Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 7:40
Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
40 52. Opposite Results of the Discourse
40. Many of the people, &c.] According to the best authorities; Of the multitude, therefore, some, when they heard these words, were saying, or, began to say.
Of a truth this is the Prophet ] The Prophet of Deu 18:15, whom some identified with the Messiah, others supposed would be the fore-runner of the Messiah. Here he is plainly distinguished from the Messiah. See on Joh 1:21 and Joh 6:14.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The Prophet – That is, the prophet whom they expected to precede the coming of the Messiah – either Elijah or Jeremiah. See Mat 16:14.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 40. Of a truth this is the Prophet.] The great prophet, or teacher, spoken of by Moses, De 18:15, which they improperly distinguished from the Messiah, Joh 7:41. Some no doubt knew that by the prophet, the Messiah was meant; but others seem to have thought that one of the ancient prophets should be raised from the dead, and precede the appearing of the Messiah.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Prophet mentioned Deu 18:15. Some think that the Jews expected an eminent prophet, besides Elias, to come before the Messiah; and Joh 1:21 would incline us to think so. But others say, it cannot be proved from their writers, that they had any expectations of any but Elias and the Messiah. But the words may be read as well, this is a prophet, as this is the prophet; and I think that is the true sense of them. A prophet had now for more than four hundred years been a great rarity amongst them, they having had none but John the Baptist who had such a repute.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
40-43. Many . . . when they heardthis . . . said, Of a truth, &c.The only wonder is theydid not all say it. “But their minds were blinded.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Many of the people therefore,…. Of the common people, and it may be chiefly those that came out of the country:
when they heard this saying; or discourse of Christ, on the last and great day of the feast, relating to the large measure of grace, and the effusion of the Spirit on him, that believed:
said, of a truth this is the prophet; spoken of in De 18:15, which some understood not of the Messiah, but of some extraordinary prophet distinct from him, who should come before him, or about the same time; or they imagined he was one of the old prophets raised from the dead, whom they also expected about the times of the Messiah: or their sense might only be, that he was a prophet, which was true, though not all the truth; they had some knowledge, though but small; and they spake of him, though but as children in understanding.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Some of the multitude ( ). (some) to be supplied, a common Greek idiom.
Of a truth (). “Truly.” See 1:47.
The prophet ( ). The one promised to Moses (De 18:15) and long expected. See on John 1:21. Proof of the deep impression made by Jesus.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Many. The best texts omit. Read as Rev., some.
This saying [ ] . The best texts substitute tw logwn toutwn, these words. So Rev.
The prophet. See on 1 21.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Many of the people therefore,” (ek tou ochlou oun) “Then some of the crowd of people,” or some of the people out of the crowd, some but not all.
2) “When they heard this saying, said,” (akousantes ton logon touton elegon) “Upon hearing these words said,” responded in faith, Rom 10:17.
3) “Of a truth this is the Prophet.” (hoti houtos estin alethos ho prophetes) “That this one (man) truly is (exists as) the prophet,” Joh 6:14. While others went farther and declared Him to be the Christ.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
40. Many of the multitude. The Evangelist now relates what fruit followed from this last sermon of our Lord Jesus Christ; namely, that some thought one thing and some another, so that a difference of opinion arose among the people It ought to be observed that John does not speak of the open enemies of Christ, or of those who were already filled with deadly hatred (200) against sound doctrine, but of the common people, among whom there ought to have been greater integrity. He enumerates three classes of them.
He is truly a Prophet. The first acknowledged that Jesus was truly a Prophet, from which we infer that they did not dislike his doctrine. But, on the other hand, how light and trifling this confession was, is evident from the fact, that, while they approve of the Teacher, they neither understand what he means, nor relish what he says; for they could not truly receive him as a Prophet, without, at the same time, acknowledging that he is the Son of God and the Author of their salvation. Yet this is good in them, that they perceive in Christ something Divine, which leads them to regard him with reverence; for this willingness to learn might afterwards give an easy opening to faith.
(200) “ De mortelle haine.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES
Joh. 7:41-42. The Christ.Hearts open to the truth were convinced and confessed Him. But some said, etc.These were unlike the guileless Nathanael (Joh. 1:46-49). He asked when first told of Jesus, Can any good thing (above all the Messiah, he meant) come out of Nazareth. But he soon learned to think otherwise. These objectors could have inquired into the truth regarding Christs earthly lineage, and the place of His birth (Mic. 5:2); but, unlike Nathanael, they did not care to do so. The prophetic promise concerning Galilee (Isa. 9:1) would have given the light had they desired to have it. Baur, De Wette, and others seek to prove that John was ignorant that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. But had John not known this fact, he would in some way have endeavoured to meet the objection. He assumes the fact, which the Synoptic Gospels had already made known.
Joh. 7:44.The opposing party were divided in their counsels. Some would have let matters rest; others were for immediate hostile action. They were again, however, restrained (Joh. 7:30).
Joh. 7:45-46. The officers, etc. (Joh. 7:32).They had been sent with a strict injunction to lay bold of Jesus. An opportunity did not at once present itself, and while they waited they came under the spell of Christs teaching, and to the chagrin of their superiors had to confess, Never man spake like this man.
Joh. 7:47-49. Then answered, etc.In those short, sharp sentences the chagrin and anger of the rulers come vividly before us. Have any of the rulers? etc.In their wrath they made too sweeping a statement. Rulers, etc., had believed, as they would soon learn (Joh. 7:50 : see also Joh. 12:42). This people accursed.Unlearned and simple men were treated with great scorn by the Rabbis. The unlearned they called vermin, or am haaretz (people of the earth, ). Notice the calm assumption of their own superiority, it might almost be said infallibility.
Joh. 7:50. Nicodemus, he that came to Him formerly ( , with R, L, T, etc.), being one of them.Here their own question (Joh. 7:48) is answered.
Joh. 7:51. Doth our law judge? etc.Nicodemus turns their charge in Joh. 7:49 against themselves. If ever they knew the law, they were forgetting and breaking it in their blind anger (see Deu. 1:16-17; Deu. 19:15; Exo. 23:1, etc). Hear him.Hear the causes between your brethren, etc. (Deu. 1:16).
Joh. 7:52. They answered, etc.They could not really answer, and flung a taunt at Nicodemus instead. Abuse, they hope, will serve for reasoning. Search, etc.Did they forget Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elisha (2Ki. 14:25; 1Ki. 19:16)? And was it not foretold that in the latter times God would make glorious the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, etc. (Isa. 9:1-2)? The New Testament prophets indeed were all Galileans (see Joh. 6:71).
Joh. 7:53. This verse is the beginning of the section Joh. 8:1-12, which see.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Joh. 7:40-53
Hath any of the rulers believed on Jesus?When the company of the Pharisees asked such a question, they saw, in triumph, Christ and Christianity abolished in the name of science and culture. So, like the Pharisees, Celsus in a later age spoke to Origen, and sought to magnify heathenism as a rational faith, and to stigmatise Christianity as a plebeian religion. So spoke the Romish Church to Luther: Monk, miners son, who are you to reform what princes and councils hold to be good? And to-day? It is a common observance that Christianity and culture are irreconcilable, that the cross hinders the advance of light, that for advanced science, faith and hope, prayer and miracle, Jesus and eternity, are left far behind. In villages, hospitals for children, and for women, the knowledge of a Redeemer may have a meaning. But would any truly cultured man believe in the Son of God?
I. Does this objection prove anything against Jesus?With God there is no respect of persons. Jesus had proved Himself to be the King of truth, those who were of the truth heard His voice, those willing to do the divine will would know of His doctrine. Unbelief bears on its brow the death-sign of trust in authority merelyin the numbers of its adherents, the brilliancy of their attainments, etc., in brief, on a series of outward, accessory circumstances. The officers refer to the impression made by the words of Jesus, the Pharisees to the authority of the unbelieving rulers, as if what the rulers believed must be true, and false what they rejected. This blind faith in authority was long before condemned. With God there is no respect of persons, as it is written in the Psalm, It is better to trust in the Lord, etc. (Psa. 118:8).
II. Does this objection prove anything to the advantage of the rulers?Did it show that they were elevated above human weaknesses in their faith? How near are the limits of pride and uncharitableness! This people that knoweth not the law, etc. (Joh. 7:49); thus, because of their ignorance they followed Jesus! If the people are really so ignorant, what have you done for their elevation, ye leaders and shepherds? This, That you measure yourself, self-complacently, with this ignorance? that you use their ignorance to enforce a blind obedience? that you represent Jesus as a deceiver, His servants as foes to the light, the gospel as a barrier to progress? It is sad when defenders of the law must be reminded that the law judges no man before he has been heardwhen educated men employ abuse in place of proof (saying, Art thou a Galilean, a devotee, a pietist?)when those proud of their learning condemn and prejudicate the Scripture merely on what they know from hearsay. It is shameful when men who are slaves of their own lusts, of pride, lust of power, fear of men, etc., are more hardened to higher impressions than the lowest of the people. The rude myrmidons prove themselves to be more finely strung than their hypocritical and plotting masters. They do not say, Whose bread I eat his song I sing, and do not utter the false proverb, Our masters service first, Gods service next, and say, Therefore will we seize Jesus. Their message becomes a witness against their own employers. Sent out as assassins, they returned as preachers of righteousness: We have heard a mightier word than yours; never man spake like this man. Wonderful! It is just the disciples confession: Lord, to whom shall we go but unto Thee? Thou hast the words of eternal life. Ye teachers of Israel, who were here the teachers? Ye men of education, who were here the most enlightened?
