John 7 JOHN 7:1-13 The Feast of Tabernacles After this Jesus traveled throughout Galilee. He stayed out of Judea because the Jewish authorities wanted to kill him. Now the Jewish feast of Tabernacles was near. So Jesus’ brothers advised him, "Leave here and go to Judea so your disciples may see your miracles that you are performing. For no one who seeks to make a reputation for himself does anything in secret.
If you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." (For not even his own brothers believed in him.) So Jesus replied, "My time has not yet arrived, but you are ready at any opportunity. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I am testifying about it that its deeds are evil. You go up to the feast yourselves. I am not going up to this feast yet, because my time has not yet fully arrived." When he had said this, he remained in Galilee. But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then Jesus himself also went up, not openly but in secret.
So the Jewish authorities were looking for him at the feast, asking, "Where is he?" There was a lot of grumbling about him among the crowds. Some were saying, "He is a good man," but others, "He deceives the common people." However, no one spoke openly about him for fear of the Jewish authorities. The chapter we now begin is divided from the preceding one by a wide interval of time. The many miracles which our Lord wrought, while He "walked in Galilee," are passed over by John in comparative silence.
The events which he was specially inspired to record are those which took place in or near Jerusalem. We should observe in this passage the desperate hardness and unbelief of human nature. We are told that even our Lord's "brethren did not believe in Him." Holy and harmless and blameless as He was in life, some of his nearest relatives, according to the flesh, did not receive Him as the Messiah.
It was bad enough that His own people, "the Jews sought to kill Him." But it was even worse that "His brethren did not believe." That great Scriptural doctrine, man's need of preventing and converting grace, stands out here, as if written with a sunbeam. It becomes all who question that doctrine to look at this passage and consider. Let them observe that seeing Christ's miracles, hearing Christ's teaching, living in Christ's own company, were not enough to make men believers. The mere possession of spiritual privileges never yet made any one a Christian.
All is useless without the effectual and applying work of God the Holy Spirit. No wonder that our Lord said in another place, "No man can come to me, except the Father who has sent me draw him." (John 6:44.) The true servants of Christ in every age will do well to remember this. They are often surprised and troubled to find that in religion they stand alone. They are apt to fancy that it must be their own fault that all around them are not converted like themselves. They are ready to blame themselves because their families remain worldly and unbelieving.
But let them look at the verse before us. In our Lord Jesus Christ there was no fault either in temper, word, or deed. Yet even Christ's own "brethren did not believe in Him." Our blessed Master has truly learned by experience how to sympathize with all his people who stand alone. This is a thought "full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort." He knows the heart of every isolated believer, and can be touched with the feeling of his trials. He has drunk this bitter cup. He has passed through this fire.
Let all who are fainting and cast down, because brothers and sisters despise their religion, turn to Christ for comfort, and pour out their hearts before Him. He "has suffered Himself being tempted" in this way, and He can help as well as feel. (Heb. 2:18.) We should observe, for another thing, in this passage, one principal reason why many hate Christ.
We are told that our Lord said to His unbelieving brethren, "The world cannot hate you; but me it hates, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." These words reveal one of those secret principles which influence men in their treatment of Christ. They help to explain that deadly enmity with which many during our Lord's earthly ministry regarded Him and His Gospel. It was not so much the high doctrines which He preached, as the high standard of practice which He proclaimed, which gave offence.
It was not even His claim to be received the Messiah which men disliked so much, as His witness against the wickedness of their lives. In short, they could have tolerated His opinions if He would only have spared their sins. The principle, we may be sure, is one of universal application. It is at work now just as much as it was eighteen hundred years ago. The real cause of many people's dislike to the Gospel is the holiness of living which it demands. Teach abstract doctrines only, and few will find any fault.
Denounce the fashionable sins of the day, and call on men to repent and walk consistently with God, and thousands at once will be offended. The true reason why many profess to be infidels, and abuse Christianity, is the witness that Christianity bears against their own bad lives. Like Ahab, they hate it, "because it does not prophesy good concerning them, but evil." (1 Kings 22:8.) We should observe, lastly, in this passage, the strange variety of opinions about Christ, which were current from the beginning.
We are told that "there was much murmuring among the people concerning him--for some said, He is a good man others said, No, but he deceives the people." The words which old Simeon had spoken thirty years before were here accomplished in a striking manner. He had said to our Lord's mother, "This child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel--and for a sign which shall be spoken against--that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2:34, 35.) In the diversities of opinion about our Lord which arose among the Jews, we see the good old man's saying fulfilled.
In the face of such a passage as this, the endless differences and divisions about religion, which we see on all sides, in the present day, ought never to surprise us. The open hatred of some toward Christ--the carping, faultfinding, prejudiced spirit of others--the bold confession of the few faithful ones--the timid, man-fearing temperament of the many faithless ones--the unceasing war of words and strife of tongues with which the Churches of Christ are so sadly familiar--are only modern symptoms of an old disease.
Such is the corruption of human nature, that Christ is the cause of division among men, wherever He is preached. So long as the world stands, some, when they hear of Him, will love, and some will hate--some will believe, and some will believe not. That deep, prophetical saying of His will be continually verified--"Do not think that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matt. 10:34.) What do we think of Christ ourselves? This is the one question with which we have to do.
Let us never be ashamed to be of that little number who believe on Him, hear His voice, follow Him, and confess Him before men. While others waste their time in vain jangling and unprofitable controversy, let us take up the cross and give all diligence to make our calling and election sure. The children of this world may hate us, as it hated our Master, because our religion is a standing witness against them. But the last day will show that we chose wisely, lost nothing, and gained a crown of glory that fades not away. Technical Notes: 1.
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee ; for he would not walk in Judea , because the Jews sought to kill him. 2. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. 3. His brethren therefore said to him, Depart from here and go into Judea , that your disciples also may see the works that you do. 4. For there is no man who does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world. 5. For neither did his brethren believe in him. 6. Then Jesus said to them, My time is not yet come, but your time is always ready. 7.
The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil. 8. Ye go up to this feast. I will not go up yet, for my time is not yet fully come. 9. When he had said these words to them, he remained in Galilee . 10. But when his brethren had gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. 11. Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? 12. And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him. Some said, He is a good man; others said, No, but he deceives the people. 13.
However, no man spoke openly of him for fear of the Jews. 1.--[ After these things... Galilee . ] These words cover a space of about six months. The events of the last chapter took place about the time of the Passover, in spring. The events of the chapter we now begin took place in autumn, at the feast of tabernacles. What our Lord did in Galilee during these six months St. John passes over in silence. His Gospel, with the exception of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th chapters, is almost entirely taken up with our Lord’s doings in or near Jerusalem.
