OVERVIEW
Since ch. 4 closes with Jesus in Galilee and in ch. 5 he is in Jerusalem, some writers rearrange the text by putting ch. 6 (in which Jesus is again in Galilee) immediately after ch. 4 and placing ch. 5 between chs. 6 and 7. The rearrangement is of little help because ch. 7 opens with Jesus in Galilee, while in ch. 5 he is in Jerusalem. There is no sequence that avoids the sudden shifts of location in the early period of Jesus’ ministry. Since no manuscript evidence exists that supports the conjectured reordering, it is best to accept the text as it stands.
OVERVIEW
The account of the feeding of the five thousand is the only incident prior to the triumphal entry that is recorded in all four gospels. This is not surprising in that ch. 6 is the only chapter in John devoted to Jesus’ Galilean ministry. Morris, 339, cites three ways in which the account has been understood: (1) as a “miracle” that took place in people’s hearts by which they overcame their selfishness and learned to share; (2) as a sacramental meal in which each person received a tiny fragment; or (3) as something that can be described only as a miracle, “something wonderful that actually happened.” The uneasiness on the part of some to accept the event as a genuine miracle is an example of the natural human tendency to deny the Creator God the authority to act within his own creation as he chooses. Beasley-Murray, 88, is surely correct in his assessment that “the feeding was not a purely natural event” and that “an act of God is assumed throughout the narrative, and underscored by the response of the crowd described in vv.14–15.”
1Some time after this, Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the Sea of Tiberias), 2and a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the miraculous signs he had performed on the sick. 3Then Jesus went up on a mountainside and sat down with his disciples. 4The Jewish Passover Feast was near.
5When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?” 6He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.
7Philip answered him, “Eight months’ wages would not buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!”
8Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, spoke up, 9“Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?”
10Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” There was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat down, about five thousand of them. 11Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish.
12When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” 13So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten.
14After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
1 Following the events of ch. 5, Jesus crossed to the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee. (Directions were normally determined from the western side of the sea, so that when Jesus “crossed to the far shore of the sea,” it would be to the eastern side.) In the OT the Sea of Galilee was known as the Sea of Kinnereth (cf. Nu 34:11; Dt 3:17 et al.). At a later time it came to be known as Lake Tiberias, after the city of the same name built by Herod Antipas about AD 20 in honor of Emperor Tiberius. From the earliest gospel we learn that Jesus and the apostles crossed over to the eastern shore to get away from the crowds for a while and rest (Mk 6:31).
2 When the crowds saw where Jesus and the apostles were heading by boat, they ran along the shore and arrived at the eastern side of the lake first (Mk 6:32–34 par.). Since John puts all three verbs in the imperfect tense, one could translate, “The crowds were following him because they were seeing the miraculous signs that he was performing on the sick.” John’s description of the situation agrees with Mark’s observation that “because so many people were coming and going,” Jesus and his apostles “did not even have a chance to eat” (6:31). Jesus responded with compassion to the needs of the people. He healed their sick and taught them about the kingdom of God (Mt 14:14; Lk 9:11).
3 Jesus went up on a “mountainside.” Several modern translations use the term “mountain” (RSV, NASB, NKJV), but since the same Greek word is used in Revelation 17:9 for the seven hills of the city where the great prostitute rules (certainly Rome), it would be misleading to picture what we normally mean by the word “mountain.” The place where Jesus will perform his miracle is the high plateau on the northeastern side of the Sea of Galilee (currently known as the Golan Heights). Jesus “sat down” because that was the normal position for a rabbi when teaching.
4 Only in John is it mentioned that the “Jewish Passover Feast” was at hand. This would be the second of the three Passovers mentioned by John (cf. 2:13; 11:55).
5 From his vantage point Jesus could see the large crowd climbing up the hill. The Synoptics record that the disciples told Jesus to send the crowd away so they could find lodging and buy something to eat. Jesus responded by telling the disciples that they were to provide the food (Mk 6:35–37).
6 Jesus turns to Philip and asks where they can buy bread for the crowd. Philip would know where they could purchase supplies because he came from the nearby town of Bethsaida (cf. 1:44). Jesus didn’t actually need Philip’s help but was asking him “only to test him.” He already knew what he intended to do. John used the verb peirazō (GK 4279), which usually means “to put to the test” with a view to failure, rather than the more positive dokimazō (“to prove by testing,” GK 1507). By means of the question, Jesus was putting Philip’s faith to the test. How would he react in such a critical situation? Would his faith in Jesus be such that he would expect his master to miraculously meet the needs of a hungry crowd?
7 Philip answers from a strictly natural perspective. Even if food could be found, it would take eight months’ wages to buy enough so that each person could have “even a morsel” (Moffatt). The Greek text identifies the amount as diakosiōn dēnariōn (“two hundred denarii”). A denarius was considered an acceptable wage for a day’s labor. It would purchase about enough for a family’s daily need. The NIV’s “eight months’” puts the “two hundred denarii” in general terms and evades the problem that results when the amount is translated into a specific dollar figure.
8–9 At this point, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, speaks up. In view of the little we know about Andrew, who upon his initial contact with Jesus went immediately to tell his brother Simon (1:35–42), we are not surprised that he was the disciple who noticed the boy and ventured, somewhat hesitantly, a possible solution. The boy is referred to with the double diminutive paidarion (GK 4081), which means “little boy” or as we might say, “little tyke.” The barley loaves would have been flat round cakes (like pancakes) that had been baked (probably on hot stones) rather than loaves of bread as we currently use the term. The fish (opsaria, GK 4066, used only by John in the NT; the Synoptics have the more common ichthys, GK 2716) were probably dried and salted and used as a relish with the bread. Though Andrew calls attention to the lad, he appears to have little confidence that such meager supplies will do any good. He adds rhetorically, “but how far will they go among so many?” The remarkable lesson he is about to learn is that little in the hands of Jesus is always more than enough.
10 Jesus directed the disciples to have the people sit down. (Mark adds that they sat “in groups of hundreds and fifties.”) Since it was Passover time (March/April), there was plenty of grass there. The NIV correctly translates anthrōpous (GK 476) in v.10 as “people” and andres (GK 467) as “men.” All the people sat down, and the number of the men alone was about five thousand (see Mt 14:21). Some writers suggest that the total crowd may have numbered more than twenty thousand. That would be four times the seating capacity of the theater in Sepphoris, a major Galilean city. For Jesus to address such a crowd would be “no small feat” (Keener, 278). Carson, 270, writes that “in the light of v.15, where the people try to make Jesus king by force, it is easy to think that, at least in John, the specification of five thousand men is a way of drawing attention to a potential guerrilla force of eager recruits willing and able to serve the right leader.”
11 Jesus took the few barley cakes and fish, gave thanks, and distributed them to the people sitting on the grass. The Synoptics report that Jesus, “looking up to heaven …. gave thanks and broke the loaves” (Mk 6:41 par.). Note that Jesus did not “bless the bread”—he “gave thanks” for it. Note also that he looked up to heaven to give thanks, a welcome change to the usual “bow your head and pray.”
13 “Twelve baskets” were filled with the food that was not eaten. As Temple, 1:74, says, “What was ludicrously inadequate is now ample and an abundance left over.” Not only do we learn the practical lesson of not wasting food, but we also learn the spiritual lesson that however bountifully the Lord bestows his grace, there is always more than enough to go around. “He is never impoverished by the generosity of his giving” (Bruce, 145).
14–15 When the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they reasoned that this certainly must be the prophet of whom Moses spoke. In Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses counseled the nation not to listen to those who practice sorcery but to listen to a prophet from among their own brothers whom God would raise up to speak for him. While the OT promise referred to a series of prophets (see Dt 18:20–22), it is the basis for a messianic expectation that received unique fulfillment in Jesus (see NIVSB note at Dt 18:15; cf. Mt 11:3). Having witnessed the supernatural power of Jesus, the crowd reckoned that if the first Moses were able to lead the children of Israel out of slavery in Egypt, a second Moses would certainly be able to remove the heavy burden of Roman control. So the people saw “the miraculous sign,” i.e., they saw Jesus feed an enormous crowd with the meager provisions brought by one small boy, but they did not grasp what it meant or what it foreshadowed. They did not understand that the miracle was not simply a humanitarian response to an immediate need but that it portrayed Jesus as the supplier of people’s deepest hunger. They missed the import of the sign. In fact, they completely misconstrued it by interpreting it in terms of national political advantage (v.15). So Jesus, knowing that they were about to seize him and declare him king, withdrew again to the mountain to be alone. He may have recognized in their rising enthusiasm the same temptation he had withstood earlier in his ministry (Mt 4:8–10).
NOTES
1 Of the various names applied to this body of water the most common in the NT is the Sea of Galilee. Only in Luke 5:1 is it called the Lake of Gennesaret, and only in John is it named the Sea of Tiberias (6:1; 21:1). The lake is pear shaped, some thirteen miles long and eight miles wide. It lies approximately 690 feet below sea level and has a maximum depth of about 150 feet. The hills to the east rise to around 2,000 feet.
3 The NASB translates εἰς τὸ ὄρος (eis to oros) literally as “on the mountain.” The NIV’s “on a mountainside” is preferable because in this context no specific ὄρος, oros (“mountain”), is intended. In the NT, ὄρος, oros, can be either a single mountain (as in 4:20–21) or a range (cf. TDNT 5:483).
8 The mention of “barley loaves” reminds us of the account in 2 Kings 4:42–44 in which the man from Baal Shalishah brought twenty loaves of barley bread to Elisha. His skepticism as to whether that amount of bread would be enough to feed one hundred men is not unlike the questions about to be raised by both Philip and his brother Andrew. As it would turn out in both cases, there was bread enough to feed the group with some left over.
16When evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, 17where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum. By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. 18A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. 19When they had rowed three or three and a half miles, they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified. 20But he said to them, “It is I; don’t be afraid.” 21Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.
COMMENTARY
16–17 The feeding of the five thousand had taken place “late in the afternoon” (Lk 9:12), and by now it was evening. By boat the disciples headed for Capernaum, some five miles to the west. The Synoptics stress the urgency with which Jesus sent his disciples away. Mark said he “made his disciples embark” (6:45 NEB). Then he himself dismissed the crowds and went up the mountainside to pray. It is clear that he did not want his disciples to be caught up in the excitement of the crowd, lest they lend their support to an ill-advised messianic uprising.
It was an extremely difficult crossing. The Sea of Galilee lies some six hundred feet below sea level, and when the cool air flows in to displace the warm moist air over the lake, it often produces violent squalls. The NIV’s “set off across the lake” (NASB, “started to cross the sea”) translates the Greek ērchonto (GK 2262) as an ingressive imperfect, but it is better taken with the conative force of the imperfect, “they were trying to cross the lake.”
18 John reports that “a strong wind was blowing” and that “the waters grew rough.” The difficulty of the crossing is seen in that the appearance of Jesus walking on the water takes place “during the fourth watch of the night” (Mk 6:48), between 3:00 and 6:00 a.m. This means that the disciples had been rowing for at least nine hours. When John writes that “Jesus had not yet joined them,” “he is writing from the point of view of one who himself had been in that boat and now, many years later, is writing the story” (Hendriksen, 1:224).
19 The disciples had rowed only three to four miles when they saw Jesus approaching, walking on the water. With the boat plowing west through the heavy waves the disciples would be facing east as they rowed with their backs to the wind. So as Jesus approached he would be coming up toward the stern of the boat. Mark says he “was about to pass by them” when the disciples saw him and thought he was a ghost (Mk 6:49). But Jesus identified himself to them and encouraged them not to be afraid. Then “they were glad to take him into the boat” (TCNT), and immediately they reached their destination.
Strange as it may seem to the average reader, there are some who question whether we are to take the account as involving a miracle. William Barclay, 1:208–9, pictures the disciples hugging the shoreline as they rowed through the heavy waters. The journey was only a few miles, and the disciples bending over their oars were unaware that they had almost made it to their destination. Looking up, they saw Jesus epi tēs thalassēs [GK 2498], “by the seashore.” Alarmed at first, they then heard across the waters “that well loved voice—‘It is I; don’t be afraid.’” They wanted him to come aboard, but they were almost at land.
While it is true that epi tēs thalassēs may mean “by the sea” (as in 21:1), the same phrase is used in the present setting by both synoptic writers to mean “on the lake” (Mt 14:26; Mk 6:48). This follows from Matthew’s statement that “the boat was already a considerable distance from land” (Mt 14:24) and Mark’s placing of the boat “in the middle of the lake” (Mk 6:47). Barrett, 281, is right when he says that “there can be little doubt that both Mark and John … intended to record a miracle.” If Jesus were merely calling out encouragement from the safety of the nearby shore, it is difficult to imagine why the disciples would have been terrified when they saw him.
20–21 Jesus’ response to the frightened disciples was “it is I; don’t be afraid.” Egō eimi has been understood in different ways. Some sense a trace of divine disclosure that reflects Psalm 77:16, 19, in which God comes “in powerful theophany to the aid of his people at the Exodus” (Beasley-Murray, 89). Others understand it as simply a form of self-identification (e.g., Carson, 275). Because the blind man in John 9:9 uses the same phrase of himself, it is more plausible to understand Jesus as simply identifying himself to the disciples. It is clear from the synoptic accounts that Jesus did get into the boat. Some have taken John’s statement that the disciples “were willing to take him into the boat” to mean that they were willing but that it was not necessary because “immediately the boat reached the shore.” Thus we would have yet another miracle. That Matthew places the account of Peter’s attempt to walk to Jesus on the water at this point before they climb into the boat (Mt 14:28–31) argues against this interpretation. J. A. McClymont understands “immediately” to mean “that the vessel went straight to its destination, and that the remaining mile or two seemed as nothing to the astonished and rejoicing disciples” (cited in Morris, 351 n. 44).
22The next day the crowd that had stayed on the opposite shore of the lake realized that only one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not entered it with his disciples, but that they had gone away alone. 23Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24Once the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus.
25When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
30So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34“Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.”
35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
43“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
COMMENTARY
22–25 The syntax of these verses is a bit perplexing, but the general idea is relatively clear. On the next day the crowd, which was still on the eastern side of the lake where Jesus had fed the five thousand, realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were still there. They had seen the disciples leave in the only available boat and were aware that Jesus had gone up the mountainside to be alone, but now he too was missing. What had happened? Fortunately for them, some boats from Tiberias had come ashore nearby (v.23), perhaps blown in from the west by the storm. So they got into the boats and went to Capernaum to look for Jesus (v.24). When they found him, they asked, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” (v.25). The obvious question would have been, “How did you get here?” but even after the miraculous provision of food they weren’t about to pursue the real significance of the sign. Better an unimportant question than to venture into a realm that for them was apparently quite uncomfortable. Anyway, their intention was to pursue the possibility of making him king, not to learn of a messianic mission that had no nationalistic relevance.
26 Jesus does not answer the question but tells the people in a straightforward fashion that their motivation for searching him out was wrong. It was not because they had grasped the true significance of the miraculous sign (the multiplication of the loaves and fish) but because they had eaten the loaves and had their fill. They saw the sign but missed its true import. What they did see in the miracle was the possibility of a leader who could benefit them in a material sense. Temple, 1:84, writes that “if what is eternal is valued chiefly as a means to any temporal result, the true order is reversed.”
27 Jesus tells the crowd to change their priorities radically. They are to stop working (ergazesthe [GK 2237] mē, present imperative plus mē) for the “food that spoils” and work rather for the “food that endures to eternal life.” The only thing that material food can do is to sustain physical life. What matters is a person’s inner spiritual life. What that requires is a “food” appropriate to life in relationship to God. Obviously it is not the food that remains forever but the life that it sustains.
One cannot help but notice the parallel between the two kinds of food in ch. 6 and the two kinds of water in ch. 4. The “living water” of 4:10–15 is one with the “food that endures to eternal life” of 6:28. Normal water leads again to thirst and regular food to a renewed hunger. But to drink living water is to never thirst again (4:14) and to eat the food that Jesus gives is to live forever (6:28). As Scripture says, “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3).
It is the “Son of Man” who provides the food that leads to eternal life. Later we will find that he himself is the food he provides (6:53–57). He has been sealed by God the Father for that very purpose. Some call attention to the aorist esphragisen (“sealed,” GK 5381) and look for a specific act of sealing in the life of Jesus. Either his baptism or the subsequent descent of the Spirit is usually mentioned. The NIV understands the seal placed by God on his Son to be a “seal of approval.” Brown, 261, however, writes, “Here God set His seal on the Son, not so much by way of approval, but more by way of consecration.” Bruce, 150, says the Son is “the one whom God has appointed as his certified and authorized agent for the bestowal of this life-giving food.” Jesus, as the life-giving Son of Man, has been set aside and consecrated for the purpose of giving himself as the food that brings eternal life.
