Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 7:19

Did not Moses give you the law, and [yet] none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

19. Did not Moses give you the law? ] Here the question should probably end: and none of you doeth the law should be a simple statement in contrast to the question preceding. The argument is similar to Joh 5:45; Moses in whom they trust condemns them. Moreover it is an argumentum ad hominem: ‘ye are all breakers of the law, and yet would put Me to death as a breaker of it.’

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Did not Moses give you the law? – This they admitted, and on this they prided themselves. Every violation of that law they considered as deserving of death. They had accused Jesus of violating it because he had healed a man on the Sabbath, and for that they had sought his life, Joh 5:10-16. He here recalls that charge to their recollection, and shows them that, though they pretended great reverence for that law, yet they were really its violators in having sought his life.

None of you … – None of you Jews. They had sought to kill him. This was a pointed and severe charge, and shows the great faithfulness with which he was accustomed to proclaim the truth.

Why go ye about to kill me? – Why do ye seek to kill me? See Joh 5:16.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Joh 7:19-30

Did not Moses give you the law?

Murder in desire

The desire to kill Christ

I. WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS PROFESSION. They professedly believed in Moses, and esteemed him highly. But there was nothing in Moses to sanction their antagonism to Christ.

1. The spirit of their opposition was inconsistent with the moral law of Moses (Joh 7:19). You seek to kill Me, when your moral master in Gods name has said, Thou shalt not kill. None of you keepeth the law in this respect.

2. The proximate cause of the opposition was inconsistent with the moral law of Moses–the healing of the impotent man at Bethesda on the Sabbath day. This was the one work which now fired their indignation. But what did Moses do? What might have been considered more objectionable than this. He circumcised children on the Sabbath day–a work that inflicted physical pain and manual labour. And not only did Moses do it, but Abraham, etc, whose authority is of greater antiquity.

Could it be right for them to do, on the Sabbath day, the work of mere ceremony, and wrong for Me to do a work of mercy? The crime and curse of religionists in all ages and lands have been the exalting the ceremonial over the moral–the local, the temporary, and contingent above the universal, eternal, and absolute.

II. IMPLIED A GREAT INACCURACY OF JUDGMENT (Joh 7:24). Judging from appearance, they concluded

1. That a mere ordinary peasant had no Divine mission. Perhaps most of them knew His humble birthplace and parentage, and concluded from His lowly appearance that He was a poor man and nothing more. They were too blinded to discover beneath such apparently abject forms a Divine spirit, character, and mission. It has ever been so. Men who judge from appearances have always failed to discern anything great or Divine in those who occupy the humbler walks of life. And yet the men of highest genius, divinest inspirations and aims have been counted the offscouring of all things.

2. That a ritualistic religion was a religion of righteousness. Had there been in connection with the ceremonies of the Temple the healing of the sick on the Sabbath day, they would have esteemed the work as sacred. No ceremony could they allow as of secondary importance. But the ritualistic religion is sometimes immoral. When men observe even the divinest ceremonies as a matter of custom and form, they degrade their spiritual natures and insult omniscience. God is a Spirit, etc. The religion of righteousness is the religion of love, not of law.

3. That by killing a teacher they would kill his influence. They sought to kill Christ because they knew if His doctrines spread their authority would crumble. Men who have judged from appearances have ever sought to kill unpopular teachers. But facts as well as philosophy show that such judgment is not righteous. The blood of the martyrs has always been the seed of the Church; their doctrines get free force and sweep from their death. It was so with Christ.

III. INVOLVED THEM IN PERPLEXITY (Joh 7:25-27). There seems much bewilderment here. They thought they knew Him, yet they felt they did not know Him. They wondered, too, how a man whom their rulers desired to kill should speak so boldly without being arrested. Minds under a wrong leading passion are sure to get into confusion. No intellect is clear, and its path straight and sunny, that is not under the control of benevolent dispositions. All the conflicting theories of the world concerning God, spirit, and morals, have their origin in a wrong state of heart. The intellectual confusion of hell grows out of malevolence. What they could not see Christ explains (Joh 7:28). As they had no love in them, they could not see God; and as they could not see God, they could not understand Him that He came from God and was sent by Him. Observe what Christ asserts

1. That He knows the Absolute. He is the only Being in the universe that knows Him.

2. That He was a messenger from the Absolute. He that sent me. This is the great spiritual ministry of the world. What are popes, cardinals, archbishops, to Him? This is My beloved Son, says God; hear ye Him. Whoever else you disregard, hear ye Him.

IV. Their desire to kill Him was DIVINELY RESTRAINED (Joh 7:30). Why did not their malignant desire work itself out at once? It was wide and strong enough. The answer is, Because His hour was not yet come. There was an unseen hand that held them back. He who holds the wind in His fist turns the hearts of men as the rivers of water. With God for everything there is a season. Men may wish to hurry events, and to go before the appointed time, but there is a power that holds them back until the hour comes. The power that governs every wavelet in the ocean controls every passing passion of mankind. Conclusion: Learn

1. That being hated by society is not always a proof of hate-worthiness. Here is one, who did no sin, etc., hated with a mortal hate. To be hated by a corrupt society is to have the highest testimony to your goodness. The world loves its own, and hates all moral aliens. It worships the Herods, and stones the Stephens. Marvel not if the world hate you, it hated Me before it hated you.

2. That being hated by society is no reason for neglecting our mission. Though Christ knew that in the leading men there flamed the fiercest indignation towards Him, yet He enters the Temple on a great public occasion and fearlessly delivers His message. That love for truth, God, and humanity which inspired and ruled Him raised Him above the fear of men, made Him fearless and invincible. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The assailants assailed

(Joh 7:19-24)

I. A FOURFOLD FACT PREMISED.

1. Moses gave the Jews the law, moral and ceremonial, with its statutes against murder, about the Sabbath and circumcision.

2. Moses incorporated circumcision in his statute-book to prevent the law in this item from being broken as it had been prior to his time.

3. The Jews were accustomed to administer this rite upon the Sabbath.

4. They did so that the law might not be broken, as it would have been if delayed, to save the Sabbath.

II. A SIMPLE ARGUMENT CONDUCTED.

1. The Jews were not wrong in their procedure with regard to circumcision. He taught that the Sabbath was made for man (Mar 2:27-28).

2. Christ, a fortiori, could not have been wrong in His work on the Bethesda cripple. If He suspended the law, so did they. If they had a good reason, He had a better.

3. The leaders of the people were wrong in seeking to kill Christ. This was obvious, since He had proved that He had broken neither the Sabbath nor the law.

III. A NECESSARY LESSON TAUGHT.

1. Not to judge according to appearances. Neither men nor deeds can be safely estimated by their external aspects. As it is the mans interior that constitutes the man (Pro 23:7), so the motive enshrined forms the act. Appearances are frequently deceptive; cf. Hannah (1Sa 1:15) and Paul (Act 26:25).

2. To judge according to truth. In every instance there is a judgment of man or deed which corresponds with truth and justice. This is always the characteristic of the Divine (Psa 67:4; Psa 96:13; 1Sa 16:7; Joh 5:30; 1Pe 2:23), and ever should be of human Lev 19:15; Deu 1:16; Pro 31:9; Php 4:8) judgments.

Learn:

1. Pretenders to the greatest reverence for Divine law are sometimes its most flagrant transgressors.

2. A man may meditate murder in his heart and yet think himself a saint.

3. It is easier to keep the law in the letter than in the spirit, to circumcise the body than circumcise the heart.

4. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

5. Nothing more attests depravity than to hate Christ and Christianity for their practical beneficence.

6. The only physician who can work a cure upon the whole man is Christ.

7. The propriety of setting in judgment on our own judgments. (T. Whitelaw, D. D.)

The law does not save men

This parlour is the heart of a man who was never sanctified by the sweet grace of the gospel. The dust is original sin and inward corruption that have defiled the whole man. He that began to sweep at first is the law. Now, whereas thou sawest that as soon as the first began to sweep, the dust did fly about, that the room by him could not be cleansed, but that thou wast almost choked therewith; this is to show thee that the law, instead of cleansing the heart by its working from sin, doth revive, put strength into, and increase in the soul, even as it doth discover and forbid it, for it doth not give power to subdue it. (Pilgrims Progress.)

How to treat slander;

Thou hast a devil. This he passeth by as a frontless slander, not worth repeating. Sincerity throws off slanders, as Paul did the viper; yet, in a holy scorn, it laughs at them, as the wild ass doth at the horse and his rider. (J. Trapp.)