He was at this period of His ministry entirely absent from Jerusalem, it would seem, for about eighteen months. The expression “walked” must be taken figuratively. It simply means that our Lord “lived, dwelt, sojourned, was going to and fro, and passing His time.” The Greek word is in the imperfect tense and denotes a continuous action or habit. [ He would not walk in Jewry. ] This would be more literally rendered, “He did not will, or desire, or choose to walk.” The use of the word “Jewry” by our translators is to be regretted and seems uncalled for.
The Greek word so rendered is the same that is rendered “Judea” in the third verse. [ Because the Jews sought to kill Him. ] By “the Jews” we must understand the leaders and rulers of the Jewish nation. There is no proof that the lower orders felt the same enmity that the upper classes did against our Lord. “The common people heard Him gladly.” (Mark xii.37.) The depth and bitterness of this hatred against Christ may be seen in their wish to kill Him.
It seems to have been a settled plan with the Jews from the time when the miracle was wrought at the pool of Bethesda. (John v.16,18.) They could neither answer Him, nor silence Him, nor prevent the common people listening to Him. They resolved therefore to kill Him. Our Lord’s example recorded in this verse shows clearly that Christians are not meant to court martyrdom or willfully expose themselves to certain death under the idea that it is their duty. Many primitive martyrs seem not to have understood this. 2.--[ Jews’ feast of tabernacles. ] This expression, like many others in St.
John’s Gospel, shows that he wrote for the Gentiles, who knew little of Jewish customs and feasts. Hence “the Jews’ feast.” The feast of tabernacles was one of the three great feasts in the Jewish year when, by God’s command, all pious Jews went up to Jerusalem. (Deut. xvi.16.) It was held in autumn, after the completion of the harvest, in the seventh month. The time of the Jewish “Passover” answered to our Easter, “Pentecost” to our Whitsuntide, and “Tabernacles” to our Michaelmas.
The seventh month was remarkable for the number of ordinances which the law of Moses required the Jews to observe. On the first day was the feast of trumpets, on the tenth day was the day of atonement, and on the fifteenth began the feast of tabernacles. There are several things peculiar to the feast of tabernacles which ought to be remembered in reading this chapter, because some of them throw light on it. (1) It was an occasion of special mirth and rejoicing with the Jews.
They were ordered to dwell in booths, or tabernacles made of branches, for seven days in remembrance of their dwelling in temporary booths when they came out of Egypt, and to “rejoice before the Lord.” (Lev. xxiii.39-43.) (2) It was a feast at which more sacrifices were offered up than at any of the Jewish feasts. (Num. xxix.12-34.) (3) It was a feast at which, once every seven years, the law was publicly read to the whole people. (4) It was a feast at which water was drawn from the pool of Siloam every day, with great solemnity, and poured upon the altar while the people sung the 12th chapter of Isaiah. (5) It was a feast which followed close on the great day of atonement, when the peculiarly typical ordinances of the scapegoat and the High Priest going once in the year into the holy of holies, were fresh in the minds of the people.
These things should be carefully noted and remembered as we read through the chapter. Josephus calls the feast of tabernacles “the holiest and greatest feast of the Jews.” It was a Rabbinical saying, “The man who has not seen these festivities does not know what a jubilee is.” Whether this very year, when our Lord went to the feast of tabernacles, was the precise seventh year in which the public reading of the law took place, we cannot now know for certainty. Whether the custom of dwelling on booths was literally kept up when our Lord was on earth may also be matter of question.
It certainly had not been observed for many years in the days of Nehemiah (Neh. viii.17). But that this feast was kept up with extraordinary festivity and rejoicing in the latter days of the Jewish dispensation is testified by all Jewish writers. It was in the middle of this public rejoicing and the concourse of Jews from every part of the world that the things recorded in this chapter took place. It stands to reason that all that our Lord said and did this week must have been more than usually public and would necessarily attract great attention.
Wordsworth, Burgon, and others consider the feast of tabernacles to have been a very significant type of our Lord’s incarnation. I confess that I am unable to see it. If the feast was typical at all, which is not certain, I venture the conjecture that it was meant to be a type of our Lord’s second advent. My reasons are these: (a) It was the last in order of the Jewish feasts every year and formed the completion of the annual routine of Mosaic ordinances.
It wound up all. (b) It was kept at the end of harvest when the year’s work was done and the fruits were all gathered in. (c) It was an occasion of special rejoicing and festivity, more than any of the feasts. The dwelling in booths seems to have been a circumstance of the feast less essential than the rejoicing. (d) It followed immediately after the feast of trumpets and the day of atonement. On that day the High Priest went into the holy of holies and then came out to bless the people. (See Isa. xxvii.13; 1 Thes. iv.16.) (e) It followed immediately after the jubilee every fiftieth year.
That jubilee, and proclamation of liberty to all, was in the seventh month. (f) It is that special feast which, after the Jews are restored and Jerusalem rebuilt, the nations are yet to keep in the future kingdom of Christ. (Zech. xiv.16.) I venture this conjecture with much diffidence, but I think it deserves consideration. In the six points I have mentioned, I see much more of the second advent than of the first.
To my eyes the feast of passover was a type of Christ crucified; the feast of pentecost—of Christ sending forth the Holy Ghost in this dispensation; the feast of tabernacles—of Christ coming again to gather His people in one joyous company, to reap the harvest of the earth, to wind up this dispensation, to come forth and bless His people, and to proclaim a jubilee to all the earth. 3.--[ His brethren. ] Who these “brethren” were is a matter of dispute.
Some think, as Alford, Stier, and others, that they were literally our Lord’s own brethren and the children of Mary by Joseph, born after our Lord’s birth. (See Psalm lxix.8.) Some think, as Theophylact and others, that they were the children of Joseph by a former marriage and brought up by Mary under the same roof with our Lord. Others think, as Augustine, Zwingle, Musculus, and Bengel, that the word “brethren” does not necessarily mean more than cousins or kinsmen. (See 1 Chron. xxiii.22.) This is the most probable opinion.
I take these “brethren” to have been relatives and kinsmen of Joseph and Mary, living at Nazareth or Capernaum or elsewhere in Galilee, who naturally observed all our Lord’s doings with interest and curiosity but at present did not believe on Him. To suppose, as some do, that these brethren were some of our Lord’s Apostles, is to my mind a most improbable theory and flatly contrary to the 5th verse of this chapter.
