John 7:53

And every man went to his own house.

Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

If we group together the scenes of these Chapter s we might treat them.

1. A day with Jesus; in which we have not merely His answers to the disputing Jews, but His proclamation of love.

2. A night with Jesus on the Mount of Olives.

3. Dawn with Jesus in the Temple, listening to tits early teaching.

4. Sunrise with Jesus, as pointing to the East, He says, “I am the light of the world.” These two verses suggest--Man at home, Jesus not at home:

The crowd which had surrounded Him all the day gradually drops off,one by one, as the evening draws on, and Jesus is left alone. Each one has a home to go to, and retires to rest with his family; Jesus has nowhere to lay His head; they go one way, He goes another; they keep within the city walls, tie goes without the gate to Olivet, there to spend the night in prayer. He is not at home; even in the Temple which is His Father’s house, He must not stay; its gates are closing, and He is shut out. He can only go to the places where man is not; to the solitudes where, outside of Jerusalem, outside even of Bethany, He can meet with God. This homelessness was for us; that we might have a home in His Father’s house. He went without the gate that we might enter in. He became an exile, taking our place and life of banishment, that we might enter the celestial city, the paradise of God. Hast thou entered in? Or art thou still an exile from God though at home on earth? (H. Bonar, D. D.)

The Saviour and the Sanhedrim

We have here a notable instance of the injury done to the Scriptures by the arbitrary division into Chapter s and verses. The severance here diverts the attention from the object which the writer had in view. The greater part of chap. 7. is occupied with the conflicting opinions of the populace respecting Christ, and closes with a striking representation of a scene which took place in the council chamber of the metropolis. The officers had returned without their prisoner, and one of their own number dared to protest against their injustice. The distracted council break up and go home to concoct fresh schemes; the tranquil Saviour quietly departs to Olivet to meditate and pray. What a contrast! Those seventy men crossed in their cruel project; that one harmless wanderer, sustained by the conscious rectitude of His life! They seeking new channels for the pent up torrent of their wrath; He calm in the rich tides of peace that filled His soul; they to their luxuriant dwellings, whose enchantments were all marred by the day’s discomfiture; He to the mountain and the midnight, whose dark shadows threw into bold relief the presence of God and His glory. On their side all worldly influence; on His side all heaven. Their purpose, murder, and suppression of the truth; His purpose, salvation, and God’s eternal glory by His own self-sacrifice. (W. G. Lewis.)

The moral tangent

This “parting of the ways” exhibited

I. THE SEPARATENESS OF CHRIST AMID HIS OWN PEOPLE. It bears out chap

1:11. How could it have occurred in a region and amongst a race so notedfor hospitality? Such experiences may have begotten the realization Matthew 8:20). Some offer may have been made, but, if so, it was either too half-hearted to tempt the great solitary, or still, night-wrapped Olivet exercised an irresistible fascination.

1. That the Founder of society in its true conception should have been Himself an outcast; imagination dwells on such a paradox.

2. To take the mildest view of the circumstance it was not to the credit of the social life of Jerusalem. Some defect in those home circles rendered them uncongenial. Hearts there were that hated Him, but the general sentiment was indifference.

3. And how did He regard their attitude? It was impossible for Him to be unconcerned. Not yet was the passionate wail, “O Jerusalem,” etc., but the woeful sorrow of which it was the outcry was even then gathering. Incarnate love could not but desire to be loved by those for whom He had descended to such depths; but it must be on His own terms.

II. A DIFFERENCE IN SPIRITUAL TENDENCY AND AIM.

1. The isolation of Christ did not arise from obscurity or insignificance. His departure must have been observed and felt. That lonely form, the centre of so much observation as with calm dignity it stepped from the wrangling crowd into the quiet fields, did it not judge them?

2. The mere departure convicted them of a lack of moral earnestness. The deadly conspiracy which had been hatched in their midst, and which had been arrested just when success seemed easy ought to have put every true man upon his honour, and made him open his doors to the homeless One. He had disturbed Judaean thought and life to its core. To an onlooker it might have seemed as if a moral revolution were impending. How near they were to the kingdom of God! But assenting to Christ’s lofty truths their hearts were indisposed to receive them. They lacked the courage of their convictions. Good men! it did not impair their digestion nor break the continuity of their “little life.” How trifling the spirit that can shelve the greatest question and stifle the grandest inspiration thus.