If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision.–I healed a whole Joh 9:34; Joh 13:10), whereas circumcision inflicts a wound. And that is performed on the Sabbath. Which work is the more sabbatical of the two? Circumcision produces pain, but I have made a man free from pain. This illustrates the question of the relation of the Seventh-day Sabbath to the Lords day. The law of the former gave way to the rite which took place on the eighth day. That rite was the typical forerunner of baptism, which is the sacrament of spiritual resurrection from the grave of sin into newness of life. Well, therefore, may the Jewish Seventh-day Sabbath give way to the festival of Christs resurrection, which was on the eighth day, i.e., on the octave of the first. (Bp. Wordsworth.)

Every whit whole

I. THE GREAT WANT OF MAN. To be made whole. Man is unsound in every part.

1. Corporeally. Some physical organizations are healthier than others; but even the strongest is unsound. The seeds of disease and death are in all. The strongest man is, as compared to the weakest, like an oak to a fragile reed; but ever at the roots of the oak there is a disease that is working its way up.

2. Intellectually. The man who has the strongest mind is subject to some mental infirmity. He lacks elasticity, freedom, clearness of vision, courage, and independency. He cannot see things completely, or hold them with a manly grasp. The strongest intellects are the most conscious of their unsoundness.

3. Socially. Men were made to love their fellow-men and to he loved by them, and thus be harmoniously united in reciprocal affection and services of mutual goodwill and usefulness. But socially man is unsound in every point. The social heart is diseased with greed, envy, jealousy, ambition, and malice. So that the social world is rife with discords, contentions, and wars.

4. Morally. Man has lost at once the true idea of true sympathy with right. His conscience is dim, infirm, torpid, buried in the flesh, carnally sold unto sin. Thus man in every part is unsound. He is lost, not in the sense of being missed, for God knows where he is; nor in the sense of being extinct, for he lives a certain kind of life; not in the sense of being inactive for he is in constant labour; but in the sense of incapacity to fulfil the object of his being. He is lost, in the sense that the gallant ship is lost when no longer seaworthy; that the grand organ is lost that has no longer the power to pour out music.

II. THE GRAND WORK OF CHRIST. To make man every whit whole. He makes man whole

1. Corporeally. It is true that He allows the human body to go down to dust; but that dust He has pledged to reorganize like unto His glorious body. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption, etc., etc. How sound will the resurrection body be!

2. Intellectually. Here He begins the healing of the intellect. He clears away from it the moral atmosphere of depravity, and opens its eyes so that it may see things as they are. In the future world it will be every whit whole, free from prejudice, errors, and all depravity.

3. Socially, by filling them with that spirit of true philanthropy which prompts them not to seek their own things, but to labour for the common good of men as men, irrespective of creeds, countries, races, or religions. This He is doing now, this He will continue to do on this earth until men shall love each other as brethren and nations beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning-hooks, and hear of war no more. He will make the world, even here, every whir socially whole, and in the Heavenly Jerusalem above the social soundness and order will be perfect.

4. Morally, by bringing him under the control of supreme love for the Supremely Good. Thus: He will take away the heart of stone and give it a heart of flesh. At last He will cause all men to stand before Him without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. Conclusion: What a Physician is Christ! He cures all manner of diseases. No malady can baffle His skill. The world has never wanted men who have tried to make people sound. It has its corporeal, intellectual, social, and moral doctors; but those who succeed most in their respective departments only prove by their miserable failures that they are miserable empirics. Here is a Physician that makes a man every whir whole. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Every day is a fit day for doing good

As burning candles give light until they be consumed, so godly Christians must be occupied in doing good as long as they live. (Cowdray.)

Appelles the painter much lamented if he should escape but one day without drawing some picture outline; so ought a Christian to be sorry if any day should pass without doing some good work or exercise. (Cowdray.)

Doing good a blessed work

Dr. Guthrie once said: I know a man (Thomas Wright) who, at the close of each days work, turned his steps to the prison, and with his Bible, or on his knees on the floor, spent the evening hours in its gloomy cells, seeking to instruct the ignorant and redeem the criminal and raise the fallen. The judgment day shall show how many he restored, penitent and pardoned, to the bosom of God; but it is certain that alone and single-handed he rescued and reformed four hundred criminals, restoring them, honest and well-doing men, to the bosom of society.

Judge not according to the appearance, but Judge righteous Judgment.

Judging according to the appearance led the Jews into error

I. RESPECTING THE LORD HIMSELF.

1. They never got deeper than the surface of His Person. The Christ they were expecting was one pieced up of mere outsides of the reality. What resemblance had that sorrow-stricken prophet of Nazareth to the glare and splendour of the Christ of their imagination? He came poor to look at and poor as He seemed. They had no eyes for the Divinity within.

2. There is the same shutting of the eyes now to the Divinity in His person; the same refusal to receive Him as Lord.

(1) By how many is nature regarded as greater than Christ!

(2) Many accept the opinion of the world for their idea of Christ.

(3) Some habitually exclude from their thoughts the presence of Jesus in providence.

(4) Others, staggered at their sinfulness, are blinded to the fact that in Jesus there is cleansing for all their vileness.

3. Some scriptural views which will counteract these errors and lead to a righteous judgment.

(1) It ought not to seem strange to a human being that a Divine Saviour should be human also. Man cannot draw near to an abstract God. We need one who has dwelt on earth, who has known our sorrows, and is as near to us as our nature is; and such a one is Jesus.

(2) But a merely human Saviour would not meet our need. Only God can save us. This Jesus claims to be, and the Gospels say He was, and prove it on every page.

II. RESPECTING THE WORKS OF THE SAVIOUR.

1. It was one of these that called forth the unrighteous judgment He here rebukes. About six months before He had healed the impotent man Joh 5:1-9). According to appearance He had violated the Sabbath, But in the strictest sense that was such a deed as the Sabbath was appointed to suggest and promote. And the misjudging eye followed Him wherever He went, and adjudged the miracles, which were manifestations from heaven, to be a sign from hell.

2. Similar errors are found among us.

(1) His work on the cross has been judged according to appearance, and set down as martyrdom and as the last manifestation of that obedience which is a model to us. Neither of these views enter into the inner meaning of the transaction. As for the first, it is not in harmony with the law of Jesus: When they persecute you in one city, flee ye into another. But our Lord sought death. As for the next, the Bible leaves no room for doubt that there was more in Christs death than that Christ died for the ungodly. We have redemption through His blood, etc. The primal and essential aim of Christs death was atonement for sin.

(2) His work in carrying on His providence. There may be an appearance of evil to Gods people, while we know that no evil shall happen to them. The Lords dealings with them are transacted beyond the range of the outward eye. Jesus cannot be unkind to them.

III. RESPECTING THEIR OWN SPIRITUAL STATE.

1. They did not suspect their own wickedness, but seemed to themselves to be animated by zeal for Gods law. There was much in appearances to foment this delusion. Had we arrived on the scene when these words were spoken, we should have concluded that some grand act of national worship was going forward; and had we heard this reference to Sabbath violation, we might have thought the people no respecters of persons in their zeal for Gods law. But underneath all that show of worship was hollow unbelief, and all that zeal for Remember the Sabbath was a cloak for their transgression of Thou shalt not kill.

2. Our circumstances are not dissimilar to theirs. Our Lords day is a festival as really as that feast; but is ,our heart in Sabbath worship, and while we bow the head, are we bowing the heart? Excellent though Sabbath-keeping and Church-going are, they are apt to deceive us. And so with other religious acts. We may be very scrupulous outwardly, and yet inwardly be far from God.

Conclusion:

1. The world is full of people who seem as though they were all journeying in one direction; yet part is travelling to heaven and part to hell. Whatever the outside of our lives may seem to say, we belong to one or the other. Let us ascertain by the test of a righteous judgment to which we belong.

2. We are all hastening to a day when judgment will not be according to appearance.

3. But why appeal to the future? God is passing His righteous judgments on our state and actions now. Let us be judges with God in this matter, and be satisfied with nothing that will not satisfy Him. (A. Macleod, D. D.)

Hiding behind others

Here is administered a rebuke to the injustice and peril of making the apparent inconsistencies of Christians the apology for delay in beginning a religious life.

