John 7:14-24

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 14-24.

1. There is, apparently, an abrupt turn in the narrative at John 7:14, if we look only at the outward form of the story. But, when the following verses are closely studied, it seems almost certain that there is a connection with ch. 5 and the opposition excited by His work of healing on the Sabbath, which is there mentioned. May it not be, therefore, that the question of John 7:15 is, not merely one of wonder at the character of His teaching, but one expressing their sense of the impropriety of His setting Himself up to be a teacher, and in His teachings even to override the Mosaic law, as shown by His willingness to violate the Sabbatic ordinance? If this view is taken, the movement of the thought towards John 7:19 ff. is more easily explained.

2. In the answer of Jesus, John 7:16 ff., the following points are worthy of notice: (a) The origin of His teaching, though not found in their schools, is such as may well give Him the knowledge which surprises them. He has learned directly from God. (b) The evidence of this is found in the fact that the moral teacher who speaks from himself will manifest a self-seeking spirit. As He, on the other hand, is only seeking the glory of the one who sends Him forth as a teacher, it must be that He is not an impostor or merely self-moved. (c) The question as to whether this one who sends Him is God, and whether the teaching is God's teaching, is one which any man can decide by placing himself in the right attitude towards God. The way to the light in the sphere of religion is through the will the willingness to do the will of God.

3. The words ἀληθής and ἀδικία, united by καί in John 7:18, suggest the connection between this passage concerning the teaching and the following verses, which carry back the thought to ch. 5. We may thus explain what seems to be a sudden change of subject at the beginning of John 7:19.

4. The central point of John 7:19-23 is apparently in John 7:21: ἓν ἔργον κ. τ. λ. This one work evidently means the miracle of ch. 5, and it is with reference to this that the allusion to the law of Moses is introduced.

5. John 7:20 (comp. John 8:48, John 10:20) brings before us the only kind of reference which John makes in his Gospel to demoniacal possession, if indeed this can be properly called such. The absence of instances of such cases of possession in this Gospel has been made an argument against their reality. But such an argument cannot be insisted upon, because John writes so manifestly on a plan of selection that his omissions or insertions may be owing to reasons which we cannot now fully understand, and also because his allusions to miracles are connected with the growth of faith in the disciples, and, especially, with the inner life of the soul.

6. If we could omit διὰ τοῦτο, with Tisch., 8th ed., on the authority of the Sinaitic MS., we should escape a difficulty. But the external evidence appears to be so strong in favor of the insertion of the words that they must be received. If regarded as belonging to the text, they are probably to be connected with θαυμάζετε of John 7:21. Westcott says the usage of John is decisive against this, but it must be noticed that there is no case in John's writings which is parallel with this one, and that there are weighty reasons on the other side, such as the strong and appropriate emphasis secured by this connection of the words and the difficulties which are involved in uniting them with John 7:22. The explanation of Godet, which is similar to that of Westcott, and of Milligan and Moulton, is perhaps the best which can be offered, if the latter connection is assumed.

But apart from any improbability that Moses would be represented as introducing the provision alluded to for the purpose of teaching them to judge rightly on the matter now in question if Jesus had intended to make such a representation, the sentence, it would seem, would have been arranged differently. As the verses stand, the argument proceeds simply and naturally from John 7:22 to John 7:23, if these words are unconnected with John 7:22. The argument is: Moses' law, through one of its provisions, involves a violation of the Sabbath ordinance; if this is so, why be angry with me for a similar violation? The union of διὰ τοῦτο with John 7:22 complicates and obscures the thought. Tregelles, R. V. marg. and A. R. V. connect these words with John 7:21; Westcott and Hort and R. V. text with John 7:22.

7. John 7:24, if διὰ τοῦτο belongs with John 7:22 and is explained as Godet proposes, brings out a thought which is already foreshadowed by those words. If, on the other hand, the phrase is attached to John 7:21, John 7:24 is an added exhortation, naturally suggested but not previously indicated. This verse will have no bearing on the question of the connection of διὰ τοῦτο, for it can be explained satisfactorily on either view respecting that question.