Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 7:52
They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
52. Art thou also of Galilee? ] ‘Surely thou dost not sympathize with Him as being a fellow-countryman?’ They share the popular belief that Jesus was by birth a Galilean ( Joh 7:41).
out of Galilee ariseth no prophet ] Either their temper makes them forgetful, or in the heat of controversy they prefer a sweeping statement to a qualified one. Jonah of Gath-hepher (2Ki 14:25) was certainly of Galilee; Nahum of Elkosh may have been, but the situation of Elkosh is uncertain; Hosea was of the northern kingdom, but whether of Galilee or not is unknown; Abelmeholah, whence Elisha came, was in the north part of the Jordan valley, possibly in Galilee. Anyhow, their statement is only a slight and very natural exaggeration (comp. 4 Joh 7:29). Judging from the past, Galilee was not very likely to produce a Prophet, much less the Messiah.
Of the various questions which arise respecting the paragraph that follows (Joh 7:53 to Joh 8:11) one at least may be answered with something like certainty, that it is no part of the Gospel of S. John. (1) In both tone and style it is very unlike his writings. His favourite words and expressions are wanting; others that he rarely or never uses are found. (2) It breaks the course of the narrative, which runs smoothly enough if this paragraph be omitted; and hence a few of the MSS. which contain it place it at the end of the Gospel. (3) All the very serious amount of external evidence which tells against the passage being part of the Gospel narrative at all of course tells against its being by S. John, and in this respect is not counterbalanced by other considerations. So that the internal and external evidence when put together is overwhelmingly against the paragraph being part of the Fourth Gospel.
With regard to the question whether the section is a genuine portion of the Gospel history, the internal evidence is wholly in favour of its being so, while the balance of external testimony is decidedly on the same side. (1) The style is similar to the Synoptic Gospels, especially to S. Luke; and four inferior MSS. insert the passage at the end of Luke 21, the place m the history into which it fits best. (2) It bears the impress of truth and is fully in harmony with Christ’s conduct on other occasions; yet it is quite original and cannot be a divergent account of any other incident in the Gospels. (3) It is easy to see how prudential reasons may in some cases have caused its omission (the fear of giving, as S. Augustine says, peccandi impunitatem mulieribus); difficult to see what, excepting its truth, can have caused its insertion. (4) Though it is found in no Greek MS. earlier than the sixth century, nor in the earliest versions, nor is quoted as by S. John until late in the fourth century, yet Jerome says that in his time it was contained ‘ in many Greek and Latin MSS.’ ( Adv. Pelag. ii. 17), and these must have been as good as, or better than, the best MSS. which we now possess.
The question as to who is the author, cannot be answered. There is not sufficient material for a satisfactory conjecture, and mere guesswork is worthless. The extraordinary number of various readings (80 in 183 words) points to more than one source.
One more question remains. How is it that nearly all the MSS. that do contain it (several uncials, including the Cambridge MS., and more than 300 cursives) agree in inserting it here? This cannot be answered with certainty. Similarity of matter may have caused it to have been placed in the margin in one copy, and thence it may have passed, as other things have done, into the text of the Cambridge and other MSS. In chap. 7 we have an unsuccessful attempt to ruin Jesus: this paragraph contains the history of another attempt, equally unsuccessful. Or, the incident may have been inserted in the margin in illustration of Joh 8:15, and hence have got into the text.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Art thou also of Galilee? – Here is another expression of contempt. To be a Galilean was a term of the highest reproach. They knew well that he was not of Galilee, but they meant to ask whether he also had become a follower of the despised Galilean. Ridicule is not argument, and there is no demonstration in a gibe; but, unhappily, this is the only weapon which the proud and haughty often use in opposing religion.