28–29 The moment Jesus speaks of working, the Jews think of the “works” required by the law that they understood would result in eternal life. So they ask what they must do in order to “do the works God requires.” Jesus’ answer contradicts everything they took for granted about the way to gain right standing with God. You ask about “works” (plural) but let me tell you about the only “work” (singular) that God requires. It is “to believe in the one he has sent.”
The fourth gospel is at one with Paul and his message of justification by faith alone (Ro 3:22). It is trusting in Jesus, i.e., placing one’s entire confidence in the redemptive power of his death and resurrection, that fulfills the requirement of God. Faith in the Son is a “work” only in the sense that it gains God’s favor. In and of itself it is without merit. It earns nothing; it merely receives the good pleasure of the Father. Our “work” is an open hand stretched out to a Father desirous to give. Barrett, 287, notes that the present (continuous) tense of pisteuēte (“believe,” GK 4409) is perhaps significant: it is “not an act of faith, but a life of faith.” The mistaken idea that a moment of belief ensures an eternity of bliss, regardless of the way a person subsequently lives, is a heresy of gigantic proportion. Throughout Scripture the reader is reminded again and again that a faith that does not alter life is no faith at all (cf. Jas 2:14–26).
30 The response of the Jews to Jesus is genuinely amazing. They had witnessed the supernatural multiplication of a few pieces of bread so that an entire crowd of perhaps twenty thousand had all they wanted and more to spare. They had watched the only available boat leave with only the disciples aboard, yet in the morning Jesus was no longer in their area but on the other side of the lake. Still they ask “what miraculous sign” Jesus will perform so they can “see it and believe [him].” As Ryle, 3:364–65, puts it, “The plain truth is that it is want of heart, not want of evidence, that keeps people back from Christ.” The desire to see in order to believe is the way of the unbeliever. The divine order is, “Taste and see that the Lord is good” (Ps 34:8). In fact, “Rigid proof would render impossible the work of God, which is to believe in Jesus” (Barrett, 288). It is worth noting that in their answer the Jews do not use the normal pisteuō eis (“to believe in, to put one’s trust in”) but follow the verb with a dative. They are challenged by Jesus to put their faith in him, but their response reveals that they are interested only in determining whether or not they should accept what he has to say about himself.
31 So the people say in effect, “Prove yourself. Your claims are greater than Moses ever made. He gave manna to the Israelites when they were wandering in the desert. What will you do?” It was widely believed that in the messianic age the gift of manna would be renewed. The second-century AD 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) says, “The treasury of manna shall again descend from on high, and they will eat of it in those years” (29:8; see Brown, 265, for additional references). The people reason that Jesus’ multiplication of bread is fine as far as it goes. But if he claims that the messianic age has actually dawned, let him supply manna, as did their forefather Moses. The source of the quotation “he gave them bread from heaven to eat” is probably Psalm 78:24: “he rained down manna for the people to eat” (cf. Ex 16:4; Ne 9:15; Ps 105:40); however, as they are about to learn, it was not Moses but God who gave them “the bread from heaven.”
It is worth noting here the monograph of Peder Borgen (Bread from Heaven [NovTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1965). By studying the homiletic structure in Philo and the Palestinian midrashim, he arrived at some standard features of Jewish exegesis. A specific text of Scripture is cited and then quite often paraphrased. The body of the homily opens with a statement that is repeated at the end. A secondary citation is often brought in that helps develop the main commentary. Borgen points out that John 6 follows this pattern: v.31 is the main text, vv.32–33 supply a paraphrase of the text; vv.35–50 represent a homily on the text that discusses sequentially the themes of “bread,” “from heaven,” and “eating.” The opening statement of the homily (“I am the bread of life,” v.35) is repeated verbatim at the close (v.48). Carson, 287–88, agrees that “many features of [Borgen’s] argument are convincing” but questions his suggestion that John used these midrashic methods to counter Docetism.
32 In accordance with the established practice of rabbinic debates, Jesus responded by correcting their misunderstanding of the passage just cited. The importance of his answer is underscored by the formulaic statement “I tell you the truth.” It is “not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven,” as shown by the syntax, which emphasizes ou Mōysēs by placing it at the beginning of the clause. Rather, it is “my Father” who gives you the true heavenly bread. Note the following: (1) While the people didn’t actually say that Moses was the one who had given them “bread from heaven,” in view of the human tendency to elevate the man above the message, it was important to make clear the fact that the gift of manna came from God. Moses was merely the one who conveyed God’s instructions to the people (Ex 16). (2) While manna could be said to come “from heaven” in the sense that God provided it miraculously, it was not the “true bread from heaven.” It satisfied physical hunger but was unable to meet the deeper spiritual hunger of the human heart. (3) The present tense didōsin (“is giving you,” GK 1443) anticipates the truth clearly stated a few verses later that Jesus is the true bread, which God is giving right now in the gift of his Son. Barrett, 290, writes, “God now gives you what Moses could only foreshadow.”
33 In context, the “bread of God” is the bread supplied by God. Since the Greek word for “bread” (artos, GK 788) is masculine, it could be the bread of God that “comes down from heaven.” But since both the present and aorist forms of the participle are used throughout ch. 6 in reference to Jesus (vv.33, 41, 50, 51, 58), it is better to read “he who comes down.” The predicate should be taken as personal rather than impersonal. He is the one who “gives life to the world.” The redemptive ministry of the Son was never intended to be limited to a chosen few but reaches out to the entire human race. Morris, 364, writes, “Here is no narrow particularism but a concern for all mankind.”
34 That Jesus is in fact the life-giving bread that God has sent down from heaven has not sunk into the consciousness of Jesus’ listeners. They respond with some deference: “Sir …. from now on give us this bread.” Their response is similar to that of the Samaritan woman, who took “living water” to be some sort of a constant supply of water that would keep her from getting thirsty and make the daily trip to the well unnecessary (3:15). How easily we miss the spiritual impact of Jesus’ teachings in our natural haste to interpret them in terms of material satisfactions! “From now on” suggests that the people expected the bread from heaven to be given repeatedly. They understood the offer to be for a continual supply of bread.
35 We now encounter the first of the seven famous “I am” statements in the fourth gospel—“I am the bread of life.” The OT background is God’s response to Moses, who has asked him what to tell those who inquire concerning the name of the one who sent him. God reveals his name as “I AM WHO I AM.” He chooses to be known and worshiped as “I AM” (Ex 3:14). In John 8:58 Jesus applies the name to himself (“before Abraham was born, I am!”). There is a difference of opinion, however, as to the extent to which Jesus is emphasizing his own deity in the seven “I am” statements. Though Brown, 269, says that “egō eimi with a predicate does not reveal Jesus’ essence but reflects his dealings with men,” it is difficult to escape the conclusion that when Jesus uses an “I am” statement, he intends it to be understood in a revelatory sense.
Jesus corrects their misunderstanding. He is not the giver of the bread—God the Father does that—he is the bread itself. The bread of life is the “bread that gives life” (Goodspeed). Ryle, 3:373, says that Jesus “intended to be to the soul what bread is to the body: its food.” It follows that whoever comes to Jesus will “never go [away] hungry” and whoever believes in him will “never be thirsty.” The parallel clauses interpret one another: coming to Jesus (see vv.37, 44, 45, 65 in ch. 6 alone) is simply another way of portraying what it means to believe. It is more than mental acquiescence; it involves the activity of the will. It is the vital response of the human person to the invitation of God. While it is true that all who believe must be “drawn” to God (6:44, 65), it is equally true that none are forced against their will to go; each must “come.”
It is important to understand what Jesus means by his promise that those who come believing will never be thirsty or go hungry. It does not mean that they will no longer have any desire for spiritual things. What it does mean is well stated by Morris, 366, who says that “it rules out forever the possibility of that unsatisfied hunger.” Or as Carson, 288, puts it, “It does mean there is no longer that core emptiness that the initial encounter with Jesus has met.” Jesus’ promise is sometimes contrasted with Wisdom’s statement in Sirach 24:21, “Those who eat of me will hunger for more, and those who drink of me will thirst for more.” But the two statements are complementary rather than contradictory. Spiritual food both satisfies and creates the desire for more. What is permanently satisfied by eating the bread of life is the deep-seated hunger in the hearts of people created in the image of God. He created us for fellowship with himself, and nothing short of that intimate association will ever satisfy.
36 The Jews to whom Jesus was speaking had seen the miraculous sign (following the MSS that omit me; see Notes), yet they still did not believe. Temple, 1:88, remarks, “The miracle of feeding was to them a convenience rather than a revelation.” One is reminded of Abraham’s response to the rich man in hell who wanted someone to warn his five brothers about the place of torment: “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Lk 16:31). Miracles point beyond themselves only for those who see with the eyes of faith.
37 Verses 37–40 are rich in theological truth. We learn first of the irresistible power of God’s electing grace. The entire company of the elect (hence the neuter pan, “all,” in v.37) that the Father is giving to the Son will in fact come to him. The coming by faith to the Son is the unmistakable indication that they have been chosen by God. Believers do not come because they are elect, nor are they elect because God knew ahead of time that they would come (a misunderstanding of “foreknowledge” in Ro 8:29). Divine election and believing faith are the two basic elements in salvation. We have here what J. I. Packer calls an “antimony”—two statements that, while each is absolutely true, nevertheless resist being brought together into a rational relationship. Not only will all who have been chosen come to Jesus; they will come with the assurance that he “will never drive [them] away.” This phrase is normally taken as an example of “litotes,” a figure of speech in which a negative is used strongly to affirm the opposite. Thus “I will never ever cast outside” means “I will welcome heartily” (Lindars, 261) or “I will certainly keep in, preserve” (Carson, 290). In either case, the promise is that to come to Jesus is in fact to be accepted and kept safely.
38 The reason believers may count on Jesus’ infinite care is that he has “come down from heaven” to carry out not his own will but the will of his heavenly Father. Six times in ch. 6 alone Jesus refers to his coming “down from heaven” (vv.33, 38, 41, 50, 51, 58), a phrase that points to the ultimate source and certification of his role as the giver of life. Note also that the expression is strong evidence of the preexistence of Christ. As the NEB states, “When all things began, the Word already was” (1:1). By stressing that he “comes down from heaven,” Jesus clearly establishes heaven as his eternal home. This in turn grants authority to all that he has to say. What Jesus says is to be believed because it has its origin in the presence of the one who cannot but tell the truth (cf. Nu 23:19; Tit 1:2).
39 The Son has been sent on a mission to do the will of the Father. What the Father wills is twofold. First, says Jesus, I am to “lose none of all that he has given me.” The eternal security of true believers is not dependent on their own feeble hold on Jesus. They are safe because it is the Father’s will that Jesus lose not a single one of them. Hendriksen, 1:235, is correct in his view that “the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is taught here in unmistakable terms.” For the true believer to be lost would prove that Jesus is incapable of carrying out the will of the Father. Were that true, it would follow that none of his many other promises could be relied on with any degree of certainty. The second part of the Father’s will is that the Son will “raise … up at the last day” all those given to him. Not only are true believers kept secure during the difficult passage through life, but they are also assured that at the end they will be raised to enjoy the eternal presence of the triune God. While much of the fourth gospel teaches a “realized eschatology,” it does not rule out an eschatology yet to be fulfilled. Bruce, 154, writes, “To treat John’s eschatology as exclusively ‘realized’ is to overlook those passages where Jesus is described as raising his people up ‘at the last day’ (see also vv.44, 54; 11:24; 12:48).”
40 This major unit of the “bread of life” discourse (vv.32–40) closes with a summary statement that “everyone [note the singular pas, each individual believer; compare with the neuter singular pan in v.37b] who looks to the Son [cf. Nu 21:9; Jn 3:14] and believes in him shall have eternal life.” And as a vital part in that divine plan they will be raised “at the last day.” God’s plan is, in essence, quite simple; his part is to provide the basis for our salvation and to preserve to the end those he has chosen. Our role is simply to place our faith in what he says he can and will accomplish. It is to place our trust without reserve in Jesus.
41 If the unit comprising vv.32–40 is an exposition of “he gave them bread from heaven” (see the proemial text in v.31), then vv.41–51 constitutes an exposition of “bread from heaven to eat.” When the Jews understood Jesus to say that he would supply them with the bread from heaven, they were anxious to receive it on a continuing basis (see comments at v.34). But his claim to be that bread was quite another matter. Though John does not quote Jesus (in v.41) as saying exactly what the Jews understood him to say (“I am the bread that came down from heaven”), all the ingredients are included in the previous discourse (“I am the bread of life,” v.35; “I have come down from heaven,” v.38).
So the Jews “began to grumble” (inceptive imperfect). The Greek verb (gongyzō, GK 1197) is onomatopoeic and is used in the NT primarily “with the connotation of people speaking against God in a reprehensible way” (EDNT 1:256). Temple, 1:89, would soften the situation slightly; he writes that “the Lord’s hearers are more bewildered than antagonized.” In the LXX the term is used of the complaints of the people of Israel during their wandering in the wilderness. They grumbled about the bitter water at Marah (Ex 15:23–24), the lack of food (16:2–3), and their hardships (Nu 11:1) and danger (Nu 14:1–3; cf. 1Co 10:10).
It is a bit surprising to find Jesus engaged in a discussion with “the Jews” at this point. The last mention of those to whom he was speaking was in v.25, where those who “found him on the other side of the lake” were Galileans who were present at the feeding of the five thousand and who had traveled across the lake in pursuit of the one who had performed the miraculous sign. Some have suggested that the Jews mentioned in v.41 were a group from Judea who had come to find out what was going on. This is unlikely because they knew about Jesus’ family (v.42). It is better to postulate a change of locale at some point in the chapter. By the time we arrive at v.58, Jesus will be in the synagogue at Capernaum. From this we may reason that the Jews mentioned in v.41 were members of the local synagogue, probably leaders.
42 Offended at Jesus’ statement that he had come down from heaven, they kept on murmuring to one another (the imperfect elegon, GK 3306, “they said,” supplies the content of their “grumbling”) about what they considered a highly outrageous claim. “After all, isn’t this one who is claiming to have come from heaven simply Jesus, the son of Joseph the carpenter? [The rhetorical question calls for an affirmative answer.] And don’t we know his father and mother? Of course we do! Then how can he say that he came down from heaven?” From their perspective, the logic was irrefutable. Jesus was either misguided or, even worse, attempting to foist off on them a fraudulent claim of essential superiority. The lowly nature of Jesus’ earthly condition presented a stumbling block to natural man (cf. Ryle, 3:382).
43–44 Jesus doesn’t bother to answer the issues they raise. To allow them to set the tone and control the discussion would lead nowhere. So Jesus tells them to “stop grumbling.” Their premises are wrong and their conjectures are leading them in the wrong direction. The people who “come to Jesus” are those who are drawn by the Father (v.44). The Greek word for “draw” (helkyō, GK 1816) when used literally means “to draw” or “to tug” (TDNT 2:503; in Ac 16:19 Paul and Silas are “dragged” before the authorities). When taken figuratively (as here in Jn 6:44) it means “to compel.” Barclay, 1:220, notes that “it almost always implies some kind of resistance.” Morris, 371 n. 110, adds, “God brings men to Himself although by nature they prefer sin.” Most commentators hold that John is speaking here of a drawing that goes far beyond moral influence; it is a drawing akin to divine election. No one is able to come to the Father unless the Father draws him or her. In connection with the restoration of Israel, God through the prophet Jeremiah says, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness” (Jer 31:3). Interestingly, in John 12:32 Jesus says that when he is lifted up, he “will draw all men” to himself. The apparent contradiction is eased when we understand that in ch. 12 Jesus speaks of “all men without distinction” rather than “all men without exception” (Carson, 293). In his sacrificial death, Jesus will draw to himself people of every cultural, social, and ethnic background (12:32), but unless a specific person is drawn, that person cannot come to Christ (6:44). The drawing here is not the persuasive power of God’s concern for all, but the irresistible attraction of his grace for the elect. The CEV translates, “No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me makes them want to come.” And those who do come will be raised to life “at the last day”—another indication that “realized eschatology” is only part of the whole story. The Father initiates the work of grace in the human heart, and the Son brings it to completion.
