Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 7:22

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 7:22” utilice nuestra app.

Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

22. Moses therefore gave ] Better, For this cause (Joh 12:18; Joh 12:27) Moses hath given. Comp. Joh 8:47.

of Moses of the fathers ] ‘Originating with Moses originating with the fathers.’ Circumcision originated with the Patriarchs, and was a more ancient institution than the Sabbath. When, therefore, the two ordinances clashed, the younger had to give place; it was more fit that the Sabbath should be broken, than that circumcision should be administered on the wrong day. If then the Sabbath could give way to a mere ceremonial observance, how much more might it give way to a work of mercy? The law of charity is older and higher than any ceremonial law.

on the sabbath ] Rather, on a Sabbath; so also in Joh 7:23.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision – Moses commanded you to circumcise your children, Lev 12:3. The word therefore in this place – literally on account of this – means, Moses on this account gave you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers; that is, the reason was not that he himself appointed it as a new institution, but he found it already in existence, and incorporated it in his institutions and laws.

Not because … – Not that it is of Moses. Though Jesus spoke in accordance with the custom of the Jews, who ascribed the appointment of circumcision to Moses, yet he is careful to remind them that it was in observance long before Moses. So, also, the Sabbath was kept before Moses, and alike in the one case and the other they ought to keep in mind the design of the appointment.

Of the fathers – Of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Gen 17:10.

Ye on the sabbath-day … – The law required that the child should be circumcised on the eighth day. If that day happened to be the Sabbath, yet they held that he was to be circumcised, as there was a positive law to that effect; and as this was commanded, they did not consider it a breach of the Sabbath.

A man – Not an adult man, but a man-child. See Joh 16:21; She remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 22. But of the fathers] That is, it came from the patriarchs. Circumcision was not, properly speaking, one of the laws of the Mosaic institution, it having been given at first to Abraham, and continued among his posterity till the giving of the law: Ge 17:9-10, c.

Ye – circumcise a man.] That is, a male child: for every male child was circumcised when eight days old and if the eighth day after its birth happened to be a Sabbath, it was nevertheless circumcised, that the law might not be broken, which had enjoined the circumcision to take place at that time, Le 12:3. From this and several other circumstances it is evident that the keeping of the Sabbath, even in the strictest sense of the word, ever admitted of the works of necessity and mercy to be done on it; and that those who did not perform such works on that day, when they had opportunity, were properly violators of every law founded on the principles of mercy and justice. If the Jews had said, Why didst thou not defer the healing of the sick man till the ensuing day? He might have well answered, Why do ye not defer the circumcising of your children to the ensuing day, when the eighth day happens to be a Sabbath? – which is a matter of infinitely less consequence than the restoration of this long-afflicted man.

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

The particle therefore, or, for this, , maketh in this verse a great difficulty, what the meaning of it should be. The most probable account of it is, that it belongeth to the former verse, which should end thus, and ye all marvel for this. This indeed maketh all plain; otherwise it is very hard to give an account what force it can have, if we consider it as a note of a cause.

Moses gave you circumcision, that is, a law about circumcision; yet that law had not its rise from Moses: the law was given to your father Abraham, Gen 17:10, long before Mosess time. In obedience to that law, you circumcise a male child, or a proselyte, that is, a man grown, on the sabbath day.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

22. Moses . . . gave unto youcircumcision, &c.Though servile work was forbidden on thesabbath, the circumcision of males on that day (which certainly was aservile work) was counted no infringement of the Law. How much lessought fault to be found with One who had made a man “every whitwhole”or rather, “a man’s entire body whole”onthe sabbath-day? What a testimony to the reality of the miracle, nonedaring to meet the bold appeal.

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

Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision,…. The command of circumcision, which he renewed and established, Le 12:3;

(not because, or that it is of Moses; originally, or that he was the first giver of it, for it was enjoined before his time; this is a correction of what is before said, giving a more accurate account of the rise of circumcision:

but of the fathers); Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to whom it was enjoined by God, and who practised it before the times of Moses; so that this command was in force before him, and obligatory upon the descendants of Abraham, before he delivered it; and would have been, if he had never mentioned it; though the Jews say r,

“we do not circumcise because Abraham our father, on whom be peace, circumcised himself and his household, but because the holy blessed God commanded us by Moses, that we should be circumcised, as Abraham our father was circumcised.”

