The Best of John Chapter Seven

 

In chapter six, the Passover was at hand. In chapter seven, it is the feast of Tabernacles that approaches. Passover occurs in the month of Nisan (between March and May in the Christian calendar.) Pentacost occurs seven weeks and one day after Passover. The Feast of Booths or Tabernacles starts on the 15th day of the Hebrew month Tishrei (late-September to mid-October on our modern calendar.) Much of this year goes unrecorded in the gospel of John. It is simply said that Jesus chose to remain in Galilee rather than walk in “Jewry.” That is an interesting coinage as it implies a division between Jesus and the Sanhedrin. It was a rift so dire that the Jews sought to have Jesus killed. We must be reminded, in this context, that Jesus was more than Galilean; Jesus was also a Jew. To say such a thing, especially in regard to the author, John, who referred to religious authorities as the Jews, is to say a thing of some import.

Beginning in verse three, we see possible reasons why things were as they were. Reading the full verse, one is impressed with two possibilities. The first is that Jesus was entertaining a brief hiatus while he thought things through. He was hanging out with his family, perhaps helping them with the family business. While it is stated in verse five that his brethren were not followers or believers, most of that unrecorded year, no doubt, included conversations between Jesus and his siblings. He would have discussed with them his hopes and beliefs. He would have confided the hardships and frustrations of the path laid out before him. He may have become insufferable to his brothers, in so much that they offered the response found in verses three and four.

They told him, 'Stop wasting your time here with us. Go back to Judaea and show the world what you are talking about. Go find your disciples and prove yourself to them. If what you want is to show yourself openly, you will never get there by skulking around in Galilee. Just do it.'

The second possibility is that Jesus had disbanded his disciples and discontinued his work because the threat from the Jews was just that serious. Jesus may have suffered the temptations of doubt; he may have been having second thoughts.

At any rate, a festival approached – one of three that required men to be physically present in Jerusalem. Perhaps the disciples had already gone ahead. Perhaps his brothers were making ready to go themselves. They advised their brother to boldly approach the feast and prove himself. Jesus employed reasoning to the contrary. Let us examine his argument.

He answered, 'Everything I say and do shows them that they are evil. They hate me. It's not timely for me to make such a move. You could, however, it is always the right time for you to say what is right.'

To be precise, Jesus used the word 'world' rather than 'they.' The world hated him. Jesus made the remark that the world could not hate them as it hated him. What did that mean? Did he mean to say that they were beneath the radar, too small for the religious elite to take notice of? In retrospect, we may see the bigger picture – that it was a local rather than a global event. Obviously, it was not everyone that rejected his words or sought to have him killed. He had many followers. It was just the 'Jews' that troubled him.

In a sense less precise, 'Jewry' was like the Mafia of the Hebrew world. They were powerful and had their hands in everything. They had spies and hitmen. My contention has been that Jesus was a bona fide part of that system. He was a Rabbi. Jesus was breaking free, taking a higher path. The things he said threatened to bring the house down. If, as I have put forward, Jesus was a part of that from around twelve years of age, it may well have been 'his world' that hated him.

If Jesus was alone and on his own, his brothers having departed for Jerusalem, his disciples temporarily scattered yet under the same law to attend the feast in Jerusalem, it kind of makes sense that Jesus first says he would not go but then changes his mind – albeit, going incognito.

So he traveled to Jerusalem secretly. Does that mean he wore a disguise? Did he travel only by night? Where did he stay out of sight once he got there? Did he have friends that put him up? If I recall, Lazarus, his friend, lived just a short walk from Jerusalem.

Notes on verses eleven through thirteen: During the feast, two things were at play – and Jesus was central to both of them. A debate raged through the city. The common people were keenly interested in the topic of Jesus. As the Jesus controversy raged, some argued that Jesus was a charlatan while others maintained that Jesus was genuine and earnest. Whatever their personal opinions, they kept it among themselves “for fear of the Jews.” The religious elite were obviously a big part of the debate. Everyone knew that the Jews had it in for Jesus. They also knew an unguarded word could place them in the crosshairs with Jesus.

What does it say that the common folk feared to speak openly about Jesus? What was the common knowledge about Jesus and the Jews? There was obviously a serious contention between Jesus and the Jews. Many who heard Jesus speak publicly, remembered the things Jesus said against the Jews. To speak against the Jews was to speak against the law – as many thought.

