article25

§19 Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:14–27)

The unity of 7:14–8:59 becomes apparent once it is recognized that 8:1–11 is the record of a separate incident and not an original part of John’s Gospel. Only by ignoring these verses and moving from 7:52 to 8:12 without a break can the reader sense how closely chapters 7 and 8 go together. Jesus’ temple ministry is presented in the form of one long discourse, even though it is probably assumed to have been given over a period of several days during the Feast of Tabernacles, and even though the material comprising it may well have been gathered from collections of sayings associated with many different occasions. It is Jesus’ temple discourse par excellence, standing as a sequel to the synagogue discourse of chapter 6. If the theme of the latter was redemption through Jesus’ death, the theme of this discourse will be judgment on Jerusalem and on the world. (For further discussion see J. R. Michaels, “The Temple Discourse in John,” New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974], pp. 200–213).

If the public ministry in John’s Gospel is viewed as an anticipation of Jesus’ Passion (see Introduction) this discourse corresponds to the summary found in Luke 21:37–38: “Each day Jesus was teaching at the temple, and each evening he went out to spend the night on the hill called the Mount of Olives, and all the people came early in the morning to hear him at the temple.” Such, at any rate, is the pattern presupposed by whoever was responsible for using 7:53–8:11 to split the discourse in two: “Then each went to his own home. But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared in the temple courts” (8:1–2a). Instead of connecting the theme of Jesus teaching in the temple with Passion week in particular, as the Synoptics have done, John has used it as a conspicuous feature of Jesus’ ministry prior to the Passion. This is perhaps a natural corollary of the fact that in John’s Gospel Jesus visits Jerusalem several times. Teaching publicly in the temple is not an occasional thing for him, nor limited to one period in his life, but (like teaching in synagogues) his customary practice (cf. 18:20). The formal temple discourse of chapters 7–8, like the synagogue discourse of chapter 6, is presented as a sample.

Again and again the reader is reminded that the temple is the setting, and the Feast of Tabernacles the occasion, for all that Jesus says:

Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the temple courts and begin to teach (v. 14).

Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out … (v. 28).

On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice … (v. 37).

He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put (8:20).

At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds (8:59).

The first three of these references introduce major divisions of the discourse: 7:14–27, 7:28–36, and 7:37–8:20. The fourth terminates the discourse proper in much the same way that 6:59 terminated the synagogue discourse. The last concludes a long postscript (8:21–59) that develops some of the issues raised previously, building to the sharpest of confrontations and bringing Jesus’ self-disclosure to an end.

Because he delays his journey until after the departure of his brothers, Jesus arrives at the festival late (v. 14). He begins immediately to teach in the temple, and immediately his teaching attracts the attention of the religious authorities. How, they ask, can a person without formal rabbinic training speak so ably and wisely? The content of the teaching that impressed them is not given as a part of the narrative. The narrator probably has in mind expositions of the Hebrew Scriptures, but the center of interest lies rather in Jesus’ reply to the authorities’ question. But just as their question had been directed not to him but to each other, so his answer (vv. 16–18) is intended not for them but for the readers of the Gospel. The reason he can teach so well without formal education is that he himself is “taught by God” (cf. 6:45). Those who choose to obey God are those who will recognize that God speaks through Jesus. They will know that Jesus is God’s true messenger, desiring glory for God and not himself. The reverse is equally true: Those who do not see Jesus in this way show by their rejection of him their disobedience to God.

Focusing his attention on the religious authorities, Jesus puts them in the second category. They are disobedient to God and to God’s law because they are seeking to kill Jesus (v. 19). Because the law of God for them means the law of Moses, Jesus takes the opportunity to vindicate his own actions (and condemn theirs) in terms of what the Mosaic Law stipulates. When the law of circumcision (i.e., that a male child should be circumcised when he was eight days old) came into potential conflict with the law of the Sabbath, it was agreed that the Sabbath law should give way (e.g., Mishnah Shabbath 18.3–19.2); the boy should receive circumcision even on the Sabbath. Arguing from the lesser to the greater, Jesus concludes that he too was in agreement with the law for healing the whole man on the Sabbath (v. 23), that is, when he healed the sick man at the pool of Bethesda (cf. 5:1–9). This was the one miracle (v. 21) that had amazed them all (cf. 5:20, 28). The rational defense he makes here provides a belated postscript to his enigmatic remark two chapters earlier, “My Father is always at his work, and I, too, am working” (5:17).