III. What reply does the knowledge of the fact make to such objections?The audacious assertion contained in this question was in reality proved to be false. Did any of the rulers believe? Bad enough for themselves if they did not! But the gospel brings a forcible answer to their boastful objection. Many of the rulers did believe (Joh. 12:42); and here was one, Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee, a disciple of Jesus. If a Herod will not listen, a Constantine will. If a Gamaliel will not come, a Paul will instead. Do those naturalists, who fall into the crudeness of mere assertion, declare that man has no undying soul, was not made after Gods image, but has developed merely as a higher animal? Still here a Newton, there a Gottfried Schubert, bows the knee before God and His Son. And do some astronomers speak scornfully of having searched the heavens and found no God? Then the star-gazers of the East come forward to announce that they have found the star of Jesus; a Kepler comes forward, and thus ends an astronomical writing: Thou dost nourish in me through the light of nature the desire for the light of grace, in order that thereby I may attain to the light of glory; Copernicus testifies, by the epitaph composed by himself, Not grace as Peter and Paul received it do I seek, but as the dying thief received it. Is this not to fall into the error of the Jewish rulers? No! It is but to utter the divine Yea to the question, Has any one of the rulers? etc. We extol simply the faithfulness of God, who can make possible what is impossible to men, viz. that a rich man should find salvation, rich whether in gold or intellectual gifts.Abridged from Dr. R. Kgel.
Joh. 7:40-53. The prejudices of literalism and authority.There was a division of the people because of Christ, and every man went to his own house without having turned earnestly to Him whose divine wisdom and love should have drawn them all unto Himself. Shall we not reckon this as a part of the Redeemers sufferingsthat the people to whom He was sent for salvation, to whom He had consecrated Himself, knew Him so littlethat the glorious words just spoken influenced but a few, that this influence would soon pass, and that His presence at this great feast was again to be without effect for the great end of His mission? This was the first step toward His passion. In this history we see the victory of prejudice over truth. Many were moved by His words. Some said He was a true prophet, others that He was the Christ. Even those sent forth to take Him bore witness to Him. All light comes from above. All truth which can elevate our souls and bless our hearts comes to us either mediately or immediately through Him who said, If any man thirst, etc. These gifts of light and truth are richly shed abroad; and yet we have on earth still the same conflict, and too often prejudice still triumphs over truth.
I. The prejudice of literalism.Prophecy foretold that Christ should come from Bethlehem; but men knew generally that Jesus came out of Galilee, and that He usually dwelt there. And their devotion to the letter was so great that, even though the divine power of His teaching and personal presence was so great, and might have convinced them, they thrust its testimony ever away from them. Christ we know did come from Bethlehem, and they had not been diligent to inquire into the earlier circumstances of Jesus. But even had they searched, would they have believed? There was another prophetic word which was interpreted to mean that no man would know whence Christ came. So that even had it been proved to them that Jesus was of the seed of David, etc., it would not have availed. But should these things have had power to hinder faith in Him who was evidently sent of God? Should not those Jews have considered how manifold the interpretation of such prophecies might be? Might they have not meant, e.g., that as David was the first who gloriously founded the kingdom of Israel, so in regard to Christ, the founder of the more glorious spiritual kingdom, there might well be ground for an inspired prophet to say that Christ must be of the seed of David, yes, and even his Son, as one of later times is often similar in power and thought to one of a former age, and thus may be called his son? How true is the apostles word, The letter killeth. All the proofs of Christs authority were set aside in the case of many through mistaken faith in the letter of prophecy, which they did not even honour by such a faith. For should they not have examined whether the manner in which the prophecy was expressed could not convey another meaning than what seemed at first glance the only meaning? And even if they had found it otherwise, should they not then have searched and seen whether Christ was really born in Galilee or not?
II. The prejudice of authority.This reveals itself under two forms.
1. That faith should be turned away from Jesus because people designated Him by a name implying contempt, as they said to Nicodemus, Art thou also a Galilean?
2. That faith should be accorded to that side on which stand men of authority: Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him? Oh, let us think that those alone who are pure in heart can see the Lord and the light of His truth! Let us think what it means to crucify Christ anew, and to revive the spirit of those who, whilst they permitted themselves to be fooled by earthly considerations, brought on Him all that the world could do to Him of evil, but in doing so themselves forfeited the truth already known, and lost all the blessing Christ has won for us. Who that hath ears to hear, etc.Translated and abridged from Fried. Schleiermacher.
Joh. 7:40-42. Various opinions.Religion may commend itself either by prodigies, or by showing that it is adapted to the wants of human nature, of the spiritual being of man. But by showing that it is adapted to meet those wants it brings forward a standing perpetual witness of its truth. When men feel their spiritual diseases, and are conscious of the healing power of the gospel, then they are convinced that Jesus is the Saviour. It was the hearing of our Lords invitation (Joh. 7:37-38) and His teaching which led many to ask whether He were the Christ, as much as or more than the miracles He had wrought. There is a state of mind, a thirst for truth, which is more accessible to an appropriate doctrine than to any outward demonstration. Thirsty men feel the suitableness of the promise of water. And there were many in those crowds who were thirsting for truth, redemption, etc. But there were many also to whom those words brought no hope, etc. And as there were then various opinions regarding Christ and His message, so are there now.
I. Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
1. That was the stumbling-block to many. No doubt Scripture said He should be born in Bethlehem. But the unbelief of those Jews arose from their ignorance and inattention. They could surely have ascertained the truth had they been anxious to do so. The secret wish of their hearts, however, was that Jesus should not prove to be Christ, He was in everything so opposed to their traditional conceptions and hopes.
2. We have among us the successors of those Jews. To what cause may much of present-day scepticism be attributed? Is it the result of deep reading, of careful thought and investigation? No. It exists in too many cases because the wish is father to the thought. No effort is made to clear up objections. There is rather a secret desire to get rid of the gospel. The case of those Jews is an example of what often occurs now.
II. Men shield themselves under one text of Scripture from the whole Bible. Who has not heard Be not righteous overmuch quoted as though it excused a man from being righteous at all? And Charity covers a multitude of sins is a most convenient passage. There is needed only a little misrepresentation and a careful overlooking of all other Scripture, and a man may satisfy himself that by a little liberality to the poor he shall hide his misdoings or obtain their forgiveness. Every such fastening on any single text, without taking pains to examine and consider whether there be not some great and fundamental mistake, is but the repetition of what was done by the Jews, etc. And thus it is also that doctrines and ordinances of the Church are depreciated and neglected.
III. The ordinance of baptism is sometimes thus depreciated.If a man wishes to depreciate baptism or the fitness that he who administers so holy an ordinance should have a commission from God, he has his text. St. Paul said to the Corinthians, I thank God that I baptised none of you but Crispus and Gaius. For Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel. Then St. Paul made but little of baptism, and thought that the administering it fell beneath his high office! Did he indeed? Why this is worse than the Jews; they had to travel perhaps as far as to Bethlehem to ascertain their mistake, but you need not go beyond the next verse to that which you quoteLest any should say that I had baptised in mine own name. Paul was thankful that he had baptised but few; for he judged, from the temper of the Corinthian Church, that had he baptised many it would only have encouraged that party spirit which was so utterly at variance with vital Christianity. And this is making light of baptism, or entitling any one to administer it. Alas! it seems of very little worth that Jesus was actually born at Bethlehem, since His ordinary name is Jesus of Nazareth.From Henry Melvill.
Joh. 7:43. Causes of division regarding Christ.How often during the course of His ministry might our Lord have cried out in the words of the prophet, Who hath believed our report? etc. (Isa. 53:1)! How frequently was He confronted, after having wrought some mighty miracle or issued a gracious divine invitation, with the apparently hopeless unbelief of those whom He came to seek and save! How few were His followers among the official teachers of His people and the spiritual rulers of the nation! Indeed, it was the boast of the latter class that none of their number had believed on Him; for apparently those from among them who had given their adhesion to Christ as the Messiah had not obtruded their opinions on the notice of their fellows (Joh. 12:42-43). As for the body of the people, knowing what we do of human nature, it is not surprising to find that like so many sheep they followed the leaders of the flock. And as those leaders were unbelieving the trend of their authority was ever prejudicial to our Lord. No matter how mighty were His miracles or how evidently divine was His teaching, it was enough for them that He did not conform to their ideas of the Messiah. He was to them as a tender shoot, and a root sprout out of a dry ground, with no form and no comeliness, from despised Galilee, with no adornment of rabbinical learning, and like the feeble shoot ready to die away, never likely to rise to the proportions of the stately cedar, or spread abroad with the luxurious fruitfulness of a vine. And thus scorning Him because of His lowly guise, because He required inward, spiritual conquest of themselves, and not an outward, temporal contest redounding to their own glory, they rejected the Redeemer of men, with all the true blessedness and glory of His spiritual kingdom. There are divisions to-day in the world on account of Christ and His religion as there were of old; there are those who reject and those who accept. Causes leading to division regarding Christ:
I. The rationalistic spirit.
1. The ruling class in the world to-day is becoming more and more the learned class. Men of learning and science have always had an influence among thinking people. But in this present age, through extended educational advantages and the diffusion of cheap literature, their influence now is more extensive than ever it has been. The democracy affects to despise wealth, glitter, show. And the danger is now that men of learning and science will inspire a kind of fetish worship, than which nothing could be more harmful.
2. Learning and science are not to be despised, but welcomed. Yet surely not blindly and unthinkingly, and the opinions of men of learning are not to be received, from a mere yielding to authority. To do this would be to imitate the Jewish people of old, and set up authority in the place of truth. But this is just what is done by too many. Certain leaders in the literary, philosophical, and scientific world, though professing to revere the gospel and the person or idea of its Founder, reject it as a heavenly message bringing salvation to men. In their pride of intellect they refuse to submit to enter the strait gate and narrow way. They stultify themselves by their declaration that the gospel is no divine revelation; for they thus arrogate to themselves universal knowledge and infinite comprehension. But there are in Christianity facts which cannot be accounted for by human insight or knowledge.
3. And too many accept the position of these leaders solely on account of their vast learning or high position in the scientific world. And so, too, in the Church the opinions of an extreme Higher Criticism, hostile in reality to revelation, are accepted by not a few simply on account of the learning, the apparent candour and ability of those who advance them. Many with a patronising air profess to admire the moral teaching of Christianity. But its supernatural origin, mans need of salvation, and the message of the cross are set aside.
