[Some] out of the crowd therefore, having heard this word, said, This is truly the prophet.
Jesus had just been teaching, and the crowd argued over Him. Some called Him the Prophet, some the Christ, and some objected that He came from Galilee. The verse raises a question every reader must face. What is the difference between admiring Christ and trusting Him?
The title in this verse was not invented on the spot. It goes back to a promise God gave Israel through Moses.
Before Moses died, God gave him a commission. Moses, the mediator of the first covenant, was to tell Israel about a Prophet who would come like himself, and all were to listen to Him (Deut. 18:15)... Prophet after prophet arose over the years. But not one of them between the days of Moses and John the Baptist matched that description. The people were taught to expect a Prophet who would teach them, and a Messiah who would save them. That expectation had not died out in fifteen hundred years. People even asked John the Baptist if he was the Prophet who was to come (John 1:21). So Israel was watching for the Prophet. Soon, after the word of God came to John, it became clear that the Prophet and the Messiah were one.
Earlier in this Gospel people gave Jesus the same title after seeing what He did. Here they give it after hearing what He says.
John 6:14. — "The prophet." See Deut. 18:15... There the testimony is that of His works, as in John 7:40 it is of His teaching.
Notice who felt the force of His words. Ill-will and a made-up mind shut some people out; others felt it at once.
The people who were not armed with a breastplate of ill-will, and who had not already made up their minds, felt this; and, without any miracle, under the influence of the words of Jesus, they cried out, "This really is the Prophet."... But the reasoning of the human mind raises difficulties, and closes other hearts to the power of the word in His mouth.
The crowd split the one Person into two figures — the Prophet here, the Christ there. They also let one obvious fact about Him — where He came from — settle everything else.
Human speculation in divine things is always at fault. So they separated truths which God has joined. They imagined that the Prophet and the Christ are two different Persons. Idle speculation is also easily fooled by appearances. So they imagined that because our Lord had come from Galilee, He was not of the seed of David, and was not born at Bethlehem. A conscience awake to its own need would have brought the soul to Christ, answering His gracious invitation: "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink."
The words "really is" sound like certainty. But a correct title, from a mind that has not trusted Him, is only the creature's verdict on his Creator.
Everyone had his own opinion about Him. Some said: "This really is the Prophet." Others said: "This is the Christ." But it was nothing but their opinion, based on their observation of Him. There was not an element of faith in it. And what is the creature's opinion of his Creator worth? Exactly as much as a philosopher's opinion of the Holy Scriptures — nothing at all.
Faith can hold on with very little light. The same difficulty that stops one person does not stop another.
Faith may lack light, and often does. Yet despite obstacles it holds on to what it sees to be of God. It does not trip over a difficulty that fuller knowledge would have shown to be unreal. Bartimaeus heard that Jesus of Nazareth was near. He did not fail to cry, "Son of David, have mercy on me." His faith reaped the blessing at once. He was no less the Messiah from Bethlehem, of David's line, because He was the despised prophet of Galilee. But unbelief is blind to His glory, and finds only an occasion of division in the one centre of union.
- Word. No miracle stood behind this confession. The testimony here is what He said, not what He did.
- Wonder. Israel had watched fifteen centuries for the Prophet Moses promised. The title the crowd reached for was the right one.
- Wrong split. They divided what God had joined, treating the Prophet and the Christ as two men. Galilee hid Bethlehem from them.
- Weightless. Everyone had a verdict on Jesus. But an opinion about Christ, however flattering, holds no element of faith.
- Wedge. Unbelief turns the one Person who should unite everyone into the very thing men split over.
Others said, This is the Christ. Others said, Does then the Christ come out of Galilee?
The crowd at the feast has just heard Jesus speak, and their reaction splits three ways. Why do the same words bring one hearer to faith and start an argument in another?
The crowd felt the force of what Jesus said. That feeling on its own settled nothing.
The words of our Lord made a certain impression; but it is all in vain unless it reaches the conscience before God.
Instead of coming to Him, the crowd started debating about Him.
A conscience that had been stirred would have awakened a sense of need. It would have brought the soul to Christ in answer to His gracious invitation: "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink." Then, as so often since that day, and even among true believers, speculation about Christ led to "a division … because of Him".
The crowd treated "the Prophet" and "the Christ" as rival titles for two different men. Faith can be short on knowledge too, but it takes a different route.
Men do not only join what God separates, but separate what God joins. Some called Him the prophet, others the Christ, as we have seen from the beginning of this Gospel: a distinction then common but unfounded. … With faith too there may be, and often is, a lack of light. But in spite of obstacles, faith holds on to what it sees to be of God, instead of stumbling at a difficulty which more knowledge would have shown to be unreal.
The question about Galilee sounds like an appeal to Scripture. In fact it was a refusal to check the facts.
Honesty on the part of the people could not keep them from saying that this must be the true Prophet of God, the Messiah. How could any serious-minded person escape this? But others looked for arguments to avoid it. Because He had recently come from Nazareth in Galilee, they did not care to ask where He had been born. Scripture had certainly spoken of His coming from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and of the offspring of David; but both were perfectly true of Him. Why did they not care enough to find out?
The objectors quoted one prophecy and forgot another. Scripture had promised light to the very region they treated as proof against Him.
