Chapter 15

John 7:1–13

Literary Context

After the departure of some “disciples” of Jesus (not the “Twelve”) because of the offensive nature of Jesus’s message (6:60), the Gospel continues to show the kind of responses the message and ministry of Jesus yields. Since the beginning of the Gospel, the narrative has been depicting the dramatic interaction between light and darkness, God and the world (1:5). In this pericope, conflict is not far away but right at home, with the very people with whom Jesus should have found the most connection and support—his own kin. Yet it is where things seem most congruent that the true contrast between Creator and creation is made known by the Gospel.

  1. IV. The Confession of the Son of God (5:1–8:11)
    1. A. The Third Sign: The Healing of the Lame Man on the Sabbath (5:1–18)
    2. B. The Identity of (the Son of) God: Jesus Responds to the Opposition (5:19–47)
    3. C. The Fourth Sign: The Feeding of a Large Crowd (6:1–15)
    4. D. The “I AM” Walks across the Sea (6:16–21)
    5. E. The Bread of Life (6:22–71)
    6. F. Private Display of Suspicion (7:1–13)
    7. G. Public Display of Rejection (7:14–52)
    8. H. The Trial of Jesus regarding a Woman Accused of Adultery (7:53–8:11)

Main Idea

Jesus is the true tabernacle, the fulfillment of the world’s hopes and joys, whose faithful obedience to the Father is the source of true brotherhood in the family of God. In Jesus, the good things of God are being expressed as grace replacing grace.

Translation

Structure and Literary Form

This pericope corresponds to the basic story form (see Introduction). The introduction/setting is established in vv. 1–2, explaining the location, setting, and people around whom the plot’s conflict will focus. In vv. 3–5 the response of the family of Jesus to his ministry and reputation is the conflict of the pericope. In vv. 6–9 the counterresponse by Jesus serves to bring resolution to the conflict. Finally, vv. 10–13 offer the conclusion/interpretation of the pericope, including a closing summary of the varied responses of the Jewish crowd to Jesus, which helps establish this pericope in the larger trajectory and plot of the narrative.

Exegetical Outline

  1. F. Private Display of Suspicion (7:1–13)
    1. 1. The Feast of the Jews (vv. 1–2)
    2. 2. The Ridicule of Jesus by His Brothers (vv. 3–5)
    3. 3. The Response of Jesus to His Brothers (vv. 6–9)
    4. 4. The Reluctance toward Jesus because of the Jews (vv. 10–13)

Explanation of the Text

The message and ministry of Jesus was no longer a secret. Jesus had become suspicious to many of those around him. In fact, as this scene depicts, the suspicion had trickled down to those who were closest to him. It is important to keep in view the developing plot of the narrative. The private display of suspicion is not mere background material but insight into the deeper reality of the unfolding story; the more the light shines, the more the darkness is revealed for what it truly is (cf. 1:5).

7:1 And after these things Jesus was spending time in Galilee. He chose not to spend time in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him (Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα περιεπάτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ· οὐ γὰρ ἤθελεν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ περιπατεῖν, ὅτι ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι). The narrator transitions the reader from the previous scene, denoted by “after these things” (μετὰ ταῦτα; see comments on 2:12), by aligning the story with the movements of Jesus. Jesus is described as “spending time” (περιεπάτει) in Galilee, a verb which could also be translated as “walking around” or just “walking.” The term is best taken as a general description of his movements in a large region. No information is given regarding the activities in Galilee; the reference is given so as to explain the upcoming interaction between Jesus and his family in regard to his visit to Judea.

The narrator does add, however, an important piece of information: Jesus “chose not” (οὐ γὰρ ἤθελεν) to spend time in Judea because of the Jews. The statement depicts the divine agency involved in Jesus’s movements in and around Judea, and the narrator introduces it here with theological sensitivity, setting the scene for the reader. Jesus “chose not” to spend time in Judea “because the Jews were seeking to kill him” (ὅτι ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι). Here, as in chapter 5, “the Jews” are the religious authorities in Jerusalem (see comments on 1:19). The conflict introduced in the previous pericopae has not subsided but increased so that Jesus is now, in some manner, a wanted man.