II. The ecclesiastical spirit.
1. As long as the Church is in the bounds of time there will be probably separate sections or branches. Each land will have its own individual branch or section. There may also be more than one in a country. There will be predilections as to forms of government and worship.
2. But there is danger lest in following the voice of what seems authority, in this region also, men should be led to trust in some system, and in reality miss Christ and the blessedness of His gospel. The spirit of sect is antichristian (1Co. 1:12). Adhesion to a certain branch of the Church, observance of certain rites and services, a merely formal religion, is often made to do duty for faith and spiritual worship. The special tenets or forms of a sect are made more conspicuous than the fundamental truths of the faith. And Scripture is impressed, is forced, to yield its testimony in favour of those special tenets, etc. (Joh. 7:27; Joh. 7:42; Joh. 7:49).
3. But such a spirit has led and leads to endless divisions, to a misapprehension of the true spirit of Christs gospel, to a cold and formal adhesion on the part of not a few to the gospel, and hence to a retardation of the advance of truth. What is needed in order to remove many of the causes of division regarding Christ and His gospel is
III. A clear, apprehension of the meaning and end of the gospel.
1. The Jewish rulers and the mass of the people who followed them failed to understand Christ and His message. Nor did they make any effort to understand, being blinded with prejudice. They thought our Lord was inimical to them and their position, etc.
2. Now many of those leaders in science, etc., to-day are under the same misapprehension. They imagine that the gospel, and the facts and laws of nature, so far as they have been discovered, are inimical and mutually destructive. Moreover, they perhaps form their conceptions of the gospel from those who by over-rigid adherence to the letter fail to display its true spirit; or from higher critics who eliminate both letter and spirit. But they are not absolved from their error thereby. They should investigate for themselves before pronouncing so authoritatively. But like the Jewish rulers they refuse to do this, and continue in their error.
3. And it is a wilful ignorance with which they may be charged. The leaders of the Jewish people and those who followed them had seen the wonderful works of Jesus, or had heard of them. They had heard His teaching, so wonderful that even their own emissaries and spies were astonished at it, so suited did it seem to the needs of fallen sinful man; yet, blinded by prejudice and hate, they rejected Him. And is the gospel less wonderful to-day? Are its moral miracles less mighty than the physical miracles wrought by the Saviour while on earth? Is its teaching less lofty and sublime? Is it less suited now to meet the needs of men, to sate that soul-thirst which human learning or science cannot satisfy any more than the worlds pleasures? Are they not living among, and themselves rejoicing in, the moral and social triumphs effected by that very gospel which they reject?
4. And is it after all inimical to or destructive in any way of that science or philosophy they adore? Has it not been among peoples ruled by the genius and spirit of the pure gospel that this modern learning has risen and flourished? To what truth, firmly established, is the gospel opposed? To none! It is the rejecters of the gospel who are in reality most unscientific; for they neglect and ignore that part of human nature the wants of which the gospel was intended to meet, and which it does meet fully and gloriously. The feeling of responsibility in view of sin, the felt need of pardon and peace, the need of power to overcome evil, the yearning after immortalitythese it meets and satisfies. And in doing so it builds up the whole man after the image of Christ, leading to the best and truest development of all His powers in the service of God and of humanity. Reject itand what is there to put in its place as a spring of beneficent activity? what to stay the rise and progress of a cold materialism and secularism, which would freeze the current of human progress, and transform men into what would be merely a superior species of the beasts that perish?
5. And let formal religionists take heed lest they also not only retard the progress of the gospel, but help in the spread of unbelief. Pharisaism among the Jews crushed out the true spirit of religion by its formalism. The Pharisees and those who adhered to them helped to bring about the final rejection of Christ as much as the sceptical Sadduceeism of the entourage of the high priests.
6. Formal religion has still the same numbing, blighting effect. Spiritual life withers under it, spiritual progress is arrested; thus many who are outwardly friends to religion are in reality its enemies, for their lives belie their profession; and those who are only too glad of such an excuse will say, If this is your religion, we will have none of it.
Joh. 7:44. The first measures against Jesus.It was at this feast of tabernacles that the enmity against Christ came clearly to the light of day, and the first active severe measures were taken against Him. After the murderous thoughts and slanderous words, the train of hateful deeds began. In the chapter from which the text is taken we see how Jesus
(1) knew,
(2) judged,
(3) frustrated those measures, and thus showed forth His glory.
I. Jesus knew the plans of His enemies.He knew their thoughtsthat they hated Him, and why they hated Him and must do so. He would not shrink from the lot agreed on in the divine counsels, but He would not bring it upon Himself by His own actit was not His duty to do so; and the hour of His death would be the hour of His greatest glory. Whatever happened could not surprise Him. He was prepared for all. But He must have experienced as much sorrow because His brethren did not believe and permitted themselves to be led by worldly considerations (Joh. 7:3-8), as that the great mass of men, men of the world, opposed Him even to the death because He unveiled their sins and reproved them. This deep heart-pain belongs to His atoning sufferings which He bore on our account; so the prophetic word was fulfilled (Isa. 43:24).
II. He brought the plans of His enemies to judgment.They accused Him of being destitute of a rabbinical training; and He answered calmly that He had a right to teach, etc. (Joh. 7:16-18), and then He turned upon them with the sword of judgment. How is it with you in spite of all your theologic lore and rabbinical honours? Ye call yourselves Moses disciples. How can ye be so when ye do not keep his law even, and seek to kill Me? Then He drew out of the darkness of concealment their concerted murderous plans (Joh. 7:19). In reply they at once launched forth a second accusation: Thou hast a devil, etc. (Joh. 7:20). If those from the provinces might be excused in part for this exclamation, as they did not know the designs of the Pharisees, those of Jerusalem could not be excused (see Joh. 7:25). It was therefore to the Pharisees, and those privy to their designs, that He brought home the blame. He showed that He was no destroyer of true festive joydid not bring simply imaginary charges against them. He charged them with harbouring murderous thoughts in their hearts against Him without good reason. Then He brought home to them the lawfulness of His action in healing the impotent man on the Sabbath, confuted them by referring to their observance of circumcision on the Sabbath, and finally called on them not to judge by appearance, etc. (Joh. 7:24). And then, wonderful to relate! the Pharisees were punished by the lying inhabitants of Jerusalem (Joh. 7:20), as the truth in spite of their lying was brought to light and was suddenly blurted out (Joh. 7:25-27). And this led Jesus to the further declaration (Joh. 7:28-29). It was too much for these men, who sent messengers to take Him. And Jesus, knowing that their plan, though not yet, would finally succeed, and in His desire to save some, uttered the words, Yet a little while, etc. (Joh. 7:33-34).
III. He frustrates their evil designs.Sometimes the judgment of the people hits the truth, and vox populi vox Dei. So was it with some of those people in their judgments regarding Jesus. Many believed, etc. (Joh. 7:31); many also went further still (Joh. 7:40-41). But more wonderful was the testimony of the officers sent to take Him (Joh. 7:46). Those rough simple men, officers of justice, came under the power of Christs words, and all the evil designs against Jesus were in their case, as in the peoples, frustrated by His word. Yes, even in their own ranks the Pharisees found one who stood up for Christ (Joh. 7:50). So each finally went to his own home. Christs hour had not yet come.From Friedr. Arndt.
ILLUSTRATION
Joh. 7:46. Never man spake like this man.Marvellous indeed was Christs insight into human nature. With divine delicacy, yet with divine certainty, He lays His hand upon the heart of the moralist who, boastful of his prim propriety, asks, What lack I yet? and touches instantly the sensitive spot, Go, sell that thou hast, etc. The penetration of Christs words struck His most gifted foes dumb. Pharisees and Herodians forgot their hostility and conspired to catch Him in His talk: Is it lawful to give tribute to Csar or not? Render unto Csar, etc. Then the Sadducces sought to entangle Him in a question on the Resurrection; but again His wisdom put them to silence. Then the Pharisees returned to the assault, and cunningly tried to entrap Him into giving some one command of God undue prominence. And when again He read their hearts, and so majestically eluded their snare, from that day they dared ask Him no more questions. Fouqu has a fable of a magic mirror so wonderful, that he who looked in it might read his own character, history, and destiny. Goth and Moor, Frank and Hun, came from far to see their past and future unveiled. Here is the true magic mirror. This keenest sword is also a polished blade; it not only cuts deep, but it reflects character. Nothing is more plain, in Christs words, than an insight and a foresight far beyond man. Here, as in the brook, is the inverted image, which shows how deep is our degradation; but it tells of our possible elevation and salvation, even as the stars are no deeper down in the reflection than they are high in the heaven. Go, look in this mirror, see your own thoughts revealed.Dr. Arthur T. Pierson.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(40) Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying . . .The reading of the best MSS. is, Some of the people therefore, when they heard these sayings.
Of a truth this is the propheti.e., the Prophet foretold by Moses in Deu. 18:15. (Comp. Notes on Joh. 1:21; Joh. 6:14.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
40. The people The masses assembled from various regions to the feast.
The Prophet Referring, doubtless, to the great prophet predicted by Moses, (Deu 18:15,) which the people here do not identify with the Messiah.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Some of the huge crowds therefore, when they heard these words, said, “This is certainly the Prophet”. Others said, “This is the Messiah”.’
His words stirred up the people, who were already in a high state of excitement because of the Feast. Therefore some said, ‘this is the anticipated Prophet’, others said, ‘this is the Messiah’. Expectancy was at this time high among the people of Palestine. As people will they dreamed of deliverance from what they saw as the Roman tyranny. And as a result of their past history and their belief that God was the God Who acted on their behalf, they awaited a great Prophet like Moses, or a great deliverer. Could this be the One they were waiting for?
