Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 7:23
If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
23. that the law of Moses should not be broken ] i.e. the law about circumcision on the eighth day (Lev 12:3), which was a re-enactment of the patriarchal law (Gen 17:12). Some adopt the inferior rendering in the margin; ‘without breaking the law of Moses,’ or ‘without the law of Moses being broken;’ in which case ‘the law of Moses’ means the law about the Sabbath.
are ye angry ] The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. It signifies bitter and violent resentment.
because I have made ] Better, because I made. Comp. Joh 7:21.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
That the law of Moses should not be broken – In order that the law requiring it to be done at a specified time, though that might occur on the Sabbath, should be kept.
Are ye angry … – The argument of Jesus is this: You yourselves, in interpreting the law about the Sabbath, allow a work of necessity to be done. You do that which is necessary as an ordinance of religion denoting separation from other nations, or external purity. As you allow this, you ought also, for the same reason, to allow that a man should be completely restored to health – that a work of much more importance should be done. We may learn here that it would be happy for all if they would not condemn others in that thing which they allow. People often accuse others of doing things which they themselves do in other ways.
Every whit whole – Literally, I have restored the whole man to health, implying that the mans whole body was diseased, and that he had been entirely restored to health.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 23. Every whit whole] The law of circumcision required the removal of a small portion of flesh, which was considered a blot and reproach among the Hebrews, because it confounded them with the nations who were not in covenant with God. Christ, to this, opposes the complete cure of the infirm man, who was diseased throughout his whole body: if the one was permitted on the Sabbath day, for the reason already alleged, surely the other had stronger reasons to recommend it.
Some think that the original words, , should be translated, the whole man; and that the meaning is, that the blessed Saviour made him whole both in body and soul. This makes the miracle the greater, and shows still more forcibly the necessity of doing it without delay.
Battier ap. Wets. supposes that, instead of , should be read – I have made a MAIMED man whole; but there is no countenance for this reading in any of the MSS., versions, or fathers.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The strength of this whole argument seemeth to be this: If a ritual law (such was that for observation of the sabbath, given in Mount Sinai, Exo 20:1-17) may give place to another ritual law which is more ancient, (such was that of circumcision, given to Abraham long before), much more ought it to give place to a law of nature written in every mans heart, viz. that it is our duty to help those that are in great degrees of misery and affliction; which is what I paid obedience to in curing the impotent man that lay at the pool of Bethesda. Do you yield this in your daily practice, that a man may be circumcised, yea, and ought to be circumcised, on the eighth day, though it happeneth to be the sabbath day; and not to do it were a violation of the law of Moses about circumcision, which was a law given you by Moses, though, before him, to Abraham also? What reason then have you to be angry with me, who on the sabbath day have only healed a man, and made him
every whit whole? That is, (as some think), I have not only cured him as to his body, but as to his soul; but that hardly seemeth probable; for if it were so, the Jews could have no evidence of the spiritual cure. Others therefore think that the term , signifieth no more than perfectly, or completely whole, as to his body.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
21-24. I have done one work,c.Taking no notice of the popular appeal, as there were thosethere who knew well enough what He meant, He recalls His cure of theimpotent man, and the murderous rage it had kindled (Joh 5:9Joh 5:16; Joh 5:18).It may seem strange that He should refer to an event a year and ahalf old, as if but newly done. But their present attempt “tokill Him” brought up the past scene vividly, not only to Him,but without doubt to them, too, if indeed they had ever forgotten it;and by this fearless reference to it, exposing their hypocrisy anddark designs, He gave His position great moral strength.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision,…. As it was certain in many instances he did:
that the law of Moses might not be broken; either the law concerning circumcision, which confirmed the law given to Abraham, and required it should be on the eighth day, let it fall when it would, even on a sabbath day; and therefore on that day, male children received circumcision, that that law might be kept, and not be broken: or else the law concerning the sabbath; and the sense be, if circumcision was administered on the sabbath day, “without breaking the law of Moses”, as some render the words, which commanded the observation of the sabbath,
are ye angry at me; and pursue me with so much wrath and bitterness,
because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? or “a man that was whole, sound on the sabbath day”; who was wholly, or all over disordered, every limb of whom shook with the palsy: or as some think the sense is, he was made every whit whole, both in soul and body; and then the argument is, if it was, no breach of the sabbath to make a wound, and lay a plaster on it, as in circumcision; it would be no violation of it, nor ought any to be offended with it, that Christ should heal a diseased man, who was so in every part of his body, and restore health to his soul likewise and nothing is more common with the Jews than to say, the danger of life, and , “the preservation of the soul”, or life, drive away the sabbath b.
b T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 132. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
That the law of Moses may not be broken ( ). Purpose clause with negative and first aorist passive subjunctive of . They are punctilious about their Sabbath rules and about circumcision on the eighth day. When they clash, they drop the Sabbath rule and circumcise.
Are ye wroth with me? ( ;). Old word from (bile, gall), possibly from or (yellowish green). Only here in N.T. So to be mad. With dative. Vivid picture of bitter spleen against Jesus for healing a man on the sabbath when they circumcise on the Sabbath.
A man every whit whole ( ). Literally, “a whole () man (all the man) sound (, well),” not just one member of the body mended.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Are ye angry [] . Only here in the New Testament. From colh, gall. Strictly, the verb means to be full of bile, hence to be melancholy mad.
Every whit whole [ ] . Strictly, I made a whole man sound, in contrast with the rite of circumcision which affects only a single member, but which, nevertheless, they practice on the Sabbath.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision,” (ei peritomen lambanei ho anthropos en sabbato) “if a man receives circumcision on a sabbath,” on an holy day, on the eighth day of his life, and they did, Gen 17:10-11; Exo 12:48, Jos 5:3.
2) “That the law of Moses should not be broken;- (hina me luthe ho nomos Mouseos) “in order that the law of Moses is not broken,” Deu 10:16; Jos 5:2; Jos 5:4, as it relates to circumcision. This circumcision was a surgical operation on the male child, to remove the foreskin, a thing that was regarded as necessary for physical cleanliness, yet, Jesus said of the law, “none of you keep it,” in the strictest sense.
3) “Are ye angry at me,” (emoi cholate) “Are you all angry with me,” bitter as gall or bile, or mad with rage; Explain please which is more sacred and merciful, circumcision on the sabbath, or making a cripple, an object of community charity whole, on the sabbath? Joh 5:8-9.
4) “Because I made a man every whit whole,” (hoti holon anthropon hugie epoiesa) “Because I made a man to be healthy,” healed a man, Joh 5:14-15.
5) “On the sabbath day?” (en sabbato) “On a sabbath?” on an holy day. Is that an holy or righteous attitude? is the idea, Joh 5:10; Joh 5:16; Joh 5:18.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(23) That the law of Moses should not be broken.The text here is to be preferred to the marginal reading, though the latter has still the support of considerable authority. In the one case, the law which may not be broken is the law directing circumcision on the eighth day. In the other, without breaking the law of Moses, refers to the law of the Sabbath. The rule of circumcision on the eighth day (Gen. 17:12; Gen. 21:4) was adopted in the Mosaic law (Lev. 12:3), and strictly adhered towe have examples in the New Testament, in Luk. 1:59; Luk. 2:21, and Php. 3:5and if the eighth day fell on the Sabbath, then, according to Rabbinic precept, circumcision vacated the Sabbath. The school of Hillel the Greatand disciples of this school were at the time of our Lord the chief teachers at Jerusalem (comp. Note on Joh. 5:39)gave as a reason for this that the Sabbath Law was one of the Negative and the Circumcision Law one of the Positive Precepts, and that the Positive destroys the Negative. His appeal, then, is an example of His knowledge of their technical law, at which they wondered in Joh. 7:15. Indeed, the argument itself is an example of Hillels first great law of interpretationthat the Major may be inferred from the Minor. If circumcision be lawful on the Sabbath, much more is it lawful to restore the whole man. For other instances in which our Lord used this famous Canon of Interpretation, comp. Mat. 7:11; Mat. 10:29-31.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
23. Circumcision every whit whole There is here, no doubt, an allusion to the physical contrast, Circumcision is mutilation; the healing was making whole. The exertion of physical power in both cases is equally palpable and strong; so that, physically, they would equally be work, and both would break the Sabbath were they not both and equally religious acts. The miracle was a religious act, as being an organic part of the scheme of God in man’s redemption, as truly as the Sabbath itself.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joh 7:23. Because I have made a man every whit whole Because I have wrought the total cure of a man, both in mind and body, as may be collected from ch. Joh 5:14.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 7:23 . ] Circumcision , without the article, but placed emphatically first, corresponding with in the apodosis.
, . . .] in order that so the law of Moses be not broken (by the postponement of the rite), seeing that it prescribes circumcision upon the eighth day. Jansen, Bengel, Semler, Paulus, Kuinoel, Klee, Baeumlein, wrongly render “ without ,” and take . . to mean the law of the Sabbath .
] towards me how unjust! On , denoting bitter , violent anger (only here in the N. T.), comp. Mal 3:1Mal 3:1 ; Artemid. i. 4; Beck, Anecd . p. 116.
. . . .] The emphasis of the antithesis is on ., in contrast with the single member in the case of circumcision. We must not, therefore, with Kling in the Stud. u. Krit . 1836, p. 157 f., find here the antithesis between wounding and making whole ; nor, with B. Crusius, that between an act for the sake of the law , on account of which circumcision was performed, and one for the sake of the man himself ; similarly Grotius. In . , further, there must necessarily be expressed an analogy with what is done in circumcision, which is therefore equally regarded as a cure , and a healing , not with reference to the subsequent healing of the wound (Cyril, Lampe), for . is circumcision itself, not its healing; nor with reference to the supposed medical object of circumcision (Rosenmller, Kuinoel, Lcke, Lange; comp. Philo, de Circumcis . II. 210 f.; see, on the contrary, Keil, Archaeol . I. 309 f.), no trace of which was contained either in the law or in the religious ideas of the people; but with reference to the purification and sanctification wrought upon the member by the removal of the foreskin. [265] In this theocratic sense, a single member was made whole by circumcision; but Christ, by healing the paralytic, had made an entire man whole, i.e. the whole body of a man. The argument in justification, accordingly, is one a minori ad majus ; if it was right not to omit the lesser work on the Sabbath, how much more the greater and more important! To take ., with Euthymius Zigabenus 2, Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, and Olshausen, as signifying body and soul , in contrast with the , on which circumcision was performed, is alien to the connection, which shows that the Sabbath question had to do only with the bodily healing, and to the account of the miracle itself, according to which Jesus only warned the man who had been made whole, Joh 5:14 .
[265] Comp. Bammidbar, R. xii:i. 203. 2 : “praeputium est vitium in corpore.” With this view, which regards the foreskin as impure, a view which does not appear till a late date (Ewald, Alterth . p. 129 f.), corresponds the idea of the circumcision of the heart , which we find in Lev 26:41 , Deu 10:16 ; Deu 30:6 , and often in the prophets and the N. T., Rom 2:29 , Col 2:11 , Act 7:51 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
Ver. 23. That the law of Moses should not be broken ] Gr. loosened, shattered. The law is one entire copulative; so that he that offendeth in any point is guilty of all, Jas 2:10 . Hence when the sabbath was broken, the Lord said to Moses, “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?”Exo 16:28Exo 16:28 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
23. ] not, “ ita ut non solvatur ” “ salva lege ;” which is ungrammatical; but in order that the Law of Moses may not be broken , viz. that which (after the fathers) ordains circumcision on the eighth day.
. ] The distinction is between circumcision, which purified only part of a man, by which he received ( ) ceremonial cleanness, and that perfect and entire healing which the Lord bestowed on the cripple. Stier (after Bengel) thinks the refers to body and soul , see ch. Joh 5:14 , whose healing is a much greater benefit than circumcision, even viewed as a sacrament: “nam circumcisio est medium , sanatio anim finis .” But this is perhaps too subtle. The Jews could not have appreciated this meaning, and the argument is especially addressed to them . Besides, it is by no means certain from that passage that such was the case.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
are ye angry? Greek cholao (from chole = bile). Occurs only here.
every whit = entirely (in contrast with one member).
whole = sound (in contrast with wound).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
23.] -not,-ita ut non solvatur-salva lege; which is ungrammatical;-but in order that the Law of Moses may not be broken, viz. that which (after the fathers) ordains circumcision on the eighth day.
.] The distinction is between circumcision, which purified only part of a man, by which he received () ceremonial cleanness,-and that perfect and entire healing which the Lord bestowed on the cripple. Stier (after Bengel) thinks the refers to body and soul,-see ch. Joh 5:14,-whose healing is a much greater benefit than circumcision, even viewed as a sacrament: nam circumcisio est medium, sanatio anim finis. But this is perhaps too subtle. The Jews could not have appreciated this meaning, and the argument is especially addressed to them. Besides, it is by no means certain from that passage that such was the case.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 7:23. , that not) but that,[184] so that the law may not be broken; or else, without the law being broken thereby.- , the law of Moses) the law concerning the Sabbath, which is not violated by circumcision being performed on it.-, at me) as if I have broken the law concerning the Sabbath.-, are ye angry) in Homer, as Eustathius observes, denotes also a lasting anger. This anger of the Jews had lasted now for sixteen months; but it blazed out with a new paroxysm, when they saw Jesus.-, the whole [man, body and soul. Eng. Vers. differently every whit whole, ]) It is not the whole body of the man, which is opposed to that part, which is circumcised; for a consequence, in the case of an admission, does not proceed from less to greater, in this way, It is lawful to circumcise a part, therefore it is lawful to cure the whole body. But it is the whole man, body and soul, ch. Joh 5:14,[185] whose healing is a benefit much greater, and, so much more becoming the Sabbath and sanctioned by the law, than the external act of circumcision regarded by itself, or even circumcision, even though it should be regarded as a sacrament. For circumcision is a mean: healing of the soul is an end. [Besides circumcision is accomplished not without a wound; healing therefore is more in accordance with the Sabbath.-V. g.]-, I have made) , by supreme power.
[184] Quin, whereby not; to prevent the law being broken.-E. and T.
[185] Behold thou art made whole; sin no more. Implying a healing of the soul as well as body.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 7:23
Joh 7:23
If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken; are ye wroth with me, because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath?-If God through Moses could set aside the Sabbath law to circumcise a child, why may not God through Jesus set aside the same law to heal an afflicted man? [The law of mercy was older than either circumcision or the Sabbath. His accusers were, therefore, inconsistent in their indignation against him because he had performed an act of mercy in healing a man. Mercy was Gods eternal law.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
that the law of Moses should not be broken: or, without breaking the law of Moses, Mat 12:5
I have made: Rather, “I have healed a whole man” [Strong’s G3650], [Strong’s G444], and not the circumcised member only. This reasoning was in perfect accordance with the principles of the Jews. So Tanchuma, “Circumcision, which is performed on one of the 248 members of man, vacates the sabbath; how much more the whole body of a man!” Joh 5:8, Joh 5:9, Joh 5:14-16
Reciprocal: Gen 17:12 – he that is eight days old Gen 21:4 – General Lev 12:3 – General Mat 14:36 – perfectly Mar 2:27 – General Luk 14:3 – Is Joh 5:18 – broken Act 3:16 – perfect Act 4:9 – the good
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3
The act of performing circumcision, which was a surgical one, was certainly as much a manual labor as was that of curing an invalid. Yet they condemned Jesus for doing that, while they persisted in doing the other.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 7:23. If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath day, that the law of Moses may not be broken, are ye angry with me, because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Their reverence for the law and their determination that it should not be broken led them to break the letter of the Fourth Commandment, or rather to do that which they would otherwise have thought inconsistent with its precept. How then can they be indignant at Jesus for the deed which He had done on the sabbath? He had performed a far more healing work than circumcision. He had given not merely a token of the removal of uncleanness, but complete freedom from the blight and woe which sin had brought (see chap. Joh 5:14) on the whole man. It may be thought that in this last expression our Lord refers only to the cure of a disease by which the entire body had been prostrated; but the verse just quoted (chap. Joh 5:14), and the recollection of the figurative and spiritual application of the rite of circumcision with which the prophets had made the Jews familiar, warn us against limiting the miracle at the pool of Bethesda to the restoration of physical health.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the {f} law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
(f) That is to say, if the law of circumcision which Moses gave matters so much to you that you do not hesitate to circumcise upon the sabbath, do you rightly reprove me for thoroughly healing a man?
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus’ critics permitted an act on the Sabbath that resulted in the health of part of a person, and an infant at that, on the Sabbath. They should not, therefore, object to His healing a whole adult then. Moreover they performed circumcisions regularly on the Sabbath, but Jesus had only healed one man on one Sabbath. Circumcision was an operation designed to insure good health. The circumcised child was not even ill. Jesus on the other hand had healed a man who had suffered with a serious handicap for 38 years. Moreover circumcision was only a purification rite, but healing a paralytic involved deliverance from enslavement. Therefore it was unfair for Jesus’ critics to be angry with Him for what He had done.
The Jews had established a hierarchy of activities by which they judged the legitimacy of performing any work on the Sabbath (cf. Mat 12:9-10). They based this hierarchy on necessary need, urgency. Jesus also operated from a hierarchical viewpoint, but He based His hierarchy on what was best for people (Mar 2:27).
"Had his opponents understood the implications of the Mosaic provision for circumcision on the Sabbath they would have seen that deeds of mercy such as he has just done were not merely permissible but obligatory. Moses quite understood that some things should be done even on the Sabbath. The Jews had his words but not his meaning." [Note: Morris, p. 362.]