John 7 · The Lantern

And Jesus was walking after these things in Galilee, for he did not wish to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him,

The Evangelist spake not so that he might be supposed to utter riddles, but to make it plain that He showeth proofs both of His Godhead and His Manhood.

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.

and the feast of the Jews was nigh--that of tabernacles--

"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 brethren, therefore, said unto him, `Remove hence, and go away to Judea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works that thou dost;

(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 in secret doth anything, and himself seeketh to be in public; if thou dost these things--manifest thyself 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 were his brethren 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, therefore, saith to them, `My time is not yet present, 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 it doth hate, because I testify 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.

Ye--go ye up to this feast; I do not yet go up to this feast, because my time hath 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…

And it is moreover like unto another speech which Jesus spake unto them when they sought to take Him with them to the feast as they were going up to Jerusalem, to that feast, according to His former wont before baptism, when He separated Himself from them, saying, "Go ye up to the feast, but I will not go up to the feast," and after He had dismissed them, and had not gone up wi…

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...

and saying these things to them, he 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.

And when his brethren went up, then also he himself went up to the feast, not manifestly, 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, in the feast, and said, `Where is that one?'

"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 multitudes, some indeed said--`He is good;' and others said, `No, but he leadeth astray the multitude;'

"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 freely about him, through 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?

Just as a man therefore who has good skill in sea-faring matters, and sits at the ship's helm, and having her at his command dashes her against the rocks, would be himself held guilty of the wreck: or as if one accustomed to drive, were borne along by swiftest ponies, and being able by the checks of the reins to hold their easily-directed flight whithersoever he would, were to…

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.

And it being now the middle of the feast, Jesus went up to the temple, and he was teaching,

"Now about the middle of the feast Jesus went up and taught." By the delay He made them more attentive; for they who had sought Him on the first days and said, "Where is He?" when they saw Him suddenly present, observe how they drew near, and were like to press upon Him as He was speaking, both those who said that He was a good man, and those who said that He was not such; the…

Why did He come in the middle of the feast? In order to soften their anger and so that they would listen to His words with greater diligence and attention, when the feast was not blocking their hearing. For at the beginning of the feast it was natural for them to be distracted by the festive surroundings.

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.

and the Jews were wondering, saying, `How hath this one known letters--not having learned?'

"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 and said, `My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me;

if any one may will to do His will, he shall know concerning the teaching, whether it is of God, or--I do 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).

`He who is speaking from himself his own glory doth seek, but he who is seeking the glory of him who sent him, this one is true, and unrighteousness is not in him;

Now there are many reasons for His using lowly words, as that He might not be deemed unbegotten, or opposed to God, His being clothed with flesh, the infirmity of His hearers, that He might teach men to be modest, and to speak no great thing of themselves: while for speaking lofty words one could only find one reason, the greatness of His Nature.

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.

hath not Moses given you the law? and none of you doth the law; why me do ye seek to kill?'

"The Law saith, Thou shalt not kill; but ye kill, and yet accuse Me as transgressing the Law." But wherefore saith He, "None of you"? Because they all sought to kill Him. "And if," He saith, "I even have broken the Law, it was in saving a man, but ye transgress it for evil.

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 multitude answered and said, `Thou hast a demon, who doth seek to kill thee?'

"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 ye all wonder,

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 hath given you the circumcision--not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers--and on a sabbath ye 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?

(Tr. xxx. s. 4) As if He said, Ye have done well to receive circumcision from Moses, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers; for Abraham first received circumcision from the Lord. And ye circumcise on the sabbath. Moses has convicted you: ye received a law to circumcise on the eighth day; and ye received a law to rest on the seventh day.

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 doth receive circumcision on a sabbath that the law of Moses may not be broken, are ye wroth with me that I made a man all whole on a sabbath?

And He said not, "I have done a thing greater than circumcision," but abundantly refuteth them by saying, "If a man receive circumcision." "Seest thou that the Law is most established when a man breaketh it? Seest thou that the breaking of the Sabbath is the keeping of the Law? that if the Sabbath were not broken, the Law must needs have been broken?

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.

judge not according to appearance, but the righteous judgment judge.'

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.