But no doubt it would have been binding on them, if Moses had said nothing about it; the command to Abraham is so express, for the circumcision of his male offspring, Ge 17:10; however, it being both of Moses and of the fathers, laid a very great obligation on the Jews to observe it:

and ye on the sabbath day, circumcise a man; a male child, as they did, when the eighth day fell on a sabbath day; for the law of circumcision was before the law of the sabbath, and therefore was not to be made void by it, nor was it made void by it; and so much is intimated by our Lord’s observing, that it was not of Moses, but of the fathers; and this is the reason which the Karaite Jews give for circumcision on the sabbath day: for s

“say they, because it is a former command, from the time of Abraham our father, on whom be peace, before the giving of the law of the sabbath, , “they circumcise on the sabbath day”, and when the command of the sabbath afterwards took place, it was not possible it should disannul circumcision on the sabbath day; and for the same reason, they also allow the sacrifice of the passover to be done on the sabbath day, because it is a command which went before the command of the sabbath.”

And this was also the sense and practice of the other Jews: thus citing the law of Moses in Le 12:3. “And in the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised”, by way of gloss upon it add, , “and even on the sabbath day” t; and on the same text another writer observes u, that by Gematry, every day is fit for circumcision. R. Jose says w,

“they do all things necessary to circumcision, on the sabbath day.”

R. Abika says x,

“all work that can be done on the evening of the sabbath, does not drive away the sabbath; but circumcision, which cannot be done on the evening of the sabbath, drives away the sabbath: they do all things necessary to circumcision; they circumcise, and make bare, and suck, and put (on the wound) a plaster and cummin; and which, if not bruised on the evening of the sabbath, they may chew with their teeth.”

Also it is allowed of y, to

“wash the infant on the third day of circumcision, which happens to be on the sabbath.”

Moreover, a case is put after this manner z;

“if a man has two infants, one to be circumcised after the sabbath, and the other to be “circumcised on the sabbath”, and forgets, and circumcises that, that was to be after the sabbath, on the sabbath, he is guilty of sin; if one is to be circumcised in the evening of the sabbath, and the other on the sabbath, and he forgets, and circumcises that which should be on the evening of the sabbath, on the sabbath, R. Eliezer pronounces him guilty, but R, Joshua absolves him.”

And we have an instance a of

“R. Sheshana, the son of R. Samuel bar Abdimo, that when he was to be circumcised, it was the sabbath day, and they forgot the razor; and they inquired of R. Meni and R. Isaac ben Eleazar, and it was drove off to another day.”

From all which it appears, that circumcision on the sabbath day, was a common practice, and which confirms the assertion of Christ.

r Maimon. in Misn. Cholin, c. 7. sect. 6. s R. Eliaha in Adderet apud Trigland. de Sect. Karaeorum, c. 9. p. 134. t T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 132. 1. Mitzvot Tora, pr. Affirm. 28. u Baal Hatturim in Lev. xii. 3. w Misna Sabbat, c. 18. sect. 3. x Misna Sabbat, c. 19. sect. 1, 2. T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 69. 2. Maimon. Hilchot Milah, c. 2. sect. 6, 7. y Ib. sect. 3. Bereshit Rabba, sect. 8. fol. 70. 3. Maimon. ib. sect. 6. z Ib. sect. 4. T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 19. 2. a Juchasin, fol. 105. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

For this cause ( ). Some would take this phrase with the preceding verb (ye marvel for this cause).

Hath given (). Present active indicative of (permanent state).

Not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers ( ‘ ). A parenthesis to explain that circumcision is older in origin than Moses.

And on the sabbath ye circumcise ( ). Adversative use of =and yet as in 19. That is to say, the Jews keep one law (circumcision) by violating another (on the Sabbath, the charge against him in chapter 5, healing on the Sabbath).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision:” (dia touto Mouses dedoken humin ten peritomen) “Because of this Moses has given you all the (law of) circumcision,” a practice ordered of the Lord, beginning with Abraham, father of the faithful, Gen 17:4-27.

2) “(Not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;)” (ouch hoti ek tou Mouseos estin all’ ek ton pateron) “Not that it is really of and from Moses but from the patriarch fathers,” having been given to Abraham, before Moses, Gen 17:10-11. It was a token of God’s covenant with Abraham, Rom 4:9-12.

