41<\/strong>. Others said some said<\/em> ] Both verbs, as in Joh 7:40<\/em><\/span>, are imperfects of repeated action; kept saying, used to say<\/em>.<\/p>\n Shall Christ come out of Galilee<\/em> ] We have here an instance how little attention our translators paid to the Greek article: in the same verse they translate the article in one place and ignore it in another. In the next verse they ignore it again. In all three places it should be ‘ the<\/em> Christ’ (see on Joh 1:20<\/span>). Why, doth the Christ<\/strong> come out of Galilee?<\/em> It is quite inadmissible to infer, because S. John does not correct this mistake of supposing that Jesus came from Galilee, that he is either ignorant of the truth or indifferent to it. He knew that his readers would be well aware of the facts. On the other hand, could a Greek of the second century invent these discussions of the Jewish multitude?<\/p>\n See the notes at Mat 2:4-6<\/span>.<\/P> Where David was – <\/B>1Sa 16:1-4<\/B><\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 41. Shalt Christ come out of Galilee?<\/B><\/I>] As the prophets had declared that the Messiah was to come from the tribe of Judah<\/I>, and from the family of David<\/I>, and should be born in the city of<\/I> Bethlehem<\/I>, these Jews, imagining that Christ had been born in Galilee<\/I>, concluded that he could not be the Messiah. Had they examined the matter a little farther, they would have found that he had his birth exactly as the prophets had foretold; but, for want of this necessary examination, they continued in unbelief, and rejected the Lord that bought them. Many still lose their souls nearly in the same way. They suffer themselves to be led away by common report<\/I>, and become prejudiced against the truth, refuse to give it a fair hearing, or to examine for themselves. It is on this ground that deign and irreligion have established themselves, and still maintain their posts.<\/P><\/p>\n The people were divided in their opinions about Christ. Some of them were very well inclined to believe that he was the promised Messiah; but they stumbled at the country where alone they took notice of him. For though he came not out of Galilee, but was born in Bethlehem, Luk 2:4<\/span>, according to the prophecy of him, Mic 5:2<\/span>, suitable to which was their tradition, Mat 2:5<\/span>; yet they had seen nothing of this, though possibly they had heard some relation of it, it being two and thirty years since his birth: but he was ordinarily called Jesus of Nazareth, and of Galilee, there he had lived and been educated; so as they knew no better, probably, than that he came out of Galilee, which was contrary to the prophecy, Mic 5:2<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 41. Others said, This is theChrist<\/B>(See on Joh 1:21<\/span>).<\/P> Shall Christ come out ofGalilee?<\/B><\/P><\/p>\n Others said, this is the Christ<\/strong>,…. The true Messiah, which they concluded, not only from the miracles, Joh 7:31<\/span>, but from his speaking of rivers of living water flowing from him that believes in him; for the same prophecy that speaks of miracles to be performed in the times of the Messiah, speaks also of waters breaking out in the wilderness, and streams in the desert, of the parched ground becoming a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water, Isa 35:5<\/span>.<\/p>\n But some said, shall Christ come out of Galilee<\/strong>? as they supposed Jesus did; and because he was educated at Nazareth, and Capernaum was his city, and he chiefly conversed, preached, and wrought his miracles in these parts, they concluded that he was born there; and therefore object this to his being the true Messiah. For if they did not mean this, according to their own accounts, the Messiah was to be in Galilee, and to be first revealed there; for they affirm i this in so many words, that , “the King Messiah shall be revealed in the land of Galilee”; accordingly Jesus, the true Messiah, as he was brought up in Galilee, though not born there, so he first preached there, and there wrought his first miracle; here he chiefly was, unless at the public feasts; and here he manifested himself to his disciples after his resurrection.<\/p>\n i Zohar in Gen. fol. 74. 3. & in Exod. fol. 3. 3. & 4. 1.<\/p>\n This is the Christ <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). These went further and dared to call Jesus the Messiah and not merely the prophet who might not be the Messiah. They said it openly.<\/P> What <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). These denied that Jesus was the Messiah and gave as their reason (<\/SPAN><\/span>, for) the fact that he came from Galilee. The use of <\/SPAN><\/span> expects a negative answer. <\/P> <\/p>\n Shall Christ, etc. [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The Rev. gives better the force of the interrogative particle with gar, for : What, doth the Christ come, etc. The idea in full is, “you cannot [<\/SPAN><\/span>] say that, for [<\/SPAN><\/span>] doth the Christ, etc.” <\/P> Shall – come [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The present tense. Rev., rightly, doth – come.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Others said, This is the Christ.”<\/strong> (alloi elegon houtos estin ho Christos) “Others of the crowd said this one is the Christ,” Joh 4:42<\/span>; Joh 6:69<\/span>, that one was to come, for whom Simeon and Anna the aged had longed, and to whom they witnessed, upon seeing Him as a babe, even at eight days of age, Luk 18:15-19<\/span>; Luk 2:21<\/span>; Luk 2:25-38<\/span>; 1Jn 5:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?”