45 We learn now how this drawing takes place. In the Prophets (the second division of the Hebrew Bible) we read, “All your sons will be taught by the Lord” (Isa 54:13). People are drawn through divinely revealed truth, through insight into the nature and purpose of God revealed in Jesus. We are not dealing here with some sort of personal mystical knowledge. It is the person who “listens to the Father and learns from him” that comes to Jesus. The Father has something to say, and it is to be learned. Truth received and acted on leads inevitably to Jesus. The entire redemptive process has an inner logic that the person genuinely open to the work of the Spirit cannot successfully resist.
46 Jesus alone is uniquely qualified to speak of God because he is the only person who “has seen the Father.” As we listen to him and obey what he says, we are increasingly drawn to God. Without this dynamic, there may be a modicum of spiritual interest in who Jesus might be, but there is no power to lift us to the very presence of God.
47–48 Verses 47–48 restate the truth that the person who believes in Jesus has, as a present possession, “everlasting life.” The present tense of the participle “he who believes” (ho pisteuōn, GK 4409) stresses the continuing necessity of faith. Faith is not a onetime event that covers all exigencies of the future but an ongoing trust in God that transforms the life and conduct of the believer in the here and now. Everlasting life belongs to those who are allowing faith to become the controlling factor of their existence. “I am the bread of life,” said Jesus, “and everlasting life belongs to those who receive me and make me their spiritual nourishment.”
49–50 Jesus draws a stark contrast between himself as “the bread of life” and “the manna” that the Israelites ate while in the desert. While that bread sustained them physically for a time, nevertheless they died. “The manna not only could do nothing for the soul, but was unable to preserve from death those who ate it” (Ryle, 3:393). But now, Jesus comes as the true bread from heaven, and those who eat it will “not die” (spiritually). The present active katabainōn (GK 2849) reflects the continuing availability of Jesus, the bread from heaven. It “keeps coming down” in that he is always near at hand to nourish and provide eternal life.
51 Jesus summarizes this section of his discourse by reaffirming that he is the “living bread” come down from heaven and that whoever “eats of this bread … will live forever.” But now a new element is added: “This bread is my flesh.” The language is sacrificial. A number of writers understand this as a reference to the Eucharist. That the regular use of sōma (“body,” GK 5393) in connection with the Lord’s Supper is replaced here with sarx (“flesh,” GK 4922) is explained as John’s following a different textual tradition. Responding to those who speak as though the word flesh “self-evidently marked a reference to Holy Communion,” Morris, 374, says rather bluntly, “It, of course, does nothing of the sort.” Bruce, 158, is correct in his view that “to give one’s flesh can scarcely mean anything other than death, and the wording here points to a death which is both voluntary (‘I will give’) and vicarious (‘for the life of the world’).” The “life of the world” for which Jesus will give himself refers to the eternal fellowship with God made possible by the sacrificial death of Jesus and offered to all who will respond in faith. It is the “world” that “God so loved … that he gave his one and only Son” (3:16). Here we catch the vision of a wide and expansive redemptive mission in which God freely bestows his saving grace on all who place their trust in him. The same world that so desperately needs the forgiving grace of God is the very world of people for whom eternal life is made possible through the Son.
52 Jesus’ statement that his own flesh was the bread of life come down from heaven caused considerable consternation among the leaders of the synagogue. They began to “argue sharply among themselves,” or as Weymouth has it, “This led to an angry debate among the Jews.” Machomai (GK 3481) is a strong verb that, when taken literally, means “to fight” or “to battle.” (EDNT, 1:398, says that in Ac 7:26 it is used in the sense of “hand-to-hand combat.”) The Jews were seriously offended by the repugnant idea of eating flesh—even the Greco-Roman world viewed any kind of “cannibalism” with horror. And if Jesus meant to be understood as speaking figuratively, what in the world did his remark mean? Little wonder that they got embroiled in a confusing argument.
Their caustic reference to “this man” exposes their scornful attitude. Only a “man like this” would make such a scandalous claim! Lindars, 267, introduces an alternative possibility stemming from the fact that the majority of MSS omit the word “his” in v.52. In that case, the Jews, in their response to what Jesus had said, would be thinking that he had alluded to Exodus 16:8, where Moses spoke of God’s supply of meat every evening. Thus the point would not be a scandalous claim but a misunderstanding of how Jesus would be able to provide yet another foodstuff. But Jesus had just spoken of “my flesh” (v.51), and in the following sentence he speaks of “the flesh of the Son of Man” (v.53). Furthermore it is doubtful that a mere misunderstanding would have led to such a serious argument.
53–54 Jesus now expands the figure and in so doing manages to become even more offensive to the Jewish listeners. He introduces the central theme of the paragraph with a conditional statement: unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you do not have life. It is only those who eat his flesh and drink his blood who have eternal life, and they are the ones who will be raised up at the last day (v.54).
Before looking at specific items, it will serve us well to discuss the approach that understands these verses in terms of the Eucharist. Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown, 284, holds that while the eucharistic theme was secondary in vv.35–50, it now (vv.51–58) “comes to the fore and becomes the exclusive theme.” He proposes, 287, the hypothesis that “the backbone of vv.51–58 is made up of material from the Johannine narrative of the institution of the Eucharist which originally was located in the Last Supper scene and that this material has been recast into a duplicate of the Bread of Life Discourse.” It was then added to vv.35–50 when the fourth gospel was in its final redaction.
Several objections have been raised to this sacramental interpretation. Verse 54 states in an unqualified manner that it is those who eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood who have eternal life. If taken sacramentally, this would mean that the only requirement for salvation is to partake of the Eucharist, a position at odds with NT teaching as a whole. Second, the word that Jesus uses for flesh is sarx, while in every NT text that uses the words of institution (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1Co 11:24) the word is sōma (“body”). Variation in a ritual formula would be highly unlikely. Third, the parallel relationship between v.54 and v.40 indicates that eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood is a metaphorical way of expressing looking to the Son and believing in him. Carson, 297, writes that this “conclusion is obvious” and quotes Augustine’s famous dictum, “Believe, and you have eaten.” Finally, in v.63 we will learn that the things Jesus has been telling them “are spiritual and are life” (Phillips); “the flesh confers no benefit whatever” (Weymouth). So Jesus in his “bread of life” discourse is not speaking directly of the Lord’s Supper. It does not follow, however, that what he is saying has no relevance to Holy Communion. Bruce, 161, writes that Jesus “does expound the truth which the Lord’s Supper conveys.” Carson, 298, arrives at the same conclusion: “In short, John 6 does not directly speak of the eucharist; it does expose the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper as clearly as any passage in Scripture.”
Several specific items in vv.53–54 call for attention. As noted earlier (in connection with 1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27), “Son of Man” is Jesus’ favorite self-designation. It emphasizes his role as the one through whom God reveals himself to humanity. He is the “eternal contact between heaven and earth” (Barrett, 187). That both verbs in the conditional clause of v.53 (“eat,” “drink”) are aorist points to once-for-all actions. Eating and drinking the Son of Man is a vivid way of presenting the truth that in order to have eternal life, people must take Christ into their inner being. It is interesting that in v.54 Jesus uses a different word for eating. Instead of the more common esthiō (GK 2266; or more accurately, the aorist stem phag-; fifteen times in the fourth gospel), Jesus chooses a word that in classical Greek was used of eating by animals. Trōgō (GK 5592) means to “gnaw, nibble, munch, eat (audibly)” (BDAG, 1019). This relatively crude term presses home the literal picture that Jesus wants to stress. Some think he uses it to counter docetic attempts to spiritualize what he is saying. He wants his listeners to understand that they must assimilate him if they desire eternal life.
55 Jesus continues to expand his theme by stressing that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink. By reading alēthōs (an adverb meaning “truly, indeed,” GK 242) rather than alēthēs (an adjective meaning “real, genuine,” GK 239), some manuscripts understand Jesus to be stressing the genuine value of his flesh and blood as food and drink rather than contrasting it with something else (so Brown, 283). Although both NA27 and UBS4 read the adjective, the manuscripts with the adverb make better sense.
56 “To remain” or “to abide in” is a favorite expression of John and occurs some seventy times in the Johannine literature (cf. its occurrence only three times in Matthew and twice in Luke). BDAG, 631, says that it denotes “an inward, enduring personal communion.” Note here that the eating and drinking is put in the present tense, which stresses its continuing quality. Those who make a practice of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Jesus sustain that personal relationship. This makes possible the reciprocal indwelling of Christ in the believer (“and I in him”).
57 The Father is the “living Father” (a title found only here in the NT) not only because he has life in himself but because he is the source of all life. Note that Jesus speaks of a believer as “one who feeds on me.” This is what it means to eat his flesh and drink his blood (stated five times in vv.51–56). Since Jesus is obviously not promoting cannibalism, one must take the words as a figurative expression for personal assimilation.
58 Jesus draws the discourse to a close with a summary statement that ties together the major points he has just made. He is “the bread that came down from heaven.” Although the Israelites ate manna in the wilderness, they still died. Their manna provided physical nourishment for as long as they needed it. But whoever feeds on the bread that Jesus gives “will live forever.”
59 The final verse in the section tells us that Jesus said these things (perhaps everything from v.27 on, but more likely from one of the several breaks in the discourse: vv.32, 35, 43, or 53) while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Visitors to the site at Tell-Hum see the ruins of a second-century synagogue that may well have been erected on the same site as the one where Jesus has just been teaching.
NOTES
23 Although Tiberias was a leading city in the region during the time of Jesus, it is mentioned only here in the NT. There is no indication that Jesus in his earthly ministry ever visited Tiberias. Built by Herod Antipas ca. AD 18–22 (and named after the emperor Tiberius), it served as the capital of Herod’s tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea. Earlier (in 4 BC) he had built his capital at Sepphoris, the second city of the region, but the new site along the western shore of the lake was more central to the two districts under his control and more closely related to the road system. During the city’s construction, workmen stumbled onto an ancient burial place and the Jews withdrew to avoid ceremonial defilement. Herod then populated the city with a collection of poor people and foreigners (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.2.3). The modern city lies somewhat north of the ancient site. Interestingly, the city once declared unclean became a century or so later one of the four sacred sites in Israel. The Talmud reports thirteen synagogues in Tiberias (cf. b. Ber. 8a; 30b).
30 The NET study note at 6:25–31 explains the request for a sign in view of the recent feeding of the five thousand by positing two different groups within the crowd. Those who had witnessed the miracle and come across the lake from Capernaum are addressed in vv.26–27, while others who had not seen the miracle are addressed in vv.30–31. However, there is no compelling reason to believe that Jesus is addressing two groups of people in vv.26–31. There is no change of audience between the “they” of v.28 and the “they” of v.30.
31 From the Jewish perspective, Jesus was simply not in the same league with Moses: Jesus fed five thousand and that only once; Moses fed an entire nation for forty years (see NIVSB note at 6:31).
35 The other “I am” statements are “I am the light of the world,” 8:12; “I am the gate,” 10:7; “I am the good shepherd,” 10:11; “I am the resurrection and the life,” 11:25; “I am the way and the truth and the life,” 14:6; “I am the true vine,” 15:1.
36 While only a few witnesses lack με, me (א A pc a b e q sys.c), it is more likely to have been added from context than removed. Even if it is retained, the emphasis would be less on Jesus himself than on the miracles he performed.
46 That v.46 refers to the Son in the third person while in both the preceding and the following verses Jesus speaks in the first person has led some to regard this verse as a parenthetical remark by the evangelist rather than as a statement by Jesus himself. The argument has merit but is not conclusive. Jesus regularly speaks of himself in the third person in the Son of Man passages (e.g., Jn 3:13; 5:27; 6:62 et al.).
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
70Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)
COMMENTARY
60 The initial response of Jesus’ followers was that what he had been saying was “a hard teaching.” It was “hard” not so much because they couldn’t understand it but because they found it offensive. The claims that Jesus was greater than Moses (vv.32–33), that he had come down from heaven to bring life to all who believe (vv.38–40), and that by eating his flesh and drinking his blood a person would live forever (v.54) were so far-reaching that many of those who heard found them incredible, to say the least. These assertions were difficult to accept because they were so inconceivable. It is one thing to listen to sound moral teaching and respect the teacher, but what can be said about a person who makes such grandiose claims regarding his relationship to God and the significance of his own person and ministry! Those who did not believe could arrive at only one conclusion: if Jesus were not demented, he was at least a paranoid suffering severe delusions of grandeur.
61–62 Aware that his followers (not the Twelve; see vv.67–69) were finding fault with what he had said, Jesus asks the obvious question, “Does this offend you?” The tone of this question depends on one’s understanding of the following verse, which states a condition but does not supply a conclusion. “What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!”
There are at least two ways to understand Jesus’ statement. (1) “If what I have said offends you, then you will really be offended when I ascend to heaven.” In John’s world of discourse the ascension would include the entire sequence of events beginning with the crucifixion. So if the claims he has just made bothered his listeners, how much more offensive would be his “ascension.” A crucified Messiah was the most preposterous idea a Jewish person could imagine. (2) “If what I have said offends you, then when I am ascended the offense will be removed because that very event will vindicate all that I have claimed.”
Interestingly, one does not need to decide between the two options, because they are not mutually exclusive. For the unbeliever the “ascension” simply increases the offense, while for the believer it removes it. The cross is a stumbling block only to those who lack the necessary faith to see in it the unfolding of God’s redemptive plan.
That the Son of Man returns to “where he was before” is a clear indication of his preexistence. Jesus leaves no doubt but that as God’s Son he lived in eternity past with the Father. Obviously such a claim would fall on the ears of the unbeliever as incredulous. But to those of faith it is not at all remarkable that the Savior of the world should have existed long before creation itself. Intellectual difficulties do not keep people from accepting Christ; it is the sheer stubbornness of their unbelief. The idea that God must somehow rationally explain himself to our limited understanding before we will believe in him would leave us with a God incapable of saving us. God, by definition, is above and beyond his own creation.
63 That Jesus was speaking metaphorically when he said that a person must eat his flesh and drink his blood (v.54) is now made clear. It is the Spirit who “gives life.” He is the one who provides life eternal. “The flesh counts for nothing”; it is totally unable to provide spiritual sustenance. “Flesh” (sarx, GK 4922) here is “the earthly part of man, man as he is by nature, his intellect remaining unilluminated by the revelation of God” (Lindars, 273). Little wonder that it cannot produce life. Life comes from hearing and absorbing the words of Jesus. His words are “spirit and … life.” It is through his words that the Spirit communicates life to the person of faith. We are reminded of Jeremiah’s testimony that when the Lord’s words came, he ate them, and they were his joy and heart’s delight (Jer 15:16). Even though some of Jesus’ followers had listened to what he had to say, they still did not believe. There is a hearing of the ears only. To hear in such a way is to acknowledge the voice but to refuse the message. There is also a hearing of the inner person. To hear in this way is to take the next step and actually commit oneself to the message. When this happens, it is the Spirit giving life through the words of Jesus. This same phenomenon is true today. To read God’s Word and find one’s heart “strangely warmed” (as John Wesley put it) is to discover oneself in actual communication with the Spirit, whose role it is to illumine the believing heart.
64–65 Jesus knew that some would not believe and that one of them would betray him (v.64). He knew from the beginning (i.e., from the day they left their work and went with Jesus as he traveled the land) which ones would fall away and who his betrayer would be. Imagine the sorrow of teaching a person whom you knew would rise up against you. What unlimited patience and forgiving love! And Jesus still knows who among all those who call themselves “Christian” are in fact true believers. Even today what sorrow it must bring to the Son of God to suffer the hypocritical worship of the religious nonbeliever. Better an out and out pagan than a pseudo-Christian whose pretense serves neither God nor himself. It is for this reason (i.e., the phenomenon of unbelief) that Jesus said that no one is able to come to him apart from the enabling activity of the Father. He knew ahead of time that sinful humanity does not seek after God (see Ro 3:11). If people are to be brought to God, then God must take the initiative. He is the one who both initiates and completes the drawing of people to himself. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is God reaching out to do for the human race what it is totally incapable of doing for itself.
66 Here was a decisive moment in the lives of many who were still somewhat undecided about following Jesus. His insistence that he had come down from heaven as the true bread that brings life was not something that a person could accept and at the same time deny that it called for a radical reorientation of life. It is one thing to consider a theological proposition and quite another to make it a conviction. Convictions have a disturbing way of changing life. So “from this time” (or “for this reason”; ek toutou, can be understood either way) many of Jesus’ disciples “no longer followed him.” They “turned back”—both in the sense of returning to their previous occupations and also to their old religious worldview—one that had no place for a Messiah on a cross. The moment of truth had come, and those in whose hearts faith had not actually established itself found it more comfortable to turn their backs on the only one who held the answer to the only really important issues in life. Such is the fate of the secular mind unmoved by the Spirit of truth.