Men were unwilling to think that the northern province should be the scene of the ministry of the Prophet of the Lord. Some said, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee? … No prophet arises from Galilee" (John 7:41, 52). But the speakers forgot another Scripture. It spoke plainly of Galilee of the Gentiles: its people who walked in darkness should see a great light, and upon them the Light should shine (Isa. 9:1-2).
The difference between the two groups was not what they knew, but what they had already decided. The words of Jesus carried their own power.
The people who were not armed with a breastplate of ill-will, and of a decision already made, felt this. Without any miracle, under the influence of the words of Jesus, they cried out, "This really is the Prophet." Others said, thinking that Jesus was the Christ, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee?" But the reasoning of the human mind raises difficulties, and closes other hearts to the power of the word in His mouth.
His Person should have drawn them together. Unbelief made Him the reason they broke apart.
But unbelief is blind to His glory, and finds only an occasion of division in the one centre of union.
- Impression. His words moved the crowd. An impression that never reaches the conscience changes nothing.
- Speculation. When the conscience stays quiet, talk fills the gap. Here it split the Prophet from the Christ, as if two men were meant.
- Ignorance. The smallest honest inquiry would have settled the Galilee objection. Bethlehem and David's line were both true of Him. The objectors never asked.
- Scripture. They quoted one prophecy and forgot another. Isaiah had promised Galilee of the Gentiles the shining of a great light.
- Division. Christ is the one centre where all should meet. Unbelief turned Him into the reason people split apart. The same words that draw one heart harden another.
Has not the scripture said that the Christ comes of the seed of David, and from the village of Bethlehem, where David was?
At the feast the crowd has just heard Jesus offer living water. Instead of coming to Him they argue about where He was born, sure of a Bible text they never checked against the facts.
Nothing in the objection is false. The Christ does come from David's line, and Micah 5:2 does name Bethlehem. The problem is not their text. It is that they never asked. One honest question would have removed the whole difficulty.
The objections that come from lack of knowledge show up an ignorance that the least honest inquiry would have cleared away... He was no less the Messiah from Bethlehem, and of David's line, because He was the despised prophet of Galilee.
Both halves of what they recited were true of the Man standing in front of them. They preferred the argument to the answer.
He had recently come from Nazareth in Galilee, so they did not care to ask where He was born. Scripture had indeed spoken of His coming from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and of the seed of David. But both were perfectly true of Him. Why did they not have concern enough to find out?
They were sure of their verdict, but never did the work behind it. They ruled on a matter of fact without checking the fact.
Others objected that the Christ could not come from Galilee. They said He must come of the seed of David, and from the town of Bethlehem. But they never took the trouble to find out the fact... This is the picture of the heart of man when truth stands in front of him. The religious leaders have made up their minds. The masses are confused and uncertain, wavering between their prejudices and the power of the word of God. Faith was in neither the one nor the other.
The crowd splits into camps — some say Prophet, some say Christ, some say neither can come from Galilee. Each camp holds a fragment and treats it as the whole.
Men do not only join what God separates, but separate what God joins.
Guessing about God is not a neutral activity; it works with whatever is visible and gets it backwards.
Human speculation in divine things is always at fault. So they separated truths which God has joined, and imagined that the Prophet and the Christ are different Persons. What is more, appearances easily deceive idle speculation. Because our Lord had come from Galilee, they imagined He was not of the seed of David, and was not born at Bethlehem.
Their case against Galilee rested on the verses they liked. Scripture had already spoken about that province too.
Men did not like to think that the northern province would be where the Prophet of the LORD carried out His ministry... But the speakers forgot another Scripture. It clearly foretold about Galilee of the Gentiles that its people who walked in darkness would see a great light — the Light would shine upon them (Isa. 9:1-2).
A believer can be short of light and still not stumble. Kelly sets that beside unbelief, which sees no glory in Christ at all.
Faith too may lack light, and often does. But despite obstacles it holds on to what it sees to be of God. It is not tripped up by a difficulty which more knowledge would have shown to be unreal. When Bartimaeus heard that Jesus of Nazareth was near, he did not fail to cry, "Son of David, have mercy on me;" and his faith reaped the blessing at once. ... But unbelief is blind to His glory. In the one centre of union it finds only an occasion for division.
Jesus had just invited anyone who was thirsty to come to Him. Debating His birthplace was one way to avoid answering.
A conscience truly at work would have awakened a sense of need. It would have brought the soul to Christ in answer to His gracious invitation, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink". Speculations about Christ led then, as so often since that day, even among true believers, to "a division… because of Him".
While Christ is the source of living waters to the believer, unbelief is busy discussing Him.
- Right text. The crowd quoted Scripture right. Christ comes of David's seed and from Bethlehem — and both were true of Jesus.
- No inquiry. They settled the question without asking where He was born. One honest check would have removed the objection.
- Selective reading. Their case against Galilee ignored a Scripture. It promised light for that very region.
- Divided pieces. Speculation splits truths God joined — Prophet and Christ, Galilee and Bethlehem. Appearances fool it.
- Debate or drink. He invited the thirsty to come to Him. Unbelief argued about Him instead — and the argument split the crowd.
There was a division therefore in the crowd on account of him.
The crowd at the feast had just heard Jesus invite anyone who thirsts to come and drink. Instead of coming, they argued about where He came from — and split in two.
