The Biblical Illustrator John (Ch.7 8) (A Compilation)

《The Biblical Illustrator – John (Ch.7~8)》(A Compilation)

07 Chapter 7

Verses 1-53

Verses 1-18

John 7:1-18

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee.

The situation surveyed

I. THE SCENE IN GALILEE: the attitude of Christ’s brethren.

1. The counsel they offered. That Christ should repair to the centre of the theocratic kingdom and make His Messianic claims where they could be competently examined (John 7:3).

2. The argument they used. He could not acquire fame in Galilean obscurity, but only in the metropolis (John 7:4)--a perilous temptation He had twice encountered (Matthew 4:9; John 6:15).

3. The spirit they cherished. They disbelieved in His Messiahship, but could not deny His miracles. Hence they wanted His true character settled. If He was the Christ they wanted to see Him crowned, if not, the bubble should burst.

4. The reply they received. Christ was not going up for the purpose suggested.

II. THE SCENE AT JERUSALEM.

1. The bloodthirsty Sanhedrists

2. The whispering multitudes. These were

Learn:

1. It is becoming and right to walk prudently: Christ did so.

2. In religion the wisdom of this world is almost wholly wrong. It was so with Christ’s brethren.

3. A man’s friends are often the last to believe in His greatness and goodness. It was so with Christ.

4. The more a man resembles Christ, the more he will be hated by the world.

5. The best of men may be evil spoken of. Christ was. (T. Whitelaw, D. D.)

Infidelity

I. SELDOM LACKS EVIDENCE. These brethren must have had ample evidence of Christ’s Messiahship. As boys they must have seen something of His transcendent character. No doubt many had pointed out to them extraordinary phases of His birth and life, and how they had witnessed His public life for a considerable time, with its teaching and miracles. So infidels have plenty of evidence. All nature is full of proofs of God; and as for Christ the congruity of His biography with contemporaneous history, and of His system with the conscience, reason, and wants of humanity, and the immense and growing influence of His gospel upon the sentiment, spirit, and character of mankind are evidence enough. The cause of infidelity is in the heart rather than the head.

II. IS ALWAYS VAIN. His brethren mainly from vanity counsel Him to make a display in Jerusalem on a great national occasion (John 7:4). His life was too obscure and His works too unostentatious. They wanted to share the honour that would accrue. Infidelity is always vain. The vainest speakers, authors, members of society, are those who profess infidel opinions. They are vain of their imaginary intellectual independency, of their superior mental insight and grasp, of their superiority to current creeds. It must be so. The man who believes in nothing greater than himself, will have both space and aliments in his mind in which his egotism can grow to the most offensive proportions. Faith in the infinitely great and good can alone burn out the native vanity of the corrupt heart. Infidelity is a negation. “Light empty minds,” says Leighton, “are like bladders blown up with anything.”

III. IS EVER IN AGREEMENT WITH THE WORLD (John 7:6-7). By the world is meant the prevailing ideas, spirit, and aims of corrupt humanity. And the mind of His brethren was in accord with this, but it was dead against Him. What is the spirit of the world? Materialism--the body is everything. Practical atheism--God is ignored. Regnant selfishness--self is supreme. Infidelity agrees with all this; there is no moral discrepancy, no reason for mutual antipathies and battling.

IV. NEVER THWARTS THE DIVINE PURPOSE (John 7:10). Christ’s plan was not to go up to Jerusalem at the time they requested Him; but in His own time. Their counselling influenced Him not. Infidelity can never modify, check, or retard the decrees of heaven. Conclusion: Such is infidelity in some of its phases. Iris a wretched thing, however enriched with learning, energized with logic, embellished with culture and genius. “I seem,” says Hume, “affrighted and confounded with the solitude in which I am placed by my philosophy. When I look abroad on every side I see dispute, contradiction, and distraction. When I turn my eye inward, I find nothing but doubt and ignorance. Where am I? What am I? From what cause do I derive my existence? To what condition shall I return? I am confounded with questions, I begin to fancy myself in a very deplorable condition, surrounded with darkness on every side.” (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Christ and man

I. THE DESPERATE HARDNESS AND UNBELIEF OF HUMAN NATURE. Even His brethren did not believe in Him, who should have been the first to do so. This was worse than the unbelief of the Jews.

1. The doctrine of man’s need of preventing and converting grace stands out here as a sunbeam. Seeing Christ’s miracles, hearing Christ’s teaching, living in Christ’s own company, were not enough to make men believers. The mere possession cf spiritual privileges never made any one a Christian. All is useless without the work of the Holy Ghost (chap. 6:44).

2. Christians in every age will do well to remember this. They are often troubled to find that they stand alone, and are ready to blame themselves because their families remain worldly and unbelieving. But let them look at the case before us. In our Lord Jesus Christ there was no fault either in temper, word, or deed. Yet even Christ’s own “brethren did not believe in Him.”

