John 7 · The Lantern

Jesus Teaches at the Feast

And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was not desiring to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill Him.

What sayest thou, O blessed John? Had not He "power," who was able to do all that He would? He that said, "Whom seek ye?" (c. xviii. 6) and cast them backward? He who was present, yet not seen (c. xxi. 4), had not He "power"?

The connection of this passage admits of much taking place in the interval previously. Judæa and Galilee are divisions of the province of Palestine. Judæa has its name from the tribe of Judah; but it embraces not only the territories of Judah, but of Benjamin, all of which were called Judæa, because Judah was the royal tribe. Galilee has its name, from the milky, i. e.

After our Lord considered the spiritual life and its food, he now treats of his instruction or teaching, which, as mentioned above, is necessary for those who are spiritually reborn. First, he shows the origin of his teaching; secondly, its usefulness (c 8 and onwards). As to the first, he does three things.

Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near.

"After these things was the Jews' feast of tabernacles." The words, "after these things," mean only, that the writer has here been concise, and has passed over a long interval of time, as is clear from this circumstance.

"It was," he says, "the feast of tabernacles." Concerning the feasts celebrated by the Jews, the following should be noted. There were three of them: one was the feast of Passover, which they celebrated in memory of the exodus from Egypt, and it was their first (chief) feast.

They were also influenced by the suitableness of the time, for it was a time for going to Jerusalem. Now it was close to the Jewish feast of Tabernacles (scenopegia). Scenopegia is a Greek word, composed of scenos, which means "shade," or "tent," and phagim, which means "to eat." As if to say: It was the time in which they used to eat in their tents.

His brothers said therefore to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, so that also Your disciples will see Your works that You are doing;

(Hom. xlviii. 1, 2) It is striking to observe the great sincerity of the Evangelists; that they are not ashamed to mention things which appear to be to our Lord's disadvantage, but take particular care to tell us of them. It is a considerable reflexion on our Lord, that His brethren do not believe on Him.

Meaning to say, Thou doest miracles, and only a few see them: go to the royal city, where the rulers are, that they may see Thy miracles, and so Thou obtain praise. And as our Lord had not brought all His disciples with Him, but left many behind in Judæa, they add, That Thy disciples also may see the works that Thou doest.

Then our Lord is urged on by his brethren. First, we are given their advice; secondly, the reason for it (v 3b); and thirdly, the Evangelist mentions the cause of this reason (v 5). As to the first, the ones who urge Christ are mentioned; hence he says, So his brethren said to him.

for no one does anything in secret and seeks himself to be in public. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.”

Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul. But all that time, while strangers were keenly interested in him, his closest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up and keep outside, but they do not go in, because they did not think much of what was going on within.

His brothers, that is, the sons of Joseph, accuse Him of two dispositions: cowardice and love of glory. Therefore they also say: "no one does anything in secret" — this is a sign of cowardice, and "and seeks himself to be known" — this is a sign of love of glory.

They reveal that they themselves are suspicious, and first of all remark on Christ's fear, saying: Surely, no one works in secret. As if to say: You say that you are performing miracles. But you are doing them secretly because of fear; otherwise you would go to Jerusalem and do them before the people.

For not even His brothers were believing in Him.

But there is some ground for thinking that Christ's answer denies His mother and brethren for the present, as even Apelles might learn.

Why did the Evangelist, out of the five months of activity, recount nothing other than the miracle of the loaves and the Lord's discourse to those who were fed but ungrateful, and, passing over the rest, said: "the feast of the Jews was at hand, the feast of tabernacles"? That he passed over in silence the deeds performed during the five months is evident from the following.

The Evangelist tells why they said this when he says, For not even his brethren believed in him. For sometimes blood relatives are very hostile to one of their own, and are jealous of his spiritual goods. They may even despise him.

Jesus says therefore to them, “The time for Me is not yet come, but your time is always ready.

"My time is not yet come." He here seemeth to me to hint at something other than He expresseth; perhaps in their envy they designed to deliver Him up to the Jews; and pointing out this to them, He saith, "My time is not yet come," that is, "the time of the Cross and the Death, why then hasten ye to slay Me before the time?" "But your time is always ready." As though He had said…

This is no contradiction to what the Apostle says, But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son. (Gal. 4:4) Our Lord referring here to the time not of His nativity, but of His glorification.