I. THE INJUSTICE OF JUDGING THE MERE APPEARANCE OF OTHERS.

1. One cannot always know the actual facts as to anothers inconsistent behaviour.

2. Nor the balances of better behaviour behind it.

3. Nor the unseen spiritual struggle against it.

4. Nor the penitence and prayer which may have followed it.

II. The peril of hiding behind the mere appearance of others.

1. It is itself inconsistent; would men follow Christians who are correct?

2. It is evasive: men only mean to stop appeal.

3. It is illogical: it pays the highest compliment to real religion.

4. It is unreasonable: men know they are independently responsible to God.

5. It is unsafe: it shows men they know the right way of living when they criticize what is inconsistent with it. (Charles

S. Robinson, D. D.)

Judging by outward appearances

I. IS NOT A TRUE WAY OF JUDGING. Some of the most delicious fruits are encased in rough and unsightly coverings; and one who had not tasted them before, would be likely to pass them by, and go on to others which seemed to be better. One day a man dressed in plain, coarse clothes walked into a little English village, carrying a bundle tied up in a handkerchief. No one noticed him, or cared for him. After a while the stage-coach drove up; the little way-side mail-bag was thrown off, and all the idlers of the village assembled about the post-office. The contents of the bag were soon assorted, and there was nothing deserving of notice, except a formidable-looking letter, with a large seal, directed to Lord Somebody. The postmaster examined it, and read its superscription aloud. Everybody was on tip-toe of expectation, and for giving the nobleman a grand reception. Meanwhile, the stranger in the homespun dress sat silently watching the proceedings; and, when the public curiosity had worn itself out over the letter, he claimed it as his own. Astonishment, indignation, and a variety of other emotions, took possession of the crowd. But when the postmaster, who had seen the nobleman some- where before, and now recognized him in his plain clothes, handed him the letter, every one began to try and do away with the unfavourable impression which had been made on the stranger by the cool contempt with which he had been treated so long as he had been thought to be only an ordinary traveller. Lord Somebody, taking his bundle in his hand, left the village, giving the advice contained in the text as his parting legacy to its mortified inhabitants.

II. IS NOT A JUST WAY OF JUDGING. Many hundred years age when the Tabernacle of the Lord was at Shiloh, a good woman, named Hannah, went into pray, and to ask for a special blessing which she greatly longed for. It was in her heart that she spake to the Lord, and no loud word was uttered. But He who knoweth all things could hear her. Eli the priest saw her come in, and, judging from outward appearance, he judged unjustly, rashly concluding her to be tipsy. How Elis heart must have been wrung by the reply (1Sa 1:15). People who wear the longest faces, and who talk the most religiously, have not always the most of the love of God in their hearts. As Shakespeare has worded it–A man may smile, and smile, and be a villain.

III. IS NOT A SAFE WAY OF JUDGING. The ice on the river appears to be as safe as the earth, but how many who venture upon it pay for their temerity! Oh! how I wish I could ride in a carriage, like that gentleman! exclaimed a little fellow, one day, as a handsome coach and four dashed rapidly by him, while he trudged along the dusty road. I am sure that man must be as happy as a king. O that I had been born so lucky! At no great distance from the spot where the carriage passed him, it suddenly stopped, and the complaining and envious boy arrived just in time to see the happy owner of the carriage descend from it. Alas! little of happiness was to be seen. The rich man was a cripple, and before he could move a step, a pair of crutches had to be brought to him, and, as he cautiously raised himself from the seat, his face was distorted with pain. The little boy was thus taught the lesson of the text. (J. N. Norton, D. D.)

Appearances

A traveller showed Lavater two portraits–the one a highwayman who had been broken upon the wheel, the other was a portrait of Kant the philosopher. He was desired to distinguish between them. Lavater took up the portrait of the highwayman, and, after attentively considering it for some time, Here, said he, we have the true philosopher. Here is penetration in the eye and reflection in the forehead; here is cause, and there is effect; here is combination, there is distinction; synthetic lips and analytic nose. Then, turning to the portrait of the philosopher, he exclaimed, The calm-thinking villain is so well expressed and so strongly marked in this countenance that it needs no comment. This anecdote Kant used to tell with great glee.

Judge not by appearances

At one of the annual Waterloo banquets the Duke of Wellington after dinner handed round for inspection a very valuable presentation snuff-box set with diamonds. After a time it disappeared, and could nowhere be found. The Duke was much annoyed. The guests (there being no servants in the room at the time) were more so, and they all agreed to turn out their pockets. To this one old officer vehemently objected, and, on their pressing the point, left the room, notwithstanding that the Duke begged that nothing more might be said about the matter. Of course suspicion fell on the old officer; nobody seemed to know much about him or where he lived. The next year the Duke at the annual banquet put his hand in the pocket of his coat, which he had not worn since the last dinner, and there was the missing snuff-box! The Duke was dreadfully distressed, found out the old officer, who was living in a wretched garret, and apologized. But why, said His Grace, did you not consent to what the other officers proposed, and thus have saved yourself from the terrible suspicion? Because, sir, my pockets were full of broken meat, which I had contrived to put there to save my wife and family, who were at that time literally dying of starvation. The Duke, it is said, sobbed like a child; and it need not be added that the old officer and his family suffered no more from want from that day. Appearances are often deceptive. We dont know all. Therefore Judge not, that ye be not judged.

We must not judge by appearances

Whatever truth there may be in phrenology, or in Lavaters kindred science of physiognomy, we shall do well scrupulously to avoid forming an opinion against a man from his personal appearance. If we so judge we shall often commit the greatest injustice, which may, if we should ever live to be disfigured by sickness or marred by age, be returned into our own bosom to our bitter sorrow. Plato compared Socrates to the gallipots of the Athenian apothecaries, on the outside of which were painted grotesque figures of apes and owls, but they contained within precious balsams. All the beauty of a Cleopatra cannot save her name from being infamous; personal attractions have adorned some of the grossest monsters that ever cursed humanity. Judge then no man or woman after their outward fashion, but with purified eye behold the hidden beauty of the heart and life. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The folly of judging by appearances

Two knights met in a wood one day, and saw between them a shield fastened to a branch. Neither knew to whom it belonged, or why it was there. Whose is this white shield? said one. White? Why it is black! replied the other. Do you take me for blind, or a fool, that you tell me what my own eyes can see is false? And so words were bandied about until the dispute became so violent that swords were drawn, when a third knight came upon the scene. Looking at the angry men, he said, You should be brothers in arms. Why do I see these passionate gestures, and hear these fierce words? Each knight made baste to explain the imposition which the other had tried to practice upon him. The stranger smiled, and riding to one side of the shield, and then to the other, he said, very quietly, Do not charge with your weapons just yet. Change places! They did so, and, behold, the knight who had seen the white side of the shield saw now the black side also; and the knight who had been ready to do battle for the black stood face to face with the white side. Ashamed of their hot haste, they apologized one to the other, and rode out of the greenwood as good friends as ever. The lesson taught in this story is very important. Half the misunderstandings and quarrels which disturb the peace and destroy the happiness of families and neighbourhoods might be prevented, if those who engage in these disputes could see both sides of the question at once. How wise, then, are those people who are careful never to form hasty opinions, and who wait until they have seen or heard both sides, before venturing to determine which is right! (J. N. Norton, D. D.)

Deceptive appearances

Rabbi Joshua, the son of Chananiah, was a very learned and wise man, but he was ugly. His complexion was so dark that he was nicknamed The Blacksmith, and little children ran away from him. One day, when the Rabbi went to court, the Emperor Trajans daughter laughed at his ugliness, and said, Rabbi, I wonder how it is that such great wisdom should be contained in an ugly head. Rabbi Joshua kept his temper, and, instead of replying, asked, Princess, in what vessels does your august father keep his wine? In earthern jars, to be sure, replied she. Indeed, exclaimed the Rabbi, why all the common people keep their wine in earthern jars; the Emperors wine should be kept in handsome vessels. The princess, who thought that Joshua was really in earnest, went off to the chief butler, and ordered him to pour all the Emperors wine into gold and silver vessels, earthern jars being unworthy of such precious drink. The butler followed these orders; but when the wine came to the royal table it had turned sour. The next time the princess met the Rabbi she expressed her astonishment at his having given her such a strange piece of advice, and mentioned the result. Then you have learned a simple lesson, princess, was the Rabbis reply. Wine is best kept in common vessels: so is wisdom. The next time the princess met the Rabbi she did not laugh at his ugly face. (W. Baxendale.)