<\/strong> (hoi de elegon me gar ek tes Galilaias ho Christos erchetai) ”Then others said, Christ comes not out of Galilee, does he?” Some of the crowd remained unbelievers, doubters, even cynics, because He had come there from Galilee, Joh 7:27<\/span>; Joh 7:52<\/span>; Joh 1:46<\/span>.<\/p>\n 41. Others said, He is the Christ. The second have a more correct opinion than the first; for they plainly acknowledge that he is the Christ; but the third (201) rise up against them, and hence proceeds the debate. By this example we are warned that we ought not to think it strange in the present day, if men are divided among themselves by various controversies. We learn that Christ’s sermon produced a schism, and that not among Gentiles who were strangers to the faith, but in the midst of the Church of Christ, and even in the chief seat of the Church. Shall the doctrine of Christ be blamed on that account, as if it were the cause of disturbances? Nay rather, though the whole world were in commotion, the word of God is so precious, that we ought to wish that it were received, at least by a few. There is no reason, therefore, why our consciences should be distressed, when we see those who wish to be accounted the people of God fighting with each other by contrary opinions. <\/p>\n Yet it ought also to be observed that divisions do not properly draw their origin from the Gospel; for there can be no firm agreement among men except in undoubted truth. As to the peace maintained among those who know not God, it arises more from stupidity than from true agreement. In short, of all the differences which spring up, when the Gospel is preached, the cause and seed formerly lay concealed in men; but when they are awakened, as it were, out of sleep, they begin to move, just as vapours are produced by something else than the sun, although it is not till the sun arises that they make their appearance. <\/p>\n But will Christ come out of Galilee? That they may not be thought to reject Christ on insufficient grounds, they fortify themselves by the testimony of Scripture; and though they do violence to this passage, by turning it improperly against Christ, still they have some appearance of truth. In this point only they are in the wrong, that they make Christ a Galilean. But whence arises this ignorance but from contempt? For if they had taken the trouble to inquire, they would have seen that Christ was adorned with both titles; that he was born in Bethlehem, and that he was the son of David But such is our natural disposition; in matters of little consequence we are ashamed of being indolent, while, in the mysteries of the heavenly kingdom, we slumber without any concern. It is likewise of importance to observe, that those men are diligent and industrious in seeking an excuse for turning aside from Christ, but, at the same time, are astonishingly slow and dull in receiving sound doctrine. In this manner, out of the Scriptures themselves, which lead us by the hand to Christ, men frequently make obstacles for themselves, that they may not come to Christ. <\/p>\n (201) “ Les troisiemes.” <\/p>\n (41) Others said this is the Christ.<\/strong>The Messiah is distinguished from the Prophet in the words of the multitude there, as in the question of the legates of the Sanhedrin, Joh. 1:20-21<\/span>.<\/p>\n Shall Christ come out of Galilee?<\/strong>The answer No is expected, and the tense is presentSurely the Messiah cometh not out of Galilee? ‘But some said, “What? Does the Messiah come out of Galilee?” Has not the Scripture said that the Messiah comes of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem where David was?” ’<\/p>\n Others, however, cast a dampener on them and said, ‘will the Messiah come from Galilee?’ They knew that the Messiah was to be descended from King David and would thus come from Bethlehem, and they were aware that Jesus came from Galilee. (The passage is slightly ironic. Most readers would know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem). How carefully we should examine the facts before we make judgments.<\/p>\n 41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 41. Shall Christ come out of Galilee?<\/strong> ] Satan (that subtle sophister), though he confessed Christ to be the Holy One of God, Mar 1:24<\/span> , yet he calleth him Jesus of Nazareth, to nourish the error of the multitude, that thought he was born there, and so not the Messias. Neither did his cunning deceive him, as here appeareth. Satan etsi semel videatur verax, millies est mendax, et semper fallax, <\/em> saith Bucholcerus. Diabolus capite blanditur, ventre oblectat, et cauda ligat, <\/em> saith Rupertus.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Others said, This is the Christ<\/strong> ] Why, this was somewhat like; and if they held them to this, no man can say with the fiducial assent of his heart, “that Jesus is the Christ, but by the Holy Ghost,” 1Co 12:3<\/span> . He was Christ before he was Jesus, Joh 6:27<\/span> . Jesus is nothing else but Christus protensus et effusus, Son 1:5<\/span><\/em> . Christ shows him to be a sealed Saviour, anointed and appointed by the Father to that blessed office.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Shall Christ come out of Galilee?<\/strong> ] Galilee of the Gentiles, whose manners likely they had learned by so near neighbourhood. Some countries have an ill name. Can any good come out of Nazareth? Hesiod complains of Ascre where he was born, that it was good for nothing ( , , & c.) In mea patria, <\/em> saith Jerome, Deus est venter, et in diem venitur, et sanctior est ille qui ditior.