Then Christ's answer is given. First, he mentions that the time was not appropriate for going to Jerusalem; secondly, the reason for this (v 7); and thirdly, we see Christ deciding not to go (v 8). We should note that all of the following text is explained differently by Augustine and by Chrysostom. Augustine says that the brethren of our Lord were urging him to a human glory.

The world is not able to hate you, but Me myself it hates, because I myself bear witness concerning it that its works are evil.

"The world cannot hate you;" (how should it hate those who desire, and who run for the same objects as itself?) "but Me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." That is, because I upbraid and rebuke it, therefore I am hated.

Our Lord brings two arguments in answer to their two charges. To the charge of fear He answers, that He reproves the deeds of the world, i. e. of those who love worldly things; which He would not do, if He were under the influence of fear; and He replies to the charge of vain glory, by sending them to the feast, Go ye up unto this feast.

He gives the reason why these times are different when he says, The world cannot hate you, but me, it hates. The reason why the time for the glory of the worldly is here is that they love the same things the world loves, and they agree with the world.

You yourselves go up to the feast; I myself am not going up to this feast, for My time has not yet been fulfilled.”

The one who blesses those who mourn because of the present age now utters similar words, saying with reference to himself something that is common to all the saints and pertains to them: It is not the time for us to feast in the middle of the present tribulations, insofar as evil still wages war and truth is rejected by the majority of people and the will of God does not hold s…

The Lord now says clearly that He will not feast with the Jews, or go with them, to partake with them in their rejoicing in shadows. For that which is once said to a few, albeit reputed His brethren, will be extended in its force to the whole race of Israel.

Our Lord refuses to go when he says, You yourselves go up for this feast. I, however, will not go up for this festival. For just as there are two kinds of glory, so there are two different feasts. Worldly people have temporal feasts, that is, their own enjoyments and banquets and such exterior pleasures. "The Lord called for weeping and mourning...

Now having said these things, He Himself remained in Galilee.

The things done by Christ after the manner of men, are not so done only to establish the Incarnation, but also to educate us for virtue. For had He done all as God, how could we have known, on falling in with such things as we wished not, what we must do?

Our Lord at first declares that He will not go up to the feast, (I go not up with you,) in order not to expose Himself to the rage of the Jews; and therefore we read, that, When He had said these words unto them, He abode still in Galilee. Afterwards, however, He goes up; But when His brethren were gone up, then went He also up unto the feast.

After the Evangelist mentioned how our Lord's relatives urged him to go to Judea, and what Christ replied to them, he then tells us of his journey. First, of his delay in going into Judea; secondly, of the order of the events; and thirdly, the way Christ went up.

But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not openly but as in secret.

The expression, "when His brethren were gone up," is that of one showing that He chose not to go up with them. On which account He abode where He was, and manifested not Himself, although they in a manner urged Him to do so. But why did He, who ever spake openly, do so now "as it were in secret"?

Why did He say to His brothers that He would not go to the feast, and then went? He did not simply say "I will not go," but "I am not yet going," that is, with you. At first He refused to go because the Jews were burning with rage, and then He went toward the end of the feast, when, naturally, their rage had also subsided. And in another way.

He gives the order of events when he says, However, after his brethren, that is, his relatives, had gone up, he himself went up for the feast. This seems to conflict with what he had said before: "I will not go up", for the Apostle says, "Jesus Christ, whom we preached among you... was not 'Yes' and 'No,' but only 'Yes.'" (2 Cor 1:19).

The Jews therefore were seeking Him at the feast and were saying, “Where is He?”

"Then the Jews sought Him, and said, Where is He?" Excellent truly the good deeds at their feasts! they are eager for murder, and wish to seize Him, even during the feast. Through their excessive hatred and enmity they would not even call Him by name. Great was their reverence towards the feast, great their caution. By occasion of the very feast they wished to entrap Him!

Jews, out of intense hatred, did not mention His name. They did not say "where is Jesus?" but "where is He?" So much did they hate even His name alone. Note, if you will, their inclination toward murder. They do not respect the time of the feast, but wish to seize Him during it. For this reason they are seeking Him. Such was their reverence and respect for the feasts!

Then he mentions the opportunity Christ had to show the origin of his spiritual teaching. He mentions two such opportunities: one was due to the disagreement among the people; the other to their amazement (v 15). The people disagreed in what they thought of Christ. He does three things concerning this.

And there was much murmuring about Him among the crowds. Some indeed were saying that “He is good;” others, however, were saying, “No, but He deceives the people.”