Their objection was that Jesus came from Galilee, not Bethlehem. One commentator notes that the smallest inquiry would have settled it. The division fell on the one Person who should have united them. Their hostility still could not touch Him before God's time.
Men do not only join what God separates, but separate what God joins. Some called Him the prophet, others the Christ, as we have seen from the beginning of this Gospel: a distinction then current but groundless. Their objections came from lack of knowledge. They expose an ignorance that the smallest honest inquiry would have cleared away. … He was still the Messiah from Bethlehem, of David's line, even though He was the despised prophet of Galilee. But unbelief is blind to His glory, and finds only an occasion of division in the one centre of union. Yet whatever the hostility of men, they could not take Him until the hour came for God to accomplish the reconciliation in His cross. They little thought it.
The invitation just given was personal: come and drink. One writer traces the division to a conscience left untouched. He adds that the same thing still happens, even among believers.
A stirred conscience would have awakened a sense of need. It would have brought the soul to Christ in answer to His gracious invitation: "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink." Speculations about Christ led to "a division… because of Him." That happened then, and it has often happened since, even among true believers.
Faith and unbelief both face the same Christ, with opposite results:
While Christ is to the believer the source of living waters, unbelief is discussing about Him.
Two groups stand side by side here: leaders who have already decided, and a crowd that cannot decide. One writer reads both the same way.
Some would have wished to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him. The officers return under the influence of His words: "No one ever spoke like this man!"… This is the picture of the heart of man in the presence of the truth. The religious leaders had their minds made up. The masses were confused and uncertain, wavering between prejudices and the power of the word of God. Faith was in neither the one nor the other.
John uses the word "division" three times in this Gospel. Each time a different side of Christ causes it.
This feature of the Gospel of John is startling in how modern it is. The division is (a) because of His Person, chapter 7:43, (b) because of His work, chapter 9:16, (c) because of His word — His sayings, chapter 10:19. It is just the same at the present day. The Person, Work and Words of Christ are still what divides men down to the very roots of their being; compare Luke 2:34-35.
On the surface the scene ends in nothing more than talk. Underneath, something permanent had opened, and it leaves only two positions.
It appeared to end in pointless discussion; but it revealed the presence of a deep rift of division. There are many ways of being against Christ, and only one way of being for Him. … The rift is like some great canyon of Colorado. It exists today, and all other splits among men are only shallow ditches compared with it. There is still a division among the people because of Him.
- Because of Him. The split was not over a doctrine or a party but over a Person. Christ is the only centre of union, and unbelief turns Him into an occasion of division.
- Because they would not ask. The Galilee objection would have collapsed at the first honest question. He was the Messiah from Bethlehem, of David's line — and no one cared enough to check.
- Because conscience slept. A stirred conscience feels its thirst and comes to Christ to drink. An untouched one only debates about Him.
- Because He tests every heart. Leaders had made up their minds. The crowd wavered between prejudice and the power of His word. Neither had faith.
- Because the line still runs. Men divided over His Person, His work and His words then, and they still do. There are many ways to be against Christ, and only one way to be for Him.
But some of them desired to take him, but no one laid hands upon him.
In Jerusalem the crowd is arguing over who Jesus is, and the argument hardens into hostility. Some want Him seized on the spot, yet no hand touches Him — so what held them back?
The wish to arrest Jesus grows out of the quarrel just before it, where the crowd could not agree on who He is. One writer traces the split to unbelief, and sees God's hour standing over all their hostility:
Men do not only join what God separates, but separate what God joins. Some called Him the prophet, others the Christ… The objections raised by lack of knowledge show up an ignorance that the least honest inquiry would have cleared away… But unbelief is blind to His glory, and finds only a cause of division in the only centre of union. Yet, whatever the hostility of men, they could not take Him until the hour had come — little as they thought it — for God to accomplish the reconciliation in His cross.
That split never closed. Another writer sees the quarrel as the surface of a divide that still runs through the world:
Some would have arrested Him yet no one did so. It appeared to end in futile discussion; but it revealed the presence of a deep rift of division. There are many ways of being against Christ and only one way of being for Him… The rift, like some great canyon of Colorado, exists today, and every other division among people is only a shallow ditch compared with it.
The wish was real, but no hand moved. One writer ties this to the timing of the cross, and notes that the same phrase earlier in the chapter means something else:
Not only was speculation aroused, but in some there was hostility which would have taken Him. His time was not yet come, so "no one laid hands on Him". In the beginning of the chapter His time had not yet come for any public part in the world. Here His time had not yet come for Him to be given into the hands of men and crucified.
The hour was not something that happened to Him. It was His own:
As to Jesus, "his hour had not yet come"; His hour, note, is the hour when He gave Himself on the cross for our sins.
Take the whole scene together and it becomes a study of how people meet the truth:
This is the picture of the heart of man face to face with the truth. The religious leaders had their minds made up. The masses were confused and uncertain, wavering between their prejudices and the power of the word of God. Faith was in neither the one nor the other.
So what stopped them? One writer sees God's hand holding human hatred back through the whole history since the fall:
Jesus speaks of it as man's "hour" (Luke 22:53). From the fall until that hour, God's restraining hand held man in check. Until then God in mercy kept him from carrying out the full thought of his heart… God held his enmity under control and kept him from doing all that he felt inclined to do. Driven by the causeless hatred of his hard and godless heart, he had often been ready to stone Jesus, but somehow he found he could not carry out his murderous intention.
