136 Verses 1-5.―There is further recognition here of the Galilean ministry.
136a Verse 1.― “After these things.” That is, about six months after the discourse of chapter 6.
“The Jews.” Cf. 2:8, 54.
137 Verse 3.―As to the Lord’s “brethren being uterine” ―that is, His mother’s children―see Ps. 69:8, and cf. Acts 1:14, 1 Cor. 9:5. This belief is maintained, after Tertullian, by M’Clellan, Farrar (“Early Days of Christianity,” chapter 19.), Mayor (Introduction to “Commentary on Epistle of James”), and by Professor Swete (Commentary on Mark). For the theory that Joseph was married previously, see Lightfoot (“Dissertation” in his edition of the Epistle to the Galatians) and Salmon. It must be borne in mind that Origen and Jerome, who supported the idea of Mary’s continued virginity, were influenced by Apocryphal Gospels. Mr. Carr seems to have changed his opinion since he wrote the note in his Cambridge edition of Matthew’s Gospel (see his note on present passage).
On what we are told in verse 5, Kinnear remarks: “His divinity was hidden in the absolute perfection of His humanity” (p. 71).
135 Verse 8.―The reading “not yet” seems to have arisen from a desire to meet Porphyry’s imputation to JESUS of inconstancy. But the Lord’s not going up then was but an illustration of what this Evangelist speaks of elsewhere―His dependence on the Father, by whose direction He was governed day by day, in respect both of speech (verse 16) and action (v. 19). Any real difficulty is removed by the natural explanation―of Westcott and Plummer―that the Lord meant, not to keep the feast.
139 Verse 12.― “Good” in the sense of “benevolent.”
139a “The Jews.” Here the special meaning that the title acquires in this Gospel is very clear.
140 Verse 15.― “Letters” ―i.e., rabbinical learning (Acts 16: 2-1: πολλὰ γράμματα, “much learning”). In the Gospel records we are told of the Lord Jesus’ writing (John 8:6), and of His reading (Luke 4:16). The one reading book of the synagogue school was the Bible. Cf. notes 23, 56 on Mark.
141 Verse 21 f.― “One.” Heitmüller treats this as inconsistent with 7:21. But the Lord is not Himself the speaker there. The expositor takes “because of this” as part of verse 21, but Govett, as the revisers, with “Moses,” as beginning of verse 22.
141a Verse 23.―The ὃλον goes with ἃνθριωπον rather than (as A.V. and R.V.) with ύγιῆ― “a whole man” (so Wetstein).
142 Verse 26.―Observe that it is the rulers (“the Jews”) who fail to recognize the Lord’s Messiahship, and only those of the crowd influenced by them (verse 41).
143 Verse 27.―See note at 9:29.
144 Verse 28.― “Cried.” For the Lord’s exceptional uplifting of His voice (Matt. 12:19), cf. verse 37 and 12:44.
“He allows that they have spoken rightly of His human origin” (Barth, “Chief Problems,” p. 162). We may suppose, however, that our Lord is but reminding them of their own words recorded in 6:42―i.e., taking them on their own ground.
145 Verse 31.―See Mic. 5:2.
145a “I am.” Cf. 3:13.
145 Verse 37.― “The great.” According to Num. 29:12, the feast was to last seven days; another day had been added by custom, but on this day no water was drunk from the pool of Siloam, to be poured on the altar. JESUS was the true Shiloh (“sent”). But cf. Jer. 2:13. This statement shows exact knowledge on the part of the writer.
147 “Stood... thirst.” His attitude now, as well as His manner, emphasized His words. Connect with this, “I will stand upon the rock in Horeb” (Exod. 17:6; cf. Num. 20:11).
143 Verse 38.― “As the Scripture said.” Reference may be made to such passages as Isa. 12:3; 35:6 (cf. Matt. 11:4-6); 44:3, 55:1, 58:11; Joel 3:13; Ezek. 47:1.
149 Verse 39.― “Spirit was not yet.” On this Schmiedel, who is followed by Burkitt (p. 248) and Scott (p. 336), has the following remark: “The Holy Spirit had no existence before the exaltation of Christ,” and cites 2 Cor. 3:17 (col. 2,530). One might fairly expect a writer of such pretension (he has edited Winer’s “Grammar”) to be acquainted with a use of the negative which appears in other passages of this Gospel, such as 9:3 and 11:4, and also m 2 Cor. 3:10. From there being no article before “Spirit,” some (as Norris and Govett) would explain it of spiritual gift (1 Cor. 12, 14), which now represents the gifts of the Spirit predicted of the days of Messiah. See, how over, the Exposition, p. 450, note. As to misunderstanding by the Evangelist of the Lord’s utterances (alleged by Reuss and others), see note at 2:21.
150 Verse 40.―Cf. verse 46 for Christ’s words being evidential. As to “the prophet,” see note 118. For the connection of this verse with verse 52, see Carr, “Horæ Biblicæ,” p. 76 ff. He considers that “the” should be understood before “prophet” in the Pharisee’s question (p. 83). This suggestion, which commends itself, is reproduced in the same writer’s annotated edition of the R.V. of this Gospel. Cf. Abbott, “Johannine Grammar,” p. 358.
151 Verse 42.― “Bethlehem.” Critics wonder why John (Wendt and others would say his “editor”), if he knew of the Bethlehem birth, did not here mention it. Perhaps we have in this an instance of what Dr. Salmon described as the Evangelist’s “irony,” as in 6:42. We have examples of something of the kind in the Pauline Epistles. The important point is that the Jews, as Govett remarks, “in this the chief of questions had not interest enough to push their inquiries.”
152 Verse 43.― “Division.” This illustrates Luke 12:51. So, again, in 9:16. 10:19 of this Gospel. The word in each passage is “schism.”
153 Verse 45 f.― “The chief priests.” These represent the Synoptic “Sadducees,” who, together with the Pharisees, made up the Sanhedrin. “Never man” ―i.e., a mere man (ἄνθρωπος).