John 7 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

7:3 see your miracles! Brown (1966:308) makes a very interesting comparison between the three requests made to Jesus in chs 6–7 and the three temptations by Satan in Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13. In 6:15, “to be their king” parallels Satan offering him the kingdoms of the world; in 6:31, the people asking for miraculous bread parallels turning the stones into bread; and in 7:3, asking for a display of miraculous power parallels showing power by jumping from the Temple’s pinnacle.

7:6 not the right time. The normal term for “time” as the hour of Jesus’ passion is hōra [TG5610, ZG6052] (as in 2:4; 7:30; 8:20), but the term here is kairos [TG2540, ZG2789] (season). Often hōra has the idea of chronological, successive time and kairos the idea of a period of time with an emphasis on its quality (e.g., opportune time or rainy time); but there is no evidence for that distinction in John. In fact, John uses hōra for the qualitative idea of the appropriate time for Jesus’ passion. The key is John’s use of synonyms (in this case hōra and kairos) throughout his Gospel for major ideas, like “know” or “see.” With the different Gr. terms in 2:4 and 7:6, John is simply using a variety of terms for greater impact (so Brown, contra Beasley-Murray, Carson).

7:8 I’m not going to this festival. Ancient mss are divided between “not (ouk [TG3756, ZG4024]) going” (א D it syrc,s copbo) and “not yet (oupō [TG3768, ZG4037]) going” (66 75 B L T W 038 044 070 0105 0250 f1,13 syrp,h copsa,ac2). Though the ms evidence is much stronger for the second reading, it is generally agreed that oupō is a scribal change intended to resolve the seeming inconsistency of Jesus saying he wasn’t going in 7:8, when he does go in 7:10.

This is the third feast Jesus attended (Sabbath, ch 5; Passover, ch 6), and once more the major themes are Christological revelation and the conflict it engendered in the Jewish people. The opposition intensified, as there were four attempts to arrest Jesus. This was because Jesus’ teaching about himself and his role deepened, as well. Once again, he revealed that he was the God-sent teacher (7:16-19), the one who had come from God (7:28-30); he also showed that he would be the source of the Holy Spirit (7:37-39) and the Light of the World (8:12). Then he went on the offensive and stated that even though they believed Abraham was their father (8:39), in reality their true father was the devil (8:44). He was clearly not trying to “win friends and influence people”! This is confrontation counseling from the outset. Neyrey (1996:111-115) notes how Jesus is on trial but reverses the situation and places the Jewish people on trial (cf. vv. 19, 24, 28-29, 33-34). At the same time, Jesus is seen fulfilling the imagery of the Festival of Shelters, particularly the water ceremony that occurred every morning (7:37-39; cf. m. Sukkah 4:1, 9-10) and the light ceremony that occurred every evening (8:12; cf. m. Sukkah 5:2-4). On the historicity of the material, Blomberg states (2001:140), “John is not monolithically representing response to Jesus as negative, even among the Jewish leadership, despite his redactional concerns to highlight Jesus’ ultimate, widespread rejection. Historical concerns that depict a nuanced response despite growing opposition complement John’s theological emphases rather than competing with them.”

As a result of the controversies that occurred at the healing of the lame man (ch 5) and the Passover debate about Jesus as the Bread of Life (ch 6), Jesus stayed away from Judea, “where the Jewish leaders were plotting his death” (7:1). He restricted his mission to Galilee for a time (this period, perhaps a year long, dominates the synoptic Gospels, in which Jesus did not go to Jerusalem until Passion week). After a time, the Festival of Shelters (or Tabernacles or Booths) was approaching (about six months after the Passover events of ch 6, as it took place from 15 to 21 Tishri by the Jewish calendar—hence, early October). It was a harvest festival to celebrate the end of the harvest season after all the crops had been gathered in (Exod 23:16; Lev 23:33-43). Lasting for seven days, with an eighth “holy day” (Num 29:35) to conclude the celebration, it was one of the three great festivals (with Passover and Pentecost) that brought pilgrims to Jerusalem. The name “Shelters” (or Tabernacles) is associated especially with the wilderness wanderings, when the people of Israel all lived in tents and God also lived among them in a tent—the Tabernacle—watching over them. People would build leafy booths out of branches and dwell in them for the festival period. It was a joyous occasion, centered on thanksgiving to God. By the time of Christ it had also “become associated, specifically in connection with the daily solemn outpouring of water during this feast, with eschatological hopes (and ‘the wells of salvation’ predicted in them; cf. Zech 14:16ff; Isa 12:3)” (Ridderbos 1997:257).