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The effect of the sermon:
v. 40. Many of the people, therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
v. 41. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
v. 42. Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David; and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
v. 43. So there was a division among the people because of Him.
v. 44. And some of them would have taken Him; but no man laid hands on Him. Both the words and the manner of Jesus upon this occasion made a profound impression, but the people were impressed in various ways. Some of them were ready to believe that He was that great prophet of whom Moses had prophesied, Deu 18:15, whom they did not identify with the Messiah. Others had gained the conviction that He must be the Christ Himself. That was a fine confession of faith. But others were present that ridiculed His Galilean ancestry, as they believed that Jesus had been born in Galilee. They were familiar with the prophecy according to which the Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem, and their assumption as to His Galilean derivation clashed with this prophecy. So public opinion was divided on this occasion. Note: Whenever there is a difference of opinion in regard to the person and office of Christ, or in regard to any doctrine of the Gospel, the reason is not to be sought on the part of Jesus, but in the perverse understanding of man. A careful searching of Scriptures and a diligent comparison of the various parts of Scriptures will always result in absolute clearness with regard to all the doctrines which are necessary for salvation. Where this is not done, the judgment pronounced upon unbelievers will strike such people, and their understanding will be darkened all the more with the passing of time. Some of the Jews in the multitude were so hardened to the proclamation of the Gospel that they wanted to arrest Him, but the intention died in its inception, and the uplifted hands sank down powerlessly. God Himself tied their hands, for the hour of Jesus was not yet come.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Joh 7:40-46. Many of the people therefore, Our Lord appears to have been discoursing as above, when the officerssent by the council to apprehend him, Joh 7:32 came up: but as it was an uncommon topic, and he seemed to be speaking with great fervency, their curiosity made them willing to hear him a little before they laid hands on him, Joh 7:44-45. The eloquence and power with which he spoke, struck them; every word that he had uttered being well chosen, aptly placed, and gracefully pronounced. There was not only a sweetness in his sermons which enchanted the ear, but a plainness, perspicuity, and weight, which made the beauties of truth shine before the understanding with that lustre which is peculiar to themselves. Even these his enemies, who were come with an intent to lay violent hands on him, were deeply smitten: the greatness of his subject made visible, as it were, by the divine speaker, filled their understandings: the warmth and tenderness withwhich he delivered himself, penetrated their hearts: they felt new and uncommon emotions. In a word, being overwhelmed with the greatness of their admiration, they silently stood astonished, condemning themselves for having come on the errand, and after a while returned without accomplishing it. Plutarch mentions it as a memorable proof of the extraordinaryeloquence of Mark Anthony, when Marius sent soldiers to kill him, that when he began , to plead for his life, he disarmed their resolution, and melted them into tears. But these officers are thus vanquished merely by hearing Christ’s gracious discourses to the people; which is a circumstance infinitely more remarkable. They return in a kind of amaze, and, instead of seizing him as their prisoner, or making a laboured apology for their failure, only break out into a pathetic exclamation, that no man in the world ever spake like him. This is a reflection which I hope we often make, as we read his discourses. The officers were not the only persons on whom this sermon made a deep impression: our Lord’s hearers in general were greatly affected with it; for many of them gave it as their opinion, that he was certainly one of the ancient prophets risen from the dead, to usher in the Messiah, Joh 7:40. Others declared, that they believed he was the Messiah himself, Joh 7:41. Nevertheless, some of them, led away with the common mistake that he was born in Nazareth, asked with disdain if the Messiah was to come out of Galilee? So there was a division among them, , a dissention and warm disagreement among them.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 7:40-43 . (see the critical notes), . . . Now, at the close of all Christ’s discourses delivered at the feast (Joh 7:14-39 ), these verses set before us the various impressions which they produced upon the people with reference to their estimate of Christ’s person. “From among the people, many, after they had heard these words, now said,” etc. With we must supply , as in Joh 16:17 ; Buttmann, N. T. Gr . p. 138 [E. T. p. 159]; Xen. Mem . iv. 5. 22; and Bornem. in loc . By , as in Joh 1:21 , is meant the prophet promised Deu 18:15 , not as being himself the Messiah, but a prophet preceding Him, a more minute description of whom is not given.
. ., . . .] “ and yet surely the, Messiah does not come out of Galilee ?” refers to the assertion of the , and assigns the reason for the contradiction of it which indicates. See Hartung, Partikell . I. 475; Baeumlein, Partik . p. 73. Christ’s birth at Bethlehem was unknown to the multitude. John, however, records all the various opinions in a purely objective manner; and we must not suppose, from the absence of any correction on his part, that the birth at Bethlehem was unknown to the evangelist himself (De Wette, Weisse, Keim; comp. Scholten). Baur (p. 169) employs this passage and Joh 7:52 in order to deny to the author any historical interest in the composition of his work. This would be to conclude too much, for every reader could ot himself and from his own knowledge supply the correction.
] Mic 5:1 ; Isa 11:1 ; Jer 23:5 .
.] where David was . He was born at Bethlehem, and passed his youth there as a shepherd, 1Sa 16
A division therefore ( , Euthymius Zigabenus) took place among the people concerning Him . Comp. Joh 9:16 , Joh 10:19 ; 1Co 1:10 ; Act 14:4 ; Act 23:7 ; Herod. vii. 219: . Xen. Sympos . iv. 59; Herod. vi. 109; Eur. Hec . 119; and Pflugk, in loc .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
Ver. 40. Of a truth this is the prophet ] This was somewhat, but not enough; this was well, but not all. The buzzard’s wings serve him to get up a little from the earth, but not to bear him up far toward heaven.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
40. ] is here clearly distinguished from : see note on ch. Joh 1:21 , and Deu 18:15 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 7:40 . The immediate results of this declaration were twofold. In some faith was elicited: many of the crowd said: “This is of a truth the prophet”; others, going a step further, said: “This is the Christ”. On the relation of “the prophet” to “the Christ,” see on Joh 1:21 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 7:40-44
40Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” 41Others were saying, “This is the Christ.” Still others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? 42Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” 43So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him. 44Some of them wanted to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him.
Joh 7:40 “This certainly is the prophet” This is an allusion to the Messianic promise of Moses that is found in Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18. Many recognized Jesus as a prophet (cf. Joh 4:19; Joh 6:14; Joh 9:17; Mat 21:11). They recognized Jesus’ power, but misunderstood His person and work. Islam also uses this title for Jesus, but misunderstands His message.
Joh 7:41 “Others were saying, ‘This is the Christ'” This shows that the term “Christ” is equivalent to the Hebrew term “Messiah,” which means “an anointed one.” In the OT kings, priests, and prophets were anointed as a sign of God’s calling and equipping. See SPECIAL TOPIC: ANOINTING IN THE BIBLE (BDB 603) in the Bible at Joh 11:2.
“Still others were saying, ‘Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He'” The Greek grammatical construction expects a “no” answer to this question. But what about Isa 9:1?
Joh 7:42 The grammatical construction of this question expects a “yes” answer.
“descendant of David” (cf. 2 Samuel 7; Mat 21:9; Mat 22:42).
“from Bethlehem, the village where David was” This is another use of irony (cf. Mic 5:2-3 and Mat 2:5-6).
Joh 7:43 Jesus and His message always caused a division (cf. Joh 7:48-52; Joh 9:16; Joh 10:19; Mat 10:34-39; Luk 12:51-53). This is the mystery of the parable of the soils (cf. Matthew 13). Some have spiritual ears and some do not (cf. Mat 10:27; Mat 11:15; Mat 13:9; Mat 13:15 (twice), 16,43; Mar 4:9; Mar 4:23; Mar 7:16; Mar 8:18; Luk 8:8; Luk 14:35).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Of a truth. Greek. alethos. See note on “indeed” (Joh 1:47).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
40.] is here clearly distinguished from : see note on ch. Joh 1:21, and Deu 18:15.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 7:40
Joh 7:40
Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, This is of a truth the prophet-[Conflicting views arose among the people. Some said he was the prophet, spoken of in Deu 18:15, and referred to in Joh 1:15. All agreed that a prophet was to come at the Messianic period, but some held that he was to be the Messiah himself, and others that he was to be the forerunner. Hence three questions were put to John-Art thou Elijah? Art thou the prophet? Art thou the Christ?]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
the Blindness of Prejudice
Joh 7:40-53
These short descriptions of the impressions made on His hearers by the discourses of Jesus indicate the double development which was resulting from His ministry. Those in favor spoke of the Prophet and the Christ. Compare Joh 1:21; Joh 6:14. Others raised objections, Joh 7:41-42. Others again desired to take action, Joh 7:44.
Though it was a holy day, the Sanhedrin was in session to receive the report of their officers. These, by their candid statement, unconsciously passed a strange criticism on the religious speakers to whom they were wont to listen. Compare Joh 7:48 with Joh 7:50 and Joh 3:1-36.
How greatly Nicodemus had grown since his night-visit to Jesus! And he was to advance still further, Joh 19:39. The appeal to history was apparently true. Jonah is the only prophet who might have been quoted as an apparent exception, but he may only have been a resident in Galilee when the summons came to him. The reasoning of Joh 7:52, however, was not conclusive. Even if none had arisen, it was the more likely that the Divine Spirit should choose the most humble origin; and the one most in keeping with the peasant-birth of the manger-bed.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him. Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. And every man went unto his own house.
In the previous address we considered our Lords wonderful declaration concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit when He cried on the last day of the feast of tabernacles, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink (v. 37). And then He added, He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water (v. 38). The Evangelist explained the meaning of the living water when He said, But this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive (v. 39). The people who heard our Lord Jesus speaking in this way of the living water naturally connected the Old Testament passages that told of the living water with the day of the Messiah, for they knew from the prophecies of Jeremiah and Isaiah that it was in His day when the gift of the living water would be given. So they at once jumped to the conclusion that our Lord was declaring His Messiahship, and indeed He was. Yet He knew that the time had not arrived when all this blessing should come to the nation of Israel, but the blessing that they refused was to go out to the Gentiles and was to be enjoyed by a remnant of Israel who would put their trust in Him.
Those who were listening to the Lord turned one to another and some said, Of a truth this is the Prophet (v. 40). What did they mean by the Prophet? They were thinking of the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 18. There, beginning with verse 15, we hear Moses speaking to the people of Israel as they were gathered about him on the plains of Moab before they entered the land of Canaan. He said, The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; according to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him (vv. 15-19).