"And there was much murmuring among the people concerning Him." I think they were exasperated by the place where the miracle had been wrought, and were greatly infuriated and afraid, not so much from anger at what had gone before, as from fear lest He should again work something similar.

There was a dispute among the people about Him, because opinions about Him differed. The rulers said that He deceives the people, while the people said that He is good. Those who called Him good were from among the people.

They differed, however, because some looked for him because they wished to learn: "Seek him, and your soul will live" (Ps 68:33); others were looking for him in order to harm him: as in the Psalm (39:15): "They seek my soul to carry it away." And so There was much whispering among the people concerning him, because of their disagreements.

No one, however, was speaking publicly about Him, because of the fear of the Jews.

"Howbeit no man spake openly of Him for fear of the Jews." Seest thou everywhere the ruling body corrupted, and the ruled sound indeed in judgment, but not having that proper courage which a multitude especially lacketh?

There was murmuring among the Jews, and for fear of the Jews, he says that no man could speak openly. The Divine Evangelist then is calling the rulers of the Jews emphatically Jews, not deigning (as seems to me) to call them elders or priests, or the like, kindled with pious jealousy unto grief to themward, whom with reason does God accuse of destroying His spiritual vineyard,…

It was the opinion of the evil, that is, of the chief priests, that finally won out. Thus he continues, Nevertheless, no one spoke openly about him.

Now also, the feast being in the middle, Jesus went up into the temple and was teaching.

IT IS READ IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN THAT, AFTER THE SAVIOR HAD SAID HE WOULD NOT GO UP TO THE FEAST DAY, HE WENT UP (John 7:8, 14); THIS SEEMS TO BE A SIGN OF INCONSISTENCY. — You always conceal the meaning by abbreviating the statement.

Temple-befitting is the teaching of our Saviour: for where else should we rather hear the Divine Voice, save in the places where the Divinity is believed to dwell?

Next we see the second opportunity Christ had to present his teaching, that is, the amazement of the people. First, we see the object of their amazement; secondly, their amazement itself, and thirdly, the reason why they were amazed. The object of their amazement is the doctrine or teaching of Christ. Both the time and the place of this teaching are given.

The Jews then were marveling, saying, “How does this one know writings, not having studied?”

"How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" Observest thou how the Evangelist showeth here also their marveling to be full of wickedness? for he saith not, that they admired the teaching, or that they received the words, but simply that they "marveled." That is, were thrown into a state of astonishment, and doubted, saying, "Whence hath this man these things"?

What He taught, the evangelist did not say, but that He was imparting something wondrous, with which He also occupied them, the evangelist showed by the words, that "they marveled, saying, How does this man know letters, having never learned?" However, although they marveled, their malicious intention did not change.

He mentions this amazement when he says, The Jews were amazed. And this is not surprising, for "Your testimony is wonderful" (Ps 118:129). For the words of Christ are the words of divine wisdom. He adds the reason why they were amazed when he says, How did this man get his learning, since he never studied?

Jesus answered them therefore and said: “My teaching is not of Myself, but of the One having sent Me.

If anyone shall desire to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is from God or I myself speak from Myself.

One speaks in one way of the truth, in another way the truth interprets itself. The guessing at truth is one thing, and truth itself is another. Resemblance is one thing, the thing itself is another. And the one results from learning and practice, the other from power and faith. For the teaching of piety is a gift, but faith is grace.

Having said that My teaching is not Mine, that is, not contrary to God, but the teaching of My Father, He says that whoever does the will of God, that is, whoever makes himself at home with virtue and is not a slave to envy and is not darkened by groundless hatred against Me, that person will know the power of My words — whether I speak from the Father, or something foreign and…

Then he proves that his doctrine is from God. And he does this in two ways: first, from the judgment of those who correctly understand such matters; and secondly, from his own intention (v 18).

The one speaking from himself seeks their own glory; but the One seeking the glory of the One having sent Him, He is true, and unrighteousness is not in Him.

"He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory." That is, "He that desireth to establish any doctrine of his own, desireth to do so only that he himself may enjoy the glory. Now if I desire not to enjoy glory, wherefore should I desire to establish any doctrine of My own?