Jesus’ brothers (7:3; see note on 2:12) had not yet become disciples (7:5). So far as we know, they were not converted until Jesus’ resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15:7). Two of them (James and Jude) became leaders in the church and later wrote New Testament books. They believed in his miracles (they had to; they had seen several) but not his claims. In the midst of their doubts, they wanted Jesus to go to Jerusalem for the feast to perform miracles for everyone to see. The expression “leave here” (7:3, Greek) may well imply more than a pilgrimage trip—probably an extended stay, perhaps even moving his ministry there (so Ridderbos; Schnackenburg doubts it implies a permanent move). They were especially interested in Jesus’ “followers” (lit., “disciples”), probably those noted in 2:23 who needed more proof, and possibly also those in 6:66 who deserted him and returned to Judea. They urged him, “Show yourself to the world!” They wanted Jesus to boldly prove himself publicly. In this sense, they were acting similarly to Satan in the wilderness temptation of Matthew 4:1-11 and parallels. The miracles would then be intended to laud Jesus himself rather than to glorify God or help people. Their reasoning was quite logical; no one does such things in secret if they want a public ministry; this is a good example of the worldly “if you’ve got it, flaunt it” mentality today! It is interesting that John has “world” here. Likely his brothers meant by this the Jewish nation, but Jesus’ ministry was for the whole world of mankind not just for the Jews (Cf. 1:10; 3:16; 4:42; 6:51). Probably Jesus’ brothers were challenging him for their own sakes as well. John tells us that they “didn’t believe in him” (cf. Mark 3:21, 31-32; 6:4), so they were daring him in a sense to prove himself to them as well. They may have been genuinely searching at this point, but they went no further than his miracles. There is no evidence that they were willing to consider his claims regarding himself.

Jesus rejected their suggestion, saying, “Now is not the right time for me to go” (7:6). In John, the “time” or “hour” refers to Jesus’ death on the cross (cf. on 2:4 which uses similar language), so there is double meaning here. It was not the “right time” for Jesus to go; that “time,” when it would come, would bring quite a different sign than they expected—namely, the cross. When Jesus went to Jerusalem in the way they wanted, the public demonstration would be one of messianic suffering. As for his brothers, they could “go anytime,” but Jesus had to wait for his Father’s will. They had no such restraints, for they were not following God’s will. This is why the world hated Jesus, while it didn’t hate his brothers. He accused it of doing evil, while his brothers were part of the world. The world hates the light because it is full of darkness at the core (3:19-20). Therefore, when darkness is “exposed” for what it is, it reacts with hatred (3:20). The idea of Jesus accusing (7:7) is a legal metaphor. It pictures him not only proving their guilt before the divine law court but also proving to the evildoers that they were guilty (Cf. 16:8-11 on the Spirit “convict[ing] the world”).

Jesus told his brothers to “go on” to Jerusalem for the festival, but he would not be going because his “time has not yet come” (7:8). The inconsistency of Jesus saying he wouldn’t go and the fact that he did go (7:10) is obvious. The key is to realize that Jesus was saying that he wouldn’t go until the Father designated that the time was right. He would not go in the way they wanted—that is, to provide public proof that he was the Messiah—but he would go in the way his Father wished, in private. He would not go with his brothers and do it the world’s way. The term for “go on” in verses 8 and 10 is “ascend” (anabainō [TG305, ZG326]), so some (e.g., Carson) see this as a possible symbol of Jesus’ later glorification, but that is not likely in this context (so Michaels, Köstenberger).

