JOHN 7:1-52

This passage describes Jesus appearance at the annual Feast of Tabernacles. In itself, it has no symmetrical literary organization; one need to consider all of chapters 7-8 to see that. Note that symmetry exists whether on not one includes the controversial 8:1-11.

The Structure of John 7-8

1. Opposition between Jesus and evil in the world (7:1-13)

    2. Jesus is sent from God (7:14-36)

        3. Jesus as the Living Water (7:37-52)

            (4. The woman caught in adultery: 8:1-11)

        3'. Jesus as the Light of the World (8:12-19)

    2'. Jesus sent from the Father (8:20-30)

1'. Opposition between Jesus and sons of the Devil (8:31-59)

Below are some comments on John 7 collected from a number of scholarly sources; it is hoped that some of these may be helpful in understanding this chapter.

John 7:1-9 There is a similarity between Jesus' brothers challenging him to perform miracles at the populated feast in Jerusalem and the earlier occasion when Mary asked him to do something about the lack of wine at the wedding feast. In both cases, Jesus appears to refuse, but then goes ahead and does what is requested anyway. The major difference was that Mary believed in Jesus whereas his brothers did not. “Proximity to Jesus, either in a family or as a disciple, does not guarantee faith.” (Blum) Culpepper points out one key point that indicates the brothers' mocking tone in their question. It is very similar to Satan's questioning during the tempting in the wilderness when he says, “'If you are' (or 'do'), then publicly reveal your power.” (see Matthew 4:6; Luke 4:9)

Jesus' cryptic statement in v. 6 that their “time is always here” has at least two possible interpretations according to Culpepper: (a) “their time is the world's time and will always be such” or (b) “the time for them to believe is already given and ready.”

There is textual variation in v. 8, which either reads “I am not going up to the feast” or “I am not yet going up to the feast.” Hernandez feels the latter must be a scribal addition to explain the fact that Jesus did go to the feast. He also sees a word-play here in which Jesus is stating that he will not “go up” in the ultimate sense of dying. Blum similarly notes that 'going up' may have a geographical meaning since Jerusalem is located in the hills or a theological meaning: going back to the Father.

John 7:10-24

Verse 10 reveals another similarity with the miracle at Cana in that it first appears that Jesus will not do what is requested by his family, but then goes ahead and does it in his own way and own timing.

Raymond Brown points to the disparaging way Jesus' enemies refuse to refer to him by name but persist in calling him “that man” (7:11; 9:28; 19:21). He notes that this practice continued into later Judaism.

The amazement in v. 15 of Jesus' learning should remind the reader of Mark 1:22, Jesus as a child impressing the religious leaders in the temple. But in this case, as O.M. Hendricks says, it is “a statement of elitism by the religious authorities.” My brother-in-law once engaged a visiting pastor to his church in a religious discussion. Apparently the pastor was impressed and asked him what his profession was. My brother-in-law explained that he was engaged in doing woodcraft. At that point, the pastor dismissed him with the words, “Oh, a man of the trades.”

Regarding v. 17, Ellis states: “There can be no greater authority than this which can be put to the test. Elsewhere, our Lord was similarly questioned (cf. Mt. 21:23; Jn 6:30) and He gave always the same answer in principle.”

In vv. 19-20 that the crowd is not aware of the authorities' plan to kill Jesus, and so they reply “You have a demon!”, which is another way of saying, “Are you crazy or something?” Note that the people had earlier called John the Baptist “demon-possessed.” (see Matthew 11:18).

The “one work” referred to in v. 21 is the earlier healing by Jesus of the lame man by the Pool of Bathesda.

Jesus appears to be misspeaking in v. 22. However, as Ellis explains, “Although this [circumcision] was practiced by the patriarchs, Moses regularized it within the Law (cf. Lev. 12:30).”

Brauch says in reference to vv. 22-23, “Here Jesus confirmed the truth already articulated in the prophetic word of Isaiah 1:12-17, that God is much more concerned about our doing good to others and having compassion and seeking justice than ritual acts and external observance of holy days and festivals, including the sabbath.”

It turns out that Jesus here is not quoting from anything in the OT, but instead to a regulation unknown to us which was, however, apparently known to his hearers. But there is a close parallel to Jesus' conclusion regarding healing found in Rabbi Eleazar den Azariah who reasoned from the lesser to the greater: “If circumcision, in which only one member of the body annuls the sabbath, how much more so for the rest of the body.” (Maccoby)

John 7:25-31

The concept that no one will know where the Messiah comes from (v. 27) appears in popular writings circulating at that time (see I Enoch 48:6; 2 Esdras 13:51-52), but is not found in the canonical books of the Bible.