He giveth this evident proof that He doth not labour for His Own glory by His teaching, that He does not use any strange words and foreign to the law (for this were to speak of Himself), but that He is exhorting them rather to be obedient to the former oracles, while He removes only the unprofitable and gross shadow of the letter, and transforms it persuasively unto the spiritu…

Then when he says, Whoever speaks on his own seeks his own glory, he proves the same thing from his intention. And he presents two intentions through which we can recognize the two sources of a doctrine. Some are said to speak on their own, and others not on their own. Now whoever strives to speak the truth does not speak on his own.

Has Moses not given you the law? And no one of you keeps the law! Why do you seek to kill Me?”

"Did not Moses give you the Law? and yet none of you keepeth the Law? Why go ye about to kill Me?" The Jews brought against Him two accusations; one, that He broke the Sabbath; the other, that He called God His Father, making Himself equal with God.

By many devices cometh about the discourse of the Saviour to one aim. For having in the preceding, indirectly blamed (as was meet) the Pharisees who supposed that they ought not to obey the commands from above, but to introduce their own opinions, and were zealous rather to gain honour from those under them, and did not offer it to the Lord of all, but diverted it to their own…

Then he answers an objection. For someone could tell Christ that his doctrine was not from God because he broke the sabbath, according to, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the sabbath" (below 9:16). This is what he intends to answer; and he does three things.

The crowd answered, “You have a demon; who seeks to kill You?”

"Thou hast a devil; who goeth about to kill thee?" The expression is one of wrath and anger, and of a soul made shameless by an unexpected reproof, and put to confusion before their time, as they thought.

Look how meekly He speaks with them, while they, on the contrary, say with insulting boldness: "You have a demon." They are so bold because they thought to strike Him and frighten Him. Although Christ Himself is the Lord of Moses and the author of the law, yet, yielding to the weakness and insensibility of the Jews, He says that the law was given by Moses.

Then we see the vicious reply of the crowd, when he says, The crowd replied and said: You have a demon within you! As Augustine says, their reply indicates disorder and confusion, rather than any order: for they are saying that the one who casts out devils has one himself (Mt c 12).

Jesus answered and said to them, “One work I did, and you all marvel.

The meaning of, "Ye marvel" (Matt. xii. 5) is, "Ye are confused," "are troubled." For if the Law was to be lasting, circumcision would not have been more authoritative than it. And He said not, "I have done a thing greater than circumcision," but abundantly refuteth them...

Wherein He left us an example to take it patiently, whenever wrong censures are passed upon us, and not answer them by asserting the truth, though able to do so, but rather by some wholesome advice to the persons; as doth our Lord: Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.

Then when he says, I performed one work, and you are all amazed, our Lord, at peace in his own truth, answers them, and justifies himself with a reasonable explanation. First, he recalls the incident that is troubling them; secondly, he shows that this should not bother them (v 22); and thirdly, he shows the way to a judgment that is just (v 24).

Because of this: Moses has given you the circumcision — not that it is of Moses but of the fathers — and on Sabbath you circumcise a man.

For, tell me, did God wish the priests to sin when they offer the sacrifices on the Sabbaths? or those to sin, who are circumcised and do circumcise on the Sabbaths; since He commands that on the eighth day-even though it happen to be a Sabbath-those who are born shall be always circumcised?

"I have done one work, and ye all marvel." And immediately He subjoined: "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision." It was well done that ye received circumcision from Moses. "Not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers;" since it was Abraham that first received circumcision from the Lord.

Then he shows that there is no reason why they should be disturbed. First, he recalls the command given to them by Moses; secondly, he states their customary behavior; and thirdly, he presents an argument based on the first two. The command of Moses was about circumcision; so he says: Therefore, i.e., to signify my works, Moses gave you circumcision.

If a man receives circumcision on Sabbath so that the law of Moses shall not be broken, are you angry with Me myself because I made a man entirely sound on the Sabbath?

(Hom. xlix. 3) He does not say, however, I have done a greater work than circumcision; but only states the matter of fact, and leaves the judgment to them, saying, Judge not according to the appearance, but Judge righteous judgment: as if to say, Do not, because Moses has a greater name with you than I, decide by degree of personal eminence; but decide by the nature of the thin…

Therefore for circumcision the sabbath was itself broken by Moses, and the sabbath day in no way prevents a man from being circumcised; even if the eighth day falls on a sabbath, the law of sabbath rest is set aside so that the law of circumcision may not be broken. If this is so, then why are you indignant and angry at Me for healing a whole man on the sabbath?

