John 7:29 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 they sought to take him,.... By force, and carry him before the sanhedrim, in order to be tried and condemned as a blasphemer, being enraged to hear him claim a descent from God, whom they took to be a mere man, the son of Joseph the carpenter: but no man laid hands on him; though they had a good will to it, they had no power to do it, being restrained by the, secret providence of God from it, and awed by the majesty of Christ, which showed itself in his looks and words; and perhaps also they might be afraid of the people, lest they should rise in his favour; and so every man being fearful of being the first that should seize him, no man did: however, so it was ordered by divine providence, that he should not be apprehended at, this time, because his hour was not yet come; to suffer and die, to depart out of this world, and go to the Father: there was a precise time fixed for this in the council and covenant of God, by mutual compact, called "due time"; as his coming into the world is called "the fulness of time"; nor could he die before that time, and therefore no man was suffered to lay hands on him, whatever good will he had to it. And there is a time for every man's death, nor can any man die before that time, or live beyond it; see Ecc 3:2; and this is the sense of the ancient Jews; for they say (h), "a man before his years, or his time, does not die;'' that is, before he comes to the years appointed for him: and they ask (i), "who is there that goes before his time? i.e. dies before his time?'' And it is said (k) of a certain person who was in his house, and , "his time was come"; and he died without sickness: though it must be owned some of them were otherwise minded, and say (l), that death, by the hand of heaven, or God, shortens a man's years; and that there are some reasons for which righteous men depart out of this world before their time is come; and particularly of Enoch they say, God took him before his time was come (m). (h) T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 114. 2. & Sanhedrin, fol. 29. 1. & Bava Metzia, fol. 85. 1. (i) T. Bab. Chagiga, fol. 4. 2. (k) Zohar in Exod. fol. 71. 4. (l) Piske Tosephot. Sabbat, art. 113. (m) Zohar in Exod. fol. 4. 4.

Every person is born in the flesh; yet does not universal consciousness make every person spring from God? How then can Christ assert that either he or the source of his being is unknown? He can do so only by assigning his immediate parentage to the ultimate author of existence. And, when he has done this, he can demonstrate their ignorance of God by their ignorance of the fact that he is the Son of God.… Now he who came is not the author of his own being; but he who sent him is true whom the blasphemers do not know. He it was who sent him; and they do not know that he was the sender. Thus the sent one is from the sender; from him whom they do not know as his author. The reason why they do not know who Christ is, is that they do not know from whom he is. None can confess the Son who deny that he was born; none can understand that he was born who has formed the opinion that Jesus is from nothing. And indeed Jesus is so far from being made out of nothing that the heretics cannot tell from where he is.

[Jesus says this] to debar heresy from the violent assumption that his being from God dates from the time of his advent. The gospel revelation of the mystery proceeds in a logical sequence. First he is born, then he is sent. Similarly, in the previous declaration, we were told of ignorance, first as to who he is and then as to from where he is. For the words “I am from him, and he sent me” contain two separate statements, as also do the words “You know me, and you know where I am from.”

(vi. de Trin. ultra med.) I ask however, does the being from Him express a work of creation, or a birth by generation? If a work of creation, then every thing which is created is from Him. And how then does not all creation know the Father, if the Son knows Him, because He is from Him? But if the knowledge of the Father is peculiar to Him, as being from Him, then the being from Him is peculiar to Him also; i. e. the being the true Son of God by nature. So you have then a peculiar knowledge springing from a peculiar generation. To prevent however any heresy applying the being from Him, to the time of His advent, He adds, And He hath sent Me: thus preserving the order of the Gospel sacrament; first announcing Himself born, and then sent.

"I know Him," He saith, "for I am from Him, and He hath sent Me." Seest thou how He continually seeketh to prove the, "I am not come of Myself," and, "He that sent Me is true," striving not to be thought an enemy of God? And observe how great is the profit of the humility of His words.