After waiting in Galilee a short time, Jesus went to the festival—but “secretly, staying out of public view” (7:10). It is uncertain whether he missed part of the festival, arriving in the middle of it (so Ridderbos), or if he arrived on time but worshiped privately, out of public view (I find this more likely). At the feast, the “Jewish leaders” were looking for Jesus, undoubtedly with hostile intent (Cf. 5:18, where they plotted to kill him). They regularly asked people (imperfect tenses are used in the Gr., indicating their ongoing activity) whether they had seen “that man” (7:11, Gr.; intended pejoratively). In the meantime, the “crowds” or common people were also “grumbling” (the same term as the “murmuring” and “complaining” in 6:41, 43, 61) about him. Here it is not as negative as in chapter 6 but indicates debate over who and what he was; still, there was not a completely open discussion because they had no “courage to speak favorably about him in public” out of fear of the leaders (7:13). This was a serious situation, for the leaders were not only seeking Jesus but even censoring what people said. It was still the type of murmuring that occurred in the wilderness wanderings because there was no boldness to be open to the truth. The debate was not as deep as the questions asked of John the Baptist in 1:19-21. Some considered Jesus “a good man” and others “a fraud who deceives the people” (7:12). The latter became the basic Jewish attitude toward Jesus, as in the Talmudic passage that said he was executed because he was a sorcerer who led the people astray (b. Sanhedrin 43a; so Beasley-Murray).

7:18 lies. Schnackenburg points out that adikia [TG93, ZG94] (normally indicating “evil, wickedness”) includes “lies” or “falsehood” but is even more comprehensive than that (cf. 1 John 5:17), and it shows here that no one can accuse Jesus of any sin because he is God’s envoy and in perfect harmony with him. “This is the irreducible claim of the true revealer, and the believer finds it authenticated (Cf. 7:17)” (Schnackenburg 1982:133).

7:27 When the Messiah comes. Carson (1991:317) sees in this chapter three popularly held tests regarding how the Messiah could be identified: (1) he would appear suddenly and no one would know his origin (7:27); (2) he would perform incredible miraculous signs (7:31); and (3) he would be of the royal Davidic line, born in Bethlehem (7:42).

7:30 his time had not yet come. While it is common to interpret the “time” in John as primarily referring to the Cross, Beutler (1997:26-27) argues that it is much broader, referring to the Cross and the Resurrection, as well as to the sending of the Holy Spirit and Jesus’ second coming. This is viable, but the major emphasis is still on the Cross as initiating these other events.

7:32 Pharisees . . . leading priests. It at first seems unusual that the Pharisees and Sadducees (the party of the leading priests, meaning the most powerful priestly families in charge of the Temple) acted together on anything, for they were political enemies. Thus, some scholars think this joint move is implausible (e.g., Bultmann, Barrett)—but this is probably shorthand for an official act of the Sanhedrin, which consisted of the Sadducees (in the majority), the Pharisees, and the elders (so Westcott, Schnackenburg, Kysar, Keener). There is no reason to think that these two groups never acted together.

7:34 search for me but not find me. Whitacre (1999:191) says this fulfills a prophetic and wisdom tradition found, for example, in Amos 8:12 (the days are coming when people will search for the word of the Lord and not find it) and Hos 5:3-6 (God has withdrawn, so his people will search but not find him). In Prov 1:28-31, Wisdom says that since the people hate knowledge and spurn her advice, “When they cry for help, I will not answer. Though they anxiously search for me, they will not find me.” The nation of Jesus’ day had the same unfaithful heart, and God had withdrawn from them.

7:35 teach the Greeks! When Jesus mentioned that the scribes and Pharisees “cross land and sea to make one convert” (Matt 23:15), he was not speaking of missions to the Gentiles but rather of going to the synagogues in Diaspora communities to convince Gentile God-fearers (Acts 10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26) to be circumcised so that they could become true proselytes. There is little evidence of any Jewish mission to the Gentiles (cf. McKnight 1991).

7:37 the climax of the festival. Many scholars (Bultmann, Sanders, Brown, Schnackenburg, Ridderbos, Whitacre) believe this would have been the seventh day because the eighth day is a late addition and a time of rest rather than activity. Yet at the same time, the eighth day is also a special day and a climax for the feast. Moreover, Jesus’ pronouncement on this last day would have been especially forceful because the water and light ceremonies were not repeated, and he would be inserting himself as the climax and fulfillment of those ceremonies (so Hoskyns, Barrett, Lindars, Bruce, Beasley-Murray, Carson, Michaels, Blomberg, Köstenberger).