67–69 So Jesus turns to the Twelve and puts his call to commitment in a question that expected a negative response: “You do not want to leave too, do you?” It was not a plaintive inquiry but a clear question regarding their allegiance. Peter, the impulsive one, speaks for the group: “Lord, to whom shall we go? There is no other one. You alone have the words that bring eternal life.” Then in a messianic declaration not unlike his confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8:27–30 par.), Peter exclaims, “We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” That both verbs are in the perfect tense indicates that the Twelve had not only come to believe in him and recognize the truth of his claims but also that their faith and confidence was holding steady in this time of decision. Truth calls for commitment. It allows no place for what is false. To accept the truth is to forsake all attempts to find ultimate meaning in the vagaries of human existence.
70 The confidence of the disciples in Jesus and all he claimed to be and do is the reverse side of their having been “chosen” for the role they are to play. Divine election is not coercive but ultimately finds its counterpart in the free choice of believing individuals. “Yet,” says Jesus, “one of you is a devil!” The Greek diabolos (GK 1333) means “slanderer” or “false accuser.” In the LXX it translated the Hebrew word for adversary (śāṭan, GK 8477), and this is the meaning it carries in its twelve occurrences in the Johannine literature (cf. EDNT 1:297). Carson, 304, suggests that in this location it should probably be taken as “the devil” rather than “a devil.” Barrett, 307, comments, “Satan has made Judas his ally, a subordinate devil.” In the spirit of Satan, Judas would oppose everything that Jesus stood for. Although posing as a disciple, his kiss of betrayal will reveal him for what he truly is—an adversary of Jesus.
71 John closes this section with a parenthetical remark in which he makes it clear that it was “Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot,” of whom Jesus spoke. “Iscariot” probably means “the man of Kerioth,” perhaps the Judean town in the southern Negev mentioned in Joshua 15:25 (or perhaps the Kerioth in Moab, Jer 48:24). The suggestion that the term means “one of the Sicarii” (an “Assassin”) is intriguing but has little support. In any case, Judas was the only one of the Twelve who was not a Galilean.
NOTES
70 The NET translator’s note here provides a persuasive argument for accepting the translation “one of you is the devil” (italics added). The KJV regularly translates δαιμόνιον (daimonion, “demon,” GK 1228) as “devil” and thus creates confusion with the monadic noun διάβολος (diabolos, “devil,” GK 1333). In v.70 it is the one and only devil that is in view, not “a devil,” i.e., one of many. The error of the KJV is repeated in many modern versions, including the NIV and NRSV. The NET note cites Daniel Wallace’s conclusion: “The legacy of the KJV still lives on, then, even in places where it ought not.”
OVERVIEW
Following the events of ch. 6 (the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus’ walking on the water en route to Capernaum, the discourse on the bread of life, and the desertion of Jesus by many of his followers), Jesus continues his ministry in Galilee (7:1). Periepatei (“to go about,” “walk around,” GK 4344) is the “imperfect of customary action” (Barrett, 309) indicating that Jesus continued his peripatetic ministry of teaching, healing, and performing miracles wherever appropriate. Mark 7–9 describes the six-month period that falls between chs. 6 and 7 of John. There we learn of his encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, the feeding of the four thousand, the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida, Peter’s great confession, the transfiguration, and the healing of a boy with an evil spirit. John’s purpose is not to provide his readers with a full and complete account of all that Jesus did and said; as John later observes, such a task would fill more books than the whole world could contain (21:25). The material he did select was for the express purpose of bringing people to faith in Jesus Christ so that “by believing [they might] have life in his name” (20:31).
1After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life. 2But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, 3Jesus’ brothers said to him, “You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. 4No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
6Therefore Jesus told them, “The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. 7The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. 8You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come.” 9Having said this, he stayed in Galilee.
10However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. 11Now at the Feast the Jews were watching for him and asking, “Where is that man?”
12Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.”
Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.” 13But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews.
14Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the temple courts and begin to teach. 15The Jews were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learning without having studied?”
16Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. 17If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. 18He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him. 19Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?”
20“You are demon-possessed,” the crowd answered. “Who is trying to kill you?”
21Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? 24Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.”
25At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, “Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill? 26Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ? 27But we know where this man is from; when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from.”
28Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29but I know him because I am from him and he sent me.”
30At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come. 31Still, many in the crowd put their faith in him. They said, “When the Christ comes, will he do more miraculous signs than this man?”
32The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering such things about him. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him.
33Jesus said, “I am with you for only a short time, and then I go to the one who sent me. 34You will look for me, but you will not find me; and where I am, you cannot come.”
35The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks? 36What did he mean when he said, ‘You will look for me, but you will not find me,’ and ‘Where I am, you cannot come’?”
37On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
40On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”
41Others said, “He is the Christ.”
Still others asked, “How can the Christ come from Galilee? 42Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David’s family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” 43Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.
45Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn’t you bring him in?”
46“No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards declared.
47“You mean he has deceived you also?” the Pharisees retorted. 48“Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.”
50Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51“Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?”
52They replied, “Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.”
1 Jesus chose not to go into Judea, because the Jewish authorities “were looking for a chance to kill him” (NEB). In ch. 5 we learned of the intense hostility of certain Jews against Jesus. They were eager to kill him not simply because he broke the Sabbath but specifically because he called God his Father, thus claiming equality with God (5:18). Yet, as we will learn later in the narrative, it was not the fear of death that kept Jesus from ministering in Judea. When the time was right—the divinely appointed time—Jesus would enter Jerusalem and face the scorn of the religious elite, who were irritated by the radical demands of his ethical teaching and furious at his claim to be the Son of God. It was God’s will that for the time being he should continue to carry out his work in Galilee.
2 The time for the “Jewish Feast of Tabernacles” was at hand. Tabernacles was one of the three great feasts of the year that every male living within fifteen miles of Jerusalem was legally bound to attend, the other two being Passover and Pentecost. Tabernacles began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Tishri) and was a festival of thanksgiving for the blessings of God in the harvest (Lev 23:34–36). By then, the harvest of grapes, wine, and olives was complete, with barley and wheat having been harvested two to three months earlier. It was a time of great rejoicing in the bounty of God. Coupled with the harvest celebration was a special remembrance of God’s blessings on Israel during the wilderness wanderings. It is often referred to as the “Feast of Booths” (NASB) in that during the weeklong observance the Jewish people lived in little shelters or booths made of branches and greenery.
3–5 In telling Jesus that he ought to go to Jerusalem so his disciples would see the miracles he was doing, they reasoned that to become a public figure a person must not act in secret but get into the mainstream of life and show himself to the world. Several questions meet us here. Were the brothers serious in suggesting that Jesus needed to perform his miracles in Jerusalem in order to gain a following there? Were they genuinely trying to help him accomplish what they thought he wanted to achieve, or were they ridiculing him?
The first option seems unlikely in that they had not yet come to believe in him. Earlier, along with their mother, Mary, they had come to where he was teaching and wanted to talk with him, but apparently they did not understand the nature of his mission. On that occasion Jesus responded that his real mother and brothers were people who heard God’s word and put it into practice (Lk 8:19–21). In view of this relationship, it is questionable that his brothers would seriously be trying to help him fulfill his plan. The second option, followed by the NLT, says they scoffed, with the challenge, “Go where your followers can see your miracles.” But it is hard to imagine how a group of younger brothers could turn so definitely against the one who had taken over the responsibilities of the home and family after their father, Joseph, had died. It is better to view their suggestion as intending to help their older brother while at the same time being less than convinced that he really knew what he was doing. From their point of view, it was perfectly reasonable to expect a person who wanted to carry out a public mission to go to the capital city and there display his credentials.
A second question has to do with the need of his disciples to see his miracles. Hadn’t they been with him when he fed the five thousand and when he approached them at sea, walking on the stormy waves? The answer to this question lies in the identity of the “disciples” in v.3. Jesus’ brothers were not referring specifically to the Twelve but generally to all who were inclined to follow his teaching. During the festival, Jerusalem would be crowded with people from everywhere throughout the land, many of whom had heard Jesus teach. In the broad sense of the term they could easily be considered his disciples. Remember that in the immediate context “disciples” must be understood in terms of the way Jesus’ brothers would use it. Note also that the Greek text does not use the word “miracle” in v.3. It speaks rather of the “works” (erga, GK 2240) that Jesus was doing. Miracles were a substantial part of that ministry but by no means the whole of it.
From their perspective the advice of the brothers made good sense. They reasoned that anyone who believed himself to be the Messiah should not avoid publicity but instead validate his claim by a public display of his abilities. To gather a following in Galilee was one thing, but the real test was Jerusalem and the religious hierarchy of that great city. Some have suggested that the brothers, realizing that many of Jesus’ followers had defected (6:66), were encouraging him to display his power in the capital city to regain his position in their eyes. While such an idea may conceivably have passed through the minds of the unbelieving brothers, the possibility is speculative at best. In any case, the incident shows that seeing Jesus perform miracles, living in his presence, and hearing him teach is not enough to make a person a believer. It is not so much the evidence that demands a decision as it is the gift of faith that moves a person from darkness into light.
6 Jesus’ response to his brothers’ suggestion is that “the right time” for him had “not yet come.” The Greek word kairos (GK 2789) means “time” in the sense of a right or favorable time (in contrast with chronos, GK 5989, which refers to time in a chronological sense). While the term occurs repeatedly in the Synoptics, it is found only here in John’s gospel. The immediate reference was to that specific point in time when all the circumstances would be most favorable for Jesus to enter Jerusalem. Rather than an arrival at the beginning of the weeklong celebration of Tabernacles, some later period would be more advantageous. In a more profound sense, Jesus was awaiting the “right time” in which he would fulfill his eschatological role as Son of Man. While it was not yet the right time for Jesus to go up with his brothers to the Feast, for them any time was suitable. As unbelievers, they were living out their lives apart from any divine direction and hence were not governed by God’s kairos. They could go to the Feast whenever they wanted—it simply didn’t matter. One day was as good as the next.
7 When the brothers went up to Jerusalem they would encounter no opposition. The world cannot hate them because there is no reason why it should. They were one with the prevailing culture. For Jesus, however, the situation was dramatically different. The world hated him because he testified that “what it does is evil.” The prophetic voice has always disturbed the smug self-righteousness of practicers of established religion. His “woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees” (Mt 23:13, 15 et al.) touched their most sensitive and vulnerable spot. Jesus’ ethical demands were not an agenda for discussion but a call for radical personal change. If there is anything a hypocrite fears, it is the unmasking of his or her pretense. Little wonder that the religious leaders of Judea hated Jesus!
8–9 Jesus tells his brothers that he is not going up to the Feast because the “right time” (kairos again, GK 2789) for him “has not yet come.” The NIV follows the inferior textual tradition that reads oupō (“not yet”) rather than ou (“not”), thus alleviating the apparent inconsistency with v.10 in which Jesus does go to Jerusalem. It is better to follow the shorter text (so NASB) and understand Jesus as saying no more than he will not be going up to the Feast at that specific time (i.e., with his brothers). He is simply turning down their request—not promising that he will not go to the Feast a bit later when the time is right. Having turned down the advice of his brothers, Jesus remains for a time in Galilee.
10 After his brothers left for the Feast, Jesus also went up to Jerusalem—“not publicly, but in secret.” Normally, large groups from the various towns went to the feasts in large caravans. At the age of twelve Jesus had gone up to the Feast of the Passover. He remained in Jerusalem and was not missed for an entire day (Lk 2:42–44). To go up secretly means no more than to go up privately apart from the larger group that had already made the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. Lindars, 285, calls attention to the fact that Jesus needed to continue his work “in secret”—i.e., “without making an open claim to be the Messiah, but allowing the conclusion to arise from the implications of his ministry.” One should not picture Jesus furtively slipping into the capital city to spy out what was going on. He simply appeared there without fanfare when the Feast was underway. The religious authorities were well aware of his ministry in Galilee and were on the lookout for him at the festival. They reasoned that he would certainly be there and that perhaps this would offer them the best chance to have him taken into custody and killed (cf. 5:18; 7:1).
11 It is clear that “the Jews” were the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem, not the general Jewish population (designated “the crowds” in v.12). They kept asking (elegon, GK 3306, is imperfect), “Where is that man?” The demonstrative pronoun reflects a decidedly hostile attitude. That man—that one who has been going about Galilee claiming to be the Son of God—where is he?
12 Meanwhile among the crowds (the “simple-minded, true-hearted Israelites,” Ryle 3:439) there was “widespread whispering” about him. The Greek word gongysmos (GK 1198) normally indicates discontent (as in 6:41 where the verbal form is used—“began to grumble”; also 6:61), but here the context indicates what Phillips aptly calls “an undercurrent of discussion.” Some called him “a good man,” saying, in effect, “The truths he teaches are positive and helpful. His life is beyond criticism. He is a good man.” Others had a decidedly different opinion, seeing him as one who “deceives the people” (NASB, “leads the people astray”). This was a serious accusation. To mislead the masses was understood by some as a capital offense. A tradition preserved in the Babylonian Talmud says that Jesus was executed because he was a deceiver and had led Israel astray (b. Sanh. 43a).
13 Though there was much subdued and private discussion about Jesus, no one said anything publicly. The crowds were intimidated by the religious authorities and afraid to speak out or take sides in the matter. Fear of reprisal had silenced public debate of the issue.
14 Jesus waited until the Feast was well underway before he went up to Jerusalem. All we know for certain is that this was the “right time” for him to show up (cf. vv.6, 8). Some have conjectured that he waited several days until the initial excitement of Tabernacles had subsided so that his followers would not be as apt to put on a demonstration such as took place some six months later at the triumphal entry. Such a display would meet with serious consequences from the Jewish hierarchy, especially if the Feast took place shortly after the massacre of the Galileans in the temple courts (cf. Lk 13:1). When Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, he went to the outer court of the temple, where he began to teach. The crowd that gathered was undoubtedly comprised of both those who wanted to learn and others who were offended. Hendriksen, 2:9, suggests that the more receptive listeners were later joined by hostile leaders.
15 In any case, the Jews “were amazed” and asked the rhetorical question, “How did this man get such learning without having studied?” Jesus’ grasp of sacred learning and the persuasive power with which he spoke surprised them. After all, he had not attended their rabbinic schools. It may have been his skill as a teacher that bothered his opponents the most. Professional jealousy is as old as the human race. While their manner of teaching labored under the burden of rabbinic tradition and precedent, his was direct and convincing (cf. Mk 1:22).
16 Critics of Jesus reasoned that, since he had not studied under an acknowledged rabbinic master, he must be setting forth his own ideas. “Not so,” Jesus responded: “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.” The rabbinic approach was to substantiate every statement by demonstrating its congruence with previously accepted judgments. If Jesus had said that he was self-taught, he would have been discredited at once. Morris, 405, notes that “the age did not prize originality.” But Jesus’ teaching was not his own. Neither did it grow out of Jewish oral tradition. What he taught came from God. As the works he did came from the Father (5:36), so also did his teaching (7:16). Far from being an arrogant advocate of novel ideas, he was a humble and submissive exponent of truth that came directly from God.
17 The reason Jesus’ critics did not recognize that his teaching came from God was that they were not living in accordance with the will of God, evidenced most immediately by their desire to kill him in spite of Moses’ clear teaching against murder. Verse 17 states unambiguously that the person who chooses to do the will of God will in fact be able to discern that Jesus’ teaching does not come from him but from God. Only those who actually do the will of God are given the capacity to know this. There is no way of testing the validity of Jesus’ words from outside a relationship of faith. One must “taste” before “seeing” that the Lord is good (Ps 34:8). To know for certain that Jesus’ teaching comes from God one must be committed to doing what God desires. The inescapable requirement for understanding the claims of Jesus is faith. In a slightly broader sense, it is equally true that “the perception of truth depends on the practice of virtue” (cited in Ryle, 3:448–49).
18 Jesus now strengthens his case for accepting his teaching as coming from God. He points out that those who speak on their own do so for personal benefit. When people promote their own ideas, one can be sure that the ego is involved. The desire to convince others leads to a biased presentation that cannot be taken at face value. But Jesus is not trying to win favor in the eyes of others. His desire is that “the one who sent [him]” receive “honor.” It follows that, since he works for the honor of God, he is “a man of truth,” and “there is nothing false about him.” These words came as a stinging rebuke to the religious leaders of the day. They were consumed by the desire to gain recognition, even if it required the manipulation of what they knew to be true.