(Tr. xxxi. 4) Lastly, to show whence they could get to know Him (who had sent Him), He adds, I know Him: so if you would know Him, enquire of Me. No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him. And if I should say, I know Him not, I should be a liar like unto you. (c. 8:55) (Tr. xxxi. 4) I am from Him, He says, i. e. as the Son from the Father: but that you see Me in the flesh is because He hath sent Me. Wherein understand not a difference of nature, but the authority of a father.

Lastly, when He had said, "But He that sent me is true, whom ye know not," in order to show them whence they might know that which they did not know, He subjoined, "I know Him." Therefore seek from me to know Him. But why is it that I know Him? "Because I am from Him, and He sent me." Gloriously has He shown both. "I am from Him," said He; because the Son is from the Father, and whatever the Son is, He is of Him whose Son He is. Hence we say that the Lord Jesus is God of God: we do not say that the Father is God of God, but simply God: and we say that the Lord Jesus is Light of Light; we do not say that the Father is Light of Light, but simply Light. Accordingly, to this belongs that which He said "I am from Him." But as to my being seen of you in the flesh, "He sent me." When thou hearest "He sent me," do not understand a difference of nature to be meant, but the authority of Him that begets.

Ye have just said (He saith) When Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence He is. But since ye insist that ye hold this your opinion rightly, as being the truth, I agree to your words herein. For True is He of Whom I am, the Father, but He is not known of you. Since then (He says) ye search into the Mystery respecting Me in a manner most unadvised, but as is pleasing to yourselves, and from knowing Who and whence I am after the Flesh, dismiss from yourselves the duty of believing, do ye for this sole cause receive the faith, when ye find that ye understand not whence I am: for I am of the Father, Whom YE know not, since ye know not Him That is of Him, in Whom Alone the Father is to be seen. For he that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father, and he that knoweth the Son is not ignorant of Him that begat. All their quibbling therefore being by this taken from them, they are again taken in their malice, finding no longer any excuse for their unbelief, who have thrust away the knowledge through their own stubbornness, that that may be found true which is written, Ye see often and ye kept not, your ears opened and ye heard not. But since He was occupied upon the words of the Jews, that when Christ cometh no man knoweth whence He is, withdrawing Himself of necessity, as God, from the company of things originate, and from all else to whom the title no man may reasonably be applied, showing that He is Other by Nature, He says that He is not as they are, ignorant of His Own Father, but affirmed that He knows in all exactness both Himself and Him. For He is God of God the Father, possessed of a certain wondrous and strange knowledge of these things, as befitteth Himself Alone. For not in like manner as we know, in the same doth the Son know the Father. For the nature of things originate attaineth to the sight of God by conception only, and not overpassing the bounds which befit it, doth even against its will yield to the Divine Nature, the being veiled in ineffable words. But the Only Begotten of God the Father, vieweth Whole in Himself Him That begat Him, and pourtraying the Essence of the Father in His Own Nature, knoweth Him, in a way impossible to tell: for unutterable are the things of God.

"I know Him," for knowing Him, neither evil intention nor deeds contrary to Him hinder Me. "Because I am from Him," that is, from Him, not from another essence, not foreign to Him. "And He sent Me." Here two natures in Christ are clearly indicated: by the words "I am from Him" – the divine Nature, and by the words "and He sent Me" – the human. For the Son of God is called an Envoy, as well as a Servant of God, according to His humanity.