7:37-38 Anyone who believes in me may come and drink! For the Scriptures declare, “Rivers of living water will flow from his heart.” This is certainly one of the more debated passages in John. There are two primary interpretations, and they center for the most part on whether or not one places a stop at the end of the Gr. text of 7:37, thus separating it from the phrase “anyone who believes,” which occurs in the beginning of 7:38. This would read, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. As the Scripture says, ‘Rivers of living water will flow from the heart of anyone who believes in me.’ ” Moving the full stop into 7:38 results in the reading, “Let the thirsty who believe come and drink. As the Scripture says, ‘Rivers of living water will flow from his [Christ’s] heart.’ ” “Anyone who believes” can belong to either clause, so the true question is whether the believer or Christ is the place from which the Spirit is flowing (the “rivers of living water”; Cf. 4:13-14; 7:39). The “believer” position is held by the eastern Fathers (e.g., Origen; in addition see Westcott, Lindars, Barrett, Fee 1978, Kysar, Morris, Carson, Ridderbos, Köstenberger, KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, TNIV); the Christological position is held by the western Fathers (e.g., Tertullian; in addition see Dodd, Bultmann, Kilpatrick 1960, Brown, Schnackenburg, Bruce, Beasley-Murray, Comfort, Michaels, Meyken 1996, Whitacre, Marcus 1998, Burge, Blomberg, NRSV, NLT). Meyken (1996:163-166) thinks that “anyone who believes” belongs with 7:38 but that Jesus is still the referent. The problem is virtually insoluble in any final sense. If the believer is placed with 7:37, an interesting chiasm is produced, with the subjects (the thirsty and the believer) framing the verbs (come and drink). However, if the believer begins 7:38, it would also place the Scripture formula in the middle of the quote, modifying a participle, a pattern unique in John, and indeed, in the NT as a whole. Moreover, the thirsty would first drink and then give out the water to others, a possible but unlikely metaphor in this context (so Schnackenburg). Still, if Jesus were referring to himself, why would he say, “from his heart” (Fee, Carson)?

The answer, I believe, is in the context. Jesus saw himself fulfilling the water ceremony, and the entire context of chs 5–10 is Christological. It would be a strange interruption if he were making the believer, rather than himself, the source of the Holy Spirit, especially in light of 14:26; 16:7, where Christ sends the Spirit on his mission. The use of “his” fits Jesus’ frequent use of “Son of Man” for himself. Therefore, the Christological interpretation fits best in the context.

Carson (1991:310) notes a pair of cycles in this section, each with three sections: the teaching of Jesus (7:14-24, 37-39), followed by debate and speculation (7:25-31, 40-44), leading to an attempt to arrest Jesus by the leaders (7:32-36, 45-52). This makes good sense of the passage and will be followed here.

Jesus quickly told them the source of his authority for his insights (7:16-19). Their idea of authority was merely rabbinic education; Jesus, however, delivered a message that came from God, who sent him. He was not self-taught, nor was he dependent on the interpretation of others (rabbis, like many scholars today, did little more than quote other rabbis’ opinions). His message came directly from God and so was ultimate truth. Moreover, in contrast with the prophets, who periodically reinforced their words with the phrase, “Thus says the Lord,” Jesus never had to say this, for he was the heaven-sent envoy, and all his words were and are God’s truth. This, he says, is evident to “anyone who wants to do the will of God.” This builds on 5:37-38, 41-44, where recognizing Jesus depends upon receiving God’s word, seeking God’s glory, and having love indwell us. Jesus lived entirely according to God’s will and leading. It follows that anyone who truly walks the same road as Jesus will recognize that he is from God. Note that the criterion is not intellectual but ethical. It is not a state of knowledge but a way of living that makes the difference. This is similar to 3:21, where “those who do what is right come to the light” so it can be known that they “are doing what God wants.” It is living according to the will of God that truly matters.

If Jesus were self-taught (i.e., if his teaching were “merely [his] own”), he would be seeking only his own glory (7:17-18). That is simply natural law; the one who develops his own brand of truth seeks his own glory. That is not the case with Jesus; everything he said and did had only one goal—honoring the one who sent him. Thus, he not only “speaks truth, not lies”; he is the truth (14:6), meaning he is not only truth incarnate but can be trusted completely as the one who gave the words of God. Furthermore, Jesus declared that there was no unrighteousness in him—unlike the Jewish people who had rejected God’s way of righteousness. Jesus then proved the unrighteousness of the Jews by showing how they transgressed their own law. On a previous visit to Jerusalem, the authorities had tried to arrest him on capital charges (5:18; 7:1), and they would do so again (7:32, 45; 8:59). Jesus challenged their obedience to the law of Moses, which was the basis of their religious education as well as of their civil law. In their desire to execute Jesus, they were guilty of the murder of a “righteous” man (7:19). Moses had actually been a witness to Jesus’ true ministry and status before God (5:45-47), and now he was a witness to their violation of his law.