The contention between Jesus and the Jews was a bigger deal than many now take it to be. To the common people, Jesus was no mere local with a loud mouth. He was one who rivaled the knowledge and authority of the Sanhedrin. The attention of the people was torn between two superpowers. Even the man on the street knew that the outcome of the religious power-struggle would greatly affect their status under the Roman occupation.

As for the Jews, they looked for Jesus to attend the feast. It was a requirement. They thought, if he was there, they had him – and if he failed his obligation under the law, they had him. Their search for him at the feast was an active search. I get the sense of a door-to-door search. They were up on their toes about Jesus. They saw this feast as their opportunity to prove themselves, to face him down, to accuse him under the law and seek his death. Perhaps their thoughts were political rather than religious. Perhaps they only sought to maintain the power they held. Whatever the case, we see the sense of urgency that drove them forward.

What is not seen is an elite angry at some mouthy commoner. Had Jesus been nothing more than a loud-mouthed yokel, they would have dealt with him early on – and in no uncertain terms. Yet, this is a point well past the early ministry of Jesus. The Jews had followed him around throughout his early ministry, they had stood among the crowds and listened, some even believed and followed him. They had allowed the Jesus movement to proceed – that was their fault. But, why did they hesitate to act? Why did they follow him around the country as he spoke openly and publicly? Why were they so lax as to question him rather than simply and quickly have him arrested for heresy? Why did many of them become followers? Why did so many of them invite Jesus into their homes so graciously?

My developing argument is that Jesus was one of them.

Notes on verses fourteen and fifteen: Sometime after the beginning of the festivities, and likely at a time not associated with the singing and dancing of the multitude of celebrants, Jesus entered the Temple of Jerusalem to teach. Within this framework, certain aspects of the event must be referenced. To begin with, not all areas of the Temple were open to the public; certain areas of the Temple were reserved for the priests and Levites. The business area of the Temple was occupied with animal sacrifice and it is my understanding that the feast of Tabernacles actually saw more sacrifices performed than during the Passover.

One area of the Temple that was open to the public was the Court of Women, a sizable area with an upper balcony. If Jesus taught here, there were many people, including gentiles. Gaining the people's attention might have been an easy task, after all, Jesus was the main topic of conversation for many. I can imagine that he was immediately recognized, that people called to one another, “He's here! See! There's Jesus!”

The religious elders, no doubt, would also have been there in abundance. Remember, they were looking for him. Jesus just walked right in and started teaching. Nobody bothered to point a finger, much more to arrest him. He did not just begin to teach, he stood there and talked for a while. He had their attention. They listened to what he said. Even the elders listened and understood. They heard from him such things they would have expected from themselves and it was obvious he knew as much or more than they did. They were impressed.

They asked, “How does this man know letters, having never learned?”

We must see this question from all angles. Were these not the same who followed Jesus in his early ministry? If these were the same, they had listened to him teach on countless occasions without raising an alarm. They never once asked such a question in his early ministry. My thought is that news of Jesus' every teaching was well-known by all the elders, even those who had not followed him around.

About the education of Jesus. My thought is that Jesus' level of understanding, when he was twelve years old, impressed the religious elite enough for them to take him under their wing. I think Jesus got a formal education, at least in part from them, and graduated as a Rabbi with honors. I think that is why many of them followed him around – he was supposed to represent them. Increasingly, however, Jesus had spoken out against their standards and practices and caused them to lose face.

It is possible that the ones who questioned Jesus' education did not avail themselves of his full history. Perhaps the missing years of Jesus were also missing to them. It is not necessarily the case that Jesus would have been trained in the law there at Jerusalem. He might have trained in Alexandria Egypt. It is also possible that what they meant by “letters” was a degree of mastery usually reserved for the highest levels among their own ranks. It might be helpful to us if the teachings of that day had been recorded. At least we might determine if it was something they had not heard from him before.

Notes on verse sixteen: “My doctrine.” What is a doctrine? Merriam-Webster states it is 'a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief '. For synonyms, I want to focus on the words 'principle' and 'ideology'. But first, we must know that a doctrine, as in 'doctrine of law', and here with regard to the laws of God, was a principle or ideology that was taught by a 'Doctor' or religious scholar – in other words the most learned of the learned.