7:2 But the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near (ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἡ σκηνοπηγία). The narrator concludes the introduction and setting of the pericope by placing the upcoming scene in the context of the Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths), one of the most sacred Jewish holidays (Josephus, Ant. 8.100; m. Sukkah 5:1), occurring about six months after Passover (cf. 6:4). The holiday lasted seven days, from the 15th to the 21st of Tishri (September-October). A special day with a festival assembly marked the eighth day (the 22nd of Tishri).1 The Feast became associated with the eschatological hopes of the people and was likely for this reason filled with joyous celebration.2 The term we translated “Tabernacles” (ἡ σκηνοπηγία) is the combination of two words that could also be translated as “the setting up of tents” or “the construction of huts.”3 In light of the “tabernacling” presence of Jesus, the detail of the Feast of Tabernacles establishes for the reader both the historical and cosmological context of the scene. The qualification that the holiday is “Jewish” (τῶν Ἰουδαίων) is not new to John (see comments on 2:13).

7:3 His brothers said to him, “You should leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the works that you do” (εἶπον οὖν πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, Μετάβηθι ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν, ἵνα καὶ οἱ μαθηταί σου θεωρήσουσιν [σοῦ] τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιεῖς). The conflict of the pericope is introduced with the arrival of Jesus’s brothers (οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ), whom the narrator has already briefly introduced (see comments on 2:12), and who will be described in v. 5 as not believing in Jesus. While this is not technically a dialogue, this short verbal exchange between Jesus and his brothers strongly parallels a social challenge (see Introduction). The issue addressed is not raised for debate but to challenge the honor and authority of the interlocutor. It is common for such challenges to involve both irony and the playful use of words. The narrator has already informed the reader that Jesus had testified that a prophet has no honor in his own homeland (4:44), and Jesus’s own brothers were about to prove the point by mocking his person and ministry.

The brothers of Jesus appeal to him with an aorist imperative of request (an entreaty or polite command), which is often used to speak to a superior and which is translated here as “you should leave here” (Μετάβηθι ἐντεῦθεν).4 In the context of the verbal exchange, the imperative of request serves to mock the perceived public status of Jesus. This is made clear by the playful use of the words “your disciples” (οἱ μαθηταί σου) and “the works” (τὰ ἔργα) that Jesus does, which are used by the brothers as combative hyperbole that intend to challenge the very things it claims. When they saw him coming, Jesus’s brothers spoke about Jesus in a similar way to how Joseph’s brothers spoke about him: “Here comes that dreamer!” (Gen 37:19).

7:4 “For no one who seeks to be in public acts in secret. If you are doing these things, show yourself to the world” (οὐδεὶς γάρ τι ἐν κρυπτῷ ποιεῖ καὶ ζητεῖ αὐτὸς ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι. εἰ ταῦτα ποιεῖς, φανέρωσον σεαυτὸν τῷ κόσμῳ). The brothers of Jesus do not merely give an exhortation with the intention of mockery; they even add an explanatory rebuke. Offering an interpretation of the intentions of Jesus to become a public figure, Jesus’s brothers describe him as one who “seeks to be in public” (ζητεῖ αὐτὸς ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι). The word “public” (παρρησίᾳ) is used nine times in John and in this context carries the sense of acting “openly” (7:13; 11:54; 18:20). By making such a simplified interpretation of Jesus’s ministry and actions, his brothers describe him as one seeking attention for himself.

The brothers conclude by offering a closing rebuke to their mockery of his actions. Beginning with a first-class conditional clause that assumes the fact to be truth, “If you are doing these things” (εἰ ταῦτα ποιεῖς), the brothers offer another combative hyperbole that implies the exact opposite of what it actually claims. Even more, they end their challenge by crowning Jesus with unconcealed hyperbole in the form of another imperative of request: “Show yourself to the world” (φανέρωσον σεαυτὸν τῷ κόσμῳ). Such a grandiose statement was certainly intended to offer an over-the-top mockery of his ministry and self-identity. Yet with irony only detected by the reader of the Gospel, the statement intended to be a rebuke founded upon the impossible could not have been more accurate. Jesus had come to show himself to the world, though in a very different manner than what his brothers could have imagined.