Our Lord is arguing from those facts when he says: If a man receives circumcision on the sabbath day, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you indignant with me because I healed a whole man on the sabbath? We should note here that three things make this argument effective: two of these are explicit, and the other implied.

Do not judge according to appearance, but judge the righteous judgment.”

But it is the duty of the bishop to judge rightly, as it is written, "Judge righteous judgment;" and elsewhere, "Why do ye not even of yourselves judge what is right?" Be ye therefore as skilful dealers in money: for as these reject bad money, but take to themselves what is current, in the same manner it is the bishop's duty to retain the unblameable, but either to heal, or, if…

The Law (He says) which ye are so zealous to take the part of, and for the sake of which ye were kindled even unto fierce wrath, openly cries aloud, Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, for the judgment is God's.

Then when he says, Judge not by the appearances, but with a just judgment, he guides them to a fair consideration of himself, so that they do not judge him according to appearances, but give a judgment which is just. There are two ways in which one is said to judge according to appearances.

Is Jesus the Christ?

Some of those of Jerusalem were saying therefore, “Is this not he whom they seek to kill?

(Hom. l. 1) The Evangelist adds, from Jerusalem: for there had been the greatest display of miracles, and there the people were in the worst state, seeing the strongest proofs of His divinity, and yet willing to give up all to the judgment of their corrupt rulers.

Not simply and not without reason was it added "some of the Jerusalemites," but in order to show that all those who, more than others, were deemed worthy of great miracles are more deserving of pity. For how are they not pitiable when they saw a great sign of His Divinity, and yet still allow injustice in their judgment of Him?

Having considered the origin of his doctrine, he now tells us about the origin of its teacher. First, Christ shows his source, from which he comes; secondly, he shows his end, to which he goes (v 33). He does three things concerning the first.

And behold, He speaks publicly, and they say nothing to Him. Have the rulers truly recognized that this is the Christ?

They multiply expressions of assurance among themselves, and advance as it were to more manifest proof, beholding the unperilled boldness of Christ.

"And behold, he speaks openly, and they say nothing to him," and at this they marvel, and from their marvel, when they ought to have been aroused to faith, they proceed to a lying objection: "Have the rulers indeed recognized that this is the Christ?" As if to say: they can suspect, but they cannot truly know.

Again, they were amazed that Christ was openly teaching; so they said: Look, he is speaking publicly, i.e., Christ was teaching, an indication of the secure possession of the truth, "I have spoken publicly" (below 18:20), and they say nothing to him, held back by divine power.

But this man we know from where He is; the Christ, however, whenever He may come, no one knows from where He is.”

(Hom. l. 1) But they do not follow the opinion of the rulers, but put forth another most perverse and absurd one; Howbeit we know this Man, whence He is; but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence He is.

And they do not stop at this thought, but draw the following conclusion: Where the Christ will come from, no one knows. But where this man is from — we know. Therefore, this is not the Christ. But see how malice contradicts itself. Their chief priests, when Herod asked them, say that Christ is born in Bethlehem of Judea (Matt.

Their objection to this conjecture is then added: We know where this man comes from. As if to argue: The Christ should have a hidden origin; but the origin of this man is known; therefore, he is not the Christ. This shows their folly, for granted that some of their leaders believed Christ, they did not follow their opinion, but offered another, which was false.

Jesus cried out therefore in the temple, teaching and saying, “You know Me, and you know from where I am; and I have not come of Myself, but the One having sent Me is true, whom you yourselves do not know.

(de Trin. ult. med.) Every man, ever born in the flesh, is in a certain sense from God. How then could He say that they were ignorant who He was, and whence He wasa? Because our Lord is here referring to His own peculiar birth from God, which they were ignorant of, because they did not know that He was the Son of God.

Jesus therefore cried teaching in the temple and saying, Ye both know Me and know whence I am. As the men of Jerusalem were gently whispering those things one to another (for they durst not speak openly for fear of the Jews, as it is written) Christ again in God-befitting way receives knowledge of the things spoken.

Then he shows his origin. First, he shows in what sense his origin is known, and in what sense it is not known; in the second place, he shows how we can acquire a knowledge of his origin (v 29). He does two things about the first. First, he shows what they knew about his origin; secondly, what they did not know about it (v 28b).

I myself know Him, because I am from Him, and He sent Me.”

Every man is born in the flesh; yet does not universal consciousness make every man spring from God? How then can Christ assert that either He, or the source of His being, is unknown?

