge the charge. The dilemma that the scribes and Pharisees posed was this: According to the law, she should be put to death (see Lev 20:10; Dt 22:22–24). If, then, Jesus refused to confirm the death penalty, he could be charged with contradicting the law of God and would himself be liable to condemnation. If, on the other hand, he confirmed the verdict of the Pharisees, he would lose his reputation for compassion; and possibly he could have been reported to the Romans as inciting the Sanhedrin to independent exercise of the death penalty.

6–8 The Pharisees’ question was emphatic: “You, there! What do you say?” Jesus made no reply but “bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.” It was, incidentally, the only occasion on record that refers to his writing; what he wrote is impossible to say. When his questioners kept pressing him for an answer, Jesus replied by putting the dilemma back on them. For this particular offense there would normally be no witnesses, since its nature would demand privacy. Either the witnesses became such by accident, which would be unusual; or they were present purposely to create the trap for Jesus, in which case they themselves were guilty; or they condoned the deed, and this would make them partners in it. Since Jewish law required the witnesses in any case of capital punishment to begin the stoning, each one of the accusers would either have to admit that he was guilty or else refrain from demanding the woman’s death.

9 The accusers “began to go away one at a time, the older ones first.” The older ones either had more sins for which they were answerable or else had more sense than to make an impossible profession of righteousness. Finally the woman was left alone.

10 Jesus’ address to the woman was respectful (Cf. 2:4; 20:13). Her accusers, more interested in destroying Jesus than in saving her, had made her the bait for a trap. Their vicious hatred of him was as bad as her immorality. His rebuke had prevented their pronouncing sentence on her; Jesus did not pronounce sentence either. But neither did he proclaim her to be innocent.

11 Jesus dismissed the woman by saying, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Meeting a man who was interested in saving rather than exploiting and in forgiving rather than condemning must have been a new experience for her. Jesus’ attitude provided both the motivation and the assurance she needed. Forgiveness demands a clean break with sin. That Jesus refrained from condemning her was a guarantee that he would support her.