7:5 For not even his brothers were believing in him (οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτόν). The narrator ends the conflict of the pericope with an important commentary on the brothers of Jesus. This comment provides insight into the verbal exchange that just took place. The more traditional interpretation of the brotherly exchange assumes a positive challenge to Jesus.5 But the narrator’s comment, as readers of the Gospel have come to expect, must be understood as penetrating into the “unseen” context, giving insight into their response to Jesus. The unbelief of the brothers is not due merely to a misunderstanding (i.e., a partial faith). Rather, they are dead wrong, and damagingly so, as Jesus will shortly declare by word and deed.

7:6 Then Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet arrived, but your time is always ready” (λέγει οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμὸς οὔπω πάρεστιν, ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὁ ὑμέτερος πάντοτέ ἐστιν ἕτοιμος). After placing the conflict at the feet of Jesus, the plot of the pericope transitions to the resolution. Jesus responds with a cryptic statement in regard to his “time” (καιρὸς) that is not easy to interpret; yet within the framework of a challenge dialogue, the play on words is not only expected but understandable. Interpreters are correct to avoid giving the term “time” (καιρὸς) inappropriate lexical freight, though the term can be said to reflect qualitative (rather than quantitative) emphasis.6 Befitting the social-challenge context of the statement in which words are used playfully for rhetorical purposes, Jesus makes a statement that addresses his brothers’ exhortation, while at the same time addresses a much larger issue, one understood only in light of the deeper cosmological plot unfolding in the Gospel.

In light of this, therefore, without denying a different nuance in meaning, the use of “time” by Jesus must be viewed as comparable to his use of the term “hour” (see comments on 2:4; cf. 7:30; 8:20; 13:1; 17:1). The latter is a technical term in John that summarizes the eschatological action of God being realized in Jesus’s person and work.7 At the same time, it is appropriate—based upon the different terms and the immediate context—to assume a difference in meaning. While “time” is likely connected to “the hour,” it is not the same thing. The former emphasizes God’s work in Jesus as a whole and not merely the climactic moment of the cross. Such a distinction helps to make sense of v. 7.

The larger issue Jesus addresses is the public display of the Son that is part of his mission from the Father. Ironically, while Jesus disagrees with his brothers’ words, he does not disagree with their intentions. That is, while he will not acquiesce to his brothers’ exhortation, he will receive in full the exact result their combative hyperbole was hoping to induce: shame and suffering in the form of a public rebuke. In this way Jesus’s statement offers a rejoinder that, without any combative hyperbole, could not be perceived by the brothers, but was intended to act as a distancing mechanism. Just as Jesus distanced himself from his mother (see comments on 2:4), so also he now separates himself from his brothers. And in so doing, Jesus aligns himself directly with the Father.

Jesus declares to his brothers: “But your time is always ready” (ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὁ ὑμέτερος πάντοτέ ἐστιν ἕτοιμος). Such a statement serves as a rejoinder to the combative hyperbole and evil intentions of Jesus’s brothers, making clear that their posture toward him is equivalent to their posture toward God. That is, there is nothing that God is doing that directly involves them. Ironically, the only connection between them and God at this point is, like Joseph’s brothers, in their unwittingly fulfilling God’s perfect purposes by their destructive naivete (cf. Gen 50:20).

7:7 “The world is unable to hate you, but it does hate me, because I testify against it that its works are evil” (οὐ δύναται ὁ κόσμος μισεῖν ὑμᾶς, ἐμὲ δὲ μισεῖ, ὅτι ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρά ἐστιν). Jesus continues his rejoinder to his brothers by making a connection between them and “the world” (ὁ κόσμος). This is the first time in the Gospel where “the world” is spoken of not as the object of God’s love (cf. 3:16, 17; 4:42; 6:33, 51) but as God’s enemy. The criterion used to depict ontological equality between Jesus’s brothers and the world, namely, the “inability” (οὐ δύναται) of the world to hate them, is the exact same criterion Jesus will use to prove who his true brothers/disciples really are (15:19).