These words referred to our Lord Jesus Christ. In the book of the Acts when the apostle Peter was addressing the people, we read, For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people (3:22-23). So these Jews who were listening to the teaching of our Lord Jesus by putting various things together that they had heard and thinking of the marvelous signs He had performed among them, said, This must be the One for whom we have waited. You see, He was to come from among themselves. God will raise up unto you of your brethren. They were terrified when God spoke in flaming fire in Mount Sinai and said, Moses, you speak to us, but not God, lest we die (Exo 20:19, authors paraphrase). And God said, Well, I will raise up a Prophet like unto Moses. He will be My messenger to them, but whosoever will not hear that Prophet I will require it of him, or he shall be destroyed.
They were not quite sure, but they thought this must be He. And others said, This is the Christ-that is, This is the Anointed One. They knew from their Bibles that the day would come when Gods Anointed One should appear to them. That is why the Jews called Him the Messiah, for Messiah means the Anointed One. In Psalm 2 we read: Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us (vv. 1-3). A little farther down in that same Psalm, in verse 6, it reads, Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I have anointed My King upon My holy hill of Zion. The Lord Jesus Christ is Gods Anointed. He is the One whom God Himself has anointed by the Spirit and sent into the world to be the Redeemer of lost mankind.
But some curled the lip and asked sarcastically, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? (Joh 7:41). These men of Judea despised the more ignorant and less religious folk of Galilee, and it was unthinkable to them that one who came from there could really be the Anointed One of God. Later on, in verse 52, we find them making a very false declaration about Galilee.
Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? (v. 42). Yes, the Scripture said that. The prophet Micah plainly declared it, and his prophecy was quoted at the birth of the Lord: Thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel (Mat 2:6). They knew that; it was in their Bibles. They knew Christ was to be born in Bethlehem. But they blundered now because they had never learned that He was born in Bethlehem, and that He did come from David through Mary, who was of the lineage of David. The birth of the Lord was a fulfillment, in all points, of prophecy. He was born of a virgin, He was born in Bethlehem, and He was born of Davids line, but they did not take the trouble to find out if these things were true or not.
When God gives His Word, ignorance of that Word does not excuse anyone. Many today are vastly ignorant of this Book, and perhaps imagine that in the day of judgment they can plead ignorance of it as an excuse for not understanding His will. But, remember, if you are ignorant of the Word of God, you are willfully ignorant. You have the Bible in your homes. If you do not study your Bibles, then you are responsible if you do not learn the mind of God. Jesus says, Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life (Joh 5:39). Oh, that there might come a great awakening of our responsibility to this! I am afraid there are thousands who rarely open their Bibles from one weekend to the other. They depend upon an occasional message from the pulpit or in the Sunday school, and, God knows, very often they get very little there. But there is no excuse, for you have the Bible, and you can read for yourselves. I am sure of this, if there would come a real sense of responsibility as to this and Christians would begin to read and study this Book to become familiar with the mind of God, we would soon have a great revival among the people of God and a great awakening among the Christless.
Sometime ago a dear missionary in England was telling us that he had left his station in India because of ill-health. He read us a letter from one of the native elders in the church in India. He was telling how much they missed him, and, yet, he went on to say, during his absence they were doing a great deal more praying and reading the Word. In fact, they were having a real re-Bible. And that missionary, when he read it to us, said, I think what my Indian brother said is right, where we have re-Bible we will have revival. Man [does] not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Mat 4:4). But when people do not take the trouble to know, they will be held responsible for their ignorance.
We read that there was a division among the people because of him (Joh 7:43). There is still a division because of Him. Some said, Is not this the Christ? (4:29). There were others who said, Will the Messiah come out of Galilee. No, we cannot accept Him. So there are the two classes today. There are those who look up in faith and say, We recognize in Him our Savior and Redeemer, and there are those who spurn and refuse Him. But God has told us that there is no other name given among men whereby we must be saved. If we will not accept Gods testimony concerning Him, if we go on refusing to receive Him as Savior and Lord, then His own solemn words will be fulfilled, Whither I go you cannot come, for except you believe that I am He, ye shall die in your sins.
Yes, there is a division because of Him today. May I ask you tenderly now, On which side are you? Are you among those who have trusted in Him and received Him, or are you numbered among those who have spurned Him and rejected His grace? Thank God, if you are among the latter, it is not too late to come to Him in repentance and to take Him as your Savior.
There was a division among the people because of Him. Some would have taken and arrested Him, but no man laid hands on Him. The hour was not come when He was to be offered up. The Pharisees had sent certain officers to Him to arrest Him and bring Him before the Sanhedrin, but we are told in verse 45 that they came back empty handed. The chief priest said, Why have ye not brought him? Why did you not arrest Him? And the officers gave this wonderful answer, Never man spake like this man (v. 46). Yes, there was something about Jesus, something about His very message, His manner of speaking, and the matter of His instruction that stirred the hearts of these officers-hard, ruthless men-so that they found themselves absolutely helpless and paralyzed, and they did not dare arrest Him. They went away baffled and amazed. Who is this One who speaks with such power? Never man spake like this man.
And as they answered the chief priests and Pharisees like this, they thought these officers must have been persuaded of the Messiahship of Jesus. They said, Are ye also deceived? (v. 47). They meant, Are you also deceived so that you are not able to weigh things carefully and thoughtfully? Then they asked, Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? (v. 48). The great ones, as a rule, are not given to believing on Him. But God has chosen the poor of this world, the people that are despised. He uses the things that are not to bring to nought things that are. The great ones seldom get in. But yet, on the other hand, there have always been those even in the higher ranks of life who have discerned the beauty and blessedness of our Lord Jesus, and so among the outstanding saints of God have been men and women even in royal or important families. God has saints even among wealthy people, and that is a great thing, you know.
They asked, Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? They declared that these people who know not the law are given up to judgment because they do not understand. This was the opportunity for Nicodemus to show where he stood. He was one of the Pharisees, one of the doctors of the law, an authority on the Scriptures. Nicodemus spoke right up, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them), Doth our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doeth? (vv. 50-51). As much as to say, Have you heard Him yourself? Have you seen His works of power? If you have not, then why do you pass judgment? Why do you say He is a deceiver? In other words, Nicodemus is saying, Investigate before you judge. And we would say that today to all those who try to refute the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ, Investigate before you judge. If you are an agnostic or infidel, and you say, I cant believe the story of Jesus Christ. I cant believe He was the Son of God, born of a virgin, let me ask you what investigation of the records have you made?
I think almost all well-educated ministers of the gospel have read scores of books by men who reject the Bible and refuse the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. I can say that I have read literally hundreds of such books written by unbelievers. Have they not shaken your faith in the Bible? you ask. No, they only show me the folly of unbelief. But having said that, let me say this, I have never met an infidel yet who has ever read one serious book on Christian evidences. Now there may be some, but I have never met one who has. Men read the arguments from the other side, but the average objector does not take the trouble to read the books written in defense of the truth of God.
I knew a lawyer who was an infidel by his own confession for years. Finally, someone said, But you havent read the other side. I have made up my mind, was the reply. Yes, but you have never read the other side. There is an old book-it is called Nelson on Infidelity-suppose you read it. Well, he said, I presume I ought to. He read it. Before he finished he was a Christian. There are many such books, as Dr. A. T. Piersons Many Infallible Proofs, and others one might speak of. The trouble is with the enemies of the cross of Christ, they are not willing to investigate because they do not want to give up some sin that the Bible condemns. They know that to become Christians would mean turning from sin and yielding their wills to Christ.
Nicodemus throws down the challenge and says, Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? Do they answer him? Oh, not at all. They answer, it is true, but their answer is an evasion. They said, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet (v. 52). And again they showed their ignorance. They thought they knew it all, these dignified doctors. They thought that all scholars were agreed with them, and when one of their own number comes out to speak for Him they say, Art thou also of Galilee? Are you also going to join that crowd? No prophet ever came out of Galilee. They had not been reading their Bibles very carefully. They forgot that Jonah was from Gath-Hepher, a town in Galilee (see 2Ki 14:25). Then, too, it is generally believed that Nahum was a Galilean. So at least one prophet had come out of Galilee, perhaps two, and it was not impossible that another should. But they said, Look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. That is the way men do away with the truth of God today. Oh, dear friends, do not be unfair to your own souls. If you have never yet investigated the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ, I beg of you to do so. It is the height of folly to assume that His claims are false, when you have never weighed the evidence.
But now let us come back to those words used by the officers. They said of Him, Never man spake like this man, and I want you think of those words as indicating the wonderful character of our Lord Jesus Christ. His words were words of power. It was not merely the lovely similes and beautiful illustrations that led them to speak like that. They said, Never man spake like this man. Think of some of His sayings. If He declares, Now in the law it is written so and so, but I say unto you. Surely never man spake like this Man!
Think of the power of His words! When the people in distress came to Him. The blind man said, Lord, that I may receive my sight (Luk 18:41). He put His hands upon his eyes and said, Be opened, and the blind man saw. Look at the poor leper, so unclean and polluted and denied. If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean, he said (Mat 8:2). Jesus put forth His hand and touched him and said, I will; be thou clean (v. 3). As that leper looked at his clean flesh wonderingly, his heart said, Never man spake like this man! And then when Jesus stood by the dead or by the grave, as when He went into the house where the little daughter of Jairus was, and took her by the hand said, [Little girl], I say unto thee, arise, and she arose (Mar 5:41). Her parents must have thought, Never man spake like this man. At the grave of Lazarus, when they had rolled the stone away, He cried, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth (Joh 11:43-44). I imagine that crowd must have said in their hearts, Never man spake like this man.
