Introduction

 

In the previous chapter (John Chapter Six Commentary), we see Jesus performing two significant miracles:

• Feeding five thousand menfolk and immediate kin (John 6:1-7, 8-11, 12-15), probably upwards of fifteen thousand people thereabouts,
• And as if that weren’t eye-popping enough, we see Him walking on raging waters, the Sea of Galilee (John 6:16-21).

 

Can the beloved reader see all that happening, are you seeing it? Why | why not friend?

 

Following these physics-defying playthings the Eternal One, even Jesus, leaves the realm of playthings and enters the realm of profundity, and teaches us that He is the Bread of Life, saying, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty” (John 6:35). What is He saying here? Our Lord is emphasizing the importance of faith in precisely Himself for eternal life. Let’s hear Him say it: “…For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life…” (John 6:40). Wow, eternal life, accessible, what a Concept! Wow, an eternal life giver, accessible, what an Epiphany!

 

As we transition to our John seven chapter, we are hit with tensions. For starters, the tension between Jesus and the Jewish religious authorities escalates sad to say. Friend, try to feel it—a joyous Feast is at hand, but O my what a contrast this paints over against the tensions. The Feast of Tabernacles is at hand—this has all to do with joy and praise—and straightaway as we tippee-toe into the chapter we are confronted with one of those tensions, we find Jesus’ cantankerous brothers challenging Him to go to Judea, to Jerusalem, to the Feast, to showcase His “works,” publicly (John 7:3-4). ‘…Show thyself off Jesus…’ Uh uh, nope, no circus acts, no dog and pony shows brothers. Incarnate Jesus is in His humiliation-state down here in the land of sin and sorrow (Philippians 2:2-7, 8-11) and rather chooses to meet His obligation to attend the feast, His passion to attend it, sort of quietly, sort of secretly, up front at least. No fanfare please, the Kingdom of God cometh not with fanfare—ought not they to have known that (1Kings 19:11-12)? If only they had believed in Him they would have known, but they doubted at this point because they knew not God, and thus failed to recognize God in Jesus; belief would come, eventually. It happens that way a lot, in general. And of course the tension, said tension with the religious authorities had by now ramped up, so Jesus is laying low, not putting His head on the chopping block—just yet—for His time, that hour, you know the one over which He agonized so, yea, that really difficult one, it has not yet come—all must be done according to the Divine Plan, in KAIROS-time (John 7:6, 10). And in this chapter, we flat-out continue to see varying reactions to Jesus’ teachings and identity per se, beyond that of the religious authorities: Some believe, some question, and others seek to get in our Lord’s face and arrest their Savior, my. So, in short, this chapter, as we get into it more and more, will illustrate the division among the people and the religious authorities regarding who Jesus truly is, setting the stage for the subsequent confrontations and revelations about our Savior’s identity.

 

Okay, are you ready to start friend? Got your thinking cap on and your favorite Bible study tools tabbed up aright? Good, let’s do it, by God’s grace, and with His guidance and particularly with His illumination lighting up our thinking cap. We will primarily be focusing on the movement, the action—verbs—in this commentary, so this note[1] may be helpful.

 

We will follow this format:

 

Verse of Scripture utilizing the KJV text ; key words in the KJV text will be footnoted with a link to a word study based on the Greek text, and/or a general discussion relative to the given word (we are not biblical Greek or Hebrew scholars, please consider our grammatical constructions with a critical eye).

 

Commentary We shall always be commenting on this passage keeping before us the crucial fact that every jot and every tittle comprising these verses came forth under the inspiration of the blessed Holy Spirit. We pray that He, by His grace, helps us along the way.

 

John Chapter Seven Commentary Verses

 

7:1-13- About Midweek, the Feast of Tabernacles

 

1 After these things[2] Jesus[3] walked[4] in Galilee[5]: for he would not walk in Jewry[6], because the Jews[7] sought[8] to kill[9] him. 2 Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles[10] was at hand. 3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart[11] hence, and go into Judaea[12], that thy disciples[13] also may see the works[14] that thou doest[15]. 4 For [there is] no man [that] doeth any thing in secret[16], and he himself seeketh[17] to be[18] known openly[19]. If[20] thou do[21] these things, shew thyself to the world. 5 For neither did his brethren believe[22] in him. 6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time[23] is not yet come[24]: but your time[25] is alway ready[26]. 7 The world[27] cannot hate[28] you; but me it hateth[29], because I testify[30] of it, that the works[31] thereof are evil[32]. 8 Go[33] ye up unto this feast: I go[34] not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come[35]. 9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode[36] [still] in Galilee. 10 But when his brethren were gone[37] up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret[38]. 11 Then the Jews[39] sought[40] him at the feast, and said, Where is he? 12 And there was much murmuring[41] among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth[42] the people. 13 Howbeit no man spake[43] openly of him for fear[44] of the Jews. (John 7:1-13)

 

COMMENTARY: Galilee, located to the north of Judea, was somewhat removed from the intense scrutiny and direct control of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem. This geographical distance provided a buffer, allowing Jesus to carry out His ministry with relatively less danger. While Galilee had its own challenges—such as His hometown of Nazareth and religious authorities sent to spy—Jesus largely found more acceptance and support there. Many of His disciples were from Galilee, and He performed numerous miracles and teachings in the region, which ingratiated Him to the locals.

 

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee…

 

The Jewish religious leaders’ intent to kill our Lord demonstrates the extreme hostility and opposition He faced. Their malice was rooted in their rejection of His “shock the world” teachings and His challenge to their authority. Jesus’ decision to stay in Galilee rather than Judea shows His awareness of the danger and His strategic approach to His ministry. We will notice that strategy numerous times in different settings throughout the chapter. He was fully aware of the threats against Him and took steps to continue His mission while avoiding premature confrontation. Although the Bible doesn’t explicitly describe Jesus’ emotional response in this context, we can infer that the incarnate Jesus, the God-Man, would have experienced the weight of such hostility. The knowledge that there were people actively seeking His life would likely stir a range of emotions in His tender heart and soul, including sorrow, resolve, and perhaps even a sense of isolation. Yet, His tether to the Father would comfort and guide Him, seeing Him through the heaviness and the danger. Despite all the danger, our Lord remained focused on accomplishing the divine mission for which Father God sent Him. He always operated according to God’s perfect timing (KAIROS), a prevalent theme that we will see often throughout the chapter. Jesus’ actions were always aligned with the fulfillment of God’s plan, like a perfect Teammate, even in the face of mortal danger.

 

… for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

 

The Feast of Tabernacles is at hand, a major pilgrimage festival drawing many to Jerusalem. That context is the basis for the tension and significance of the events that follow in our chapter.

 

Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand.

 

Jesus‘ brothers grew up with Him, they witnessed His everyday life. They flat-out could not fathom that their own brother could be the Messiah. Their familiarity with Him likely contributed to their initial skepticism and inability to recognize His divine nature. Their suggestion for Jesus to publicly display His works reflects a very human understanding of gaining recognition, which contrasts sharply with Jesus’ divine mission and timing (KAIROS). Their initial disbelief in Jesus is consistent with the common theme of doubt and misunderstanding among those closest to Him (Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4). This disbelief must have hurt Jesus deeply, as it came from His own family and friends. The brothers’ actions and words reflect a lack of genuine love and understanding at this point, seeing that they encouraged their big brother Jesus to go to Judea despite knowing the dangers He faced. They really poured it on too, mustering all the slick mundane logic that motivates many folks, yet despite their thick mundane-logic urging, Jesus remained focused on His divine purpose and operated within God’s perfect timing—He would have none of it, in perfect control of Himself, steadfastly focused on His mission. Notice that as Jesus’ ministry neared its end, and especially after His resurrection, His brothers’ perception of Him changed dramatically. The resurrection served as a powerful confirmation of His identity, removing any vestiges of doubt they and many others previously held. Their transformation from doubt to unwavering faith makes clear the significance of the resurrection as a pivotal moment that validated Jesus’ identity and mission in their eyes.

 

His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.

 

Jesus‘ life and ministry were guided by the divine timeline established by God. His actions, teachings, and miracles were all orchestrated according to God’s perfect Plan, ensuring that each moment fulfilled its intended purpose—KAIROS timing in shoe leather. (The term KAIROS literally refers to the right or opportune moment.) Jesus’ declaration, “…my time is not yet come…” signifies His awareness that the exact moment for certain actions, such as His public appearance or ultimate sacrifice, had not yet arrived. He was fully attuned to God’s timing and refused to act prematurely. In contrast to Jesus’ adherence to divine timing, His brothers’ suggestion reflected human timing and understanding. They operated on a different level, unaware of the divine plan and the significance of waiting for the opportune moment. Jesus’ further statement, “…but your time is always ready…” highlights the difference between His mission and the human perspective. While His brothers could act anytime according to their own understanding, Jesus bound Himself to always act in alignment with God’s perfect timing inherent in the Divine Plan. Jesus’ adherence to KAIROS timing reflects His deep trust and obedience to the Father. This commitment ensured that His actions were always in perfect harmony with God’s will, a will He came to reveal and a primary focus of this chapter and Jesus’ mission per se. So, we see that despite the urgency and pressure from those around Him, Jesus remained patient and resolute, waiting for the exact moment ordained by God to fulfill His mission.

 

Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.

 

Rejection is a profoundly painful experience for any human being. The emotional weight of being on the outside, particularly due to hate, can be overwhelming. For Jesus, this rejection was not just personal but also spiritual, as He came to bring Light and Truth to the world. Naturally, most people would go to great lengths to avoid such deep pain and rejection, yet Jesus willingly faced it, demonstrating His incredible commitment to His divine mission. Jesus’ purpose was to expose the darkness and evil in the world, testifying to the Truth of God’s Kingdom. This truth-telling inevitably led to confrontation with the world’s sinful nature and those who perpetuated it. The world’s hatred toward Jesus stemmed from its decided resistance to the Light and Truth He embodied (John 3:19-21). By exposing evil and challenging the status quo, Jesus provoked hostility from those who were entrenched in sin and held captive by its power. Despite the certain knowledge of the pain and hatred He would endure, Jesus willingly accepted it to fulfill His mission. This self-sacrifice makes clear His extraordinary love and dedication to redeem humanity. As the incarnate Jesus, He would have experienced a range of emotions, and His tender heart and soul would feel the sting of rejection. Yet His divine purpose and connection to the Father provided comfort and strength. Jesus’ tether to the Father was His Source of solace and guidance. This relationship steeled Him against the emotional and spiritual toll of the world’s hatred, ensuring He remained steadfast in His mission. Jesus’ testimony reflects His profound commitment to God’s divine plan and His willingness to endure the world’s hateful rejection to testify against its evil. His self-disclosed experience of hateful rejection, while deeply painful, makes clear His extraordinary love and dedication to bringing Light and Truth to a world mired in darkness. Not so with His brothers (and with many of us); no hate spilled onto them because they were of the world, one of its own, accepted as such.

 

The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

 

Jesus operates according to God’s perfect plan, not human expectations. This timing, i.e. God’s, dictates when He will reveal Himself fully and face the ultimate confrontation in Jerusalem. Jesus’ instruction to His brothers to go up to the feast without Him indicates that it is not yet the right moment for His public appearance. This strategic decision demonstrates His complete awareness of the danger in Judea and His commitment to God’s timing. By staying in Galilee, Jesus avoids the immediate danger and scrutiny of the religious leaders in Jerusalem, it’s a decision that reveals His cautious approach and His understanding of the threats against Him. We are told that once His brothers had gone to the feast, Jesus also goes, but “…not openly, but as it were in secret…” This tells us that He traveled discreetly, avoiding the public attention that could lead to a premature confrontation with the authorities. Jesus indeed knew when it was the right time to go to the feast, but how? Through His divine insight and intimate connection with the Father, as mentioned above. This knowledge from the Father guides His actions and ensures that He aligns perfectly with God’s plan at all points. Jesus’ decision to go to the feast in secret shows His ability to navigate the complexities of His mission with divine wisdom and discernment, and by doing so, He continues His ministry without exposing Himself to unnecessary danger before the appointed time.

 

Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

 

As a devout Jew, Jesus was expected to attend the major Jewish festivals, including the Feast of Tabernacles. This obligation was well-known, and the Jewish religious authorities anticipated His presence. Their active search for Jesus at the feast exposes their obsessive intent to seize Him. They saw this as an opportunity to capture Him, given the large gathering and public nature of the event. The question asked generally: “…Where is he?…” suggests that Jesus’ presence or absence was a primary topic of public discussion among the attendees. The anticipation of His arrival created a sense of expectation and not a little tension. But Jesus, aware of the dangers and the authorities’ intentions, did an end run on them and chose to go to the feast “…not openly, but as it were in secret…” This strategic discretion allowed Him to fulfill His obligations and continue His ministry without prematurely falling into the hands of His adversaries. Just as an aside, while societal norms and contexts have changed over the centuries, the fundamental nature of the human heart and its capacity for both good and evil remains constant. Jesus’ experience of being set up—exploitation of mandatory attendance at the feast is certainly that—and of being sought by the authorities highlights the enduring struggle between Light and darkness, a theme that resonates through history and into the present. Our Lord did what He could in His day to change that pattern but was hated and rejected for it and ultimately murdered. The upshot is this: if He couldn’t effect manifest change in that regard, there is no human effort, well-intended or otherwise, that will change it either. It will only change when He comes back and rules with an iron rod and effects a change that will flat out stick.

 

Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?

 

The term “murmuring” or “whispering” suggests that people were discussing Jesus quietly and cautiously. This indicates a level of apprehension and fear about speaking openly due to the presence and potential repercussions from the religious authorities. It was a one-sided fear because the authorities were known to be hostile toward Jesus, and speaking publicly in His favor could lead to serious consequences, including social ostracism or persecution. What is striking is that the crowd was noticeably divided in their opinions about Jesus despite the murmuring. The fact that some were noticeably, that is, audibly, speaking well of Jesus means there must have been a fair number doing so, otherwise that pole in this polarized murmuring going on could not have been heard very well—there wouldn’t have been much of a division if their voices weren’t registered. This pole was at risk for speaking openly in favor of Jesus, it must have outnumbered the other pole because these folks certainly were not speaking up much and speaking loudly that’s for sure, so what they lacked in volume must have been counterbalanced by their numbers. The other pole, not being at risk, probably included plants, and their voices would have been unfettered and quite noticeable. This other pole was probably the minority pole, so they must have been a bit louder to have been registered, which would be consistent with the vocal activity of the proxy-plants. So, what the favorably speaking pole lacked in volume because of fear of speaking, it made up in numbers, which suggests the other pole was the minority pole, which would mean it was a bit louder, which would be consistent with this other pole’s propagandizing modus operandi. We have presented a “what if” here, the bottom line and the thing we can absolutely be sure of is that the murmuring reveals the climate of fear that pervaded the feast. People were very cautious about expressing their views about Jesus openly, particularly views in His favor, knowing that the religious leaders were actively seeking to apprehend Him.

 

And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.

 

7:14-15- A Divine Sync-up

 

14 Now about the midst[45] of the feast Jesus went up into the temple[46], and taught[47]. 15 And the Jews marvelled[48], saying, How knoweth[49] this man letters[50], having never learned[51]? (John 7:14-15)

 

COMMENTARY: “It’s “time.” We are in the midst of the feast, and the appointed time has come this day. The appointed moment has arrived, and we witness the perfect synchronization of CHRONOS (chronological time) and KAIROS (the opportune moment) as Jesus makes His public appearance during the Feast of Tabernacles. His first order of business? His first order of business is teaching, a core aspect of His ministry, as He proclaims God’s Truth and sheds God’s Light. As He proclaims, He teaches. It’s not one or the other, it’s both at once—His proclamations are illuminated by the Light of His teachings (Fig. 2). By waiting until the middle of the feast, Jesus ensures that His appearance and teaching have maximum impact; this timing aligns with the divine plan, allowing our Lord to reach a large audience gathered for the feast. The temple during a major festival was a highly public and influential setting. By teaching there, Jesus ensured that His message reached a wide and diverse audience. His decision to teach publicly in the temple, despite the risks, demonstrates His boldness and authority. Hear Him friend—He speaks with confidence and conviction, knowing that His mission is divinely ordained and that His KAIROS moment has arrived (Fig. 1). His teaching in the temple is highly symbolic; it serves as a direct proclamation of God’s Truth, and His teachings challenge the existing religious norms while offering a deeper understanding of God’s Kingdom. Through His teachings, Jesus shines God’s Light in the darkness, illuminating the spiritual blindness of the people, offering guidance, hope, and a call to repentance. His words resonate with those seeking Truth, while also provoking serious opposition from the religious authorities who see a very “inconvenient” Light shining directly on them.

 

Now about the of the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.

 

And how the Jews marveled as the great Teacher taught. This indicates their hands-down bewilderment at Jesus’ grasp of Scripture and learned teachings per se, despite not having formal rabbinical training. What? That’s right, Jesus attended the “University of Divine Doctrine Up Yonder” (UDDUY), His teachings and knowledge were directly from God, shining divine wisdom and insight, as He Himself says: “…My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me…” An excellent example of Jesus’ early demonstration of wisdom is revealed in Luke 2:46-47. This amazing event took place when Jesus was just twelve years old—even at this young age, He demonstrated remarkable knowledge and understanding, astounding the rabbis and teachers in the temple. This early demonstration of wisdom foreshadows the profound teachings Jesus would later share during His ministry. Let’s just face the facts: Jesus’ wisdom and knowledge came directly from His intimate relationship with the Father, which divine Source set His teachings apart and gave them unparalleled authority and depth. Here’s the rub: Jesus’ profound understanding and authoritative teaching challenged the religious authorities of His time. His ability to interpret and expound upon Scripture, without formal training no less, “showed them up,” so to speak, and as excellent as His teaching was, and noticeably superior to theirs, it posed a direct challenge to their superadded theology and to their established authority. (They didn’t take too kindly to that, that’s why they went headhunting after Jesus, but of course, they convinced themselves they were doing the headhunting for God’s sake, to uphold “His” doctrine. Is there anything new under the sun here?)

 

And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

 

7:16-18- Quintessential Doctrine

 

16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine[52] is not mine, but his that sent[53] me. 17 If any[54] man will do[55] his will[56], he shall know[57] of the doctrine, whether it be[58] of God, or [whether] I speak[59] of myself. 18 He that speaketh[60] of himself seeketh[61] his own glory: but he that seeketh[62] his glory that sent[63] him, the same is true[64], and no unrighteousness[65] is[66] in him. (John 7:16-18)

 

COMMENTARY: Doctrine—what exactly is that? A doctrine is an authoritative set of beliefs and teachings, with emphasis on the word “authoritative.” If there is no authority behind it, then it is not a doctrine in the strict sense. The reader can see where this is going. As a brilliant logician, Jesus knows full well that He must present that authentication to His listeners; it is incumbent upon Him to do so for the sake of His message in particular, and for the sake of His mission more generally, and it is not a coincidence that we find it emphatically put forth right here. This is because, unlike His earlier ministry in Galilee, where He performed miracles and also taught, the Feast of Tabernacles involved Jesus teaching in the heart of Jerusalem, directly challenging the religious authorities and their interpretations. That is why we see it here, it really stands out, and understandably so. In this context, Jesus is referring to the beliefs and teachings that originate from very God the Father, thus the authoritative stamp He presents in His doctrine is precisely Father God. How’s that for authentication? Well, you say, how can we prove that? Jesus’ crucifixion (John 8:28-29), Jesus’ works (John 5:36, 10:30, 37-38), Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3:17), His transfiguration (Matthew 17:5), fulfillment of the prophecies that He Himself put on the lips of His fellow Jewish prophets (Psalms 22:1ff, Isaiah 53:1ff, et al.), perfect scriptural consistency (Old Testament) in His teachings, and the witness of the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). Indeed, Jesus’ doctrine is the Father’s doctrine; they are one and the same. Therefore, the Father’s divine doctrine is precisely what Jesus is teaching—divine principles, wisdom, and very Truth (God’s Reality—His very essence). Jesus’ doctrine is not merely a concoction of zippy and snazzy human ideas that tickle the ears and wow folks for a while, but a hands-down Revelation of Divine Truth. Jesus’ teachings align perfectly with God’s will and purpose—one can truly say He is a Conduit for God’s message, faithfully transmitting the truths that the Father has revealed to Him.