If Mary really had sons after the birth of our Lord, it certainly seems strange that our Lord, on the cross, should commend her to the care of John and not to her own sons, His half-brethren. That at the later part of His ministry He had some “brethren” who were not Apostles but believed is clear from Acts i.14. But whether they were the “brethren” of the text before us, we have no means of ascertaining. [ Depart...that your disciples, etc. ] This recommendation, as well as the next verse, looks like the advice of men who as yet were not convinced of our Lord’s Messiahship.
The expression, “that Your disciples may see,” seems also to indicate that the speakers were not yet of the number of our Lord’s disciples. The language is that of bystanders looking on, waiting to see how the question is to be settled before they make up their own minds. It is as though they said, “Make haste, rally a party round Yourself, show some public proof that You are the Christ, and gather adherents.” The “works” here mentioned must evidently mean miracles. This speech seems to imply that our Lord had a party of disciples in Judea and at Jerusalem.
Many, it should be remembered, “believed on Him” at the first passover He attended. (John ii.23.) 4.--[ For there is no man, etc. ] This sentence is a kind of proverbial saying. Everyone knows that if a man seeks to be known openly, it is no use to do his work secretly. [ If...show Yourself to the world. ] There seems to be a latent sneer about this sentence. “If you really are doing miracles to prove Yourself the Messiah, do not continue to hide Yourself here in Galilee.
Go up to Jerusalem and do miracles there.” That the speakers said this from an honest zeal for God’s glory and a sincere desire to have our Lord known by others as well as themselves, is a view that I cannot think probable. Some think that the words “if You do” mean “since You do,” and see a parallel in Col. iii.1 where “if” does not imply any doubt whether the Colossians were “risen with Christ.” Lampe thinks it means, “if You really and truly, not illusively, do miracles.” The false standard of an unconverted man is very manifest in this and the preceding verse.
Such a one has no idea of waiting for man’s praise and favor, and of being content without it if it does not come. He thinks that a religion should have the praise of the world, and labor to get it. The man of God remembers that true religion does not “cry, nor strive,” nor court publicity. 5.--[ For neither did his brethren believe. ] These words appear to me to admit of only one meaning. They mean that these brethren of our Lord had at present no faith at all. They did not yet believe that Jesus was the Christ. They had no grace. They were not converted.
The idea of some that the words mean, “His brethren did not fully and entirely believe in Him,” seems to me utterly without foundation. It cannot, moreover, be reconciled with the language that soon follows: “The world cannot hate you,” etc. Such language cannot be applied to disciples. The whole teaching of the Bible shows clearly that it was quite possible to be a relative of Christ according to the flesh and yet not be converted.
He that does God’s will is as dear to Christ as “brother, or sister, or mother.” (Mark iii.35.) How frequently even the natural brethren of God’s most eminent saints have been graceless and ungodly every Bible reader must often have observed. The cases of the brothers of Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and David will occur to our minds. We should learn from a verse like this the desperate hardness of man’s heart, the absolute necessity of grace to make anyone a disciple, and the extreme danger of familiarity with high spiritual privileges.
We should remember too that a man may be a truly good and holy man and yet not have converted relatives. No one can give grace to his own family. “A prophet is not without honor but in his own country.” (Mark vi.4.) Even our Lord was not believed by all around Him. He can truly sympathize with all His people who are in a similar position. 6.--[ My time is not yet come. ] These words must mean that our Lord did everything during His earthly ministry according to a pre-ordained plan, and that He could take no step except in harmony with that plan.
He doubtless spoke with a Divine depth of meaning that none but Himself could comprehend, and that must have been unintelligible at the time to His “brethren.” To them His words would probably convey nothing more than the idea that for some reason or other He did not think the present a favorable opportunity for going to Jerusalem. [ Your time is always ready. ] This sentence must mean that to unconverted people, like our Lord’s brethren, it could make no matter what time they went up. All times were alike. They would excite no enmity and run no risk.
A Christian not possessing foreknowledge can only pray for guidance and direction as to the steps of his life and the ways and times of his actions; and having prayed, then make the best use of his judgment, trusting that a faithful God will not let him make mistakes. 7.--[ The world cannot hate you. ] These words surely settle the question as to the present state of our Lord’s brethren. They were yet unconverted.
Our Lord says, in another place, “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own.” (John xv.19.) [ But it hates Me...its works are evil. ] The true reason of this enmity of many of the Jews against Christ is here distinctly indicated. It was not merely His claims to be received as the Messiah. It was not merely the high and spiritual doctrine He preached. It was rather His constant testimony against the sinful lives and wicked practices of the many in His day.
That adultery, covetousness, and hypocrisy were rife and common among the leading Pharisees is evident from many expressions in the Gospels. It was our Lord’s witness against these darling sins that enraged His enemies. The wickedness of human nature is painfully shown in this sentence. Christ was “hated.” It is an utter delusion to suppose that there is any innate response to perfect moral purity or any innate admiration of “the true, the pure, the just, the kind, the good, and the beautiful” in the heart of man.
God gave man, 1800 years ago, a perfect pattern of purity, truth, and love, in the person of our Lord while He was upon earth. And yet we are told He was “hated.” True Christians must never be surprised if they are “hated” like their Lord.
“The disciple is not above his Master.” “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hates you.” (Matt. x.24, 1 John iii.13.) In fact, the more like Christ they are the more likely to be “hated.” Moreover, they must not be cast down and make themselves miserable under the idea that it is their inconsistencies the world hates, and that if they were more consistent and lovely in life the world would like them better. This is a complete mistake and a common delusion of the devil. What the world hates about Christians is neither their doctrines nor their faults, but their holy lives.
Their lives are a constant testimony against the world, which makes the men of the world feel uncomfortable, and therefore the world hates them. Let us note that unpopularity among men is no proof that a Christian is wrong, either in faith or practice. The common notion of many—that it is a good sign of a person’s character to be well-spoken of by everybody—is a great error. When we see how our Lord was regarded by the wicked and worldly of His day, we may well conclude that it is a very poor compliment to be told that we are liked by everybody.
There can surely be very little “witness” about our lives if even the wicked like us. “Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you.” (Luke vi.26.) That sentence is too much forgotten. Erasmus used to say that Luther might have had an easy life if he had not touched the Pope’s crown and the monks’ bellies. Bengel observes, “Those who please all men at all times ought deservedly to look on themselves with suspicion.” 8.--[ Ye go up to this feast. ] These words can hardly be called a command.