Then when he says, I know him, he teaches us how to know him from whom he is. For if a thing is to be learned, it must be learned from one who knows it. But only the Son knows the Father. And so he says: If you wish to know him who sent me, you must acquire this knowledge from me, because I alone know him. First, he shows that he knows him; secondly, he shows the perfection of his knowledge; and thirdly, the nature of his knowledge. He shows that he knows him when he says, I know him. Now it is true that "All men see him" (Jb 36:25), but they do not see him in the same way, for in this life we see him through the intermediary of creatures: "The invisible things of God are clearly known through the things that have been made" (Rom 1:20). Thus we read: "Now we see in a mirror, in an obscure manner" (1 Cor 13:12). But the angels and the blessed in heaven see him through his essence: "Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven" (Mt 18:10); "We shall see him as he is" (1 Jn 3:2). The Son of God, on the other hand, sees him in a more excellent way than all, that is, with a comprehensive or all-inclusive vision: "No one has ever seen God," i.e., in a comprehensive way; "it is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him known" (above 1:18); "No one knows the Father but the Son" (Mt 11:27). It is of this vision that he is speaking of here, when he says: I know him, with a comprehensive knowledge. He shows the perfection of his knowledge when he says: And if I were to say that I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. This is mentioned for two reasons. Intellectual creatures do know God, though from a distance and imperfectly, for "All men see him, from a distance" (Jb 36:25). For divine truth transcends all our knowledge: "God is greater than our hearts" (1 Jn 3:20). Therefore, whoever knows God can say without lying: "I do not know him," because he does not know him to the full extent that he is knowable. But the Son knows God the Father most perfectly, just as he knows himself most perfectly. Thus he cannot say: I do not know him. Again, because our knowledge of God, especially that which comes through grace, can be lost—"They forgot God, who saved them" (Ps 105:21)—men can say, I do not know him, as long as they are in this present life: because no one knows whether he deserves love or hatred. The Son, on the other hand, has a knowledge of the Father that cannot be lost; so he cannot say: I do not know him. We should understand, I would be like you, as a reverse likeness. For they would not be lying if they said they did not know God; but they would be if they said that they did know him, since they did not know him. But if Christ said that he did not know him, he would be lying, since he did know him. So the meaning of this statement is this: If I were to say that I do not know him, then since I really do know him, I would be like you, a liar, who say that you know him, although you do not. Could not Christ have said: I do not know him? It seems he could, since he could have moved his lips and said the words. And so he could have lied. I reply that Christ did say this and still was not lying. We should explain it this way: If he were to say, I do not know him, declaratively, meaning, "I believe in my heart what I profess by my lips," then he would have been a liar. Now to say as the truth what is false comes from two defects: from a defect of knowledge in the intellect; and Christ could not have this since he is the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:30); or it could come from a defect of right will in the affections; and this could not be in Christ either since he is the power of God, according to the same text. Thus he could not say the words I do not know him, declaratively. Yet this entire conditional statement is not false, although both its parts are impossible. The reason for this singular and perfect knowledge of Christ is given when he says: I do know him, because I am from him, and he sent me. Now all knowledge comes about through some likeness, since nothing is known except insofar as there is a likeness of the known in the knower. But whatever proceeds from something has a likeness to that from which it proceeds; and so, all who truly know have a varied knowledge of God according to the different degrees of their procession from him. The rational soul has a knowledge of God insofar as it participates in a likeness to him in a more imperfect way than other intellectual creatures. An angel, because it has a more explicit likeness to God, being a stamp of resemblance, knows God more clearly. But the Son has the most perfect likeness to the Father, since he has the same essence and power as he does; and so he knows him most perfectly, as was said. And so he says: But I do know him, that is, to the extent that he is knowable. And the reason for this is because I am from him, having the same essence with him through consubstantiality. Thus, just as he knows himself perfectly through his essence, so I do know him perfectly through the same essence. And so that we do not understand these words as referring to his being sent into this world, he at once adds, and he sent me. Consequently, the statement, I am from him, refers to his eternal generation, through which he is consubstantial with the Father. But then when he says, and he sent me, he is saying that the Father is the author of the incarnation: "God sent his Son, made from a woman, made under the law" (Gal 4:4). Now just as the Son has a perfect knowledge of the Father because he is from the Father, so because the soul of Christ is united to the Word in a unique way, it has a unique and more excellent knowledge of God than other creatures, although it does not comprehend him. And so Christ can say, according to his human nature: I know him in a more excellent way than other creatures do, but without comprehending him.

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.

But I know him: for I am from him - Instead of εἰμὶ, I am, some editions, the Syriac Hieros. read εἷμι, I came, according to the Attics. Nonnus confirms this reading by paraphrasing the word by εληλυθα, I came. As the difference between the two words lies only in the accents, and as these are not found in ancient MSS., it is uncertain which way the word was understood by them: nor is the matter of much moment; both words amount nearly to the same meaning and εἷμι, I came, seems too refined.

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.