The response of the crowd to Jesus was, “You’re demon possessed” (7:20)—a statement that effectively meant “you’re crazy,” as the two ideas were intertwined in the ancient world. Most in the crowd had no desire to kill Jesus and were unaware of the leaders’ plans, so to them he was simply guilty of being delusional. Christ’s response was to continue with the theme that they were guilty of breaking the law. He returned to the events that led to the capital charges, namely the miracle of healing the lame man on a Sabbath (5:1-15). They were “amazed” not so much at the miracle but at the fact that Jesus would break the oral tradition by healing on the Sabbath. Jesus reminded them that they too broke that tradition when they obeyed “Moses’ law of circumcision,” referring to the rule that a male child is to be circumcised on the eighth day, even if that day fell on the Sabbath (cf. Lev 12:3, as further developed in m. Shabbat 18:3; 19:1-3).

Jesus’ point was that circumcision had precedence over the law since it “began with the patriarchs, long before the law of Moses.” Therefore the “work” of circumcision is a higher good and valid as a Sabbath activity. Jesus was engaging in a double argument from the greater to the lesser. First, circumcision is greater than the tradition about working on the Sabbath; and second, since circumcision aids only a small part of the body and Jesus’ miracle healed the whole body, it is greater than circumcision (so Brown 1966:318). They had no right to “be angry” at the miracle. It is important to realize that Jesus was not disparaging the Sabbath laws; rather, it should be understood that his doing the work of God was another exception, like circumcision. Jesus was doing the work of God in bringing God’s saving presence to bear on a paralyzed man, so it was a valid activity. His opponents had been judging wrongly on the basis of a superficial use of the law, and they needed to stop judging in this way. Again, it was the earthly versus the heavenly perspective. They needed to see the situation from God’s viewpoint. Then they would know that Jesus was not breaking the Sabbath but upholding its true purpose.

Jesus, recognizing their faulty logic (perhaps another occasion of his omniscience; Cf. 1:47-48; 4:17-18), gave his response (7:28-29). He began with what they did know—“where [he had] come from” (7:27-28), but even this concession is filled with irony (“You really think you know where I come from!”). The people were unaware of his true origins. Jesus not only came from God, but he also was not there on his own. His mission was God’s mission. Dahms (1981:80-82) says this alludes to Isaiah 55:11, where it is said that God sends out his word and it prospers. The basic error of the crowds was that they thought Jesus’ teaching was all his own idea and therefore false. In reality, “the one who sent [Jesus] is true” (7:28), just as Jesus himself is “true” (7:18, KJV). Jesus told these Jewish people that they didn’t know the true God—the God of the Old Testament—who had sent him, though they claimed to. Only Jesus could truly know him (Cf. 1:18a; Matt 11:27) because God is his origin and was the source of his mission. The Jewish people had always been proud of their covenant relationship; they bragged of their knowledge of God (Rom 2:17, 23), but Jesus exposed this as false pride by explaining his unique relationship to the Father—they did not know the true God, for they had rejected his Son. The way people relate to Jesus determines whether or not they truly know God. The Jews here had failed that test.

The division between the leaders and the people is starkly presented in 7:30-31. The leaders tried to arrest him, which was part of the ongoing plot to get rid of Jesus (5:18; 7:1). The attempt to arrest him was futile because “his time had not yet come.” This is part of an ongoing theme regarding the “hour” of destiny, the time allotted by God as “the right time” (Gal 4:4) when the plan of salvation would be finalized at the Cross (Cf. 2:4; 4:23; 7:6; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:4, 32; 17:1). The point is that God was in control, not the leaders. They tried to arrest Jesus, but until the Father said, “It is time,” their attempts would end in futility. “Many among the crowds at the Temple,” however, “believed in him” (7:31). Certainly their faith centered on the “miraculous signs,” just like those in 2:23-25, but it was still an important beginning. It was as yet an inadequate faith, but they realized that Jesus’ deeds were worthy of the Messiah and so took a preliminary step of faith and became followers (Cf. 7:27).