 

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

 

Understanding the divine origin of Jesus’ doctrine, this Divine Truth, is wonderfully experiential; as one lives out God’s will, which presupposes knowing it—Jesus done told us what it is and Paul explicated it—one comes to recognize the truth and divine nature of Jesus’ teachings because His teachings align with the very will of God one has aligned themselves with, revered, and submitted to. In short, one knows “what to look for” because one has been practicing it, and we (believers) get a little help here. It comes across as an inner confirmation of what we hear and see by the God within, the Holy Spirit, who comes to us when we make Jesus Christ the Lord and Master of our lives—that’s a major part of God’s will by the way, faith in Jesus, and following Him. So, we get an inner confirmation—this removes the possibility for misidentification. This inner confirmation is like God’s Law in many ways: His Law is written on every human’s heart and convicts us of our deeds and thoughts over against that Law. For example, sane folks who don’t know God’s Law really don’t have to be told not to go around hating and killing, they fully know that’s wrong—isn’t that an obvious inner confirmation of the Law (cf. Romans 2:14-15)? Just to be clear, our focus here is not on the Law per se, we are just using the Law as an example because it is easy and obvious to correlate this inner confirmation concept against. Paul’s reference to the conscience bearing witness here in Romans aligns with the inner confirmation that Jesus describes—it is not exactly the same, but very close in principle, and that is what we hope to get across, the principle. Recognizing the divine origin of Jesus’ doctrine goes beyond intellectual knowledge to a profound spiritual understanding of inner-confirmed Divine Truth. So, Father God has given us both the standard against which to test the divine origin of Jesus’ doctrine (the Father’s will, our alignment with it), and an inner confirmation that attests to our conclusion (the God within, the Holy Spirit). This Divine Truth coming from Jesus is easy to recognize for someone aligned with God’s will. What we, aligned with God’s will recognize as Divine Truth, then, is what? It is absolute, eternal, and unchanging. It transcends human understanding and is rooted in God’s character and nature, which must be revealed, and which harmonizes with His will that one has been doing—it all fits together real nice and tight and is self-reinforcing as per God’s design. This Divine Truth includes divine principles, wisdom, and “reality” as defined by God. Jesus’ teachings, Scripture, the principles of God’s Kingdom—these are all manifestations of Divine Truth. By contrast, cultural beliefs, human observation, personal experience, scientific inquiry, etc., such as these are not Divine Truth. Why? Because they are context-driven, extremely relative, highly subjective, and certainly temporal. These are not absolute and eternal; they are based on individual or collective understanding and can vary sharply across different cultures and time periods. They come and go with time; they are in no way absolute and eternal. Jesus’ teachings steered completely away from the latter, which is an affirmation of the divine origin of His teachings in itself.

 

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

 

Seeking one’s own glory and speaking of oneself are unrighteous behaviors, rooted in selfishness and pride. Unrighteousness is not consistent with the character and nature of God and hence inconsistent with a doctrine that claims to inculcate Divine Truth. This is Jesus’ argument in this context. Scripture consistently condemns selfish ambition and self-promotion and particularly the pride that motivates them, showing them to be unrighteous attitudes that lead to disorder and sinful, evil practices (Proverbs 8:13, 16:18-19, 27:2, Isaiah 2:11-12, Jeremiah 9:23-24, Matthew 23:5-7, Philippians 2:3-4, James 3:14-16, et al.). Self-promotion involves seeking attention, praise, and recognition for oneself, often driven by pride and personal ambition and the desire for fame or status. In this context, Jesus is pointing out that those who speak of themselves and seek their own glory are unrighteous self-promoters whose doctrine is necessarily inconsistent with the character and nature of righteous Father God and hence His Divine Truth. This self-promotion betrays the authenticity of their teachings, revealing them to be phony and lacking divine authority. We know from Scripture that false prophets sought their own glory and led people astray with false teachings (e.g., Jeremiah 23:16-18). Their motivation was self-promotion or personal interests-promotion rather than a sincere desire to serve God. Not so Jesus. He consistently sought to glorify the Father in all His actions and teachings—it was His “food” as it were to do so (John 4:34). He never sought personal fame or recognition but always pointed to the Father as the Source of His authority and message (John 8:50). The key distinction between divine and phony teachings lies in the motivation behind them. Those who seek their own glory are driven by ambition and self-interest, leading to teachings that are false and lack divine authority. In contrast, those who seek to glorify precisely and singularly God, like Jesus, are motivated by a passion to inculcate Divine Truth, ensuring that their teachings are true and righteous, which is in keeping with the character and nature of the righteous God whose interest they seek to promote. Divine Truth, this doctrine, must come across like that; it must resonate with God’s character and nature. Jesus’ commitment to glorifying the Father authenticates His teachings as true and free from unrighteousness, entirely in keeping with the character and nature of Father God who sent Him down here to the land of sin and sorrow to turn the ship about by inculcating Divine Truth.

 

He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

 

7:19-24- The Lord of the Sabbath

 

19 Did not Moses[67] give[68] you the law[69], and [yet] none of you keepeth[70] the law? Why go[71] ye about to kill[72] me? 20 The people answered[73] and said, Thou hast[74] a devil[75] who goeth about to kill thee? 21 Jesus answered[76] and said unto them, I have done[77] one work, and ye all[78] marvel[79]. 22 Moses therefore gave[80] unto you circumcision[81] (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;)[82] and ye on the sabbath day circumcise[83] a man. 23 If a man on the sabbath day receive[84] circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken[85]; are ye angry[86] at me, because I have made[87] a man every whit whole[88] on the sabbath day? 24 Judge[89] not according to the appearance[90], but judge[91] righteous judgment[92]. (John 7:19-24)

 

COMMENTARY: Jesus highlights the irony that the very people who pride themselves on upholding the Law of Moses are, in fact, failing to keep it. This bold statement right there on their turf quite exposes the religious leaders’ hypocrisy. Jesus’ words drive home the spiritual blindness and moral failure of the religious authorities who are intent on preserving their own status and traditions rather than genuinely following God’s Law. Those traditions folded back on them; they boxed them in—they became so focused on outward compliance with the Law that they neglected the deeper, inner righteousness that God considers to be true Law-keeping. There was a great divide between what they insisted was Law-keeping and what God desired and accepted in that regard. Jesus explains and emphasizes that true obedience to God’s Law involves more than external observance; it requires a heart aligned with God’s will and a sincere pursuit of humility, justice, and mercy (they knew that requirement, no excuses—Micah 6:8—mid eighth century BC). This Law, given by God through Moses, was central to Jewish identity and religious practice, it included ceremonial, civil, and moral laws meant to guide the people in their relationship with God and one another. But despite their reverence for the Law, sort of like reverence for a road sign, the religious leaders failed to uphold its true spirit—it was just a “road sign” that they kept clean and legible and in repair out of a confused, almost idolatrous reverence for it, and were quite happy and satisfied with what they were doing and very proud of themselves for it. They kept it clean and legible and in repair—all these external things—but did not follow the route it pointed to. Case in point—murder: Jesus points out that their attempts to kill Him (!) demonstrate their violation of the very Law they claim to uphold, which prohibits murder and injustice. Jesus’ index finger is pointing directly at these pious frauds as He exposes their false piety here. Their outward appearance of righteousness, like keeping the road sign clean and legible and in repair, is sorely contradicted by their actions and intentions, revealing a deeper issue of the heart—they do not follow the route the road sign points to. Jesus wants them, wants all of us, to move beyond superficial adherence to the Law, indeed, beyond religiosity, and embrace true righteousness that seeks to glorify God and align with His will (follow the road sign, don’t just admire it and keep it clean). By making this bold declaration, Jesus, in so many words, tells the religious authorities to examine their own hearts and actions and pursue a more authentic relationship with God. And notice please—He has exposed them to all the listeners present and simultaneously taught the general audience sound doctrine and its practice. “Keepeth” just below means what we have just discussed.

 

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?

 

There is probably an element of disappointment and dismay in Jesus’ words when He points out the irony and injustice of the situation: they accuse Him of breaking the Law by healing on the Sabbath, yet they themselves are planning a far greater transgression by seeking to take His life. Healing versus killing—that’s about as thick of an irony as imaginable.

 

Why go ye about to kill me?

 

What is the typical reaction when a proud fool gets exposed and humbled? It’s sort of like ‘…you do me I do you sucker…’ That’s what comes next in our context, namely, character assassination and through that attempted credibility trashing. The former is the ‘…I do you…’ part, the latter is the face-saving part. By accusing Jesus of being possessed, they are directly attacking His character, His sanity basically, and once that is destroyed, so is His credibility—thus His expository accusations are meaningless if they can pull it off. In this Jewish context, being possessed by a devil was the ultimate accursedness, associated with being unclean and under the influence of evil forces, which would hands-down discredit any claim or teaching Jesus made. By questioning our Lord’s sanity and accusing Him of being possessed they flat out aim to undermine His accusatory statement and, not least, avoid addressing their sinfulness and true intentions to in fact kill Him. The crowd’s reaction at this point reflects a mix of confusion, denial, and hostility toward Jesus’ accusations and teachings. They likely echoed the sentiments and accusations propagated by the religious leaders, indicating not a little misunderstanding and rejection of Jesus at that time.

 

The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?

 

Notice how Jesus does not play the same ‘do me do you’ low-plane game. He does not directly engage the insult, thus avoiding getting bogged down in a hopeless defensive argument that could turn ugly (on their end) and look and sound quite bad in the eyes and ears of all the folks watching and listening which would seriously damage and detract from His divine message which in turn would pretty much end His mission as a flop. Instead, Jesus takes a positive position in the argument and turns attention to His gracious miracle. His strategy is brilliant and a winner, as follows: by pointing out how they marveled at His works, Jesus is reaffirming His divine authority and the legitimacy of His actions—through them no less. His miracles, such as healing on the Sabbath, demonstrate His power and connection to God, which should be undeniable evidence of His Godly character and divine mission. That directly confronts the character assassination and credibility sabotage they were doing. But He also subtly exposes their hypocrisy—this is the clever offensive aspect to Jesus’ argument, like so. They cannot deny the miraculous nature of His deeds, in fact they marvel, yet, they seek to discredit Him based on legalistic interpretations of the Sabbath Law, which accusation they hold tight-fisted to. They admit the Sabbath-healing miracle and marvel on the one hand and condemn it and discredit Jesus on the other because He violated their interpretation of Sabath rest—that’s hypocrisy fueled by an inflated sense of rightness. So, in Jesus’ response, He avoids getting suckered into a hopeless, potentially very damaging argument with them, He re-establishes His character and credibility, and He actually manages to further expose their hypocrisy. It’s flat-out brilliant how He did this. His response is masterful in turning the situation around, it’s a thing of beauty. He deflects the baseless accusation and uses it as a pivot point—an opportunity to establish His credibility and reinforce His message and mission. Jesus’ move here shows a manner of brilliance and self-control that cannot be taught—ya’ either got it or ya’ don’t. Gotta’ whole lotta’ got in these here nine not so little words…

 

Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.

 

Now comes another masterstroke of reasoning—it’s like Jesus has put them in a (theo)logic vise and the squeeze is on. His logic, anchored by Truth, is inescapable, infallible, and irrefutable; there is no way to defeat that vise-grip. Jesus points out that the practice of circumcision predates Moses (who is a symbol of the Law) and originates from the patriarchs, particularly, Abraham, which He does to reveal the continuity and deeper significance of the practice beyond mere legalistic adherence—a key point that sets the tone for Jesus’ entire argument, a most elegant way to begin. Then He points out that circumcision is performed on the Sabbath to fulfill the Law of Moses, showing that certain works are permitted on the Sabbath to maintain covenantal obligations. Whoa, say what? That permission is nowhere in Scripture, where did it come from? The permission to perform circumcision on the Sabbath stems from their (rabbinic) interpretation of covenantal importance—we need to tuck that away. Circumcision was a sign of the Covenant between God and the descendants of Abraham, as originally established in Genesis 17:9-14. It was so critical that it was to be performed on the eighth day (Leviticus 12:3), even if that day fell on the Sabbath—thus said the rabbis. Over time, Jewish tradition and rabbinic interpretations prioritized the covenantal significance of circumcision over the Sabbath rest to ensure adherence to this covenantal commandment. With that in mind, Jesus compares circumcision, which involves a minor procedure, to His act of making a person completely whole (the grammar implies body, soul, spirit, consummate wholeness). Now comes the punch line—if they accept circumcision, that act/work, on the Sabbath, how can they logically oppose a more significant act of healing that restores a person’s well-being, which well-being is entirely consistent with God’s will for humankind? Their rebuttal would essentially claim that Jesus’ act of healing is less important than the covenantal requirement of circumcision, as we can infer from their prioritization of the covenantal command over the Sabbath law and their condemnation of Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath—the former can be done on the Sabbath, the latter is condemned for being done on the Sabbath, therefore the former (covenantal circumcision on the Sabbath, allowed, not condemned) is of relatively more importance than the latter (healing someone on the Sabbath, disallowed, condemned), in their estimation. What’s wrong with that picture? For starters, who are they to prioritize anything that God has instituted? The Covenant, which is narrower and has only them in view originally, is more important than the Sabbath, which is overarching, and has humankind in view, or the Sabbath is more important than the Covenant, which is it? Did God tell them which way to go? They/we need to see it explicitly in His Word to know for sure when it comes to important matters such as God’s institutions, do we not? That said, their flaky prioritization is amiss because they subjugate the will of God for humankind (compassion, justice, love, mercy toward humankind and one to another) to their legalistic norms. They got it wrong, and are we surprised? No way, because they had no divine guidance that guided their prioritization—and if they thought that they did have it, they got hoodwinked. Here’s the thing, the spirit of the Law (righteousness, etc.) and the letter of the Law (rules, rules, rules) are at loggerheads constantly with these people, they constantly stumble over the fact that the spirit of the Law is the will of God, period; righteousness not rules, which they cannot keep anyway, though they try to their credit; they just flat out don’t get it and/or will not accept that fact. By drawing this comparison, Jesus exposes their hypocrisy, inconsistent logic, and misplaced priority—they cannot refute His reasoning without undermining their own practices bottom line—that is a textbook lock-tight argument. Jesus’ ability to turn their accusations against them with such lock-tight logic not only defends His actions but also draws attention to the true spirit of the law—He is not just trying to win an argument, He is going somewhere with this consistent with His message and mission: compassion and mercy over legalistic rigidity. Let’s restate our Lord’s brilliant argument as we wrap up this snippet: If they can perform a minor surgical procedure on the Sabbath (which breaks the “do no work” Sabbath rest law) to uphold the covenantal law of circumcision per their estimation of the relative importance of the two laws (Sabbath, Covenant), it logically follows that healing a whole person on the Sabbath should be even more acceptable in keeping with God’s will which itself resonates with the spirit of the Law. Q.E.D. for Jesus.

 

Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken [Leviticus 12:3]; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

 

Jesus’ circumcision argument is a concrete example of how legalistic interpretations can lead to inconsistencies and hypocrisy. He used this brilliant argument to make clear to His listeners the importance of judging righteously in concert with the spirit of the Law—healing is more important than circumcision is a righteous judgment according to the spirit of the Law. Jesus is emphasizing the importance of embracing the true spirit of the Law, which is His focus here, dear to His heart, and central to His message. He moves seamlessly from this specific circumcision example and the righteous judgment failure inherent in it to the broader principle of righteous judgment itself, which He now explicitly spells out. This transition adds another layer to His central theme: prioritizing the spirit of the Law over superficial appearances (keeping the road sign clean, legible, in repair, these external, surface-deep things, these superficialities). The transition from the circumcision argument to the exhortation about judgment is seamless, as both points emphasize the need for deeper understanding, compassion, and alignment with God’s will embodied in the spirit of the Law. In essence, Jesus’ teaching now moves from a specific example (circumcision on the Sabbath) to a broader principle (righteous judgment), with the goal of buttressing His central theme of prioritizing the spirit of the law over superficial appearances (walk the paths to which the road sign points).

 

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

 

7:25-36- Divine Proclamation and Human Skepticism, Mockery

 

25 Then said[93] some of them of Jerusalem[94], Is not this he, whom they seek[95] to kill[96]? 26 But, lo, he speaketh[97] boldly[98], and they say[99] nothing unto him. Do the rulers know[100] indeed that this is the very Christ[101]? 27 Howbeit we know[102] this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh[103], no man knoweth[104] whence he is . 28 Then cried[105] Jesus in the temple as he taught[106], saying[107], Ye both know[108] me, and ye know[109] whence I am[110] and I am not come[111] of myself, but he that sent[112] me is true, whom ye know[113] not. 29 But I know[114] him: for I am from him, and he hath sent[115] me. 30 Then they sought[116] to take[117] him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come[118]. 31 And many[119] of the people[120] believed[121] on him, and said, When Christ cometh[122], will he do more miracles[123] than these which this [man] hath done[124]? 32 The Pharisees[125] heard[126] that the people murmured[127] such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers[128] to take[129] him. 33 Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you[130], and [then] I go[131] unto him that sent[132] me. 34 Ye shall seek[133] me, and shall not find[134] [me]: and where I am[135], [thither] ye cannot come[136]. 35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go[137], that we shall not find[138] him? will he go[139] unto the dispersed[140] among the Gentiles[141], and teach[142] the Gentiles? 36 What [manner of] saying is this that he said[143], Ye shall seek me, and shall not find [me]: and where I am, [thither] ye cannot come? (John 7:25-36)

 

COMMENTARY: The crowd attending the feast in Jerusalem was a mixed bag so to speak, a motley crowd. There were certainly individuals who acted as informants or supporters of the religious authorities. They were aware of the plot to kill Jesus and were involved in it. These folks played a significant role in relaying information and stirring public opinion against Jesus besides their active participation in the plot. Then there was no doubt many people in the crowd who were unaware of the plot altogether; they were just regular attendees of the feast, and their knowledge of the tension between Jesus and the religious leaders was limited. At first glance, the folks here speaking come across as confused and less informed about Jesus, but it seems more likely that they are antagonistic individuals influenced by the religious leaders and serving their interests. They are trying to cast doubt on Jesus’ legitimacy by emphasizing the supposed inconsistency of His origins with their concocted expectations of Messiah’s origins. Origin is a tricky word, it can mean “from,” as in the place where one is reared but not necessarily born, or again, it can mean “from,” as in the specific place where one is born but not necessarily reared. They stress that no one could know Messiah’s origins to cast doubt on Jesus’ Messianic claims, a deliberate dagger, but notice, they focus on the “reared” aspect of Jesus’ origins, which they put forth as Nazareth | Galilee (where He was in fact reared, but not born), and not the “birth” aspect of Jesus origins, which is Bethlehem in keeping with Micah 5:2, which latter fact they leapfrog to strengthen their propagandizing aimed at discrediting Jesus. Based on that, let alone the other clues, it seems reasonable to interpret this group as being aligned with the religious leaders, thus representing the malice and opposition prevalent among the religious authorities and their supporters.

 

Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ [=Messiah]? Howbeit we know this man whence he is [“despicable” Nazareth | Galilee]: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is [oops, Micah 5:2 exposes them].

 

It naturally It follows that Jesus would clarify His identity to a mixed crowd comprised of aggressive antagonists, skeptics, and supporters. He states that His listeners indeed know Him, referring to their mundane, everyday knowledge of Him. They know about His carpentry work, His family, where He grew up, and other general information about His life, specifically in Nazareth. This is the kind of knowledge that they have of Jesus—His human origins and background. He implies that the knowledge of His birth in Bethlehem should be known as well, even though that would have been overshadowed by the propaganda of the religious leaders.

 

…Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am…

 

Having established the listeners’ knowledge of His human side (they would have been reflecting and connecting those dots—that was one of Jesus’ goals here, to get them thinking about His human side), Jesus then contrasts that with their lack of understanding of His divine side, particularly His divine origin and mission. He set up this sharp contrast for communicative effect and impact. Jesus’ goal was to set the stage for unpacking the deeper, spiritual truth about His identity and the reason for the opposition against Him. He utilized this contrast vehicle like a double-screened drive-in movie theater for clarity, effect, and impact. The drive-in theater is showing that although the crowd knows Jesus in a mundane sense—that’s what is playing on the left screen—they do not truly know His Father who sent Him. The Father and Divine Truth are playing on the right screen. This split-screen distinction is crucial because it speaks to the divine authority and mission that Jesus carries and shoulders, respectively. It implies that the plot to kill Him is rooted in precisely this lack of true knowledge and understanding highlighted by the difference between what’s playing on two different screens at the drive-in theater. If the plotters truly knew God, if they were watching the right screen, they would recognize Jesus as His Son and would not conspire to kill Him—who would wittingly “kill God” or His Son? By drawing this contrast, Jesus is not only asserting His divine origin and mission but also pointing out the spiritual blindness and ignorance of those who oppose Him (they’re not interested in what’s playing on the Father’s right screen). This lack of recognition of Jesus’ true identity and mission is hands-down the fundamental reason for the conflict and hostility He faces. It speaks to us in our day, does it not? It tells us that it is important to understand both Jesus’ human and divine aspects to fully grasp His integrated identity and the weighty implications of the God-Man’s teachings.