"I know Him," for knowing Him, neither evil intention nor deeds contrary to Him hinder Me. "Because I am from Him," that is, from Him, not from another essence, not foreign to Him. "And He sent Me." Here two natures in Christ are clearly indicated: by the words "I am from Him" – the divine Nature, and by the words "and He sent Me" – the human.

Then when he says, I know him, he teaches us how to know him from whom he is. For if a thing is to be learned, it must be learned from one who knows it. But only the Son knows the Father. And so he says: If you wish to know him who sent me, you must acquire this knowledge from me, because I alone know him.

They were seeking therefore to take Him, but no one laid the hand upon Him, because His hour had not yet come.

With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence.

CHAPTER I. That human affairs are not, according to the unlearned surmises of the Greeks, subject as of necessity to the Hours, but that of our own choice we advance both to good and to the contrary: and that we are directed by the Will of God.

Then he considers the effect of his teaching. First, in the people; then on the Pharisees (v 32). He does two things with the first. First, he shows the effect of this teaching on those of the people who were ill-willed; secondly, on those who were favorable (v 31). He does three things concerning the first.

Now out of the crowd many believed in Him, and were saying, “The Christ, when He may come, surely will not do more signs than this man has done?”

"The Pharisees heard the people murmuring, and sent servants to take Him." Seest thou that the violation of the Sabbath was a mere pretense? and that what most stung them was this murmuring? For here, though they had no fault to find with Him for anything said or done, they desired to take Him because of the multitude.

Many believed in Him, saying: "Will the Christ perform more signs than this Man has done?" They speak of the wine at Cana, of the nobleman's son, of the paralytic, of the loaves, and generally of all the other signs which, on account of their multitude, the Evangelists did not mention by name.

Then he mentions the effect his teaching had on those who were favorable. First, he shows their faith: Many of the people, however, believed in him. He does not say, "of the leaders," because the higher their rank, the further away they were from him. So there was no room in them for wisdom: "Where there is humility, there is wisdom" (Prv 11:2).

The Pharisees heard the crowd murmuring these things about Him, and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers that they may seize Him.

Why, he says, are you eager to arrest me, and why do you try to do something that is not in your power? Just wait a little bit, and I will give myself over to you. Indeed, after my death, I go to my Father, and by directing myself to him, I will certainly withdraw from you. And I will be exalted over you so that, even though you look for me, you may not find me.

In their conversations the people were showing what seemed like a good disposition and something resembling faith in the Lord, and seemed to want to separate themselves from the rulers. The latter, having noticed this, sent men to seize the Lord for that one reason alone — that people were beginning to recognize Him as the Christ.

Then when he says, The Pharisees heard the people saying these things about him, we see the effect this had on the Pharisees. And as Chrysostom says, Christ said many things, and yet the Pharisees were not aroused against him. But when they saw that the people were accepting him, they were immediately fired up against him; and in their madness they wanted to kill him.

Jesus said therefore, “Yet a little time I am with you, and I go to the One having sent Me.

You will seek Me and will not find Me, and where I myself am, you yourselves are not able to come.”

"And I go unto Him that sent Me." This was enough to terrify and throw them into an agony. For that they should stand in need of Him, He declareth also. "Ye shall seek Me," He saith, (not only "ye shall not forget Me," but ye shall even "seek Me,") "and shall not find Me." And when did the Jews "seek Him"?

Showing that His death would not be such as that of everyone in general, He says: where I go, "you cannot come." For if His death were common and similar to the death of most people, and He were to remain dead, He would not have said that you cannot come. For we all come to the common death.

When he says, You will look for me, and you will not find me, he is predicting what the Jews will desire in the times to come.

The Jews said therefore among themselves, “Where is He about to go, that we ourselves will not find Him? Surely He is not about to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and to teach the Greeks?

Undoubtedly, by not receiving Christ, the "fount of water of life," they have begun to have "worn-out tanks," that is, synagogues for the use of the "dispersions of the Gentiles," in which the Holy Spirit no longer lingers, as for the time past He was wont to tarry in the temple before the advent of Christ, who is the true temple of God.

Seest thou herein again the wretchedness of Jewish reasonings? seest thou the most miserable surmise of grovelling mind? for they do not say that He will ascend up to Heaven, although they clearly heard, Yet a little while am I with you, and I go unto Him that sent Me, but they are imagining the country of the Gentiles, as though among them were He That sent Him, unto Whom He p…

Then we see that this was bewildering to the Jews, who, although they thought of Christ in a worldly way, still did believe to a certain extent. And three things happen here. First, they are bewildered; secondly, they form an opinion, and thirdly, they argue against their own opinion. They are perplexed when they say to each other: Where is he going that we cannot find him?