19 Jesus asks rhetorically, “Has not Moses given you the law?” “You recognize the Mosaic law as coming directly from God,” declares Jesus, in effect. “Yet not one of you keeps the law.” It is becoming clear why they did not realize that Jesus’ teaching was not his own but came from God. They were incapacitated to recognize its divine origin because they were living in disobedience to God’s will as explicitly stated in the writings of Moses. Jesus’ brings the point home clearly and sharply: “Why are you trying to kill me?” “Your desire to take my life,” he is saying, “directly contradicts the teaching of Moses against murder. It proves you are disobedient and therefore unable to understand that my teaching is from God.”
20 The response of the crowds, unaware of the intentions of the Jewish leaders, was that Jesus must be “demon-possessed.” They ask incredulously, “Who is trying to kill you?” reasoning that anyone who would make such a statement must be paranoid at the least. Phillips translates, “You must be mad!” In NT times, insanity was often linked with demon-possession. The Gerasene demoniac who lived among the tombs, cut himself with stones, and cried out night and day returned to his “right mind” only after Jesus had cast out his evil spirits (Mk 5:15). And later in the fourth gospel when Jesus describes himself as the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep, many say, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad” (10:20). Borchert, 284, writes that “categorizing people is a time-honored way of refusing to take them seriously.”
21–24 Undeterred by the crowd’s response, Jesus continues his case against the establishment. He had done only one miracle in Jerusalem, and that was on the Sabbath. They are still astonished that he would dare to tell someone on the Sabbath to “pick up [his] mat and walk” (5:8). Yet they constantly “broke” the law of Moses by circumcising infants whose eighth day after birth fell on the Sabbath (v.22). How then could they be angry with him for making a person entirely well on the Sabbath (v.23)? They should stop judging superficially and be fair (v.24).
21 The miracle to which Jesus refers is undoubtedly the healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethesda (5:1–15). Jesus’ opponents paid little attention to the fact that a man lame for thirty-eight years was cured and able to walk again. What “astonished” them—and they were still bothered by it (thaumazete [GK 2513] in v.21 is present tense)—was the audacity of Jesus in performing this “work” on the Sabbath. The man had been waiting a third of a century; couldn’t he wait another day? And so they “persecuted [Jesus]” (5:16). Did not the law say that “whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death” (Ex 31:15)? Yet they themselves regularly circumcised every male child born on the Sabbath (the eight days being inclusive). The law regarding circumcision was given to them by Moses (Lev 12:3), but the covenant predated the ordinance and went back to the time of Abraham (Ge 17:10; cf. 21:4). Thus circumcision took precedence over the regulation regarding work on the Sabbath. The conclusion is inescapable—if they are free to circumcise on the Sabbath, on what basis could they object to Jesus making a man completely well on the Sabbath. Their “work” had to do with but one single part of the body, while Jesus made “a man’s whole body well” (RSV). Rabbi Eleazar later made the same point, i.e., if circumcision, which concerns only one of man’s 248 members, overrides the Sabbath, how much more must his whole body (if in danger of death) override the Sabbath (b. Yoma 85b).
23 The Jews circumcised on the Sabbath “so that the law of Moses may not be broken.” Though circumcision on the Sabbath appears to break the law, it actually has the opposite effect. It fulfills that to which the law can only point. Morris, 409, comments, “Had [the Jews] understood the implications of the Mosaic provision for circumcision on the Sabbath they would have seen that deeds of mercy such as He had just done were not merely permissible but obligatory.” At best, the law is but a gracious indicator of how people should direct their lives in order to conform to the righteous character of their Creator. When Jesus healed the lame man at Bethesda, he was fulfilling a righteous obligation for which the law could only suggest a series of dos and don’ts. Acts of mercy take precedence over the functional nature of law. The latter serves the interests of the former. In Jesus’ words, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27).
24 The paragraph closes with Jesus’ charge that they “stop judging by mere appearances.” The present imperative with the negative (mē krinete) stresses that they should stop doing what they are now doing. Instead they are to “make a right judgment.” Here the imperative is also present, indicating the need to judge fairly on a continuing basis. Their judgment of Jesus’ act on the Sabbath was superficial. Never mind the circumstances—he was breaking the law, and that was that. A fair judgment would have gone deeper and recognized that he was fulfilling the moral responsibility for which the law existed. Criticism is normally irresponsible. It would rather condemn the other than find out the purpose and motivation for the person’s actions. While people “look at the outward appearance,” the Lord “looks at the heart” (1Sa 16:7).
25–26 Earlier (in vv.11–12), John wrote of the varying opinions among the crowds concerning the person of Jesus. Some said he was a good man; others said he deceived the people. Following Jesus’ teaching regarding the origin of his message and his defense for healing on the Sabbath (vv.14–24), we again hear from those who were listening to what he had to say. This time it is “some of the people of Jerusalem”—i.e., residents of the city as over against worshipers who had come there for the Feast. They say concerning Jesus, “Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill?” They cannot understand why he is allowed to continue “speaking publicly.” In this context parrēsia laleō (“to speak openly/boldly,” GK 4244, 3281) means to speak “without fear of the Jews” (EDNT 3:46). And the authorities have done nothing to silence him—“they have not a word to say to him” (NEB). So they ask themselves if it is possible that the religious leaders have changed their mind about Jesus. Perhaps they have been given additional information that has led them to think differently. Perhaps they have decided that he is the Messiah after all.
27 No sooner had the idea crossed their minds than it was dismissed: “There is no way Jesus could be the Messiah. Doesn’t popular theology teach that no one will know where the Messiah comes from? Well, everyone knows that Jesus is from Nazareth.” A widely held opinion in the time of Jesus was that the Messiah would come into the world and remain hidden until the divinely appointed time for his public disclosure. Barclay, 1:243, quotes the rabbinic saying, “Three things come wholly unexpectedly, the Messiah, a godsend, and a scorpion.” It was no secret that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and it was from there that he launched his public ministry. That alone in the eyes of the people would disqualify him from being the Messiah.
The fact that slightly later in the narrative (v.42) some of those in the crowd point out that “the Christ will come … from Bethlehem” seems to be at odds with the view concerning the Messiah’s origin just expressed. Apparently there was more than one idea regarding the origin of the expected Messiah. Popular theology often deviates from Scripture. That the Messiah would suddenly appear from someplace where he had been waiting for his public manifestation ruled out any possibility that a carpenter’s son from Nazareth (even if he had been born in Bethlehem) could be the Messiah.
28 At this point “Jesus … cried out, ‘Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from.’” Some writers take this response as no more than an acknowledgment that the crowd knew who he was as a person and where he had grown up. The verb “cried out” (krazō, GK 3189), however, is a much stronger expression than one would expect for such a mundane utterance. In the fourth gospel the verb is always used in connection with an authoritative and prophetic declaration (e.g., John the Baptist’s testimony about Jesus [1:15] and Jesus’ testimony regarding himself [7:37; 12:44]). It is much more likely that Jesus was responding with irony to the crowd’s confident assertion that they knew where he came from. “So you think you know me and where I am from, do you?” Their concept of his origin was earthbound. They regarded him as no more than an itinerant preacher from Galilee. What they did not know was that his true origin was inseparably entwined with the eternal nature of God the Father. They needed to grasp the fact that Jesus was not among them on his own initiative. He had been sent by God, and the one who sent him was “true,” i.e., “real,” in the sense that God “really is the one who sent Jesus” (Carson, 318).
29 These people did not “know him” (i.e., God), because all true knowledge is based on a relationship. In spite of their much learning, the Jewish religionists had not come to a personal knowledge of God. But Jesus knows the Father because he is “from him” and was sent by him. Divine origin and heavenly mission are tremendous claims. From the standpoint of the authorities, such claims are the very reason Jesus should be done away with. Sabbath-breaking can be forgiven, but claims such as these constitute blasphemy, the ultimate sin (cf. 5:18). Yet if such claims are true, then it follows that Jesus is who he said he was, the very Son of God. If they are not true, then he is either a terrible sinner or a misguided fool. The same decision faced by the Jews meets today’s reader as well. Wherever the gospel is proclaimed, people must decide whether to believe that Jesus is who he says he is or to reject his claims as sheer nonsense. There is no middle ground.
30 This was too much for some in the crowd. They “tried to seize [Jesus]” in the sense that they were anxious and ready to lay hold of him (ezētoun, GK 2426, is a conative imperfect), but no one was able to lay a hand on him. This attempt to arrest him was different from the more formal attempt in vv.32 and 45. It was the response of that part of the crowd that was incensed at what he was saying about himself and his mission. But they were not able to carry out their intentions, because “his time had not yet come.” That would be the hour (hōra, GK 6052), still six months away, when Jesus would be arrested, tried, and crucified (cf. 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1). Until then, the evil designs of his antagonists could not be realized. As Borchert, 286, says, “His hour was certainly not decided by mob hysteria. His time was in the hand of God.”
31 While some of the crowd wanted to have Jesus arrested, many “put their faith in him.” Whether or not their confidence in him constituted a saving faith we really do not know. If those here who were said to believe are the same as the Jews mentioned in 8:31, there is the possibility that they became disciples of Jesus, though the narrative that follows puts a large question mark over that possibility. Their decision that Jesus must be the Messiah was based on the miracles he had done. They reasoned that it would be highly unlikely that when the Christ came he would do more miraculous signs than Jesus had done. Therefore he must be the Messiah. While faith based on signs is not encouraged (2:23–24), it is not to be ignored (10:38). Apparently an expectation had arisen that when the Messiah appeared, he would as a second Moses perform miracles as his predecessor had done. Even as the prophets gave proof by performing miracles that their message was from God, so also would the eschatological prophet validate his role by similar signs. The same argument appears in Jesus’ answer to the emissaries from John the Baptist, who came asking whether he was the Coming One or whether they should expect another. Jesus sent them back to John with the message that “the blind receive sight, the lame walk” (Mt 11:5). His miracles were compelling evidence that he was in fact the Coming One.
32 Though the religious authorities had judged Jesus to be an impostor worthy of death (5:18; cf. 6:19), some in the crowd were beginning to conclude that he was the Messiah. Obviously some action had to be taken. So the Pharisees, who had become aware of the rising tide of opinion about Jesus, together with the chief priests sent temple guards to take Jesus into custody. The Pharisees, who were the minority party of the Sanhedrin, were those most likely to know what the populace was thinking. The Sadducees were the ruling elite, and it was from among their number that the high priest was chosen. Because Rome had taken over the responsibility of assigning ecclesiastical rank, a number of priests had rotated in and out of office and consequently bore the honorary title of “chief priest” (hence the plural). While the temple guards had as their primary function the maintenance of order in the temple precincts, they often served the interests of the Sanhedrin in a much broader scope. The guards were sent to arrest Jesus, but only at a time when it would not create an uproar. Since the city was filled with messianic enthusiasts, hasty action on the part of the Jews could result in unnecessary publicity. That the Sadducees and Pharisees were together in this scheme illustrates the dictum that “common enemies make strange bedfellows” (Carson, 319; cf. Mk 14:1). While their theologies differed at vital points, their common concern about the challenge to their power and reputation united them.
33 The outcome of the temple guards’ encounter with Jesus is not described by John, though we learn later that they returned to the chief priests and Pharisees with nothing but cautious admiration for Jesus and for what he was teaching (vv.45–46). Jesus continues the thread of discourse from vv.28–29 by telling his listeners in the temple court that he would be with them for only a short time and then he would return to the one who sent him. The earlier question about his origin (v.27) gives way to that of his departure (v.35). The “short time” of which he spoke turned out to be six months—the period between Tabernacles (October) and Passover (April). Death for Jesus did not mark the end but the renewal of a unique face-to-face fellowship with the Father laid aside at the incarnation. In the beginning he was “with God” (pros ton theon, 1:1), but he became flesh and “made his dwelling among us” (eskēnōsen en hēmin, 1:14). Death cannot be an enemy if it leads to glory.
34 Jesus informed his listeners that they would not find him, because where he is they could not come. Jesus may have said “where I am” rather than “where I will be” in order to stress his continuing place of honor “close to the Father’s heart” (1:18; Beck). It is theologically accurate to say with Augustine that “Christ was ever in that place to which he would return.” The verb (eimi, “I am”) is a gnomic present expressing a timeless fact.
35–36 True to form, the Jews misunderstood what Jesus was saying. Still thinking in one dimension (cf. 7:28), they asked scornfully, “Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him?” The use of the personal pronoun hēmeis (“we”) suggests that, try as he might, “Jesus can go nowhere that we Jews can’t get to him. He can’t possibly think [the particle mē requires a negative response] that by going to some foreign country where he can continue his teaching among the Greeks that he will escape us.” It is interesting that what the authorities said in derision will in time prove to be prophetic of the outreach of the early church. They most certainly did go to the Diaspora, and the message of Jesus they taught was taken to Gentiles throughout the known world. It is ironic that the very ones who would prevent the spread of Jesus’ message by putting him to death were the agents used by God to make it happen.
37–39 Since the Feast of Tabernacles was a time of thanksgiving for the annual harvest, it is understandable that some recognition be given to the importance of adequate rainfall (note the connection in Zec 14:16–19). By NT times, the well-known water-pouring rite had become an important part of the Feast. At dawn on each of the first six days, a procession led by the high priest went to the Pool of Siloam and returned with a golden flagon of water, which was then poured out in the temple before the Lord. On the seventh day, the ceremony was repeated seven times.
37 It was on this “last and greatest day of the Feast” that Jesus stood and announced that whoever was thirsty should “come to [him] and drink.” Borchert, 290, calls this “a magnificent model of contextual preaching and teaching.” Since the seven-day feast was followed on the day afterward by a “sacred assembly” (Lev 23:36), some writers think that it was on this eighth day that Jesus made his proclamation. But since the water-pouring rite reached its high point on the seventh day (and was not repeated again), it would be highly unlikely that John was referring to the eighth day as the “greatest day of the Feast.”
Jesus’ invitation to the thirsty recalls Isaiah’s famous summons to the exiles, “Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters” (Isa 55:1). Spiritual thirst can only be quenched at the springs provided by God. Jesus is saying that those who long for spiritual satisfaction must come to him and drink of all he has to offer. He calls out his invitation in a “loud voice” (note the use of the verb krazō, GK 3189, as in v.28). His prophetic announcement is that he alone is the one who is able to supply the water of life.
38 Jesus adds that, as Scripture has said, “streams of living water will flow” from those who believe in him. Since no specific OT verse can be found to match the quote, it would appear that Jesus is drawing on certain OT passages (e.g., Isa 44:3; 58:11; Joel 3:18) that employ the symbolism of water in speaking of the blessings of God on his people.
At this point we encounter a question of punctuation that has engendered much discussion. Those who favor what is called the “christological [or Western] interpretation” connect the final two words of v.37 (in the Greek text) with what follows, resulting in a rough chiasm.
If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me;
And let him drink, whoever believes in me.
The important point in this arrangement of clauses is that it allows the remainder of v.38 to be a parenthetical remark by the author. Those who come to Jesus will be able to quench their thirst because, “as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him”—i.e., from Jesus.
Of the several difficulties facing this option the most important is that the opening words of v.39 are regularly used by John in reference to Jesus’ teaching. So if Jesus is the one speaking in v.38, he could not be referring to himself when he said “from within him” (see Gordon Fee, “Once More—John 7:37–39,” ExpTim [1978]: 116–18). In v.39 John goes on to explain that the “living water” which was to flow from the believer’s innermost being (the koilia, “belly,” GK 3120, having been regarded as the seat of the emotions) is to be understood as a reference to the Spirit. Those who believe in Jesus will receive the Spirit, but that can happen only after Jesus is glorified.
39 On an earlier occasion Jesus told the Samaritan woman that the water he would give to her would become a “spring of water welling up to eternal life” (4:14). The abundant life that Jesus gives is a spring bursting with spiritual vitality. It is the vibrant reality of the Spirit’s presence that transforms all of life and leads to eternal life. Those who are willing to forgo the fleeting pleasures of an earthbound existence and respond affirmatively to Jesus’ invitation find their deepest longings fully satisfied by the Spirit. To drink at the fountain of eternal life is to experience the fullness of the Spirit.