 

…and I am not come of myself [not Jesus’ initiative], but he that sent me [Father God] is true [Divine Truth, quintessential Reality], whom ye know not [left screen oriented]. But I know him [right screen oriented]: for I am from him [Holy Spirit conceived, God incarnate], and he hath sent me [thus the Godhead agreed in eternity past, a threefold work]…

 

Jesus‘ declaration about being sent by the Father triggered a heated reaction from those who opposed Him to put it mildly. His statement about His divine origin and mission (that He was sent by Father God, His Father) directly challenged the authority and understanding of the religious leaders and those influenced by them—it “floored them” because He spoke directly at them on their turf. This claim was considered blasphemous by them, as it implied equality with God—but of course, that was the whole point of His declaration, but they were drive-in theater left-screen oriented and fixated (…that lowly dreamer from up yonder in Galilee, everbybody knows him, who’s he kiddng…). So, the opposition’s immediate reaction was to seize Jesus (typical low-browed human reaction when the prospect of loss is great—hey ya’ll, let’s just kill him…). His words were provocative and directly “busted up” their beliefs, igniting their anger (and fear, it was multifaceted but centered on Jesus’ evident authoritative presence and growing influence). They saw Jesus as a threat to their authority and power bottom line; to put it in everyday terms, they were fired up and ready to get after it, to get after Him. But, despite their angry intention to waylay Jesus “…no man laid hands on him…” because, because why? Because “…his hour was not yet come…” This inaction indicates clearly that the Divine Providence was at work, plain and simple. God’s plan and timing were in control, and it was not yet the appointed time for Jesus to be arrested and crucified. This inaction and hesitancy must be attributed to divine intervention, ensuring that events unfolded according to God’s timetable. This is a pivotal moment, this opposition’s turn from inaction to action that is; on the one hand it frames the tension between Jesus’ divine mission and the opposition He faced because of it, and on the other it makes clear the sovereignty of God’s plan—Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion would happen at the appointed time, not a moment sooner. We have talked about that before, as “KAIROS time.” The KAIROS moments in Jesus’ life and ministry are those pivotal instances where God’s timing and purpose are clear and evident. Not only was the incarnate Jesus constrained by divine timing, but external events that affected Him were similarly constrained by divine timing, ensuring that all events unfolded according to God’s sovereign plan—God wants us to understand that He is totally in control, in Jesus’ life as per this context, and in ours and in general—precisely because He is Willing and Able. Jesus, in His incarnation, operated within the constraints of KAIROS, but not just as concerns His actions, teachings, etc., that is, from the “inside out,” but also from the “outside in,” that is, things that affected Him and impacted His ministry—even the opposition He faced—were all within the framework of God’s opportune moments (KAIROS in shoe leather). It means that KAIROS also guides the Divine Providence (this should be intuitively obvious). God’s plan unfolds in orderly (not entropic), precise, opportune moments, ensuring that everything happens at the right time and in the right place. This divine orchestration is evident in how Jesus’ ministry progressed from Bethlehem to Golgotha. So, Jesus’ assertion of being sent by the Father triggered a heated reaction. The opposition’s intention to seize Him shows the immediate impact of His declaration, but their inability to act highlights the KAIROS moment where God’s timing flat prevents premature action. This KAIROS moment is what led to the opposition’s’ confusion and inaction basically. Understanding KAIROS helps us to see the divine orchestration in Jesus’ ministry and in the broader envelope of God’s plan. It helps us to recognize the significance of divine timing in our own lives too by the way—and to trust in God’s Providence.

 

Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.

 

It seems quite likely that a significant portion of those who believed in Jesus during the feast were Galileans. Jesus performed many of His miracles and spent significant time teaching up yonder in Galilee before coming to Jerusalem for the feast. It makes sense that people from Galilee, who had already witnessed His works and heard His teachings, are referenced here. Given the diversity of the crowd at such a large feast, there would have been people from various regions, including Galilee, after all, this was a pilgrimage feast. These Galileans would have shared their experiences with others, contributing to the belief among the people. This blending of attendees—city slickers from Jerusalem, country folks, and pilgrims from regions like Galilee—makes clear the widespread impact of Jesus’ ministry and the growing recognition of His miracles and teachings (for many among them believed we are told), the very thing the religious leaders dreaded. The comparison of these miracles to those expected from the coming Messiah (the Christ) can be seen as an expression of Jesus’ authenticity and divine authority. The Jewish people at the time had long awaited the promised Messiah, and there were certain expectations and prophecies about the works and miracles the Messiah would perform which is referenced in this context. By witnessing Jesus’ miracles, many people began to question if anyone else could possibly do greater works than He had done. This comparison to the ultimate standard—the prophesied miracles of the Messiah—served as a significant point of validation for those who believed in Jesus. They saw His miraculous acts as clear evidence that He was indeed the Christ they had been waiting for. (Any guesses who’s not going to like that fact very much? Yup, you got it, the headhunters. And how did word get back to the headhunter religious leaders? Yup, you got it, the Jerusalemite proxies.)

 

And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?

 

The murmuring of the people would have been hard to miss, as the feast was a major event with a large gathering of people from different regions. The religious leaders, bent on maintaining their authority and control, likely had informants and supporters sprinkled among the crowd who relayed information back to them. The growing belief among the people posed a significant threat to the religious authorities, so the ‘ol boys sent their temple guards, or “officers,” to arrest Jesus. Things are heating up.

 

The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him [miracles, He is the Christ, etc.]; and the Pharisees [serpents, generation of vipers Matthew 23:33] and the chief priests [ditto] sent officers to take him.

 

Jesus, through divine insight, was aware of the intentions of the religious leaders to “take,” i.e., kill Him, which prompted His declaration about His imminent departure. The Feast of Passover is a short six months away, at which time His KAIROS moment in its fullest sense will put Him on the Cross. His words about going to the One who sent Him and the inability of the people to find Him afterward are part of His prophetic message—stressing the limited time left for people to recognize and accept Him. His departure words are meant to isolate and make clear the spiritual significance of His mission and the urgency of belief. They also portend the spiritual separation from Him that awaits those who reject Him—not just the religious leaders, but all who fall into the camp of disbelief.

 

Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come.

 

The Jews respond not with urgency but with mockery, showing just how far they were from understanding Jesus’ identity, message, and mission. Notice how they sarcastically suggest that He would go to the Gentiles, a move they consider unlikely and “beneath” a true Jewish teacher, as Jews typically avoided contact with Gentiles (this avoidance would preclude finding Him as they infer). Their mockery contrasts with the deeper truths Jesus is conveying about His imminent return to the Father and the spiritual consequences for those who reject Him—they make sport of it. Here is a poignant example of how misunderstanding and, on the heels of that, mockery often accompany profound spiritual truths.

 

Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?

 

7:37-39- A Standing Invitation

 

37 In the last day, that great [day] of the feast[144], Jesus stood[145] and cried[146], saying[147], If any man thirst[148], let him come[149] unto me, and drink[150]. 38 He that believeth[151] on me, as the scripture[152] hath said[153], out of his belly[154] shall flow[155] rivers of living water[156]. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit,[157] which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified[158].) (John 7:37-39)

 

COMMENTARY: It is likely that some time passed between the mockery from the Jews and Jesus’ proclamation in the temple on the last day of the feast. We are not given explicit details about the exact timeline or location shifts, but it is likely that the events took place over several days during the feast.

 

…In the last day, that great day of the feast Jesus stood and cried, saying…

 

It brings us to the central verses of John seven. There is importance and profundity all up and down and throughout this chapter, but these verses are central. In them is an invitation to all for manifest spiritual fulfillment through the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit—the God Within—all alike stemming from tethering oneself to Jesus Christ. They comprise a stripped-down version of the Gospel—the Good News—soon to be declared in its full. It’s an incipient version of the Gospel, and how fitting that the One on whom the Gospel is centered should deliver this first not so little Gospel-sermon. The profound nature of this first outright Gospel-sermon cuts to the heart of Jesus’ message and mission, as expected, along these lines:

 

• It highlights the transition from sacraments, i.e., physical rituals (such as the water-drawing ceremony of this feast happening on this last day on which Jesus is here speaking) to the spiritual reality that Jesus offers (Holy Spirit, relationship with God, inner and outer renewal/transformation, Salvation—life eternal in the presence of God, etc.; all sacraments find their fulfillment in Jesus).
• It declares the transformative power of belief in Jesus, which brings not only personal fulfillment but also an outpouring of the Spirit that impacts others.
• It vividly illustrates the essence of Jesus’ ministry, namely, eternal life, spiritual renewal, intimate relationship with God.
• It bears out Jesus’ fulfillment of Old testament prophecies (Isaiah 12:3, 44:3, 55:1, Ezekiel 47:1-12, Joel 2:28-29).

 

If any man [anyone] thirst [deep longing or yearning for spiritual fulfillment, connection with God, and inner peace], let him come unto me [Jesus Christ, and Him only], and drink [trust Him, believe that He will give you spiritual fulfillment and eternal life John 4:13-14—it cannot be overstated that Jesus Christ is the focal point here—grab His pierced hand and start believing in Him, like right now]. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said [indeed, as long ago foretold], out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water [you will see happening what you are longing for spiritually—fulfillment, connection with God, inner peace—the God Within, the promised Holy Spirit will do this and much more].

 

Jesus‘ reference to “rivers of living water” is clarified for us: He is speaking specifically about the Holy Spirit. At that time, the Holy Spirit had not yet been given to believers because Jesus had not yet been glorified—meaning He had not yet gone through His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension.

 

But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified [John 16:7].

 

7:40-44- Unwarranted Disputations

 

40 Many of the people[159] therefore, when they heard[160] this saying[161], said, Of a truth this is the Prophet[162]. 41 Others said, This is the Christ[163]. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee[164]? 42 Hath not the scripture said,[165] That Christ cometh of the seed of David[166], and out of the town of Bethlehem[167], where David was? 43 So there was a division[168] among the people because of him. 44 And some of them would have taken[169] him; but no man laid hands on him[170]. (John 7:40-44)

 

COMMENTARY: Yes, many believed in Jesus as pointed out earlier, but that belief was split between two different prophetic anticipations. This shows what Jesus was facing beyond the opposition from the religious leaders—fundamental misunderstandings and lack of knowledge of Scripture among the people, leading to division and debate. One cannot attribute this division solely to the opposition’s efforts, though they certainly encouraged it, but rather to the people’s ignorance and misunderstanding of Scripture. The conflicting opinions reveal the depth of the confusion, and the challenge Jesus faced in being recognized for His true identity without a full understanding of His background and the prophecies. The living water claim by Jesus sparked the division, as the people struggled to reconcile Jesus’ fulfillment of both the prophetic roles mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15 (the Prophet) and the Messianic prophecies (the Christ). Misunderstandings about Jesus’ birthplace added to this confusion, as some failed to recognize that He was indeed born in Bethlehem, fulfilling Micah’s Messianic prophecy (Micah 5:2). We can be sure that this confusion was exploited by Jesus’ opponents in every conceivable way. It should draw our attention to the importance of knowing the full context of Jesus’ life and the prophecies concerning Him before walking away from His claims, let alone to be equipped as sound apologists.

 

Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him.

 

The fact that no one laid hands on Jesus, despite the division and hostility, makes clear yet again God’s divine protection and timing (we saw it in John 7:30, and here in John 7:44). It wasn’t yet the appointed time for Jesus to be taken. This verse demonstrates another pivotal moment in Jesus’ ministry, where God’s plan and timing prevail over human intentions. It reflects the opportune moments (KAIROS) where divine intervention tracks with Jesus’ mission. The division among the people and their attempts to seize Jesus indicate the growing tension and opposition He faced, yet, God’s timing ensured that His mission would proceed exactly according to the divine plan.

 

And some of them would have taken him [he religious leaders are a constant source of opposition, inciting and manipulating the crowd, but the attempts to seize Jesus right here must be put on the general populace; it shows us the complexity and intensity of the situation Jesus faced, with confusion and division among the people, spurred on by the religious leaders]; but no man laid hands on him [God has the capacity to intervene in human affairs; Jesus’ mission was unique and of utmost importance, necessitating direct and visible divine intervention to ensure the fulfillment of God’s plan].

 

7:45-49- Accusations by the Chief Priests

 

45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought[171] him? 46 The officers answered, Never man spake[172] like this man. 47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived[173]? 48 Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed[174] on him? 49 But this people who knoweth[175] not the law[176] are cursed[177]. (John 7:45-49)

 

COMMENTARY: The officers, likely temple guards, probably weren’t formally trained in speaking or theological matters. Their primary responsibilities would have been maintaining order and carrying out orders from the religious authorities. However, the profound impact of Jesus’ words was so strong that even these men, with their largely practical and pragmatic duties, recognized the exceptional nature of His speech. This tells us that Jesus’ teachings were compelling and relatable enough to reach those without formal speaking qualifications. It speaks volumes about the power and authority with which Jesus spoke, convincing even those not typically engaged in theological discourse. The Greek word LALEW utilized in the text emphasizes the delivery and manner of speech rather than the content itself. This suggests that Jesus’ way of speaking—His authority, tone, and presence—had a profound impact on those who heard Him. It wasn’t just what He said, though that was profound, but how He said it that captivated and moved folks, including the temple officers. Jesus’ ability to communicate effectively and powerfully is emphasized frequently in the gospels, and in this context, we see that His delivery was so compelling that it could sway even those who were sent to arrest Him. So, the officers were sent to arrest Jesus, but they returned empty-handed, and the religious leaders were not only frustrated and perturbed about that, but also perplexed by the officers’ failure to bring Jesus in as ordered.

 

Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man [Deuteronomy 18:18-19, Isaiah 50:4, 61:1-2]

 

The Pharisees’ response is derogatory and condescending. Their frustration is noticeably thick, and they try to discredit both the officers and the people by implying that anyone who believes in Jesus is either deceived or ignorant of the Law. Essentially, they are saying that only those without proper understanding or status (plebians, unlearned fools) could be taken in by Jesus’ teachings. This betrays their deep-seated arrogance and disdain not only for Jesus but also for the common people who were drawn to His message. Their response makes quite clear their belief that the common people were inferior and lacking in understanding (Matthew 9:36). This kind of rhetoric was meant to assert their authority and dismiss any legitimacy Jesus might have had in the eyes of the public and the officers to whom they spoke.

 

Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him [Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea (!)]? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed [the Pharisees, in their arrogance, believed that the common people, who did not have the same level of knowledge and understanding of the Law as they did, were thus cursed and inferior—that’s what they read into Deuteronomy 27:26].

 

7:50-53- Silencing the Chief Priests

 

50 Nicodemus[178] saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them) 51 Doth our law judge[179] [any] man, before it hear[180] him, and know what he doeth? 52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search[181], and look[182]: for out of Galilee ariseth[183] no prophet[184]. 53 And every man went[185] unto his own house. (John 7:50-53)

 

COMMENTARY: Nicodemus was a Pharisee and member of the very powerful Sanhedrin, which was the highest Jewish decision-making body on matters legal, political, religious, and social. It was comprised of chief priests (largely Sadducees) and Pharisees. He had previously met Jesus at night (John 3:1-2), but why at night? He was moved by Jesus’ teachings and ultimately became a staunch follower, but at that time, he was quite cautious about openly associating with Jesus, given the potential backlash from fellow religious leaders. In this context, Nicodemus speaks up during a meeting of the Sanhedrin in defense of Jesus—quite a contrast to his earlier caution. Given the growing influence of Jesus and the tension surrounding Him, it’s reasonable to infer that the Sanhedrin convened to address this “Jesus-problem” and determine their course of action. Nicodemus’ role here is crucial because it shows that not all religious leaders were entirely against Jesus. We know of at least two who had come to faith in Jesus—Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea—were both open-minded and willing to question their peers and seek the truth.

 

Nicodemus saith unto them, he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them…

 

Nicodemus‘ defense was based on the legal precedent established in the Torah that requires a fair hearing before passing judgment (Deuteronomy 1:16-17, 19:15). By invoking these principles, Nicodemus is advocating for due process and fair treatment, reminding his fellow Sanhedrin members of the legal standards set forth in their own scriptures.

 

Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?

 

The response of the religious leaders shows again their condescending and mocking self-defense when exposed and faced with undeniable truths. Their reaction here stands in stark contrast to the genuine piety and humility that religious leaders inculcating and representing true religion should manifest (Micah 6:8, James 1:27). By attempting to undermine Nicodemus with a sarcastic slur about Galilee, they reveal their own biases and insecurities. Their dismissive retort aims to discredit Nicodemus by suggesting he must be misguided or ignorant if he’s defending someone from Galilee, a region they scornfully regarded as unworthy of producing prophets. This further exposes their hypocrisy and resistance to the truth that Jesus and, in this instance, Nicodemus presented.

 

They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.

 

We are presented with what appears to be an abrupt conclusion to the matter. It hints at a heated and inconclusive debate. The members, unable to reach a unified decision, ultimately dispersed, each returning to their own homes. The division and lack of resolution bring to the fore the growing complexity and challenge Jesus posed to the established religious order. Even within the highest decision-making body, Jesus’ influence was stirring significant unrest and uncertainty. This is precisely the effect He sought to achieve (Matthew 10:34). The “sword” Jesus brought symbolizes the division and conflict that arise when individuals are confronted with the Truth of His teachings. People must make a conscious decision about their allegiances and beliefs, which can lead to passionate disagreement, much tension, and fierce, even violent opposition. Jesus’ presence and message challenge the established norms and call for a profound transformation in how people understand their relationship with God and each other. This often leads to heated debates and significant unrest. We should not be shocked when we see it, because it is precisely as designed and intended.

 

And every man went unto his own house.

 

Praised be your Name in all the earth Lord Jesus. Amen.

 

Illustrations and Tables

Figure 1. Hear Ye Come Ye to the Fountain  (see legend below).

Legend

• Jerusalem Temple: Central to the scene, the location of the action, of engaging Jesus, Jesus’ teachings.

• Jesus Teaching: Jesus standing, crying out authoritatively and boldly addressing a quite motley crowd, consistent with His public ministry per se.

• Feast of Tabernacles: Depictions of festive elements like booths and celebrations, marking the occasion (not clearly shown).

• A Divided Crowd: Groups of people, friend and foe, country folks, Jerusalemites, varied facial expressions, mixed reactions to Jesus, again consistent with His public ministry per se.

• Living Water: Flowing streams in the background, symbolizing Jesus’ proclamation about the living water of the Holy Spirit.

 

• Religious Leaders: Figures in traditional garments discussing and plotting, representing the Pharisees and chief priests.

• Temple Guards: On the periphery, near the religious leaders, hesitant to arrest Jesus—admittedly awestruck by Him—of whom they had no inclination whatsoever to think well of, just the opposite, per their bosses’ propaganda.

• Lamb | horn: Symbolizes the sacrificial aspect of our Savior as the “Lamb of God” who takes away the sins of the world. The horn is a symbol of strength and authority, reflecting Jesus’ powerful teachings and the impact He had on those who heard Him. This combination of the lamb and horn captures both Jesus’ sacrificial role and His divine authority, it lifts out and puts emphasis on Jesus’ significance in the events described in John chapter seven.

 

Figure 2. IFIC The Hallmarks of Good Teaching. Jesus taught like that.

 

Figure 3. Participles Enhance Meaning and Flow.

Figure 4. Pluperfect Timeline.

 

 

Works Cited and References

 

“A Letter of Invitation.”

Jesus, Amen.

< http://jesusamen.org/aletterofinvitation.html >

Blue Letter bible.

Study tools.

< https://blueletterbible.org >

“Dispensation of the Holy Spirit.”

Ernest Angley Ministries.

< https://ernestangley.org/read/article/dispensation_of_the_holy_spirit >

“Galilee: “History, Importance to Jesus.”

BibleStudyTools.

< https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/what-is-the-history-of-galilee-and-why-was-it-important-to-jesus.html >

“He Who Sent Me.”

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/he-who-sent-me/ >

Henry, Matthew.

Commentary on John Chapter Seven.

< http://blb.sc/002cxz >

“Hoshana Rabbah.”

Hebrew for Christians.

< https://hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Fall_Holidays/Hoshana_Rabbah/HoshanaRabbah.pdf >

Isaiah Chapter Fifty-five Commentary.