Jesus, that day, taught principles and ideologies impressively. He sounded very much like a Doctor of the law of God. He spoke like a religious scholar. He impressed even the most learned.

Notes on verses seventeen through twenty-seven: Anyone who actually knew the law of God, and thus was compelled to actually 'do' the will of God, would have known if Jesus was making this stuff up off the top of his head or speaking from the law and will of God. There was a degree of amazement and consternation among the Jews that looks quite like what some of us experience in our modern age. When we are utterly amazed, we say, “ I don't believe it!” Basically, that is what the Jews were saying.

A man who is making it up as he goes is seeking a spotlight for himself and is not a true messenger of the one who sent him. On the other hand, if he is seeking to spotlight the one who sent the message, he is a true messenger and has done nothing amiss. This statement is presented in a matter-of-fact manner that says, 'you guys should know as much.'

Jesus publicly calls out the Jews present and accuses them of plotting to have him killed. Of course, they object. Jesus then names the offense – the healing of the man at the pool during Pentecost of the previous year. He explains their reasoning, also, and all for the public to hear. Jesus maintains that he had done no more than any of them would have done in performing a circumcision on the Sabbath. Why would they do such a thing? They performed circumcisions on Sabbath days in order to keep the law of circumcision as passed down to them by Moses. Jesus explained that circumcision was nothing more than a standard of their forefathers; circumcision was not a matter that originated from God but simply a practice already in use that God made use of.

Still, the Jews kept the law of circumcision religiously as if it was from on high. Jesus, in healing the man by the pool, maintained that he had made the man completely whole (as something of more value than circumcision) and, thus, did something on the Sabbath that was more worthy of praise and acceptance. It should not have been a matter that anyone in their right mind would have sought the death of another for. It was a sham, a pretense.

In their objection in verse twenty, the Jews used the expression, “Thou hast a devil.” Was this a common expression? Today, we would say something like, “You're mad!” We might begin an objection by saying, “you're insane!” Was that what they meant? They may have thought there was no evidence but Jesus stayed in Galilee for one of two reasons. Either Jesus imagined there was a conspiracy afoot or there was an actual threat. Here, we must recall that those who engaged in the Jesus controversy did so on the sly for fear of the Jews who were looking for Jesus. Even the little man saw the evidence.

In verses twenty-three and twenty-four, Jesus points to the hypocrisy of the Jews. In the ears of all present, Jesus makes it clear with a single question. “If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?”

This question is not left to hang, it is followed immediately by a standard that everyone hearing him would have understood. “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” I have mentioned the public within earshot of Jesus for a reason – the next two verses say as much, that the public heard, understood, and agreed. Jesus had said the right thing at the right time and place.

In verses twenty-five and twenty-six, the people of Jerusalem make their assessment of the argument between Jesus and the Jews. “Then said some of them of Jerusalem, is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?” The Christ-hood of Jesus was a big part of the Jesus controversy. If those who knew the religious rulers wanted to kill the one they believed or suspected might be the Christ, why did they idly stand by? Was their fear of the rulers that great? Were they waiting for the Christ to turn things around? They were peasants and workers. They stood in awe but they would not have known what to do even if they thought they should do something.

At any rate, their reasoning trailed away to nattering points of no concern – that is, they talked themselves out of taking any kind of action. Verse twenty-seven records their cop-out. “Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.” These were people from Jerusalem that were not members of the religious ruling elite. They made the claim that they knew where Jesus came from, not so much that having a family in Galilee was a hindrance, but more that their thinking followed a common perception that placed all that was Christ and God in a faraway place that was beyond all that was common or local. Even to this day, people have an inclination to place such matters in a faraway heaven up in the sky or as a footnote of history or an expectation of the far-flung future.

In the following verses, Jesus will answer these people of Jerusalem. I imagine them as curious individuals who worked their way up close to the action. They wanted good spots where they could hear all that was going on. Perhaps they were more arrogant than the common crowd, less fearful of the rulers, or perhaps more affected by the rulers. They presumed to know him and he agreed that they did.