Ariseth no prophet – That is, there is no prediction that any prophet should come out of Galilee, and especially no prophet that was to attend or precede the Messiah. Compare Joh 1:46. They assumed, therefore, that Jesus could not be the Christ.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 52. Art thou also of Galilee?] They knew very well that he was not; but they spoke this by way of reproach. As if they had said, thou art no better than he is, as thou takest his part. Many of the Galileans had believed on him, Which the Jews considered to be a reproach. Art thou his disciple, as the Galileans are?
Search, and look] Examine the Scriptures, search the public registers, and thou wilt see that out of Galilee there ariseth no prophet. Neither the Messiah, nor any other prophet, has ever proceeded from Galilee, nor ever can. This conclusion, says Calmet, was false and impertinent: false, because Jonah was of Gathheper, in Galilee: see 2Kg 14:25, compared with Jos 19:13. The Prophet Nahum was also a Galilean, for he was of the tribe of Simeon; and some suppose that Malachi was of the same place. The conclusion was false, because there not having been a prophet from any particular place was no argument that there never could be one, as the place had not been proscribed.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Art thou also of Galilee; not that they thought Nicodemus was a Galilean; they knew him well enough; but they take up this as a term of reproach against him, for that he would offer to speak one word (though never so just) on the behalf of one against whom they had such a perfect hatred.
Search (say they) the Scriptures, and look if ever there came a prophet out of Galilee. Suppose this had been truth; yet,
1. What did this concern our Saviour? Who was not born in Galilee, but in Judea, in Bethlehem, the city of David, Luk 2:4.
2. Could not God when he pleased influence one of Galilee with the Spirit of prophecy? But,
3. Neither was it true; for Nahum and Jonah were both Galilaeans, 2Ki 14:25, compared with Jos 19:13, (for the tribe of Zebulun had their lot in Galilee), Isa 9:1.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
52. thou of Galileein thistaunt expressing their scorn of the party. Even a word of caution, orthe gentlest proposal to inquire before condemning, was with themequivalent to an espousal of the hated One.
Search . . . out of Galilee .. . no prophetStrange! For had not Jonah (ofGath-hepher) and even Elijah (of Thisbe) arisen out of Galilee? Andthere it may be more, of whom we have no record. But rage is blind,and deep prejudice distorts all facts. Yet it looks as if they wereafraid of losing Nicodemus, when they take the trouble to reason thepoint at all. It was just because he had “searched,”as they advised him, that he went the length even that he did.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
They answered and said unto him,…. Being displeased with him, and as reproaching him, though they could not deny, or refute what he said:
art thou also of Galilee? a follower of Jesus of Galilee, whom, by way of contempt, they called the Galilean, and his followers Galilaeans, as Julian the apostate after them did; for otherwise they knew that Nicodemus was not of the country of Galilee;
search and look; into the histories of former times, and especially the Scriptures:
for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet; but this is false, for Jonah the prophet was of Gathhepher, which was in the tribe of Zebulun, which tribe was in Galilee; see 2Ki 14:25. And the Jews z themselves say, that Jonah, the son of Amittai, was, , of “Zebulun”, and that his father was of Zebulun, and his mother was of Asher a; both which tribes were in Galilee: and if no prophet had, as yet, arose from thence, it did not follow that no one should arise: besides, there is a prophecy in which it was foretold, that a prophet, and even the Messiah, the great light, should arise in Galilee; see Isa 9:1; and they themselves say, that the Messiah should be revealed in Galilee;
[See comments on Joh 7:41].
z T. Hieros. Succa, fol. 55. 1, a Bereshit Rabba, sect. 98. fol. 85. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Art thou also of Galilee? ( ;). Formally negative answer expected by , but really they mean to imply that Nicodemus from local feeling or prejudice has lined himself up with this Galilean mob () of sympathizers with Jesus and is like Jesus himself a Galilean. “These aristocrats of Jerusalem had a scornful contempt for the rural Galileans” (Bernard).
That out of Galilee ariseth no prophet ( ). As a matter of fact Jonah, Hosea, Nahum, possibly also Elijah, Elisha, and Amos were from Galilee. It was simply the rage of the Sanhedrin against Jesus regardless of the facts. Westcott suggests that they may have reference to the future, but that is a mere excuse for them.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Search. Compare Joh 5:39.