3) “And ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.” (kai en sabbato peritemnete anthropon) “And on a sabbath you all circumcise a man,” when it is on the eighth day after his birth, See? Gen 17:12; Luk 2:21. Yet they criticized Him sharply and castigated Him to others for healing a man on the sabbath, whom they had not helped for thirty-eight years, Joh 5:5; And this availed them nothing in redemption, Gal 5:1-3; Col 2:11.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

22. Therefore Moses gave you circumcision The particle therefore appears to be unsuitable; and, accordingly, some take διὰ τούτο ( on this account, or therefore) in the sense of διὰ τούτο, ( because;) but the Greek syntax is unfavourable to their opinion. (189) I explain it simply as meaning, that circumcision was enjoined in such a manner that the practice of that symbolical rite was necessary even on the Sabbath-day Therefore, says he; that is, it has in this manner been sufficiently demonstrated to them, that the worship of the Sabbath is not violated by the works of God. And although Christ accommodates the instance of circumcision to the present subject, yet he immediately makes use of a correction, when he says, that Moses was not the first minister of circumcision. But it was enough for his purpose, that Moses, who so rigidly demanded the keeping of the Sabbath, commanded that infants should be circumcised on the eighth day, even though it should fall on the day of Rest (190)

(189) The difficulty is obviated by reading the words διὰ τούτο, (with Scholz, Bloomfield, and others,) as the conclusion of the 21, and not as the commencement of the 22 verse; καὶ πάντες Θαυμάζετε διὰ τούτο, and you all wonder at it, or, on this account Our Author, with his usual sagacity, has, in this instance, also anticipated the results of modern criticism; for his French version, which contains his latest views, runs thus: “ J’ay fait une oeuvre, et vous en estes tous emerveillez, ou, et vous estes esmerveillez de cela Moise vous a donne la Circoncision .” — “I have done one work, and you are all astonished at it, or, and you are all astonished at that Moses gave you Circumcision. ” It is remarkable that, while a modern French version copies Calvin’s rendering very closely, et vous en etes tous etonnes , ( and you are all astonished at it,) the translator has overlooked the force of διὰ τούτο, for en ( at it) is marked by him in Italics, as a supplement. — Ed.

(190) “ An jour de Repos.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(22) Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision.Some MSS., and many editors, place the therefore, or, on this account, at the close of the last verse, reading, Ye all marvel on this account, and then the present verse, Moses gave unto you circumcision . . . The reading of our version is, however, better supported, and agrees better with the writers style. On this account hath Moses given you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers. The argument is, Ye circumcise on the Sabbath day because circumcision is part of the Mosaic law; but Moses gave you circumcision because he had an anterior and higher authority for it, and in practice you recognise this and make it override the Sabbath. But if circumcision is allowed, why not a deed of mercy? This is the practice and precept of your rulers. But if a patriarchal rite is greater than the Mosaic Sabbath, because the fathers were anterior to Moses, how much more an act of love, which is anterior to all time.

A man.Used here, and in the next verse, as equivalent to a male child, as in Joh. 16:21.

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

22. Of the fathers Given first to Abraham by God, it was incorporated into the Mosaic law. This did not make it prior to the Sabbath; for that was at the creation.

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

“This is why I tell you that Moses has given you circumcision, not that it is of Moses but of the fathers, and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you hotly angry with me because I made a man totally whole on the Sabbath day?”

‘This is why I tell you’ refers back to the previous verse. The literal Greek is ‘This is why Moses –’, but we must read in ‘I tell you’ in order to understand the sense.

He is informing them that He has told them that Moses gave them a law of circumcision, which involved breaking the Sabbath, in order to demonstrate that the Sabbath law should be interpreted to allow for activities related to God (such as healing and its consequences).

So Jesus is now challenging their view of the Sabbath. Moses gave them circumcision, He says, (although, He adds, it was in fact practised by the fathers long before Moses), and in order to keep the law of Moses they would circumcise a man on the Sabbath, because it had to be done on the eighth day. They thus saw circumcision as overriding the Sabbath. Was it then right to circumcise a man on the Sabbath, but wrong to make him whole?

In the Mishnah Shabbath Joh 18:3; Joh 19:1-2 and Nedarim Joh 3:11 all hold that the command to circumcise overrides the command to observe the Sabbath in order that the Law be kept. (The Mishnah was Jewish oral law gathered together by 200 AD by Rabbi Judah the Prince).