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/isaiah-chapter-fifty-five-commentary/ >

“John Chapter Three Commentary.”

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/john-chapter-three-commentary/ >

“John Chapter Four Commentary.”

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/john-chapter-four-commentary/ >

“John Chapter Five Commentary.”

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/john chapter five commentary >

“John Chapter Six Commentary.”

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/john-chapter-six-commentary/ >

“Judea: Its Geographical and Historical Role in the Bible.”

DivineNarratives.

< https://divinenarratives.org/judea-its-geographical-and-historical-role-in-the-bible/ >

“Matthew Chapter Twenty-three Commentary.”

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/matthew-chapter-twenty-three-commentary/ >

Microsoft Copilot.

February 2025 (data gathering, grammar analysis, image generation, logical consistency, general research).

Proof for Jesus’ Miracles Outside the bible.”

Evidence for Christianity.

< https://evidenceforchristianity.org/is-there-any-proof-outside-the-bible-that-jesus-performed-miracles/ >

“Second Temple Quick Facts, Fascinating Overview.

BibleHistoryMaps.

< https://biblestorymaps.com/blog/quick-facts-about-herods-temple-a-fascinating-overview >

“Second Temple of Jerusalem (Herod’s Temple).”

FactsandDetails.

< https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub351/entry-5715.html >

“Serial Position Effect.

Simply Psychology.

< https://www.simplypsychology.org/primacy-recency.html >

“Simchat Beit HaShoeivah.”

Wikipedia

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simchat_Beit_HaShoeivah >

“The Birth of Messiah.”

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/the-birth-of-messiah/ >

“What Bible did Jesus Use?”

BibleStudyTools.

< https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/tips/what-bible-did-jesus-use-11638841.html >

 

Notes

Words under study are emphasized and the immediate context before and after the words under study is bracketed […].

 

[1] Greek and English tenses, voices, and moods often have similar functions, but they don’t always correlate directly.

• Tense

Greek: Greek tenses like aorist, present, and imperfect convey not only time but also aspect (the type of action, such as simple, continuous, or completed).

 

English: English tenses primarily focus on time (past, present, future) and sometimes aspect (simple, progressive, perfect), but they are generally less nuanced than Greek tenses.

 

• Voice

Greek: Greek has three voices: active, middle, and passive. The middle voice, which can indicate reflexive or reciprocal action, is not always present in English.

 

English: English mainly uses active and passive voices. The concept of the middle voice is often conveyed through reflexive pronouns—formed by adding “self”—e.g., myself, herself, himself, itself, etc. (‘…she looked at herself in the mirror…’) or through context.

 

• Mood

Greek: Greek moods include indicative (statement of fact—primary use, direct questions—less often), subjunctive (potential or hypothetical), optative (wish or potential—found largely in classical Greek texts dating from 9^th-6^th century BC, rare in biblical Greek), and imperative (command).

 

English: English moods include indicative (statement of fact—primary use, direct questions—less often), subjunctive (used less frequently, often in hypothetical or wishful contexts), and imperative (command).

 

So, while there are similarities, Greek is grammatically richer, i.e., much more nuanced, especially in expressing aspect and voice. English tends to focus more on the time of the action and less on its nature or aspect, which in a sense is like removing constraints, adding freedom of expression when cleverly exploited. Because English has less nuanced grammatical vehicles compared to Greek, it often requires more thought, that is, careful construction and additional context, to convey certain meanings that Greek can express more succinctly and precisely. It is generally true that English, with its straightforward grammar and more non-granular flexibility, often lends itself well to inductive reasoning, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations. Its structure encourages clear, top-level expression that builds up to conclusions (top level expression= precisely hitting the salient points without intricate detail; concise, impactful, linguistically efficient). Conversely, Greek, with its rich grammatical nuances, is more suited for deductive reasoning, moving from general principles to specific details. This detailed and precise language allows for intricate and layered assembly of thoughts and arguments, making it the scientist’s dream language (it’s not an accident that many of the earliest and most influential mathematicians and scientists and philosophers were Greek, their language, with its rich grammatical nuances and precision, provided a robust framework for detailed and systematic thinking). English on the other hand is the storyteller’s stage. English’s versatility and expressiveness allow for a broad and dynamic range of communication, making it perfect for narratives, theoretical expression, and creativity per se. Its top-level expression, non-granular versatility, and its historical and economic influences, cultural impact, and widespread teaching have all contributed to its status as the world’s lingua franca presently.

[2] [After] these things [Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> “These things” are Jesus’ miracles and teachings of the previous chapter (JA commentary) that set the context for the events in our John chapter seven:

• Feeding the Five Thousand John 6:1-7, 8-11, 12-15. Here Jesus feeds five thousand menfolk with five barley loaves and two small fish. Key Verse: John 6:13.
• Jesus Walks on Water John 6:16-21. Jesus walks on the Sea of Galilee to meet His disciples who were struggling against the storm. Key Verse John 6:20.
• Bread of Life discourse John 6:22-28, 29-35, 36-42, 43-49, 50-56, 57-59. Jesus explains that He is the Bread of Life, essential for eternal life, and compares Himself to the manna provided to the Israelites in the wilderness. Key Verse John 6:51.

[3] [After these things] Jesus–G2424 [walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Here is Messiah, the Son of very God, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, our blessed Savior. See also.

[4] [After these things Jesus] walked–G4043 [in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Verbal usage is Imperfect, active, indicative. The imperfect tense in Greek denotes a continuous or repeated action in the past. It emphasizes the ongoing nature of the action. So, when it says “walked,” it suggests that Jesus continuously or habitually walked around in Galilee during this period. It’s not just a one-time event, but rather an ongoing activity. The active voice indicates that Jesus is the one performing the action. He is the subject who is actively engaging in walking around Galilee. The indicative mood is used to make a simple statement of fact, it presents the action as having really taken place. In the context of our chapter, the use of the imperfect tense highlights that during this time, Jesus was deliberately and repeatedly staying and moving around in Galilee to avoid Judea (essentially, antagonist religious leaders in an around Jerusalem) because of the threat to His life. This grammatical form thus draws attention to Jesus’ careful and ongoing avoidance of a dangerous situation largely in and around Jerusalem.

[5] [After these things Jesus walked in- Galilee–G1056 [for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Galilee in Jesus’ time was a region in northern Israel, part of the Roman Empire. It was divided into Upper Galilee (mountainous) and Lower Galilee (fertile plains). The region was known for its diverse population, including many Gentiles, and was a hub for Jesus’ ministry, where He performed many miracles and teachings. See also.

[6] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in] Jewry–G2449 [because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> In John seven, the context is about Jesus avoiding Judea because the Jewish leaders were seeking to kill Him. The term “Jewry” here is used to describe the geographical area and its inhabitants. So, in this context, “Jewry” refers to the region of Judea, where the Jewish people lived. It is not derogatory in this context; it is simply an older English term for Judea. Please note that in modern usage, the term “Jewry” might be seen as outdated or even offensive, depending on the context and tone in which it is used—better nowadays to use terms like “Jewish community” or “Jewish people” instead. See also.

[7] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the] Jews–G2453 [sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Catch the irony, Jesus is a Jew (John 4:9, “The Birth of Messiah”) See also.

[8] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews] sought–G2212 [to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Verbal usage is Imperfect, active, indicative. The imperfect is telling—here is conveyed a continual effort to kill our Lord, unrelenting effort is conveyed. In this context, it suggests that the Jewish leaders were persistently and continually seeking to kill Jesus. This wasn’t a one-time effort but an ongoing intention and attempt to find a way to eliminate our Lord. This highlights the serious and sustained threat that Jesus faced from the Jewish religious authorities during His ministry. It’s a significant detail that emphasizes the danger and opposition He encountered and helps us better understand why He did not attend the feast straightaway. He knew what was going on, He as much as says so, when He says, “…my time has not yet come…” That is, He knew that they were hunting for Him and if He made Himself available to them at the feast at the wrong time or in the wrong way, they would seize Him and kill Him. Very sad situation here, you know, Jesus is hunted—that’s bad enough—but hunted by His kinsmen (kinsmen in the flesh but not in the spirit for sure are these here religious “elites;” segments of the general populace, the so-called “common folks,” weren’t on board here as we shall see).

[9] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to] kill–G615 [him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist tense is most often used to describe a simple, completed, past action, it doesn’t focus on the process or duration, just that the action occurred ad was decisive and immediate (completion, decisiveness, and immediacy are the watchwords for an aorist tense). The active voice indicates that the subject (“the Jews”) is performing the action, and the indicative mood is used for stating facts, it is the most straightforward mood for making assertions. In context this verbal usage points to the definitive intention of the Jews to kill our Lord Jesus. They were actively seeking to put Him to death, a clear and decisive action that had already been underway for some time.

[10] [Aft]er these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles–G1859+G4634 was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Its institution (Leviticus 23:34, 39-43, Deuteronomy 16:13-15, Nehemiah 8:14-its revival). As to the particulars we have the following:

 

THE DAYS OF THE FEAST (Tishri 14-23 [Gregorian

September | October])

 

Preparation (Tishri 14)

• Setting up booths (sukkahs) with branches and leaves.
• Gathering the four species: etrog (citron), lulav (palm branch), hadass (myrtle), and aravah (willow).

 

Seven Days of Celebration (Tishri 15-21)

 

• Daily offerings and prayers.
• Living and feasting in sukkahs.
• Waving the Four Species.

 

The Close

 

Shemini Atzeret (Tishri 22)

 

• Separate/connected final assembly day/special prayers.

 

Simchat Torah (Tishri 23)

 

• Celebrating the completion and restart of the Torah reading cycle.

 

INTENTIONS:

 

Historical

 

• Commemorates the Israelites’ 40-year journey in the wilderness, living in temporary shelters.

 

Agricultural

 

• Marks the end of the harvest season, celebrating God’s provision and bounty.

 

SYMBOLS

 

• Sukkahs: Represent the temporary dwellings of the Israelites.
• Four Species: Represent different parts of nature and symbolize unity and prayer.
• Water Libation Ceremony: Symbolizes prayer for rain and agricultural fertility. This ceremony is of special significance in John seven vis-à-vis Jesus’ Living Water declaration.

 

THEOLOGY

 

 

• Acknowledges God’s care and protection during the Israelites’ journey.
• A time of giving thanks and rejoicing for the harvest and God’s blessings: gratitude and joy.
• Emphasizes reliance on God for sustenance and protection.

 

This festival is a beautiful blend of historical remembrance, agricultural celebration, and deep theological significance. It is one of the Pilgrimage Festivals which all Jewish males were required to attend in Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 16:16), Jesus would not have missed it no matter what. See also.

[11] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him] Depart–G2327 [hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Verbal usage is Second Aorist, active, imperative. The second aorist functions similarly to the first aorist (often referred to as “aorist”) in terms of its meaning and usage, but they have different forms, particularly in their stems and endings. The active voice shows that the subject, “His brethren,” is performing the action of issuing this command (imperative mood) to depart and go hence, and the imperative mood is used for direct address commands or requests. In this context it indicates that Jesus’ brethren are hands-down giving Him a directive. So, Jesus’ brethren are quite urging Him to leave Galilee and go to Judea. They want Him to publicly show His works to His disciples and others down yonder where the bee’s knee folks hang out, where the shakers and the movers, and the career-makers hang out. This command reflects their desire for Jesus to prove Himself openly, possibly due to their own disbelief or skepticism (as indicated in John 7:5). It suggests that maybe up until now they had not actually seen His full power, just bits and pieces, fits and starts. It does set up quite an eye-opening contrast when the not so ordinary as first imagined Jesus reveals Himself, when His explosion of miracles per His timing and purposes amazes and stuns everybody once the Creator of the Universe Jesus finally unleashes His unsearchable power (even then, it had to be contained, obviously). So, this verbal usage makes clear the assertiveness and urgency of the brethren’s request—they are not merely suggesting, but rather demanding that Jesus take action and reveal Himself more publicly.

[12] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into] Judaea–G2449, [that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> “Jewry” in some translations because Judea is the “Land of the Jews.” Here we have the ancestral heartland, even homeland, of Israel. (It’s not to be confused with the farce nowadays called “West Bank” by some, which is a calculated misnomer for what is rightly age-old “Judea and Samaria.”) Judea was under Roman rule during Jesus’ time, governed by a prefect or procurator appointed by the Roman governor of Syria. It is characterized by rugged hills and mountains, including the Judean Mountains, which run north to south. These mountains provide natural fortifications and were home to key cities like Jerusalem. The region includes fertile valleys, such as the Jordan Rift Valley, which descends sharply to the Dead Sea, the lowest point on Earth’s surface. The southern part of Judea extends into the arid desert regions, including the Desert of Judea, where Jesus was tempted (Matthew 4:1). The landscape is generally rugged and hilly, with rocky terrain. Much of Judea has an arid climate, with limited vegetation and scarce water sources. The area around the Dead Sea is particularly harsh, with saline waters and a hot, dry climate. The western part of Judea features more temperate coastal plains conducive to agriculture and trade. This diverse Judean landscape shaped the lives and culture of its inhabitants, influencing everything from agriculture to settlement patterns. Judea, particularly Jerusalem, was the heart of religious and cultural life in Jesus’ day. Jerusalem holds profound significance for Jewish people, as it is considered the holiest city in the Jewish faith. It has been the spiritual and historical center for Jews for thousands of years, dating back to King David’s establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish kingdom around 1000 BC, and the construction of the first temple therein by his son Solomon. Naturally, it was the place where influential religious leaders, scholars, and the broader Jewish community gathered. By urging Jesus to go there, His brethren were essentially saying He should showcase His works in the most prominent and influential setting. They believed that by demonstrating His miracles and teachings in Judea, especially during significant festivals when many people were present, Jesus could gain the recognition and following they felt He deserved. This reflects their desire for Him to prove Himself more publicly and to a broader audience, even though they themselves were as yet skeptical of His mission as per John 7:5. See also.

[13] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy] disciples–G3101 [also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Jesus did have disciples in Judea. While many of His disciples were from Galilee, such as the fishermen Peter, Andrew, James, and John, Jesus also attracted followers in Judea, especially in Jerusalem. Jerusalem, being a significant cultural and religious hub, was a place where many people, including His disciples and those curious about His teachings, gathered. The gospels mention Jesus’ interactions and teachings in Judea multiple times, and His presence there often drew crowds and followers. For example, John 2:23 indicates that Jesus’ ministry extended into Judea and that He had followers there who were drawn to His teachings and miracles. Word of His miraculous power spread not only along the Via Maris down along the Coastal Plain from the “Evangelical Triangle” up yonder in Galilee where He ministered extensively, but from the heart of Judea as well, like shock waves it spread, spread out in all directions and drew needy, curious folks from near and far to Him.

[14] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the] works–G2041 [that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Miracles, but more than that:

• Miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, calming storms, and turning water into wine.
• Teachings, such as preaching the Kingdom of God, relatable parables, moral and spiritual guidance
• Acts of compassion, such as feeding the hungry, comforting the marginalized, and showing love and kindness to all.
• Fulfilling Messianic prophecy, by demonstrating that He was unequivocally the Messiah through both His actions and teachings that aligned perfectly with said prophecy.
• Demonstrating obedient service, by living a sinless life and ultimately sacrificing Himself for everyone’s Salvation.

 

Bottom line, these works were signs of Jesus’ divine authority, His mission, and His deep compassion for humanity. They were a testament to His identity and purpose. And Jesus’ brethren were urging Him to publicize His identity and purpose for a few reasons as follows. They might have wanted Him to perform miracles and teach openly in Judea to prove Himself, not just to the larger crowd but…also to them. By showcasing His works in Judea, especially in Jerusalem, in the heart of Jewish religious life, Jesus could attract more followers and gain wider recognition. They likely believed that a larger, more influential audience would validate His mission in all eyes. And then there is the matter of the religious leaders and authorities in Jerusalem, who were critical and hostile toward Jesus. His brethren probably thought that a public display of His works could challenge these authorities and assert His divine mission. Their insistence on Jesus going to Judea draws our attention to a blend of disbelief and a desire for Him to seek validation from a broader, more influential audience. They no doubt saw Judea, with its religious significance and large gatherings, as the perfect stage for Jesus to establish His identity and purpose. Their thoughts are earthy and comprised of human-sense, not God-sense. Their thoughts reflect the human modus operandi, not God’s modus operandi.

[15] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou] doest–G4160. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<>Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The present tense indicates continuous or ongoing action. This suggests that Jesus is constantly performing these works, not just isolated events. The active voice shows that Jesus is the one performing the action. He is ever actively engaged in doing these works. The indicative mood is used for making factual statements. It asserts that these works are indeed happening. In context, Jesus’ brethren are rather matter-of-factly via this tense highlighting the ongoing nature of His works, emphasizing that He is continuously performing miracles and teachings. They therefore reckon that if Jesus went to Judea and displayed these works publicly, it would be a definitive way to reveal His identity and mission to a broader audience. This verbal usage emphasizes the fact that Jesus’ activities are ongoing and significant, worthy of being shown to the wider world. What gives here? If Jesus’ brethren urge Him to show-off His works because they have witnessed them, so it must be surmised, why did they not believe what they saw? it’s quite interesting and somewhat perplexing. We believe that Jesus’ brethren had in fact witnessed His works firsthand, yet they still hesitated to believe in Him for various reason, some of which follow. For starters, it is almost certain that He did not display His full power, no way, not even close here—they saw bits and pieces, fits and starts as said before. Then there’s the age-old “Familiarity Hurdle.” They grew up with Jesus, enough said. You know, they might have struggled to see Him as the Messiah. Sorta’ like, ‘…baby brother is sayin’ he’s Messiah…’ (Of course Jesus was the oldest of the siblings—baby brother used for emphasis here.) That ain’t gonna’ fly, probably gonna’ cause problems, just guessing here (cf. Joseph, Genesis 37:4, 11, 18-20). Oftentimes familiarity can make it difficult to recognize the extraordinary. Then there is the “Decked Out Messiah Hurdle.” Many Jews expected the Messiah to be a David-like political and military champion and leader who would liberate them from Roman rule, a bad boy with might and money and muscles. Jesus’ mission and methods and appearance did not align with these expectations hardly at all; this would cause bigtime doubt. Then there is the “Time Delay Hurdle.” How many times does one forget what one saw and was solid in, as trials and tribulations creep in whilst all the more time passes and the grind presses on? It can happen to the greatest of saints (Matthew 11:2-3). And then there is the “Spiritual Blindness Hurdle.” This one touches on the broader theme in the gospels of people witnessing Jesus’ works but still being flat-out spiritually blind to His true identity and mission. So, their urging for Brother Jesus to go to Judea and showcase His works reflects their desire for Him to prove Himself more publicly, perhaps in hopes that such a display would convince not only others but… (re)convince them as well. Some of us humans can be a “spiritual basket case,” in constant need of divine reassurance, blessed assurance.

[16] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in] secret—G2927 [and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> In this context the meaning is “private,” Jesus is not doing His mighty works publicly. The literal meaning is “hidden,” or “secret.” There are indications here that the brethren have some notion of Jesus’ ability to do mighty works. Moreover, this reflects a larger theme in the gospels where the public and private actions of Jesus are often contrasted, highlighting the difference between human expectations and divine purpose. Jesus’ response to His brothers’ suggestion also shows His awareness of God’s timing and purpose for His actions (John 7:6-8).

[17] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself] seeketh–G2212 [to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The present tense in this context bespeaks someone who seeks to be known continually, or habitually seeking this recognition. It’s not a one-time effort but a sustained endeavor to be in the public eye. The active voice indicates that the subject is performing the action. Here, it emphasizes that the person is actively and intentionally seeking recognition. This aligns with the brothers’ suggestion that Jesus should actively make himself known to the public if he truly wants to be recognized. The indicative mood is used for presenting facts or actual occurrences. In this context, it reflects a straightforward statement about what someone seeking public recognition would do down here in the land of sin and sorrow. The brothers are making a factual observation based on their very human understanding of how one should behave to gain public acknowledgment. Overall, this verbal usage highlights the continuous, intentional effort “required” for public recognition, contrasting with Jesus’ approach of following divine timing and purpose rather than seeking human approval.