They rather mean, “If you wish to go at once, go, and do not tarry for Me.” [ I will not...time is not yet fully come. ] Here the reason already given and commented on is repeated. Our Lord did not say He would not go to the feast, but, Not yet. There was “a time” for all His actions and every step of His ministry, and that time had not yet fully arrived; or, as the Greek literally means, was not “fulfilled.” True Christians should remember that, like their Master on this occasion, they and worldly men cannot well work and act and move together. They will often find it so.
Their principles are different. Their reasons and motives of action are different. They will often find that “two cannot walk together unless they are agreed.” It seems strange that any reasonable person should see difficulty in this passage, as if it threw a color of doubt on our Lord’s veracity. Yet Augustine has a Homily on the subject in defense of our Lord. Surely the simplest and most natural view is that our Lord meant, “I am not going up yet,” and “am not going, at any rate, in the public caravan with yourselves.” This is Chrysostom’s view and Theophylact’s.
At an early period Porphyry tried to fasten on our Lord the charge of inconstancy of purpose, out of this passage. An enemy of Christianity must be sadly at a loss for objections if he can find no better than one founded on this place. 9.--[ When he said...remained in Galilee. ] This means that He stayed at the place where this conversation took place while His brethren started on their journey to Jerusalem.
What the place in Galilee was we are not told. 10.--[But when his brethren...he also...feast. ] We are not told what interval there was between our Lord’s setting off for Jerusalem and His brethren’s departure. The words before us would seem to indicate that He set off very soon after them. One reason, perhaps, for our Lord not going with them was His desire to avoid being made a public show by His relatives. They had very likely a carnal desire to call attention to Him and to rally a party of adherents round Him for their own worldly ends.
To avoid affording any opportunity for this, our Lord would not go in their company. He had not forgotten, no doubt, that in Galilee there was a party who once would fain have “taken Him by force to make Him a king.” (John vi.15.) He wished to keep clear of that party. [ Not openly, but...in secret. ] This probably only means that our Lord did not go in the caravan or large company of His kinsmen who, according to custom, went up together from Galilee, but in a more private manner.
How large the caravans or gatherings of fellow travelers going up to the three great feasts must have been, we may easily see from the account of our Lord being not missed by Mary and Joseph at first when He went up to Jerusalem with them at the age of twelve. “Supposing Him to have been in their company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.” (Luke ii.44.) Our Lord never sought publicity but once, and that was when He entered Jerusalem at the last passover, just before His crucifixion.
Then he wanted to draw attention to the great sacrifice He was about to offer up on the cross. The contrast between His conduct on that occasion and the present one is very remarkable. When it says that “He went in secret,” it does not necessarily mean that He went alone. There is no reason to suppose that His own chosen Apostles had gone without Him. It only means that He did not go up publicly in the company of all “His kinsfolk and acquaintance” from Galilee. 11.--[ Then the Jews sought Him. ] If, as usually is the case in St.
John, the “Jews” here mean the rulers and Pharisees, there can be little doubt that they sought Jesus in order to kill Him, as the first verse tells us they wished to do. They naturally concluded that, like all devout Jews, He would come up to Jerusalem to the feast. [ Where is He? ] Here, as in many other places, the Greek word rendered “he” implies dislike and contempt.
It is as if they said, “that fellow” (see Matt. xxvii.63), “that deceiver.” 12.--[ There was much murmuring. ] As a general rule, the Greek word rendered “murmuring” means an undercurrent of discontent or dislike not openly expressed. (Thus, Acts vi.1.) But here, and at verse 32, it does not seem to mean more than muttering and private conversation, implying only that people were not satisfied about our Lord and privately talked much to one another about Him. [ The people. ] This word in the Greek is in the plural and evidently means the multitude, or crowd of persons who were gathered at Jerusalem on account of the feast, in contradistinction to the rulers who were called “the Jews.” [ Some said...others said, etc. ] These expressions show the feeling of the common people towards our Lord and are doubtless indicative of the classes from which the two opinions came.
The class of simple-minded, true-hearted Israelites, who had sufficient independence to think for themselves, would say of Our Lord, “He is a good man.” So also would the Galileans, probably, who had seen and heard most of our Lord’s ministry. On the other hand, the class of carnal Jews who thought nothing of true religion and were led like a mob at the beck of the priests and Pharisees, would probably take their cue from the rulers and say, “He deceives the people,” simply because they were told so. Such, probably, was the feeling of the lower orders at Jerusalem.
Let it be noted that Christ is and always has been the cause of division of opinion, wherever He has come or has been preached. To some He is a savor of “life,” and to others of “death.” (2 Cor. ii.16.) He draws out the true character of mankind. They either like Him or dislike Him. Strife and conflict of opinion are the certain consequences of the Gospel really coming among men with power. The fault is not in the Gospel but in human nature. Stillness and quiet are signs not of life but of death.
The sun calls forth miasma and malaria from the swamps it shines upon, but the fault is not in the sun but in the land. The very same rays call forth fertility and abundance from the cornfield. 13.--[However no man spoke openly...fear of the Jews. ] This expression, of course, applies specially to those who favored our Lord. Those who hated Him would not fear to say so openly. This verse shows the length to which the enmity of the Jewish rulers against our Lord had already gone.
It was a notorious fact among the lower orders that the heads of the nation hated Jesus and that it was a dangerous thing to talk favorably of Him or to manifest any interest in Him. The fear of man is a powerful principle among most people. Rulers have little idea how many things are secretly talked of sometimes among subjects and kept back from them. Two hundred years ago the Stuarts could persecute all open and outspoken favorers of the English Puritans, but they could not prevent the lower orders secretly talking of them and imbibing prejudices in their favor.
JOHN 7:14-24 Teaching in the Temple When the feast was half over, Jesus went up to the temple and began to teach. Then the Jewish authorities were astonished and said, "How does this man know so much when he has never had formal instruction?" So Jesus replied, "My teaching is not from me, but from the one who sent me. If anyone wants to do God’s will, he will know about my teaching, whether it is from God or whether I speak from my own authority.
The person who speaks on his own authority desires to receive honor for himself; the one who desires the honor of the one who sent him is a man of integrity, and there is no unrighteousness in him. Hasn’t Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law! Why do you want to kill me?" The crowd answered, "You’re possessed by a demon! Who is trying to kill you?" Jesus replied, "I performed one miracle and you are all amazed. However, because Moses gave you the practice of circumcision (not that it came from Moses, but from the forefathers), you circumcise a male child on the Sabbath.