3. Christ has truly learned by experience how to sympathize with His people who stand alone. He has drunk this bitter cup. Let all who are cast down because relations despise religion turn to Him for comfort Hebrews 2:18).

II. THE REASON WHY MANY HATE CHRIST (verse 7).

1. It was not so much the high doctrines He preached as the high standard of practice; not so much His Messianic claims as His protest against their wickedness. They could have tolerated His opinions if He had spared their sins.

2. This principle is of universal application and holds good to-day. Men dislike the gospel because of its holy demands. Teach abstract doctrines, and few will find any fault. Denounce the fashionable sins of the day, and call on men to repent, and thousands at once will be offended. The reason why many profess to be infidels and abuse Christianity is the witness that Christianity bears against their own bad lives (1Kings 22:8).

III. THE STRANGE VARIETY OF OPINIONS ABOUT CHRIST, WHICH WERE CURRENT FROM THE BEGINNING (verse 12). The words which old Simeon had spoken thirty years before were here accomplished (Luke 2:34-35).

1. In the face of such a passage as this, the endless modern divisions about religion ought never to surprise us. The open hatred of some towards Christ--the carping, prejudiced spirit of others--the bold confession of the few faithful--the timid, man-fearing temper of the many faithless--the war of words and strife of tongues--are only modern symptoms of an old disease. Such is the corruption of human nature, that Christ is the cause of divisions among men, wherever He is preached. So long as the world stands, some, when they hear of Him, will love and some will hate--some will believe, and some will believe not (Matthew 10:34).

2. What think we of Christ ourselves? This is the one question with which we have to do. Let us never be ashamed to be of that number who believe, hear, follow, and confess Him before men. While others waste their time in vain jangling and unprofitable controversy, let us take up the cross. The world may hate us as it hated Him because our religion is a standing witness against them. (Bp. Ryle.)

Christ an example of prudence

Our Lord’s example recorded in this verse shows clearly that Christians are not meant to court martyrdom, or wilfully expose themselves to certain death, under the idea that it is their duty. Many primitive martyrs seem not to have understood this. (Bp. Ryle.)

How Christians should act in times of danger

The Roman rule in battle was neither to fly from dangers nor to follow them. The Christian’s motto is, “Neither timorous nor temeranous.” We must not basely desert the cause of Christ when called out to defend it. “Either vanquish or die,” the Black Prince’s father said to him. Either live with the gospel or die for it. Yet we may not rashly run ourselves upon unnecessary dangers, but decline them when we can with a good conscience. Christians are permitted to fly when they are sought for to the slaughter, so it be with the wings of a dove, and not with the pinions of a dragon. (J. Trapp.)

We must not seek martyrdom

In Tourney, about 1544, a very noted professor of the Protestant religion, being earnestly sought after, had concealed himself so closely that his persecutors were unable to discover where he was hid. Contrary, however, to the advice and entreaty of his wife and friends, he gave himself up, desirous of the glory of martyrdom; but being adjudged to be burnt, he recanted, and abjured the faith in order to be beheaded. The Papists improved this in order to decoy his fellow-sufferers to the like recantation; but they replied, “He had tempted God by rushing upon danger without a call, but they had to the utmost of their power shunned it, and hoped that, since He had called them to suffer, He would support them under it.” And it so happened they went to the fire in solemn pomp, and were consumed loudly singing the praise of God even in the flames, till their strength was exhausted. We are not to court sufferings; it is enough if we cheerfully endure them when, in the providence of God, we are called to it, Our Lord Himself says to His disciples, “When they persecute you in one city, flee ye into another.”

The Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand

The feast of tabernacles

(Leviticus 23:34-43; Exodus 23:16; Deuteronomy 16:13-15) lasted seven days, from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month, Tisri, October. An eighth day was further celebrated as a closing festival, like the first day, with a Sabbath rest and a holy convocation. The feast served as a thankful remembrance of God’s gracious protection of the nation during its desert wanderings, and as a joyous celebration of the harvest then completed with the gathering in of the fruit and wine. It was therefore considered by the Jews after the exile to be the greatest and moss glorious feast, and its celebration was distinguished by various customs.

1. By an arbitrary interpretation of Leviticus 23:40, those who visited the feast carried in the left hand a lemon, and in the right a palm branch, bound with sprays of willow and myrtle.

2. At every morning offering, a priest, amid music and songs of praise, poured into two perforated vessels on the next side of the altar water which he had drawn in a golden pitcher from the fountain of Shiloah Isaiah 12:3).

3. On the evening of the first day of the feast--according to later Rabbinical accounts, on each of the seven days--there was an illumination in the court of the women by means of a great golden candelabra, accompanied by a torch dance before them. (Prof. Luthardt.)