What is this word that He said, ‘You will seek Me and will not find Me, and where I myself am, you yourselves are not able to come’?”

Living Water

Now in the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus had stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone shall thirst, he should come to Me and should drink.

But My People hath changed their glory: whence no profit shall accrue to them: the heaven turned pale thereat" (and when did it turn pale?

(Tract. xxxii. 1) The feast was then going on, which is called scenopegia, i. e. building of tents. (Tract. xxxii. 2.) For there is an inner thirst, because there is an inner man: and the inner man of a certainty loves more than the outer. So then if we thirst, let us go not on our feet, but on our affections, not by change of place, but by love.

After our Lord told them about the origin of his doctrine and of the teacher, as well as his end, he now invites them to accept his teaching itself. First, we see Christ's invitation; secondly, the dissension among the people (v 40). He does three things about the first.

The one believing in Me myself, even as the Scripture has said: ‘Rivers of living water will flow out of his belly.’”

My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life.

(Hierom. in prolog. Gen.) Or this testimony is taken from the Proverbs, where it is said, Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. (Prov. 5:16)

The fruit of this invitation is that good things overflow upon others; thus he says: Whoever believes in me, as the Scriptures say, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. According to Chrysostom, we should read this as follows: Whoever believes in me, as the Scriptures say. And then a new sentence begins: Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.

Now this He said concerning the Spirit, which those having believed in Him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

For the Father bears the creation and His own Word simultaneously, and the Word borne by the Father grants the Spirit to all as the Father wills. To some He gives after the manner of creation what is made; but to others [He gives] after the manner of adoption, that is, what is from God, namely generation.

And that which the evangelist says, "For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified;" how is this to be understood, unless because the special giving or sending of the Holy Spirit after the glorification of Christ was to be such as it had never been before? For it was not previously none at all, but it had not been such as this.

Then he explains what he said. First we see the explanation; secondly, the reason behind this explanation (v 39b). Christ had said: "out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water." The Evangelist tells us that we should understand this concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed in him would receive, because the Spirit is the fountain and river of life.

Division over Jesus

Some from the crowd therefore, having heard these words, were saying, “This is truly the Prophet.”

Others were saying, “This is the Christ;” those, however, were saying, “Surely for the Christ does not come out of Galilee?

(Hom. li. 2.) But be it so, they knew not His birth-place: were they ignorant also of His extraction? that He was of the house and family of David? Why did they ask, Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David? They wished to conceal His extraction, and therefore put forward where He had been educated.

Others, from among the unlearned and undiscerning, said that He is the Christ, not understanding that Christ and that Prophet are one and the same person, and not different.

Another opinion was of those who said, This is the Christ. These people had drawn closer to that spiritual drink, and had slaked the thirst of unbelief to a greater extent. This is what Peter himself professed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:16). The third opinion conflicts with the other two.

Has the Scripture not said that out of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem the village where David was, comes the Christ?”

No careless search do the Jews make about Christ, for they were found going through every idea and through varied ideas gathering the perception of the truth.

"Does not the Scripture say: That he is of the seed of David?" 2 Kings 7: "I will raise up your seed after you, which shall proceed from your womb, and I will establish his kingdom, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever"; and the Psalm: "Of the fruit of your womb I will set upon your throne." "And from Bethlehem the town where David was, does the Christ come?"…

They support their objection by the authority of Scripture when they say, Does not Scripture say that the Christ will come from the seed of David, and from David's town of Bethlehem? We read in Jeremiah (23:5) that Jesus would come from the seed of David: "I will raise up a just branch for David." And we see that David was "the anointed of God" (2 Sm 23:1).

A division therefore occurred in the crowd because of Him.

Now some of them were desiring to seize Him, but no one laid the hands on Him.

This, if nothing else, might have been sufficient to cause compunction in them, but they felt it not, as the Prophet saith, "They were cleft asunder, and were not pricked in heart." (Ps. xxxv. 15 LXX.)

Those more moderate in malice opposed the glory of Christ only in words, while the more shameless wanted to lay hands on Him as well. However, divine power invisibly restrained them. Yet even this miracle did not strike them. David rightly said of them: "They reproached and did not cease" (Ps. 34:15).