Certain, therefore, of the Jerusalemites said, `Is not this he whom they are seeking to kill?

Nothing is placed in the Holy Scriptures without a reason, for they were uttered by the Holy Ghost, therefore let us enquire exactly into every point. For it is possible from one expression to find out the entire meaning (of a passage), as in the case before us. "Many of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill?

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, lo, he doth speak freely, and they say nothing to him; did the rulers at all know truly that this is truly 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 one--we have known whence he is; and the Christ, when he doth come, no one doth know whence 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, therefore, in the temple, teaching and saying, `Ye have both known me, and ye have known whence I am; and I have not come of myself, but He who sent me is true, whom ye have not known;

And in like manner the Son Himself teaches us, in words of His own, that He was truly born and truly came;—Ye neither know Me, nor know ye whence I am, for I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true, Whom ye know not, but I know Him, for I am from Him, and He hath sent Me. No man knows the Father; the Son often assures us of this.

And of Myself I am not come, but He is true That sent Me. Under the guise of defence He finds fault with the Jews who were insulting through long unbelief.

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).

and I have known Him, because I am from Him, and He did send me.'

But He immediately adds, For I am from Him, and He hath sent Me, to debar heresy from the violent assumption that His being from God dates from the time of His Advent. The Gospel revelation of the mystery proceeds in a logical sequence; first He is born, then He is sent.

"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 seize him, and no one laid the hand on 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.

and many out of the multitude did believe in him, and said--`The Christ--when he may come--will he do more signs than these that this one did?'

"When Christ cometh, will He do more miracles than these which this man hath done?" How many were the miracles? In truth, there were three, that of the wine, that of the paralytic, and that of the nobleman's son; and the Evangelist hath related no more.

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 multitude murmuring these things concerning him, and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers that they may take 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, therefore, said to them, `Yet a little time I am with you, and I go away unto Him who sent me;

ye will seek me, and ye shall not find; and where I am, ye are not able to come.'

The Jews, therefore, said among themselves, `Whither is this one about to go that we shall not find him? --to the dispersion of the Greeks is he about to go? 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, Ye will seek me, and ye shall not find? and, Where I am, ye are not able to come?'

And in the last, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, `If any one doth thirst, let him come unto me and 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?

Among the dissensions and doubtings of the Jews concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, among other things which He said, by which some were confounded, others taught: "On the last day of that feast" (for it was then that these things were done) which is called the feast of tabernacles; that is, the building of tents, of which feast you remember, my beloved, that we have already disc…

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.

he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;'

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.

and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, 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.

But I will recur again to what was before us. The Spirit came to be in the Prophets for the need's sake of prophesying, He indwelleth now through Christ in believers, having begun in Him first when He was made Man. For as God He has unceasingly the Spirit Who is Essentially of His Nature and His own.

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.

Many, therefore out of the multitude, having heard the word, said, `This is truly the Prophet;'

others said, `This is the Christ;' and others said, `Why, out of Galilee doth the Christ come?

Others said, "When Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence He is" (ver. 27); and there was a difference of opinion, as might be expected in a confused multitude; for not attentively did they listen to His words, nor for the sake of learning.

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.

Did not the Writing say, that out of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem--the village where David was--the Christ doth come?'

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, arose among the multitude because of him.

And certain of them were willing to seize him, but no one laid 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 officers came, therefore, unto the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, `Wherefore did ye not bring him?'

The officers answered, `Never so spake man--as this man.'

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, therefore, answered them, `Have ye also been led astray?

did any one out of the rulers believe in him? or out 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 multitude, that is not knowing the law, is accursed.'

"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 saith unto them--he who came by night unto him--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?

One of the rulers is Nicodemus, and he is numbered among those who had authority, yet not wholly unbelieving nor altogether vying with their folly, but already pricked, not indeed having his love to Christ yet free, yet to some degree feeling shame at the convictions of his conscience.

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.

`Doth our law judge the man, if it may not hear from him first, and know what he doth?'

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 said to him, `Art thou also out of Galilee? search and see, that a prophet out of Galilee hath not risen;'

and each one went on to his house, but Jesus went on to the mount of the Olives.

John7