51<\/strong>. Doth our law<\/em> ] ‘Law’ is emphatic. ‘You condemn the multitude for not knowing the law; but are we not forgetting the law in condemning a man unheard?’ These learned theologians and lawyers were forgetting such plain and simple texts as Deu 1:16-17<\/span>; Deu 17:8<\/span>; Deu 19:15<\/span>; involving the most elementary principles of justice.<\/p>\n any man, before it hear him<\/em> ] Literally, the<\/strong> man<\/em> (prosecuted) except it first hear from himself<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Doth our law … – <\/B>The law required justice to be done, and gave every man the right to claim a fair and impartial trial, Lev 19:15-16<\/span>; Exo 23:1-2<\/span>; Deu 19:15<\/span>, Deu 19:18<\/span>. Their condemnation of Jesus was a violation of every rule of right. He was not arraigned; he was not heard in self-defense, and not a single witness was adduced. Nicodemus demanded that justice should be done, and that he should, not be condemned until he had had a fair trial. Every man should be presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. This is a maxim of law, and a most just and proper precept in our judgments in private life.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 51<\/span>. Doth our law judge any man<\/B><\/I>] , the man<\/I>, i.e. who is accused<\/I>. Perhaps Nicodemus did not refer so much to any thing in the law of Moses, as to what was commonly practiced among them. Josephus says, Ant. b. xiv. c. 9. s. 3, That the law<\/I> has forbidden any man to be put to death, though wicked, unless he<\/I> be first condemned to die by the Sanhedrin<\/I>. It was probably to this law, which is not expressly mentioned in the five books of Moses, that Nicodemus here alludes. See laws relative to this point, De 17:8<\/span>, c. De 19:15<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n That no law of God or nature condemneth any man before they had heard him speak, or had what he did deposed by witnesses before them, that they might know what he did. <\/P> <\/p>\n 51. Doth our law,<\/B> &c.avery proper, but all too tame rejoinder, and evidently more frompressure of conscience than any design to pronounce positively<\/I>in the case. “The feebleness of his defense of Jesus has astrong contrast in the fierceness of the rejoinders of the Pharisees”[WEBSTER and WILKINSON].<\/P><\/p>\n Doth our law judge any man<\/strong>,…. Or condemn any man; or can any man be lawfully condemned:<\/p>\n before it hear him<\/strong>: what he has to say for himself; is this the usual process in our courts? or is this a legal one to condemn a man unheard?<\/p>\n and know what he doth<\/strong>? what his crimes are. This he said, having a secret respect for Christ, though he had not courage enough openly to appear for him.<\/p>\n Doth our law judge a man? <\/B> ( ;<\/SPAN><\/span>). Negative answer expected and “the man,” not “a man.” These exponents of the law (verse 49<\/span>) were really violating the law of criminal procedure (Exod 23:1<\/span>; Deut 1:16<\/span>). Probably Nicodemus knew that his protest was useless, but he could at least show his colours and score the point of justice in Christ’s behalf.<\/P> Except it first hear from himself <\/B> ( ‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>). Third-class negative condition with <\/SPAN><\/span> and first aorist active subjunctive of <\/SPAN><\/span>. That is common justice in all law, to hear a man’s side of the case (“from him,” ‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>).<\/P> And know what he doeth <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Continuation of the same condition with second aorist active subjunctive of <\/SPAN><\/span> with indirect question and present active indicative ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). There was no legal answer to the point of Nicodemus. <\/P> <\/p>\n Any man [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Literally, the man, whoever he may be, that comes before them. <\/P> Before it hear him [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Rev., more correctly, except it first hear. Hear him, is an inadequate rendering of par’ aujtou, which is, as Rev., from himself; para, implying from beside, i e., from his side of the case.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Doth our law judge any man,”<\/strong> (me ho nomos hemon krinei ton anthropon) “Our law does not judge the man,” who is accused, or pre-judge any man, and condemn him by presumption, does it? Yet these rulers were prejudging Jesus with prejudice and malice aforethought to kill Him, Joh 5:16<\/span>; Joh 5:18<\/span>; Joh 7:19-25<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Before it hear him,”<\/strong> (ean me akouse proton par’ autou) “Unless it first hear from him,” Exo 23:1<\/span>; Deu 1:16<\/span>, hear his testimony and\/or the testimony of possible witnesses to charges against Him, in defense? Pro 18:13<\/span> reads, “He <\/em>that answereth a matter before he hear it, it is folly and shame unto him,” and this is what the rulers would do to Jesus.<\/em><\/p>\n 3) “And know what he doeth?<\/strong>” (kai gno ti poiei) “And know by evidence and testimony what he does, does it?” In the nature of their own law they were disregarding all major premise of equity and justice, Deu 19:15<\/span>; 2Co 13:1<\/span>; Nicodemus would remind his rash Sanhedrin companion rulers, that to judge without hearing, observing, and weighing available testimony against an accused person under their own law, constituted itself an unjust crime, a sharp rebuke indeed.