But if a male child is circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken, why are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? Do not judge according to external appearance, but judge with proper judgment." We learn first in this passage, that honest obedience to God's will is one way to obtain clear spiritual knowledge.
Our Lord says, "If anyone wants to do God’s will, he will know about my teaching, whether it is from God or whether I speak from my own authority." The difficulty of finding out "what is truth" in religion is a common subject of complaint among men. They point to the many differences which prevail among Christians on matters of doctrine, and profess to be unable to decide who is right. In thousands of cases this professed inability to find out truth becomes an excuse for living without any religion at all.
The saying of our Lord before us is one that demands the serious attention of people in this state of mind. It supplies an argument whose edge and point they will find it hard to evade. It teaches that one secret of getting the key of knowledge is to practice honestly what we know, and that if we conscientiously use the light that we now have, we shall soon find more light coming down into our minds. In short, there is a sense in which it is true, that by doing we shall come to knowing . There is a mine of truth in this principle. Well would it be for men if they would act upon it.
Instead of saying, as some do--"I must first know everything clearly, and then I will act,"--we should say--"I will diligently use such knowledge as I possess, and believe that in the using fresh knowledge will be given to me." How many mysteries this simple plan would solve! How many hard thing would soon become plain if men would honestly live up to their light, and "follow on to know the Lord!" (Hosea 6:3.) It should never be forgotten that God deals with us as moral beings, and not as beasts or stones.
He loves to encourage us to self-exertion and diligent use of such means as we have in our hands. The plain things in religion are undeniably very many. Let a man honestly attend to them, and he shall be taught the deep things of God. Whatever some may say about their inability to find out truth, you will rarely find one of them who does not know better than he practices. Then if he is sincere, let him begin here at once. Let him humbly use what little knowledge he has got, and God will soon give him more.
"If your eye be single, your whole body shall be full of light." (Matt. 6:22.) We learn, secondly, in this passage, that a self-exalting spirit in ministers of religion is entirely opposed to the mind of Christ. Our Lord says, "He that speaks of himself seeks his own glory; but he that seeks His glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him." The wisdom and truth of this sentence will be evident at once to any reflecting mind.
The minister truly called of God will be deeply sensible of his Master's majesty and his own infirmity, and will see in himself nothing but unworthiness. He, on the other hand, who knows that he is not "inwardly moved by the Holy Spirit," will try to cover over his defects by magnifying himself and his office. The very desire to exalt ourselves is a bad symptom. It is a sure sign of something wrong within. Does any one ask illustrations of the truth before us? He will find them, on the one side, in the Scribes and Pharisees of our Lord's times.
If one thing more than another distinguished these unhappy men, it was their desire to get praise for themselves. He will find them, on the other side, in the character of the Apostle Paul.
The keynote that runs through all his Epistles is personal humility and zeal for Christ's glory--"I am less than the least of all saints--I am not fit to be called an Apostle--I am chief of sinners--we preach not ourselves but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." (Ephes. 3:8; 1 Cor. 15:9; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2 Cor 4:5.) Does any one ask for a test by which he may discern the real man of God from the false shepherd in the present day? Let him remember our Lord's weighty words, and notice carefully what is the main object that a minister loves to exalt.
Not he who is ever crying--"Behold the Church! behold the Sacraments! behold the ministry!" but he who says--"Behold the Lamb!"--is the pastor after God's own heart. Happy indeed is that minister who forgets SELF in his pulpit, and desires to be hid behind the cross. This man shall be blessed in his work, and be a blessing. We learn, lastly, in this passage, the danger of forming a hasty judgment. The Jews at Jerusalem were ready to condemn our Lord as a sinner against the law of Moses, because He had done a miracle of healing on the Sabbath day.
They forgot in their blind enmity that the fourth commandment was not meant to prevent works of necessity or works of mercy. A work on the Sabbath our Lord had done, no doubt, but not a work forbidden by the law. And hence they drew down on themselves the rebuke, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." The practical value of the lesson before us is very great. We shall do well to remember it as we travel through life, and to correct our estimate of people and things by the light which it supplies. We are often too ready to be deceived by an appearance of GOOD.
We are in danger of rating some men as very good Christians, because of a little outward profession of religion, and a decent Sunday formality--because, in short, they talk the language of Canaan, and wear the garb of pilgrims. We forget that all is not good that appears good, even as all is not gold that glitters, and that daily practice, choice, tastes, habits, conduct, private character, are the true evidence of what a man is. In a word, we forget our Lord's saying--"Judge not according to the appearance." We are too ready, on the other hand, to be deceived by the appearance of EVIL.
We are in danger of setting down some men as not true Christians, because of a few faults or inconsistencies, and "making them offenders because of a word." (Isa. 29:21.) We must remember that the best of men are but men at their very best, and that the most eminent saints may be overtaken by temptation, and yet be saints at heart after all. We must not hastily suppose that all is evil, where there is an occasional appearance of evil. The holiest man may fall sadly for a time, and yet the grace within him may finally get a victory. Is a man's general character godly?
Then let us suspend our judgment when he falls, and hope on. Let us "judge righteous judgment." In any case let us take care that we pass fair judgment on OURSELVES. Whatever we think of others, let us beware of making mistakes about our own character. There, at any rate, let us be just, honest, and fair. Let us not flatter ourselves that all is right, because all is apparently right before men.
"The Lord," we must remember, "looks on the heart." (1 Sam. 16:7.) Then let us judge ourselves with righteous judgment, and condemn ourselves while we live, lest we be judged of the Lord and condemned forever at the last day. (1 Cor. 11:31.) Technical Notes: 14. Now about the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught. 15. And the Jews marveled, saying, How does this man know letters, having never learned? 16. Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me. 17.
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God or whether I speak of myself. 18. He who speaks of himself seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. 19. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keeps the law? Why do ye go about to kill me? 20. The people answered and said, You have a devil. Who goes about to kill you? 21. Jesus answered and said to them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. 22.
Moses therefore gave to you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. 23. If a man on the sabbath day receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are ye angry at me because I have made a man completely well on the sabbath day? 24. Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment. 14.--[ About the middle of the feast. ] This would be about the fourth day of the week, as the feast lasted seven days.
Some who consider the feast of tabernacles a type of Christ’s incarnation think this circumstance is typical of our Lord’s earthly ministry lasting three years and a half, answering to the three days and a half during which our Lord taught publicly here in Jerusalem. I doubt myself whether the circumstance is typical at all.