Deceptive appearances

I have heard of one who felt convinced that there must be something in the Roman Catholic religion from the extremely starved and pinched appearance of a certain ecclesiastic. Look, said he,how the man is worn to a skeleton by his daily fastings and nightly vigils! How he must mortify his flesh! Now the probabilities are that the emaciated priest was labouring under some internal disease, which he would have been heartily glad to be rid of, and it was not conquest of appetite, but failure in digestion which had so reduced him; or possibly a troubled conscience, which made him fret himself down to the light weights. Certainly I never met with a text which mentions prominence of bone as an evidence of grace. If so the living skeleton should have been exhibited, not merely as a living curiosity, but as the standard of virtue. Some of the biggest rogues have been as mortified in appearance as if they had lived on locusts and wild honey. It is a very vulgar error to suppose that a melancholy countenance is the index of a gracious heart. (C. H.Spurgeon.)

Sometimes hard to judge

An ingenious device is attributed in the Talmud to King Solomon. The Queen of Sheba, attracted by the reputation of his wisdom, one day presented herself before him, holding in her hands two wreaths, the one of exquisite natural flowers, the other of artificial. The artificial wreath was arranged with so much taste and skill, the delicate form of the flowers so perfectly imitated, and the minutest shades of colour so wonderfully blended, that the wise king, at the distance at which they were held, was unable to determine which was really the work of the Divine Artist. For a moment he seemed baffled; the Jewish court looked on in melancholy astonishment; then his eyes turned towards a window, near which a swarm of bees were hovering. He commanded it to be opened; the bees rushed into the court, and immediately alighted on one of the wreaths; whilst not a single one fixed on the other.

Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this He whom they seek to kill?

I. THE OBSTINATE BLINDNESS OF THE UNBELIEVING JEWS. They defended their denial of our Lords Messiahship by two assertions, both of which were wrong (Joh 7:27).

1. They were wrong in saying that they knew whence He came. They meant that He came from Nazareth; but He was born at Bethlehem, and belonged to the tribe of Judah, and was of the lineage of David. The Jews, with their care- fully-kept family histories, could have found this out. Their ignorance was, therefore, without excuse.

2. They were wrong in saying that no man was to know whence Christ came. This was in fiat contradiction to Mic 5:2 (see Mt Joh 7:42), which they found it convenient not to remember (2Pe 3:5). How common is this habit to-day! There are none so blind as those who will not see.

II. THE OVER-RULING HAND OF GOD OVER ALL HIS ENEMIES (verse30).

1. Our Lords sufferings were undergone voluntarily. He did not go to the cross because He could not help it. Neither Jew nor Gentile could have hurt Him, except power had been given them from above. The passion could not begin until the very hour which God had appointed.

2. Christs servants should treasure up this doctrine. Nothing can happen to them but by Divine permission (Psa 31:15).

III. THE MISERABLE END TO WHICH UNBELIEVERS SHALL ONE DAY COME (verse 34). It is uncertain whether our Lord had in view individual cases of unbelief, or the national remorse at the siege of Jerusalem. There is such a thing as finding out truth too late (Pro 1:28; Mat 25:11). Therefore decide for Christ now. (Bishop Ryle.)

The origin of Jesus

I. THE COGITATIONS OF THE JERUSALEMITES.

1. Wonder.

(1) The fearlessness of Christ (Joh 7:26) startled them, considering that He was a marked Man (Joh 7:25). Being themselves destitute of moral courage (Joh 7:13), they had no idea of such fortitude as innocence and truth could inspire, and that he whom God shields is invulnerable (Isa 54:17) until his work is done (Deu 33:25) and his hour is come Joh 9:4; Heb 9:27).

(2) The timidity of the rulers (verse 26) puzzled them. They had as little comprehension of the essential cowardice of wickedness (Pr Job 18:7-21) as of the majesty of goodness.

2. Suspicion. Ruminating on the inaction of the authorities, they began to whisper that something had occurred to change their tactics; that perhaps they had ascertained that Jesus was the Messiah (verse 26)–a conjecture that was immediately dismissed, little guessing that truth often presents itself in such seemingly involuntary suggestions.

3. Decision. Who Jesus was they could settle in a moment.

(1) When Messiah came, no one would be able to tell whence He came, or His parentage (verse 27), though His birthplace would be known (verse 42).

(2) Everybody knew Jesus birthplace and parentage.

(3) Therefore He could not be Messiah, but only a man, like His fellows. Good logic, it is obvious, is not the same thing as sound Divinity.

II. THE DECLARATIONS OF JESUS.

1. A concession. Their knowledge of His origin was

(1) Ostensibly complete.

(2) Essentially erroneous, since they had no acquaintance with His higher nature.

2. A proclamation.

(1) Concerning Himself.

(a) His Divine Mission. I am not Come of Myself. He sent Me.

(b) His Divine knowledge. I know Him, the Sender.

(c) His Divine essence. I am from Him.

(2) Concerning them.

(a) Their ignorance of God. Whom ye know not.

(b) As a consequence, their non-recognition of Him.

Lessons:

1. The true humanity of Jesus.

2. To know Christ after the flesh only is to be ignorant of Him in reality.

3. No one knows Christ who recognizes not His Divine origin and mission.

4. A knowledge of the Father necessary to a true acquaintance with the Son (Mat 11:27).

5. It is not possible for wicked men to do all they wish except God wills. (T. Whitelaw, D. D.)

Knowledge of Christ must be more than critical

I heard two persons on the Wengem Alp talking by the hour of the names of ferns; not a word about their characteristics, uses, or habits, but a medley of crack-jaw titles, nothing more. They evidently felt that they were ventilating their botany, and kept each other in countenance by alternate volleys of nonsense. They were about as sensible as those doctrinalists who for ever talk over the technicalities of religion, but know nothing by experience of its spirit and power. Are we not all too apt to amuse ourselves after the same fashion. He who knows mere Linnaean names, but has never seen a flower, is as reliable in botany as he is in theology who can descant upon supralapsaranism, but has never known the love of Christ in his heart. True religion is more than doctrine; something must be known and felt. (C. H.Spurgeon.)

Howbeit we know this Man whence He is; but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence He is.–Note the ineffable self-complacency of spiritual ignorance and pride. Although His miracles made Him famous, yet they neither know nor desired to know His real nature.

1. Knowing Gods power, they would not have resisted His Son.

2. Knowing Gods justice, they would not have rejected His warnings.

3. Knowing Gods mercy, they would not have grieved His Spirit.

4. Knowing Gods wisdom, they would not have trusted their folly. So far from knowing, they have never carefully inquired into His life and birth. Indeed, they did not know that He was born at Bethlehem. Had they known Him, they would not have felt angry at Sabbath healing. (W. H. Van Doren, D. D.)

Jewish theories about Christs origin and coming

When the wise men came, the scribes at Jerusalem averred that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem of Judaea, and adduced in proof the words of Micah. But here we find that Micahs words were by no means universally held as conclusive. Some held–and many famous Jewish expositors have since maintained that the Messiah would come suddenly, like a bright and unexpected meteor, as here. The popular opinion, however, agreed with the answer of the scribes above (verse 42). Now it would be erroneous to suppose that the opinion expressed in the text was groundless or fanciful. It rested on all those passages in the Old Testament which refer to our Lords Divine origin. To us the doctrine of the Divine and human natures in Christ is a cardinal article of faith; and, trained in this belief, we reconcile by its aid many statements of the prophets which externally are at variance with one another. But this twofold aspect must have been a serious difficulty to those who had only the teaching of the prophets, without the New Testament exposition of that teaching; nor can I see anything absurd in the expectation that, like a second Melchisedek, He would appear suddenly, with no human lineage, and no place of earthly birth and education. More correctly, we may regard this idea as only a confused anticipation of the truth that the Messiah was not only Davids Son, but also the Son of God. This very title is more than once given to our Lord (Joh 1:49;Mat 16:16; Mat 26:63). In the latter text, Caiaphas probably put the question contemptuously, as representing what he deemed to be the most extreme form of Messianic doctrine; but there were other and better men who held it devoutly as a truth. But could these noble souls make it harmonize with the equally plain prophetic teaching that the Messiah was to be a Man, a descendant of David, and born at Bethlehem? Many attempts were no doubt made to harmonize this apparent discrepancy. One such we read in Justin Martyrs dialogue with the Jew Trypho. Trypho there affirms that the Messiah at His birth would remain unknown and unacquainted with His powers until Elias appeared, who would anoint Him and proclaim Him as the Christ. In the Talmud the most conflicting opinions are found respecting the Messiahs advent. In one place it is said that He will first manifest Himself at Rome; in another, that the place will be Babylon; in a third, that He will not appear at all unless the Jews reform their manners. More frequently, however, it asserts that Jerusalem would be the place of His birth. Who could read such passages as Psa 87:5; Isa 2:3; Psa 50:2, and not draw from them the conclusion that the Messiah would be born on Zions Holy Hill (2Es 13:6; 2Es 13:35, etc.). (Dean Payne Smith.)