Again they were seen as not being honest with the law of Moses. It is clear that the arguments against Him had included that of healing a man on the Sabbath and His telling the man to take his mattress home. The Pharisees allowed minimum emergency assistance on the Sabbath in health matters in as far as it was necessary to save life, but what Jesus had done went beyond that in their eyes. He had made a man whole by the power of God and then told him to take home his invalid mattress. But, asks Jesus, was this really less important than the carrying out of circumcision?

They were in fact so tied down by their views on circumcision that they would probably have said, yes. This too was evidence of their blindness. But Jesus was saying that ceremonial rites can never be more important than mercy and compassion.

We note here that the basis of the argument demands an exact knowledge of Jewish Law. Once again we are in the atmosphere of Palestine.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

Ver. 22. Moses therefore ] Tam severus sabbati exactor, As strict as he was for the observation of the sabbath, yet he was not against circumcision, and the healing again of the child’s wound, upon that day. And if any object that circumcision was a sacrament, and so a sabbath day’s work, it may be answered, 1. That this cure also was much to the glory of God. 2. That the man was cured on both sides, and received both sanitatem in corpore, et sanctitatem in corde, health in the body and purity of the heart.

Ye on the sabbath day circumcise ] q.d. If you may wound a man on the sabbath day, may not I heal one? If you may heal on the sabbath one member of the circumcised, may not I make a man whole every whit? If you be at pains to cure such a one with your hand, may not I without pains cure a man with my word only? What if circumcision be a sacrament? so was this that I have done a special means of bringing much glory to God.

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

22. ] is variously placed; either at the end of Joh 7:21 , so as to come after , (Cod. [98] , lat. q , Theophyl., Beza, and many of the moderns, Lcke, De Wette, Stier, Lachmann, &c.,) or at the beginning of this verse (Codd. [99] , [100] , [101] , [102] , [103] , [104] , [105] , , , [ [106] , [107] , , ,] vul [108] ., the syriac versions, copt [109] ., got [110] ., Euthym [111] , Chrys., Cyril, Grotius, &c.). I prefer the latter arrangement: because (1) I believe would not be used in the sense required by the other, but (nor can I see that the makes the any more applicable (see Stier, edn. 2, iv. 315); nay, it seems to me to take the attention off from the particular work done, and fix it on the mere . , abstractedly ‘Ye wonder that I have acted at all’): and (2) because I find joined with to be a usual mode of speaking with our Evangelist, see ch. Joh 5:16 ; Joh 5:18 ; Joh 8:47 ( is used Mar 6:6 ; Rev 17:7 ; see also Joh 3:29 ). (3) I see an appropriateness of meaning in Joh 7:22 with the , which it has not without it. Moses on this account gave you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers; (the repetition of . . . does not necessarily imply a parenthesis: John constantly uses these formal repetitions: this in answer to Stier, iv. 315, edn. 2) i.e. it is no part of the law of Moses , properly so called, but was adopted by Moses, and thereby becomes part of his law. The meaning of , ‘ not that ,’ implying ‘I mean not, that,’ does not seem to suit the context so well, because it would leave the preceding without any thing to refer to. Now you circumcise on the Sabbath, to avoid breaking the law of Moses , &c. If our Lord had said these last words (in Joh 7:23 ) merely , the argument would not have been strict: they might have answered, that circumcision was not only a command of the law, but anterior to it: whereas Joh 7:22 takes this answer from them; reminding them that though they regarded its sanction as derived from Moses, it was in fact older, and tacitly approving their doing it on the Sabbath. Then the argument is, If this may be done on the Sabbath: if an ordinance strictly Mosaic (which the Sabbath in its Jewish mode of observance was) may be set aside by another, Mosaic also, but more ancient, and borrowed from a more general and direct command of God (“circumcisio est antiquior rigido otio sabbati per Mosen imperato” Grotius), how much more may it by a deed of mercy , a benevolent exercise of divine power, the approval of which is anterior to and deeper than all ceremonial enactment?

[98] The Codex Monacensis, formerly Ingoldstadiensis. [It is a folio in two columns, and was presented by Gerard Vossius (1577 1641) to Ingoldstadt, transferred with the University to Landshut in 1803, to Munich in 1827.] (University Library, Munich, I. 26.) Contains the four Gospels with numerous lacun. [Burgon states that it does not contain Mat 6:6-10 , but Mat 6:10-11Mat 6:10-11 .Mar 14:61-64Mar 14:61-64 ; Mar 14:72 to Mar 15:4 has perished; Mar 15:32 (latter half) Mar 16:8 (former half) has nearly perished.] It is accompanied by an interspersed commentary [that on Matt. and John abbreviated from Chrys.: on Luke from Titus (not Bostr., but rather later). There is no comm. on Mark]. Ascribed to the end of the ninth , or beginning of the tenth century . Collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles.