Ellis expresses his opinion of v. 30: “It seems that John almost suggests that the Jews were physically incapable of laying hands of Him before 'the hour' struck.”

John 7:32-36

“Jesus says he will go to the one who sent him and they will not be able to find him. Does this mean that Jesus will elude his opponents by returning to the Father or will Jesus flee to the diaspora?...For the reader who does not know the outcome, the veiled language is a source of drama; for the informed reader it is a source of ironic enrichment.” (Culpepper) He explains that the first scenario expressed the belief that Jesus would perhaps commit suicide. Conversely, when the Jews wonder if he will flee to the Greeks, that “is probably intended as a veiled statement of truth.”

John 7:37-44

As most commentators will point out, the background for Jesus' words here is that they reflect the ceremony carried out during the festival where water was transported from the Pool of Siloam to the Temple – a symbol of, among other things, the coming deliverance by the Messiah.

“On the last and greatest day of the Feast of Tabernacles, God incarnate stood in his temple calling out to his thirsty people to come to him and drink. How ironic that his unrecognized voice was a disturbing presence in the festivities that had for so long been celebrated to welcome his presence!” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

The words in v. 38 are not an exact quote from the Old Testament, but the general idea is found in Proverbs 18:4; Isaiah 44:3; 58:11. (Hendricks)

There is some dispute as to where the punctuation belongs in vv. 37-38. Depending on how the text is broken up, the water is said to flow either from the belly of the believers or from that of Jesus. Carson is of the opinion that it “is more likely correct to see a sentence division at the end of 7:37, making the believer the one from whose being the water (= Spirit) flows. The believer is thus viewed as a channel for the outflowing of the Spirit to others (cf. 15:26f).”

Keener points out that “in either case the Spirit comes ultimately from Jesus to believers.” And Wenk similarly adds that “it is quite obvious that the Spirit is associated with both the word and the water that accomplishes the eschatological cleansing and re-creation as anticipated in Ezekiel 36:25-26.”

In regard to vv. 37-39, Bruner states that “according to John 7 faith in Christ brings not just enough water to wet the tongue of the believer, it receives from Christ in the Spirit not only spiritual existence and revivication, but spiritual power as well.”

There appears to be a contradiction in v. 39 if one interprets it as saying that the Spirit had not been active up to this point. Smeaton explains: “He does not mean that the Spirit did not yet exist...but that these [prior] operations of the Spirit had been but an anticipation of the atoning death of Christ rather than a giving.”

Regarding vv. 41-44, Strauss explains, “Two traditional messianic expectations are expressed by the Jews...For some, Jesus cannot be the Messiah since they know where he is from, for others, he cannot be the Messiah because he is apparently from Nazareth, not Bethlehem. But both are wrong. The first group does not know where he is from, since he is from heaven. The second does not know his earthly origins, since he was indeed born in Bethlehem and from the line of David.”

In 7:42, “Jesus denies the Jews' ultimate right to claim descent from Abraham spiritually. Yet more, if any nation could claim the right to address God as Father, it was Israel...But Jesus refuses to acknowledge even this right, since these Jews have rejected the unique Son of God.” (Ellis)

John 7:45-52

The Jewish leaders refer dismissively to “this crowd” in v. 49, but who are they referring to exactly? Schutz feels that it “reflects a well-attested scorn of rabbinic scholars for the common people.” In a similar vein, Fitzmyer translates the phrase as “that rabble which knows not the law,” expressing Pharisaic disdain for others.

Bietenhard attempts to get more specific: “In Jn. 7:49 ochlos [crowd] doubtless refers to the term 'am haares, people of the land...in the post-exilic age it denoted the foreign or mixed population, as distinct from the returned exiles. It became a term of abuse, connoting ignorance of and lax attitude towards the law.”

Nicodemus, who had come to Jesus by night (John 3:1-3) attempts to defend Jesus but is immediately labeled by his fellow religious leaders as “one of them.” We unfortunately see the same sort of reaction in Congress today when anyone tries to break party ranks with the lock-step beliefs of their fellow legislators in even a small way. And even more unfortunately, there are people in the church who are always trying to sniff out even the slightest deviation from their version of orthodoxy in the congregation so that they can be the first to denounce it.