This was not a one-off. One writer counts the moves against Jesus in John's Gospel and finds them all in one city — not in Galilee, and not in Sychar in Samaria:
Four times they had wished to take Him (John 7:30, 32, 44; 10:39). Twice they had picked up stones to throw at Him (John 8:59, 10:31). And on an earlier occasion they had tried to kill Him (5:18). Every one of these happened at Jerusalem… In Samaria He was welcomed. In Galilee, in chapter 6, He could teach without anyone threatening His life or freedom. In the headquarters of Judaism, the proud centre of religious enlightenment, He met treatment such as neither the Galileans nor the people of Sychar gave Him.
- Division. Unbelief cannot see His glory, so the one person who should draw people together splits them instead.
- Desire. The hostility was real, but wanting Him seized is not faith — and the scene shows faith in neither the leaders nor the crowd.
- Restraint. God has always held human hatred in check; men were often ready to stone Him and somehow could not.
- The hour. No hand touched Him, because the time for men to take Him and crucify Him had not come.
- His choice. When the hour did arrive, it was the hour He gave Himself on the cross for our sins — He was not caught, He surrendered.
The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, Why have ye not brought him?
The chief priests and Pharisees sent temple police to arrest Jesus, and the men came back empty-handed. This verse is the demand for an explanation — and the men sent to silence Him end up speaking for Him.
They had run out of ways to answer Him. Only force was left.
The chief priests in Jerusalem had sent officers to arrest this wonderful Speaker and bring Him from the temple. There He had been boldly stating His mission, where He came from, and who He was. But His statement was so strong, so definite, so clear that they could think of no other way to silence Him than force. They envied His fame and feared Him as a rival. So the officers got their orders.
The word translated "officers" here is not the ordinary word for a household servant or a slave. It carries official weight, and John uses it again in chapters 18 and 19.
Another word is hypēretēs, also translated "servant." Two other words, doulos and diakonos, are translated the same way. Doulos is a slave; diakonos is an ordinary servant, at table and so on; but hypēretēs is more official. The first meaning of the word is a "rower," and so it generally means someone who has a distinct service. We could only translate this word as "servant." Here are the places where it occurs: Matthew 5:25; Mark 14:54; Luke 1:2; 4:20; John 7:32, 45, 46; 18:3, 12, 18, 22, 36; 19:6; Acts 5:22, 26; 13:5; 26:16; 1 Corinthians 4:1.
They went meaning to obey. First they stopped to listen.
No wonder the officers were fascinated! They expected a noisy agitator against Rome or some other government. Instead they stood face to face with a speaker so calm, so dignified, so uncompromising and yet so bold. He more than overawed them. They felt powerless to carry out their orders. The superiority of that presence, the majesty of that Person forced them into admiration of Him.
The demand for an explanation backfired. In front of their masters, the officers had to say what His words had done to them.
There were darker traits, however, in the religious leaders than in the crowd, and this is what the Spirit brings before us next. The officers answered, "Never man so spoke as this man." The Pharisees answered them, "Are you also deceived? Did any one of the rulers believe on Him, or of the Pharisees? But this crowd that does not know the law, they are accursed" (verses 46-49). Here conscience answered to the words of the Lord. It answered in such a way that, in front of their masters, they let slip a confession of the power with which He spoke. But the Pharisees, with unbreakable hardness, throw the officers' weakness back at them, challenge them to name one ruler or Pharisee who believed, and show their contempt for ordinary people.
Their confession was not a claim to have understood Him.
They did not understand what He said. But they felt that no mere man ever spoke as He did. His words placed Him in a completely different category. They might be ignorant, but their senses were not entirely deadened.
One refusal sets the rest of the chapter moving. No hand is laid on Jesus, the Pharisees turn their anger on the people, and Nicodemus, one of the rulers, asks for the law to be kept.
In this Gospel the crowd and the Jewish leaders are always kept apart, and the difference is clear here. His time was not yet come. They send officers to take Him, and these return, struck by what He said, without laying a hand on Him. The Pharisees are angry, and show their contempt for the people. Nicodemus risks a word of justice according to the law, and brings their contempt on himself. But each one goes away to his own home.
- Errand. The leaders had no answer left for Him. They envied His fame, so they sent temple police to bring Him in.
- Encounter. The men went meaning to obey. Then they listened, and His presence left them powerless to arrest Him.
- Confession. Asked why they came back empty-handed, they confessed the power in His words.
- Limit. They did not understand what He said, yet they felt His words put Him in a class of His own. Conscience can feel more than the mind grasps.
- Timing. No hand closed on Him. His time had not yet come.
The officers answered, Never man spoke thus, as this man [speaks].
The chief priests' guard went out to seize Jesus and came back with nothing but a sentence about how He talked. The men sent to arrest Him ended up as witnesses for Him.
The officers had a simple job and failed at it. The reason they gave was the effect of what they heard.
Picture the scene. The Pharisees and chief priests had sent their officers to arrest our Lord. The officers came back, but empty-handed. When asked why they had not brought Jesus, their excuse was that never man spoke like this Man. His very words so marked Him out as God's Messenger that they became His protection from arrest.
Their excuse was an admission of defeat. A second reason lay behind it, one they knew nothing about.