[99] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ, so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history; but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century .

[100] The Codex Basileensis (Public Library at Basle, formerly B. vi. 21; now K. iv. 35). Contains the four Gospels with some considerable lacun. Collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles. Said to be of the middle of the eighth century . [Burgon gives the press-mark as A. N. iii. 12; and assigns the MS. to the seventh century.]

[101] The Codex Harleianus, 5684, in the British Museum, brought by Andrew Seidel from the East. Contains the Gospels with many lacun. Collated by J. C. Wolf, to whom it once belonged, and recently by Tischendorf and Tregelles (known as Seidelii I., or Wolfii A). Ascribed to the ninth or tenth century .

[102] The Codex Cyprius, brought from the island of Cyprus to Paris, and now in the Imperial Library there (MS. Gr. 63). Contains the Gospels (entire), memoirs of the saints of the Greek Church, and the canons of Eusebius. Collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles. Its text is peculiar and sui generis; and is consequently of much value. Assigned to the ninth century .

[103] The Codex Regius Parisiensis (Bibliothque Impriale Manuscrit grec, No. 62 [olim 2861 and 1558]), contains the Gospels with some lacun. Edited by Tischendorf in his Monumenta Sacra, 1846, pp. 57 399. Its text, both in various readings and in grammatical forms, is of the kind which has been called Alexandrine, and is very nearly related to that of B. From the careless positions of the accents, Scholz and Griesbach think it to have been copied from some more ancient MS. which had no accents. Ascribed by Tischendorf to the eighth century; by Tregelles and others, to the ninth 4 .

[104] CODEX BORGIANUS 1, in the Library of the Propaganda at Rome, of the fifth century (probably). Contains fragments of Luke and John with a Sahidic version. The portions Joh 6:28-67 ; Joh 7:6 to Joh 8:31 were published by A. A. Georgi, at Rome, in 1789: and examined by Tischendorf. This Grco-Egyptian MS. also contains a portion of St. Luke, ch. Luk 22:20 to Luk 23:20 , which was first brought to my notice by Dr. Tregelles, as being mentioned by Zoega in his “Catalogus Codicum Copticorum MSS. qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur.” My brother, the Rev. Bradley H. Alford, happening to be at Rome, was fortunate enough to obtain permission to collate this ancient fragment, and sent me the collation, from which the readings were, in Edn. 4 of this Volume, first published. Two other portions of the same MS. were once in the possession of C. G. Woide and were published by Ford in the Appendix to the Codex Alexandrinus, Oxford, 1799. They comprise Luk 12:15 to Luk 13:32 ; Joh 8:33-42 .

[105] The Codex Nanianus 1, in St. Mark’s Library at Venice ([Gr. Class.] I. viii.), contains the Gospels entire, with the canons of Eusebius. It has been collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles. Assigned to the tenth century .

[106] The Codex Wolfii B, now in the Public Library at Hamburg. Its history is the same as that of the last MS. Its contents, the Gospels, with many lacun: its assigned date, about the end of the ninth century . It was collated by Wolf, Tregelles, and Tischendorf.

[107] The Codex Vaticanus 354, contains the Gospels entire, with the canons of Eusebius. Written by Michael, a monk, in the year 949. Collated by Birch, whose collation Tregelles and Tischendorf have used; hence when quoted as agreeing with the received text, its testimony is only ‘e silentio Birchii,’ except in those cases in which express testimony has been obtained from Tischendorf, who has collated this MS. and the preceding for his eighth edition.

[108] The Vulgate version (A.D. 383), since its completion by Jerome variously emended and edited: quoted from the authorized edition of the Church of Rome put forth by Clement VIII. in 1592, which differs in many respects from the equally authoritative edition of Sixtus V. in 1590. See Horne, pp. 243 257.

[109] Denotes that the Egyptian versions agree in supporting a given reading. The ordinary citations, repeated in this volume cannot be thoroughly relied upon.

[110] The Gothic version. Made from the Greek by Ulphilas about the middle of the fourth century .