Look [] . Some render see, and translate the following oti, that, instead of for. So Rev. The difference is unimportant.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “They answered and said unto him,“ (apekrithesan kai eipan auto) “They responded and said to him directly,” with sarcasm, taunting, not with an argument of logical or defensible nature.
2) “Art thou also of Galilee?” (me kaisu ek tes Galilaias ei) “You are not out of Galilee, are you?” Such was a contemptuous remark against Nicodemus. They assumed that Jesus was a Galilean, of the land of the Gentiles, though had they examined their own records, they would have known that by both prophecy and history He was a native born Judean, Gen 49:10; Mic 5:2; Mat 2:4-15; Luk 2:1-12.
3) “Search, and look: (ereuneson kai ide) “Search out and examine,” see for yourself. So prejudiced were they against Jesus that they would try to stigmatize Him for being brought up in Galilee, See? But they themselves had not searched the Word, for He must go there to show light, Isa 9:1-2; Joh 1:4; Joh 1:9.
4) “For out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” (hoti ek tes Galilaias prophetes ouk egeiretai) “Because out of Galilee a prophet is not raised up.” So what does that have to do with red apples? They should have said, ”none arises, that we know of,” See? Though the “that prophet,” who was to come, of whom Moses spoke was not born there, He was to arise there, as a prophet showing forth His light and hope, and He did, Deu 18:15-19; Mat 4:12-25, Luk 4:14,24.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
52. Art thou also from Galilee? They say that all who favor Christ are from Galilee, and this is spoken reproachfully, as if he could not have any person among his followers except from the small and unknown corner of Galilee (205) The extreme violence to which they are excited against Nicodemus, shows with what furious hatred they burned against Christ; for he had not avowedly undertaken to defend Christ, but had only said that he ought not to be condemned before he was heard Thus among the Papists in our own day, no man can show the slightest token of candour that the Gospel may not be oppressed, but immediately the enemies fly into a passion, and exclaim that he is a heretic.
(205) “ De ce petit coin incognee de Galilee.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(52) Art thou also of Galilee?They seek to avoid his question, to which there could have been but one answer, by a counter-question expressing their surprise at the position he is taking: Surely thou art not also of Galilee? Thou art not His countryman, as many of this multitude are? They imply that Nicodemus could not have asked a question which claimed for Jesus the simple justice of the Law itself, without being, like Him, a Galilean.
Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.The words mean, Search the records, examine, scrutinize the authorities. (Comp. Joh. 5:39.) They seek to pass from the matter of fact immediately before them to the question of authority. Their generalisation includes an historical error which cannot be explained away. Jonah is described in 2Ki. 14:25 as of Gathhepher, which was a town of Zebulun, in Lower Galilee. Possibly Elkosh, the birthplace of Nahum, was also in Galilee, and Hosea was certainly a prophet of the Northern Kingdom, though not necessarily of Galilee. Adverse criticism would lay this error also to the charge of the Evangelist. (Comp. Notes on Joh. 7:42, and Joh. 1:45; Joh. 8:33.) But the obvious explanation is, that the Sanhedrin, in their zeal to press their foregone conclusion that Jesus is not a prophet, are not bound by strict accuracy; and it is not unlikely that, in the general contempt of Judans for Galilee, this assertion had become a by-word, especially with men with so little of the historical sense as the later Rabbis. As compared with Juda, it was true that Galilee was not a country of prophets, and by-words of this kind often rest on imperfect generalisations. We have seen that of the great prophets of Christianity all were Galileans. Judas Iscariot alone, of the Twelve Apostles, was probably a Judan (Note on Joh. 6:71).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
52. Thou of Galilee? It was easier to assail him with personality than to meet his plea. Nicodemus was doubtless a Jerusalemite, but as a taunt they make him a Galilean.