[18] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh] to be–G1511 [known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Seemingly insignificant grammatically and obvious enough, “to be” here packs a lot of grammatical punch. Verbal usage is Present infinitive. Infinitive verbs focus on the action in its most basic form without regard to tense, voice, or mood—the tense is stated outright as it is here—this disregard generally holds regardless of the language. The present tense gives us the sense of ongoing action, and the infinitive emphasizes a state of being or existence, in this case, it emphasizes an ongoing state (present tense) of being known openly. It’s not just about the act of becoming known but maintaining that state of public recognition that is conveyed. The infinitive can also convey purpose or result. Here, it implies that the actions taken in secret can have an ultimate purpose—they can, when done in the public square, result in one being widely known. The brothers are saying that since Jesus is performing these works—again, there is an indication of knowledge of that on their part—then the ultimate purpose should be to make them publicly known. Using “to be” in the context of heretofore secrecy highlights the contrast between Jesus’ hidden actions and attendant private state, and the brothers’ desired state of public recognition for Jesus by way of Him doing public works. It highlights the idea that manifest actions done in secret should and could lead to a state of being openly acknowledged. So, this verbal usage puts into shoe leather the tension between private actions and public acknowledgment, a tension set up by the brothers’ misunderstanding of Jesus’ mission. They are urging our Lord to transition from a hidden state to one of open recognition, and by so doing show that they are clearly not grasping the deeper spiritual and divine timing that Jesus adheres to. It is for them as yet a misidentification disease that our Lord will heal going forward.

[19] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be] known openly–G3954.[ If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> The Greek PARRESIA conveys the idea of speaking or acting with freedom, boldness, and without concealment. It implies doing something in a way that is visible and accessible to everyone, as opposed to doing it in secret.

[20] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly.] If–G1487 [thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Here’s the rub—what’s up with this “if” business? The brothers of Jesus seem to be implying doubt about whether Jesus is genuinely performing these miraculous works. Their statement suggests they are not fully convinced and are challenging Him to prove it by showing His works publicly. It also reflects their misunderstanding of Jesus’ mission and the nature of His works. They are thinking in terms of worldly recognition and fame, whereas Jesus operates on divine timing and purpose. Did they know about Messiah? Almost assuredly. And that was one of Jesus’ main claims—He is Messiah. And what did Scripture say abut Messiah? Among other things, it said this: Isaiah 42:1-2. They forgot, or realized not, or accepted not, either way because of misidentification hurdles, that Jesus was constrained to act in a certain way. Note too that the use of “if” here imposes a condition on Jesus that “must” be met: “if this,” “then that.” “If to be known far and wide,” “then show off publicly.” Really? That’s the only way it works, there is no other way? Is not mild and meek and Suffering Servant Jesus hands-down the most widely known figure in history no contest? Proof? the Christian Bible which has Jesus as its Centerpiece is widely considered to be the best-selling book in history. It has been translated into numerous languages and distributed globally for centuries. While exact figures are not certain, estimates suggest that billions of copies have been sold or distributed, far surpassing any other book. The Bible’s influence extends beyond just sales though, it is also one of the most widely read and referenced books in the world. Its impact on literature, culture, history, you name it, is profound. Okay, so the brothers are steering Jesus here, to act in a certain way (pomp and circumstance) to prove His claims. So, the “if” here combines elements of doubt and misunderstanding, and we see in it a conditional challenge from Jesus’ brothers.

[21] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou] do–G4160 [these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. This verbal usage bespeaks continuous, habitual action. Given the context, Jesus’ brothers are challenging both what Jesus claims to do and what He has been doing. They are essentially testing Jesus, suggesting that if He is performing these miraculous deeds, He should do them publicly. This implies a challenge to the authenticity and purpose of Jesus’ actions. By using this verbal form, Jesus’ brothers are referring to ongoing actions, so what that means is they are questioning whether Jesus continuously performs these works and suggesting that if these actions are genuinely ongoing (not just bits and pieces, fits and starts), they should be shown openly. The brothers of Jesus had likely witnessed His extraordinary power, yet their response reflects a lack of understanding and belief (again, they only saw bits and pieces of Jesus’ power, in fits and starts—the text consistently seems to indicate that awareness—and then the hurdles kicked in—familiarity hurdle, time delay hurdle, this hurdle, that hurdle, hurdles, hurdles, hurdles still to overcome). The skepticism here clearly reflects their misidentification of Jesus, preconceived notions holding sway probably. They are pushing our Lord to prove Himself in a way that aligns with their worldly expectations of public recognition. Jesus will stun them in His own timing and according to His purposes as Scripture makes abundantly clear—not least His Resurrection, which flat transformed them fellers—you bet, they all were transformed—no hurdle got in the way anymore after that. The Resurrection of Jesus Crist, the crème de la crème work of God don’t you know? Surely you know.

[22] [After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren] believe–G4100 [in him.]<>Verbal usage is Imperfect, active, indicative. Wow, we have an imperfect here—it means their belief was “dangling,” it’s like their belief was disconnectedly dangling, reflecting an ongoing attitude of skepticism and misunderstanding about big brother Jesus’ true identity and mission. This usage emphasizes their persistent spiritual blindness and the hands-down difficulty they had in accepting who brother Jesus was, despite the miracles and teachings they undoubtedly witnessed.

 

Let’s do an explicating scenario. Popular in Jesus’ day and space were games like marbles (played with clay stones) and “tug of war.” Suppose Jesus and His brothers are outside playing—let’s just suppose, say, tug-of-war, they are practicing as a team, two-on-two tug of war here for practice, to be a better team. We want to put the “Familiarity Hurdle” into shoe leather as best as humanly possible; this is totally concocted: disregard if you wish no problem. It’s a sunny afternoon in Nazareth. Jesus and His brothers are outside, holding onto a rope for some tug of war practice. They laugh and shout as they pull with all their might.

 

James: “Come on, Jesus! You’re strong enough to help us win!”

Jesus (smiling): “I am doing my best, James. It’s not always about winning, you know.”

Jude (testy): “You’re always saying stuff like that, Jesus. It’s like you’re from another world bro’.”

Jesus (gently): “We all have our own strengths, Jude. Remember, it’s the effort that counts.”

Simon (zealous to win): “But if we lose, the other kids will tease us!”

Jesus (patiently) “They might, but we’ll know we did our best. And that’s what really matters.”

James (pulling leader-like): “Sometimes, I just wish you’d do something amazing to shut them kids up! Like, you know, one of them dandy miracles you’ve done before.”

Jesus (calmly): “Miracles aren’t for showing off, James. They’re for helping others and showing God’s love.”

Jude (bummed out): “See, this is what I mean. You’re always talking about these big things. Can’t you just play a game like everyone else?”

Jesus (nodding): “I understand, Jude. Let’s focus on the practice now. Ready, everyone? Pull!”

 

They all pull hard, with Jesus providing juuuuust enough umph to keep the practice game fun and fair. Well, the moment passes, and the bros continue to play, their differences momentarily set aside… This scenario hopes to address the tension between Jesus’ divine mission and His everyday interactions with His very human brothers and show via an everyday example how the “Familiarity Hurdle” can get planted and have a lasting impact on impressions and attitudes. Also, the scenario sought to show how that Jesus restraining Himself from pulling the rope in an unfair way can be extrapolated out to other scenarios witnessed by His brothers, which leaves room for doubt as to His capacity for performing miracles because of this willful restriction He puts on Himself for the sake of fairness. In other words, He did not the alter course of history in His space and time except when it was necessary according to the Divine Plan as His later ministry makes clear.

[23] [Then Jesus said unto them, My] time–G2540 [is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<> In the New Testament, two different Greek words are often translated as “time”: CHRONOS and KAIROS. The former refers to chronological or sequential time—the kind that can be measured by a clock or calendar. KAIROS, on the other hand, has a more qualitative meaning, it refers to the opportune or right moment, a moment of significance, like when everything comes together That definition is worth holding on to as we move forward. So, when Jesus says, “My time has not yet come; but your time is alway ready,” the use of KAIROS tells us that His actions and moments are orchestrated by divine timing and purpose. It isn’t just about a certain date or hour on the clock, but rather the right and divinely appointed time for action. Essentially, Jesus highlights that His decisions and movements are guided by God’s perfect timing (=KAIROS), whereas for others, every time (CHRONOS) is an opportunity. This not so little nuance helps us understand the deeper, spiritual implications of Jesus’ ministry and the precise moments that unfold within it. For us His followers, it serves as a reminder of the importance of waiting for the right, divinely appointed moments in our lives.

^[24] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet] come–G3918 [but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<>Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. As said before, the present tense in Greek indicates an ongoing action or a state that is currently happening. By using this tense, Jesus emphasizes that the divine timing (KAIROS) He refers to is not just a future event but a continuous state of readiness and presence—that’s important to tuck away. It implies that His “moment” (KAIROS) is always near, yet it is not the opportune moment for action at this specific CHRONOS-moment. The verb utilized here is PAREIMI, which means “to be present” or “to be near.” This choice draws our attention to Jesus’ constant readiness, and to the Divine Plan that is perpetually in motion, even if the precise “CHRONOS” for action has not yet arrived right “now.” (Jesus’ KAIROS is ever-present in a spiritual sense, aligning with His eternity-past-conceived mission, and His eternity-past-conceived purpose.) A pertinent observation: the Great Grammarian utilizes linguistic juxtaposition quite a lot, whether He is communicating in Greek or Hebrew or whatever language, and here, by juxtaposing Jesus’ KAIROS with the brethren’s CHRONOS, He makes clear the big difference in understanding, and in living out, “time.” That is, Jesus’ brethren are always ready to manifestly act out their desires and plans within worldly constraints, i.e., at any instant in sequential “time” (CHRONOS), while He operates on a divine timeline (KAIROS) that is always present but not always ready because it is not yet fully revealed—Jesus “sees” it in its entirety, the brethren do not. Bottom line, our incarnate Lord’s CHRONOS is (willingly) constrained by this KAIROS, which itself finds meaning in the Divine Plan. His attendance at the feast will be when CHRONOS and KAIROS “sync up” for that preordained attendance marker on the divine timeline, and He, seeing the divine timeline in its entirety, waits for that “sync up.” It’s CHRONOS that lags, always, KAIROS is ever-present—CHRONOS must hit KAIROS just so, and that means doing some CHRONOS-waiting for Jesus here in the days of His flesh. Jesus’ brethren have not this “sync” issue to deal with, they don’t even see Jesus’ KAIROS, all they see is CHRONOS, they (and we) are not constrained at all—any “moment” is an opportune moment for whatever down here in the land of sin and sorrow. Their KAIROS and Jesus’ KAIROS are quite different.

[25] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your] time–G2540 [is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<> Why do we have KAIROS again in the context of the brothers’ time? As mentioned, the brothers too have a KAIROS, but it is quite different from Jesus’. As before, the term KAIROS in this context emphasizes the qualifying aspect of time rather than its strict chronological aspect. When Jesus says, “Your KAIROS is always ready,” He not so subtly makes a sharp distinction between His KAIROS, which is spiritual, and their KAIROS, which is mundane. He is saying that the brethren always have opportunities for manifest action, it’s like just about every moment is good enough, is sufficient in itself, to do whatever they wish constrained only by the world’s standards—it’s a continuous state where they can act on their own desires, initiative, and plans without needing to wait for a divinely appointed moment. So, the choice of KAIROS here highlights that their readiness and opportunities are always present in a qualifying sense—they can engage in activities, make decisions, and take actions at any time because their actions are not bound by divine timing but by their own worldly perspective. Jesus, however, operates on a divine timetable (this is His KAIROS) and acts accordingly, and His brethren have their own sort of KAIROS—a continuous availability to act within the constraints of the shifting worldly environment. This contrast brings out the profound difference in understanding, and living out, “time,” from two different perspectives—divine, and mundane. In short, Jesus operates on a plane where “time” is instilled with purpose and divine significance, and on that plane we need a present tense to describe time-activity, because time, on that plane, is significant at every instant, thus it is highly ordered (this is Jesus’ KAIROS), highlighting the difference between the Divine Order and the entropic (=“arrow of time” | disordered) nature of human existence.

[26] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is always] ready–G2092. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<> The Greek hETOIMOS here carries significant meaning. It implies a state of readiness or being prepared for action. In this context, it says that the brethren always have opportunity and are constantly in a state of preparedness to act according to their own desires and plans. This readiness or fitness to act brings out the contrast between the divine timing (KAIROS) that constrains Jesus’ action, and the human readiness for action at any moment. While Jesus operates on a divine timeline, always waiting for the opportune moment ordained by God, His brethren have the readiness to act and are constrained only by the world’s standards and sequential worldly time (mundane CHRONOS time—if they wish to act, say, next week, they must wait for next week to get here, thus they are constrained by sequential time in that sense).

[27] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The] world–G2889 cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<> The Greek KOSMOS utilized here refers to more than just the physical earth. It includes the collective human existence, the secular systems and values that oppose Jehovah God, the pursuits and concerns of earthly life, and the spiritual realm of opposition to God’s will.

[28] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot] hate–G3404 [you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, infinitive. The present tense indicates an ongoing or continuous action. In this context, it implies that the world’s hatred toward Jesus is a constant and ongoing state. The world continuously hates Jesus because He testifies that its works are evil. The active voice shows that the subject (the world) is performing the action of hating. The world is actively and persistently hating Jesus. The infinitive form, while often used to express purpose or result in Greek, here functions to express the general not so pretty state of affairs. It conveys the ongoing nature of the world’s hostility toward Jesus. So, this verbal usage signifies that the world’s hatred is not a one-time event but a continuous and active opposition to Jesus’ message and mission. It draws attention to the persistent nature of this hostility, which stems from the world’s rejection of the Divine Truth Jesus embodies and proclaims. This reflects the broader theological theme of the world’s resistance to divine intervention and Truth. The infinitive form also highlights the contrast between the world’s constant readiness to hate and oppose Jesus, and His unwavering adherence to divine timing and purpose (KAIROS). This tension between divine purpose and worldly opposition (KAIROS<tension>hate) is a recurring theme in the Gospel of John, illustrating the profound spiritual conflict at play. While the infinitive form itself does not usually specify the subject, the voice helps provide clarity on the nature of the action, and in this context, the active voice emphasizes that the world’s hatred is not passive or incidental but a continuous and intentional act. So, although it’s less common to focus on voice with infinitives, it plays an important role here in highlighting the persistent and active opposition Jesus faces from precisely the subject, the world.

[29] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it] hateth–G3404, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<> We had this verb just before as a Present, active, infinitive, here we have it again as a Present, active, indicative. The Great Grammarian has switched up the mood on us, why? Before, the infinitive gave us the not so pretty sad state of affairs, now the indicative wraps it with a Gordian Knot as a hands-down statement of fact—a not so pretty statement of fact about the not so pretty state of affairs—the world hates Jesus and all that He stands for. Who might be behind such a dastardly, worldly thing as that?

[30] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I] testify–G3140 [of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<> Any guesses as to the tense? It is a present tense, active voice, indicative mood. The present tense indicates an ongoing or continuous action. This means that Jesus is continually and actively testifying about the world’s evil. His testimony is not a one-time declaration but an ongoing mission. The active voice shows that Jesus Himself is performing the action of testifying. He is actively and deliberately exposing the world’s evil deeds. And the indicative mood is used for statements of fact. Jesus’ testimony about the world’s evil is presented as a definite and ongoing reality. In this context, Jesus’ continuous testimony is carried out several ways, as follows.

• Through His teachings and parables, Jesus consistently highlights the moral and spiritual failings of the world.
• His miracles and acts of compassion serve as living testimony to the Truth of God’s kingdom and the shortcomings of worldly values.
• Jesus frequently confronts religious leaders and societal norms that are contrary to God’s will, exposing the hypocrisy and injustice present in the world.
• As the embodiment of Truth (John 14:6), His very Being, Jesus’ life, is a constant declaration of the contrast between God’s holiness and the world’s sinfulness.

 

Overall, this verbal usage points to the persistent and active nature of Jesus’ testimony, reflecting His ongoing mission to reveal the Truth and expose the world’s evil.

[31] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the] works–G2041 [thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<> In physics (= “nature”), “work” can refer to the transfer of energy through the application of force over a distance. That would be a measure of energy transfer that occurs when an object is moved by a force, sort of mechanical work. The term “energy” itself is derived from the Greek word ENERGEIA, essentially meaning “activity” or “operation.” Let’s think about that natural explanation just given in the context of our John 7:7. Just as work in nature involves the transfer and application of energy, human actions/work (ERGA) involve the exertion of effort and intention. Jesus’ use of ERGA to describe the world’s (evil) deeds highlights the active, intentional nature of these actions. Following the lead of the Bible we see this revealed in different ways.

• Moral corruption (dishonesty Exodus 20:16, betrayal Luke 22:48…)
• Ethical violations (exploitation Isaiah 5:8, neglect of the poor Proverbs 21:13…)
• Relationships | relational harm (abuse Ephesians 6:4, neglect 1Timothy 5:8…)
• Spiritual Evil (idolatry Exodus 20:3, leading others astray Matthew 18:6…)
• Social Injustices (discrimination Galatians 3:28, oppression, Micah 6:8…)
• Legal Violations (theft Exodus 20:15, fraud Proverbs 11:1…)
• Environmental Harm (pollution Isaiah 24:5, exploitation of resources Genesis 2:15…)

 

While human ERGA may reflect the fallen and entropic nature of the world per the above and much more, Jesus’ actions and divine timing (KAIROS) are purposeful and completely aligned with God’s plan and will. This stark contrast highlights the profound difference between Divine Order and attendant holiness, and human disorder and intendant evil. Human disorder is considered “evil” in light of divine order because it reflects a departure from the perfection, purity, and righteousness of God’s holiness. Human disorder is often a manifestation of Sin—behaviors, thoughts, and attitudes that are contrary to God’s commandments and nature. Sin creates moral and spiritual chaos, which stands in opposition to the Divine Order. God’s order is aligned with His purpose and plan for Creation, and human disorder disrupts this divine purpose, leading to consequences that are spiritually and morally detrimental. The big problem is the Fall, human rebellion in league with Satan’s rebellion. The Fall of humanity introduced Sin and disorder (= “arrow of time” CHRONOS) into the world. This disorder is inherently evil because it disrupts the original harmony and perfection that God intended for timeless Creation. (He’s going to put things back in order one of these days, He promised.) So, by recognizing this linguistic connection (work in the natural realm, work in the spiritual realm), we can appreciate the depth of meaning in Jesus’ statement about the world’s works being evil. It highlights the active, intentional nature of human actions and the moral and spiritual implications of those evil works: they demand judgment from a holy God. God’s holiness means He is completely separate from sin and evil. Since God is the antithesis of evil, He cannot tolerate it while maintaining His claim to deity. Allowing evil to persist unjudged would be inconsistent with His holy, divinely ordered, and righteous nature.

[32] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are] evil–G4190. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<>The Greek PONHROS is utilized here, it highlights the comprehensive nature of the world’s evil deeds. Jesus’ testimony against the world’s works encompasses all forms of evil—moral, ethical, physical, and spiritual. This broad usage makes clear the pervasive and multifaceted nature of evil that stands in opposition to the Divine Order and of course is inconsistent with the holiness of God. It emphasizes the need for divine judgment and the transformative power of repentance and alignment with God’s will. In His discourse with Nicodemus in John 3, Jesus explains the necessity of spiritual rebirth through very Him for alignment with God’s Divine Order and for manifest eternal life (John 3:3, 5, 16, 18, “John Chapter Three Commentary”). Through this discourse, Jesus reveals that alignment with God’s Divine Order and escape from Judgment comes through faith in Him and the transformative work of the Holy Spirit—the Living Waters of this chapter we will discuss later. This spiritual rebirth leads to a life that reflects God’s holiness and righteousness, contrasting with the world’s evil deeds.

[33] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.] Go ye up–G305 [unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<> Verbal usage is second Aorist, active, imperative. The aorist tense is used to describe a completed action without focusing on its duration or process, it conveys a sense of decisiveness and immediacy. The second aorist is a specific form of the aorist tense that uses a different stem from the first aorist, that’s all, it’s largely the same thing. It’s essentially a past tense that implies a one-time, completed, instant-in-time sort of “freeze frame” action. The active voice indicates that the subject (ye=brothers) of the verb is performing the action, and the imperative mood is used to present commands or exhortations. It means Jesus is giving a command to His brothers to “go up” to the feast. This verbal usage emphasizes the immediacy and decisiveness of Jesus’ command to His brothers, urging them to go without delay—the aorist is painting a picture of immediacy for us, and the imperative is painting a picture of urgency, so putting these constructs together, we get a sense of immediacy and urgency. Jesus wants them to “go up” to the feast in Jerusalem right now. Why? This urgency is maybe less about the immediate need for them to go and more about Jesus’ need to go alone, later. Aside, why the “up” part? The term “go up” in this context is referencing the geographical elevation. Galilee is situated at a lower elevation compared to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is located in the Judean hills, so whenever people traveled to Jerusalem from surrounding areas, including Galilee, they would often say they were “going up” to Jerusalem due to the ascent. In many biblical texts, this terminology is used to describe the journey to Jerusalem, emphasizing not just the physical ascent, but often the spiritual significance of traveling to such an important and holy city. Jesus’ command to His brothers to “go up” to the feast fits perfectly within this geographical and cultural context.