If the feast of tabernacles it typical, I believe it points to the second advent of Christ much more than to the first. [ Jesus went up into the temple. ] This means the outer court of the temple, where pious Jews were in the habit of assembling in order to hear the doctors of the law and others and to discuss religious subjects. This is the place where our Lord was when Joseph and Mary found Him at twelve years of age “in the temple.” (Luke ii.46.) It was probably a large open courtyard with piazzas or verandas around it for shelter against heat and cold. [ Taught ].
What our Lord taught we are not told. Expositions of Scripture, as Luke iv.17-21 and such lessons as those contained in the Sermon on the Mount and the parables, were most likely the kind of things that He “taught” first on such occasions as this. It admits of doubt whether He taught such deep things as those contained in the 5th and 6th chapters of St. John, unless publicly attacked, or put on His defense.
Alford things this was “the first time” that our Lord “taught publicly at Jerusalem.” Yet this seems at least questionable when we consider the 2nd and 5th chapters of John. 15.--[ The Jews marveled. ] The wisdom and knowledge of Scripture which our Lord showed must have been the principal cause of wonder. Yet, we may well believe, there was something wonderful in His manner and style of speaking. [ How does this Man know letters? ] The word rendered “letters” here must probably be taken in the sense of “learning.” It is so used in Acts xxvi.24.
In John v.47 it is rendered “writings.” In 2 Tim. iii.15 it is “Scriptures.” The original idea is a “written character, a letter of an alphabet. It is thus used in Luke xxiii.38 of the inscription on the cross, written “in letters of Greek,” etc. [ Having never learned. ] The Jews must have meant by this that our Lord had never attended any of the great theological schools which the scribes and Pharisees kept up in Jerusalem (to which St.
Paul refers when he says that he was “brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel,” Acts xxii.3.) They did not, of course, mean that anyone brought up at Nazareth must necessarily have been totally ignorant. That our Lord could read and write is clear from Luke iv.16 and John viii.6. But the Jerusalem Jews, in their pride and self-conceit, set down anyone as comparatively ignorant who had not been trained in their great metropolitan schools. People are very apt to condemn anyone as “ignorant” who disagrees with them in religion.
According to Tholuck, it was a rule of the Talmud “that no man could appear as a teacher who had not for some years been a colleague of a Rabbi.” 16.--[ My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me. ] Our Lord meant by these words, “My doctrine is not mine only. The teaching that I am proclaiming is not a thing of my own private invention and the product of my own isolated mind. It is the doctrine of my Father who sent Me. It deserves attention because it is His message.
He who despises it despises not only Me, but He whose messenger I am.” The great truth of His own inseparable and mysterious union with God the Father is here once more pointed at.
It is like, “I can of my own self do nothing” (John v.30), and “I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent Me, He gave Me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak.” (John xii.49.) Some think that our Lord only meant, “The sense of Scripture which I give is not my own, but the sense in which God at first gave it.” But this is a very meager view of the sentence, though an Arian or Socinian may like it. Cyril remarks: “In saying that He was sent by the Father, He does not show Himself inferior to the Father.
For this mission is not that of a servant, though it might be called so, as He ‘took on Him the form of a servant.’ But He is ‘sent,--as a word is out of the mind, or a sunbeam out of the sun.” Augustine remarks: “This sentence undoes the Sabellian heresy. The Sabellians have dared to say that the Son is the same as the Father: the names two, the reality one.
If the names were two and the reality one, it would not be said, ‘My doctrine is not mine.’ If Thy doctrine be not Thine, Lord, whose is it, unless there be another whose it may be?” Hengstenberg thinks that our Lord had in view the famous prophecy of Moses in which God says of Messiah, “I will put my words in His mouth.” (Deut. xviii.18.) Let us carefully note with what peculiar reverence we should receive and study every word that fell from our Lord’s lips. When He spoke, He did not speak His own mind only, as one of His Apostles or prophets did.
It was God the Father speaking with and through Him. No wonder, when we read such expressions as this, that St. John calls our Lord “the Word.” 17.--[ If any man will do his will. ] The English language here fails to give the full force of the Greek. It is literally, “If any man is willing to do, has a mind and desire and inclination to do God’s will.” It is not the simple future of the verb “do”. There are two distinct verbs. The stress, therefore, in reading the sentence must not be laid entirely on “ doing ” God’s will.
It is “if any man is willing to do.” [ He shall know of the doctrine. ] This means he shall know “concerning and about” the doctrine I am proclaiming. [ Whether it is of God, or whether I speak of myself. ] This means, “whether the doctrine is from God, as I say it is—the doctrine of God the Father which He has commissioned and sent Me to proclaim to man,--or whether I speak from myself, on my own isolated responsibility without any license or commission.” The translation “speak of myself” is unfortunately equivocal. The expression does not mean “about and concerning” myself, but “from” myself.
By “doing the will of God” our Lord must mean “obeying and performing as far as in us lies that will of God” which we have expressly declared to us in the Word of God.” (17th Article.) Such “doing” He declares is the way to knowledge. It is the same idea as the “doing truth” of John iii.21. The principle here laid down is one of immense importance. We are taught that clear knowledge depends greatly on honest obedience, and that distinct views of Divine truth cannot be expected unless we try to practice such things as we know. Living up to our light, we shall have more light.
Striving to do the few things we know, we shall find the eyes of our understanding enlightened and shall know more. Did the Jews profess to feel perplexed and not to know whether our Lord was sent from God? Let them honestly do God’s will and seek knowledge in the path of sincere obedience in such matters as were clear and plain. So doing they would be guided into all truth and find their doubts removed. We learn from these words how greatly they err who profess to be waiting till their mental difficulties are removed before they become decided Christians. They must change their plan.
They must understand that knowledge comes through humble obedience as well as through the intellect. Let them begin by honestly doing God’s will, as far as they know that will, and in so doing they will find their minds enlightened. We learn, furthermore, that God tests men’s sincerity by making obedience part of the process by which religious knowledge is obtained. Are we really willing to do God’s will so far as we know it? If we are, God will take care that our knowledge is increased. If we are not willing to do His will, we show clearly that we do not want to be God’s servants.
Our hearts and not our heads are in fault. We learn, finally, the great principle on which many will be condemned at the last day. They did not live up to their light. They did not use such knowledge as they possessed and so were left dark and dead in sins. There is probably not one in a thousand among unconverted people who does not know far better than he practices. Such men surely, if lost, will have none to blame but themselves! In interpreting this verse, I believe we must be careful not to lay more meaning on the expression “do His will” than our Lord meant it to bear.