And oh, dear friends, when He hung upon the cross and He prayed for the transgressors and cried, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do (Luk 23:34), and then He exclaimed in triumph a little later, It is finished (Joh 19:30)-surely never man spake like this man! When He came forth in resurrection and met His disciples and said, All hail! (Mat 28:9), and later appeared among them and said, As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you (Joh 20:21)-surely they must have gone away saying to themselves, Never man spake like this man. And now He has gone up to the glory of God and is sitting on the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. But in a little while He is coming back, and He will call the dead from the tomb and cause the living to be changed.
When He exclaims, Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away (Son 2:13), we will rise and go singing our way through the air crying, Never man spake like this man. And when at last the ages of time have run their course and the Great White Throne is set, and the dead are called from their tombs and they stand before Him for judgment and look into the face of the One who walked the shores of Galilee, the One who spoke so tenderly to the troubled and distressed, when they see Him on the throne and they stand before Him to give account for their sins, and above all else, for the sin of rejecting His grace, and hear Him say (How I hope you will never have to hear Him say it!), Depart from me, ye cursed, into the everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels (Mat 25:41), they will turn away wringing their hands and crying, Never man spake like this man. Oh, if we had only accepted His testimony when He called in grace and said, Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden (Mat 11:28), and we would have never had to hear Him say, Depart from me.
Today He speaks, and He says, Come unto meand I will give you rest. Today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness (Psa 95:7-8). He speaks to you who are in your sins and He promises you deliverance if you but trust Him. Let your hearts cry out: Never man spake like this man! Say, I will take Him now as my Savior.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Reciprocal: Mat 10:34 – that I Mat 12:23 – Is not Mat 16:14 – Elias Mat 21:11 – This Mat 21:46 – because Mar 6:15 – a prophet Mar 14:2 – lest Luk 7:16 – a great Luk 7:39 – This man Luk 9:19 – old Luk 24:19 – Concerning Joh 1:21 – Art thou that Joh 4:19 – a prophet Joh 6:14 – This Joh 6:52 – strove Joh 7:12 – some Joh 10:19 – General Act 23:7 – there Act 28:29 – great reasoning
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
0
Jesus fills so large a place in the scheme of human redemption, that it takes many terms to comprehend the various parts that he was to play. Hence he is referred to as Christ which means “anointed,” because he was to be a king. He is called Jesus which means “saviour,” because he was to save the people from their sins. And he is termed a prophet, because he was to teach and prophecy. All of these functions and characteristics were predicted of Him, in one form or another in the Old Testament. The Jews knew about these various predictions, but did not realize they referred to the same person. For that reason we read about their mention of the different offices of Jesus as referring to separate persons. In the present verse they speak of him as the prophet, meaning the one predicted by Moses in Deu 18:18.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
THESE verses show us, for one thing, how useless is knowledge in religion, if it is not accompanied by grace in the heart. We are told that some of our Lord’s hearers knew clearly where Christ was to be born. They referred to Scripture, like men familiar with its contents. “Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” And yet the eyes of their understanding were not enlightened. Their own Messiah stood before them, and they neither received, nor believed, nor obeyed Him.
A certain degree of religious knowledge, beyond doubt, is of vast importance. Ignorance is certainly not the mother of true devotion, and helps nobody toward heaven. An “unknown God” can never be the object of a reasonable worship. Happy indeed would it be for Christians if they all knew the Scriptures as well as the Jews seem to have done, when our Lord was on earth!
But while we value religious knowledge, we must take care that we do not overvalue it. We must not think it enough to know the facts and doctrines of our faith, unless our hearts and lives are thoroughly influenced by what we know. The very devils know the creed intellectually, and “believe and tremble,” but remain devils still. (Jam 2:19.) It is quite possible to be familiar with the letter of Scripture, and to be able to quote texts appropriately, and reason about the theory of Christianity, and yet to remain dead in trespasses and sins. Like many of the generation to which our Lord preached, we may know the Bible well, and yet remain faithless and unconverted.
Heart-knowledge, we must always remember, is the one thing needful. It is something which schools and universities cannot confer. It is the gift of God. To find out the plague of our own hearts and hate sin,-to become familiar with the throne of grace and the fountain of Christ’s blood,-to sit daily at the feet of Jesus, and humbly learn of Him,-this is the highest degree of knowledge to which mortal man can attain. Let any one thank God who knows anything of these things. He may be ignorant of Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and mathematics, but he shall be saved.
These verses show us, for another thing, how eminent must have been our Lord’s gifts, as a public Teacher of religion. We are told that even the officers of the chief priests, who were sent to take Him, were struck and amazed. They were, of course, not likely to be prejudiced in His favor. Yet even they reported,-“Never man spake like this Man.”
Of the manner of our Lord’s public speaking, we can of necessity form little idea. Action, and voice, and delivery are things that must be seen and heard to be appreciated. That our Lord’s manner was peculiarly solemn, arresting, and impressive, we need not doubt. It was probably something very unlike what the Jewish officers were accustomed to hear. There is much in what is said in another place: “He taught them as One having authority, and not as the Scribes.” (Mat 7:29.)
Of the matter of our Lord’s public speaking we may form some conception from the discourses which are recorded in the four Gospels. The leading features of these discourses are plain and unmistakable. The world has never seen anything like them since the gift of speech was given to man. They often contain deep truths, which we have no line to fathom. But they often contain simple things, which even a child can understand. They are bold and outspoken in denouncing national and ecclesiastical sins, and yet they are wise and discreet in never giving needless offense. They are faithful and direct in their warnings, and yet loving and tender, in their invitations. For a combination of power and simplicity, of courage and prudence, of faithfulness and tenderness, we may well say, “Never man spake like this Man”!
It would be well for the Church of Christ if ministers and teachers of religion would strive more to speak after their Lord’s pattern. Let them remember that fine bombastic language, and a sensational, theatrical style of address, are utterly unlike their Master. Let them realize, that an eloquent simplicity is the highest attainment of public speaking. Of this their Master left them a glorious example. Surely they need never be ashamed of walking in His steps.
These verses show us, lastly, how slowly and gradually the work of grace goes on in some hearts. We are told that Nicodemus stood up in the council of our Lord’s enemies, and mildly pleaded that He deserved fair dealing. “Doth our law judge any man,” he asked, “before it hear him, and know what he doeth?”
This very Nicodemus, we must remember, is the man who, eighteen months before, had come to our Lord by night as an ignorant inquirer. He evidently knew little then, and dared not come to Christ in open day. But now, after eighteen months, he has got on so far that he dares to say something on our Lord’s side. It was but little that he said, no doubt, but it was better than nothing at all. And a day was yet to come, when he would go further still. He was to help Joseph of Arimatha in doing honor to our Lord’s dead body, when even His chosen Apostles had forsaken Him and fled.
The case of Nicodemus is full of useful instruction. It teaches us, that there are diversities in the operation of the Holy Spirit. All are undoubtedly led to the same Savior, but all are not led precisely in the same way. It teaches us, that the work of the Spirit does not always go forward with the same speed in the hearts of men. In some cases it may go forward very slowly indeed, and yet may be real and true.
We shall do well to remember these things, in forming our opinion of other Christians. We are often ready to condemn some as graceless, because their experience does not exactly tally with our own, or to set them down as not in the narrow way at all, because they cannot run as fast as ourselves. We must beware of hasty judgments. It is not always the fastest runner that wins the race. It is not always those who begin suddenly in religion, and profess themselves rejoicing Christians, who continue steadfast to the end. Slow work is sometimes the surest and most enduring. Nicodemus stood firm, when Judas Iscariot fell away and went to his own place. No doubt it would be a pleasant thing, if everybody who was converted came out boldly, took up the cross, and confessed Christ in the day of his conversion. But it is not always given to God’s children to do so.
Have we any grace in our hearts at all? This, after all, is the grand question that concerns us. It may be small,-but have we any? It may grow slowly, as in the case of Nicodemus,-but does it grow at all? Better a little grace than none! Better move slowly than stand still in sin and the world!
==================
Notes-
v40.-[Many…people…this saying, said.] The “people” here evidently mean the general multitude of common people, who had come together to attend the feast, and not the chief priests and Pharisees. The “saying” which called forth their remarks appears to be the public proclamation that our Lord had just made, inviting all thirsty souls to come to Him as the fountain of life. That any one person should so boldly announce himself as the reliever of spiritual thirst seems to have arrested attention, and, taken in connection with the fact of our Lord’s public teaching during the latter half of the feast, which many of the people must have heard, it induced them to say what immediately follows.
Brentius, Musculus, and others, hold strongly that our Lord’s words in the preceding three verses must have been greatly amplified, at the time He spoke, and are in fact a sort of text or keynote to His discourse; and that this is referred to in the expression, “this saying.” Yet the supposition seems hardly necessary. The words were a conclusion to three days’ teaching and preaching.
[Of a truth this man…Prophet.] This would be more literally rendered, “This man is truly and really the Prophet.” These speakers meant that He must be “the Prophet” like unto Moses, foretold in Deuteronomy. (Deu 18:15, Deu 18:18.)
v41.-[Others said, This is the Christ.] These speakers saw in our Lord the Messiah, or Anointed Savior, whom all pious Jews were eagerly expecting at this period, and whose appearing the whole nation were looking for in one way or another, though the most part expected nothing more than a temporal Redeemer. (Psa 45:3-5; Isa 61:1; Dan 9:25-26.) Even the Samaritan woman could say, “I know that Messiah cometh.” (Joh 4:25.)