<\/em> In my country they are neither temperate, nor provident, nor godly given. And Buchanan cries out that he was born, nec caelo, nec solo per saeculo erudite, <\/em> where learning was not in fashion. But as little Hippo was better known by great Austin, who was bishop of it, than he by Hippo; so was Galilee by Christ, than he by Galilee. And as hardly as it was thought of, he is not ashamed to call himself Jesus of Nazareth, Act 22:8<\/span> , which yet was commonly cast as a reproach upon him. <\/p>\n 41 43.<\/strong> ] The mention of the question about Bethlehem seems to me rather to corroborate our belief that the Evangelist was well aware how the fact stood, than (De Wette) to imply that he was ignorant of it. That no more remarks are appended, is natural. John had one great design in writing his Gospel, and does not allow it to be interfered with by explanations of matters otherwise known. Besides, we may note that De Wette’s “ probability, that John knew nothing of the birth at Bethlehem<\/em> ,” reaches much further than may appear at first. If John knew nothing of it, and yet the mother of the Lord lived with him, the inference must be that she<\/em> knew nothing of it, in other words, that it never happened.<\/p>\n <\/strong> implies a violent dissension<\/em> , some taking up His cause, some wishing to lay hands on Him.<\/p>\n Joh 7:41<\/span> . But others, either honestly perplexed, or hostile to Christ, and glad to find Scripture on their side, objected, ; “But does the Christ come out of Galilee?” [Hoogeveen explains the by resolving the sentence into a double statement: “Others said this is not the Christ: for<\/em> Christ will not come out of Galilee”. The assigns the reason for the denial already hinted in the introducing a contrary opinion to that already expressed.] They knew that Jesus was a Galilean, and this clashed with their idea that the Christ was to be born of the seed of David and in Bethlehem; an idea founded on Mic 5:2<\/span> ; Isa 11:1<\/span> ; Jer 23:5<\/span> . Bethlehem is here called the [or , which gives the same pronunciation], because there David spent his youth; 1Sa 16:1 ; 1Sa 16:4<\/span> , etc.<\/p>\n Others. See App-124. <\/p>\n some = others. As before. <\/p>\n Shall. come = What, doth Christ come? (Present tense.) <\/p>\n 41-43.] The mention of the question about Bethlehem seems to me rather to corroborate our belief that the Evangelist was well aware how the fact stood, than (De Wette) to imply that he was ignorant of it. That no more remarks are appended, is natural. John had one great design in writing his Gospel, and does not allow it to be interfered with by explanations of matters otherwise known. Besides, we may note that De Wettes probability, that John knew nothing of the birth at Bethlehem, reaches much further than may appear at first. If John knew nothing of it, and yet the mother of the Lord lived with him, the inference must be that she knew nothing of it,-in other words, that it never happened.<\/p>\n implies a violent dissension,-some taking up His cause, some wishing to lay hands on Him.<\/p>\n Joh 7:41<\/p>\n Joh 7:41<\/p>\n Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, What, doth the Christ come out of Galilee?-[The opposition denied that he was the Christ, basing their opposition, not upon his character or teaching, but upon the fact that he came from Galilee. Jesus, reared at Nazareth, coming to Jerusalem from Galilee, was supposed by the Jews to have been born there, and they were well aware of the fact Christ was to be born at Bethlehem.]<\/p>\n This is: Joh 7:31, Joh 1:41, Joh 1:49, Joh 4:25, Joh 4:29, Joh 4:42, Joh 6:69, Mat 16:14-16 <\/p>\n Shall: Joh 7:52, Joh 1:46 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Mat 2:22 – into Mat 11:3 – Art Mat 11:6 – whosoever Mat 13:55 – the carpenter’s Mat 15:22 – son Mat 21:46 – because Mat 22:42 – The Son Mat 26:69 – Jesus Mar 3:7 – Galilee Mar 10:47 – Jesus Luk 1:26 – a city Luk 2:11 – which Luk 7:16 – a great Luk 7:39 – This man Luk 9:20 – The Luk 12:52 – General Luk 23:5 – beginning Joh 7:27 – no man Joh 9:29 – we know not<\/p>\n 1<\/p>\n Others thought of Jesus as the Christ or anointed One which means king, who had been prophesied to sit on David’s throne (Act 2:30). But some of them rejected this idea on the ground that such an important person should have a more dignified residence than one located in Galilee.<\/p>\n Joh 7:41-42. Others said, This is the Christ Some said, What, doth the Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said. That the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was? See Mat 2:6. This explanation of the prophecy of Micah (chap. Joh 5:2) is found in the Targum, and seems to have been commonly received by the Jews.<\/p>\n Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? 41. Others said some said ] Both verbs, as in Joh 7:40, are imperfects of repeated action; kept saying, used to say. Shall Christ come out of Galilee ] We have here an instance how little attention our translators paid … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 7:41”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26344","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26344","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26344"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26344\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/em><\/p>\nFuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"