I say this because I observe many respectable commentators place such a very wide and comprehensive sense upon “doing God’s will” that they miss entirely our Lord’s purpose in speaking the words. They start with saying that to “do God’s will” we must have faith in Christ, new hearts, grace reigning within us, and the like, and thus represent our Lord as saying in effect, “If any man will become a true believer and a converted man, he shall ‘know of the doctrine,’” etc. I venture to think that such interpretation completely misses the mark and is going round in a circle.
Of course, any true believer knows true doctrine. I believe that our Lord’s object was simply to encourage the honest-minded, sincere, singleeyed inquirer after truth. To such a man, though at present very ignorant, He says, “If you really have a desire to do God’s will, to please Him, and to follow any light He gives you, you will be taught of Him, you will find out the truth.
My doctrine may be hid from the wise and prudent, but it is revealed to babes.” (Matt. xi.25.) I hold, in short, that we should take as simple a view as possible of the sentence “If any man will do His will” and be very careful that we do not mar its usefulness by putting more meaning on it than our Lord intended.
Bishop Hall thus paraphrases the text: “If any man shall, with a simple and honest heart, yield himself over to do the will of my Father, according to the measure of that he knows, God shall encourage and bless that man with further light so as he shall fully know whether my doctrine be of God or of myself.” Burgon remarks: “The perception of truth depends on the practice of virtue. It is a favorite maxim of the present day that increased knowledge will bring with it growth in godliness. Scripture at all events entirely reverses the process.
The way to know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, is to do His will.” (See John v.44, viii.12.) Hengstenberg remarks: “Whosoever would lead souls to Christ should not tarry long about the specious argument with which the natural man seeks to disguise the hateful perversion of his state of will, but should above all things try to excite willingness to do the will of God.” 18.--[ He who speaks of himself, etc. ] In this verse, as in the preceding verses, “He who speaks of himself” would be more literally rendered “speaks from himself.” The verse contains a general principle, applicable not only to our Lord’s own case but to teachers of religion in every age.
The meaning seems to be as follows: “He that undertakes on his own responsibility, and without being sent by God, to speak to men about religion, will naturally seek to advance his own importance and get honor for himself. Speaking from himself, he will speak for himself and try to exalt himself.
He, on the contrary, who is a true messenger of God and in whom there is no dishonesty or unrighteousness, will always seek first the glory of the God who sent him.” In short, it is one mark of a man being a true servant of God and really commissioned by our Father in heaven, that he ever seeks his Master’s glory more than his own. The principle here laid down is a very valuable one. By it we may test the pretentions of many false teachers of religion and prove them to be unsound guides.
There is a curious tendency in every system of heresy or unsound religion to make its ministers magnify themselves, their authority, their importance, and their office. It may be seen in Romanism and Brahminism to a remarkable extent.
Alford’s remark, however, is very true: that in the highest and strictest sense “the latter part of the sentence is only true of the Holy One Himself, and that owing to human infirmity, purity of motive is no sure guarantee for correctness of doctrine;” and therefore in the end of the verse it is not said “he who seeks God’s glory,” but “he who seeks His glory that sent Him”, specially indicating Christ Himself.
Burgon thinks that “true” is a word used intentionally, in contrast with the expression “He deceives the people.” 19.--[ Did not Moses give you the law? ] Our Lord here appeals to the wellknown reverence with which all Jews regarded Moses and the law.
But it is highly probable that He had in view the practice of publicly reading the law of Moses to the people during the seven days of the feast of tabernacles, which was observed once in very seven years at that feast. (Deut. xxxi.10.) If, as is possible, this was one of the seventh years in which the law was so read, there would be a singular significance and aptness in His appeal. “This very day you have been hearing that law which you profess to honor so much.
But do you honor it in your lives?” [ None of you keeps the law...kill me. ] This would be more literally rendered, “none of you does the law.” It is the same word that is used in the expression, “if any man will do His will.” (v. 17.) The meaning seems to be, “You reject Me and my doctrine and profess to be zealous for the honor of Moses and the law. And yet none of you really obey the law in heart and in spirit. For instance: why do you seek to kill Me? You are full of hatred of Me and want to put Me to death unjustly, in the face of the sixth commandment.
This is not keeping the law.” The Greek word rendered “go about” is the same that is rendered “seek” in v.1 of this chapter and in ch. v.16,18. 20.--[ The people answered, etc. ] It seems probable that those who said this were the common people, the multitude of Jews gathered from all parts of the world to many of whom our Lord was a stranger. We can hardly suppose that the rulers and leaders of Jerusalem would have spoken in this way.
The expression “You have a devil” may possibly be a repetition of the old charge that our Lord wrought His miracles by Beelzebub and was in league with the devil, as John viii.48. In that sense it would be the strongest form of reproach, blasphemy, and contempt. But considering who the speakers were, it is more likely that it simply means, “You are beside Yourself, and mad.” (So. John x.20.) The expression “who goes about to kill You?” can easily be understood if we suppose the speakers to be the common people and not the rulers.
The common people probably knew nothing about the intention of the rulers to put Jesus to death and would think Him beside himself to say that anyone wanted to kill Him. 21.--[ Jesus answered...I have done one work. ] Our Lord can only refer here to the miracle He had wrought on a former occasion at the pool of Bethesda. (Ch. v.1, etc.) This was at present the only great miracle that had been publicly performed in Jerusalem; and from its having led to our Lord being brought before the Sanhedrim (or great Council of the Jews) and to His defense made before them, it would be a miracle that all would know. [Ye all marvel. ] This strong present tense seems to mean, “Ye are all still wondering” not only at the greatness of the miracle, but also at my working it on the Sabbath day.
Schleusner maintains that the Greek word rendered “marvel” means here, “Ye are indignant, ye take amiss.” He thinks the word is used in this sense in Mark vi.6, John v.28, and Gal. i.6. 22.-- [ Moses therefore gave to you circumcision, etc. ] There is a difficulty in this verse in the expression we translate “therefore.” It is literally, “on this account—for this reason—on account of this.” It is not easy to say how the expression comes in and with what it is connected. (1) Some, as Theophylact, Beza, Poole, Whitby, Hammond, Maldonatus, Pearce, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Olshausen, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, and Stier propose to alter the stopping and to connect it with the end of the preceding verse: “Ye all marvel because of this one work.” (Compare Mark vi.6.).