Jesus’ argument makes sense because of an assumption among Jewish teachers that circumcision accomplished the perfection of man (e.g., Mishnah Nedarim 3.11: Abraham was not called perfect until he was circumcised). They too argued from the lesser to the greater that if circumcision “which attaches to only one of the 248 members of the human body, suspends the Sabbath, how much more shall [the saving of] the whole body suspend the Sabbath” (Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 85b). The difference is that the rabbis confined the principle to immediately life-threatening situations, while Jesus applied it on behalf of anyone in need of help or healing (cf., e.g., Matt. 12:1–8, 9–14; Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6).

The implication of all this for the hearers is inescapable. If Jesus is in the right as far as the law is concerned, they are wrong to be angry with him and to seek his life. They are in fact disobedient to the very law they claim to uphold (v. 19). The real shock for them comes not in the logic of the argument, however, but in Jesus’ remark, almost in passing, that they are trying to kill him (v. 19b). Indignantly they deny any such intent (v. 20). Their seeming lack of awareness of what the narrator and the readers have known all along is puzzling and incongruous. As early as 5:18 the religious authorities in Jerusalem had made up their minds to kill Jesus. This was why he remained in Galilee as long as he did (7:1). When he finally decided to go to Jerusalem, “at the Feast the Jews were watching for him” (7:11), apparently with hostile intent. Even the crowds knew that Jesus was a wanted man, though “no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews” (7:13). Why then the surprise at Jesus’ blunt charge in verse 19 that his hearers wanted to kill him? Are they hiding their true intentions? Or is a distinction to be made between the Jews in verses 15–19 and the crowd in verse 20? Is the crowd feigning ignorance of the whole matter out of the same fear mentioned in verse 13?

Neither of these suggestions is particularly convincing. A better explanation is that the crowd’s disclaimer in verse 20 is an honest one. They really do not understand why Jesus thinks someone is out to kill him. This is possible only if Jesus’ identity is unknown to them, that is, if they do not realize that Jesus is the notorious healer of Bethesda wanted by the authorities. A few verses later, in an apparent reversal, some in the crowd will say, Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill? (v. 25).

The contrast between this statement and the disclaimer in verse 20 indicates that their question is not merely rhetorical. Verse 25 is, rather, a genuine moment of recognition, a breakthrough in the crowd’s perception of Jesus. Now they realize that he is indeed the man wanted by the authorities for the Bethesda healing.

The interpretation of the law or of the Hebrew Scriptures is the theme of Jesus’ teaching only formally. The real point at issue is his own identity. He comes to reveal himself, not the meaning of this or that text. But the self-revelation occurs against a background of concealment. The exchange recorded in verses 14–24 is best explained on the assumption that Jesus is at the temple incognito. This, it appears, is what was meant by the statement that when Jesus went to the festival “he went …, not publicly, but in secret” (v. 10).

Whether Jesus concealed his identity supernaturally (cf. 20:14–15) or by an actual disguise is not indicated. Possibly the “disguise” consisted simply of avoiding the distinctive dress or appearance of a rabbi (see, e.g., Matt. 23:5). This would explain why one who elsewhere in this Gospel is addressed as “Rabbi” (e.g., 1:38; 3:2; 6:25) or “Teacher” (13:13) is here described as unschooled (v. 15). It is unlikely that this conclusion was based on any direct knowledge of Jesus’ personal history. The judgment of the religious authorities that Jesus had not studied (v. 15) was probably made on the basis of his appearance. As far as they could tell by looking at him he was one of the uneducated “people of the land” (Hebrew: ‘Am Ha-’aretz) who knew nothing of the law of Moses (cf. 7:49). Yet his words belied any such conclusion. To those willing to obey God they were recognizable as God’s own words (vv. 16–17).

Finally, after dropping the hint that he is a wanted man, and giving the somewhat broader hint that he has performed a miracle, Jesus invites his hearers to penetrate the disguise and discern his true identity: “Stop judging by mere appearance, and make a right judgment” (v. 24). This is exactly what happens in verses 25–27, where the question of Jesus’ identity moves immediately into a new phase. The conclusion that the stranger who appeared suddenly at the Feast of Tabernacles is indeed Jesus, the Bethesda miracle worker, is preliminary to the question, Who then is Jesus? The first answer to come to mind is that he is the Messiah (v. 26), but Jesus (now that he has been identified as Jesus!) is known to be a Galilean from Nazareth (cf. 1:45; 6:42; 7:1, 40), while the Messiah is believed to be of unknown and mysterious origin. The persistent question Who is Jesus? is not yet settled but will dominate the temple discourse to the very end, as Jesus’ self-disclosure runs its course.