They admitted that they had been overcome by His words themselves. Those words were "spirit and life." The power in them could not be resisted, and it held them back from carrying out their mission. His hour had not yet come.
The wording matters. Their sentence puts the weight on how He spoke. (The writers quoted here use an older translation, which reads, "Never man spoke like this man.")
The officers now returned to their masters, the arrest not carried out. The words of Christ had made an impression. "Never man," they said, "so spoke." For that is how we should read it.
These men had heard plenty of religious teaching. They were comparing Jesus with the scribes, the official teachers of the law.
He spoke "not as the scribes." No doubt the scribes were very correct in their talks, and could tell you all about everything. They had literal exactness — that would be most interesting and most intellectual. But while He had that in a way beyond theirs, He had a power that always made the word of God to be the sword of the Spirit. In His hand its connection and its application were perfect. It always suited the occasion. People could resist it, and they did. They rejected both His words and Him. But even so they had to own that "never man spoke like this Man."
The officers could describe the effect. They could not say where such power came from, or what refusing it costs.
His words came warm from the heart of the Father. They lost nothing of their grace beyond words, their freshness, their passion, or their life-giving strength on their journey through the lips of Jesus… To reject His words was to reject everlasting life. It is the same with the gospel, for the gospel is the Word of life.
The scene turns on the gap between the hired men and the men who hired them. The officers let something slip; their superiors would not.
Here conscience answered to the words of the Lord. At the very least, it drew an unintended confession out of them, in front of their masters, about the power with which He spoke. It was not as the scribes. But the Pharisees are hard beyond breaking. They throw the officers' weakness back at them. They challenge them to name one ruler or one Pharisee who believed. And they show their contempt for the mass of their countrymen.
These words came from His enemies' own men. That gives them a weight no friendly witness could carry.
The officers whom the Pharisees sent to take Him came back overwhelmed by the grace and power of His words. They declared, "Never man spoke like this man" (John 7:46). When Christ was brought into his judgment hall, Pilate said three times over, "I find no fault in him"… The dying thief said, "This man has done nothing wrong."
- Sent — the leaders sent men to arrest Him. His words alone sent them back empty-handed, for His hour had not yet come.
- Struck — what stopped them was the way He spoke. He was as exact as the scribes, but with a power they never had, and His word always fitted the occasion.
- Sourced — His words came warm from the Father's heart, losing nothing on the way through His lips.
- Refused — those same words touched the officers' conscience. In the rulers they met hardness, and the rulers answered with contempt for their own men and for the crowd.
- Verdict — the confession comes from the other side. It stands beside Pilate's "I find no fault in him" and the dying thief's "This man has done nothing wrong."
The Pharisees therefore answered them, Are ye also deceived?
The men sent to arrest Jesus came back without Him, saying that no one had ever spoken like this man. Their employers never ask what He said — they answer with a question meant to shame the men who brought the report.
The officers gave an honest report. The reply shows conscience at work in the servants, and hardness in the masters.
Here conscience answered to the words of the Lord. In front of their masters, the officers confessed without meaning to how powerfully He spoke. He did not speak as the scribes did. But the Pharisees are unbreakably hard. They throw the officers' weakness back at them. They challenge them to name any of the rulers or Pharisees who believed. And they show their contempt for the mass of their countrymen.
The charge treats being moved by Jesus as a failure of judgment. Sensible people, they assume, cannot be fooled.
Frustrated in their purpose, the Pharisees now speak with scorn of the people. An ignorant lot, who did not know the law — who would value their opinion? Then they asked in triumph, "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in Him?" People of sense and reputation would never be fooled by such a One. The crowd might be led away by His speeches, but not them. Why should their officers be affected by His words?
The leaders' comeback is a head-count, not an argument. But rank and learning did not help these men hear God.
The common people heard Him gladly, but the wise and the mighty turned away their ears. Then came the question, "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in Him?" That question shows clearly and forcefully how traditional orthodoxy blinds people. It leaves a mind that is only religious unfit to receive vital truth.
The word "also" lumps the officers in with the crowd. Both, the leaders assume, have been fooled — and the curse they pronounce misuses the law they claim to defend.
They fear the officers have been deceived, just as they consider the people to be. They pronounce the people as under a curse because they did not know the law. But the law had not cursed those who did not know it: it cursed those who did not keep it.
The taunt about rulers and Pharisees was rhetorical. It did not survive the meeting.
They had an immense conceit of themselves. They were sure their own rejection of Jesus was beyond dispute. They thought it so final that everybody ought to accept it. If the crowd, or any of them, did not, it only showed them to be ignorant and accursed. So these false shepherds simply cursed the sheep and left it at that. Yet their own ignorance began to show. Their triumphant question was, had any of the rulers or Pharisees believed in Him? Nicodemus spoiled its effect, for he was both a Pharisee and a ruler.
The leaders and the crowd differ in style, not in substance.
The officers return under the influence of His words: "No one ever spoke like this man!" The Pharisees and rulers did not hesitate. They sought to put Him to death. They scatter, disgusted. This is the picture of the human heart facing the truth. The religious leaders have made up their minds. The masses are confused and unsure. They waver between prejudice and the power of the word of God. Faith was in neither the one nor the other.
- Report. Sent to arrest Jesus, the officers came back with a confession instead of a prisoner. His words did what force could not.