[34] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I] go–G305 [not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<> Same verb as just before, different verbal usage. Now we have it as a Present, active, indicative (before it was Second aorist, active, imperative). Why does the Great Grammarian switch from the aorist to the present tense (the mood change makes sense—Jesus isn’t going to command Himself—it’s the tense change that’s interesting)? The Aorist (immediacy), imperative (urgency) verbal usage Jesus employs when addressing His brothers to “go up” yonder to the feast implies just that, immediacy (go now) and urgency in the dress of a command (ya’ll better go). Jesus is telling His brothers to act immediately and fulfill their cultural and religious obligation to attend the feast. The present, active, indicative grammar that Jesus uses for Himself indicates an ongoing state or action that is not happening at that moment (that would be the aorist)—Jesus is in a holding pattern, He is waiting, is what the tense part of this verbal usage is saying. By using the present tense, Jesus is emphasizing that He is not currently going up to the feast (the grammar and the “not yet” jibe). While He is not going up now, He will go up later when the time is right is clearly suggested here. And the active voice puts the action squarely on Jesus–precisely He is waiting. And the switch in mood from imperative (urgency) to indicative (fact), well, that’s a necessary switch so that the meaning and the grammar jibe–there is no urgent action at hand when one is waiting for an opportune moment, that does not mean that the “idea” of the action is not urgent, just that the action itself is not one of “rushing off.”

[35] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet] full come–G4137.[ When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<> Verbal usage Perfect, passive, indicative. The perfect tense in Greek indicates a completed action with a lasting effect. It’s used to emphasize the present state resulting from a past action. Here, it implies that the “time” Jesus is referring to has not yet been fulfilled or completed, but when it is, its effect will be ongoing. The passive voice means that the subject (Jesus’ time) is acted upon by an external force (in this case, God’s divine plan). The passive voice speaks volumes here, it indicates that Jesus’ “CHRONOS time” is not something He controls autonomously, rather, it is determined by God’s will and timing (KAIROS). A huge chunk of our text’s message up to now is sitting right there in what this here not so little passive voice is indicating. And the indicative mood is used for presenting statements of fact. Jesus is making a factual statement about the current status of His mission—His appointed time has not yet reached its fulfillment. In this context, Jesus is addressing His brothers and explaining why He will not go to the feast with them. He says, “My time is not yet full come,” indicating that the appointed time for Him to reveal Himself fully and face the events leading to His crucifixion has not yet arrived. Importantly, the word “full” (or “fulfilled”) signifies the complete and perfect fulfillment of God’s Plan for Jesus. This plan includes His eventual suffering, death, and resurrection, which are key events in our Savior’s mission to save humanity. So, this verbal usage highlights the certainty and divine control over the timing of these Salvation-events centered on Jesus, centered on God’s Salvation Plan shouldered by Jesus. We are understanding more and more that Jesus’ brothers operate on a decidedly human timeline, urging immediate action based on their understanding, however, Jesus, i.e., our Savior, necessarily operates on a divine timeline, where every moment is perfectly orchestrated according to God’s will. By stating that His time is “not yet full come,” Jesus emphasizes the importance of divine timing and the completion of God’s plan (important both to Him and His hearers), which Plan is beyond human control and understanding—thus the brothers act and speak foolishly in relation to it, though not intentionally. That is just one biblical example of why it is crucial to wait on God, we just don’t know what He is up to all the time and what lies around the corner, but He perfectly does. This theme of divine timing versus human urgency is central to the entire context.

^[36] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he] abode–G3306 [still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<>Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. Why does the Great Grammarian choose the “one-shot” aorist here and not the “ongoing” present tense? Active voice (subject Jesus acting), indicative mood (fact), no problem, but why the aorist? The aorist tense highlights the fact that this action of staying happened and was completed, without emphasizing the process or duration of the stay. The context indicates that after telling His brothers to go up to the feast, Jesus made a clear and deliberate decision to remain in Galilee—for the time being. The use of the aorist tense emphasizes the completeness and decisiveness of Jesus’ action at that moment. The decision to stay is implied, and the aorist tense here focuses on the action itself—Jesus deliberately stayed in Galilee, that’s the focus; duration of stay is insignificant, the aorist makes that obvious, but it is up to us to realize that is actually the main communicative focus: not the duration, but the deliberate act to stay. This aligns with the broader context of John seven, where Jesus is deliberate and purposeful in His actions, operating according to divine timing rather than human expectations. His eventual decision to go up to the feast later, in secret, further makes clear His quite strategic and purposeful approach. So, this verbal usage emphasizes the completed action of staying, reflecting Jesus’ deliberate and controlled actions—within the divine timeline, championing the same. The theological depth behind the aorist tense is intricately tied to that, to the decisiveness of Jesus’ actions, to His attendant divine sovereignty (sovereigns are free to act decisively, purposefully), with an eye to the ultimate fulfillment of His mission, to which He was unwaveringly committed as we see all throughout this context. So, this grammatical choice points to the deliberate and purposeful nature of Jesus’ movements.

[37] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren] were gone up–G305 [then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist tells us simply that Jesus went to the feast when it “happened/ was completed” that His brethren had gone up to the feast; then, upon that happening, at that moment, He too went up to the feast. Why? Why is that the “signal” for Jesus to go up to the feast? Let’s back up. The aorist tense indicates a simple, completed action. It tells us that the action of Jesus’ brothers going up to the feast is viewed as a single, completed event. The active voice shows that the brothers themselves performed the action of going up, and the indicative mood is used for stating facts. It tells us that the event of the brothers going up to the feast occurred. We need to know that and be sure of it because Jesus’ going up to the feast is contingent on that. Jesus essentially waited until He knew they were there and then He went up also, now as to why:

• By waiting until His brothers had already gone up, Jesus avoids the potential for immediate conflict with the Jewish religious authorities who were already seeking to kill him (John 7:1). His decision to go up later, and in secret, allows Him to fulfill His mission there—centered on His Living Waters declaration—without premature confrontation. The aorist-action draws attention to Jesus’ deliberate and strategic approach as discussed before, He is fully aware of the dangers, and the need to align His actions with the Divine Timing necessitates caution and strategy.
• Traveling separately from His brothers is Jesus’ best alternative, because it reduced the immediate threat of being recognized—moving entourages draw attention.
• On the other end, the religious authorities would expect Jesus to arrive with His known associates, so again, traveling separately gave Him an element of surprise and reduced the likelihood of immediate detection.
• Jesus’ public appearance during the feast was timed to maximize its impact, but specifically non-handcuff type impact, traveling alone gave Jesus room to maneuver and avoid detection, premature conflict, and arrest.

[38] [Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in] secret–G2927<> Jesus’ decision to go in secret no doubt means He did not announce His departure or arrival. Probably He took less traveled routes or traveled at times when fewer people were on the road, which would help Him stay out of the public eye. Maybe He timed His arrival to avoid the peak of activity at the start of the feast. By arriving later, He would have avoided the initial rush when everyone else was arriving, thus reducing the likelihood of being noticed. And once in Jerusalem, Jesus would have moved purposefully to specific locations. He didn’t make His presence known until He started teaching in the temple at the midpoint of the feast we are told (John 7:14), indicating that His initial actions in the city were deliberately low-profile. This secretive approach certainly contrasts with the open, public nature of much of Jesus’ ministry, which really makes obvious the strategic and purposeful nature of His actions here, aligning with divine timing rather than human expectations as said before. Again, by traveling in secret, Jesus was able to fulfill His mission without premature conflict with the religious authorities, which approach allowed Him to control the timing and manner of His public appearance at the feast, ensuring that His actions were in line with God’s plan.

[39] [Then the] Jews–G2453 [sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews]<> This refers to a broad group that certainly includes the religious authorities, but isn’t limited to them. The context of John’s Gospel per se shows that “the Jews” can include the following:

 

• Religious Authorities, which includes the Pharisees (known for strict adherence to the Torah and their oral traditions—Jesus likened many of them to hypocrites), Sadducees (more aristocratic, priestly champions for Rome), and members of the so-called Great Sanhedrin (seventy-one members including the high priest, elders, and scribes, essentially the ruling religious supreme council and court of justice in the land)—the Sanhedrin had significant religious and political influence. The Sanhedrin was often directly involved in opposing Jesus and was particularly concerned with His growing influence and the challenges He posed to its authority.
• “the Jews” can refer to the Jewish people in general, including those who were curious about Jesus or skeptical of His teachings.
• An important takeaway here is that during the feasts, large numbers of Jews from various regions would gather in Jerusalem.

 

The term “the Jews” in John’s Gospel often carries a sense of opposition to Jesus’ ministry, reflecting the tension between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders who saw Him as a threat to their authority and the established religious order. So, while the religious authorities are certainly included in those seeking Jesus at the feast, it’s not restricted to them alone—it encompasses a broader group of Jewish people attending the feast with varying motives.

[40] [Then the Jews] sought–G2212 [him at the feast, and said, Where is he? And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews]<>Verbal usage is Imperfect, active, indicative. Note the imperfect tense. The imperfect tense in Greek describes a continuous or repeated action in the past. Here, it indicates that the action of seeking was ongoing over a period of time. It means that the Jews were continually seeking Jesus during the feast, not just at a single moment. The active voice shows that the subject (the Jews) is performing this action of seeking, they are actively and deliberately trying to find Jesus—the hunt is on and stayin’ on. And the indicative mood is used for statements of fact. It indicates that this action of persistent seeking was indeed happening; it is a factual description of what the Jews were doing. This verbal usage emphasizes that the Jews were persistently and actively looking for Jesus throughout the duration of the feast, where the continuous action highlights the determination and intensity of their search—they were not passively waiting for Jesus to fall into their lap but were actively engaged in trying to hunt down our Lord. This determined hunt reflects the tension and anticipation surrounding Jesus’ presence at the feast: one must try to “feel” that from Jesus’ perspective. What’s up with these hunters? These religious “authority” hunters were likely anxious to confront Jesus so as to “deal” with the threat they perceived Him to pose to their authority. But at the same time, members of the general population were curious, indeed eager, to see Jesus, given His growing reputation for miracles and teachings. So, this verbal form conveys the continuous and deliberate effort of the Jews to find Jesus during the feast, with communicative emphasis on the intensity and persistence of their search.

[41] [Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? And there was much] murmuring–G1112 [among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews]<> The Greek has it GOGGYSMOS—does that sound like a murmur/mutter in and of itself (onomatopoeia) or what? Sure, GOGGYSMOS sounds like the act it describes; it conveys the sense of hushed, probably discontented, conversations or complaints that are not openly voiced here but rather are spoken in low tones. This word’s onomatopoeic quality, mimicking the sound of muttering or murmuring, adds to the vividness of the description. It captures the hushed, variously discontented conversations or complaints among the crowd. The use of this word (as a nominative noun) in its context indicates that there was a significant and ongoing amount of murmuring among the people going on, which reflects the divided opinions about Jesus, with some people believing He was a good man—these were the country folk, i.e., not Jerusalemites—and others thinking He was deceiving the people—these were largely Jerusalemites indoctrinated by the religious authorities and other such plants by Jesus’ enemies. The murmuring shows the tension and uncertainty among the crowd regarding Jesus’ identity and mission—we reckon that the Great Grammarian wants us to experience that tension and uncertainty and picture it happening in situ (hence the onomatopoeic quality of the descriptor utilized, like a soundtrack comprised of letters only, He intentionally puts us right into the scene we think, and we are there experiencing it from our Savior’s perspective). As said, folks were likely cautious about expressing their opinions openly due to fear of the religious authorities, resulting in these quieter, sort of behind-the-scenes discussions. So, this here GOGGYSMOS, as a nominative noun in its context, captures the essence of the ongoing, whispered if you will discussions and speculations going on among the people about Jesus. It reflects the tension, uncertainty, and divided opinions that were prevalent at the scene (Fig. 1).

[42] [Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he] deceiveth–G4105 [the people. Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The present tense here indicates a continuous or repeated action happening in the present. In this context, it suggests that the deceiving is ongoing. The active voice tells us that the subject of the verb (“He,” referring to Jesus, according to the opinions of some of the people, “people-plants”) is performing the action. And the indicative mood is the mood of “reality,” it asserts that the action is a fact. So, when some people say, “Nay; but he deceiveth the people,” they are claiming that Jesus is actively and continuously leading people astray. This criticism was part of the public discourse during the feast where people were quite divided in their opinions about Jesus. Some believed Him to be a good man, while others thought He was deceiving the crowd. Deception about what exactly?

• They might have believed (been told) that Jesus was misleading the people with false doctrines—Jesus’ teachings often challenged the established religious norms, and some thought He was leading people away from traditional Jewish beliefs. This view would have been strongly reinforced by the religious leaders.
• Jesus made claims about His identity and His relationship with very God that many religious leaders considered blasphemous. By declaring Himself the Son of God, He was no doubt seen as deceiving people about His divine authority.
• And there was a decided fear that Jesus’ influence and growing following would lead to social and political unrest. The Jewish leaders, particularly the Sadducees, were concerned about maintaining their position and avoiding conflict with the Roman authorities.

 

So, these “concerns” were embellished by Jesus’ enemies and culminated in accusations that Jesus was a deceiver, even though many others quite clearly saw Him as a good—AGATHOS—man and a prophet. The divided opinions reflect the super thick tension and controversy surrounding our Savior’s ministry at that time.

[43] [Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. Howbeit no man] spake–G2980 [openly of him for fear of the Jews]<>Verbal usage is Imperfect, active, indicative. The imperfect tense indicates a continuous or repeated action in the past. It suggests that the not openly speaking pall hanging in the air was an ongoing activity. The subject (in this context, “no man”) is performing the action of (not) speaking openly as per the active voice, and the mood is indicative, which is primarily used to present factual statements. We can easily put the pieces of the puzzle together here. Fear of the religious authorities created an atmosphere where open discussion about Jesus was suppressed. The context makes clear the influence of the religious leaders here and the caution exercised by the populace in discussing the controversial Lord Jesus. The country folks maybe didn’t know what scheming was afoot against Jesus, but certain Jerusalemites did, and of course so did the temple guards standing around the periphery of the crowd, which in itself was intimidating (Fig. 1). Those guards were there to violently suppress any kind of trouble, and there could have been plenty of trouble given the divided and no doubt heated religious opinions of the crowd. That does not ever change, does it? People, no matter the age, tend to think and act passionately when it comes to their beliefs about God. That passion can be, and oftentimes is, exploited to serve ulterior motives. Did God place this passion in our hearts so that we would search for Him and always think about Him? Well, here, religious freedom was suppressed, folks were forced to think one way and one way only—that is not outright said but it hangs over the text like the pall that hung over this ancient motley crowd addressed by their Savior.

[44] [Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. Howbeit no man spake openly of him for] fear–G5401 of the Jews]<> The Greek PHOBOS is utilized, we get our word “phobia” from that, which pretty much tells us what we need to know. Look friend, this fear wasn’t just a minor worry, it was a profound, pervasive dread of the Jewish religious authorities. The “phobia” angle makes it relatable to us modern readers—it’s the kind of fear that causes you to alter your behavior out of an overwhelming sense of anxiety or terror. In this context, it is why nobody dared to speak openly about Jesus. Their fear was intense enough to keep them silent or at best whispering their thoughts, reflecting just how powerful and intimidating the religious authorities were. This is the sort of viper’s nest our Savior stepped into in keeping with the Divine Plan of Salvation praised be His great Name, even Hero, amen.

[45] [Now about the] midst–G3322 [of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?]<> This simply refers to the middle of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot). This feast lasted for eight days, so the “midst” would be around the fourth or fifth day of the celebration. The term “about” here is used to indicate an approximate time. It suggests that Jesus went up to the temple and began teaching roughly in the middle of the feast, but it does not pinpoint the exact moment. We can think of it as saying “around the halfway point” rather than an exact “midpoint.”

[46] [Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the] temple–G2411 [and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?]<> This is the temple at Jerusalem in Jesus’ day, the so-called “Herod’s” temple. It was not just a single building but a sprawling, eye-popping complex, that included multiple courtyards and structures. The Temple Mount (Hebrew HAR HaBAYIT, atop Mount Moriah) was expanded by Herod’s engineers to create a massive platform of, count them, thirty-six acres (that’s right, Israel built this place, and they reclaimed it in 1967 by the way; as pointed out, the Temple Mount sits atop none other than Mount Moriah, the site of the first |Solomon’s and second | Zerubbabel-Herod’s Jewish temples; the so-called second temple was first built by Zerubbabel, and then that temple was renovated by Herod, which also goes by the name of “second temple” oftentimes). This Temple Mount area included the Western Wall (often known today as the “Wailing Wall,” i.e., what was left of the retaining wall that once surrounded the Herod’s temple complex after the Roman sack of Jerusalem in AD 70). The heart of the temple was the Holy of Holies (KODESH HaKODASHIM), considered the most sacred space in Judaism. According to tradition, this was where the Ark of the Covenant had been kept in Solomon’s Temple (the so-called “first temple,” which was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC, and rebuilt by Zerubbabel in 516 BC, the “original” so-called “second temple”). No matter the age, access to the Holy of Holies was restricted to the High Priest, who could enter only on Yom Kippur. For our purposes, it is noteworthy that the temple complex in Jesus’ day (Herod’s renovation of Zerubbabel’s rebuilding of Solomon’s temple) featured several courtyards:

 

• The Court of the Priests was reserved for sacrificial rituals.
• The Court of Israel was where Jewish men gathered.
• The Court of Women was open to all Jews.
• The Court of the Gentiles was accessible to non-Jews, it was separated from the inner sanctuaries by a low barrier.

 

Just a blurb on how spectacular humanly speaking Herod’s temple was, and its prophesied demise. It was widely known for its grandeur; it was adorned with gold, marble, and intricate carvings, a thing to behold, to put it mildly. The renovation by Herod of Zerubbabel’s temple was a monumental project, largely expedient, aimed at solidifying his legacy and gaining favor with the Jewish people. But, and there always is a not so happy “but” down here in the land of sin and sorrow, this magnificent, proud structure was reduced to rubble by the Romans in AD 70 after their long siege of Jerusalem as Jesus, the Centerpiece of our study, had prophesied (Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6—all three evangelists are agreed here on Jesus’ humble pie heads up). Beyond its architectural brilliance and bringing our discussion closer to what interests us in this study, Herod’s temple was the central place of worship for the Jewish people and played a pivotal role in their religious and cultural life. Jesus likely taught in one of the outer courtyards, probably within the Court of the Gentiles, since this area was accessible to both Jews and Gentiles, making it a prime location for public teaching and discussion. Bottom line, by teaching there, essentially a public space, yet within the confines of the temple, Jesus ensured that His message was heard by a diverse audience, a motley crowd, including the myriad travelers from different regions who were visiting Jerusalem for the feast. Again, we see strategy here, there is a Plan at work, and a divine timing, KAIROS, inherent in that. This strategic location makes clear that Plan’s goal of a significantly broader reach for Jesus’ teaching, being centered in the Jewish temple’s Court of the Gentiles no less. The revamped temple, the various courtyards, the traditions, all come together here, an Eternal Plan conceived of long before Jesus came to give it legs.

[47] [Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and] taught–G1321. [And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?]<> Verbal usage is Imperfect, active, indicative. The imperfect indicates an action that was ongoing or habitual in the past. Here, it means that Jesus was continuously or repeatedly teaching during His time at the temple during the feast. The subject (Jesus) is performing the action of teaching per the active voice, and the indicative mood asserts a truism, a truth. Jesus was actively and continuously engaging with the people, teaching them new perspectives and doctrines during the feast. The repeated and habitual nature of the teaching highlights Jesus’ persistent effort to convey His message—despite the understood controversies and opposition He faced. It’s really a profound moment, illustrating the ongoing commitment and dedication Jesus had to His ministry (to the Eternal Plan He shouldered).