3. Not so easy was it for the Son of Man to put behind Him the strenuous controversy in which He had engaged. With Him heart as well as intellect were enlisted. Stung by their indifference, or horror-struck at their villany, the Great Sensitive Soul hurries forth to the only house of prayer where He can be alone with His Father, and to brace Himself for the effort of tomorrow. Yet how incomprehensible it must have been to minds so besotted with earthliness! They knew not that commerce with the skies. Conclusion: In every life there is such a moment quick with spiritual issues. Shall we follow Christ to Olivet or go to our own house? (St. John A. Frere, M. A.)

Diverging paths

I. EVERY MAN WENT TO HIS OWN HOUSE. A symbol of the general conduct of humanity. “We have turned every one to his own way.”

1. Our house is where we live, and represents all that we live for.

(1) Some men live for wealth and adorn their noble houses with elegant furniture and costly pictures.

(2) Some men live for pleasure, and their houses will be supplied with all that gratifies the senses--luxurious couches, expensive wines, and elaborate menu’s.

(3) Some men live for learning, and the principal room in the house will be the well-furnished library, and every department will proclaim, “A scholar lives here.”

(4) Some men live for friendship, and keep “open house” for their boon companions.

(5) Some men live for domestic felicities, and consult the comfort and fellowship of wife and children in all the appointments of the house.

2. We may go to our own house without Christ. A Christless house, a Christless life is that in which something else besides Christ predominates. Where wealth, pleasure, etc., are supreme Christ is not. He has gone to the Mount of Olives.

II. JESUS WENT TO THE MOUNT OF OLIVES.

1. Jesus went

(1) To cool His fevered brain and heart after the anxieties and labours of the day.

(2) To pray, and realize more deeply His union and communion with the Father. To brace Himself for the efforts of the coming day.

2. Jesus went alone, yet every member of the crowd He left needed to go with Him--and for the same reason. So do we. Only with Jesus shall we find rest, communion, strength.

3. Jesus came back to judge those who had forsaken Him (chap. 8:16), and will come to judge those who are forsaking Him now.

III. THE ALTERNATIVE

1. Is not house or Christ. He does not require us to break up our homes or desolate our lives. Let it be remembered that one reason for going to Olivet was because there was not a home in Jerusalem that would take Him in. He would have supped with the meanest who would have accorded Him a welcome.

2. The alternative is house without Christ or house with Him. We must take our Saviour into our house, and then take our house to Olivet--make Him the sacred centre round which wealth, pleasure, etc., may cluster, and sanctify all by sympathy with Him, prayer and consecration.

3. Thus the alternative sharply put is self or Christ. Which?

Conclusion:

1. If we let Christ alone He will let us alone. Hell in this life and in the next is abandonment by Christ.

2. Christ ascended Olivet--the Jews descended from Moriah. With Christ’s companions it is ever a going up till heaven at last is reached. With Christ-forsakers it is ever down--down until the depths of the bottomless pit are fathomed. (J. W. Burn.)

Chapter 8

Introduction to John 8:1

These verses, with John 7:53, form, perhaps, the gravest critical difficulty in the New Testament.

I. THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST the passage.

1. That it is not found in some of the oldest and best MSS.

2. That it is wanting in some of the earlier versions.

3. That it is not commented on by Greek Fathers, Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, and Theophylact, in their exposition of St. John, nor quoted or referred to by Tertullian and Cyprian.

4. That it differs in style from the rest of St. John’s Gospel, and contains several words and forms of expression which are nowhere else used in his writings.

5. That the moral tendency of the passage is somewhat doubtful, and that it seems to represent our Lord as palliating a heinous sin.

II. THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR of the passage are as follows:

1. That it is found in many old manuscripts, if not in the very oldest and best.

2. That it is found in the Vulgate Latin, and in the Arabic, Coptic, Persian, and Ethiopian versions.

3. That it is commented on by Augustine in his exposition of this Gospel; while in another of his writings he expressly refers to and explains its omission from some manuscripts; that it is quoted and defended by Ambrose, referred to by Jerome, and treated as genuine in the Apostolical constitutions.

4. That there is no proof whatever that there is any immoral tendency in the passage. Our Lord pronounced no opinion on the sin of adultery, but simply declined the office of a judge.

I lean decidedly to the side of those who think the passage is genuine, for the following reasons:

1. The argument from manuscripts appears to me inconclusive. We possess comparatively few very ancient ones. Even of them, some favour the genuineness of the passage. The same remark applies to the ancient versions. Testimony of this kind, to be conclusive, should be unanimous.

