Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 7:42
Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
42. of the seed of David ] Psa 132:11; Jer 23:5; Isa 11:1; Isa 11:10.
out of the town of Bethlehem ] Literally, from Bethlehem, the village where David was. Mic 5:2; 1 Samuel 16.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 42. Where David was?] That is, where he was born, 1Sa 16:1; 1Sa 16:4, and where he was before he became king in Israel.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Scriptures of the Old Testament had both described the family from whence the Messiah was to arise, viz. the family of David, Psa 132:11, and the town, which was Bethlehem, Mic 5:2; which was Davids fathers town, where he lived also, till God called him out to the kingdom, 1Sa 17:15; 20:6.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
42. scripture said . . . of the seedof David, and out of . . . Bethlehem, c.We accept thisspontaneous testimony to our David-descended, Bethlehem-born Saviour.Had those who gave it made the inquiry which the case demanded, theywould have found that Jesus “came out of Galilee” (Joh7:41) and “out of Bethlehem” both, alike in fulfilmentof prophecy as in point of fact. (Mat 2:23Mat 4:13-16).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Hath not the Scripture said,…. These objectors were those who were accounted the more wise and knowing; who were conversant with the Scriptures, and pretended at least to a large knowledge of them:
that Christ cometh out of the seed of David; that he should be a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots; that he should be one out of David’s loins, and of the fruit of his body, referring to Isa 11:1, which was very true, and what was commonly known, and expected among the Jews, that the Messiah should be David’s son, as Jesus of Nazareth was, Ac 13:23;
and out of the town of Bethlehem where David was? where his parents lived, and he was born; and, according to Jerom k, he was buried here. The account he gives of this city, where he himself for some time lived,
“is Bethlehem, the city of David, in the lot of the tribe of Judah, in which our Lord and Saviour was born, is six miles from Aelia, (i.e. Jerusalem) to the south, by the way which leads to Hebron, where also is showed the sepulchre of Jesse and David.”
In which may be observed likewise the exact distance of this place from Jerusalem; which, according to Josephus l, at least as he is generally understood, was but twenty furlongs: and, according to Justin m, thirty five: but that this is the true distance, is clear from the old Jerusalem Itinerary n, and which agrees with Jerom about the sepulchre of David; for not far from it is the monument of Ezekiel, Asaph, Job, Jesse, David, and Solomon: however, it is certain that David was born here, and therefore it is called his city; and from hence the Messiah was to come; and here Jesus, the true Messiah, was born, and which the Jews themselves own;
[See comments on Mt 2:1],
[See comments on Lu 2:4]; and in vain it is for them to expect the Messiah from thence, where none of their nation live, nor have lived, for many hundreds of years; being particularly forbid by Adrian, after he had subdued them, living in or near Jerusalem, and also Bethlehem. Tertullian o refers to this when he thus argues with them, and very justly, and strongly;
“if he is not yet born, who, it is said, shall come forth a ruler out of Bethlehem, of the tribe of Judah, he must come (says he) out of the tribe of Judah and from Bethlehem; but we now observe, that no one of the stock of Israel remains in Bethlehem, because it is forbidden that anyone of the Jews should continue on the border of that country–how shall the governor be born in Judea, come forth from Bethlehem, as the divine books of the Prophets declare, when there is none of Israel left there at this day, of whose lineage Christ can be born?–how shall he come out of Bethlehem, when there is none in Bethlehem of the stock of Israel?”
And the passage they had in view, is Mic 5:2. Now these very things they object to Jesus being the Messiah, were what were fulfilled in him, and proved him to be the person; for his supposed father, and real mother Mary, were of the house and lineage of David; and though he was conceived at Nazareth, and brought up there, yet by a remarkable providence, which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, he was born there, Lu 2:4.
k De locis Hebraicis, fol. 89. E. l Antiqu. l. 7. c. 12. sect. 4. m Apolog. 2. p. 75. n In Reland. Palestina illustrata, l. 2. c. 4. p. 416. Vid. c. 9. p. 445. & l. 3. p. 645. o Adv. Judaeos, c. 13. p. 224, 225.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The scripture ( ). The reference is to Mic 5:2, the very passage quoted by the chief priests and scribes in response to Herod’s inquiry (Mt 2:6). This ignorance of the fact that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem belongs to the Jews, not to John the author of the Gospel.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Hath not the scriptures said,” (ouch he graphe eipen) “Has not the scriptures disclosed,” and they appear to be those who judged by hearsay, and had not themselves read, heard, or given heed to the scriptures, Rom 10:17; Joh 5:39.