[48] [Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews] marvelled–G2296 [ saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?]<> Verbal usage is guess what? It is consistent with the “taught” verb: Imperfect, active, indicative. As Jesus continuously (imperfect nuance) taught, the Jews (active voice) were continuously (imperfect nuance) marveling. Marveling about what? Clarity, indeed, authority and clarity, unexpected knowledge, insightful, focused, important, O my, cogent, yea jaw-drop marveling over this here extraordinary teaching (Fig. 2). This great Teacher, Jesus, who had not received formal rabbinical education—imagine that—demonstrated profound understanding and wisdom. And this knowledge, His knowledge, flat baffled and bothered, flat impressed and incensed, the learned audience (Fig. 1). Our Lord taught with an authority and clarity that set Him apart from other teachers of His time and everybody realized it, contributing to the continuous astonishment of the crowd—after a few shots at it, Jesus’ enemies dared not challenge Him much about His teaching, and this the crowd knew too, and then when they themselves heard Him, that closed the loop on it and they could not help but marvel. The marveling therefore also indicates the challenge Jesus posed to the established religious norms and authorities—them fellers didn’t much like witnessing all that marveling to be sure. So, in this context, the ongoing marveling (imperfect communique) of the Jews (active voice communique) isolates and emphasizes the extraordinary nature of Jesus’ teaching and its galvanizing impact on His listeners—it was electric baby is an understatement. Thus does the Great Grammarian clue us in on how Jesus’ teaching was delivered and received.

[49] [Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How] knoweth–G1492 [this man letters, having never learned?]<> Verbal usage is Perfect, active, indicative. The perfect tense relates a past action with lasting effects. By using this tense, the verse emphasizes that Jesus’ knowledge was not just momentary but established and enduring. It highlights the completeness of His understanding. The active voice indicates that Jesus Himself possesses and exercises this knowledge; it emphasizes His personal and direct engagement with Scripture. And as said before, the indicative mood is used for stating facts. It asserts the reality of Jesus’ knowledge here as an undeniable fact despite the marvel and skepticism of the Jewish onlookers. So, we may take it that the use of the Perfect, active, indicative form for “knoweth” reflects the divine wisdom of Jesus and His authoritative delivery of the same. It reinforces the idea conveyed throughout the Gospel of John that Jesus had a unique and intimate understanding of God’s Word, which was not acquired through conventional means but rather through His divine nature and mission. Mission? How could Jesus’ mission impact this understanding—divine wisdom, sure, but how about Jesus’ mission, how did that impact His consummate understanding of God’s Word?

• Jesus’ mission involved fulfilling numerous Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. This accomplishment substantiated His divine authority and wisdom since only One with intimate knowledge and alignment with God’s Plan could even remotely fulfill these prophecies. For instance, prophecies like Isaiah 53 about the Suffering Servant, and Micah 5:2 about the Messiah’s birthplace (Bethlehem) were realized precisely through Jesus’ mission.
• Throughout Jesus’ mission, He demonstrated divine wisdom and authority in His teachings and miracles. His insights reflected a profound understanding and flat-out mastery of spiritual ruths. His miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, and controlling nature, showcased His authority over creation, pointing to His divine nature and mission.
• One of Jesus’ central roles was to reveal God’s Eternal Plan of Salvation for humanity. Through His parables, discourses, and simply His actions, He conveyed profound spiritual wisdom that invited people to understand and partake in God’s Redemptive Plan. His teachings distilled divine wisdom into accessible forms, directly impacting His perceived authority and wisdom.
• Jesus’ mission involved suffering and sacrifice. By enduring the Cross, He displayed the ultimate wisdom and authority over what? Sin and Death. And please notice, the Resurrection, the pinnacle of His mission, validated His divine authority, showing that His wisdom and mission culminated in Victory over Death and a pathway to Eternal Life for His followers.
• Through His mission Jesus equipped His disciples with (His) divine wisdom and authority. How? By sending the blessed Holy Spirit He ensured that we His followers could continue His work and spread His teachings globally. This empowerment was essential for the early Church’s growth and the sustained impact of His mission.

 

So, in essence, Jesus’ mission was the practical leg, that is, the practical outworking of His divine wisdom and authority, each aspect mutually reinforcing the other—-a bigtime positive feedback loop.

[50] [Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man] letters–G1121 [having never learned?]<> It is the Greek GRAMMA. It refers to more than just the alphabet, it encompasses sacred writings and learned knowledge, including Scripture. In context it signifies Jesus’ deep understanding of the Hebrew sacred writings, the Old Testament essentially, and religious teachings per se, which astonished the listeners given that Jesus had not been formally educated in a traditional rabbinic school. In this way, “letters” here highlights the remarkable nature of Jesus’ wisdom and knowledge, as He possessed a profound grasp of Scripture and spiritual truths without the conventional means of learning.

[51] [Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned–G3129<> Our verb root is “to learn” (MANTHANW), which is negated by another word (MH) and together with the participle form we get MEMATHEKWS= ”having never learned.” Verbal usage is Perfect, active, participle. The perfect tense indicates a completed action that has ongoing effects or relevance—completion | relevance is the takeaway for us. Here, it implies that Jesus did not receive formal education at any point in the past, and this lack of formal learning continues to be a fact about Him in context. The active voice shows that Jesus is the subject performing the action—that He, personally, had never undergone formal training. As a participle, our verb functions like an adjective, providing more information about the subject—in this case, Jesus. It describes His state of having never been formally educated, which adds to the astonishment of the Jews about His profound understanding of Scripture and religious teachings (He wowed them, that’s astonishing, but to do so without formal education and training all the more so). The Jews were marveling at how Jesus possessed deep knowledge and wisdom despite not having been formally trained, which emphasizes the extraordinary nature of Jesus’ wisdom and makes clear His divine insight (cf. the lad Jesus at age twelve Luke 2:46-47; note that at that age, there would not have been time to attain deep knowledge and wisdom; this scene highlights Jesus’ exceptional wisdom and insight even as a child, further pointing to His divine nature and mission),

 

A formal education for a Jewish boy like Jesus (yes, Jesus was a Jew, is a Jew, will always be a Jew) during the first century would typically go as follows.

 

• Around ages 5-6, Jewish boys would begin learning Hebrew and memorizing the Torah at home with their parents.
• From age 6 to about 13, they would attend the local synagogue school (BET SEFER) to study the Torah more intensely, memorize extensive portions of Scripture, and learn basic arithmetic.
• Those who showed aptitude could continue, sort of like going to “grad school,” at BET MIDRASH, where they would study the Oral Traditions and other Jewish texts under a learned rabbi, which involved interpreting and debating the meaning of Scripture/s. Notice that word “debate” is tied to “grad school,” but that is what Jesus was doing with the learned rabbis in the Jerusalem temple at age twelve, and He was teaching them a thing or two, this we know because they were no less astonished than the religious intelligentsia in our John seven.

[52] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine–G1322 [is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.]<> Formally, a doctrine encompasses a body of principles or teachings. In the context of Scripture, it often refers to the core beliefs and teachings that are considered authoritative and foundational. In this context, Jesus is emphasizing that His teachings are not derived from human sources or personal insight even, but directly from Father God, who sent Him (“He Who Sent Me”). That is the key, that is why there is a mission in the first place, it legitimates the divine origin and authority of Jesus’ message, distinguishing it from the teachings of other religious leaders who base their doctrines on human traditions or interpretations. For example, in Scripture, the phrase “doctrine of demons” appears in 1Timothy 4:1. This term contrasts sharply with the divine doctrine Jesus speaks of. Jesus’ doctrine originates from Jehovah and speaks to holiness, Truth, and Salvation. In contrast, the “doctrine of demons” is rooted in deceit and aims to lead people away from the true faith. Jesus’ teachings focus on love, righteousness, and the Kingdom of God, demonic doctrines often involve false teachings and practices that contradict or distort the Truth of God’s Word. Jesus’ doctrine brings spiritual life and freedom, the doctrine of demons leads to bondage, confusion, and spiritual death. This stark difference highlights the importance of discerning the source and substance of the teachings we follow, amen? Scripture advises us to be discerning of false teachers, recognizing them by the outcomes of their actions—their “fruits” (Matthew 7:15-20). That “doctrine of demons” often aligns with such individuals, using deceit to lead others astray (the following verses, i.e., doctrinal teachings focused on wisdom, righteousness, the protective guidance of God’s ways, discuss the rewards of discerning wisdom and how folly leads to destruction Proverbs 2:1-7, 8-14,15-20, 21-22).

[53] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that] sent–G3992 [me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, participle. The aorist tense expresses a past action without regard to duration or process, it focuses on the action as a whole, completed activity. the active voice indicates that the subject (Father God) is performing the action of sending. The participle functions like an adjective here, describing a characteristic of the subject. In this case, it identifies God as a sender, as “the one who sent [me].” Jesus emphasizes that His teachings are not His own but come from very God, who has sent Him. Again, this highlights the divine authority and origin of Jesus’ message, distinguishing it from human teachings. What of purpose? The participle clues us in as to purpose here, the verbal form thus serves a few key purposes:

• It clarifies Jesus’ relationship with God, affirming that His teachings stem directly from the One who sent Him.
• It emphasizes the divine authority behind His teachings. This distinction is critical for understanding why His doctrine stands apart from that of other religious leaders.
• It subtly alludes to the broader context of His mission and purpose, which is continually tied back to His being sent by God. Thus does the Great Grammarian drive home His point.

 

So, this not so little participle effectively supports the context of Jesus’ assertions—that’s a big deal—and establishes His divine credentials in His public ministry, no less a big deal. Hurray Mr. Dandy Participle, here’s a little something for you:

 

O yo ho, yo ho John 7:16, what do you know,

Mr. Dandy Participle has illumined the show!

From Jesus’ lips, thine doctrine flows,

“SENT,” by God, His wisdom to show.

With actionable grace, yea, yon divine prose,

this shining participle stands, O my it glows.

A marvel it is, ya’ll, how God’s letters ring, ever do ring,

reverberating Truth, and approving heaven sweet sings.

Mr. Dandy Participle, in thine ringing context delight,

tie the past, and the present, in faith’s saving light!

Well, here’s to the doctrine, divine, ever so true, so true,

with participles shining, Mr. Dandy Participle—that’s you!

 

[54] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If] any man–G5100 [will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.]<> Here is an open invitation addressed to no one in particular but to any God’s will seeker in general. It emphasizes the inclusivity of God’s Salvation Call, indicating that His will is accessible to anyone who seeks it, regardless of background. This concept is at the heart of many of Jesus’ teachings, showing that God’s Truth and Salvation are available to all who are willing to pursue His will, which is centered in and revealed by the One sent to reveal it, even Jesus Christ our Savior.

[55] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man] will do–G2309+G4160 [his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.]<> We have two parts to this crucial tandem verbal form, a “willing” part and a “doing” part. The willing part is Present tense, active voice, subjunctive mood, and the doing part is Present tense, active voice, infinitive mood. The interesting difference concerns the mood. The subjunctive mood indicates a hypothetical or potential action, and in this context, it reflects the individual’s willingness or intention to do God’s will, a will revealed by the Sent One Jesus Christ. The present tense emphasizes the current ongoing willingness to follow God’s guidance, and the active voice shows the person is actively exercising their will to align with God’s will. The infinitive form here works like a verbal noun, expressing the action of doing God’s will. It highlights what the intention (expressed by the subjunctive) aims to accomplish. And the present tense denotes an ongoing, continuous action of actually performing God’s will, where the active voice has the individual taking active steps to carry out God’s will. (A concrete, first step here might be showing love and kindness to others, especially the Family of Faith John 13:34-35—can the reader think of a few others?) Let’s tie it all together. In this context, the subjunctive and infinitive “scratch each other’s back” to show that both the desire to do God’s will (subjunctive) and the actual doing of “God’s will (infinitive) are crucial not only for understanding Jesus’ doctrine, but understanding it as divinely inspired. Did the reader catch that? (Please note: There will be a test/s later.) The present tense in both forms highlights the ongoing nature of this commitment, and the active voice stresses the individual’s active role in seeking and performing God’s will. So, if anyone wills (present active subjunctive) to do God’s will, that’s great, but is only the left-hand side of the equation, they must also actively do (present active infinitive) God’s will to make the equation (let alone God) happy. This emphasizes the holistic approach of both desire and action centered on God’s will in discerning something, something fantastic, but exactly what? God’s Reality=Divine Truth=Quintessential Doctrine. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, more on this Reward later.

[56] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his] will–G2309 [ he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.]<> Here is that same word we had just before as a Present, active, subjunctive verb when discussing “…will do…” but shows up now as an accusative,, singular, neuter noun. What is God’s will? It is revealed by Jesus Christ, He, very Word of God, consider Micah 6:8, Matthew 6:10, 7:21, 12:50, 28:19-20, John 4:34, 5:30, 6:38-40, 1Thessalonians 4:3-4, 1Timothy 2:3-4, et al. God’s will, as revealed through Jesus, centers on aligning with His purpose, which is multifaceted:

• The restoration of humanity to Himself (John 3:16-17).
• The revelation of His character, His manifest glory, love, and righteousness to the world (John 1:14).
• The transformation of lives (Romans 12:2).
• Communion and fellowship with each individual (John 15:4-5).
• The establishment of His kingdom on earth (Matthew 5-7).
• Renewing the Creation (Romans 8:22-23<–>Revelation 21:1-5).

 

Through Jesus, we see a clear expression of God’s will and purpose, and through whom He invites us to participate in it. And following God’s will involves both the intention (a commitment of the heart) and the action (works done with our hands so to speak). By engaging both, it’s like embarking on a “discovery” journey where God guides us through understanding and experiencing His Divine Truth (quintessential doctrine).

[57] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he] shall know–G1097 [of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.]<> Verbal usage is Future, middle deponent, indicative. The future tense is obvious enough, it indicates an action that will happen in the future. In this context, it implies that the individual “any man” (doing God’s will) will come to know or understand God’s doctrine on Jesus’ lips at some point in the future. In Greek, the middle voice implies that the subject is acting with a sense of personal involvement that folds back on them somehow (a reflexive nuance), and in this context, a true middle voice would suggest that the individual will gain a personal understanding or knowledge of God’s will per adherence to and follow through on their desire to know Him and His will. But notice, it is a deponent verb, and as such conveys an active voice (meaning subject “any man” acting) despite its middle form, thus the focus is on the active understanding that one will gain about God’s will, without specifically indicating a reflexive action on the subject. This means the middle nuance gets absorbed by the active voice, highlighting the certainty of coming to know very Truth by actively seeking to do God’s will. Appreciating these grammatical subtleties deepens our grasp of the text. And the indicative mood straightforwardly presents the action as a fact. It indicates that this realization or understanding is a definite event that will happen. When someone seeks to do God’s will, the result is they will flat know whether a given doctrine is from God. This future action—coming to a definitive understanding—is both a promise and intended consequence of the individual’s (any man) active pursuit of God’s will—let us tuck that treasure away and ever tap into it. Now, aside from the verbal usage treasure revealed, here is another gem. The literal Greek root verb utilized is GINOSKW, it means “to know,” “to perceive,” “to understand,” or “to become acquainted with.” This verb captures an experiential, dynamic, and progressive knowledge, often emphasizing a deep and personal understanding. The Greek EIDW on the other hand, not utilized here by the Great Grammarian, typically refers to a factual or immediate knowledge, akin to “seeing” with the mind’s eye. It’s more static, encompassing immediate recognition or awareness rather than a progressive understanding. So, why GINOSKW here and not EIDW? GINOSKW is used to make clear the active, continuous process of coming to know God’s will—a “discovery” journey we talked about earlier. Using GINOSKW isolates and lifts out of this here communique from God the fact that knowing His doctrine is not instantaneous for us humans but involves a growing, experiential relationship with God—God wants to see desire and pursuit coming from this here “any man” individual before He dishes out the treasure nuggets of knowledge of Himself and attendant Divine Reality which is Divine Truth. So, choosing GINOSKW highlights the transformative aspect of seeking and doing God’s will. This experiential knowledge deepens over time as one faithfully follows the Divine Truth being progressively revealed by the Word of God, even Jesus.

[58] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it] be–G2076 [of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.]<>Verbal usage is Present tense, indicative mood. We do not expect voice here because the subject (whether the doctrine) is static. This (linking) verb simply links a static subject to its predicate (is of God), denoting a state of being. This static nature quite accentuates the continuous reality of God’s doctrine, it maintains the focus on the doctrine’s divine origin rather than any action per se, pointing to its ever present, unchanging (static) Truth. This structure further reinforces the importance of the intentional seeking and sustained pursuit of God’s will we discussed, making clear that true knowledge of divine doctrine is a static, i.e., unchanging, and undeniable reality for those who persistently seek and do God’s will. Let’s focus in on the verbal form. As said before, the present tense Indicates continuous or repeated action happening currently, and the indicative mood states a fact or reality. So, “whether it be” here is used to express a current, ongoing state—whether the doctrine genuinely originates from God or not. This usage emphasizes the certainty and immediate reality of discerning the Divine Truth of the given teachings. Jesus is emphasizing that the recognition of the divine source of His teaching is an available, i.e., present, continuous truth for those earnestly seeking to do God’s will (earnest involves persistence among other things). Beautifully, it aligns with the experiential GINOSKW-knowledge we discussed (recall our progressive, transformative knowledge friend GINOSKW). Can the reader see a literary mosaic in their mind, and how the Great Grammarian has arranged the splendidly decked out semantic and grammatical pieces very elegantly, a masterpiece, a thing to behold, of great beauty and incalculable worth?

[59] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether] I speak–G2980 [of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.]<>Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The present tense indicates continuous or repeated action currently happening. The subject (Jesus) is performing the action of speaking per the active voice, and the indicative mood conveys a fact or reality. In this context, Jesus contrasts His teachings with those who speak from themselves (self-derived messages). He emphasizes that His walk attests to His doctrine which correlates with actively seeking to do God’s will, He lives out what we have been talking about all along so far—our Champion like all champions walks the talk, and His humble and impoverished walk has not a whit of self-promotion in it. By using this verbal form, our Lord emphasizes the ongoing and genuine nature of His teaching, thus revealing that it is not self-promotional but divinely informed, divinely instructed (John 4:34, 5:30, 6:38). The underlying Greek root verbal choice LALEW is significant, it implies not just any speech but one of purpose and divine alignment (if God were behind a podium, what doctrine would be heard, how would He deliver His words, how would they come across). This fits with the broader context of John seven, where Jesus speaks about divine alignment—discerning and pursuing God’s will, coming to an understanding of it. This verb, LALEW, often refers to the act of speaking one’s mind and heart openly, highlighting the process of communication itself rather than the content. It’s a verb typically used to stress that someone is actively making themselves heard—something louder, clearer, or more direct compared to simply saying something. By focusing on the way Jesus communicates, it shows that His speaking isn’t self-centered, or agenda driven, instead, it’s about sharing and revealing God’s will in a way that is clear, understandable, and sticks. This emphasis shifts the listeners’ attention from suspecting hidden motives to appreciating the clear, direct, and purposeful manner Jesus uses to bring forth Divine Truth. It’s not just what Jesus is saying—sure that’s very important—but how Jesus is saying it—delivery—an ongoing, genuine act of delivering the Father’s message (self-promoters are exceedingly more concerned with content than delivery no question about it, Jesus emphasizes both content and delivery and LALEW drives that point home to us). So, in this context Jesus “talks LALEW” to make clear He speaks from God’s will, not His own. This choice of verb strengthens the idea that His words are deliberate, purposeful, and imbued with divine authority (all that is in the delivery picture conveyed by LALEW). LALEW, this choice of verb, makes obvious that Jesus’ teachings are a clear, continuous revelation from God, highlighting that His words are not His own (expedient) opinions but sanctioned truths from the Divine. Unlike other “talk verbs” like LEGW, which focuses more on the substance or content of what is said, LALEW emphasizes the act of speaking and the importance of being understood—major difference here; the act of speaking should bear the fruit of understanding. So, in this context, LALEW reflects the essential communication between God and His followers—an act that is both intentional and impactful with, notice please, divine purpose. This understanding of LALEW enhances the depth of Jesus’ message about seeking God’s will through He Jesus, as it makes clear the direct and intentional and identifiable nature of the Divine Communication that He brings (no bluster, excesses, showmanship, etc., nothing childish, erroneous, unholy, etc., instead, quintessential communicative elegance steeped in holiness). Thus speaks the Word of God.

[60] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that] speaketh–G2980 [of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.]<>The Great Grammarian is brilliant and ever keeps one on one’s toes, buckle up, here it comes! Verbal usage is Present, active, participle with the same underlying verbal root LALEW as in Jesus’ speak just before—huh? We expected a different root here, right? What is going on? Both verbs—Jesus speaking | self-promoter speaking—are in the present tense, so we know we have ongoing action of speaking currently happening. The mood is different, when Jesus speaks it is indicative, when the self-promoter speaks it is participle. The difference between the indicative and the participle reflects how the emphasis and nuances differ between Jesus’ speech and that of the self-promoter’s, as follows.