The Jewish leaders among the crowds once more failed to grasp what Jesus meant because of their earth-centered perspective (Cf. 3:4, 9; 4:9, 11, 15; 5:7; 6:7, 25, 34, 52). They were “puzzled” and wondered if he was planning to leave Judea and go to the Diaspora communities throughout the Roman world (7:35). Hellenistic Jews in fact would be coming to see Jesus (12:20-36), so this was a real possibility. It is hard to know whether “teach the Greeks” means they thought he would actually go to the Gentiles or (more likely) minister to the Gentile proselytes (Carson) or Greek-speaking Jews (Witherington) in other lands, for there is too little evidence of actual Gentile mission among the Jews. As Bruce brings out (1983:180), the repetition of Jesus’ words in 7:36 may hint at the later teaching of 8:21ff that it is sin and unbelief that made it impossible for them to go where he was heading.

Possibly in the morning (when it was symbolically appropriate), Jesus “stood and shouted to the crowds” that the thirsty believers could come and drink of him. Since Jesus was the divine envoy, he then became the source of the “waters of salvation” (Isa 12:3), fulfilling the symbolism of the water ceremony. This also continues the image of 4:10, 13-14 and 6:53-56, as Jesus both provides the living water and becomes the Water of Life from which the thirsty must drink to have eternal life (Cf. 6:35). The joy that attended the feast was even more evident in what Jesus said. Here the Old Testament promise of the living water has finally been realized, and the final source of life that the Jewish people had always longed for had come to them. The messianic fulfillment had come, and the age of salvation had arrived. The two themes of Tabernacles—harvest and eschatological hope—are combined in Jesus.

The Scripture citation in 7:38 does not allude to any particular Old Testament passage but sums up a theme. If one were to posit the believer as the source of the “rivers of living water” (cf. note on 7:37-38), it would allude to Proverbs 18:4 (“Wisdom flows from the wise like a bubbling brook”) and Isaiah 58:11 (“You will be like a well-watered garden, like an ever-flowing spring”). If the source is Christ, it would allude to Zechariah 14:8 (“On that day life-giving waters will flow out from Jerusalem,” an important passage because it is connected with Tabernacles in Judaism), Ezekiel 47:9 (“Life will flourish wherever this water [from the new Temple] flows”), and Jesus as the fulfillment of the rock struck by Moses with the water gushing out (Exod 17:1-6; cf. Pss 78:16, 20; 105:40-41; Meyken [1996:167-174] goes so far as to suggest that Ps 78 is the primary referent). This is often taken as a type of Christ (e.g., 1 Cor 10:4). As I have argued in the note on 7:37-38, the latter is more likely—the living water here is flowing from Christ. Of course, it must be said that both views have a great deal in common in that Christ is the living water and sends out the Spirit in both (the first view holds that he sends out the Spirit through the believer). Nevertheless, one must choose, and Christ as the ultimate source best fits the Christological emphasis.

Water as a symbol for the Holy Spirit has already been discussed in 3:5, but John makes the connection absolutely clear here. Some rabbis linked the water-drawing ceremony with the promised Holy Spirit and even called the courtyard in the Temple “the house of the water-drawing” (y. Sukkah 5.1, 55a; Ruth Rabbah 4:8). It is also possible there is an allusion to Isaiah 12:3, “You will drink deeply from the fountain of salvation,” with Jesus’ innermost being as the “fountain of salvation” (some associated Isa 12:3 with the Festival of Shelters; so Marcus 1998). Jesus was fulfilling further prophecy by giving the Holy Spirit to those who would believe. John wants to make the time of this gift clear. It “had not yet been given” during Jesus’ life and ministry, but it would be given after Jesus “entered into his glory.” This in fact is the theme of the Farewell Discourse of chapters 14–17: “I must depart so the Spirit might come.” It is the Spirit who would carry out Jesus’ directive and make the final salvation available to all. Jesus made the gift possible; the Spirit is the operative force. This, of course, does not mean the Spirit did not yet exist, for we see the Spirit in the Old Testament as well as in Jesus’ early ministry (1:32; 3:34). However, the age of the Spirit was yet to come and would begin with Jesus’ exaltation and conferral of the Spirit upon his disciples (20:22).

The division of the crowd was caused by ignorance and unbelief. Wherever Jesus went, he caused division, for he encountered the darkness in every person (1:5, 9) and forced them to come to a faith-decision. Those who preferred darkness rejected that Light (3:19-20). So it was in this case as well. Once again, some joined the leaders in seeking his arrest, but once more “no one laid a hand on him” because the divinely appointed “hour” had not yet arrived (Cf. 7:30; 8:20).