40 Jesus’ claim to be able to supply the spiritually thirsty with streams of living water made a considerable impression on the crowd. Some of them were convinced that he was “the Prophet” come in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:15. Though the promise there anticipates a series of prophets like Moses (cf. the context, and esp. vv.20–22), it was generally held that a single eschatological prophet was to be expected. When the people heard the teaching of Jesus, some were convinced and exclaimed, “Without doubt this man is the Prophet” (Montgomery). Earlier, on the occasion of the feeding of the five thousand, the people arrived at the same conclusion (6:14). Now the offer of streams of living water renews the same conviction. Had not the first Moses brought down bread from heaven (Ex 16) and caused water to flow from a rock (Ex 17)? Certainly this man who can feed a hungry multitude with a few small loaves of bread and now offers living water to quench the thirsty is in fact the second Moses.
41 “Not so,” said others. “He is the Christ.” It may seem strange to us that the crowd distinguished between the Prophet and the Christ. Are they not the same? In the first century, however, there existed varying messianic expectations. The promised Prophet and the Messiah were viewed by some as distinct. Qumran literature (1QS 9:11) speaks of a prophet and two Messiahs—a priestly Messiah of Aaron and a royal or Davidic Messiah of Israel.
42 Still others enter the debate, questioning how Jesus could possibly be the Christ since Scripture clearly taught that the Messiah would come from David’s family, and specifically from the town of Bethlehem, where David lived. “How can the Christ come from Galilee?” they ask incredulously. It is sad that those who knew what Scripture taught regarding the family line and birthplace of the Messiah could not understand that the Messiah they professed to be waiting for was standing in their presence. It is interesting that Jesus did not come to his own defense by pointing out that he was from the family of David (Ro 1:3) and that he had in fact been born in Bethlehem (Lk 2:4–7). But the realization and acceptance of Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah is a matter of faith and comes by way of revelation (cf. Mt 16:16), not by public debate. Those who first read John’s account could see the irony of the situation. The very argument the crowd employed to deny that Jesus could be the Christ supported the opposite conclusion. His family line was Davidic, and Bethlehem was his birthplace!
43 So the people “were divided because of him.” What was true then continues to be the case today. People confronted with the revelation of God in Christ do not have the luxury of remaining neutral. As Jesus taught, he came not to bring peace on earth but division (Lk 12:51).
44 Some of the crowd, rushing to judgment, wanted to take him into custody right then and there, but no one was able to lay a hand on him. His hour had not yet come, and until that time divine restraint kept the crowd at bay.
45 Earlier (v.32) we learned that the temple guards were sent to arrest Jesus. A few verses later John recorded an encounter that took place on the last day of the Feast (vv.37–44). Now we read that the temple guards returned to the Jewish leaders empty-handed. Since all these events apparently happened over several days, we are safe in inferring that the mission of the guards was not so much to move in and arrest Jesus on the spot as it was to watch for a favorable time when he could be taken without creating a disturbance among the people. The NIV’s “finally” translates the Greek oun, better represented by the NASB’s “therefore,” which maintains the normal inferential force of the particle. No one was able to lay a hand on him, and therefore the temple guards returned without having arrested Jesus. That a single article in Greek governs both the “chief priests” and the “Pharisees” supports the impression that these two rather antagonistic groups had been brought together by their shared opposition to Jesus. The “chief priests” (archiereis, GK 797) were those members of the Sanhedrin who belonged to high priestly families (cf. BDAG, 139), the ruling elite. The “Pharisees” were those who took with all seriousness the assumed obligation to put into practice everything the scribes said that the law and the entire corpus of oral tradition taught about being a pious Israelite. The two groups had little in common in either theology or lifestyle; yet, as we said earlier, a common enemy makes strange bedfellows.
46 In answer to the leaders’ frustration at the failure to arrest Jesus, the guards declared, “No one ever spoke the way this man does.” The adverb houtōs (“in this manner,” “thus,” “so”) stresses the manner in which Jesus spoke, but not to the exclusion of what he said. At the close of the Sermon on the Mount we read that those who heard Jesus teach were amazed “because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law” (Mt 7:29; cf. Lk 4:22).
Since the stress appears to lie on the last word in the sentence (anthrōpos, “man,” GK 476, in the Greek text), the guards may have declared more than they realized—that the speech of Jesus was not the speech of a mere man. It was an awareness of the supernatural authority with which Jesus spoke that prevented the guards from carrying out their assignment. They were not accustomed to hearing one whose message carried the authority of heaven. Beasley-Murray, 119, notes that “two thousand years later, with the cultures of the whole world available to us, it remains true: ‘No man has ever spoken like this man.’”
47 The Pharisees’ question here stems not from a desire to learn but is a derisive ad hominem intended to humiliate the officers. The Greek expects a negative answer, so the retort of the Pharisees could be paraphrased, “It isn’t possible, is it, that in addition to that ignorant mob he has deceived you as well?” It is worth noting that the religious leaders mocked the temple police not so much because they had failed to arrest Jesus but because they should have known better than to have fallen for his line. They were not ordinary soldiers without a clue as to the real issue involved, but Levites who had undergone a certain amount of religious training.
48–49 Now comes what the religious leaders thought was the clinching argument, the coup de grace—“Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him?” “Obviously,” they conclude, “study of the law makes a person wise and pious! Since we haven’t believed in him, the question is closed. He cannot be who he claims to be, and his teachings are deceptive.”
The opinion of the religious authorities that Jesus could not be the Messiah because they had not accepted him demonstrates the power of pride to blind a person to the truth. Not only does pride conceal truth, but it also regularly issues in a low regard for the opinions of others. So the Pharisees with arrogant disdain speak of the ignorant “mob that knows nothing of the law” and are “damned anyway” (Phillips). The common people—the people of the land, as they were called—had never been schooled in the intricacies of the law and could not be expected to live as pious Israelites. Those who did not commit themselves to keeping everything that the Pharisees held the law and oral tradition to teach were considered to be under the curse of God (cf. Dt 27:15–26). This attitude toward the common person permeated Judaism. Even the extremely tolerant Rabbi Hillel held that “no member of the common people is pious” (m. ʾAbot 2:5). Less complimentary was the School of Rabbi Meir, who said in effect that one could not distinguish the “people of the land” from animals (see Str-B, 3:486).
50–51 Nicodemus now raises a point of order. This is the same Nicodemus who earlier had come to Jesus reasoning that the miraculous signs Jesus had been doing indicated that God was with him (3:2). John writes that Nicodemus was “one of their own number,” i.e., a ruling member of the Sanhedrin. While he was one of them in terms of his official capacity, he was anything but one of them in his concern that Jesus not be condemned without a hearing. The question he asks expects a negative response and contains a mild rebuke. “Our law does not condemn a man without first learning what he’s doing, does it?” The obvious response is, “No.” A rabbinic rule (Exod. Rab. 21:3) states that “unless a mortal hears the pleas that a man can put forward, he is not able to give judgment.” All civilized legal practice allows the accused the right to present and defend his actions. The Roman procurator Festus, in discussing the apostle Paul’s case with King Agrippa, said, “It is not the Roman custom to hand over any man before he has faced his accusers” (Ac 25:16).
52 One would think that such a sane reminder would have given the others pause to reflect on their hasty conclusion. Such was not the case. Instead they turn on Nicodemus with derision. “Are you from Galilee, too?” they taunt. Unable to contradict the truth of what he had said, their only recourse was to turn on him as a person. Ad hominem arguments have always been the last resort of the desperate. Then, in a visceral rejoinder that involved them in an obvious error, they challenged Nicodemus to study the evidence and find for himself that “a prophet does not come out of Galilee.” Such, however, was not the case. Second Kings 14:25 identifies Jonah as “the prophet from Gath Hepher” (about three miles north of Nazareth). Depending on how one draws the borders, no less a prophet than Elijah came from “Galilee”—Gilead lay east of the Jordan (1Ki 17:1). According to Rabbi Eliezer (b. Sukkah 27b), there was not a single tribe in Israel from which a prophet had not come. To alleviate the problem of the Pharisees’ obvious mistake some call attention to the readings in two Bodmer papyri (P66 and P75) that include a definite article, thus reading “the Prophet”—i.e., the prophet-like-Moses promised in Deuteronomy 18:15. It is better, however, to understand the mistake of the religious rulers as resulting from their extreme frustration. Their plot to arrest Jesus had failed, and even the temple guards sent to arrest him returned with an appreciation for the authority with which he taught. Anger had blinded the Pharisees to the extent that in their desire to discredit Jesus they had fallen into the error of denying what they knew to be true.
NOTES
3 The fourth-century Latin theologian Helvidius provides the typical explanation of who the brothers of Jesus were: the natural sons of Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus. Opposing Helvidius, the eminent biblical scholar Jerome held that the brothers of Jesus were actually his cousins (sons of another Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus and the sister of the virgin Mary). Epiphanius, a fourth-century polemicist, believed that they were children of Joseph by a former marriage. These latter explanations arose as a result of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, asserted by Hilary of Poitiers in the fourth century and explicitly taught as a doctrine of the church from the fifth century onward.
7 In John the Greek κόσμος (kosmos, “world,” GK 3180), when used in an ethical sense, refers to the mass of mankind aligned in deadly hostility to Jesus and his teachings. Although it exists for the present time under the power and influence of Satan, “the ruler of this world” (12:31; 14:30; 16:11), it falls within the redemptive purpose of God (1:29; 3:16–17).
9 The NASB follows P75 B D1 T Θ (et al.) by reading αὐτοῖς (autois, “to them”) rather than the more difficult but preferable αὐτός (autos, “he”), which is supported by P66 א D* W f 1 565 (et al.) and followed by the NIV.
12 The Greek πλανάω (planaō, GK 4414), which means “to lead astray, cause to wander,” is the word from which the English word “planet” is derived. A planet is a “wandering star.”
20 In contrast to the Greek understanding of demons as sometimes benevolent, the NT always considers demons to be malicious. They are pictured as taking control and possessing human beings. Among the many indications of demon-possession are insanity (Jn 10:20), seizures (Mk 1:26), and self-destructive behavior (Mt 17:15). While the Gospels tend to differentiate rather carefully between sickness and demon-possession (e.g., Lk 13:32), there is one case in which the sickness seems to have a demonic cause (Lk 13:10–17). Apart from the Gospels and Acts, the word δαιμόνιον (daimonion, “demon,” GK 1228) occurs only nine times (sixty-three times in the NT).
21–22 NA27 places διὰ τοῦτο, dia touto (“because of this”), as the first two words of v.22. The problem is that the following words do not provide the reason. One must ask, “Because of what?” Granted that John normally places διὰ τοῦτο, dia touto, at the beginning of a sentence (e.g., 1:31; 5:16, 18 et al.), it still makes better sense to connect it with the preceding sentence—“and you are all astonished because of this” (so Bruce, 177).
37–38 The NET translator’s note argues for the Western interpretation (so-called because of the patristic support of Justin, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Irenaeus) and notes (1) the fact that P66 puts a full stop after πινέτω (pinetō, “let him drink,” GK 4403), (2) the lack of Johannine parallels that make the believer the source of living water, and (3) the scriptural quotation in v.38 that links a targumic rendering of Psalm 78:15–16 with Jesus (he is the rock from which water is brought forth; cf. Maarten J. J. Menken’s article, “The Origin of the Old Testament Quotation in John 7:38,” NovT 38 [1996]: 160–75). The Western interpretation is adopted by a number of modern scholars, including Beasley-Murray, Dodd, and Jeremias.
OVERVIEW
The last verse of ch. 7 and the first eleven verses of ch. 8 record an event that occurs nowhere else in Scripture. In fact, it should probably not be included in the fourth gospel either, since it is absent from virtually all the early Greek manuscripts. Scholarly opinion, however, judges that, while it is not part of the authentic material of John’s gospel, it may well have happened. The episode could have been added by a copyist at a slightly later time when there was less danger that it could be misinterpreted as countenancing promiscuity.
7:53Then each went to his own home.
8:1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
COMMENTARY
8:1–2 Because 7:53 speaks of people going to their “own home(s)” while Jesus “went to the Mount of Olives” (8:1; though Jesus was not present at the meeting described in 7:45–52), it has been proposed that the story of the woman taken in adultery was at one time attached to some other narrative. Whatever the case may be, it was Jesus’ custom when in Jerusalem to spend the evenings on the Mount of Olives (cf. Lk 21:37) or with his friends just over the mountain to the east in Bethany (cf. Mk 11:11, 19–20). Early the next morning he entered the outer court of the temple, where scribes often met with their students, and began to teach the people gathering around him.
3 As Jesus was teaching, some scribes and Pharisees arrived with a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand before the group. Apparently her accusers had caught her while actually engaged in the act and had brought her directly to Jesus. That the entire affair was trumped-up is clear from the fact that the man involved was not apprehended. It takes two to commit adultery! According to Mosaic law, both parties would be guilty and subject to the death penalty (cf. Lev 20:10; Dt 22:22).
While scribes (NIV, “teachers of the law”) and Pharisees are regularly mentioned together in the Synoptic Gospels, this is the only occurrence in the fourth gospel. Scribes were the recognized experts in the Mosaic law; the Pharisees were those who had devoted their entire lives to observing even the most minuscule part of the law. Some but by no means all of the scribes were also Pharisees.
4–5 The accusers pose to Jesus a question designed to get him in trouble, regardless of his answer. “Teacher,” they say, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” From Ezekiel 16:38–40 it is clear that stoning was the prescribed manner for carrying out the death penalty in cases of adultery (cf. Dt 22:23–24). Leviticus 20:10 calls for the death of both parties committing adultery but does not indicate the method. (At a later time the penalty was to be carried out by strangulation; cf. b. Sanh. 52b; 84b; 107a.) While there is no sure way of knowing whether the woman in John 8 was married or unmarried, the term “adultery” (moicheia, GK 3657) implies the former.
6 The purpose of the question in v.5 was not to fulfill the demands of justice but to trap Jesus into saying something that could be used as a basis for an accusation against him. For Jesus to answer that the woman should be stoned would run counter to his recognized concern for “tax collectors and ‘sinners’” (Mk 2:15). It would portray him as severe, if not vindictive. What’s more, it could put him in jeopardy with the Romans, who did not allow the Jews to carry out the death penalty (Jn 18:31). On the other hand, for Jesus to say that the woman should not be stoned would be to contradict the Law of Moses. That would provide the Sanhedrin with a charge they could use in discrediting him in the eyes of the people. In either case, the accusers thought they had Jesus on the horns of a dilemma from which he could not remove himself without serious damage.
Instead of answering their question, Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. Exactly what he wrote no one knows. Since the verb (katagraphō, GK 2863), which occurs only here in the NT, means “to draw figures” as well as “to write down” (BDAG, 516; in classical Greek, “to mark” or “to scratch deeply”), it may be that Jesus was simply passing the time in order to give the accusers opportunity to reflect on what they were doing. Those who conjecture that Jesus actually wrote some words suggest such possibilities as the decision that he would then announce; a passage of Scripture such as Exodus 23:1b, 7; or some symbolic word of doom as in Daniel 5:24. Eager to get the upper hand in a verbal exchange they thought they were sure to win, the scribes and Pharisees continued to press home their question: “This is what the Law of Moses says—so what do you say?”
7 Jesus does not deny that the woman’s offense is worthy of the punishment decreed by the Law of Moses. What he does question is the moral competency of her accusers to carry out the penalty. In effect he says, “Go ahead and administer the proper penalty, but only if you have never committed the same offense.” If we understand “without sin” in a general sense as referring to any sin at all, then it is even more evident that none of them would be able to initiate the punishment. That the accuser must be the one to cast the first stone is the clear teaching of Deuteronomy 13:9 and 17:7.
9 Obviously, these religious leaders had not expected Jesus to respond as he did. Gradually they caught on to the full import of what he had said and began to slip away one at a time, beginning with the older men, until only Jesus and the woman were left. The KJV’s interpretative addition “being convicted by their own conscience” is based on inferior textual evidence. It was less their conscience than their embarrassment at being outmaneuvered that prompted them to leave the scene. Jesus’ answer left them at a loss as to what to do or say next. The only option remaining was a tactical retreat. Carson, 336, says, “Those who had come to shame Jesus now leave in shame.” The NIV circumvents the problem of how the woman could be “in the midst” (en mesō) when no one else remained by translating the phrase with “still standing there.” Hendriksen, 2:39, is probably right in surmising that only the scribes and Pharisees had gone, leaving the rest of the crowd intact—thus she could still be “in the midst.” There was no reason why those who were not involved in the charge against the woman should leave.
10 When those who had brought the charge had left, Jesus straightened up and asked the woman where her accusers were. Rhetorically, Jesus asked, “Has no one condemned you?”—or to put it in another way, “They didn’t carry out their sentence, did they?” Lindars, 312, notes that katakrinō (GK 2891) means “give a judicial sentence” and in this case “indicates a decision to carry out the penalty required by the law.” For obvious reasons the Jewish authorities had not carried out the penalty.
