Michael's Abbey Bible Study - Gospel of John Chapter 7

1 After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. After these things is used to indicate an unspecified amount of time has gone by.
Being unwilling to walk in Judea does not mean Jesus was unwilling to go there. Verse 10 tells us he did go to Judea, but secretly. Going and walking are two different things in this context. Walking means openly and publicly traveling while teaching and performing miracles. In other words, it is a way of referring to Jesus' public ministry. That Jesus was unwilling to walk in Judea means He was not willing to do his public ministry there at this time like he had before.
The Jews, Ioudaioi in Greek, could be translated as either Jews or Judeans. Directly implied is that it was more specifically the Jewish leaders that wanted to kill Jesus. They primarily resided in Jerusalem, which is in Judea. John also referred to the leaders as the Jews in 1:19.
2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near. This marks the time of this narrative as the last festival of the Jewish calendar which is found in Leviticus 23. It is one of three feasts in which Jews were required to present themselves to Yahweh in a place of His choosing. So it could not be observed in the home but only in the temple or a synagogue. This was a time when Jerusalem would be very crowded with people coming to participate in the Feast of the Booths at the Temple, also called the Feast of Tents or Feast of Tabernacles in scripture. It is sometimes called Sukkot today.
3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. Verses 3-10 are talking about Jesus' half-brothers. They didn't believe He was the Messiah, as is explicitly stated in verse 5.
The reference to His disciples is not referring to the twelve or the outer circle of disciples who were still with Jesus. It is likely Jesus brothers were referring to those disciples of the outer circle that turned away from Him in verse 6:60. Alternatively, they could have been referring to Jesus disciples that were in Judea. Jesus works were not just His miracles, but also His teaching which was remarkable to any who paid attention to what He was saying instead of being triggered by it.
4 For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world." Jesus' brothers were mocking Jesus about attending the festival with them in Jerusalem. In other words, they were calling Him out. If He was the Messiah as He implied and sometimes said, then He ought to want to go to Jerusalem and take His rightful place.
5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him. The attitude of Jesus' half brothers was like the brothers of Joseph, contempt for the brother they thought was getting full of Himself. One difference was Jesus was the oldest while Joseph was the youngest. Their attitude was dismissive and mocking. As the cliché goes, familiarity breeds contempt. And none are so familiar as family. They could not comprehend that the brother they grew up with could be the Messiah. That Jesus was different being as He was without any sin and able to comprehend and teach scripture without formal school should have been a clue to who he really was. However, a sibling who doesn't fit in is almost always mocked and ridiculed for it rather than understood.
There is an unbiblical doctrine in Roman Catholic Mariology that asserts that Jesus' mother Mary stayed a virgin her whole life. That is contradicted by this passage and others. There are several flimsy attempts to explain away these verses. One is to say that these were Joseph's sons from a previous marriage. However, there is no record of such a thing in scripture or the historical record. Also, James is recorded as the younger brother of Jesus in the historical record, and that is implied in scripture. That all of Jesus' brothers were younger is also implied as the narratives put Jesus in the patriarchal role as the eldest son after Joseph's death. Another flimsy explanation is that this reference to Jesus' brothers was actually a reference to His disciples. However, this is completely contradicted by scripture. It is clear that there were many disciples, including the twelve, who did believe in Him. It is completely illogical that any disciples close enough to be called brothers would be unbelievers.
The role of Mary in Roman Catholicism is anti-Biblical. There is no scriptural support for praying to Mary, nor of her interceding for us with God. Scripture is clear again and again that it is Jesus the Christ who is our intercessor and not anyone only human. Jesus is the reconciler between us and the Father. There is no mention of Mary or any other. And because of Jesus we not only have a direct relationship with Jesus but also directly with the Father as well. Any imposition of someone else between us and God after the Christ event is anti-biblical.
Even if one accepts the rest of Roman Catholic Mariology, there is no reason for the addition of Mary staying a virgin. It is unnecessary to those other doctrines for Mary to have stayed a virgin. And there is certainly no reason for the anger and hostility from some Catholics when discussing this subject in the context of scripture. It seems this was an import of one or more extra-biblical sects like the Essenes who viewed sex as inherently sinful.