Some of them attempted to seize Christ; so he says, some of them, that is, those who had said, "Would the Christ come from Galilee?" wanted to apprehend him, to kill him out of hatred: "Pursue and seize him" (Ps 70:11); "The enemy said: 'I will pursue and seize'" (Ex 15:9).

The Unbelief of the Jewish Leaders

The officers came therefore to the chief priests and Pharisees, and those said to them, “Why did you not bring Him?”

The officers answered, “Never spoke a man like this.”

They perceived that this was not a mere man like themselves, but that this was he who gave water to the saints and that it was he who was announced by the prophet Isaiah. For he was truly the splendor of the light, and the Word of God, the river that flowed from the fountains and watered the paradise of old.

And so they were led away; and laudably too, for they had left the evil of unbelief, and were gone over to the faith.

As to the second point, let us realize how good these officers were in giving this praiseworthy testimony about Christ, saying: Never has any man spoken like this man. They deserve our praise for three reasons. First, because of their admiration: for they admired Christ because of his teachings, not his miracles.

The Pharisees answered them therefore, “Surely you yourselves have not also been deceived?

Surely not any of the rulers has believed on Him, or of the Pharisees?

When they ought to have asked what He spake, and to have marveled at the words, they do not so, (knowing that they might have been captivated,) but reason with them from a very foolish argument; "Wherefore," saith one, "hath none of the rulers believed on Him?" Dost thou then make this a charge against Christ, tell me, and not against the unbelievers?

Then they try to convince them by example, but very foolishly. "Have any of the rulers believed in Him?" they say. But who is at fault? Christ, or those who did not believe? Without doubt, those who did not believe are subject to condemnation.

It was a constant taunt of the early antagonists of Christianity, that the new religion did not recruit its ranks from the most exalted or the most intellectual or the most respectable classes of society.

But this crowd, the one not knowing the law, are cursed.”

"But the people," saith one, "which knoweth not the Law, are accursed." Then is the charge against you the heavier, because the people believed, and ye believed not. They acted like men that knew the Law; how then are they accursed? It is ye that are accursed, who keep not the Law, not they, who obey the Law.

"But this crowd, which does not know the Law," believes, namely; and because they are ignorant of what they ought to know, and believe what they ought not, "they are accursed:" Deuteronomy 27: "Cursed is he who does not abide in the words of this Law." Chrysostom: "Nothing is more manifest than truth, nothing simpler; yet to the malicious nothing is more difficult.

They reject the statements of the people because they are a rebuke to their own evil. So they say: But these people, who do not know the law, they are accursed; therefore, you should not agree with them. This thought was found in Deuteronomy: "Accursed are they who do not live within the law and do not act according to it" (Dt 27:26).

Nicodemus says to them — the one having come to Him the former time, being one of them —

What then? Shall one blame God for this? Away with the thought. This blame is theirs. And what other proof can a man bring of your not knowing the Law than your not obeying it?

For being still sick of an harmful shame, and not yet mingling boldness with his zeal, he permits the faith that is in him to be not seen uncovered, but casting about it dissimulation like a darksome cloak, he as yet conceals that he is on Christ's side; yet is he sick with a grievous sickness.

Next, we see the dissension among the rulers. First, the advice of Nicodemus is given; secondly, the opposition of the rulers; and thirdly, the outcome of the whole affair. The Evangelist does two things about the first: first, he tells us something about Nicodemus; secondly, he gives his advice.

“Surely our law does not judge the man unless it shall hear first from him and may know what he does?”

He showeth that they neither know the Law, nor do the Law; for if that Law commandeth to kill no man without first hearing him, and they before hearing were eager for this deed, they were transgressors of the Law. And because they said, "None of the rulers hath believed on him" (ver.

What does Nicodemus point out to them? He says: "Does our Law condemn a man without first hearing him?" By this he shows that they neither read the Law nor fulfilled its requirements, although they boasted much about lawfulness.

The advice of Nicodemus is given when he says: Does our law judge a man without first hearing from him and knowing what he has done? For according to the civil laws, a judgment was only to be given after a complete investigation.

They answered and they said to him, “Surely you yourself are not also from Galilee? Search and see that out of Galilee a prophet is not raised.”

[And each went to his own house.]

John7

Jesus Teaches at the Feast

Is Jesus the Christ?

Living Water

Division over Jesus

The Unbelief of the Jewish Leaders