Then cried Jesus in the Temple

Christ grieved by misconceptions about Himself

Nathanael had a technical objection (Joh 1:46); but it was swept away at once by the moral impression produced by Jesus. These Jews had also a technical objection (when Christ came, no one was to know whence He was), and this served to neutralize, for them, all the effect of the Saviours teaching. They were bond-slaves to the letter; and this not the letter of Scripture, but of their own interpretation of Scripture. Let us consider

I. THE ATTACK UPON CHRIST. Just before His teaching had been assailed; now His person and mission. He cannot be the Christ, because we know all about Him. Recall circumstance. The speakers are Jerusalem Jews, who are well acquainted with the animus of the rulers towards Him. How is it, then, they ask, that He is allowed to speak so fearlessly? Are the rulers coming round to believe in Him? But when we think of it, that cannot be. They are aware, as we are, that one over whose antecedents no obscurity rests can be no Messiah. All neutralized by a notion I This pains and distresses Jesus, and He cries out loudly, with emotion, seeking to rectify the mistake.

II. THE DEFENCE. Jesus admits the truth of what they say, so far as it goes; they have an outward knowledge of Him and His origin. But this is only what appears. There is something beyond of which they are ignorant, and that is the Divine mission. But this mission is a fact. He that sent Me is real–i.e. (probably), really exists. Why, then, do they not recognize the fact? Because they, little as they think it, are ignorant of God. With this ignorance of God, He contrasts His own inward consciousness of God and His relation to Him. I know Him.

III. RESULT OF THE DEFENCE. The extreme irritation of the Jews at being told that they did not know God, and their indignation at Jesus assumption of a peculiar relationship to the Father. They consider Him to be at least touching upon the confines of blasphemy, and seek to take Him; but they could not, because His hour was not yet come.

IV. FOR PRACTICAL INFERENCES, let us

1. Recur to the thought that Christ is pained by misconception of His person and work, because He knows how ruinous such misconsceptions are to mankind.

2. That He speaks severely, because it is necessary to do so. In no other way could He hope to obtain for the truth admission into the hearts of His hearers. (G. Calthrop, M. A.)

Then they sought to take Him; but no man laid hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come

The hour of destiny

I. CHRISTS HOUR WAS DIVINELY PREDESTINATED. This is proved by

1. The numerous predictions of Scripture.

2. The long suffering of God in the preservation of the human race.

3. The influences which this hour has exerted on the condition of the world.

II. CHRISTS HOUR WAS ABOVE ALL CONTINGENCY AND HUMAN INTERFERENCES. This fact shows

1. The universality of Divine providence.

2. The futility of human opposition to the ways of God.

3. The steadfastness of the Divine plan.

III. HIS HOUR DID NOT AFFECT THE MORAL FREEDOM OF HIS CONDUCT.

1. He chose the hour.

2. This choice proves His infinite love for us.

3. The manner in which He submitted to His destiny is a sublime model for us. (P. L. Davies, A. M.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 19. Did not Moses give you the law, c.] The scribes and Pharisees announced our Lord to the multitude as a deceiver and they grounded their calumny on this, that he was not an exact observer of the law, for he had healed a man on the Sabbath day, Joh 5:9-10; and consequently must be a false prophet. Now they insinuated, that the interests of religion required him to be put to death:

1. As a violator of the law; and,

2. as a false prophet and deceiver of the people.

To destroy this evil reasoning, our Lord speaks in this wise: If I deserve death for curing a man on the Sabbath, and desiring him to carry home his bed, which you consider a violation of the law, you are more culpable than I am, for you circumcise a child on the Sabbath, which requires much more bustle, and is of so much less use than what I have done to the infirm man. But, if you think you do not violate the law by circumcising a child on the Sabbath, how can you condemn me for having cured one of yourselves, who has been afflicted thirty and eight years? If you consider my conduct with the same eye with which you view your own, far from finding any thing criminal in it, you will see much reason to give glory to God. Why, therefore, go ye about to kill me, as a transgressor of the law, when not one of yourselves keeps it?

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Moses was Gods instrument in delivering his law to the people, Exo 24:3; Deu 33:4; a law which none of them exactly kept, but daily broke. Why do you (saith our Saviour) make it such a capital crime (suppose you were not in an error, but I had in this one point of the sabbath violated the law) in me to break the law, that you for it would have my blood? How cometh it to be a more heinous offence in me to break the law in one thing, than it is in you, who violate it in so many things? Or, do not you think it a capital crime maliciously to go about to destroy an innocent person? Is not that a greater breach, think you, of the sixth commandment, than what I have done is of the fourth? Supposing that had been any breach of the law at all, which indeed it was not.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

19, 20. Did not Moses, &c.thatis, In opposing Me ye pretend zeal for Moses, but to the spirit andend of that law which he gave ye are total strangers, and in “goingabout to kill Me” ye are its greatest enemies.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Did not Moses give you the law,…. After Christ had vindicated himself and his doctrine, he proceeds to reprove the Jews for their breaking the law, which contained the will of God: by which it appeared, that they were no proper judges of his doctrine, though they cavilled at it: the question he puts could not be denied by them; for though, properly speaking, God was the lawgiver, yet inasmuch as it was delivered by Moses, it is ascribed to him, and said to come by him; and it was put into his hands, to be delivered by him, peculiarly to the people of Israel; and being given to the Jewish fathers, not only for themselves, but for their posterity in ages to come, is said to be given to the then present generation; and may be understood, either of the whole system of laws, moral, ceremonial, and, judicial, belonging to that people; or else of the particular law, concerning the keeping of the sabbath, which was a peculiar law of Moses, and proper to the children of Israel only:

and [yet] none of you keepeth the law; though they boasted of it as a singular privilege, and rested in it, and their obedience to it for life and salvation, yet daily broke it in various instances, in thought, word, or deed; yea, those that sat in Moses’s chair, and taught it, did not observe and do what they taught; nor could the most holy and righteous man among them perfectly keep it: and many of them, who were most forward to censure others, for the violation of it, paid the least regard to it; and particularly to the law of the sabbath, which both priests and people transgressed, in one point or another, every sabbath day: wherefore our Lord reasons with them,

why go ye about to kill me? an harmless and innocent man, who never injured you in your persons and properties; and which is a proof of their not keeping that body of laws Moses gave them, since “thou shalt not kill” is one of them: though rather this may refer to the law of the sabbath, and the sense he, that since Moses had given them the law of the sabbath, and they did not keep it themselves, why should they seek to take away his life, for what they pretended was a breach of it? for our Lord here, as appears by what follows, refers to what they sought to do, above a year and a half ago, and still continued to seek after; namely, to kill him, because he had healed a man on the sabbath day, Joh 5:16.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

And yet (). Clear use of in the adversative sense of “and yet” or “but.” They marvelled at Christ’s “ignorance” and boasted of their own knowledge of the law of Moses. And yet they violated that law by not practising it.

Why seek ye to kill me? ( ;). A sudden and startling question as an illustration of their failure to do the law of Moses. Jesus had previously known (John 5:39; John 5:45-47) that the Jews really rejected the teaching of Moses while professing to believe it. On that very occasion they had sought to kill him (5:18), the very language used here. Apparently he had not been to Jerusalem since then. He undoubtedly alludes to their conduct then and charges them with the same purpose now.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Did – give [] . Some texts read the aorist tense edwken, in which case this rendering is correct. If with others we read the perfect, we should render hath not Moses given you the law, which you still profess to observe.

Keepeth [] . Rev., rightly, doeth. Compare do in ver. 17.

Go ye about [] . Properly, seek ye. So Rev.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Did not Moses give you the law,” (ou mouses edoken humin ton nomon) “Did not Moses give you all the law?” Dole out to you the oral and written law, the oracles of God? And he did, Joh 1:17; Gal 3:19; Rom 3:10-13.