Search and look Into the records of Scripture or later history.
No prophet So that Jesus can make no claim to the prophetic character. This sounds very much like a proverb aptly quoted as authority in the case. As a proverb it was admissibly true; for though some five or six ancient prophets were natives of that territory, none had there arisen since it became Galilee. It is to be noted that they use the present tense. As to the older history, John is not responsible for the accuracy of these angry Pharisees, who were in a mood to stretch the truth to gain a point.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘They answered and said to him, “Are you also from Galilee? Search and discover that no prophet arises from Galilee”.’
The reply tells us all we need to know about the genuineness of these particular Pharisees. What Nicodemus had suggested was basic justice and in accord with the law of Moses. But they dismissed it with the contempt of men who were not even prepared to consider the truth of Jesus’ claims. And they soon revealed one of the roots of their prejudice. ‘Are you also from Galilee? Search and you will see that no prophet is to arise in Galilee’. Why, who but a Galilean could suggest such a thing? Was Nicodemus then a Galilean?
In fact, of course, Jonah had been from Galilee but they were thinking rather of a future prophet. To them Galilee was now outside the pale. Galileans were only to be seen as second rate. Their antecedents were mixed, and they did not always follow Judean practises. By this these men overlooked Isa 9:1-6 to their cost.
Of course, if they had followed Nicodemus’ advice they would soon have discovered that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. But ignoring any such thing, their contempt for the Galileans showed the very nature of their attitudes. They were bigoted, arrogant and contemptible. They came under their own condemnation, ‘these who do not know the law are accursed’. It was clear that Jesus would not get a fair hearing from them.
The whole of this chapter demonstrates a typical Jewish background, and the incidents and questions are what might be expected among the Jerusalem crowds during one of the great feasts. The whole chapter wreaks of historicity.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 7:52. They answeredart thou also of Galilee? Finding Nicodemus thus condemning their conduct, and speaking favourably of Jesus, they asked him with an air of disdain and surprize, mixed with fierceness, Art thou also of Galilee? “Art thou one of the ignorant low faction, which has leagued to support a Galilean Messiah, in opposition to the law, which has determined the Messiah’s nativity to Bethlehem? Search and look; for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” They meant no Messiah, the prophet foretold by Moses in their law; for they could not but know that Jonah was of Gath-hepher in Galilee, 2Ki 14:25 that Nahum also was probably a Galilean; and that Tishbe, the town of Elijah the Tishbite, was likewise in Galilee; unless they were as ignorant of the scriptures as they said the common people were, Joh 7:48. Be this as it may, such blind judges were these masters of law and learning, that an argument which had no force against Jesus, who was actually born at Bethlehem, weighed a great deal more with them, than all the solid proofs by which he so fully established his divine mission.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 7:52 . Thou art not surely (like Jesus) from Galilee , so that your sympathy with Him is that of a fellow-countryman ?
, . . .] a prophet; not; “no very distinguished prophet, nor any great number of prophets” (Hengstenberg); nor again: “a prophet has not appeared in Galilee in the person of Jesus” (Godet); but the appearance of any prophet out of Galiles is, in a general way, denied as a matter of history; hence also the Perfect. The plain words can have no other meaning. To Godet’s altogether groundless objection, that John must in this case have written ., the reference to Joh 4:44 is itself a sufficient answer. Inconsiderate zeal led the members of the Sanhedrim into historical erro; for, apart from the unknown birth-places of many prophets, Jonah at least, according to 2Ki 14:25 , was of Galilee. [274] This error cannot be removed by any expedient either ertical [275] or exegetical; still it cannot be used as an argument aginst the genunieness of the Gospel (Bretschneider), for there was all the less need to add a correction of it, seeing that it did not apply to Jesus, who was not out of Galilee. This also tells against Baur, p. 169. The argument in ., . . . is from the general to the particular (“to say nothing of the Messiah!”), and is a conclusion from a negative induction.