Notes on verses twenty-eight through fifty-three: What does the author mean when he says “some of them of Jerusalem?” The feast in question, one of three, demanded that all men, far and near, be present. Was the author making a distinction? On the one hand, all people present in Jerusalem might be called people of Jerusalem. On the other hand, if a distinction was being made, were these 'people of Jerusalem' those who served as functionaries of the ceremonies? Could they have been lesser levels within the religious mega-structure of Jerusalem?

They spoke as they stood near Jesus, near the religious elite, near the officers employed by the Sanhedrin. What they said, Jesus heard. He turned, looked them in the eye, and answered directly, 'Of course you know me. You know where I live. That is nothing more than common knowledge. But here is something you must keep in mind. I have not come in the name of a local man, neither have I shown the power or evidence of a man. I have come from God, whom you insist on ignoring. I do not dismiss our God, for he has sent me with evidence and power. I have come to you from him.'

It is said that Jesus “cried.” That is to say that he cried out above the general murmur. He spoke loudly, commanding the attention of a crowd. Possibly, Jesus stood on a platform or a step as he taught in the crowded plaza. To speak with him directly, the religious elite, the officers, the functionaries would have moved closer to Jesus physically. He would not have had to shout in their faces to be heard by them but shout he did. Either he was aggravated or he wished the common crowd to be his witness.

Upon his answer, “they,” in verse thirty, sought to take him. Who were 'they?' It was not the common crowd, you can be sure. So, then, was it the full array of the religious elite, officers, and functionaries (who felt assured of their purported knowledge of Jesus?) Functionaries have no authority to act. All they could do was run off at the mouth. Officers would not act without orders, so, that leaves the identity of “they” for one group – the religious elite. In that they sought to take Jesus at that point in time, I think it was less an action than a decision. They could not sully their positions with such actions but they might have ordered officers to apprehend Jesus. Yet, Jesus stood there; nothing happened.

What should we get from this part of the story? Either it is mentioned because someone could see it in their faces how badly they wanted to act or, else, they did not have the level of authority to order the officers to act on such a public matter. They would have to go to the higher-ups and convince them it was time to act. That is totally within the scope of this story as Jesus began teaching in the midst of the feast but, by the end of the chapter, had reached the “great day of the feast,” the last day of the feast on which no water was carried up the steps.

This next bit comes from Bible History Online:

On the Eighth day, the last day, called "the great day of the feast" the priests made no procession and poured no water onto the pavement and this too was very significant, because it symbolized the fact that God had fulfilled the promise to their fathers, He had now brought them into this land that was well watered, flowing with milk and honey, they no longer needed the miraculous supply out of the Rock.

It was on this day the last day that Jesus stood and cried out: "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

It is interesting to note that it was on this day that they sang the marvelous “hallel psalms” of praise, which conclude with this passage Ps. 118:22 “.. and You have become my salvation, the Stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone .. and blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”

The historical background sheds much light on the meaning. Jesus, their promised Messiah was standing in their midst as they were performing the ceremony and WAS fulfilling the Scripture and the promise spoken through Isaiah that the Lord would become their salvation (incarnate) and the water was always used as a symbol in Judaism as that which “comes from above” and is identified with Messiah “the coming One” (Heb. Haba”) throughout.

In verses thirty-one and thirty-two, mention is made of two types of people. The first are the people of the common crowd to whom Jesus taught and made his last answer loudly enough for them to be witness to the conversation he had with those who assumed they knew who he was by where he hailed from. Verse thirty-one follows immediately on the heels of that conversation, and it is said that 'many of the people believed on him'. In other words, having been witness to the conversation, they sided with Jesus, deciding he had won that round.

However, the issue of the coming Messiah was still very much up in the air even among those who believed. It may well be that many of the people in the common crowd had followed Jesus through the countryside during the earlier times of his ministry and had seen with their own eyes the miracles he had performed. People in the crowd spoke among themselves. They believed Jesus was a great man, that he had, in fact, performed miracles. Either they had seen them with their own eyes or they had heard many corroborating accounts from those who had actually witnessed the miracles. Yet, the issue of the Christ was an unsettled matter among them.

Their basic question was, when the Christ actually and finally did step onto the stage, would he work more miracles than the present miracle-worker? This conversation was an irritation and a cause for concern to the second type of people mentioned. Until verse thirty-two we only assumed who they were. The author had, until then, only referred to them as the Jews. Now, he names them as the Pharisees and the chief elders. Were they actually present or had they only gotten word from lesser clerics? Were the officers already present or did they have to be sent for?