2) ”And none of you keepeth the law?” (kai oudeis eks humon poiei ton nomon) “And not one out of or from all of you does the law,” Act 13:39, keeps it, and you all know it, though you have accused me of being a sabbath-law breaker. You set one standard for yourselves, and another for me, see? They would pull an ox from the ditch on the sabbath, or circumcise a man-child on the sabbath, but would deny Him the corresponding privilege to show mercy by healing the incurably ill on the sabbath, Joh 5:9; Joh 5:16.

3) “Why go ye about to kill me?” (ti me zeteite apokteinai) “Why do you all seek to kill me?” Search out a way to kill or liquidate me, to wipe me out? They hated truth, under hypocritical pretence of regard for authority, Mat 12:14; Joh 5:16; Joh 5:18; Joh 8:40.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

19. Did not Moses give you the Law? The Evangelist does not give a full and connected narrative of the sermon delivered by Christ, but only a brief selection of the principal topics, which contain the substance of what was spoken. The scribes mortally hated him, (186) and the priests had been kindled into rage against him, because he had cured a paralytic; and they professed that this arose from their zeal for the Law. To confute their hypocrisy, he reasons, not from the subject, but from the person. All of them having freely indulged in their vices, as if they had never known any law, he infers from it that they are not moved by any love or zeal for the Law. True, this defense would not have been sufficient to prove the point. Granting that — under a false pretense — they concealed their wicked and unjust hatred, still it does not follow that Christ did right, if he committed any thing contrary to the injunction of the Law; for we must not attempt to extenuate our own blame by the sins of others.

But Christ connects here two clauses. In the former, he addresses the consciences of his enemies, and, since they proudly boasted of being defenders of the Law, he tears from them this mask; for he brings against them this reproach, that they allow themselves to violate the Law as often as they please, and, therefore, that they care nothing about the Law. Next, he comes to the question itself, as we shall afterwards see; so that the defense is satisfactory and complete in all its parts. Consequently, the amount of this clause is, that no zeal for the Law exists in its despisers. Hence Christ infers that something else has excited the Jews to so great rage, when they seek to put him to death. In this manner we ought to drag the wicked from their concealments, whenever they fight against God and sound doctrine, and pretend to do so from pious motives.

Those who, in the present day, are the fiercest enemies of the Gospel and the most strenuous defenders of Popery, have nothing more plausible to urge in their behalf than that they are excited by ardor of zeal. But if their life be narrowly examined, they are all filled with base crimes, and openly mock at God. Who knows not that the Pope’s court is filled with Epicureans? (187) And as to Bishops and Abbots, have they as much modesty as to conceal their baseness, that some appearance of religion may be observed in them? Again, as to monks and other brawlers, are they not abandoned to all wickedness, to uncleanness, covetousness, and every kind of shocking crimes, so that their life cries aloud that they have altogether forgotten God? And now that they are not ashamed to boast of their zeal for God and the Church, ought we not to repress them by this reply of Christ?

(186) “ Les scribes le haissoyent mortellement.”

(187) “ Que la cour du Pape est remplie d’Epicuriens.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(19) Did not Moses . . .?The note of interrogation should be placed at the end of the first clause. The verse would then read, Did not Moses give you the Law? and none of you doeth the Law. Why seek ye to kill Me? So far from the will to do Gods will, without which they could not know His teaching, they had the Law, which they all professed to accept, and yet no one kept it (Joh. 5:45-47). This thought follows naturally on Joh. 7:17-18, and, like the whole of this teaching, grows out of the truths of John 5; but it may be that this reference to Moses and the Law has a special fitness, as suggested by the feast. Moses had commanded that the Law should be read in every Sabbatical year at this very festival (Deu. 31:10); and there is good reason for believing that the current year was a Sabbatical year. The first portion of the Law which it was customary to read was Deu. 1:1 to Deu. 6:3. Within this section (Joh. 5:17) came the command, Thou shalt not kill. They were, then, in their persecution of Him (Joh. 5:18), breaking the Law, of which their presence at the feast was a professed obedience.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

19. None keepeth the law kill me A glaring instance in proof. Ever since the miracle at Bethesda, (Joh 5:2-16,) the Jews have plotted his death, (Joh 5:16; Joh 7:1; Joh 7:13; Joh 7:25.)

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

“Did not Moses give you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?’

He points to Moses in order to reveal one of the cracks in their position. The Judaisers constantly proclaimed Moses as their chief authority, the one who showed them the will of God. Well and good. But let them consider what Moses had said. He had declared that it was wrong to kill innocent men. Yet they were seeking to kill Him. They were thus demonstrating that with all their pretence they rejected Moses’ authority, as shown by their behaviour in being ready to break his law by seeking His death. So they were not genuine in the claims that they made. They were seeking only to protect their own glory and to protect their own position. They were not really concerned to obey Moses.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Joh 7:19. Did not Moses give you the law, There is a remarkable beauty in this sudden turn of the sentiment. Some of the Jews called Jesus a false prophet, because he had healed the paralytic at Bethesda on the sabbath-day, see Joh 7:21 pretending that it was a gross violation of the law of Moses, which no good man, much less a prophet, would be guilty of. In answer to these evil surmises, he told them plainly, that, however much they pretended to reverence the authority of Moses in the law, they made no scruple to violate the most sacred of his precepts. They had formed a resolution of murdering him, directlycontrary to every law of God and man; and for the same end were laying secret plots against his life. This reproof came in with singular propriety and force immediately after Jesus had proved his divine commission by the most convincing arguments.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 7:19 . There is no ground for supposing that some unrecorded words on the part of the Jews (Kuinoel and many others), or some act (Olshausen), intervened between Joh 7:18-19 . The chain of thought is this: Jesus in Joh 7:16-18 completely answered the question of the Jews, Joh 7:15 . But now He Himself assumes the offensive, putting before them the real and malicious ground of all their assaults and oppression, namely, their purpose to bring about His death ; and He shows them how utterly unjustifiable , on their part, this purpose is.

The note of interrogation ought to be placed (so also Lachm. Tisch.) after the first ; and then the declaration of their contradictory behaviour is emphatically introduced by the simple . In like manner Joh 6:70 .

, . . .] The emphasis is upon . as the great and highly esteemed authority, which had so strong a claim on their obedience.

] without limitation ; therefore neither the commandment forbidding murder merely (Nonnus, Storr, Paulus), nor that against Sabbath-breaking simply (Kuinoel, Klee. So once Luther also, but in his Commentary he refers to Romans 8 : “what the law could not do,” etc., which, indeed, has no bearing here), which, according to Godet, Jesus is said to have already in view.

. . ] so that you, all of yon, are liable to the condemnation of the law; and instead of seeking to destroy me as a law-breaker, you must confess yourselves to be guilty.

] why? i.e. with what right ? The emphasis cannot be upon the enclitic (against Godet).

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Ver. 19. Did not Moses give you the law ] q.d. You bear me still an old grudge, an aching tooth, for healing an impotent man upon the sabbath day, Joh 5:9 . But Quis tulerit Gracchos, &c. (Juv.) Yourselves are greater sabbath breakers a fair deal. Publius Clodius (the most irreligious of all the Romans), religionem in Ciceronis domo neglectam questus est, complained of Cicero’s family, for neglect of religion. a Who so forward to cry, Treason, treason, as Athaliah the arch-traitor alive? and who cry out so much, Persecution, persecution, as Papists and other fierce persecutors?

a Cicero de Harusp. Respons.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

19. ] There is a close connexion with the foregoing. Our Lord now takes the offensive against them. The was to be the great key to a true appreciation of His teaching: but of this there was no example among them: and therefore it was that they were no fair judges of the teaching, but bitter opponents and persecutors of Jesus, of whom, had they been anxious to fulfil the law, they would have been earnest and humble disciples (ch. Joh 5:46 ). The law was to be read before all Israel every seventh year in the feast of tabernacles ( Deu 31:10-13 ): whether this was such a year is uncertain: but this verse may allude to the practice, even if it was not.