11 Jesus is not saying that the woman’s act of adultery is not worthy of condemnation but that he doesn’t intend to press charges. In no way does he condone her sin. Neither does he offer her divine forgiveness for what she has done. He simply tells her to “go, and never sin again” (Montgomery). We would hope that the guilty woman repented of her sin, but the text is silent about that. And of course there is room in the kingdom for every kind of sinner (including the adulteress) who turns from sin and embraces by faith the Lord Jesus.
NOTES
7:53–8:11 For a convenient summary of both the external and internal evidence in favor of excluding this unit, see the NET text critical note at 7:53. After reviewing the external evidence and concluding that “practically all of the earliest and best manuscripts we possess omit the pericope,” it goes on to state and essentially refute the several arguments from internal evidence that would tend to support its inclusion. The question of whether the pericope should be regarded as authentic tradition is left open. “It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature.” (See also Metzger, 187–89, for the textual evidence and the committee’s reasons for including the pericope in the UBS Greek NT, albeit enclosed within double square brackets.)
3 Since adultery is a violation of the divinely instituted rite of marriage, it was strongly prohibited in the OT. A bride found not to be a virgin was to be stoned (Dt 22:13–21); a man who violated an unmarried woman was required to marry her (Ex 22:16); a priest’s daughter who becomes a prostitute was to be burned (Lev 21:9); adultery (“voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse” [dictionary definition]) violates both the seventh and tenth commandments and carries the penalty of stoning. It remains an open question, however, whether or how often the penalty was carried out. In Hosea 3:1 the prophet is told by God to “go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress” (see also the account of David and Bathsheba in 2Sa 11).
8 Several witnesses (U 700 et al.) add ἕνος ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας (henos hekastou autōn tas hamartias, “the sins of every one of them”) at the end of the sentence. Metzger, 190, suggests that the motive may have been “to satisfy pious curiosity concerning what it was that Jesus wrote upon the ground.”
12When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
13The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”
14Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”
19Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”
“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” 20He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.
21Once more Jesus said to them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.”
22This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come’?”
23But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”
25“Who are you?” they asked.
“Just what I have been claiming all along,” Jesus replied. 26“I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”
27They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” 30Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him.
COMMENTARY
12 On the basis that the section on the woman caught in adultery (7:53–8:11) is not part of the Johannine corpus, it would appear that the audience to whom Jesus speaks in v.12 are the Pharisees. (The NIV’s “the people” is an arbitrary interpretation of the Greek autois, “them”; NASB, “to them”.) That the very next verse speaks of the Pharisees supports this connection. In fact, it is interesting that while the crowd (ochlos, GK 4063) is mentioned eight times in ch. 7, the designation does not occur again until 11:42 (NIV, “people”). In ch. 8 Jesus deals exclusively with his Jewish adversaries.
Apparently the Feast of Tabernacles is over and the crowds have returned to their homes. This observation has significance for the context of Jesus’ famous revelatory declaration, “I am the light of the world.” It is customary to point out that during the festival four huge lamps in the court of the women were lit and illuminated the entire temple precincts. It was a time of enthusiastic celebration, with men dancing all night, holding torches and singing (m. Sukkah 5:1–4). The celebration of light reminded the worshipers of Israel’s wilderness journey, when they were led at night by a pillar of fire (Ex 13:21; Ne 9:12). Supposedly it was during this time of celebration that Jesus declared himself to be the “light of the world.” However, if the festival were already past, this particular background would no longer be an option.
So what is the conceptual background of Jesus’ declaration? The OT is rich in its many uses of “light” as a metaphor for spiritual illumination and life. “The Lord is my light and my salvation,” sang the psalmist (Ps 27:1). “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path” (Ps 119:105). The prophet Isaiah promised Israel that in the coming age the Lord himself would be their “everlasting light” (Isa 60:19; cf. Rev 22:5). While in the OT, light and darkness are not portrayed as set over against one another as principles of good and evil (as they are in John), this dualism is prevalent in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which the Essenes (“the sons of light”) are guided by a good spirit (“the prince of lights”) but opposed by an evil spirit (“the angel of darkness” [1QS 3.20–21]).
In Greek thought, darkness was often associated with ignorance and death, while light symbolized life and happiness. It would appear from the universal recognition of light as a metaphor for what is good (in contrast with darkness, which stands for evil) that Jesus’ claim to be “the light of the world” would not require a specific contextual background in order to be understood. It may well be that something as simple as the rising of the sun as he spoke gave rise to this the second of his great “I am” statements. In any case, Jesus goes on to promise that those who follow him need never “walk in darkness.” As the Israelites were led unerringly throughout the night by the pillar of fire, so also can the NT believer escape the darkness of this evil world by following the person and teachings of Jesus Christ. To follow him means to obey him. Christians need walk no longer in the darkness of sin. The light, which is life in Christ, will guide them to the Promised Land.
13 The Pharisees were painfully aware that Jesus’ claim to be the light of the world must be discredited. So using Jesus’ own words in 5:31, they exclaim, “Here you are [a felicitous translation by the NIV of the emphatic sy (you)], appearing as your own witness.” It is clear from certain texts (e.g., Nu 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15) that the testimony of one person only is not enough to establish a matter. They say that since what Jesus is claiming about himself is nothing but his own opinion, “[his] testimony is not valid” (in the sense that it is insufficient to carry the day in a court of law). Jesus’ detractors are not saying that what he claims about himself is necessarily false (though they undoubtedly thought it was) but only that it cannot be verified.
14 Jesus’ rejoinder is that, even though he is bearing witness to himself, his testimony is nevertheless valid. There are other factors to be taken into consideration beyond the mere technicality they have raised. His testimony is valid because he knows two things about himself of which they haven’t the slightest idea: he knows (1) his origin (“where I came from”) and (2) his destiny (“where I am going”). He is “from the Father” (1:14; 16:28) and will return “to the Father” (13:1; 14:12). Bruce, 189, adds that “meanwhile, by an eternal ‘coinherence,’ he is in the Father and the Father in him.” Thus Jesus is uniquely qualified to bear testimony and what he says is by definition true and valid. He alone has the full knowledge necessary to judge the truth of the claims he makes.
15 The Pharisees, on the other hand, have no idea where he comes from or where he is going, i.e., they do not recognize him for who he truly is—the very Son of God. Their judgment is superficial because it is based on human standards. Limited in scope, it must necessarily be less than adequate. In apparent contradiction to 9:39 (“For judgment I have come into this world”), Jesus adds, “I pass judgment on no one.” Two points need clarification. First, the verb krinō (“to judge,” GK 3212) can be used in the sense of “to make an informed decision” as well as in the sense of “to condemn.” Both nuances are present in the immediate context—the latter in v.15 and the former in v.16. The judgment of Jesus by the Pharisees, based as it was on human standards, was heavy with censure. In contrast, Jesus passes judgment on no one (the Greek is simply ou krinō oudena, “I judge no one”).
The second point is related. While it is true that Jesus came to save the world, not to condemn it (3:17), it is also true that people are necessarily judged by their response to him. He came as the light of the world; those who are evil try to escape the light, while those who live by the truth come to the light (3:19–21). Every norm serves to judge what deviates from it. The incarnation is the supreme expression of God’s redemptive love for the world, but coincidentally it results in “judgment” for those who reject it.
16–18 If Jesus does judge (in the sense of making an informed decision), his judgments are trustworthy because he is not alone in his decision—standing with him is the Father, who sent him. While the truth of what Jesus says does not depend on a validating witness (cf. v.14), for the moment he allows his case to be considered by the standard practice of the synagogue. Deuteronomy 17:6 taught that “a matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” Jesus calls this “your own Law” in the sense that it is the law that they accept as authoritative and therefore would consider determinative and binding. The two witnesses are Jesus himself and the Father who sent him (cf. 5:37). So even the formal requirements of the law have been met. According to the Jews’ own regulations, the testimony of Jesus (that he has come as “the light of the world” and that those who follow him “will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life”) is trustworthy and valid.
19 Even on his opponents’ terms Jesus has proven his case, no question about it. Since the Pharisees are logically stalemated, the only thing left for them is to resort to ridicule. Derisively they ask, “And where is this ‘father’ of yours?” (Brown, 342). In essence, they declare, “You’re living in a fantasy world. Your claim to have a ‘father’ who can serve as another witness reveals a serious mental disorder.”
Grieved by their failure to understand the spiritual import of what he has just been saying, Jesus, perhaps reluctantly, acknowledges that the Jewish religious leaders haven’t the slightest clue as to who he really is and that by rejecting him they show that they are unacquainted with his Father as well. It all comes down to this: “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” The ultimate revelation of the Father is made by the Son (1:18). To deny the Son’s witness is to remain in darkness in regard to the Father. Some six months later, on the eve of his crucifixion, Jesus will tell Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (14:9). Since the Pharisees don’t know Jesus, they can’t know the Father. This relationship between the Father and the Son rules out the persistent claim that all paths lead to God.
20 John tells us that Jesus spoke these words while he was teaching in the temple precincts near the place where offerings were collected. This could not be “in the treasury” itself (KJV); rather, it happens in the court of the women, where thirteen large “shofar chests” were placed to receive offerings (cf. Mk 12:41–42). Each chest was shaped like a trumpet and bore an inscription on the side that indicated the purpose for which the money would be used. By saying that “no one seized [Jesus],” John indicates that there were those who either had tried to lay hold of him or wanted very much to do so. But it was not yet God’s time. Jesus’ adversaries were unable to take him into custody because “his time had not yet come” (cf. 2:4; 7:6, 8, 30; 13:1; 17:1).
21 In the previous section (vv.12–20) Jesus taught about his origin, his destiny, and his relationship to the Father. These themes are now developed more fully. Once again, Jesus tells the people that he is going away and that they are unable to come there (cf. 7:33–34). When he says, “you will look for me,” it could mean that when he is gone they will continue to look for the Messiah (the one they did not recognize Jesus to be), but more likely it means that their understanding of who he really is will come too late. They will search for him, but to no avail. Repeating the earlier statement (in 7:33–34), he now adds, “and you will die in your sin.” Their sin (note that the word is singular) is their rejection of Jesus. Unbelief is the essential sin that expresses itself in all sorts of sins (cf. the plural in v.24). Since they have chosen not to believe what Jesus taught about himself, they will die in their sinful state of rejection. A basic OT principle is that each person will die “for his own sin” (Dt 24:16). To die in one’s sin is to die for one’s sin (cf. Eze 3:18–20).
22 One would think that this stern pronouncement by Jesus would have caused men who were religious to reflect on the possibility that what he said might be true. Instead, they try to escape the truth by resorting to mockery. They ask in derision, “You’re not going to kill yourself, are you? [the question in Greek expects a negative answer]. If we can’t go where you are going you must have suicide in mind.”
While the OT does not discuss suicide, it is quite clear that the average Jew considered it a repulsive way to end one’s life. The Jewish historian Josephus (J.W. 3.375) says that when there has been a suicide the body should not be given a public funeral. They reasoned that if Jesus killed himself, he would go to the lowest region of Hades. Obviously the religious Jew could not follow him there! Earlier (in 7:35) they speculated that if they could not find Jesus, it would be because he had gone to the Diaspora to teach the Greeks. Here they postulate something much more serious, namely, suicide.
23 Paying no attention to what his adversaries had said, Jesus continued his discourse by pointing out the radical distinction between them and him. They are “from below”; he is “from above.” The prepositions, being emphatic, serve to make the contrast as definite as possible. What he says is not to be taken in a spatial or geographic sense but has to do with spheres of existence. They are “of this world,” i.e., they belong to “this fallen moral order in conscious rebellion against its creator” (Carson, 342). In sharp contrast, he is “not of this world.” While he came to this world on a redemptive mission (3:16–17), he in no way shares in its fallen nature or its perspective on life. He is in the world but not of the world (17:14, 16).
24 Once again, Jesus reminds his listeners that they will die in their sins if they do not believe that he is the one he claims to be. The NIV translates the familiar egō eimi (lit., “I am”) with “I am the one I claim to be” (NASB, “I am He”). The phrase and its background have occasioned a great deal of debate. One suggestion is that Jesus’ claim echoes Exodus 3:14, where in response to Moses’ request God gives his name as “I AM WHO I AM”—the one whose character is dependable and faithful and who desires the full trust of his people (see NIVSB note at Ex 3:14). But if this Exodus passage had served as the background for Jesus’ claim, we would have expected ho ōn (as in the LXX) instead of egō eimi.
It is more likely that the source of Jesus’ self-designation is to be found in the expression “I am he” in Isaiah 40–55 (specifically 41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 46:4; 48:12; 51:12), which is consistently translated in the LXX by egō eimi. Lindars, 320–21, makes the point that in the Isaiah passages Yahweh is the one who saves his people, and on the lips of Jesus in a parallel situation we should fill out the saying with, “I am the one through whom salvation is accomplished.” The critical point is that the name carries a divine affirmation. By referring to himself as “I am [he],” Jesus lays claim to deity—a claim that is either true or blasphemous in the extreme. “Not to believe what I say about myself,” says Jesus, “is to die in your sins.” The issue is clear: people’s response to Jesus and his claim to be God determines their ultimate destiny. One cannot come face-to-face with truth and remain neutral; hence the division regarding Jesus (7:12; 8:40–41).
25 The response of the opponents (“who are you?”) was not a polite request regarding his identity. It was a caustic “you, who are you to be saying such things?” (The pronoun is “scornfully emphatic” says Morris, 448, quoting Plummer.) Jesus’ reply is certainly the most difficult “sentence” in the Greek text of John. Literally it says, “At the beginning what also I am saying to you.” There are two ways of construing the sentence. One is to make it a question. In this case tēn archēn is taken to mean “at all” and hoti is “why.” This yields something like, “Why should I speak to you at all?” The Pharisees had rejected Jesus and turned to ridicule, so he asks what reason there is for him to continue discussing the matter with them. He says in effect, “You have decided against me, so any further debate would be a waste of time.” The problem with this approach is that in the following verse Jesus says that he has “much to say” to them.
The other approach is to take Jesus’ words as an affirmation. In this case, tēn archēn (an adverbial accusative, as above) is taken to mean “at first,” and hoti is understood as two words, ho and ti (as in NA27). Supplying egō eimi results in the answer, “I am just what I told you at the beginning,” or, “I am from the beginning what I tell you” (so Barrett, 343). P66 inserts eipon hymin (“I told you”) at the beginning of the sentence, thus yielding, “I told you at the beginning what I am also telling you [now].” This makes good sense, but the added words are not found in any other manuscript. The evidence is stronger for the sentence to be taken as an exclamation rather than a question. Jesus is stressing that his testimony has not changed. What he told them at the beginning about himself is what he is still telling them. He claimed that he is “the bread of life” (6:35), that he has come down from heaven to do the will of God (6:38), that by eating his flesh and drinking his blood a person may gain eternal life (6:54), that those who come to him and drink will have streams of living water flowing from within (7:37–38), and that he is “the light of the world” (8:12). All such statements point to the same conclusion—that he is in fact the Son of God sent to bring a fallen human race back into fellowship with the Father. The testimony has been clear from the very beginning.
26 Jesus continues by noting that he has a number of judgments he could make against these people, but that God, who is reliable, is the one who tells him what he is to say. Jesus is unwilling to say anything beyond what the Father tells him to say. By failing to recognize Jesus for who he is, the religious leaders bring condemnation on themselves. More could be said, but only if the Father should prompt Jesus to speak.
27 John adds that the opponents did not recognize the import of what Jesus had just been telling them. In v.25 their “who are you, to be talking to us like this?” indicated they did not grasp the essential fact that God was his Father. The original reading of Codex Sinaiticus (and several Western witnesses) has ton theon (“God”), which translates, “He was telling them that God was [his] Father.” This, undoubtedly, is the meaning of John’s aside in v.27.
28 While the religious elite did not at the moment recognize the heavenly origin of Jesus and his unique relationship to the Father, the time would come when they would know who he really is. “You will know,” says Jesus, “that I am the one I claim to be” (egō eimi), i.e., the one bringing salvation not as a messenger but as God incarnate. The title is not a philosophical statement about his eternal existence but a straightforward declaration that he has come from God, his Father, on a redemptive mission for the lost.