Jesus adds that the world hates him “because I testify against it that its works are evil” (ὅτι ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρά ἐστιν). Such a statement serves to counter that made to him by his brothers that Jesus should let those in Judea “see the works that you do” (v. 3) and “show yourself to the world” (v. 4). By this final rejoinder, Jesus declares that his own brothers’ evil intentions serve as proof that his presence is a witness against them. In what can only be a divine mystery, it is only when Jesus separates himself from his brothers that he can truly love them; it is only when he distinguishes himself from them that he can truly make possible their familial reunification.

7:8 “You go up to the Feast. I will not go up to this Feast, because my time has not yet been fulfilled” (ὑμεῖς ἀνάβητε εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν· ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται). Jesus ends his response to his brothers just as they had initiated their rebuke toward him: with a command. Jesus’s command, however, is not derived from his own evil intentions but is a response to—even a rebuke of—the evil intentions of his brothers. Jesus reiterates, though this time with different but parallel language, that “my time has not yet been fulfilled” (ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται). It is not just physical separation that Jesus is commandingly describing, not even just a difference in purpose or function, but a difference so cosmologically rooted that Jesus can only depict it with prophetic-like language (i.e., “fulfilled”).

It is important to note that Jesus calls the Feast of Tabernacles “this Feast” (τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην). The description is a bit awkward in the context, and for that reason, exegetically significant. Schnackenburg is close when he suggests, “His saying ‘to this feast’ carries the underlying thought that he will be going to another feast,” but wrong when he suggests that the other feast is the next Passover, the Passover of his death.8 Rather, what makes this statement remarkable is that the implied other feast is the same feast, the Feast of Tabernacles! The contrast Jesus makes suggests that there is a distinction between the Feast of Tabernacles and the true tabernacle—Jesus himself. If the natural union between Jesus and his brothers can be shown to have real distinctions, so also can the natural union between Jesus the Jew and Judaism be seen to have real distinctions. Said another way, just as the prologue foretold of the true brotherhood of the children of God (1:12–13), it also foretold of “grace in place of grace” (1:16) and the fulfillment of the things of Moses by the person of Jesus Christ (1:17).

7:9 After he said these things, he remained in Galilee (ταῦτα δὲ εἰπὼν αὐτὸς ἔμεινεν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ). The resolution of the pericope closes with a concluding comment by the narrator. The narrator explains that Jesus “remained” (ἔμεινεν) in Galilee, with the assumption that his brothers left to go to the Feast (see v. 8). This verse serves as a double-edged sword for the reader, both to alleviate as well as to bring focus to the narrative tension. The tense verbal exchange comes to a fitting close by Jesus rebuking and then removing the challengers, his brothers, from his presence. However, in the very next verse Jesus does what he said he was not going to do; he goes to the Feast. While we will deal with the apparent dilemma in the next verse, it is important to note the importance of v. 9. The very fact that the narrator appears contradictory demands not only that we explain the exegetical tension (see v. 10) but also that we take notice of the progression. Jesus declared himself to be entirely distinct from his brothers, and this comment by the narrator locates that statement in reality. What comes next must be seen as working with an intentionality that can only be explained in light of the contrast.

7:10 But after his brothers went up to the Feast, he also went up, not publicly but in secret (Ὡς δὲ ἀνέβησαν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνέβη, οὐ φανερῶς ἀλλ’ ἐν κρυπτῷ). The conclusion and interpretation of the pericope begins with a shocking twist. After separating himself from his brothers and “this Feast” (v. 8), Jesus ultimately goes up to the Feast. The twist is introduced with “but after” (Ὡς δὲ), which serves to differentiate Jesus from his brothers and transition the reader to the new state of affairs. This verse, however, raises two important questions that we must address in turn. First, how are we to explain the apparent contradiction with v. 8? Second, what is the significance of going “not publicly but in secret”?