6 So Jesus *said to them, "My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil. Jesus' time to openly go to Jerusalem has not yet come. This refers to him entering the city as the suffering Messiah who will offer Himself up for sacrifice. This does not mean He can't go to Jerusalem discreetly.
Jesus said his brothers' time is anytime. The reason is that they aren't believers, but are of the world. The world is opposed to God. Because they are of the world the world can't hate them. Jesus explicitly states this in 15:19. The world hates Jesus because it is sinful, and Jesus exposes that. Sinners react with anger and hate when their sin is exposed. But that must be done. Until people acknowledge that their sin actually is sin they cannot turn to God.
8 Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come." Jesus would not go to the feast as a participant. Doing so would trigger events that were not to occur until later. Jesus' brothers could go without Him.
9 Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee. How long Jesus remained isn't specified. But it couldn't have been too long after His brothers left. It is likely that they left early enough to be there for the beginning of the week long event. Verse 14 shows that Jesus left in time to be there for the middle days.
10 But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if, in secret. Jesus said He wouldn't go to the feast, and He didn't. But he could go to Jerusalem secretly in order to teach at the temple during the week of the feast of tents. This would be a time when the temple was crowded with Jews from all over Israel and from outside Israel as well.
11 So the Jews were seeking Him at the feast and were saying, "Where is He?" The Jews here refers to the religious leaders and officers. They thought Jesus would come to participate in the holiday, which would make it easy to arrest Him. They had been seeking to kill Him since 5:18.
12 There was much grumbling among the crowds concerning Him; some were saying, "He is a good man"; others were saying, "No, on the contrary, He leads the people astray." The people didn't agree on whether Jesus was even a good man or not. Those who were pro-Jesus based their opinion on his teaching, his miracles, or on reading scripture about the Messiah. Those who were against Him based their opinion on what the Jewish leaders said, or by misreading of scripture. Those read what they wanted to see in scripture and ignored the parts that contradicted their views or that of their leaders. Those who really seek God seek the truth even if it contradicts their own worldview and put their trust in scripture rather than fallible people.
13 Yet no one was speaking openly of Him for fear of the Jews. Clearly both sides of the debate knew the Jewish authorities were seeking Jesus and that He was their enemy. The people probably knew the Jewish leaders meant to prosecute Him for heresy and have Him killed.
14 But when it was now the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and began to teach. While the Feast of Booths was a week long, the formal temple activities were only on the first day and at the end. Thus Jesus had the opportunity to teach during the middle days. The main requirement on those middle days was to eat meals in their booths.
15 The Jews then were astonished, saying, "How has this man become learned, having never been educated?" The literal quote in Greek is, "how has this man come to know letters?" Letter, grammata in Greek, without the definite article "the" in front refers to writing in general. In the context of the temple this mean the scriptures. In other words, Jesus was teaching the scriptures from memory and what they meant like the most accomplished rabbi. Paul who would later become an apostle was one of these academic superstars. These people were well known, and Jesus was clearly not one of them. What was astonishing was Jesus was a rural hick who had never spent a day in one of these schools. Their assessment was probably based on His appearance and clothing. Verses 21-26 are a strong indication that they didn't know this was Jesus who had healed the man on the Sabbath before. Of course, if these people had understood that Jesus was God it would be understandable that He knew His own scripture better than any other.
16 So Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. Jesus answered what was not even spoken to Him. But God knows our hearts and what we try to hide.
What Jesus answered can seem like a contradiction. But what He said was that He was not teaching under His own authority and knowledge alone. His teaching was from the Father. As both the Son and Father are God, They were of one accord in teaching.
17 If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. In other words, someone who does the will of the Father is therefore equipped and able to discern whether what Jesus was teaching is from God or if it is something He made up himself. Put simply, to follow God requires that the person know God. And one who knows God can tell the difference between what is Godly and what is false. Of course, many are self-deluded on this point. So God gave us scripture to guide us and check us.
18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. Jesus was contrasting the Jewish leaders and other people seeking praise for themselves who operate in their own understanding against Himself who was seeking praise for the Father, the one who sent Him. Therefore Jesus was saying He was true and there was no falsehood in Him. By implication, the Jewish leaders were not true and were full of falsehoods. Because they are not followers of God but were followers of themselves they were incapable of being able to tell between Godly and ungodly, good and evil.
It's almost like Jesus was preaching against most of TikTok, FaceBook, YouTube, and X. People who operate out of their own reasoning and thought are seeking praise for themselves. In contrast, those who truly follow God and seek praise for Him are true and there is nothing false in them.
19 "Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?" Jesus then asked three rhetorical questions that condemned the Jewish leaders. That Moses was a lawgiver was as well known and accepted like people accept that water gets you wet. Thus the answer can only be an unqualified yes to this rhetorical question.
As connected rhetorical questions these state that Moses and the law that they put their hope in actually condemns them. They do not keep the law, and the proof is that they were seeking to kill Him, which was a clear violation of the law. Murder is such a horrible violation of the law of Moses there was no atonement in the law for it.
20 The crowd answered, "You have a demon! Who seeks to kill You?"" This was not a literal charge of demon possession. It was an idiom to say "you're crazy" with a very strong emphasis.
Some commentators assert that their strong reaction was out of defensiveness from guilt for either being part of, approving of, or standing by in the plot to kill Jesus. However, it is much more likely that they did not realize this was the same man who was wanted for the healing on the Sabbath in Jerusalem in chapter 5. This is supported by verses 21-26. Thus, their reaction was most likely genuine shock at His statement.
21 Jesus answered them, "I did one deed, and you all marvel. Jesus responds with evidence that the Jews were trying to kill him, and for a bogus reason. The deed Jesus is referring to is when he healed the blind man on the Sabbath by the sheep gate pool in 5:1-18. This was a lame excuse to seek to kill Jesus.
22 For this reason Moses has given you circumcision (not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man. The Law of Moses was often referred to as the circumcision. Both were to set the Israelites apart as God's chosen people. And circumcision was in the Law of Moses. Jesus emphasized that circumcision actually predates the Law. It was a sign of the first covenant which was between God and Abraham. And circumcision is performed on the eighth day after birth, even if it falls on the Sabbath. Not even the Pharisaical extra additions to the law had a problem with this.
23 If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? Performing a circumcision is to keep the Law of Moses. Despite the unnecessary and unscriptural burdens the Pharisees piled on the people by adding all these silly rules to determine what was work that violated the Sabbath, they didn't dare add anything about performing circumcisions as it was the heart of the Law identifying the baby as belonging to Yahweh. And since that is lawful therefore under qal wahomer, which is a principle of Judaism known as light to heavy, if making a small part of the body right is acceptable on the Sabbath then making the whole body right is right and acceptable as well. Therefore, trying to argue that healing a man on the Sabbath was sinful was beyond hypocritical. Jesus used harsh logic to expose that the motives of those seeking to kill him were not righteous, but were evil.
24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." Isaiah 11 is a prophecy about the Messiah, and Jesus' words here are from Isaiah 11:1-5. So while Jesus was calling for them to judge without bias but fairly and justly, He was also indicating that He was the Messiah.
25 So some of the people of Jerusalem were saying, "Is this not the man whom they are seeking to kill? Instead of "the Jews" which means the Jewish leaders, this verse refers to the people which means the Jewish people. Here they realized from what Jesus said that he was a wanted man. They knew the Jewish leaders wanted to kill the man who had healed the blind man on the Sabbath. But now he wasn't an abstract figure, but a person who spoke with wisdom and authority.
26 Look, He is speaking publicly, and they are saying nothing to Him. The rulers do not really know that this is the Christ, do they? The people realized something wasn't right. Here Jesus was teaching publicly in the temple with wisdom and authority. Yet the Jewish leaders were not engaging with Him. They thought that this meant that they must not know this is the Messiah. They wrongly assumed that the Jewish leaders would want to speak to the Messiah since they were the high priests, Pharisees and others supposedly dedicated to serving and learning about God. But the Jewish leaders were not trying to follow God as they were concerned with their own power, or their own false version of Judaism.
This same scenario happens today, and in a majority of western churches. The congregation obliviously thinks their pastors and leadership are serving God and teaching about Him. But more times than not they are really about their own point of view regardless of it being contradicted by scripture, their own gain either financially or in status, or telling their congregation what they want to hear in order to keep their job.
27 However, we know where this man is from; but whenever the Christ may come, no one knows where He is from." This verse is very interesting and telling. There are two lies here. The second lie was that where the Messiah would be from is unknown. Micah 5:2 explicitly states that the Messiah would be from Bethlehem. And Isaiah 11:1 states that the Messiah will come from the stump of Jesse who was King David's father. This is why Matthew traced Jesus' genealogy to show the Jews that Jesus was the Christ by this and other fulfillments of prophecy. They were either blatantly lying or so ignorant of scripture they shouldn't call themselves Jews. Studying scripture is a commandment in Judaism. And education in scripture was required to begin at the age of five to seven. But instead of having scripture as their authority as they ought, these put the anti-scriptural nonsense of men as their standard. People who claim to be Christians do this even more today.
The first lie is more understandable, that they knew where Jesus was from. They knew superficially that he was from Nazareth in Galilee. But that was just his most recent address. He was born in Bethlehem as prophesied about the Messiah. And His true origin was heaven. It is understandable that they wouldn't be able to see past the mundane physical existence. Although if they had put their trust in scripture instead of their own reasoning and experience they would have been able to discern who Jesus really was. As Christians we know the truth and have even less excuse for getting these things wrong.
28 Then Jesus cried out in the temple, teaching and saying, "You both know Me and know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. "Cried out" in current English has connotations that do not apply to the Greek here. There was no emotional component like fear, sorrow, or anger here. "Proclaimed"would be a more accurate translation today.
Jesus was continuing to teach in the temple. He did not correct them on his origin, but acknowledged his earthly origin. But He added the important part that He is not self-sent, but is sent by the Father who they do not know. This is declaring He is the Christ without declaring He is the Christ.
29 I know Him, because I am from Him, and He sent Me." Here Jesus made it more explicit. Essentially He was saying that He was the messenger of the Father, and if you reject the messenger you also reject the Father who sent Him.
30 So they were seeking to seize Him; and no man laid his hand on Him, because His hour had not yet come. The people understood what Jesus was implying, that he was the Christ sent by God the Father. But those that could not accept this contradiction to their wrong beliefs and assumptions they came to the false conclusion that Jesus was blaspheming and tried to seize Him. Miraculously, no one could do it. Verses 31-36 give more details about this.
31 But many of the crowd believed in Him; and they were saying, "When the Christ comes, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?" Many of the crowd reasoned rightly. They knew from prophecy in scripture that the Messiah would perform miracles. And the miracles Jesus had performed were profound. So they reasoned that since the miracles the Messiah had performed would not be greater than those Jesus did, then it stands to reason that Jesus is the Messiah. That Jesus had said he was the Christ, even though it was usually indirectly, certainly gave weight to the argument. This is what knowing scripture well and having it in our hearts will do. It will lead us to true knowledge and help protect us from false conclusions.
32 The Pharisees heard the crowd muttering these things about Him, and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to seize Him. In this verse the antagonists are narrowly identified as the Pharisees separately from the chief priests rather than the Jewish leaders as a whole. The Pharisees were biblical scholars, and it was the scholars who first realized the implications of what Jesus and the people were saying.
It was not just verse 31 the Pharisees heard the people speak of. It was also verse 26 where the ability and honesty of all the leaders were being questioned. In verse 15 the Jewish leaders heard from Jesus themselves that he was able to speak with knowledge, wisdom, and authority greater than their most accomplished scholars. This made Jesus a great threat in particular to the Pharisees' field as they were scriptural scholars but were not priests. This was a stranger who was better than them at their own profession and without the formal education of their schools.
However, they held back until people began to reason that this must be the Messiah. They had to act to stop Jesus or risk losing their place. It is so messed up that they reacted with hostility to the truth right before them. However, we would do the same. I have never met any Christian ever that didn't react with hostility to some biblical truth that contradicted an error in belief they held onto, including me. The key is being able to let go of our errors and mistakes, not to mention the hostility, when confronted with the truth and not stubbornly hang on to what is wrong.
33 Therefore Jesus said, "For a little while longer I am with you, then I go to Him who sent Me. Here Jesus declares that His time on earth will soon be over as He would be returning to the Father. Those that were following along with Jesus' teaching understood this. But the meaning was completely lost on those who did not understand or did not accept Jesus' teaching.
34 You will seek Me, and will not find Me; and where I am, you cannot come." Jesus' enigmatic statement here cannot mean that no one will be able to seek Him because He specifically said that the one who seeks will find in Matthew 7:7-8 and Luke 11:9-10. But those passages are not a contradiction to this verse. It is two different contexts and audiences. Physically, no one will be able to go where Jesus goes while they are alive on earth. It is also implied that even at eschaton, the end times, these Jewish officers and leaders will not be able to follow Jesus because they are choosing not to now. They have chosen to reject God in favor of their own false religion that just looks like they are following Yahweh. In reality, their behavior shows their true motivation, service to the self over God.
By this we can tell who is a disciple of Jesus and who isn't. In contradiction to the portrayals in the media, it is very difficult to tell who is a servant of Satan. Scripture is clear that he is an angel of light, the most beautiful of them all. In like manner, his followers also often appear to be attractive and right. Making it even more complicated is that the vast majority are not even aware that they are followers Satan. They think they are on the side of good, and many even wrongly think they are serving God. When they react badly to being called out and never turn away from their false beliefs they show who's disciple they really are.
35 The Jews then said to one another, "Where does this man intend to go that we will not find Him? He is not intending to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks, is He? The Jews again refers to the Jewish leaders. In this case it is specifically their representatives, the officers sent to arrest Jesus. It is possible some of the Pharisees and other leaders may have been watching. But the reaction is of someone who is not paying attention or not understanding. Jesus said He was going to the one who sent Him in verse 33. Thus, He would be returning to the Father in heaven. It may be that these officers weren't present for that part of Jesus' teaching. But it is more likely that they were entirely focused on things of this world and their jobs rather than the things of God, especially since verse 36 emphasizes their confusion. It seems strange that someone who works for the religious leaders would have no real thoughts for God. But it is all too easy even today for someone who works for a church to neglect spiritual things in the false belief that their duties are enough. And others get twisted in their theology while using their employment as false evidence that they are seeking God.
The Dispersion was the Jews scattered around the known world. It was not just to Greece. They probably used Greece as an example because it was relatively close and had a large portion of the Jewish Dispersion. On the other hand, John doesn't use the term Gentile, and Greeks may merely be a way of referring to non-Jews. The Dispersion occurred because of the Babylonian conquest and captivity and the various conquerors since then. For the first time since Joshua led the Jews to conquer the land more Jews lived outside Israel than in it. We call this the diaspora today.
36 What is this statement that He said, 'You will seek Me, and will not find Me; and where I am, you cannot come'?" This may be reasoning that their speculation in the previous verse can't be right as they could go to the Dispersion just like any Jew could. But it certainly is to emphasize that they were confused and did not comprehend what Jesus meant.
37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. The last day of the feast would be the eighth day, which was set apart from the rest of the week. In Leviticus 23:36 it is specified as a day of convocation, which is a formal assembly of the people, and a day of rest. Thus this would be a good time to speak to the largest group of people that week. It is possible this refers to the last day of the seven feast days. But that would be outside the norm for Jewish writers.
Jesus speaking here parallels his talk with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:10. He is the source of drink for those who thirst.
38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" Jesus was referring to prophesies in Isaiah. In Isaiah 44:3 God speaks of pouring out water on the thirsty land, which is immediately followed by the meaning which is pouring out His Spirit upon the people. In Isaiah 58:11 God guides us, satisfies our desire in scorched places, in other words quenches our thirst in the desert. And it goes on that we ourselves will be like a spring of water that does not fail.
Thus Jesus is referring to the Holy Spirit flowing into us when we come to Jesus, and the Spirit pouring out of us.
39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John explicitly explains that Jesus was talking about the Spirit in dwelling those who believe in Jesus. But it has not happened at this point in the story because the Christ event had not occurred. It seems strange that Jesus' crucifixion is part of what John refers to as His glorification to someone thinking in the flesh. In the Spirit we understand that this was the amazing event that was Jesus' greatest triumph.
40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, "This certainly is the Prophet." The people refers to the Jews who were not part of the leadership. They were not sure who Jesus was and were discussing it amongst themselves. The comment in this verse is regarding a promise and prophecy of Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15-19. This referred to a minority belief that a major prophet would be brought up by Yahweh at various times of need, like Elijah, Samuel, Isaiah, and so on. And some would look for such a prophet to arise. However, the more common understanding of Deuteronomy 18 was that this referred to all prophets, major and minor, coming at need. So this speculation was whether Jesus was that promised prophet for their time.
41 Others were saying, "This is the Christ." Still others were saying, "Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? 42 Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" Christ is the Greek form of Messiah. Since Jesus was fulfilling the prophecies about the Messiah it only stands to reason that some would see that and make the connection. However, some made a counter argument based on incomplete knowledge. Jesus grew up in Galilee and his appearance showed that. Whereas prophecy said the Messiah would come from the line of David and the town of Bethlehem, which is in Judea southwest of Jerusalem and is known as the city of David. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which was the hometown of Joseph.
43 So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him. The crowd was divided in arguing about who Jesus was. This was no small matter. Jesus was claiming to be from the Father and would return to Him. This was blasphemy for anyone not the Messiah. As being God's chosen was central to the Jewish identity, this was a potential threat even to the common people.
44 Some of them wanted to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him. Those who thought Jesus was blaspheming were motivated to seize Him and hand Him over to the Jewish leaders. However, the crowd was divided. Trying to actually seize Him would result in those who thought Jesus was the Christ to defend Him. The disorder would bring the Romans down on them. So it is highly likely that the thought of the inevitable conflict and possible arrest kept them from acting.
45 The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, "Why did you not bring Him?" In verse 32 the Pharisees sent these officers to arrest Jesus. This meant the chief priests were working with the Pharisees. The Pharisees wouldn't have had the authority for this unless it had been given to them by the chief priests. It is likely that there was a standing order or informal understanding that the leaders of the Pharisees were to be obeyed by the officers.
So they returned empty handed to those who sent them and were questioned about it.
46 The officers answered, "Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks." Their defense for failing to follow orders is that Jesus speaks as no man ever has. It is possible this was just an excuse and they were really afraid of the crowd, particularly those who thought Jesus was the Christ. However, if that was the case it would seem they could have come up with a better excuse. It seem more likely that they were intimidated by what Jesus said and the authority He said it with.
47 The Pharisees then answered them, "You have not also been led astray, have you? The Pharisees respond to the officers by asking if they have also been deceived, peplanesthe in Greek. Led astray is an accurate translation although it lacks the impact in English that it used to have. So deceived would be a closer translation today. By saying "also" they are stating that the crowd was deceived, which is a wrong assumption. And by turning the accusation on the officers it did more than put them on the defensive. It put the falsehood that Jesus was not the Messiah as if it was fact. This is still a common tactic that is used by the media on all sides. Canadian politician Pierre Poilievre is a rare example of someone who is not fooled by such tactics and is adept at showing it as the fraud that it is, even turning the tables on those who try to frame the discussion with falsehoods.
It is notable that the Pharisees are the ones making the accusations and pushing for Jesus to be arrested, even acting directly. While the actual Jewish leaders were involved and in agreement, they were not the primary motivators. The Jewish leaders were both the religious and political leaders of the Jews. Thus it was the academics pushing the politicians and police to act wrongly.
This still happens today. In the first half of the 20th century the pseudo-science of eugenics was not just accepted by all universities, anyone who correctly pointed out it was a fraud was labeled a denier and their career was destroyed. Eugenics is the false belief that some "races" were inferior and unfit. Therefore their population should be reduced. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, believed the use of birth control, sterilization, and abortion were the best methods to achieve this. Thus Planned Parenthood "clinics" were placed in the neighborhoods of "undesirables" under the excuse that it was to make it easy for those too poor to travel to them. However, they were not located in poor white neighborhoods. All of her ideas came from academia. Jim Crow laws, anti-Jewish laws in Germany, and the Holocaust all began in American academia, and then were acted on by politicians.
48 No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he? Here the Pharisees make a false argument. A few of the Jewish leaders had publicly supported Jesus as the Messiah, as we will see in verse 50. However, most of the Jewish leaders who believed kept it quiet. The influence and threat of the Pharisees probably had something to do with that.
The worst aspect of this argument is that it is an argument from authority, not of fact. It does not matter if political, religious or academic leaders agree or not. What matters is whether something is true. Additionally, history and experience have shown that these groups are wrong more often than they are right. When someone uses an argument from authority it is almost certain they are in the wrong. If they were in the right they would use a real argument that proves their point. A person in the right doesn't need flimsy arguments that prove nothing.
49 But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed." This is a second false argument. The basis of the argument is that someone who knows the law could not possibly think that Jesus was the Messiah because the law contradicts that possibility. However, Jesus was the fulfillment of the law, and fulfilled all the prophecies about the Messiah. Therefore the argument was based on a false assumption.
This wasn't a statement that the whole crowd believed. It could be interpreted as such, but that is a little bit of a stretch. It is most likely that they were saying those in the crowd who believed didn't know the law.
To argue using a false premise is another tactic used by those who know they are in the wrong. However, it is likely that the Pharisees believed they were right. The root problem here is that they put their own reasoning and doctrine as equal to or greater than scripture. That is something scripture strongly warns against. They had "interpreted" the law using man's reasoning. In reality, they were adding to scripture so much that they had actually twisted some precepts to say the exact opposite of scripture. This was Jesus' most common criticism of them recorded in scripture.
Placing their doctrine above scripture is something every single church I know of is guilty of. In every case they believe their doctrine is in line with scripture. The problem is they teach church doctrine in isolation without reference to scripture. While they might mention a scripture reference, the scripture itself is not read or it is taken out of context. In some cases a church will use a scripture reference that says nothing about the doctrine they are teaching, or even says the opposite. Thus error is repeated without question and reinforced. We should always question church doctrine and hold it up to the scrutiny of scripture. Church leaders usually don't like this as it calls into question their assumptions.
50 Nicodemus (he who came to Him before, being one of them) *said to them, This is a little awkward in Greek, and the NASB95 stays true to that. The best translation of this verse is that Nicodemus had come to Jesus previous to this occasion, and he had arrived on the scene here with the Pharisees because he was one of them. In John 3:1 Nicodemus came to Jesus in the night.
51 "Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?" Nicodemus does not directly oppose the accusing Pharisees. Instead he rightly points out the law requires a man be allowed to defend himself. This subtly implied that Jesus' accusers were operating outside the law in more than just that one point, but also the other requirements that go right with it. Most important of these is a proper proceeding with an impartial judge rather than vigilante or mob justice. In other words, Nicodemus was indirectly saying they were the ones who were outside the law as softly and subtly as he could.
52 They answered him, "You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee." This was a ridiculous response. There is nothing in scripture saying that a prophet cannot arise from Galilee. This was using the common prejudice against Galilee, and rural areas in general, as a false argument. People who reside in cities today make the same dumb argument. They think because they are skilled in navigating the social norms of the city they are better skilled at life. Yet nine out of ten are utterly incapable of producing the food that keeps them alive. In reality, they are completely dependent on those they despise while the rural people would be better off without the city dwellers meddling in things they have zero understanding of by passing stupid laws.
In their response the accusing Pharisees were essentially spiting on the law. They clearly understood they were in the wrong. Instead of justice, they were pursuing mob rule. Instead of the truth, they were pursing their own interest. If they actually followed the law as they claimed they did, then the testimony would show that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies about the Messiah, such as being born in Bethlehem, coming out of Egypt, and hundreds more. But the accusing Pharisees were not interested in justice or the law, only their own agenda. The Pharisees who were actually seeking truth and following scripture would not speak up for the truth. By their silence they enabled the wolves in sheep's clothing to devour the innocent.
John 7:53-8:11 does not appear in the earliest manuscripts we have at this time. However, oldest does not mean best. Textual criticism, (the academic term for scholarly analysis of the text,) that is legitimate does not say this section is not scriptural. What is legitimately argued is whether it really belongs at this point in John, with a minority arguing it actually belongs to a different gospel. However, the evidence points to it belonging to John more than anything else. The verses of 8:12-20 do not fit well after chapter 7 without 7:53-8:11. The majority of those who argue 7:53-8:11 doesn't belong in scripture are those trying to discredit scripture in general.
53 [Everyone went to his home. Essentially, this is saying they gave up for the day. It is probable that they realized Nicodemus' point undermined their efforts to arrest Jesus. And if they tried to arrest Him anyway the people would realize what hypocrites they were and they would lose their credibility and authority. It is also likely that they were plotting a way to trap Jesus into condemning Himself the next day.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB © The Lockman Foundation.

If you have a question, you can find the email address to write to on the FAQ Page under the Questions FAQ.

John 6   -   Gospel of John   -   John 8

Bible Study Page   -   Michael's Abbey