The leaders reacted harshly, as one would expect, accusing them of being “led astray” like so many in Israel (7:47). Jesus had already been called a deceptive fraud (7:12), so it was natural that the leaders would think he had deceived their Temple guards. Their statement to the guards that none of the leaders believed in him was certainly an overstatement, for Nicodemus, one of them, did not share their unbelief (7:48, 50). The same division that occurred everywhere concerning Jesus probably also occurred among the leaders, although we have no evidence that any had yet become followers. John tells us of two at his death—Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus—but describes Joseph as a “secret disciple” due to fear of the other leaders (19:38). These two (and possibly a few others) were converted at some stage during Jesus’ ministry. Certainly the pressure against speaking favorably about Jesus that the common people felt (7:13) was also felt by the leaders themselves. At any rate, the Pharisees were saying to the Levites that they, the Pharisees and leading priests, were the experts in the law, not them, so they should quit listening to this upstart, Jesus. Then they accused these Levitical police of becoming like the “foolish crowd” who followed Jesus. To do so was to be “ignorant of the law” and under “God’s curse” (7:49). This corresponds to the Pharisaical attitude toward “the people of the land” (Heb. ‘am ha’arets [TH5971A/776, ZH6639/824]), who did not know the law to the same scrupulous degree that the Pharisees did and so were regarded as under the covenant curses (Deut 27:26; Ps 119:21; Jer 11:3). They viewed these people as open to all kinds of trickery by false teachers.

In an ironic development, one of their own proved the leaders wrong by taking Jesus’ side (7:50-52). Nicodemus, who had interacted with Jesus in 3:1-15, challenged them regarding the legality of convicting someone without a hearing. Nicodemus appears three times in John’s Gospel—at first not as a believer (3:1-15) but in the end as a believer (19:39-42). At some time, he became a follower, and it may have been before this statement, but we do not know. As Michaels says (1989:142), he is here as a contrast with the Pharisees and as a “plea (unheeded) for fairness” rather than to signify a stage in his own spiritual progress.

In 7:49, the Jewish leaders implied they were experts on the law, so Nicodemus raised a point of law. There is no exact statement in rabbinic literature to this effect, but several texts demand a serious investigation regarding any illegality (e.g., Deut 1:16; 17:2-5; 19:15-19; cf. Exodus Rabbah 21:3). The Romans had the same rule (cf. Acts 25:16). The other leaders did not answer his query but derided him as an honorary Galilean (an obvious slur, in effect calling him a provincial nincompoop) and repeated their earlier attack on Jesus (Cf. 7:41). In actuality, they were wrong in saying that no prophet came from Galilee, for Jonah and Nahum were from that province, and rabbis at that time said prophets had arisen from every tribe (b. Sukkah 27b). They most likely intended to refer only to the “prophet like Moses,” but John was showing the extent of their rejection of Jesus. They were so opposed to him that they were not even thinking logically. Most importantly, as before, they remained ignorant that he was actually from heaven.

7:53–8:11 This passage is as close to a conclusive text-critical case as exists in the NT. Almost certainly this story was not originally part of John but was added by later scribes. It is missing from nearly all the early mss (e.g., 66 75 א Avid B Cvid L N T W 037 038 044 0141 0211 33). As for the mss A and C, though they both have lacunae in this portion of John, careful measurements show that it is unlikely that there was enough space in the original codices of either of these mss to contain the story (so Metzger 1994:187). No Greek Father commented on the passage before the twelfth century. It is also missing from many of the oldest mss in the versions (e.g., Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic). The only early Greek ms to include it is D, and it is notoriously expansive. Furthermore, the story is placed in several places in the Gospels by various later scribes—after Luke 21:38 or after John 7:36, 7:44, or 21:25. Finally, the language of the story is closer to the synoptic Gospels, esp. Luke (e.g., having “the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees” in 8:3, a phrase not found in John). This evidence shows that John never included this story in his Gospel; it was added later. Nonetheless, it is likely that this is a true story, an authentic piece of tradition from the apostles. Eusebius (History 39.16) mentions a similar story by Papias, and this story is found in the third century Didascalia Apostolorum (ch 7 [[§224]). The story itself is like similar stories of attempts to trap Jesus, and his actions are in keeping with his responses elsewhere.