How are we to explain the apparent contradiction with v. 8? We must begin with the distinction Jesus himself alerts us to in v. 8 when he calls the Feast of Tabernacles “this Feast” (τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην). Such an awkward description must be exegetically significant. He is not going to a different Feast but speaking of the Feast in a disparaging manner.

This distinction, however, cannot be expressed in merely historical terms. The distinction between “this Feast” and Jesus’s participation in it has its point of tension in the person and work of Jesus himself. The Feast of Tabernacles was a joyous celebration, primarily because it was associated with the eschatological hopes of the people. But these eschatological hopes were resting so innately on the shoulders of the work of the Son that for Jesus “this Feast” was different without him. The Feast that his brothers attended was, according to the cosmological nature of the work of Christ revealed by the Gospel, a different Feast altogether.9 For the Gospel of John this is a real distinction, one made in the prologue and, arguably, pressuring the reader by the distinctive nuance in vv. 8 and 10. This might explain on the historical level why Jesus arrived at the Feast with apparently little concern for missing half or more of the festivities and ceremonies and functioned in no real way as a normal participant. Simply stated, he could not be a normal participant at the Feast, for he is the tabernacle, the thing to be celebrated, the fulfillment of the eschatological hopes.10 Ironically, while the Jews were busy erecting their tabernacles in order to participate in the eschatological ceremonies of their God, God himself was “tabernacling” (1:14) in the midst of his people!11 Yet Jesus went “not publicly but in secret” (οὐ φανερῶς ἀλλ’ ἐν κρυπτῷ), offering a clear contrast between the honor-seeking display requested by his brothers and the shame-bearing display assigned to him by the Father (cf. 3:14).

7:11 Then at the Feast the Jews were seeking him and saying, “Where is that man?” (οἱ οὖν Ἰουδαῖοι ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ καὶ ἔλεγον, Ποῦ ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος;). The narrator moves toward the conclusion of the pericope by describing the reaction to the mystery of Jesus and the question of his presence. The narrator reveals that “the Jews,” that is, the religious authorities who were trying to kill him in v. 1, “were seeking him” (ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν). The verb is best taken to mean a hostile search; they are watching for him and hoping to catch him. It is only as the chapter progresses that these influential opponents become more clearly defined as the Pharisees (7:32, 47–48) and members of the Sanhedrin (7:26, 32, 45, and 48).12 The use of “that man” (ἐκεῖνος) is probably to be taken as derogatory in this context (cf. 5:11–12).

7:12 Among the crowd there was great whispering concerning him. Some said, “He is good.” Others said, “No, rather he is leading the crowd astray” (καὶ γογγυσμὸς περὶ αὐτοῦ ἦν [πολὺς] ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ· οἱ μὲν ἔλεγον ὅτι Ἀγαθός ἐστιν, ἄλλοι [δὲ] ἔλεγον, Οὔ, ἀλλὰ πλανᾷ τὸν ὄχλον). It is not just “the Jews” who are interested in Jesus; even “among the crowd” (ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ) there is interest regarding him. The narrator describes the crowd’s great “whispering” (γογγυσμὸς), a term which in this context is used to depict a more general behind-the-scenes talk, not the negative depiction used earlier in the Gospel for the Jews (cf. 6:41, 61).13

It is likely that the words used to describe the content of the crowd’s whispering, however, are not to be taken as generic summaries but specific and theologically loaded responses to Jesus. For example, the verb “leading astray” (πλανᾷ) could quite naturally be linked to the accusation against a divisive seducer in Deuteronomy 13:6–10. This might explain the logic of those who are seeking to kill Jesus (v. 1). Even the depiction of Jesus as “good” (ἀγαθός) is more than a casual compliment, for it reflects the “goodness of God” motif also in Deuteronomy, and this implies that Jesus is a reflection of the character of God and, therefore, the agent of the blessings and goodness of God himself (cf. Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19).14

7:13 No one, though, would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews (οὐδεὶς μέντοι παρρησίᾳ ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων). While all these cosmological realities of the eschatological work of God in Christ during “this” Feast of Tabernacles affect the crowd and their participation in the ceremonies, they could not be directly acted upon “for fear of the Jews” (διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων). Such language, used elsewhere in the Gospel (cf. 9:22; 19:38; 20:19), depicts the conflict at the historical level of the plot of John. The narrator states emphatically that “no one” (οὐδεὶς) would say anything publicly, marking the high point of the hostility at this point in the narrative.