[274] Not Elias also, whose Thisbe lay in Gilead (see Thenius on 1Ki 17:1 ; Fritzsche on Tob 1:2 ; Kurtz, in Herzog’s Encyhl . III. p. 754). It is very doubtful, further, whether the Elkosh, whence Nahum came, was in Galilee or anywhere in Palestine, and not rather in Assyria (Michaelis, Eichhorn, Ewald, and most). Hosea came from the northern kingdom of Israel (Samaria); see Hos 7:1 ; Hos 7:5 .
[275] By giving preference, namely, to the reading , according to which only the present appearance of a prophet in Galilee is denied (so also Tiele, Spec. contin. annotationem in loc. nonnull. ev. Joh ., Amsterdam 1853). This would have its support and meaning only in the experience of history, because , without the article, is quite general, and cannot mean the Messiah. This also in answer to Baeumlein.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
Ver. 52. Art thou also of Galilee? ] They thought to mock him out of his religion, as the devil doth many at this day. But Nicodemus was well resolved; and if we can bear reproach for Christ, it is an argument we mean to stick to him; as the servant in the law, that was brought to be bored in the ear. And Cajetan gives the reason, Ut si non horreret servitutem, horreret saltem ignominiam publicam, ut multos habeat inspectores et testes.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
52. ] They taunt him with being disposed to join those (mostly Galilans) who had attached themselves to Jesus. Whether we read or , the assertion is much the same: for . cannot mean the Prophet, or the Messiah. It was not historically true; for two Prophets at least had arisen from Galilee: Jonah of Gathhepher, and the greatest of the Prophets, Elijah of Thisbe; and perhaps also Nahum and Hosea. Their contempt for Galilee made them lose sight of historical accuracy. (Bretschneider absurdly lays the inaccuracy to the charge of the Evangelist.)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
HISTORY OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY
[
[117] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 7:52 . This remonstrance is exasperatingly true, and turns the bitterness of the Pharisaic party on Nicod mus, . “Art thou also, as well as Jesus, from Galilee, and thus disposed to befriend your countryman?” Cf. Mar 14:70 . By this they betray that their own hostility was a merely personal matter, and not founded on careful examination. “Search and see, because [or ‘that’] out of Galilee there arises no prophet.” That is, as Westcott interprets, “Galilee is not the true country of the prophets: we cannot look for Messiah to come from thence”. They overlooked the circumstance that one or two exceptions to this rule existed.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Search = Search [the Scriptures], as in Joh 5:39.
look = see. App-133. If they had looked, they would have found that Jonah and Hosea arose out of Galilee, and perhaps Elijah, Elisha, and Amos.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
52.] They taunt him with being disposed to join those (mostly Galilans) who had attached themselves to Jesus. Whether we read or , the assertion is much the same: for . cannot mean the Prophet, or the Messiah. It was not historically true;-for two Prophets at least had arisen from Galilee: Jonah of Gathhepher, and the greatest of the Prophets, Elijah of Thisbe; and perhaps also Nahum and Hosea. Their contempt for Galilee made them lose sight of historical accuracy. (Bretschneider absurdly lays the inaccuracy to the charge of the Evangelist.)
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 7:52. , whether) They feel sensible of the equity of his address to them; for which reason they make no reply to it: they only out of the conclusion itself create odium against Nicodemus, and they assail him, as though all the disciples of Jesus were Galileans, and as if He had none from any other quarter.- 😉 So the Lat. [Vulg.]: and that according to the mind of the Pharisees. The more modern Greek copies seem to have fastened on , instead of , from the words following immediately after. [Vulg. and [212][213] have Galilus. But [214][215][216] confirm the Rec. Text, .]- ) and see, i.e. you will see most easily. They appeal to experience, which however was not universal. [The hackneyed formula recurs to them afresh (comp. Joh 7:27, When Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence He is); which, however unimportant it might seen to be, when employed for sinister ends, was the occasion of causing them signal injury. Out of the amazing multitude of those who perish, you would hardly find any one who does not put a drag on the effectual working of saving truth in himself, owing to his being carried away by one or other (falsehood at the outset).-V. g.]