But it is doubtful whether the Greek language will fairly admit this. (2) Some would connect “therefore” with “are ye angry” in the following verse: “Are you really angry with Me on account of this one work when you yourselves break the Sabbath, in a sense, by circumcising on the Sabbath day?” But this connection seems very distant indeed. (3) Some, as Grotius, Calovius, Jansenius, and Webster think the expression altogether elliptical and would fill up the sense after “therefore” by supposing some such connection as this: “On account of this work and your anger at it, let me remind you of your own practice about circumcision.” (See Matt. xviii.22, xii.30, Luke xii.22.) (4) Some, as Chemnitius, Musculus, and DeDieu interpret “therefore” as “because” and make the sentence mean, “Because Moses gave you circumcision, you circumcise a man on the Sabbath day,” etc.
But it seems a violent strain to make the Greek word we render “therefore” mean “because.” (5) Some, finally, as Alford, Burgon, Barradius, Toletus, and Lyranus would connect “therefore” with the middle of this verse and would have it mean, “For this reason Moses gave you circumcision: viz., not because it was an ordinance appointed first by him, but because it was given to the Fathers,” i.e. , Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This last is perhaps as tenable a view as any. But it is undeniably a difficulty and must remain so.
Adopting this view, the whole verse may be paraphrased as follows: “Moses, whose name and law you highly reverence, gave you among other things the ordinance of circumcision. He gave it, remember, for this reason: because it was an old ordinance handed down to him by your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not an ordinance first communicated to him like the Levitical law. Now you, in obedience to the ordinance of circumcision, which ought to be administered on the eighth day after a child’s birth, think it no breach of the fourth commandment to circumcise a child on the Sabbath day.
In fact, you postpone the law of the Sabbath to the law of circumcision. You admit that a work of piety and necessity may be done on the Sabbath day. You admit that the fourth commandment which was given on Mount Sinai was not so important as the older law of circumcision.” Burgon shows that “therefore” is used just in the same way as here, at the beginning of a sentence and pointing forward, in John v.16,18, viii.47, x.17, xii.18,39.
We should note how here, as elsewhere, our Lord refers to Moses as a real person and to the Old Testament history as real true history. 23.--[ If a man, etc. ] The argument in this verse is as follows: “Even among yourselves you circumcise a child on the Sabbath day, when it happens to be the eighth day after his birth, in order that the law of circumcision, which your great lawgiver Moses sanctioned and re-ordained, should not be broken. You thus admit the whole principle that there is some work which may be done on the Sabbath day.
Is it then just and fair to be angry with Me because I have done a far greater work to a man on the Sabbath than the work of circumcision? I have not wounded his body by circumcision but made him perfectly whole. I have not done a purifying work to one particular part of him but have restored his whole body to health and strength.
I have not done a work of necessity to one single member only but a work of necessity and benefit to the whole man.” I cannot see any ground for the idea suggested by Alford that our Lord implies in this verse that the law of the Sabbath is a mere Judaical practice and comparatively a modern ordinance, and that as such it properly gave way to the older and higher law of circumcision which was “of the Fathers.” It might be replied, firstly, that the Sabbath is so far from being a Judaical institution that it is actually older than circumcision and was appointed in Paradise.
It might be replied, secondly, that our Lord seems purposely to guard against the idea by speaking of circumcision as “given by Moses” and as a part of “the law of Moses.” In fact, He does this twice with such curious particularity that one might think He meant to guard against anyone wresting this passage into an argument against the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath day. He is pleased for the occasion to speak both of circumcision and the Sabbath as part of “the law of Moses.” He did this purposely because the minds of His hearers were full of Moses and the law at this particular period.
And His argument amounts to this: that if they themselves allowed that the Mosaic law of the Sabbath must give way in a case of necessity to the Mosaic law of circumcision, they admitted that some works might be done on the Sabbath day, and therefore His work of healing an entire man on the Sabbath day could not be condemned as sinful. The marginal reading, “without breaking the law of Moses,” instead of “that the law of Moses should not be broken,” appears to me inadmissible and unnecessary. It is inadmissible because it is a forced and unnatural interpretation of the Greek words.
It is unnecessary because our Lord is evidently speaking of circumcision as part of “the law of Moses.” The idea of some commentators as Trapp, Rollock, Hutcheson, Beza, and Stier, that “every whit whole” means “wholeness” of soul as well as body and implies conversion of heart as well as restoration to entire health and strength of the physical man, appears to me unlikely and far-fetched. It is a pious thought, but not apparently in our Lord’s mind. Moreover, it is not quite certain that the man healed at Bethesda was healed in soul as well as body.
There is no clear proof of it. 24.--[ Do not judge, etc. ] The sense of this verse must be sought in connection with the subject of which our Lord has just been speaking. The Jews had condemned our Lord and denounced Him as a sinner against the fourth commandment because He had done a work on the Sabbath day. Our Lord refers to this and says, “Judge not the deed I did according to the appearance. I did a work on the Sabbath unquestionably. But what kind of a work was it?
It was an act of necessity and mercy and therefore an act as lawful to be done as circumcision, which you yourselves perform on the Sabbath day. In appearance the Sabbath was broken. In reality it was not broken at all. Judge fair and just and righteous judgment. Do not hastily condemn an action, such as this, without looking below the surface.” There is perhaps a reference here to Isaiah’s prophecy about Messiah: “He shall not judge after the sight of His eyes.” (Isa. xi.3.) The principle here laid down is one of vast importance.
Nothing is so common as to judge too favorably or too unfavorably of characters and actions from merely looking at the outward appearance of things. We are apt to form hasty opinions of others, either for good or evil, on very insufficient grounds. We pronounce some men to be good and others to be bad, some to be godly and others to be ungodly, without anything but appearance to aid our decision. We should do well to remember our blindness and to keep in mind this text. The bad are not always so bad, nor the good so good, as they appear.
A potsherd may be covered over with gilding and look bright outside. A nugget of gold may be covered with dirt and look like worthless rubbish. One man’s work may look good at first and yet turn out, by and by, to have been done from the basest motives. Another man’s work may look very questionable at first and yet, at last, prove Christ-like and truly godly. From rashly “judging by appearances” may the Lord deliver us! Whether our Lord meant “judge not persons” or “judge not actions” according to appearance, is a point on which commentators do not agree.
If we take the application to be to “persons,” the sentence means: “Do not hastily suppose that Moses and I are at variance, and that, therefore, I must be wrong because Moses, the great lawgiver, must be right.” But it seems far simpler and more natural to apply the expression to “actions:” “Judge not the thing done by the appearance only. Look below the surface and weigh it justly.”