- Retort. The leaders never examined the report. They threw the officers' weakness back at them. To be moved by Christ, in their eyes, only proved you had been fooled.
- Reputation. Their case rested on a head-count of rulers and Pharisees. Traditional orthodoxy had blinded them, leaving a mind that is only religious unable to receive vital truth.
- Contempt. The appeal to rank failed, so they cursed the crowd for not knowing the law. But the law cursed those who broke it, not those who did not know it.
- Refutation. Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a ruler, was sitting right there. Their boast collapsed before the meeting ended. Scorn above, confusion below: faith was in neither group.
Has any one of the rulers believed on him, or of the Pharisees?
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
But this crowd, which does not know the law, are accursed.
The Pharisees demand to know whether any ruler or Pharisee has believed in Jesus. Their next words write off the crowd as ignorant and accursed — a verdict that exposes the men who spoke it.
The officers had just admitted the power with which Jesus spoke. Their masters answer them with scorn, not with an argument. The scorn falls on their own countrymen.
There were darker traits in the religious leaders than in the crowd... In the officers, conscience answered to the words of the Lord — at least enough to draw from them, before their masters, an unwilling confession of the power with which He spoke. But the Pharisees, with unbreakable hardness, throw the officers' weakness back at them. They challenge them to name any of the rulers or Pharisees who believed, and they let their contempt for the mass of their own countrymen show. Boasting in law, they were at that very moment dishonouring God by breaking the law, and by far worse.
The leaders make knowledge of the law their test. So what did that word cover for a Jew?
A brief look at the Gospels would have shown what the single word "law" meant. The Jews understood it to mean the first five books, and not just the Ten Commandments.
Their logic runs backwards. They have rejected Jesus, so anyone who has not must be beneath notice.
They had no shortage of conceit. They were sure that their own rejection of Jesus was beyond dispute, and so final that everybody ought to accept it. If the crowd, or any of them, did not, it only showed them to be ignorant and accursed. So these false shepherds just cursed the sheep, and left it at that. Yet their own ignorance began to show. They asked in triumph whether any of the rulers or Pharisees had believed in Him. Nicodemus spoiled the effect of that question, for he was both a Pharisee and a ruler.
Read on to the end of the chapter, and the verdict turns around.
The Pharisees were a group among the Jews who were most zealous for the law. They were the teachers of the law to the people. Yet in the last verses of chapter 7 this group, who did not know the Lord, are themselves shown to be accursed. The Pharisees thought they were the best part of the people. On the outside they were, as their judgment of their fellow Israelites showed. Yet these very people, whom the Lord did not know, were themselves accursed.
One man in the room answers them on their own ground. He does not preach. He asks whether their own law condemns a man before it hears him. Their complaint about the crowd's ignorance falls apart.
Notice, too, how their plans are frustrated. "But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed." But what stops them? "Does our law judge any man before it hears him?" And what is this timidity of Nicodemus? He shelters himself under the plea of their law. That takes their complaint about the people's ignorance of the law out of their mouth. And it throws the breaking of the law on them, if they carry out their purpose. Oh, if only we had faith to trust God! But if we are not willing to suffer in the flesh, we never shall.
Their problem was not a lack of learning. It was what grace did to their standing.
Their pride of heart and mind could not stand the grace that put them in the same class as the people who did not know the law.
The distance the leaders put between themselves and the crowd did not last. At the cross the two joined forces.
All classes fell into line that day, so that each could play its own part in that most sinful of sins. Jews and Gentiles agreed for once. Rival leaders buried their jealousies. Proud religious men joined hands with the crowd they treated at another moment with their deepest contempt (John 7:48-49).
- Contempt — The officers came back moved by Christ's words. Their masters answered with scorn for ordinary people, not with an argument.
- Boast — They boasted in the law, the first five books. At that very moment they were breaking it and dishonouring God.
- Curse — They were sure their rejection of Jesus settled the matter, so these false shepherds cursed the sheep and left it there.
- Rebound — The teachers of the law did not know the Lord, and the curse they spoke rests on them.
- Grace — Their pride could not bear a grace that ranked them with the people they despised. One question from Nicodemus, asked on their own legal ground, undid their boast.
Nicodemus says to them (being one of themselves),
The council has just sneered that not one ruler has believed in Jesus, and at that moment a ruler speaks. The speaker is Nicodemus, the man who had once come to Jesus at night. His words show how far he has moved since then, and how far he still has to go.
The officers had come back confessing the power of Jesus' words. The Pharisees answered with a challenge: name one ruler who believed.
Conscience answered to the words of the Lord. In front of their masters it drew out of the officers a confession they never meant to make — a confession of the power with which He spoke. But the Pharisees, with unbreakable hardness, throw that weakness back at them. They challenge them to name any of the rulers or of the Pharisees who believed, and they show their contempt for the mass of their countrymen. Boasting in law, they were then dishonouring God by breaking the law and far worse. But God brings forward an unexpected, even if feeble, witness from among themselves — not only a Pharisee, but a ruler.
The verse points back to that first night visit. One writer reads his three appearances in this Gospel as a slow sunrise.
You tell me, as a criticism, that he came by night. Well, never mind — he came to Jesus, and that is more than you have done yet. There are three stages in his history. I call John 3 midnight, John 7 twilight, and John 19 daylight. It was darkest midnight in that man's soul when he came creeping to Jesus, hoping that nobody saw him. He was beginning to get a glimmer of light when he put in a word sideways for the Lord in chapter 7. But the death of Christ produced in Nicodemus what His life had never achieved.
He speaks carefully. He asks the council to keep the law they boast in.
However, from their own ranks a voice speaks out. Nicodemus was both a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews (John 3:1). He appeals to the law they spoke of: "Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?" (v. 51). He himself had taken time to listen to the Lord (John 3:1-21), and all he asks for is a fair hearing, as the law itself demands. He does not here even take sides with the Lord Jesus, but he calls for righteous judgment.
Even that costs him. The answer he gets is scorn, and one writer turns it on the reader.
The moment he does speak a little word, indirectly, on behalf of Jesus, how is he met? With scorn and derision. "Are you from Galilee too?" say the Pharisees. "Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee." My friend, do not let the laughter of someone who knows less than you turn you aside. Do not let the sneer or the jeer of a worldly person stop you from coming out boldly for the Saviour.
Commentators weigh this step differently. One reads it as real progress, though incomplete:
Here Nicodemus' advice brings him under suspicion. He is more in the open than when he first went to Jesus by night. Surely here we see an advance, but he is still in the Sanhedrin, sitting among the men who would have arrested our Lord.
Another looks at the same scene and sees a man defending Christ in the wrong room, and notices where he is never found:
But this is slow work, and the slowness is not to his credit. The fear of man was still over him. The affections that drew him to the Lord were not yet in command. Had they been, he would not have been standing up for Him in a council of enemies. He would have joined himself to His disciples. Indeed we never find him in their company; a bad sign. Cords that do not pull a man that way must be weak. Still, the thing is real with him. The man who once stole by night to the Lord now stands up for His rights, as one accused, before His enemies.
His story does not end here. The last time he appears, the crisis that paralysed the bold has made the cautious brave.
Now we find him taking a further step forward. He identified himself with Jesus in His death more definitely than he ever had during His life. The crisis had paralysed the men who had boldly identified themselves with the Lord in His life and ministry. That same crisis steeled these timid and cautious men into boldness and action. Until then they had been in the background, unrecognised. Truly Omnipotence has servants everywhere!
- Night. He first came to Jesus in the dark, hiding the visit; that beginning is not despised — coming at all is more than most do.
- Twilight. Here he moves only a little into the open: he asks for a lawful hearing, without yet taking Christ's side.
- Answer. The council demanded the name of one ruler who believed; God answered from inside the council itself, with a Pharisee and a ruler.
- Cost. Even a plea for common fairness drew mockery; the jeer of those who know less is no reason to stay silent.
- Daylight. At His death the timid man acted while the bold stood paralysed — God has servants everywhere, even in that council.
Does our law judge a man before it have first heard from himself, and know what he does?
The council has just written off the whole crowd as accursed for not knowing the law. It has boasted that no ruler believed in Jesus. Then one of their own rulers speaks up with a question about that very law — and the question exposes them.
The Pharisees had challenged the temple officers to name a single ruler who believed. The answer came from someone sitting with them.
Here conscience answered to the words of the Lord. In front of their masters it drew out an involuntary confession of the power with which He spoke. But the Pharisees are hard past breaking. They throw the officers' weakness back at them. They challenge them to name any ruler or Pharisee who believed. And they show their contempt for the mass of their countrymen. Boasting in law, they were at that very moment dishonouring God by breaking the law, and by far worse. But God brings forward a witness from among themselves. He is unexpected and feeble — yet not only a Pharisee, but a ruler.
The question has two halves: hearing the man, and knowing what he does. Both were legal requirements, not personal favours.
At this time Nicodemus makes no confession of Christ. Still, he ventures to raise a word on behalf of law and order. The law did not allow anyone to condemn a man before hearing evidence of what he had said and done. At once Nicodemus exposes himself to the sneer that he too is one of His followers from Galilee. The implication is that there is no need to hear Him or ask what He has done.
The council had just used the law as a weapon against the ignorant crowd. Nicodemus takes that same weapon out of their hands. Yet one writer sees timidity in the way he does it.
Notice, too, how their thinking is thrown off course. "This people, that does not know the law, are accursed." But what stops them? "Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing?" And what is this timidity of Nicodemus? He shelters himself behind the plea of their law. So he takes out of their mouth their complaint that the people are ignorant of the law. And he throws the breaking of it on them if they carried out their purpose. Oh, if only we had faith to trust God! But if we are not willing to suffer in the flesh, we never shall.
Nicodemus does not defend Jesus. He asks for procedure. But this ruler had heard Jesus for himself once before.
He appeals to the law they spoke of: "Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?" He himself had taken time to listen to the Lord. All he asks for is fair consideration, as the law itself calls for. He does not here even take sides with the Lord Jesus, but he calls for righteous judgment.
A fair question should have slowed them down. Instead they attacked the questioner — and got their facts wrong doing it.
He now speaks, Nicodemus by name, and asks a simple, relevant, but most unwelcome question. Such a question might well have made honest people pause. It only irritated the men he had asked. They turned at once on Nicodemus and said, "Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee." As often happens when people support a bad cause, they tried to silence the man whose question was so inconvenient. And, like many others in the same spirit, they did not care whether their words were accurate. There certainly had been one prophet out of Galilee, if no more — Jonah, the son of Amittai, of Gath-hepher.
This verse is the middle of three scenes in one life, and the middle is not the end.
Nicodemus afterwards grew bolder. In the council he urged that they ought to hear the Lord and examine His acts before condemning Him. The last we read of Nicodemus is this: after the crucifixion he brought about a hundred pounds' weight of myrrh and aloes to embalm the Lord's body.
Read together, the three appearances trace a single line.
Is this not a charming biography of a disciple, given in the fewest possible words? The beginning, NIGHT; further on, TWILIGHT; lastly, open confession of a heroic kind — NOONTIDE. No book but the Bible can convey so stimulating a story in a few vivid strokes.
- Night. Nicodemus first came to Jesus after dark. Now he is the one ruler who speaks — an unexpected and feeble witness, from inside the very body that boasted no ruler believed.
- Law. His question states a plain legal rule: judges must hear a man and examine what he has done before they condemn him.
- Irony. The men who cursed the crowd for not knowing the law were breaking it themselves. Nicodemus turns their own charge back on them.
- Twilight. Commentators differ: one calls it timidity, another says he grew bolder. Either way, he shelters behind the law and does not yet take sides.
- Noontide. A fair question got a sneer and a false claim in reply. But the man who asked it came out at last in daylight. He carried spices to the grave of the One he had once visited at night.
They answered and said to him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search and look, that no prophet arises out of Galilee.
Nicodemus asked the leaders to keep their own law and hear a man before condemning him. They answered with a sneer about Galilee, and that sneer raises two questions: was it even true, and what did it show about men who taught Scripture for a living?
The leaders had just asked whether any ruler or Pharisee believed in Jesus. One did, and he was in the room.
Any Pharisee or ruler believe on Him! They thought it impossible. But one man was present at that moment who felt differently. He now speaks, Nicodemus by name. He asks a simple, fitting, but most unwelcome question: "Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?" Such a question might well have made honest people pause. It only irritated the men it was aimed at. They turned at once on Nicodemus: "Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee." His question was very inconvenient, so they would try to silence him — as men often do when defending a bad cause.
Their put-down sounded final. It was wrong twice over: about the prophets, and about where Jesus was born.
So here the Pharisees assume that no prophet arises out of Galilee. They were wrong in every possible way. Were they prophets to speak for God at that time? Had they never heard of Jonah or Nahum? … But the truth is that the One their soul hated had come out of Bethlehem-Ephrathah. The poor of the flock waited for Him, and His goings forth are from of old, from the days of eternity (Micah 5:2). They knew nothing of Him, though the law and the prophets everywhere testified of Him.
(Kelly follows an older rendering of Micah 5:2; the ESV reads "from ancient days.")
Jonah's home town has been identified as Galilean territory:
Son of Amittai and the prophet of Gath-hepher (in Galilee: compare John 7:52).
They told Nicodemus to search. They had not searched themselves. They had Scripture; what they lacked was the will to read it honestly.
The reproach of the Jews in the time of our Lord (John 7:52) was remarkable, for prophets had arisen out of Galilee. Jonah and Nahum were both Galileans. There is nothing in which men are so likely to be blind as in reading the Bible. Even the facts of Scripture are too often passed over with more carelessness than those of any other book. People readily forget what it does not suit them to remember.
Galilee was no embarrassment to explain away. Scripture had marked it out in advance as the place where light would break.
This prophetic promise (Isaiah 9:1-2) brought comfort to the faithful remnant. It looked to a day when Gentile powers would oppress the land, and the Messiah would be "a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel." The promise was that in such times a bright and glorious light would shine out in the most obscure and despised part of the land. And so it came about. Jesus came into Galilee preaching the kingdom of God, and this gave the Pharisees of Jerusalem a reason to despise Him. Ignoring Jonah, who was of the land of Zebulun, they said, "Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee."
He said very little, and indirectly at that. It was still enough to draw fire.
The moment he does speak a little word, indirectly, on behalf of Jesus, how is he met? With scorn and derision. "Are you from Galilee too?" say the Pharisees … The speakers begin to think he is almost a convert. My friend, do not let the laughter of someone who knows less than you turn you aside. Do not let the sneer or the jeer of a worldly person keep you from coming out boldly for the Saviour.
That confident dismissal did not die with those leaders. It has only changed its vocabulary.
There is the same triumphant claim for the supreme place of human cleverness and knowledge. The modern phrase is, "All scholars are agreed …" agreed in denying or even ridiculing the Word of God. But now, as then, all scholars are NOT agreed … And like the religious men of old, our modern examples are just as wrong in their basic facts. Christ was not "of Galilee", as they ought to have known. They did not trouble to look beneath surface appearances.
- Sneer. The leaders could not answer a fair question, so they turned on Nicodemus himself — the usual move when defending a bad cause.
- Search. They ordered a search they had never made: prophets had come out of Galilee, Jonah and Nahum both.
- Sight. Men can hold the Bible and still be blind in it, forgetting what it does not suit them to remember.
- Scripture. Isaiah 9:1-2 promised light in the most despised part of the land. Micah 5:2 named Bethlehem. Their "fact" collapsed twice over.
- Stand. One timid word for Christ drew ridicule; the lesson is not to let a sneer decide which side you take.