<\/p>\n Nicodemus would have these religious rulers in Israel to examine what Jesus had said and the miraculous deeds He had done, as he himself had done, before they prejudge or conclude that He should be killed. The first principle of justice and equity in law is to define the charges against the accused; and the second principle of justice and equity is to give the accused a reasonable time to offer testimony relating to the charges, and make amends of wrong or error if guilty, or amends of wrong if possible. These would de neither toward Jesus, if they had their own way; See also Deu 17:6<\/span>; Num 35:30<\/span>; Joh 8:17-18<\/span>.<\/p>\n (51) Doth our law judge any man?<\/strong>He identifies Himself with them. He, like they, is an expounder of the Law. The force of the question is in the word Law, which they had used but the moment before in their scorn for the people who knew not the Law. Well, this Law, which we do know and understand, doth it judge without open investigation? Did they in their blind zeal forget such passages as Exo. 23:1<\/span>; Deu. 1:16-17<\/span>; Deu. 19:15<\/span>? They had determined a death, and were seeking to carry their sentence into effect in direct contravention of the Law. This holy people, instructed in the Lawthey were the Law-breakers.<\/p>\n Before it hear him.<\/strong>The better reading is, unless it hear first from him.<\/em><\/p>\n And know what he doeth<\/strong>i.e.,<\/em> know the deed for which he is tried.<\/p>\n 51<\/strong>. <\/strong> Doth our law<\/em> The law prescribed that the accused should be heard before judges. Deu 17:8<\/span>. Nicodemus does not, indeed, defend Jesus; he only puts in an estopment upon their procedure against him.<\/p>\n 51 Doth our law judge any<\/em> man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 51. Doth our law condemn any man<\/strong> ] This was no great matter to say, and yet it did the deed; so God would have it. Now, he is ever like himself; and whensoever he pleaseth, he both can and will dissipate all our enemies’ endeavours, and that in the very nick of time. This we have had plain and plentiful experience of in this land lately, when we were at such an under, that our enemies seemed to be above fear, and we below hope: when there was not faith in earth to believe, then were there bowels in heaven to turn our captivity like streams in the south.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Before it hear him, and know what he doth?<\/strong> ] Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, was condemned before heard; and murdered by the Popish bishop. So was the Lord Cromwell, whose enemies dared not bring him to his answer, nor try him by his peers, but procured an act of attainder, and so put him to death unheard. <\/p>\n 51.<\/strong> ] There is no need of supplying before and the judge is implied in . He is only its representative and mouthpiece.<\/p>\n <\/strong> .<\/strong> ] See Deu 1:16<\/span> .<\/p>\n before = except (Greek. ean me) first. <\/p>\n it hear = it has heard. <\/p>\n 51.] There is no need of supplying before and -the judge is implied in . He is only its representative and mouthpiece.<\/p>\n .] See Deu 1:16.<\/p>\n Joh 7:51. ) the law, which ye suppose that ye alone know: Joh 7:49, This people, that knoweth not the law, is accursed.-, judge) that is, teach us to judge.- , a man) any one whatever, and this man.-, it shall have heard) Understand, he who judges. [This rule, that a man should be heard before he is judged, has so strong evidence in its favour, that it is obvious even to a little child; notwithstanding men of the highest authority frequently offend against it. A considerable part of the injustice with which the world abounds, if these considerations were rightly weighed, would be banished out of it. And truly nowhere are such considerations less attended to, than in cases where the cause of Christ is at stake-V. g.]<\/p>\n Joh 7:51<\/p>\n Joh 7:51<\/p>\n Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth?-The law of the Jews required this fairness as all just and fair laws do and Nicodemus appeals to this law as a benefactor to Jesus.<\/p>\n Deu 1:17, Deu 17:8-11, Deu 19:15-19, Pro 18:13 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Exo 23:2 – follow Deu 17:4 – inquired 1Sa 20:32 – Wherefore Ezr 10:16 – to examine the matter Psa 94:16 – stand up Pro 31:8 – Open Zec 7:9 – Execute true judgment Joh 3:2 – came Act 23:3 – smitten Act 25:16 – and have Act 25:27 – General Act 26:1 – Thou<\/p>\n 1<\/p>\n All that Nicodemus insisted on was that the justice of the law be carried out in the case of Jesus. The question he, asked would have been fair, regardless of whether Jesus was a good man or not.<\/p>\n 7:51 Doth our law judge [any] man, before it hear him, and know {n} what he doeth?<\/p>\n (n) What the one who is accused has committed.<\/p>\n Doth our law judge [any] man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? 51. Doth our law ] ‘Law’ is emphatic. ‘You condemn the multitude for not knowing the law; but are we not forgetting the law in condemning a man unheard?’ These learned theologians and lawyers were forgetting such plain and simple … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 7:51”<\/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-26354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26354","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=26354"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26354\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26354"}],"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: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/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: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New 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: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"