[212] Vercellensis of the old Itala, or Latin Version before Jeromes, probably made in Africa, in the second century: the Gospels.
[213] Colbertinus, do.
[214] the Vatican MS., 1209: in Vat. Iibr., Rome: fourth cent.: O. and N. Test. def.
[215] Bez, or Cantabrig.: Univ. libr., Cambridge: fifth cent.: publ. by Kipling, 1793: Gospels, Acts, and some Epp. def.
[216] Borgiana: Veletri: part of John: fourth or fifth cent.: publ. by Georgi, 1789.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 7:52
Joh 7:52
They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.-Without answering his objection as to the law, they assume that he is a disciple of Jesus and object to the claims on the ground that the Christ would not come out of Galilee ignorant of the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. [Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet is an untrue statement. Jonah was of Galilee (2Ki 14:25); Elijah probably so (1Ki 17:1); and Nahum also (Nah 1:1).]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Art: Joh 9:34, Gen 19:9, Exo 2:14, 1Ki 22:24, Pro 9:7, Pro 9:8
Search: Joh 7:41, Joh 1:46, Isa 9:1, Isa 9:2, Mat 4:15, Mat 4:16
Reciprocal: Mat 2:22 – into Mat 12:32 – whosoever Mat 26:69 – Jesus Mar 3:7 – Galilee Mar 10:47 – Jesus Luk 23:5 – beginning Luk 24:19 – Concerning Joh 5:39 – Search Joh 7:12 – deceiveth Act 2:7 – are Act 3:17 – through 1Pe 1:10 – and
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
This verse denotes that the Pharisees accused Nicodemus of siding with Jesus. The preceding verse only called for the regular procedure of the law, therefore their objection proves they did not want to do the fair thing about Jesus. The only thing
they mentioned as a basis for their condemnation of Jesus, was his humble
home territory of Galilee which was usually referred to unfavorably from a social standpoint.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
[Art thou also of Galilee?] it seems to be spoken scoffingly: “Art thou of those Galileans that believe in this Galilean?”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 7:52. They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. No answer to the argument was possible: they can but turn on Nicodemus himself. They assume that no one but a Galilean can take the side of Jesus. The last words are difficult, because at least one of the ancient prophets (Jonah) was of Galilee. But the words do not seem to be intended to include all the past, so much as to express what Jews held to be, and to have long been, a stated rule of Divine Providence: in their scorn of Galilee, and their arrogant assumption of complete knowledge of the law, they regard it as impossible that out of that land any prophet should arise; least of all can it be the birthplace of the Messiah.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 52
Ariseth no prophet; no prophet has ever arisen.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Nicodemus’ colleagues did not reply rationally but emotionally. They had already decided Jesus’ case without hearing Him. They did not want to listen to any information that might prove that He was who He claimed to be. They replied to Nicodemus’ challenge with contempt and accused him of being a despised Galilean himself since he sought to defend a Galilean. Unable to refute the logic of Nicodemus’ argument they attacked his person, an old debating tactic designed to win an argument but not necessarily to arrive at the truth.
It is unclear if they meant that no prophet ever came from Galilee or that the Prophet (Deu 18:15) would not come from there. Obviously Jonah and Nahum had come from Galilee, so it seems unlikely that they meant that. Moses did not predict where the Prophet would come from. As mentioned above, the Jews of Jesus’ day seem to have regarded the Prophet and Messiah as two different individuals. The messianic Son of David would come from Bethlehem, but where would the Prophet come from? If the Sanhedrin had taken the trouble to investigate Jesus’ origins thoroughly, they would have discovered than He had not come from Galilee originally.
People still let prejudice (prejudging) and superficial evaluation blind them to the truth.