As the note on 7:53–8:11 points out, this story is not part of the canonical Gospel—that is, it was not written by John. Nevertheless, it is most likely a true story about Jesus. Thus, it is true but not canonical—so, how do we handle it in a teaching or preaching situation? I believe the best way is to rely on other biblical material on handling sexual sin in the church (e.g., 1 Cor 6:12-20; 1 Thess 4:1-8) and use this as an exemplary story to demonstrate how Jesus dealt with such sinners. Though it is not canonical, it is excellent illustrative material on an important issue. Let us briefly consider the story.

The setting (7:53–8:2) could fit the time of the Festival of Shelters (Whitacre) or the Passion Week (Carson). At any rate, Jesus was staying on the Mount of Olives (his home for Passion Week, cf. Luke 21:37), probably in Bethany at the foot of the mountain (Mark 11:11-12), and going to the Temple to teach every morning. The encounter with the teachers of religious law and Pharisees trying to trap him (8:3-6a) is similar to the Temple debates in Mark 11:27–12:24 (esp. 12:13, 15). It seems that the teachers of religious law and Pharisees had been laying in wait for Jesus. They had caught a woman in an adulterous liaison, probably the night before, and were just then bringing her to Jesus. Whitacre (1999:205-206) calls their treatment of her “callous and demeaning,” noting that they must have held her incommunicado just for the opportunity to “trap” Jesus (there probably had been no trial for her as yet). Her humiliation and fear would have been incredible. These teachers asserted that the law of Moses says to stone such women (8:5), a rather hard-nosed statement; there is little evidence that they were seeking justice or truth. The law was fairly clear. Stoning was only demanded if a virgin engaged to be married committed adultery, and then both the man and the woman were to be stoned (Deut 22:23-24). In other types of adultery, death was prescribed, but the means was not specified (Deut 22:22). Such legalities were not the interest of the leaders, however; they wanted only to “trap [Jesus] into saying something they could use against him” (8:6). If he treated the law lightly, they could accuse him of disobeying it. If he enforced it, they could get him in trouble with the Romans, who did not allow the Jews to execute people (cf. note on 18:31). Moreover, there is some evidence that stoning was rarely done and was not very popular with the people (so Carson). These leaders were coldheartedly using the unfortunate woman to get at Jesus.

Jesus’ reaction (8:6b-9) is noteworthy. Still sitting (Cf. 8:2), he bent over and started writing in the dust. A great deal has been written regarding the message he may have left in the dust, perhaps Jeremiah 17:13 (“All who turn away from you . . . will be buried in the dust of the earth [lit., ‘written in the dust’]”—a view held by Augustine) or the sins of the accusers (suggested by Jerome) or the sentence Jesus would deliver (a Roman practice—to write down the sentence and then read it; see Brown for other conjectures). But in the final analysis, there is no way to know what he wrote. While he was writing, the leaders kept hounding Jesus for his answer, so he finally stood up and gave his response, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone.” This was a brilliant riposte and in keeping with Matthew 7:1-5, “Do not judge others . . . [with a] log in your own eye.” This would be in keeping with the first suggestion above regarding Jeremiah 17:13, for Jesus had shifted the focus from the woman to their own sins. Many (e.g., Lindars, Ridderbos) believe there may also be a reference to Deuteronomy 13:9 and 17:7, in which the official witnesses to the adultery were to cast the first stones. In other words, Jesus was saying, “Who is prepared to come forward as a witness against this woman, when he has the witness of God against himself?” (Schnackenburg).

Beginning with the oldest (in traditional Jewish deference to older people but possibly also because they were more aware of their sins), the people gathered there slipped away one by one until Jesus was alone with the woman. When Jesus said, “Didn’t even one of them condemn you?” (8:10), he was hardly referring to the whole scene, for they had been condemning her for the entire time until that moment. Jesus meant “condemn” in the ultimate sense; all her accusers had left. When she answered, “No, Lord,” he then delivered his sentence: “Neither do I” (7:11). Jesus had the God-given authority to judge (5:22, 30), and thus he had the authority to forgive (Mark 2:5-11; Luke 7:48-49). The experience of forgiveness, however, places a moral and spiritual responsibility on the individual, so Jesus added, “Go and sin no more.” Here Jesus shows his knowledge of the woman’s sins (7:11). She was undoubtedly guilty, but her life of sin had to end with this experience of God’s forgiveness.