[But some said, Shall Christ…Galilee?] This ought to have been rendered, “But others said.” It was not a few exceptional speakers only, but a party probably as large as any. They raised the objection, which was not unnatural, that this new teacher and preacher, however wonderful He might be, was notoriously a Galilean, of Nazareth, and therefore could not be the promised Messiah. How utterly ignorant most persons were of our Lord’s birth-place, we see here, as elsewhere.
v42.-[Hath not the Scripture said, etc.] We should note in this verse the clear knowledge which most Jews in our Lord’s time had of Scripture prophecies and promises. Even the common people knew that Messiah was to be of the family of David, and to be born at Bethlehem, the well-known birth-place of David. It may indeed be feared that myriads of Christians know far less of the Bible than the Jews did eighteen hundred years ago.
v43.-[So…division among…people because of Him.] Here we see our Lord’s words literally fulfilled.-He did not bring “peace, but division.” (Luk 12:51.) It will always be so as long as the world stands. So long as human nature is corrupt, Christ will be a cause of division and difference among men. To some He is a savor of life, and to others of death. (2Co 2:16.) Grace and nature never will agree any more than oil and water, acid and alkali. A state of entire quiet, and the absence of any religious division, is often no good sign of the condition of a Church or a parish. It may even be a symptom of spiritual disease and death. The question may possibly be needful in such cases, “Is Christ there?”
v44.-[And some…would…taken Him.] This would be more satisfactorily rendered, “Some out of those” who made up the crowd “were desirous and wished to take our Lord prisoner.”-These were no doubt the friends and adherents of the Pharisees, and very likely were the common people who dwelt at Jerusalem, and knew well what their leaders wanted to do.
[No man laid hands on Him.] This must be accounted for primarily by the Divine restraint which was at present laid on our Lord’s enemies, because His hour was not yet come;-and secondarily by the fear in which the Pharisees’ party evidently stood of a rising in our Lord’s defense on the part of the Galileans, and others who had come up to the feast. Thus we read that at the last Passover “the priests and Scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people.” (Luk 22:2.) Again: “They said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.” (Mar 14:2, and Mat 26:5.)
v45.-[Then came the officers, etc.] It is not clear what interval of time elapsed between Joh 7:32, where we read that the officers were sent by the priests to take our Lord, and the present verse where we are told of their coming back to their masters.-At first sight of course it all happened in one day. Yet if we observe that between the sending them to take our Lord, and the present verse, there comes in the remarkable verse, “In the last day, that great day of the feast,” it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion, that an interval of two or three days must have elapsed.-It seems highly probable that the officers had a general commission and warrant to take our Lord prisoner, whenever they saw a fitting opportunity, about the fourth day of the feast. They found however no opportunity, on account of the temper and spirit of the crowd, and dared not make the attempt. And at last, at the end of the feast, when the multitude was even more aroused than at first, by our Lord’s open testimony, they were obliged to return to those who sent them, and confess their inability to carry out their orders.
v46.-[The officers answered, etc.] The answer of the officers has probably a double application. They themselves felt the power of our Lord’s speaking. They had never heard any man speak like this man. It tied their hands, and made them feel incapable of doing anything against Him.-They had besides marked the power of His speaking over the minds of the multitude which gathered round Him. They had never seen any one exercise such an influence over His hearers. They felt it useless to attempt arresting one who had such complete command over His audience. We cannot doubt that they had heard much more “speaking” than the few things recorded between Joh 7:32 and Joh 7:46. These are only specimens of what our Lord said, and furnish a keynote to us indicating the general tenor of His teaching.
What it was precisely that the officers meant when they said “Never man spake like this man,” we are left to conjecture. They probably meant that they had never heard any one speak such deep and important truths-in such simple and yet striking language-and in so solemn, impressive, and yet affectionate style. Above all, they probably meant that He spake with a dignified tone of authority, as a messenger from heaven, to which they were entirely unaccustomed.
v47.-[Then answered them…Pharisees…ye also deceived?] The word rendered “deceived” means, literally, “led astray,” or “caused to err.” Have you too been carried off by this new teaching? The question implies anger, sarcasm, ridicule, and displeasure.
v48.-[Have any…rulers…Pharisees believed on Him?] This arrogant question was doubtless meant to be an unanswerable proof that our Lord could not possibly be the Messiah:-“Can a person be deserving of the least credit, as a teacher of a new religion, if those who are the most learned and highest in position do not believe Him?”-This is precisely the common argument of human nature in every age. The doctrine which the great and learned do not receive is always assumed to be wrong. And yet Paul says, “Not many wise, not many noble are called.” (1Co 1:26.) The very possession of rank and learning is often a positive hindrance to a man’s soul. The great and the learned are often the last and most unwilling to receive Christ’s truth.-“How hardly shall a rich man enter the kingdom of God.” (Mat 19:23.)
It seems clear from this that at present the Pharisees did not know that one of their own number, Nicodemus, was favorably disposed to our Lord.
v49.-[But this people…knoweth not law…cursed.] This sentence is full of contempt and scorn throughout. “This people,”-a mob,-a common herd,-“which knoweth not the law,” is not deeply read in the Scriptures, and have no deep Rabbinical learning,-“are cursed,” are under God’s curse and given over to a strong delusion. Their opinion is worthless, and what they think of the new Galilean teacher is of no moment or value.-Charges like these have been made in every age, against the adherents of all reformers and revivers of true religion. the multitude who followed Luther in Germany, our own Reformers in England, and leaders of revived religion in the last century, were always attacked as ignorant enthusiasts whose opinion was worth nothing. When the enemies of vital religion cannot prevent people flocking after the Gospel, and cannot answer the teaching of its advocates, they often fight with the weapons of the Pharisees in this verse. They content themselves with the cheap and easy assertion that those who do not agree with themselves are ignorant and know nothing, and that therefore it matters nothing what they think. Yet Paul says, “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty.” (1Co 1:27.) The poorer and humbler classes are often much better judges of “what is truth” in religion than the great and learned.
The disposition of the Jews to pronounce those “accursed” who differed from themselves in religious controversy is exhibited in this verse. Jewish converts to Christianity in modern times are often sadly familiar with cursing from their own relatives.
v50.-[Nicodemus…he…came to Jesus by night.] This would be more literally rendered, “He that came to Him by night.” The omission of our Lord’s name here is very peculiar.-The fact of Nicodemus having come to see Jesus “by night” is always mentioned by John, where his name occurs. (See Joh 19:39.) It is to my mind a strong proof that he was a coward when he first came to our Lord, and dared not come openly by day.
[Being one of them.] This means that he was a chief man, or ruler among the Pharisees, and as such was present at all their deliberations and counsels. His case shows that the grace of God can reach men in any position, however unfavorable it may be to true religion. Even a chief Pharisee, one of that company of men who, as a body, hated our Lord and longed to kill Him, could believe and speak up for Him. We must never conclude hastily that there can be no Christians among a body of men, because the great majority of them hate Christ, and are hardened in wickedness. There was a Lot in Sodom, an Obadiah in Ahab’s house, a Daniel in Babylon, saints in Nero’s palace, and a Nicodemus among the Pharisees. He was “one out of their number,” but not one of them in spirit.
v51.-[Doth our law judge any man, etc.] This was undoubtedly speaking up for our Lord, and pleading for His being treated justly and fairly, and according to law. At first sight it seems a very tame and cautious mode of showing his faith, if he had any. But it is difficult to see what more could have been said in the present temper of the Pharisees. Nicodemus wisely appealed to law. “Is it not a great principle of that law of Moses, which we all profess to honor, that no man should be condemned without first hearing from him what defense he can make, and without clear knowledge and evidence as to what he has really done?-Is it fair and legal to condemn this person before you have heard from His own lips what He can say in His defense, and before you know from the testimony of competent witnesses what He has really done?-Are you not flying in the face of our law by hastily judging His case, and setting Him down as a malefactor before you have given Him a chance of clearing Himself?” (See Deu 1:17, and Deu 17:8, etc., and Deu 19:15, etc.) Nicodemus, it will be observed, cautiously takes up his ground on broad general principles of universal application, and does not say a word about our Lord’s particular case.
The Greek words would be more literally rendered, “Doth our law condemn the man unless it hears from him first.”
I think there can be no reasonable doubt that these words show Nicodemus to have become a real, though a slow-growing disciple of Christ, and a true believer. It required great courage to do even the little that he did here, and to say what he said.
Let us carefully note, that a man may begin very feebly and grow very slowly, and seem to make very little progress, and yet have the true grace of God in his heart. We must be careful that we do not hastily set down men as unconverted, because they get on slowly in the Christian life. All do not grow equally quick.
Let us learn to believe that even in high places, and most unlikely positions, Christ may have friends of whom we know nothing. Who would have expected a chief ruler among the Pharisees to rise at this juncture and plead for justice and fair dealing in the case of our Lord.
v52.-[They answered…thou also of Galilee?] This was the language of rage, scorn, and bitter contempt. “Art thou too, a ruler, a learned man, a Pharisee, one of ourselves, become one of this Galilean party? Hast thou joined the cause of this new Galilean prophet?”
The tone of this bitter question seems to me to prove that Nicodemus had said as much as was possible to be said, on this occasion. The temper and spirit of the Pharisees, from disappointment and vexation at our Lord’s increasing popularity, and their own utter inability to stop His course, made them furious at a single word being spoken favorably or kindly about Him. They must indeed have been in a violent frame of mind, when the mere hint at the desirableness of acting justly, fairly, and legally, made them ask a brother Pharisee whether he was a Galilean!
Musculus remarks that Nicodemus got little favor from the Pharisees, though his favorable feeling towards our Lord was so cautiously expressed. He observes that this is generally the case with those who act timidly as he did. People may just as well be out-spoken and bold.
[Search and look.] This seems to be meant sarcastically. “Go and search the Scriptures again, and look at what they say about the Messiah, before thou sayest one word about this new Galilean prophet. Examine the prophets, and see if thou canst find a tittle of evidence in favor of this Galilean, whose cause thou art patronizing.”
[Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.] This would be rendered more literally, “a prophet out of Galilee has not been raised.” About the meaning of the words there are three very different opinions.
(1) Some think that the words only mean, no “prophet of great note or eminence has ever been raised up in Galilee.” This, however, is a tame and unsatisfactory view.
(2) Some, as Bishop Pearce, Burgon, and Sir N. Knatchbull, think that the Pharisees only meant that “THE Prophet like unto Moses, the Messiah, has nowhere in the Scripture been foretold as coming out of Galilee.” According to this view the Pharisees said what was quite correct.
(3) Others, as Alford, Wordsworth, Tholuck, and most other commentators, think that the Pharisees, in their rage and fury, either forgot, or found it convenient to forget, that prophets had arisen from Galilee. According to this view they made an ignorant assertion, and said what was not true.