. ] In their killing the Lord of Life was summed up all their transgression of God’s law. It was the greatest proof of their total ignorance of and disobedience to it.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 7:19 . . The connection is not obvious, but seems to be this: You reject my teaching, but that is not surprising, for you reject Moses’ also ( cf. Joh 5:39 ; Joh 5:45-47 ). “Did not Moses give you the law?” or, “Hath not Moses given you the law?” [the point of interrogation should be after the first ; none after the second]. “Yet none of you keeps it. If you did you would not seek to kill me.” Was there not a former revelation of God which should have prevented you from thus violently rejecting my teaching?

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 7:19-24

19″Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?” 20The crowd answered, “You have a demon! Who seeks to kill You?” 21Jesus answered them, “I did one deed, and you all marvel. 22For this reason Moses has given you circumcision (not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man. 23If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? 24Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

Joh 7:19 The grammatical construction expects a “yes” answer.

“yet none of you carries out the law” This must have been a shocking statement to these Jews who were attending a required feast in Jerusalem.

The Law of Moses clearly prohibited premeditated murder, yet this is exactly what the leaders were planning. The local people knew of this but were unwilling to stop their plans or even complain.

“Why do you seek to kill Me” The question of Joh 7:20 does not come from religious leaders, but from the crowd of pilgrims who knew nothing of the plot to kill Him. Later, in Joh 7:25, the people of Jerusalem did know of the plot to kill Jesus.

The religious leaders also charged Jesus with being demon-possessed in order to explain away His power and insight (cf. Mat 9:34; Mat 11:18; Mat 12:24; Mar 3:22-30; Joh 8:48-52; Joh 10:20-21).

Joh 7:20 “You have a demon” It is obvious to everyone who encountered Jesus that He had spiritual power. The question was where did this power come from? The Jewish leaders could not deny Jesus’ “signs/miracles,” so they attributed the power to Satan and the demonic (cf. Joh 8:48-49; Joh 8:52; Joh 10:20).

In this context the crowd of pilgrims attending the feast of Tabernacles uses the same phrase, but in a different sense. They are asserting that Jesus is acting in a non-rational, paranoid fashion.

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE DEMONIC (UNCLEAN SPIRITS)

Joh 7:22

NASB, NKJV”(not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers)”

NRSV”(it is, of course, not from Moses, but from the Patriarchs)”

TEV”(although it was not Moses but your ancestors who started it”

NJB”-not that it began with him, it goes back to the patriarch-“

The rite of circumcision did not begin with the Law of Moses (cf. Exo 12:48; Lev 12:3), but was given to Abraham as a sign of the special covenant with YHWH (cf. Gen 17:9-14; Gen 21:4; Gen 34:22).

“and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man” The essence of Jesus’ argument was that they were willing to put aside their Sabbatical rules so that a baby could be circumcised (cf. Shab 132a; Sabh. Joh 18:3; Joh 19:1-6), but were not willing to put aside their Sabbatical rules that a man might be made whole. It is significant to realize that Jesus was using the logic and thought forms of Rabbinical Judaism throughout this section.

Joh 7:23 “If” This is a First class conditional sentence which is assumed to be true from the writer’s perspective or for his literary purposes.

“are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath” This refers either to Jesus’ healing recorded in Joh 5:1-9 or an unrecorded healing during the feast.

The Greek word “angry” (chola) is a rare word found only here in the NT. It is found sparingly in all Greek literature (BAGD, p. 883 and MM, p. 689). It is related to the word “gall” (chol, cf. Mat 27:34). The reason for Jesus’ using this word (i.e., its connotation) is uncertain. It may denote a “divine anger” in the sense that they thought they were defending God’s will and God’s laws, which Jesus was violating.

Joh 7:24 “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” This is a present imperative with negative particle, which means stop an act in process. It is followed by an aorist imperative, which implies urgency. This may be an allusion to Isa 11:3.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Moses. See note on Joh 1:17.

keepeth = doeth.

go . . . about = seek.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

19.] There is a close connexion with the foregoing. Our Lord now takes the offensive against them. The was to be the great key to a true appreciation of His teaching: but of this there was no example among them: and therefore it was that they were no fair judges of the teaching, but bitter opponents and persecutors of Jesus, of whom, had they been anxious to fulfil the law, they would have been earnest and humble disciples (ch. Joh 5:46). The law was to be read before all Israel every seventh year in the feast of tabernacles (Deu 31:10-13):-whether this was such a year is uncertain: but this verse may allude to the practice, even if it was not.

.] In their killing the Lord of Life was summed up all their transgression of Gods law. It was the greatest proof of their total ignorance of and disobedience to it.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 7:19. , Moses) whom ye believe.-, to you) not to me.- , the law) There is much mention of the Law made here; Joh 7:23; Joh 7:49; Joh 7:51; appropriately so: for , the joy of the law, completed in the public reading of it, is on the day following the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles.[182] The eighth day, according to the different points of view, in which it was regarded, was either part of the Feast of Tabernacles, or a distinct feast. The former is the view of it, which holds good in John: and in the same feast, every seventh year, the Law used to be read: Deu 31:10, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in he Feast of Tabernacles, thou shalt read this law before all Israel, in their hearing.-, none) Ye assail Me as guilty of violating the law, Joh 7:21, etc. But yet ye all violate it.- , why me) as though I had violated the Sabbath.-, ye seek) Ye seek to kill Me. Therefore ye fulfil not the law. Therefore ye do not the will of God. Therefore ye cannot reach the knowledge of My doctrine, because ye are altogether unlike Me, and hate Me.

[182] This name, The Joy of the Law, was given to the festival celebrated on the day after the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. See Vitringa Synag. Vet. p. 1003. Comp. Nehem. Joh 8:17-18. On the feast of tabernacles there was very great gladness. And day by day, from the first day to the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days: and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly according unto the manner.-E. and T.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 7:19

Joh 7:19

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me?-The leaders of the Jews had determined to kill him for breaking the law of Moses. Moses did not make that law. He received it from God and gave it to the Jews, as Jesus received it from God and gave it to them. None of them kept the law, yet sought to kill him on a charge of breaking the law in healing a man on the Sabbath.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

not: Joh 1:17, Joh 5:45, Joh 9:28, Joh 9:29, Exo 24:2, Exo 24:3, Deu 33:4, Deu 1:17, Act 7:38, Gal 3:19, Heb 3:3-5

yet: Mat 23:2-4, Rom 2:12, Rom 2:13, Rom 2:17-29, Rom 3:10-23, Gal 6:13

Why: Joh 7:25, Joh 5:16, Joh 5:18, Joh 10:31, Joh 10:32, Joh 10:39, Joh 11:53, Psa 2:1-6, Mat 12:14, Mat 21:38, Mar 3:4, Mar 3:6

Reciprocal: 2Ki 23:25 – according Neh 10:29 – given Luk 6:9 – Is it Luk 19:47 – the chief priests Joh 7:1 – because Joh 7:30 – they Joh 8:37 – but Act 7:53 – and have

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

9

The particular part of the law of Moses that Jesus refers to, is the sixth commandment which is the one against murder. The sabbatarians try to make a distinction between the law of God, which they say is the Decalogue or ten commandments, and the law of Moses which is the “ceremonial law” as they call it. But here is Jesus referring to one of the ten commandments and calling it the law of Moses. All of this shows how inconsistent people will be when they wish to defend an unscriptural theory.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

[Why go ye about to kill me?] the emphasis or force of this clause lies chiefly in the word me; “Why go you about to kill me? none of you all perform the law as you ought; and yet your great design is to kill me; as a transgressor of it: why me; and not others?”