[111] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

therefore gave unto you = for this cause (dia [App-104. Joh 7:2] touto) has given you. circumcision. Moses mentioned the precept only in Exo 12:44, Exo 12:48. Lev 12:3. The Law not given by Moses, but based on Gen 17:9-14.

the fathers. That is, Abraham. on. Greek. en. App-104.

man. Greek. anthropos. App-123.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

22.] is variously placed; either at the end of Joh 7:21, so as to come after , (Cod. [98], lat. q, Theophyl., Beza, and many of the moderns, Lcke, De Wette, Stier, Lachmann, &c.,)-or at the beginning of this verse (Codd. [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], , , [[106], [107], , ,] vul[108]., the syriac versions, copt[109]., got[110]., Euthym[111], Chrys., Cyril, Grotius, &c.). I prefer the latter arrangement: because (1) I believe would not be used in the sense required by the other, but (nor can I see that the makes the any more applicable (see Stier, edn. 2, iv. 315); nay, it seems to me to take the attention off from the particular work done, and fix it on the mere . , abstractedly-Ye wonder that I have acted at all): and (2) because I find joined with to be a usual mode of speaking with our Evangelist, see ch. Joh 5:16; Joh 5:18; Joh 8:47 ( is used Mar 6:6; Rev 17:7; see also Joh 3:29). (3) I see an appropriateness of meaning in Joh 7:22 with the , which it has not without it. Moses on this account gave you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers; (the repetition of . . . does not necessarily imply a parenthesis: John constantly uses these formal repetitions: this in answer to Stier, iv. 315, edn. 2)-i.e. it is no part of the law of Moses, properly so called,-but was adopted by Moses, and thereby becomes part of his law. The meaning of , not that, implying I mean not, that, does not seem to suit the context so well, because it would leave the preceding without any thing to refer to. Now you circumcise on the Sabbath, to avoid breaking the law of Moses, &c. If our Lord had said these last words (in Joh 7:23) merely, the argument would not have been strict: they might have answered, that circumcision was not only a command of the law, but anterior to it: whereas Joh 7:22 takes this answer from them; reminding them that though they regarded its sanction as derived from Moses, it was in fact older,-and tacitly approving their doing it on the Sabbath. Then the argument is, If this may be done on the Sabbath:-if an ordinance strictly Mosaic (which the Sabbath in its Jewish mode of observance was) may be set aside by another, Mosaic also, but more ancient, and borrowed from a more general and direct command of God (circumcisio est antiquior rigido otio sabbati per Mosen imperato-Grotius), how much more may it by a deed of mercy, a benevolent exercise of divine power, the approval of which is anterior to and deeper than all ceremonial enactment?

[98] The Codex Monacensis, formerly Ingoldstadiensis. [It is a folio in two columns, and was presented by Gerard Vossius (1577-1641) to Ingoldstadt, transferred with the University to Landshut in 1803, to Munich in 1827.] (University Library, Munich, I. 26.) Contains the four Gospels with numerous lacun. [Burgon states that it does not contain Mat 6:6-10, but Mat 6:6; Mat 6:10-11. Mar 14:61-64; Mar 14:72 to Mar 15:4 has perished; Mar 15:32 (latter half)-Mar 16:8 (former half) has nearly perished.] It is accompanied by an interspersed commentary [that on Matt. and John abbreviated from Chrys.: on Luke from Titus (not Bostr., but rather later). There is no comm. on Mark]. Ascribed to the end of the ninth, or beginning of the tenth century. Collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles.

[99] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ,-so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history;-but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century.

[100] The Codex Basileensis (Public Library at Basle, formerly B. vi. 21; now K. iv. 35). Contains the four Gospels with some considerable lacun. Collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles. Said to be of the middle of the eighth century. [Burgon gives the press-mark as A. N. iii. 12; and assigns the MS. to the seventh century.]

[102] The Codex Cyprius, brought from the island of Cyprus to Paris, and now in the Imperial Library there (MS. Gr. 63). Contains the Gospels (entire), memoirs of the saints of the Greek Church, and the canons of Eusebius. Collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles. Its text is peculiar and sui generis; and is consequently of much value. Assigned to the ninth century.

[103] The Codex Regius Parisiensis (Bibliothque Impriale Manuscrit grec, No. 62 [olim 2861 and 1558]), contains the Gospels with some lacun. Edited by Tischendorf in his Monumenta Sacra, 1846, pp. 57-399. Its text, both in various readings and in grammatical forms, is of the kind which has been called Alexandrine, and is very nearly related to that of B. From the careless positions of the accents, Scholz and Griesbach think it to have been copied from some more ancient MS. which had no accents. Ascribed by Tischendorf to the eighth century; by Tregelles and others, to the ninth4.