2. The argument from the Fathers seems to me more in favour of the passage than against it. On the one side the reasons are simply negative. Certain Fathers say nothing about the passage, but at the same time say nothing against it. On the other side the reasons are positive. Men of such high authority as Augustine and Ambrose not only comment on the passage, but defend its genuineness, and assign reasons for its omission by some mistaken transcribers. Let me add to this, that the negative evidence of the Fathers is not so weighty as it appears. Cyril of Alexandria is one. But his commentary on this chapter is lost, and what we have was supplied by a modern hand in 1510. Chrysostom’s commentary on John consists of popular public homilies, in which we can easily imagine such a passage as this might possibly be omitted. Theophylact was notoriously a copier and imitator of Chrysostom. Origen, the only remaining commentator, is one whose testimony is not of first-rate value, and he has omitted many things in his exposition of St. John. The silence of Tertullian and Cyprian is, perhaps, accountable on the same principles by which Augustine explains the omission of the passage in some copies of this Gospel in his own time. Some, as Calovius, Maldonatus, Flacius, Aretius, and Piscator, think that Chrysostom distinctly refers to this passage in his Sixtieth Homily on John, though he passes it over in exposition.

3. The argument from alleged discrepancies between the style and language of this passage, and the usual style of St. John’s writing, is one which should be received with much caution. We are not dealing with an uninspired, but with an inspired, writer Surely it is not too much to say that an inspired writer may occasionally use words and constructions and modes of expression which he generally does not use, and that it is no proof that he did not write a passage because he wrote it in a peculiar way. The whole discussion may leave in our minds, at any rate, one comfortable thought. If even in the case of this notoriously disputed passage--more controverted and doubted than any in the New Testament--so much can be said in its favour, how immensely strong is the foundation on which the whole volume of Scripture rests! If even against this passage the arguments of opponents are not conclusive, we have no reason to fear for the rest of the Bible. After all, there is much ground for thinking that some critical difficulties have been purposely left by God’s providence in the text of the New Testament, in order to prove the faith and patience of Christian people. They serve to test the humility of those to whom intellectual difficulties are a far greater cross then either doctrinal or practical ones. To such minds it is trying, but useful, discipline to find occasional passages involving knots which they cannot quite untie, and problems which they cannot quite solve. Of such passages the verses before us are a striking instance. That the text of them is “a hard thing” it would be wrong to deny. But I believe our duty is not to reject it hastily, but to sit still and wait. In these matters, “he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Bp. Ryle.)

The internal evidence in favour of the passage

It bears the same relation to revelation as a ray of light does to the sun. Its consummate knowledge of the human heart; its masterly harmonizing of the demands of the Mosaic law with the gospel; its triumphant turning of the tables in the presence of insolent foes; its matchless teachings of mercy, mingled with the sternest rebuke to sin; its complete and glorious victory in their terrible defeat and shame, all point out and prove the handwriting of God. God’s Word is a great fact in the moral world, as the Alps are in the natural. A fragment of granite taken from the Alps proves God its Creator quite as fully as the mountain range. (W. H. Van Doren, D. D.)

The intrinsic truthfulness of the passage

Were the critical evidence against its genuineness far more overwhelming than it is, it would yet bear upon its surface the strongest proof of its authenticity. It is hardly too much to say that the mixture which it displays of tragedy and tenderness--the contrast which it involves between low, cruel cunning, and exalted nobility of intellect and emotion--transcends all power of the human imagination to have invented it; while the picture of a divine insight reading the inmost thoughts of the heart, and a yet diviner love which sees those inmost secrets with larger eyes than ours, furnish us with a conception of Christ’s power and person at once too lofty and too original to have been founded on anything but fact. No one could have invented, for few could even appreciate, the sovereign purity and ineffable charm--the serene authority of condemnation and pardon--by which the story is so deeply characterized. The repeated instances in which, without a moment’s hesitation, He foiled the crafty designs of His enemies, and in foiling them taught forever some eternal principles of thought and action, are among the most unique and decisive proofs of His more than human wisdom; and yet not one of those gleams of sacred light which were struck from Him by collision with the malice of man was brighter or more beautiful than this. The very fact that the narrative found so little favour in the early centuries; the fact that whole Churches regarded the narrative as dangerous in its tendency; the fact that eminent Fathers either ignore it or speak of it in a semi-apologetic tone--in these facts we see the most decisive proof that its real moral and meaning are too transcendent to admit of its having been originally invented or interpolated without adequate authority into the sacred text. Yet it is strange that any should have failed to see that, in the ray of mercy which thus streamed from heaven upon the wretched sinner, the sin assumed an aspect tenfold more hideous and repulsive to the conscience of mankind. (Archdeacon Farrar.)