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Joh 7:19. Did not Moses give you the law, and no one of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me? There are two ways in which this verse may be taken, and between them it is not easy to decide. They turn on the interpretation of no one of you doeth the law; for this may find its explanation either in the words that immediately follow or in Joh 7:21-25. It may be best to give the connection of thought according to each of these views. In both cases the law chiefly denotes the Ten Commandments. (I) The accusation of the Jews against Jesus, of having transgressed Gods will, must fall to the ground (Joh 7:18), but not so His accusation against them. Moses, whom all accepted as Gods true messenger, gave them the law, which therefore expressed Gods will, and yet every one of them was breaking the law, for they were seeking to kill Jesus. They were therefore self-convicted by their own works of opposing the revealed will of God: no wonder therefore that they had rejected Jesus. In favour of this explanation we may say that the words are (Joh 7:15-16) addressed to the Jews, whose murderous intention Jesus well knew not to have been inspired by true zeal for the law,that the words so understood aptly follow Joh 7:17-18,and that we thus secure for the solemn expression doeth the law a natural and worthy sense. (2) The other explanation connects this verse less strictly with Joh 7:18. In Jesus, as a true messenger, there is no unrighteousness. What they have called unrighteousness is altogether righteous,nay, it is what they themselves habitually do, and rightly do. Moses gave them the law, the whole law, and yet there is no one of them that keeps the whole law. Every one of them (as the example afterwards given proves) sets aside one of two conflicting laws, breaks one commandment when there is no other way of keeping a higher command inviolate; and this is all that Jesus did in the act for which they seek to kill Him. This second explanation agrees well with what follows; and, although at first sight it seems almost too mild to be spoken to the Jews, it has really great sharpness. It must have at once penetrated their hearts and thrown a light upon the guilt and folly of their conduct which they could only evade by again deliberately turning their eyes from the light. No one of you doeth the law is also a very heavy charge. On the whole, the second interpretation seems preferable to the first.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, 1. That our Lord, having vindicated his doctrine in the former verses, comes now to vindicate his practice in healing the impotent man on the sabbath-day, for which the Jews sought his life, as a violation of the fourth commandment given by Moses. Our Saviour tells them, That notwithstanding their pretended zeal for the law of Moses, they more notoriously broke the sixth commandment, by going about to kill him, an innocent person, than he had broken the fourth commandment, by making a man whole on the sabbath-day.

Hence learn, That it is damnable hypocrisy, when men pretend great zeal against the sins of others, and do allow and tolerate worse in themselves. This is for their practice to give their profession the lie: the Jews condemn our Saviour for a supposed breach of the fourth commandment; whilst they are guilty themselves of a real breach of the sixth commandment.

Observe, 2. The ignominy and reproach which the Jews fix upon our blessed Saviour, in the height of their rage and fury against him, Thou hast a devil. The king of saints in heaven, as well as the whole host of saints on earth, hath been frequently smitten and deeply wounded with reproach. Christ was reproached for our sake, and when we are reproached for his sake, he takes our reproach as his own. Moses’s reproach was the reproach of Christ, Heb 11:26 And he esteemed it a treasure, which did more enrich him with its worth, than press him with its weight. Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.

Observe, 3. The wonderful meekness of Christ, in passing over this reproach and calumny, without one word of reply. Guilt is commonly clamorous and impatient, but, innocence is silent and regardless of misreports. Our Saviour is not at the pains of a word to vindicate himself from their impotent censure, but goes on with his discourse, and justifies his own action, in healing a man on the sabbath-day, from the Jews own practice in circumcising their children on that day, if it happen to be the eighth day: and the argument runs thus: “If circumcision may be administered to a child on the sabbath-day, which is a servile kind of work, and bodily exercise, without blame or censure, why must I fall under censure, for healing a man on the sabbath-day thoroughly and perfectly, only by a word speaking?”

Hence learn, that the law of doing good, and relieving the miserable at all times, is a more ancient and excellent law, than either that of the sabbath rest, or of circumscion upon the eighth day. A ritual law must and ought to give place to the law of nature, which is written in every man’s heart. As if our Lord had said, “If you may wound a man by circumcision on the sabbath-day, may not I heal one? If you may heal on that day one member of the circumcised, may not I make a man whole every whit. If you be at pains cure such a one with your hand, may not I without pains cure a man with the word of my mouth?

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Joh 7:19-20. Did not Moses give you the law As if he had said, But you are unrighteous; for you violate the very law for which you profess so much zeal. There is a remarkable beauty in this sudden turn of the sentiment. Some of the Jews called Jesus a false prophet: because on the sabbath day he had healed the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, (Joh 5:9,) pretending that it was a gross violation of the law of Moses, such as no good man, far less a prophet, would be guilty of. In answer to these evil surmises, he told them plainly, that however much they pretended to reverence the authority of Moses in his law, they made no scruple to violate the most sacred of his precepts; having entered into a resolution of murdering him, directly contrary to every Law of God and man; and being now employed in laying secret plots against his life: a reproof this, which came in with singular propriety and force, immediately after Jesus had, by the most convincing arguments, proved his mission from God. The people answered, Thou hast a devil Either thou art mad, or thou art actuated by the malice of the devil, or by a lying spirit; who goeth about to kill thee? Probably these, who spake thus, came from distant parts of the country, and did not know the design of the priests and rulers.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 19-23. Has not Moses given you the law? And yet no one of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?20. The multitude answered and said: Thou art possessed by a demon; who is seeking to kill thee? 21. Jesus answered and said to them: I have done one work, and you are all in astonishment. 22. For this reason Moses has given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but it comes from the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man. 23. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I have healed a man altogether on a Sabbath?

This passage is an example of the skill with which Jesus handled the law. But, to understand this argument, we must guard ourselves against generalizing, as most of the interpreters do, the idea of Joh 7:19 : No one of you fulfills the law. Thus some, as Meyer, think that Jesus means: How will you have the right to condemn me, you who yourselves sin? Weiss, nearly the same: You who do not measure your conduct according to the rule of the law, how do you condemn me according to it? But if Jesus had really violated the law, wherein would their violations justify His? Could He claim that there was no imposture in Him? Others (Hengstenberg, Waitz, Stud. u. Krit. 1881, p. 148) seek the explanation of this charge in the following question: Why do you seek to kill me? Their murderous hatredin this is the transgression of the law with which He charges them. But the expression: not to fulfill, would be too feeble to designate a desire to murder.

And with all this, no explanation is given of the meaning of the first question: Has not Moses given you the law? which appears to be absolutely idle. So we can scarcely be surprised that Bertling (Stud. u. Krit. 1880) has proposed, in spite of the authority of all the documents, to transpose the passage Joh 7:19-24 and place it before Joh 5:17! All these difficulties vanish as soon as Joh 7:19 is referred to its true object, which clearly appears from Joh 7:22-23. Jesus declares in the first place, in a purely abstract way, the fact at which He is aiming. You yourselves, with all your respect for Moses your lawgiver, know well that occasionally you place yourselves above his law! And yet you desire to put me to death because I have thought that I could do as you do, and with much more right even than you. These words contain the fundamental thought of the following reasoning. And it is so true that Jesus, in speaking thus, is already thinking of the act of chap. 5, that the expression: wish to kill me, reproduces the very terms of Joh 5:16. This question is addressed to the multitude who surround Jesus only so far as He regards it as representing the entire nation with its spiritual directors.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

APOSTASY OF THE JEWISH CHURCH

Joh 7:19-23. Did not Moses give you the law? and no one of you keeps the law. Do you not see the utter collapse and failure of their religion, as neither priest nor people kept the law? Can we keep it? Certainly, by the grace of God in Christ. Love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:10) Hence, you see, all who have perfect love do, by the grace of God, keep and fulfill the law; not literally, but spiritually. Why do you seek to kill Me? The multitude responded, Thou hast a demon; who seeks to kill thee? Though the high priests and Pharisees had threatened to kill Him if He ever came back to Jerusalem, the respondent from the crowd did not know it. Jesus responded, and said to them, One work I did, and you are all amazed. That was the work of healing the invalid at the pool, which He did eighteen months previously, when last at Jerusalem. Moses gave you circumcision: not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers; and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. God instituted circumcision in the days of Abraham, long before Moses was born. Jesus had healed the invalid of thirty-eight years on the Sabbath-day, while attending the second Passover of His ministry. The penalty under the law for violating the Sabbath being death by stoning, consequently they are constantly maneuvering to arrest and bring Him before the Sanhedrin, and try Him for Sabbath-breaking. Here He utterly nullifies the allegation by the fact that they circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, in order that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you mad at Me because I made a man entirely well on the Sabbath? Thus He turns the argument against them, breaking their heads with their own club.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

7:19 {7} Did not Moses give you the law, and [yet] none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

(7) None boast more confidently that they themselves are the defenders of the law of God than they that break it most impudently.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Jesus had claimed that God had given Him His teaching and that He proclaimed it faithfully as a righteous man. Now He contrasted His critics with Himself. They claimed that Moses had given them his teaching, but they did not carry it out faithfully as righteous men. Therefore it was incongruous that they sought to kill Jesus (cf. Joh 7:44-45). They accused Him of unrighteousness, but really they were the unrighteous ones. They sought to kill him even though Moses had taught that God’s will was to refrain from murder (Exo 20:13). Obviously they had not submitted to God’s will that came through Moses. It is no wonder that they failed to understand Jesus’ teaching.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)