The fact that the common people compared Jesus to the coming Messiah worried the religious elite. Such talk shook the foundations of their authority. A thought that just occurred to me is the sheer number of Pharisees, Sadducees, Rabbis, elders, chief elders, and doctors of the law there were in the land of Israel. The Sanhedrin convened with no more than seventy individuals and there well may have been a system of rotation as with the priests who served in the temple. The Pharisee or priest on the street, as it were, may have gotten word to the Sanhedrin who, then, ordered their officers to approach Jesus.

In verse thirty-three, Jesus says to “them,” perhaps an indication of the officers who acted to remove him, 'I'm only going to be here a little while longer, and then I will head back.' Simple enough reasoning but why did it persuade the officers not to act? Was it perhaps a case where they were ordered by their employers to arrest another of their employers? Is it a reflection on their level of training or policeman-ship? The statement that stopped them was something akin to a riddle – as when Samson would say, 'riddle me this.' It stopped them all; the Jews were there with the officers – maybe not the Sanhedrin Jews but at least the Jews on the street. It appears they felt compelled to figure out what he was saying before they proceeded. Where was it he could possibly go that they could not?

The thing that Jesus said caused a big stir among those present. They were confounded. Argumentation ran rampant. He said loudly enough for all to hear something all would understand – as it was central to the ongoing ceremonies. The priests brought no water on the last day of the feast. It symbolized that the people had reached the promised land and no longer needed the water that had come from the rock. So, Jesus cried out, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.”

What he said was well-known. It was in the scripture they heard on Sabbath days. It was in the songs they sang that very day. In that very crowd, on that very day, some people believed Jesus was the Christ – and they argued the point. Some other people argued that they did not think That Jesus was the Christ, however, they would agree that Jesus was 'that prophet.' Still, some others argued niggling points, perhaps these were the Jews, the studied doctors of the law, points concerning the pedigree and lineage of Jesus. Scripture was known to demand an exact lineage of the Christ through the house of David and from the town of Bethlehem.

What does it tell us that these well-studied men did not know that Jesus was of the line of David and born in Bethlehem? Either they did not know him as well as they claimed, their research, if any, falling short, or the information had been withheld by Jesus' parents, possibly at Mary's insistence, even from the siblings of Jesus. The crowd had been turned on its head. Even among those who would have taken Jesus, the will to act against him had been overwhelmed.

Then the officers returned to the Pharisees and chief priests in verse forty-five. It is from this verse that I have made such conclusions as the officers had to be sent with specific orders, that those who wanted to take Jesus were the Jews in the street who had to send word first to the Sanhedrin. There were many 'Jews' present in the crowd but not necessarily those with the authority to act.

Those with the authority to act were perplexed that the officers had not apprehended Jesus. They had not deigned to attend, they had only sent the officers. The officers who had been charged with the detention of Jesus seem as though they were poorly trained but they were deeply affected by the words and manner of Jesus. They had been a part of the arguing crowd (was Jesus the prophet, was he the Christ?). When questioned about their failure to carry out a simple order, their response was that of one of the crowd. They had been awed and overwhelmed by the words of Jesus.

The leaders of the Pharisees and the leaders other than the Pharisees were shocked. They were exasperated. They answered in anger, 'none of us believe this guy! Are you as gullible as these cursed ignorant commoners?' The word cursed is pretty severe. I don't know about you, but if I knew any of my leaders felt that way about me, they would no longer be my leaders. That one word shows much about the men who ruled religiously – the Jews.

Yet not all of those convened felt that way. Nicodemus questioned their approach to the issue. He counseled that they should not condemn Jesus without first hearing him. Mocking Nicodemus, they asked if he was also of Galilee? They railed on him in their argument. Their whole point and mindset revolved around a single determination – they knew Jesus to be from Galilee but the scriptures stated that the Christ would come from Bethlehem. Even in the condescension that Jesus might be a prophet, their research assured them that no prophet ever came from Galilee.

The last day of the feast was a day of argument. The Sanhedrin argued and, no doubt, the debate still raged among the people. In the end, the only thing that got done was the thing that Jesus did. At the end of the day, every man went to his own house.