Theology in Application

In a scene that reveals the growing and publicly-manifested conflict between Jesus and those around him, Jesus receives a private rebuke by those who should have been on his side, his own brothers. The verbal exchange between Jesus and his brothers serves to highlight the depth and nature of the conflict. And with the Feast of Tabernacles as the context for this engagement, the true nature of Jesus’s ministry and the magnitude of his presence are made glaringly clear to the reader.

The Brothers of Jesus and the Family of God

The stark contrast between the natural affinity between brothers in the ancient world and the rejection—not just lack of reception—displayed between Jesus and his brothers allows the reader to see the depth of the conflict between the darkness and the light (1:5). What makes this conflict most shocking is that it is the last place one would have expected to find it. One may fight against the whole world, but one’s family would be the last to be reckoned as the enemy. Yet in the family of Jesus the war was inevitable. The reason was made clear in v. 7: Jesus’s brothers were not really his brothers; they belonged to the family of the world. They shared the same biological mother, but they were not children of the same Father.

The Christian finds no greater kinship than in the family of God. It is one’s Father, the heavenly Father, who alone gives ultimate definition to “family.” There is only one blood relation that ultimately matters—the blood of Christ. This is not to disparage biological families but simply to take heed of their fallibility and shaky foundation. This pericope exhorts us to align ourselves to our brother, Jesus Christ. When we are separated from him, it is not Christ who separated from us, it is we who have separated from him. Ironically, when the world or even our biological families begin to hate us on account of Christ, it is then that we know that we are home, residents of the family of God.

He Is Good

Jesus can be only one of two things: either he is a deceiver or he is “good” (v. 12). There is no in between and no other option. With Jesus you are either his brother or his challenger. There is no second-cousin relationship to Jesus. He is no mere acquaintance. This is because he is and makes manifest God himself and all the good things that God has promised. Jesus is the one who fulfills all the things of God. Every good thing God ever wanted to do he is doing in Jesus Christ. As Paul declares: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ” (2 Cor 1:20). This is what some of the crowd in v. 12 were beginning to understand, even if they were too scared to say it aloud (v. 13). The church, however, should shout and proclaim aloud the “Yes!” of Jesus. It cannot but speak, for it has seen and received the love of God. Jesus is the good—yes, “He is good.”

The “Tabernacling One” in Place of the Tabernacle

This pericope describes with careful precision how Jesus is “tabernacling” with his people in the midst of the great religious ceremonies and festivities of the Feast of Tabernacles (see 1:14). The Gospel of John crafts the encounter with such rich theological imagery and imagination that the reader is forced to see in the stark contrast the true tabernacle made present by Jesus’s person and work. Even more, they are to see how Jesus the tabernacle functions as the real fulfillment of the eschatological hopes and joyous celebration of the traditional Feast. All this depicts with explicit commentary what the prologue had foretold: Jesus is the grace in place of grace. The gracious work of God in the Old Testament—and it was grace—is so eclipsed by the gracious work of God in Jesus that it is a full replacement of grace (see comments on 1:16–17). This is why the Feast of Tabernacles is not celebrated by Christians, for it is eclipsed by another Feast, called a “love feast” by early Christians (i.e., the Lord’s Supper). At this feast, the food is Christ’s body and the drink is Christ’s blood, and the thing that is joyously celebrated is the glorious cross and the indestructible resurrection from the dead and the eschatological hopes awaiting his certain return. With this in view, the building of dingy tabernacles or booths around Jerusalem pales in comparison with the true temple of God, the church, who are the living expressions of the grace of God.