[104] CODEX BORGIANUS 1, in the Library of the Propaganda at Rome, of the fifth century (probably). Contains fragments of Luke and John with a Sahidic version. The portions Joh 6:28-67; Joh 7:6 to Joh 8:31 were published by A. A. Georgi, at Rome, in 1789: and examined by Tischendorf. This Grco-Egyptian MS. also contains a portion of St. Luke, ch. Luk 22:20 to Luk 23:20, which was first brought to my notice by Dr. Tregelles, as being mentioned by Zoega in his Catalogus Codicum Copticorum MSS. qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur. My brother, the Rev. Bradley H. Alford, happening to be at Rome, was fortunate enough to obtain permission to collate this ancient fragment, and sent me the collation, from which the readings were, in Edn. 4 of this Volume, first published. Two other portions of the same MS. were once in the possession of C. G. Woide and were published by Ford in the Appendix to the Codex Alexandrinus, Oxford, 1799. They comprise Luk 12:15 to Luk 13:32; Joh 8:33-42.

[105] The Codex Nanianus 1, in St. Marks Library at Venice ([Gr. Class.] I. viii.), contains the Gospels entire, with the canons of Eusebius. It has been collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles. Assigned to the tenth century.

[106] The Codex Wolfii B, now in the Public Library at Hamburg. Its history is the same as that of the last MS. Its contents, the Gospels,-with many lacun: its assigned date, about the end of the ninth century. It was collated by Wolf, Tregelles, and Tischendorf.

[107] The Codex Vaticanus 354, contains the Gospels entire, with the canons of Eusebius. Written by Michael, a monk, in the year 949. Collated by Birch, whose collation Tregelles and Tischendorf have used; hence when quoted as agreeing with the received text, its testimony is only e silentio Birchii, except in those cases in which express testimony has been obtained from Tischendorf, who has collated this MS. and the preceding for his eighth edition.

[109] Denotes that the Egyptian versions agree in supporting a given reading. The ordinary citations, repeated in this volume cannot be thoroughly relied upon.

[110] The Gothic version. Made from the Greek by Ulphilas about the middle of the fourth century.

[111] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 7:22. , on this account) This is presently after explained by the , to wit, not because: Comp. ch. Joh 8:47 [Ye therefore hear not-Gods words-because ye are not of God; -]; Joh 10:17, Therefore doth My Father love Me, because. A similar expression occurs, Mar 12:24, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, when the force of the particle is hidden in the participle [ ].-, gave) Gen 17:10; circumcision given as seal of the covenant between God and Abraham]. Exo 12:44, Every mans servant-when thou hast circumcised him, shall eat of the passover. Lev 12:3, In the eighth day the flesh of the foreskin-of every man-child, shall be circumcised].- , not because) By this clause the dignity of circumcision is exalted, in respect to the Sabbath, than which it is older and therefore entitled to take the precedence.[183]

[183] i.e. Than the Jewish Sabbath; but the primitive Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, and is therefore ages older than circumcision.-E. and T.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 7:22

Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man.-Moses whom they claimed to honor had commanded them to circumcise their children as it had come down from Abraham. In obedience to Moses law they circumcise a child on the eighth day, even if it fell on the Sabbath. Why should setting aside the Sabbath law to heal an afflicted man be worse than setting it aside to circumcise a child?

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

but of the fathers

Gen 17:10. (See Scofield “Mat 12:1”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

circumcision: Gen 17:10-14, Lev 12:3, Rom 4:9-11, Gal 3:17

Reciprocal: Gen 17:12 – he that is eight days old Gen 21:4 – General Mat 12:5 – on Joh 5:18 – broken Act 7:8 – the covenant Act 15:1 – after Heb 1:1 – the fathers

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

The Jews pretended to have great respect for Moses, whose law they accused Jesus with violating. In specifying a work they did on the sabbath, Jesus mentioned circumcision which also came from Moses. However, lest they misunderstand the real history of that ordinance, he interposed an explanation that it had been given to the fathers of old before the time of Moses. Notwithstanding this, they professed to regard the law of Moses so highly, that they insisted on performing his ordinance of circumcision, even though it should be done on the sabbath day.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

[Ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.] They do all things that are necessary towards circumcision on the sabbath day. “R. Akibah saith, Any work that may be done on the vespers of the sabbath must not be done on the sabbath; but circumcision, when it cannot be done on the vespers of the sabbath, may be done on the sabbath day.”