2) ”That Christ cometh of the seed of David,” (hoti ek tou spermatos; David erchetai ho Christos) “That Christ comes of the seed of David?” and of the tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10; 2Sa 7:12; 1Ki 8:25; Luk 1:69; Act 2:30; Psa 132:11; Jer 23:5.
3) “And out of the town of Bethlehem,” (kai apo Bethleem tes komes) “And from (the) village or town of Bethlehem,” as prophesied Mic 5:2; Luk 2:4.
4) “Where David was?” (hopou en David) “Where David was, existed, or resided,” from David’s nativity? 1Sa 16:1; 1Sa 16:5, where the Lord called him and sanctified him? 1Sa 1:11-13. But they seemed not to recognize that all of this was already fulfilled in Christ, and that He was also to be called a Nazarene, Isa 11:1; Mat 2:23.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(42) Hath not the scripture said . . .Comp. the prophecies in Mic. 5:1; Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5.
Where David was.Comp. the history in 1 Samuel 16.
It has often been asked, sometimes in the spirit of objection, sometimes in the spirit of inquiry, how the Apostle, if he really knew the history of our Lords birth at Bethlehem, could record these questions without a correction. But in these verses he is giving the feelings and opinions of the multitude, and it is a mark of the truthfulness of his narrative that he gives them just as they really occurred. He, remembering the events as they took place, can with perfect historic fitness record the passing thoughts and words, erroneous as they were. A writer of the second century could not possibly have unintentionally made so great a mistake, with the earlier Gospels before him; nor could he have intentionally so thrown himself into the spirit of a Jewish multitude as to invent the question. (Comp. Joh. 7:52, and references in Note there.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
42. Seed of David Like many sceptical reasoners of the present day, these men ignore what they cannot confute, namely, that the descent of Jesus from David was matter of record, and his birth at Bethlehem was claimed by his followers as fact.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
Ver. 42. Hath not the Scripture said? ] See Trapp on “ Mat 2:5 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the seed of David. Psa 110; Psa 132. Isa 11:1, Isa 11:10. Jer 23:5, &c.
Bethlehem. See Mic 5:2.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Joh 7:42. , Hath not) And yet indeed this very prophecy was realised in the person of Jesus. Why had they not turned their attention to it? especially as they were admonished of the fact, Mat 2:1. etc. Thirty-two years were not a time beyond memory, especially as there intervened in His twelfth year a new admonition, Luk 2:42 [His sitting among the doctors in the temple, and astonishing them with His understanding and answers].- , from Bethlehem) This John takes for granted as known from the other evangelists respecting Jesus.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 7:42
Joh 7:42
Hath not the scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?-[The Talmud explains Mic 5:2 as declaring that Bethlehem should be Christs birthplace. The wise men who came to Jerusalem seeking the young Babe heard the same thing from the priests. It was prophesied that he should be of the seed of David. (Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5; Psa 89:36).]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
not: Joh 7:27, Psa 132:11, Isa 11:1, Jer 23:5, Mic 5:2, Mat 2:5, Luk 2:4, Luk 2:11
where: 1Sa 16:1, 1Sa 16:4, 1Sa 16:11-13, 1Sa 16:18, 1Sa 17:58
Reciprocal: 1Sa 20:6 – Bethlehem 1Ch 2:51 – Bethlehem Mat 1:1 – the son of David Mat 2:1 – Bethlehem Mat 2:6 – thou Mat 2:22 – into Mat 9:27 – Thou Mat 11:3 – Art Mat 11:6 – whosoever Mat 13:55 – the carpenter’s Mat 15:22 – son Mat 21:15 – Hosanna Mat 22:42 – The Son Mar 12:35 – How Luk 20:41 – Christ Joh 1:46 – Can Joh 9:29 – we know not Act 13:23 – this Rom 1:3 – which Gal 3:8 – the scripture Jam 4:5 – the scripture
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
They supported their idea against Galilee by citing the scripture that said Christ was to come out of Bethlehem. Their application of this scripture was correct, but they evidently did not know that while Jesus was generally known as a Galilean, yet he was born in Bethlehem according to the prophecy.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Verse 42
They supposed that Jesus had been born where he had resided from infancy, in Nazareth of Galilee.