This was perhaps the most joyous of all the Jewish festivals--the great annual holiday of the nation. During this festive period the people all left their houses and lived in tents or booths, which were erected in the streets and market places, and on the flat terraced roofs of the houses. From this circumstance it was called the “feast of tents” (text and Leviticus 23:34). It was likewise named the “feast of ingatherings” (Exodus 23:16; Exo_34:22), because it took place at the close of the vintage, when the fruits of the year were gathered in. It was designed as a sort of a national praise-offering. The people assembled in the courts of the sanctuary to adore the bountiful providence of God which had crowned their labours with success, to rejoice in His goodness, and to implore His blessing on the following year. Josephus calls it “ a most holy and eminent feast.” (J. T.Bannister, LL. D.)

Church festivals

Let it suffice men of sober minds to know, that the law both of God and nature alloweth generally days of rest and festival solemnity to be observed, by way of thankful and joyful remembrance, if such miraculous favours be showed towards mankind, as require the same; that such graces God hath bestowed upon His Church as well in later as in former times; that in some particulars, when they have fallen out, Himself hath demanded His own honour, and in the rest hath left it to the wisdom of the Church, directed by those precedents and enlightened by other means, always to judge, when the like is requisite. Touching those festival days, therefore, which we now observe, what remaineth but to keep them throughout all generations holy, severed by manifest notes of difference from other times, adorned with that which most may betoken true, virtuous, and celestial joy. (Hooker.)

His brethren.--The family dispute which John relates from personal knowledge, with the frankness and simplicity of a genuine historian, gives us an insight into the domestic trials of our Saviour. The unbelief of His brothers need not surprise us any more than the unbelief of the Nazarenes generally (John 4:44). Not un-frequently the nearest relatives throw more obstacles in the way of God’s children than strangers. Christ entered into the condition of fallen humanity with all its temptations and miseries. Hence His sympathy in this as in all (Hebrews 2:17-18; Heb_5:7-8). But the full significance of the passage depends upon the proper view of the brothers of Jesus. Here I must dissent from the cousin theory of Jerome, which assumes that three of them, James, Simon, and Jude, were apostles. This passage is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the more natural view that they were members of the Holy family, and under the care of Joseph and Mary, in whose company they constantly appear.

1. It is plain that John here, as in chap. 2:12, and in harmony with the Synoptists and Acts 1:13, 1Corinthians 9:5, distinguishes the brothers of Jesus from the apostles.

2. But what is more conclusive, John represents the brothers as unbelievers, and as using irreverent language against Christ, which could not have been the case had they been apostles. Not that they were unbelievers in the same sense as Jews or pagans, but not believers as the apostles must have been, at least from the miracle at Cana (John 2:11; comp. Verse 22; 16:17; 17:8). It would have been easy for John to have said, “some” of His brethren did not believe, had the others been believing apostles. John recognizes different degrees of belief (comp. John 2:23; Joh_4:39; Joh_8:31; Joh_12:42), and of unbelief, but he never confounds the sharp lines between belief and unbelief. Moreover, the language of the brothers contrasts with the reverence shown by the apostles on every occasion, even when they could not understand His conduct (John 4:27).

3. Our Lord characterizes them as men of the world whom the world cannot hate (verse 7); while He says the very reverse of the apostles John 15:18; Matthew 10:5; Mat_10:22; Mat_10:40). We infer, then, that all the four brothers were distinct from the apostles, and not converted till after the Resurrection (Acts 1:14; 1Corinthians 15:7). As to the other question whether they were older from a former, otherwise unknown, marriage of Joseph (the Greek tradition defended by Epiphanius), or younger children of Mary and Joseph (the view held by Tertullian and Helvidius, and denounced first by Jerome as heretical and profane, because of its conflict with the tenet of Mary’s perpetual virginity), the passage gives no decisive answer. The patronizing tone of the brothers seems to favour the former view; but may be found also with younger brothers. (P. Schaff, D. D.)

Jesus and His brethren

The injunction was neither inspired by a too impatient zeal for the glory of Jesus, nor by the odious desire of seeing Him fall into the hands of His enemies. The truth lies between both these extremes. They seem to have been puzzled by the claims of their brother. On the one hand, they could not deny the extraordinary facts which they every day witnessed; on the other, they could not decide upon regarding as the Messiah one with whom they were accustomed to live upon terms of the greatest familiarity. They desired, therefore, to see Him abandon the equivocal position in which He placed Himself, and was keeping them, by so persistently absenting Himself from Jerusalem. If He were really the Messiah, why should He fear to appear before judges more capable of deciding on His pretensions than ignorant Galileans? Was not the capital the theatre on which Messiah was to play His part, and the place where the recognition of His mission should begin? The approaching festival, which seemed to make it a duty that He should visit Jerusalem, appeared, therefore, to make a favourable opportunity for taking a decided step. There is a certain amount of similarity between this and Mary’s request (chap. 2.), as there is also between our Lord’s conduct on the two occasions. (Prof. Godet.)