“Danger of life nulleth the sabbath: circumcision also, and its cure; nulleth the sabbath.”

But as to this matter, they distinguish in Bereshith Rabba; “Jacob of Nabor taught us in Tsur: It is lawful to circumcise the son of a stranger on the sabbath day. R. Haggai heard this, and sent to him saying, Come and be disciplined;” etc. And a little after; “R. Haggai saith to him, Lie down [to take discipline] and I will teach you. If a heathen come to you, and say, I would be made a Jew, so that he would be circumcised on the sabbath day, or on the day of Expiation, will we, for his sake, profane those days? Do we ever profane those days either of the sabbath, or Expiation, for any other than one born of an Israelitess only?” We meet with the same also in Bemidbar Rabba; and Midras Coheleth.

Let us look a little into the way of Christ’s arguing in this place: to me it seems thus: “Moses, therefore, gave you circumcision, that you might rightly understand the nature of the sabbath: for, I. Circumcision was to be observed by the fathers before Moses, punctually on the eight day. II. Now, therefore, when Moses established the laws about the sabbath, he did by no means forbid the work of circumcision on the sabbath, if it happened to be the eighth day. III. For this did Moses give and continue circumcision among you, that you might learn from hence to judge of the nature of the sabbath day. And let us, therefore, argue it: If by Moses’ institution and allowance it was lawful, for the advantage of the infant, to circumcise him on the sabbath day, is it not warrantable, by Moses’ law, for the advantage of a grown man, to heal him on the sabbath day? If it be lawful to wound an infant by circumcision, surely it is equally, if not much more, lawful to heal a man by a word’s speaking.”

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Joh 7:22. For this cause hath Moses given you the circumcision (not that it is of Moses but of the fathers), and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. The very law was intended to teach them the fundamental principle upon which Jesus rested His defence, to look beyond the letter to the spirit, and to see that sometimes an ordinance is most honoured when its letter is broken. For this cause to teach this lessonMoses, who gave the Ten Commandments (Joh 7:19), one of which enjoined the sabbath rest, took up into the law which he gave (see Joh 7:23, the law of Moses) the far earlier ordinance of circumcision, laying down or rather repeating the strict rule that the rite must be performed on the eighth day (Lev 12:3). When this eighth day fell on the sabbath, the Jews, however inconsistent the rite might seem with the rigid sabbath rest, yet, with a true instinct, never hesitated to circumcise a child. They felt that to receive the sign of Gods covenant, the token of consecration and of the removal of uncleanness (andmay we add?the token of the promise which was before and above the law, Gal 3:17), could never be really inconsistent with any command of God. In acting as they did, therefore, they proved that in this matter the lesson which the lawgiver designed to teach had been truly learned by them; yet it was a lesson essentially the same as that which the healing by Jesus on the sabbath day had taught. This passage is of great interest as showing that in many respects the law, even whilst seeming to deal in positive precepts only, was intended to become, and in some measure actually was, a discipline, preparing for the dispensation of the Spirit.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 22

Not–of Moses; not originally instituted by Moses, though by him enacted into law.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

The antecedent of "On account of this" or "Yet" (Gr. dia touto) is unclear. It could refer to what precedes. This interpretation would yield a translation such as "you all marvel because of this." [Note: Bruce, p. 177; J. N. Sanders, Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, p. 207.] However, John consistently placed this phrase first when he used it in other clauses. [Note: Carson, The Gospel . . ., p. 314.] Probably Jesus was referring to His healing of the paralytic (Joh 7:21) as representing God’s desire for physical wholeness.

Moses prescribed circumcision for the physical wellbeing of the Israelites as well as for other reasons (Lev 12:3). The Jews recognized this and consequently circumcised male infants on the eighth day following their births even if that day was a Sabbath. Normally observant Jews did no work on the Sabbath.

Jesus’ parenthetic reference to the fact that the circumcision legislation really began with the patriarchs and not Moses was probably a sleight depreciation of Moses. Jesus’ critics claimed to follow Moses faithfully, but in keeping the circumcision law they were not truly honoring him but Abraham (Gen 17:9-14). Technically Moses only incorporated the circumcision law into the Mosaic Code, as he did many other older laws.

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

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles