John 7:27 Komentář

In this chapter we have, I. Christ's declining for some time to appear publicly in Judea (Joh 7:1). II. His design to go up to Jerusalem at the feast of tabernacles, and his discourse with his kindred in Galilee concerning his going up to this feast (Joh 7:2-13). III. His preaching publicly in the temple at that feast. 1. In the midst of the feast (Joh 7:14, Joh 7:15). We have his discourse with the Jews, (1.) Concerning his doctrine (Joh 7:16-18). (2.) Concerning the crime of sabbath-breaking laid to his charge (Joh 7:19-24). (3.) Concerning himself, both whence he came and whither he was going (Joh 7:25-36). 2. On the last day of he feast. (1.) His gracious invitation to poor souls to come to him (Joh 7:37-39). (2.) The reception that it met with. [1.] Many of the people disputed about it (Joh 7:40-44). [2.] The chief priests would have brought him into trouble for it, but were first disappointed by their officers (Joh 7:45-49) and then silenced by one of their own court (Joh 7:50-53).

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee,.... That is, after he had fed the five thousand with five loaves and two fishes, near Bethsaida; and had had that long discourse with the Jews at Capernaum, concerning himself, as the bread of life, and about eating his flesh, and drinking his blood; and had been up to the feast of the passover at Jerusalem, said to be nigh, when he went over the sea of Galilee, Joh 6:4; otherwise the above places were in Galilee: but the case seems to be this, that after he had been at Capernaum, he went to Jerusalem, to keep the passover; and finding that the Jews still sought to take away his life, he returned to Galilee, and "walked" there; he did not sit still, or lie at home, and live an inactive indolent life, but went about from place to place, preaching the Gospel, and healing diseases; he walked, and walked about; but not as the enemy of souls, seeking to do all mischief, but to do all good, to the bodies and souls of men: for he would not walk in Jewry; in the land of Judea, where he had been, and tarried, and made disciples; but being rejected and ill treated, he left them; which was a prelude of the Gospel being taken from them, and carried to another people; which afterwards took place, in the times of the apostles: his reason for it was, because the Jews sought to kill him; for healing a man on the sabbath day, and for asserting his equality with God: not that he was afraid to die, but his time was not come; and he had work to do for the glory of God, and the good of men; and therefore it was both just and prudent to withdraw and preserve his life; for like reasons he advised his disciples, when persecuted in one city, to flee to another: and very lawful and advisable it is for good men, when their lives are in danger, to make use of proper means to preserve them, for further usefulness in the cause of God, and for the benefit of men.

Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught,.... Overhearing the reasonings of these men, however, knowing what they said; so the Persic version adds, "having secretly known this"; exalted his voice as he was teaching in the temple, and in the midst of his discourse, publicly before all the people, in the temple, spoke out with a loud voice, that all might hear: saying, ye both know me, and ye know whence I am; some, as the Ethiopic version, read these words by way of interrogation, "do ye both know me, and do ye know from whence I am?" no; you do not. Or they may be considered as an ironical concession; yes, you know me, and you know whence I am; you know me to be Jesus of Nazareth, but you are wrong, I am not of Nazareth; you suppose I come, from Galilee, but that is your ignorance; you take me to be the real son of Joseph, to be begotten by him on Mary, but that is your mistake: such is your knowledge of me: you know me indeed who I am, and from whence I come. And I am not come of myself; into this world, by incarnation, or the assumption of human nature, to work out the salvation of men; the Father called him to it, and he agreeing to do it, was in the fulness of time sent about it; this was not a device of his own, or an honour he took to himself; he was not alone in it; it was a mutual agreement between him and his Father, in consequence of which he was sent and came. But he that sent me is true; to the covenant he made with Christ, and to the promises he made to the fathers of the Old Testament, concerning the mission of his Son; and he is true to be believed, in the testimonies he gave of him, particularly by a voice from heaven, declaring him his beloved Son. Whom ye know not; so that notwithstanding all their boasted knowledge of him, they knew not his Father, from whence he came, and by whom he was sent; and notwithstanding also their boasted knowledge of the one, only, true, and living God, see Rom 2:17; yet they knew him not in a spiritual sense; they knew him not in Christ, nor as the Father of Christ; they knew neither the Father nor the Son: and this their ignorance of both was the reason of their hatred of Christ, and of his followers, Joh 15:21.

Nothing is placed in the Holy Scriptures without a reason, for they were uttered by the Holy Ghost, therefore let us enquire exactly into every point. For it is possible from one expression to find out the entire meaning of a passage, as in the case before us. "Many of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him." Now why is added, "them of Jerusalem"? The Evangelist by this shows, that they who had most enjoyed His mighty miracles were more pitiable than any; they who had beheld the greatest proof of His Godhead, and yet committed all to the judgment of their corrupt rulers. For was it not a great proof of it, that men furious and bent on murder, who went about and sought to kill Him, should be quiet of a sudden, when they had Him in their hands? Who could have effected this? who thus quenched their absolute fury? Still after such proofs, observe the folly and the madness of the men. "Is not this he, whom they seek to kill?" See how they accuse themselves; "whom," It saith, "they seek to kill, and yet they say nothing to him." And not only do they say nothing to Him, but nothing even when He "speaketh boldly." For one who spoke boldly and with all freedom would naturally have the more angered them; but they did nothing. "Do they know indeed that this is the very Christ?" "What think ye? What opinion give ye?" The contrary, It saith. On which account they said, "We know this man whence he is." What malice, what contradiction! They do not even follow the opinion of their rulers, but bring forward another, perverse, and worthy of their own folly; "We know him whence he is."

(Hom. l. 1) But they do not follow the opinion of the rulers, but put forth another most perverse and absurd one; Howbeit we know this Man, whence He is; but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence He is.

(Tr. xxxi. s. 2) This notion did not arise without foundation. We find indeed that the Scriptures said of Christ, He shall be called a Nazarene, (Matt. 2:23) and thus predicted whence He would come. And the Jews again told Herod, when he enquired, that Christ would be born in Bethlehem of Judah, and adduced the testimony of the Prophet. How then did this notion of the Jews arise, that, when Christ came, no one would know whence He was? From this reason, viz. that the Scriptures asserted both. As man, they foretold whence Christ would be; as God, He was hid from the profane, but revealed Himself to the godly. This notion they had taken from Isaiah, Who shall declare His generation? (Isa. 53) Our Lord replies, that they both knew Him, and knew Him not: Then cried Jesus in the temple as He taught, saying, Ye both know Me, and know whence I am: that is to say, Ye both know whence I am, and do not know whence I am: ye know whence I am, that I am Jesus of Nazareth, whose parents ye know. The birth from the Virgin was the only part of the matter unknown to them: with this exception, they knew all that pertained to Jesus as man. So He well says, Ye both know Me, and know whence I am: i. e. according to the flesh, and the likeness of man. But in respect of His divinity, He says, I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true.

Then those same persons who had said, "Did the rulers know that this is the Christ?" proposed a question among themselves, by which it appeared to them that He was not the Christ; for they said in addition, "But we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is." As to how this opinion among the Jews arose, that "when Christ comes, no man knoweth whence He is" (for it did not arise without reason), if we consider the Scriptures, we find, brethren, that the Holy Scriptures have declared of Christ that "He shall be called a Nazarene." Therefore they foretold whence He is. Again, if we seek the place of His nativity, as that whence He is by birth, neither was this hidden from the Jews, because of the Scriptures which had foretold these things. For when the Magi, on the appearing of a star, sought Him out to worship Him, they came to Herod and told him what they sought and what they meant: and he, having called together those who had knowledge of the law, inquired of them where Christ should be born: they told him, "In Bethlehem of Judah," and also brought forward the prophetic testimony. If, therefore, the prophets had foretold both the place where the origin of His flesh was, and the place where His mother would bring Him forth, whence did spring that opinion among the Jews which we have just heard, but from this, that the Scriptures had proclaimed beforehand, and had foretold both? In respect of His being man, the Scriptures foretold whence He should be; in respect of His being God, this was hidden from the ungodly, and it required godly men to discover it. Moreover, they said this, "When Christ comes, no man knoweth whence He is," because that which was spoken by Isaiah produced this opinion in them, viz. "And His generation, who shall tell?" In short, the Lord Himself made answer to both, that they both did, and also did not know whence He was; that He might testify to the holy prophecy which before was predicted of Him, both as to the humanity of infirmity and also as to the divinity of majesty.

Not from external considerations only, nor because their rulers had made the pain of their reproof a thing to be borne, does the mind of them of Jerusalem admit the faith; but it after having with great profit produced arguments from what was likely and being brought to true conceptions of Christ through the God-befitting Authority that is in Him, led at length not unskilfully to the apprehension of piety, falls again without knowing it into the unlearning which was foster-brother to the Jews. For they who had well considered those things seem as if they would hunt out the truth from all quarters, and advance to the due faith not merely because of the silence of their rulers and their unwonted gentleness, but would also search the Holy Scripture itself, invited thereto by a right motive, but making their test of the Mystery wholly without instruction or understanding. For merely because they know whence He is who is speaking boldly, that is, from what village He sprang, of what parent He was born, they say that He is not He Who was foretold by the Law. Then they add, but Christ when He cometh no man knoweth whence He is. And it is clear (I suppose) to every one, that their mistake in this too arose from unlearning. But I suppose one ought to search out whence their thoughts got to this; and what induced those who were well examining all about Him, to for this reason suppose that He was not Christ, because they were not ignorant whence He was: and why they subjoin, Christ when He cometh, no man knoweth whence He is: for by this they lose the apprehension of the truth. There is therefore some saying of Isaiah concerning Christ quoted, His generation who shall declare? for His Life is taken away from the earth. And the blessed Prophet applying the expression to the Word of God, puts generation for Being. For who at all can tell the mode of the Being of the Only-Begotten? what tongue shall declare the unspeakable Birth of the Son from the Father? or what mind will not be powerless for this? For that He was begotten of God the Father we know and have believed: but the how, we say is unattainable by every mind, and the enquiry thereinto most perilous. For we ought not to search into what is too deep, nor to scrutinize what is too hard, but rather to holdfast what we are commanded, and have an unshaken belief concerning God, that He is in truth, and that He is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. But we must not search into, as it is written, the things which surpass understanding and thought, not merely our own, but also that of the whole creation, or even every reasonable creature. Who then shall declare the generation of the Only-Begotten? for His Life is taken away from the earth, that is, the tale of His Essence is higher than all that are in the earth. For here again he calls His Being Life. This then led astray the uninstructed mind of the Jews, and made them wander from the true discernment of Christ. For they considered not (it seems) that the words of the holy prophets respecting Him are two-fold. For sometimes they signify that He will come with Flesh into the world, and manifest to us His Birth of a Virgin according to the Flesh. For behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son: yea and they clearly proclaim where He shall be born: And thou, Bethlehem house of Ephratah, little art thou to be among the thousands of Judah; out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be Ruler in Israel, and His goings forth from the beginning from the days of eternity. But when they are expounding (as far as is possible) His Ineffable Generation from God the Father, they either say what we said above, His generation who shall declare? for His Life is taken from the earth, or what is joined to the passage cited, And His goings forth from the beginning from the days of eternity. For here he means the goings forth of the Only-Begotten as Brightness from Light, and a certain forthcome from the Essence of Him Who Begot Him into His Own Being before all age and day and moment. Since then the Holy Scripture sets both before us, and the sacred writings both tell us whence Christ shall be after the Flesh, and honour by silence His Unsearchable Being from the Father, how will one not, finding the Jews in no slight degree unlearned, with reason laugh aloud and say, Not merely from the Generation of Christ being unknown, must one make enquiries respecting Him, but also from its being known Who and whence He springs according to the Flesh?

And they do not stop at this thought, but draw the following conclusion: Where the Christ will come from, no one knows. But where this man is from — we know. Therefore, this is not the Christ. But see how malice contradicts itself. Their chief priests, when Herod asked them, say that Christ is born in Bethlehem of Judea (Matt. 2:4–5); yet these people say that no one knows where Christ comes from. Do you see the contradiction? And again in another place they say: "We know that God spoke with Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where He is from" (John 9:29). Do you see how frenzied the speakers are? We know and we do not know. Is there anything comparable to such frenzy? But they had one thing in mind: not to believe. Therefore, when it was useful for them, they said "we know," and when it was disadvantageous, they claimed that "we do not know." Thus, the contradiction stems from their malice. Another might ask: "On what basis do they say that no one will know where Christ is from?" For if they had not had some testimony in Scripture or a firm tradition, they would have spoken so openly against the scribes, who clearly told Herod that Christ is born in Bethlehem of Judea, and against those who elsewhere say that "Christ will come from the village of Bethlehem." (Jn. 7:42) What then shall we answer? Both groups spoke on the basis of the prophets. Those who said that Christ is born in Bethlehem and that He is from the village of David evidently, as Matthew also notes, had as their basis the testimony of the prophet Micah, who says: "And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah, for out of you shall come a Ruler, who will shepherd My people Israel" (Mic. 5:2; Mt. 2:4–6). And those who said that no one knows where Christ will come from also based their thought on the testimony of the prophets. Micah himself (Mic. 5:2) says that "His goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity," by which the unknowability of His origin or birth is clearly indicated. For the One who has goings forth from the beginning and from the days of eternity, no man can know. Men exist in time, but He is from the days of eternity and from the beginning. How then can that which is temporal comprehend the eternal? Isaiah also says: "Who shall declare His generation?" (Is. 53:8) Based on this, they also said that no one knows where Christ is from. For they did not understand that the Lord Jesus is of two natures, and that where He is from according to His fleshly birth from the Virgin, namely from Bethlehem, this was known, while of His bodiless and ineffable birth from the Father before all ages it is said that His birth is beyond all explanation. So these Jerusalemites speak of the fleshly birth and say that they know where He is from; but of the pre-eternal Birth, according to which no one knows where Christ is from, they do not speak. Therefore, not knowing that He is of two natures, and according to one is known, while according to the Other is not, they say that He is not the Christ.

Their objection to this conjecture is then added: We know where this man comes from. As if to argue: The Christ should have a hidden origin; but the origin of this man is known; therefore, he is not the Christ. This shows their folly, for granted that some of their leaders believed Christ, they did not follow their opinion, but offered another, which was false. "This is Jerusalem; I have set her in the midst of the nations" (Ez 5:5). For they knew that Christ took his origin from Mary, but they did not know the way this came about: "Isn't Joseph his father, and Mary his mother?" as we read in Matthew (13:55). Why did they say, when the Christ comes, no one will know where he comes from, since it says in Micah (5:2): "Out of you [Bethlehem-Ephrathah] will come a leader, who will rule my people Israel."? I answer that they took this opinion from Isaiah, who said: "Who will make known his origin?" (53:8). Thus, they knew from the prophets where he was from, according to his human origin; and they also knew from them that they did not know it, according to his divine origin.

Jesus continues in Galilee, Joh 7:1. He is desired to go to the feast of tabernacles, Joh 7:2-5. His answer, Joh 7:6-9. He goes up, and the Jews seek him at the feast, Joh 7:10-13. He teaches in the temple, Joh 7:14-24. The Jews are confounded by his preaching, Joh 7:25-27. He continues to teach; they wish to slay him, Joh 7:28-30. Many of the people believe on him, Joh 7:31. The Pharisees murmur, and our Lord reasons with them, Joh 7:32-36. His preaching on the last day of the feast, Joh 7:37-39. The people are greatly divided in their opinions concerning him, Joh 7:40-44. The officers, who were sent by the Pharisees to take him, return, and because they did not bring him, their employers are offended, Joh 7:45-49. Nicodemus reasons with them, Joh 7:50-53.

No man knoweth whence he is - The generality of the people knew very well that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, in the city, and of the family, of David; see Joh 7:42. But, from Isa 53:8, Who shall declare his generation? they probably thought that there should be something so peculiarly mysterious in his birth, or in the manner of his appearing, that no person could fully understand. Had they considered his miraculous conception, they would have felt their minds relieved on this point. The Jews thought that the Messiah, after his birth, would hide himself for some considerable time; and that when he began to preach no man should know where he had been hidden, and whence he had come. The rabbins have the following proverb: Three things come unexpectedly: 1. A thing found by chance. 2. The sting of a scorpion: and, 3. The Messiah. It was probably in reference to the above that the people said, No man knoweth whence he is. However, they might have spoken this of his parents. We know that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem, of the family of David; but no man can know his parents: therefore they rejected him: Joh 6:42, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?

CHRIST AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. (John 7:1-53) After these things--that is, all that is recorded after Joh 5:18. walked in Galilee--continuing His labors there, instead of going to Judea, as might have been expected. sought to kill him--referring back to Joh 5:18. Hence it appears that our Lord did not attend the Passover mentioned in Joh 6:4 --being the third since His ministry began, if the feast mentioned in Joh 5:1 was a Passover.

Howbeit we know this man, &c.--This seems to refer to some current opinion that Messiah's origin would be mysterious (not altogether wrong), from which they concluded that Jesus could not be He, since they knew all about His family at Nazareth.