They will recognize Jesus for who he is when they have “lifted up the Son of Man.” This use of the title “Son of Man” is consistent with the Synoptics, where it carries a double application to Jesus’ heavenly origin and his humble life on earth. We first encountered the expression “lifted up” in 3:14, where Jesus taught that “just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up” (cf. 12:32, 34). Lindars, 322, calls it “John’s technical expression for the Passion of Jesus as the manifestation of the divine glory.” For Jesus, the cross was the occasion of his glorification, in spite of its shame and humiliation. When the hour comes “for the Son of Man to be glorified” (12:23), he will be “lifted up from the earth” and “draw all men to [himself]” (12:32).
It is best to put a full stop after “claim to be” and take the subsequent clauses as a separate sentence in which Jesus repeats what he said on earlier occasions (5:30; 7:16)—he does nothing on his own but speaks only what the Father has taught him.
29 While it is true that Jesus has been sent from the Father, it is equally true that the Father is with him. The sending of the Son does not involve separation from the Father. Jesus has not been “left … alone” because he always does what pleases the Father (cf. 6:38). Obedience ensures the blessing of God. Those who live lives marked by obedience find that God is always present. Only disobedience forces the Father to withdraw from conscious fellowship with the believer.
30 John records that “even as [Jesus spoke], many put their faith in him.” Earlier, at another feast (Passover), Jesus performed miraculous signs, and many people “believed in his name” (2:23). It appears, however, that such faith was not authentic (cf. 2:24–25). One wonders whether the faith of those who believed as a result of his discourse at the Feast of Tabernacles was any different. Ryle, 3:537, wisely says, “The extent to which men may be intellectually convinced of the truth of religion and know their duty, while their hearts are unrenewed and they continue in sin, is one of the most painful phenomena in the history of human nature.”
31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
33They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”
34Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.”
COMMENTARY
31 Jesus continues by pointing out to the believing Jews that, although they had descended from Abraham, they were still in bondage to sin (vv.32–33). Obviously this poses a problem: How could those who were continuing in sin be at the same time genuine disciples of Jesus? Some, holding that pisteuō eis (“to put one’s faith into”) in v.30 refers to genuine faith, conclude that pisteuō plus the dative (“to believe”) in v.31 refers to a different group whose faith was spurious in the sense that it fell short of what is required to be a genuine follower of Jesus. That this distinction does not hold is clear from the use of the former construction in 2:23 of those with questionable faith and the latter construction in 5:24 where eternal life is promised to those who believe. Others propose that vv.30–31 refer to genuine believers, but from that point on the narrative speaks of Jewish opponents to the Christian faith in John’s day. Carson, 347, is undoubtedly right in saying that such historical reconstruction “comports well with certain scholarly fads but is little based on exegesis.”
The simplest answer is that as the paragraph continues Jesus is directing his remarks to those whose “faith” was far more cerebral than personal and life changing. They had mentally acquiesced to the idea that Jesus had been sent from God, but they were not prepared to respond to the ethical and moral consequences of that truth. So Jesus points out that only if they “hold [menō, GK 3531] to [his] teaching” (NEB, “dwell within the revelation I have brought”) will they prove truly to be his disciples. Menō (“remain,” “continue,” “stand firm”) is a favorite Johannine term that occurs forty times in his gospel and an additional twenty-three times in his epistles. Here it denotes a determined resolve to live out in daily life the full scope of Jesus’ teaching. It is only those in whom the words of Jesus become incarnate who are in fact his disciples. Nowhere in the Gospels will you find the demands of faith watered down, so as to leave the feeling that Jesus’ major concern for his followers is that they become pleasant people. The radical demands of the NT have as their goal the spiritual transformation of sinful people into the image of Jesus Christ—a demanding challenge that cannot countenance anything less than full commitment. “Live in my word,” says Jesus in effect. “Let what I say control your every action, and you will show that you really are my disciples.”
32 Against this background of wholehearted commitment to Jesus’ teachings, obedient Christians will “know the truth,” and this very truth “will set them free.” The truth of which Jesus speaks is not the truth of rational discourse, an intellectual attainment, but the truth of relationship. It is the revelatory truth of knowing Jesus for who he is. It is the truth that liberates people from the bondage of sin and sets them free to become the kind of people their Creator intended them to be. Judaism held that a person is made free by studying the law (m. ʾAbot 3:5), but John maintains that those very Scriptures (the OT) testify to Jesus (5:39) and that Jesus himself is the truth (14:6) that liberates. To know the truth is not merely to understand what it affirms but to commit oneself personally to the one who is the truth. It is interesting that truth by its very nature cannot appeal to something outside itself for verification. It is self-validating. It would be beside the point, then, for Jesus, who is the truth, to provide a secondary witness in support of his claim to be who he says he is. Truth stands alone. Those who have by faith established a personal relationship with Jesus are not at all in the dark as to who he is—they recognize him as the truth, and this revelatory experience sets them free from the bondage of sin.
33 Jesus’ claim that by obeying his teaching they will come to know the truth and consequently be set free strikes his Jewish audience as preposterous. From their standpoint, they already possess the truth. Are they not descendants of Abraham and heirs of the covenantal blessings that flow from this relationship? And since they are certain that they do have the truth, does it not follow that in no sense could they be in bondage? “We have never been slaves of anyone,” they confidently assert. Undoubtedly they are not referring to political freedom. Their national history had been one long account of living under foreign dominance. First it was Egypt, then Assyria, Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, Syria, and—at that particular time—Rome. What they are claiming is that, based on their favored position as the people of God, they cannot be held to be slaves of anything or anyone. Those who possess the truth, specifically religious truth, have no need of being set free. They are not slaves.
34 But Jesus solemnly (note the amēn amēn [GK 297]; NIV, “I tell you the truth”) lays down the axiom that “everyone who sins is a slave to sin.” The verb tense (present continuous) indicates that he is speaking of those who continue in sin, those who spend their days living in sin. Jesus’ words are very much like those of Paul in Romans 6:12–23, where sin is pictured as an enslaving power that ultimately brings about death. Sin enslaves all who live in it, and the slavery it engenders is evidence of the reality of its presence.
35 Jesus goes on to point out that while a servant has no permanent place in the family, a son “belongs to [the family] forever.” Jesus is pointing out the authority vested in the Son to liberate those who are in bondage to sin.
36 True freedom is not the option of doing whatever you might want to do, but the privilege of opting to do what is right. Jesus is the Son who opens the door to real freedom. So “if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” Note that in v.32 it was the “truth” that sets a person free; here it is the Son. The Son is that truth which releases the sinner from the bondage of sin. He not only speaks the truth; he is the truth.
37 Jesus acknowledges that in terms of national heritage his antagonists are indeed descended from Abraham. But they are not true spiritual descendants of the patriarch—made clear from the fact that they are “ready to kill [him].” His word has found no place in their hearts, and consequently they have decided to put him away for good (cf. 5:18; 7:1). Their conduct demonstrates that they are not Abraham’s spiritual descendants; what’s more, it shows that they are deserting the teaching of Jesus. Whatever the nature of their “faith” (vv.30–31), it falls tragically short of what is required to become a child of God.
38 What Jesus has been teaching (about himself and his relationship to the Father) is nothing but what he has “seen in the Father’s presence.” His knowledge of the truth is firsthand and experiential. In contrast, they are doing what they have “heard from [their] father”—who, as we will soon learn, is none other than the devil (v.44).
It is instructive to note the parallels in v.38:
|
“I” (Jesus) |
“you” (the Jews); |
|
“I” (Jesus) |
“you” (the Jews); |
|
his Father |
their father. |
Everything these people are and do stands in stark contrast to Jesus and his redemptive mission. Little wonder that they denounced his teaching and turned to what they considered to be the ultimate solution.
NOTES
32 G. W. Bromiley (ISBE 4:926–28) distinguishes between truth as presented in the Bible (ʾemet, GK 622, in the OT; ἀληθεία alētheia, GK 237, in the NT) and several kinds of secular truth. Biblical truth should not be confused with the eternal truths of philosophical abstraction, because apart from the knowledge of God, human beings, flawed by sin, can evolve only approximate ideas of truth. Neither should it be confused with the truth of science, for the latter is necessarily restricted to a narrower field. Not even ecclesiastical truth (dogma) may be identified with the truth of Scripture, for, as helpful as dogma may be, “the truth of God cannot be finally reduced to an intellectualized dogmatic confession which can be handed down by ordinary processes of communication” (ISBE 4:927).
35 The Greek word οἰκία (oikia, GK 3864) can refer either to a house as a building or to those who live in the house, i.e., “household” or “family” (NIV chooses “family”; NASB adopts the more literal “house”). It occurs five times in the gospel of John, twice with the meaning of a literal house (11:31; 12:3) and three times with the extended meaning of “household” (4:53; 8:35; 14:2). In the latter sense, it includes not only the immediate family but also relatives and servants living under the same roof. In Philippians 4:22, “those who belong to Caesar’s household” included all who served in the court of the emperor, both slave and free, from wherever they may have come (cf. EDNT 2:495).
39“Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did. 40As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your own father does.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
COMMENTARY
39 Earlier in the encounter, the Jews claimed to be descendants of Abraham (v.33). Now by calling Abraham their father, they are claiming to be his children. This latter assertion is of greater moment in that it implies a close and spiritual relationship. Jesus acknowledges that in one sense they had descended from Abraham (they were his sperma, lit., “seed,” GK 5065, v.37), but he is unwilling to concede that they are therefore his children (tekna, GK 5451, v.39). The NIV follows variants that make Jesus’ response a contrary-to-fact conditional sentence. “If you were Abraham’s children …. then you would do the things Abraham did.” The clear implication is that their conduct belies their assertion that they are the spiritual descendants of the patriarch. While Abraham received the messengers of God with proper decorum (Ge 18:1–8) and rejoiced when looking forward to the coming of the Christ (Jn 8:56), the attitude of Jesus’ opponents is exactly the opposite—they are trying to kill him (v.37). If they were truly the children of Abraham, they would extend to him the same consideration their “father” had.
Some scholars take Jesus’ statement as ironic. NA27 has the first verb in the present tense (este, “you are”) and the second in the imperfect (epoieite, “you were doing”). In this case, the meaning of the sentence is something like, “Since you are Abraham’s children, what you have been doing [i.e., trying to kill me] must be what Abraham would have done.” It is obvious that Abraham would not be trying to take Jesus’ life, so it follows that their claim to be his children is a sham. However, no matter which way the sentence is taken, the result is essentially the same.
40–41 That Jesus’ opponents were determined to kill him (though his only “crime” was to tell them what he heard from God) demonstrates how irrational and vicious was their reaction to truth incarnate. Leaders trained by the best minds of Israel conduct themselves as demented riffraff when confronted with the claims of truth and justice. So much for the power of intellect in dealing with issues of a spiritual nature! It is certain that Abraham would not have done what they were trying to do. Nor would any true child of Abraham. What they are doing, says Jesus, is what “[their] own father does” (v.41). While Jesus doesn’t actually name their real spiritual father until v.44, they understand where he is headed.
To obscure the real point at issue they resort to personal slander and taunt Jesus with the accusation, “We are not illegitimate children” (v.41; NASB, “born of fornication”). When losing the argument, resort to argumentum ad hominem! Some understand the reference to illegitimacy as an allusion to certain irregularities connected with Jesus’ birth. There is some (though later) evidence of Jewish slander against Jesus that claimed he was born out of wedlock (cf. Acts of Pilate, 2:3; Origen, Cels., 1:28). Others take it as anticipating their indictment of Jesus in v.48 as “a Samaritan and demon-possessed.” There is some evidence of a legend that Satan seduced Eve and that their son, Cain, became the father of the Jews rather than Seth (cf. Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Bible [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1956], 54). In that case, the Pharisees would be denying in the strongest possible terms that they belonged to this particular illegitimate family line. Or it may be that they were affirming in OT terms that they were members of the true religion, and not apostate. Whatever their denial of illegitimacy refers to, one thing they believe to be absolutely certain: God himself is their only Father. Not only is Abraham the physical progenitor of their race, God himself is their true and only spiritual father. Not even for a moment do they consider that there might be some truth in what Jesus has been saying. His argument that conduct reveals origin goes unheeded. Their answer to all such issues is to affirm repeatedly what they have already decided to believe about themselves. No one is so blind as the person convinced of his or her own spiritual superiority.
42 The simple truth is that if God were the father of those who were opposing Jesus, they would love (instead of oppose) him. The reason is obvious—he “came from God” and now is present in their midst. To know God as Father is to love the Son who was sent by him. As John put it in his first epistle, “Everyone who loves the father loves his child as well” (1Jn 5:1). The failure of the Jews to welcome Jesus with gladness reveals the tragic fact that God is not their father.
43 Jesus asks why his “language” (lalia, GK 3282, is “audible speech” in contrast to logos, GK 3364, v.43b, which refers to his message, the content of what he is saying) is “not clear” to them. The words he uses should be perfectly comprehensible. He then answers his own question: they don’t understand because “[they] are unable to hear” what he is saying. Since Jesus’ language is clearly comprehensible, the problem must lie in a different area. The truth is that they are so blinded by their preconceptions that they are unable to hear and grasp the essential truth he is laying before them. Comprehension depends on being spiritually open to the truth. Their failure to understand stemmed from their misguided certainty that what Jesus had to say was wrong because of who they had already decided him to be.
In passing, it is interesting that the CEV takes v.43b not as answering v.43a but as an additional question: “Can’t you stand to hear what I am saying?” The suggestion is not without merit, because the Greek text begins with hoti (“because”) and requires the reader to fill in some appropriate words. (The NIV’s rendering is an incomplete sentence.) If the CEV is right, v.43b essentially repeats the question rather than providing an answer to it.
44 At this point Jesus states unequivocally what up till now he has only alluded to: “You belong to your father, the devil.” The issue is clear-cut, as Jesus says in effect, “Not Abraham but the devil is your true father. He has been a murderer from the beginning, and it is his malicious desires that you are intent on carrying out. He robbed Adam and Eve of their immortality and brought death to the entire human race [cf. Ro 5:12]. No wonder you want to kill me. Not only that, but your father, the devil, abandoned the truth. He questioned the susceptible Eve as to whether God had really prohibited eating fruit from the tree and assured her that if she did she would not die [Ge 3:1–4; cf. 2:17].” Lying comes naturally to the devil because “there is no truth in him …. He is a liar and the father of lies” (cf. Ac 5:3).
45 It is important to note that for Jesus the devil is not some personification of evil but actually exists and is engaged in all sorts of deceitful and destructive practices. His control of the minds and actions of the Jewish leaders is so extensive that it can be truthfully said that he is their father. In contrast, Jesus tells the truth, and it is for this very reason that they do not believe him. They have drunk so deeply at the wells of falsehood that they are unable to even recognize the truth. Error has become truth, resulting in a dramatic reversal in which all genuine truth is necessarily judged to be erroneous. When darkness becomes light, all light is darkness.
46 That this denunciation of his opponents is absolutely true is supported by what Morris, 465, calls Jesus’ “staggering assertion of sinlessness”—“Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” “Is there anyone anywhere,” Jesus is asking, “who can demonstrate that I have done anything wrong? If not, it follows that, since I am telling the truth, you should believe me. You who are supposedly committed to the truth ought to accept what I have to say.”
47 As certain as night follows day, the person who belongs to God will gladly listen to what God has to say. The reason that Jesus’ adversaries do not hear and obey his message is that they “do not belong to God.” These assertions made by Jesus are tremendous in their scope. He has claimed in the presence of the religious leaders of the day that he has come from God, that he is without sin and can be trusted absolutely, and that—in spite of all their pretensions—they do not belong to God but have as their father the devil. Obviously such devastating challenges cannot go unanswered.
NOTES
41 While μοιχεία (moicheia, GK 3657) in v.3 refers to adultery in the sense of illicit sexual relations between two people, at least one of whom is married, πορνεία (porneia, GK 4518; used here in the phrase ἐκ πορνείας … γεγεννήμεθα, ek porneias … gegennēmetha, “are [not] illegitimate children”) is a broader term referring to “various kinds of ‘unsanctioned sexual intercourse’” (BDAG, 854). The latter term is used literally in reference to prostitution, unchastity, and fornication, and figuratively of apostasy from God. Since the relationship between God and his people was viewed as a marriage bond, any breaking of that bond would be harlotry.
44 The NASB’s “you are of your father the devil” comes closer to reflecting the Greek preposition ἐκ (ek), which stresses the idea of source or origin. To “belong to … the devil” (NIV) is much weaker than to “have one’s origin in the devil”. The NET has “from your father the devil,” but this lacks the strong emphasis of the Greek preposition.