I find it very difficult to receive this third opinion. To me it seems quite preposterous to suppose that men so thoroughly familiar with the letter of Scripture as the Pharisees were, would venture on such a monstrous and ignorant assertion, as to say that “no prophet had ever arisen out of Galilee”! Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Jonah, and perhaps Nahum, are all thought by some to have been Galilean prophets. Moreover Isaiah distinctly prophesied that in Messiah’s times, Zebulon and Napthali and Galilee of the Gentiles should be a region where “light should spring up.” (Mat 4:14-16.)
On the other hand, I must frankly admit that the Greek of the sentence must be much strained to make it mean “the true prophet is not to arise out of Galilee.” I do not forget, moreover, that when men lose their tempers and fly into a passion, there is nothing too foolish and ignorant for them to say. Like a drunken man, they may talk nonsense, and say things of which in calm moments they may be ashamed. It may have been so with the Pharisees here. They were no doubt violently enraged, and in this state of mind might say any thing absurd.
The point, happily, is not one of first-rate importance, and men may afford to differ about it. Nevertheless if I must give an opinion, I prefer the second of the three views I have given. The improbability of the Pharisees asserting anything flatly contrary to the letter and facts of Scripture, is, to my mind, an insuperable objection to the other views.
v53.-[And every man…his own…house.] These words seem to indicate that the assembly of Pharisees, before whom the officers had appeared, reporting their inability to take our Lord prisoner, broke up at once without taking any further action. They saw they could do nothing. Their design to put our Lord to death at once could not be carried out, and must be deferred. They therefore separated and went to their own houses. We may well believe that they parted in a most bitter and angry frame of mind, boiling over with mortified pride and baulked malice. They had tried hard to stop our Lord’s course, and had completely failed. The “Galilean” had proved for the time stronger than the Sanhedrim. Once more, as after the miracle of Bethesda, they had been ignominiously foiled and publicly defeated.
Hutcheson remarks, “There is no council nor understanding against Christ, but when He pleaseth He can dissipate all of it. Here every man went unto his own house, without doing anything.”
Maldonatus thinks the verse proves that though the Pharisees sneered at Nicodemus, and reviled him, they could not deny the fairness and justice of what he said. He thinks, therefore, that they dispersed in consequence of Nicodemus’ interference. Even one man may do something against many, when God is on his side.
Besser quotes a saying of Luther’s: “Much as the Pharisees before had blustered, they dared do nothing to Jesus: they became still and silent. He goes up to the feast meek and silent, and returns home with glory.-They go up with triumph, and come down weak.”
Trapp remarks: “See what one man may do against a mischievous multitude. It is good to be doing, though there be few or none to second us.”
Baxter remarks: “One man’s words may sometimes divert a persecution.”
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Joh 7:40. Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, Of a truth this is the prophet. On the prophet, and the distinction between this appellation and the Christ, see the note on chap. Joh 1:21.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
In these verses an account is given of the various effects which our Lord’s foregoing sermon had upon his hearers hearts: some were so affected with it, that they believed him to be the great prophet promised to Israel, Deu 18:18. Others apprehended him to be the Christ: others contradict both, supposing him to be born not at Bethlehem, but in Galilee. And upon this diversity of opinions, there arose a division amongst them: and some had a mind to have apprehended him, but, by an over-ruling providence, they were restrained from the doing of it at present.
Learn hence, That diversity of opinions in matters of religion, even concerning Christ himself, have been even from the beginning. Some accounted him a prophet, others the Messiah: some thought him neither; but a grand impostor and deceiver. Our dear Lord when here on earth, passed through evil report and good report; let his followers expect and prepare for the same: for innocence itself cannot protect him from slander and false accusation.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Joh 7:40-44. Many of the people therefore Even the officers sent to apprehend Christ, (see Joh 7:46,) as welt as many others of our Lords hearers; when they heard this saying Namely, the gracious invitation above mentioned, which indeed was a more free declaration and promise than he commonly made, were so affected thereby, that they exclaimed, Of a truth this is the Prophet Namely, the prophet like unto Moses, mentioned Deu 18:15. For, as the article is prefixed, it is most natural to render the expression, the prophet. And yet, as in the next verse this prophet is distinguished from the Christ; perhaps they only intended to signify that they thought one of the ancient prophets was revived. For many of the Jews supposed, that not only Elias, but also another of the prophets, would appear again among them, before the coming of the Messiah: to which opinion the question put to John, (Joh 1:21,) Art thou that prophet, may be considered as referring. See the note there. Others said, This is the Christ The Messiah himself. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? This they spoke because they were led away with a common mistake, that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Hath not the Scripture said, &c. Is not your acknowledging a Galilean for the Messiah contrary to the Scriptures, which have determined his nativity to Bethlehem, the town of his ancestor David? But how could they forget that Jesus was born there? Had not Herod the Great given them terrible reason to remember it, by the general massacre made of all the infants in that town and neighbourhood. So there was a division among the people because of him They were divided in their sentiments, and a warm dissension took place among them on his account. And some would have taken him The contention was carried to such a height, that his enemies, considering him as the cause of it, and knowing on what errand the officers were come, threatened to apprehend him, and would have done it, had they not been restrained by the providence of God.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 40-44. Some among the multitude, who had heard these words said, This man is of a truth the prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. 41. But others said, Does the Christ then come out of Galilee? 42. Has not the Scripture declared that the Christ comes of the seed of David and from the village of Bethlehem, where David was? 43. So there arose a division in the multitude because of him, 44 and some of them would have taken him; but no one laid hands on him.
These brief descriptions of the impressions of the people, which follow each of the discourses of Jesus serve to mark the two- fold development which is effected and thus prepare the way for the understanding of the final crisis. These pictures are history taken in the act; how could they proceed from the pen of a later narrator? John has given us only the resume of the discourses delivered by Jesus on this occasion. This is what he gives us to understand by the plural , these discourses, which, according to the documents, is to be regarded as the true reading. We know already who this prophet was of whom a portion of the hearers are thinking. Comp. Joh 1:12; Joh 6:14. The transition from this supposition to the following one: This is the Messiah, is easily understood from the second of these passages.
As there were two shades of opinion among the well-disposed hearers, so there were also two in the hostile party: some limited themselves to making objections (Joh 7:41-42); this feature suffices to isolate them morally from those previously mentioned. Others (Joh 7:44) already wished to proceed to violent measures. De Wette, Weiss, Keimask why John does not refute the objection advanced in Joh 7:42, which it would have been easy for him to do, if he had known or admitted the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem. From this silence they infer that he was ignorant of or denied the whole legend of the Davidic descent of Jesus and His birth at Bethlehem. But the evangelist relates his story objectively (Weiss), and it is precisely in the case of his believing the objection to be well founded that he would be obliged to try to resolve it. John often takes pleasure in reporting objections which, for his readers who are acquainted with the Gospel history, turn immediately into proofs. At the same time he shows thereby how the critical spirit, to which the adversaries of Jesus had surrendered themselves had been a less sure guide than the moral instinct through which the disciples had attached themselves to Him. The , for (Joh 7:41), refers to an understood negative: By no means, for … The present , comes, is that of the idea, the expression of what must be, according to the prophecy. where he was (his home); comp. 1 Sam. 16:44. The some, according to Weiss, formed a part of the officers sent to take Him. But, in that case, why not designate them, as in Joh 7:45? They were rather some violent persons in the crowd who were urging the officers to execute their commission. To take Him, in the sense of causing Him to be taken.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
IGNORANCE OF THE JEWS
Joh 7:40-44. Then some of the multitude, hearing these words, continued to say, Truly this One is the Prophet. This is a phrase in O. T. often applied to the Messiah. Others continued to say, He is the Christ. I trow, the latter were Galileans, who had so frequently heard Him preach and witnessed His mighty works. Others continued to say, Whether does Christ come out of Galilee? Doubtless these were Jerusalemites, who looked with a degree of contempt on the Galileans, whose opportunities of light and culture had been quite inferior to those of Southern Palestine. Does not the Scripture say that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was? Do you not see the gross and inexcusable ignorance here manifested? Bethlehem being only seven miles distant, and Jesus actually having been born there, according to the prophecies they now quote against Him, being shamefully ignorant of the fact that He was not born up in Galilee, as they claim, but in Bethlehem, and though constantly stigmatized as a Galilean, He was really a Bethlehemite. Therefore there was a division in the crowd with reference to Him. It seems that none there present knew the facts of His having been born in Bethlehem, all thinking that He was really a Galilean, some claiming His Christhood, notwithstanding the ostracism brought to bear against Galilee, and others rejecting him altogether on that account. Why did not He or some of His apostles speak out, and tell them that He was born in Bethlehem of Judea? It would have done no good, because they had a caviling spirit, and would have lighted on something else. And some of them wished to arrest Him, but no one laid hands on Him. They could not touch Him till His work was done.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
7:40 {16} Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
(16) There is contention even in the Church itself about the main point of religion: neither has Christ any more cruel enemies than those that occupy the seat of truth: yet they cannot do what they would.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus’ spectacular offer led some people to conclude that He was the promised Prophet (Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18; cf. Act 3:22) or possibly the Messiah (Christ). Evidently it was His claim to provide living water as Moses provided physical water that led to their associating Jesus with one of those predicted individuals. Formerly Jesus had provided bread as Moses had provided manna (Joh 6:14). Apparently these Jews did not equate the Prophet with Messiah. They apparently looked for two separate individuals to come as they seem to have anticipated a suffering servant and a triumphant Messiah in two different people. Others doubted that Jesus was the Messiah because of His apparent Galilean origins. One indication that the Jews expected Messiah to appear soon is the fact that these people could refer to messianic predictions spontaneously.
"Perhaps this is another illustration of Johannine irony, for Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The very passage that convinced his critics that he could not be the Messiah was one of the strongest to prove that he was." [Note: Tenney, "John," p. 87.]