• Present, indicative (Jesus’ speaking) represents a fact or reality being conveyed (indicative), continuously so (present tense), with conscious purpose aimed at revealing God’s Truth (this purpose is axiomatic and understood).
• Present, participle (self-promoter’s speaking) here we must think of varying-sized bird nests “stacked” with smaller ones inside larger ones and stacked up like that, the size is not important it’s the stacking that matters in your mind’s eye, so this self-promoter’s speaking is “nested,” it represents an on-going habitual action: smaller or inner “participle nest” wrapped by a present tense ongoing action “larger or outer nest,” or much more simply put–it’s an ongoing habit. The Great Grammarian has shifted attention from a demonstrated, consistently and continuously preached ministerial reality (via the indicative), to a habit (via the participle), indeed, to an ongoing (present tense) habit of self-promotion, thus spotlighting the self-centered focus of the latter’s speech. By using the present, participle for the self-promoter’s speaking highlights their ongoing effort to seek glory for themselves. The spotlight reveals how their continuous habit of self-promotion contrasts ever so starkly with Jesus’ divine, consistently selfsame ministerial purpose of revealing and in shoe leather demonstrating the revelation of God’s will. Jesus’ argument hangs on that contrast, it speaks volumes, it’s brilliantly constructed; elegant, effective, brilliant. Now, that’s not all, Jesus’ argument shines yet brighter—importantly, combining this “participle effect” with LALEW’s inherent focus on the delivery rather than content, wow, it quite amplifies the contrast between genuine (consistent, demonstrated), divinely aligned communication and habitual self-serving speech (first person pronoun happy, name dropping, pomp and circumstance and the like), and hermetically seals the argument Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Jesus, through the indicative, is shown to convey an active, ongoing revelation of Divine Reality—how’s that for a statement of indicative fact—which Divine Reality is Divine Truth, which is Truth per se, but self-promoters, caught in their participle-driven habits, reveal continuous, ingrained, habitual self-centeredness and self-promotion.

[61] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself] seeketh–G2212 [his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The present tense indicates continuous or ongoing action, and here it conveys ongoing pursuit of personal glory. The active voice shows the subject (anyone seeking their own glory) as performing the action, highlighting their self-driven nature, and the indicative mood states a fact or reality, reflecting the truth of this individual’s self-promoting behavior. Jesus is making a clear distinction between those who speak and seek for God’s glory and those self-promoters habitually seeking their own recognition. Using this grammatical structure emphasizes the ongoing and conscious effort of self-promotion, contrasting sharply with Jesus’ genuine Divine Communication which, by its very nature, is pure and selfless. In Jesus’ teachings, especially in this context, it is clear that His message is not self-promoting but is solely meant to convey God’s will, and just to be clear, Father God is meant here. Throughout the New Testament Jesus and His mission are deeply rooted in the mission given to Him by Father God. This highlights the Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—being unified in purpose and essence. Jesus, in His Divine Communication, consistently stresses that His actions and teachings are not self-promoting but explicitly aligned with the will of the Father, who sent Him on this mission—how could it be any other way except by an apostate traitor, which is obviously not who the Suffering Servant Jesus willingly crucified as part of His mission is. Indeed, aligning with the Triune God’s purpose and reflecting the self-existing nature of Jehovah God, Jesus’ mission consistently reveals and glorifies Father God’s will.

[62] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that] seeketh–G2212 [his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, participle. Same tense and root verb as just before when Jesus referred to the self-promoter’s “seeking,” but different mood—another “participle effect” argument is afoot contrasting the eternal, divine mission of Jesus with the ongoing habitual self-promotion of others through its nuanced portrayal, and again Jesus’ argument hangs on this contrast, it paints a vivid picture of Jesus’ consistent divine alignment versus the persistent, self-centered pursuit of glory of others. Same argument, same brilliant Q.E.D.

[63] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that] sent–G3992 [him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, participle. The aorist tense shows the action (sending) is completed, emphasizing the entirety of the sending act. The active voice tells us that the subject (Father God) is performing the action (sending). The participle adds continuous relevance to the completed action conveyed by the aorist, presenting the sending as both a historical fact yet with ongoing implications relevant to the context. It’s like describing someone who was sent on a mission which had long-lasting effects: The aorist, active, participle verbal usage does this by emphasizing the impact and continuity of the sending. So, in this context, Father God sending Jesus is presented as a completed, definite, divine act (aorist) with continuous relevance to Jesus’ ongoing work and mission (participle). It signifies to the hearers that Jesus’ mission is rooted in a completed divine action while continuing to bear relevance and importance. (Can the reader see why God would want the hearers to clearly realize that? How important was that divine sending, that implication, to Jesus’ ministry? What complications did that claim cause and why, i.e., how was it received? Was it clearly realized? A self-promoter is not thus divinely sent…) But it begs the question, why wasn’t a perfect tense utilized instead, since the perfect indicates a completed action with ongoing relevance—sounds simpler because only one piece of grammar, the perfect, does the job instead of an aorist+participle combo? That is not what the exceedingly wise and purpose-driven Great Grammarian wanted, nope. The aorist tense, which we like to call a “one-shot” act, emphasizes the action’s completion without focusing on duration or process, that’s key. It signifies that Jesus was sent by God as a definite, completed event—using the aorist leaves no room for questioning that. Using the perfect tense could potentially shift the focus more toward the present state or result of that action. Essentially, the perfect is not as strong in conveying the initial, completed nature of the divine act of sending as the aorist is, and then for the ongoing communique the Great Grammarian added the participle not by accident or whim but deliberately to drive home the relevance part of His communique.

[64] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is] true–G227 [and no unrighteousness is in him.]<> The Greek “true” utilized here (ALHTHS) can mean genuine, real, or truthful. The emphasis is on authenticity devoid of any semblance of falsehood. What Jesus is saying by “true” is that the one truly sent by God will be characterized by truth and sincerity, validated by a divine mission that authenticates itself by seeking God’s glory and prioritizing His interests first and foremost.

[65] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no] unrighteousness–G93 [is in him.]<> Jesus’ use of this word points to His internal motivations and decided ethical nature. He sets up another contrast argument here by highlighting that those seeking their own glory inherently lack divine alignment and Truth. By comparing self-promoters’ unethical motives with the genuine, divine mission of those truly sent by God—Jesus—He exposes the moral failings and falsehoods in self-centered pursuits. This contrast would have been keenly understood by His antagonists.

[66] [ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness] is—G2076 [in him.]<> Verbal usage is Present, indicative. This is a linking verb linking subject (who is sent by him) to predicate (is true) conveying a state of being, so no voice, the action is static, a state. The One genuinely sent by God has a very specific state of being that is characterized by truth and sincerity generally and particularly vis a vis pursuing and doing God’s will. The present tense is important, it makes clear that this state of being must exist continually, that is, the One who is truly sent by God will maintain this consistent, enduring authenticity throughout the mission. This not only indicates that the mission is ongoing but also highlights the perpetual nature of being aligned with God’s will as a defining characteristic of being sent by God. It is understood that no human can perfectly do that.

[67] [Did not] Moses–G3475 [give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Jesus invokes Moses, who is highly revered in Jewish tradition, to emphasize the importance of the Law, thereby establishing common ground with His largely Jewish audience. He points out the hypocrisy of the religious leaders who claim to uphold the Law but fail to follow it fully, as evidenced by their plot to kill Him, contrary to the Law’s commandments against murder. Their response shows that they at least superficially received His message. Using Moses, Jesus sets up yet another telling contrast—recall the “participle effect” we discussed earlier—between their self-promotion and His divine mission. He highlights their moral deficiencies and stresses the importance of true righteousness and divine alignment, which He claims and has demonstrated. Jesus emphasizes that His mission is divinely ordained, unlike the false righteousness of those seeking personal glory. By referencing Moses, Jesus shows that His teachings both continue and fulfill the divine principles established in the Law, this clearly highlights the hypocrisy, moral failings, and lack of alignment with God’s will among the religious leaders, while emphasizing His own divine mission and true righteousness (therein lies the contrast). See also.

[68] [Did not Moses] give–G1325 [you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<>Verbal usage is Perfect, active, indicative. Wow, we have a perfect tense here. It signifies a completed action with ongoing effects—simple enough—but O boy the implications in this context. This usage emphasizes that the Law was entirely and perfectly given by Moses, as ordained by God, and continues to have lasting relevance and impact. That’s the takeaway to tuck away. The active voice “closes the loop” by attributing the action directly to Moses, emphasizing accountability. How so? Attributing the action to Moses immediately connects the leaders’ responsibility to a well-established divine mandate; it stresses that the Law they claim to follow was given with full divine authority and expectation of adherence (Sinai: Exodus 19:8, altar of commitment: Deuteronomy 27:5-10, crossing over the Jordan note “Amen”: Deuteronomy 27:15-21, 22-26, Covenant reaffirmation: Joshua 24:24). The religious leaders here flat knew what Jesus was inferring—like shining a light directly at the “inconvenient” Truth. The religious leaders were acutely aware of what Jesus was implying, His references, the perfect tense, the active voice—all of these subtle but powerful linguistic choices were attempts at leaving them no possible escape. Using Moses, they could see that Jesus stressed the complete responsibility they carried and pointed out their shortcomings. These leaders prided themselves on knowing and teaching the Law, so they couldn’t possibly miss what Jesus was laying down about their failings and lack of genuine adherence to the Law they claimed to follow so zealously. It was like holding up a mirror to their hypocrisy, and Jesus made sure they saw their reflection clearly. The given Mosaic Law is here emphasized as a comprehensive and unaltered divine command, given in its entirety, leaving no room for excuses or omissions–a significant point of emphasis for Jesus. This brilliant linguistically and theologically based argument by Jesus locks His antagonists into their own largely Lawless reality. Our Lord stresses that while the leaders claim adherence to the Law, their actions (such as plotting to kill Him no less) contradict its divine and ethical standards, showcasing their moral failings. The perfect tense undeniably reinforces the Law’s authority and shows that its guidelines remain relevant and binding. This beautifully buttresses Jesus’ argument by highlighting the leaders’ ongoing failure to live up to its ongoing comprehensive standards. By using the perfect tense, Jesus isolates and lifts out before them that the act of giving the Law was not just a historical event but a perpetual moral guide. Jesus’ grammatical inference of the completeness of the Law serves to silence any excuses, reinforcing the divine mandate of accountability to uphold God’s commandments fully. And by using the active voice, Jesus directly attributes the giving of the Law to Moses, enhancing this sense of responsibility. The indicative mood makes it a statement of historical and present reality, emphasizing its undeniable relevance. In essence, Jesus tethers this grammatical structure to His theology to highlight the Law’s complete and enduring authority and subtly exposes the hypocrisy of the religious leaders who fail to uphold its ongoing relevance.

[69] [Did not Moses give you the] law–G3551 [and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> When Jesus refers to the Law given by Moses, He is alluding to more than just the Decalogue (Ten Commandments). The Mosaic Law encompasses the entire body of laws and commandments given through Moses. This includes the following.

 

• The Torah: The Ethical and Moral Laws: Such as the Ten Commandments, which provide fundamental moral principles.

 

• Ceremonial Laws: These include instructions for worship, offerings, and religious festivals.

 

• Civil and Judicial Laws: Regulations governing the daily life, justice system, and societal relationships of the people.

 

The aim was to guide the Israelites in living a life aligned with God’s will covering all aspects of their lives to ensure a holy and righteous community. So, in this context, Jesus refers to the entire scope of these divine instructions sometimes referred to as the “Command of God,” the very root and foundation of all human responsibility. He is making the point that while the leaders claim to uphold the Law, their actions demonstrate quite a significant lapse in adherence, especially considering their plot to kill Him.

[70] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you] keepeth–G4160 [the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Verbal usage is guess what? Present tense, active voice, indicative mood. This means it describes an ongoing, habitual action—no big shock, right? By using this tense, Jesus spotlights the religious leaders’ continuous failure to follow the Law despite claiming to uphold it. It’s Jesus’ way of highlighting their persistent hypocrisy and moral shortcomings. Among other violations, they’re plotting to kill Jesus (their Savior no less), which blatantly contradicts the very Law they profess to keep. The active voice pins them down specifically, and the indicative mood bespeaks a present, ongoing reality here.

[71] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why] go ye about–G2212 [to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<>Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The present, active, indicative works hand in hand with the similar verbal usage of “keepeth” to highlight the ongoing and habitual nature of the religious leaders’ actions, where “keepeth” Indicates continuous failure to adhere completely to the Law. “Go ye about” Literally means “seeking,” sort of a head hunt is probably not a stretch, showing their active, deliberate, and ongoing intention to plot against Jesus, despite knowing the Law’s commandments—for sure they knew them. So, this verbal usage emphasizes their persistent and deliberate actions, which isolates and lifts out before us the hypocrisy of their behavior. They claim to uphold the Law yet habitually seek opportunities to betray its principles by plotting to kill Jesus. In biblical and theological terms, legalism is the overzealous adherence to the letter of the Law rather than the spirit of the Law. This often involves a focus on rules and external observances at the expense of truly understanding and internalizing the core principles behind those rules. Here, we see that the religious leaders were so focused on the superficial observance of the Mosaic Law that they failed to recognize its deeper moral and ethical requirements. This legalistic approach sanctioned by pride led them to believe they were upholding the Law, while ironically plotting to violate it by obsessively seeking to kill Jesus. Their plot to kill Jesus at its core involved spiritual blindness due to pride, but they also had ulterior motives, seeing Him as a threat to their authority. All this exposes their hypocrisy and lack of genuine commitment to God’s commandments. And given the human sin nature, they were likely guilty of many other violations as well, consumed by such sins like a spreading leprosy.

[72] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to] kill –G615 [me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist tense signifies a past action with a definite beginning and end, which in this case emphasizes the clear, deliberate intent of the religious leaders’ plot to kill Jesus. The active voice shows that precisely they are the ones initiating this action, highlighting their culpability. The indicative mood makes this a factual statement, pointing to a real, imminent threat. So, Jesus is calling them out on their hypocrisy: they claim to uphold the Law, yet they’re actively, factually plotting to violate the commandment against killing, which reveals a significant moral failing. But how did Jesus know of this intent to kill Him so “indicative-decisively?” Jesus knew their intent because He was informed, as we see in John 7:1. And of course He had divine insight, Jesus often demonstrated knowledge beyond ordinary human understanding, which included knowing the thoughts and schemes of others Matthew 9:4, John 1:47-48, John 4:17-19, John 13:21-26). And it was no big secret this intent to kill Jesus, it was literally public knowledge—the Pharisees’ hostility toward Jesus was well-known among the people, and their intentions to kill Him were not a secret. Note John 7:25 where some people of Jerusalem said, “…isn’t this the man they are trying to kill?…” All these factors contributed to Jesus’ awareness of their lethal intentions. Jesus’ cleansing of the temple and His confrontations with the Pharisees certainly escalated the tension (John 2:13-17, “Matthew Chapter Twenty-three Commentary“) and while those moments weren’t necessarily “aorist moments” in themselves, they marked clear turning points that intensified the Pharisees’ resolve to kill our Lord.

[73] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people] answered–G611 [and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, middle deponent, indicative. The aorist signifies a completed action without emphasizing the action’s duration. It often delineates a specific event or act. In this case, it highlights the people’s definitive response to Jesus’ claim. While the middle voice typically indicates the subject performing an action upon themselves, deponent verbs convey an active meaning despite appearing in a middle form. So, “answered” as a deponent verb simply means the people actively responded. The indicative mood states facts and reality, and in this context, it means the people’s response is a factual, straightforward event without room for doubt—it directs us to the specific answer given, focusing on that answer. So, this verbal usage emphasizes that some in the motley crowd made a definitive response to Jesus’ statement in a deliberate and factual manner, reflecting their disbelief and hostility. The crowd was of mixed persuasion, hence in this answer, we hear the hostile elements therein.

[74] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said] Thou hast–G2192 [a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The present tense indicates a continuous or ongoing action. By using the present tense, the people are implying that Jesus is currently and habitually possessed. The subject (the people) is performing the action of this ongoing state per the active voice—they are actively asserting that Jesus has a demon. And the indicative mood presents this as a fact in the context of their speech. So, in this context, the hostile elements in the motley crowd use the present, active, indicative to make a bold, straightforward, not so nice claim about Jesus being possessed. This response is a clear reflection of their hostility and disbelief, showing that they see Jesus’ actions and teachings as stemming from a demonic influence. Accusing someone of being possessed by a demon was a direct and deeply offensive jab, especially within the religious and cultural context of the time. It went beyond questioning Jesus’ teachings or actions—it directly attacked His character and spiritual authority. This accusation was meant to discredit Him entirely and ostracize Him within the community. Just imagine, in a society that heavily values honor and religious purity, being labeled as demon-possessed is pretty much as low as it gets. Talk about aiming straight for the heart…

[75] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a] devil–G1140 [who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> “Devil” can imply both demonic possession and/or madness. In this context, the antagonists are likely suggesting that Jesus is both possessed and out of His mind. This accusation serves to discredit Him by implying that His teachings and actions are not divinely inspired but rather the result of demonic influence on the one hand, or just flat-out the stirrings of a madman on the other. So, they are hitting our Savior with a double insult: they are wrecking His spiritual integrity and questioning His mental state. It’s a pretty harsh and multifaceted attack meant to undermine Jesus’ authority and message.

[76] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus] answered–G611 [and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Jesus answers them in kind—verbal usage is as theirs just before when they answered (!)—Aorist tense, active voice, indicative mood. Jesus’ intent to respond in kind—using the aorist tense, active voice, and indicative mood—highlights His exceptional clarity, intentional speech, and capacity to humble His opponents without compromising His principles. By using this precise verbal form, He drives home the seriousness and definitiveness of His accusations. In John 7:21, Jesus responds with “…I did one work, and ye all marvel…” The use of the aorist, active, indicative reflects His pointed reference to a specific, completed act—the healing on the Sabbath (John 5:5-9, “John Chapter Five Commentary”). This choice of tense emphasizes the single, completed, undeniable healing action while also challenging His antagonists’ hypocrisy. The active voice indicates that Jesus Himself performed this action, and the indicative mood affirms it as a factual reality—thus Jesus strengthens His case through the grammar. The mirroring shows that Jesus is fully aware of their thoughts and actions, matching their accusations with an equally definitive and factual but stronger statement (a historical reality) in the same grammatical form. What this does is contest their force with force—force? Indeed, just like an arbitrary applied force, say, can provide the “umph” that actualizes the inertia inherent in mass, grammar provides the “umph,” the “structure force” if you will, that actualizes meaning in language. It’s the framework within which the nuances and subtleties of meaning can be articulated. (Just as inertia is an inherent property of matter, meaning is inherent in words, but it’s through grammar that meaning is clearly expressed and realized—there is a reasonable parallel between physical inertia and linguistic meaning.) This strategic use of verbal form not only highlights our Lord’s mastery of language but also emphasizes the truth and finality of His words. It’s simply brilliant, this mirrored verbal usage—the dual emphasis on completed action and factual reality directly challenges the religious leaders’ hypocrisy, pound for pound: they criticize Jesus for performing a good deed while plotting with malicious intent. It’s this strategic use of the aorist tense that makes the point clear, concise, and undeniable—it’s a one-shot healing, affirmed by the indicative’s fact-lending quality. But it’s the mirroring of their verbal usage with such effectiveness, like saying “Here it is back in your face with an extra kick,” that is quite compelling. Don’t mess with deity except on your face friends, and even then, don’t mess around….

[77] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I] have done–G4160 [one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist relates a single, precise, completed action. By using the aorist tense, Jesus is referring to a specific event in the past—the healing of the man at the pool of Bethesda in John 5:5-9. The subject (Jesus) is performing the action per the active voice. This emphasizes that specifically Jesus was the one who conducted this miraculous healing, Jesus’ use of the active voice is isolating and highlighting that quite purposely. And the indicative mood expresses a fact or reality. Straight from the Miracle Worker’s lips, Jesus’ statement is presented as an undeniable truth, highlighting the reality of the miraculous act. In this context, Jesus uses this precise verbal form to stress the finality and significance of His healing act. He is also challenging the hypocrisy of the religious leaders who criticize Him for performing such a blessed good deed on the Sabbath while they themselves act with unjust malice and intentions. So, this strategic use of grammar not only showcases Jesus’ linguistic mastery but also reinforces the obvious, that His antagonists’ confrontation is a farce chock full of double standards; thus Jesus makes His point—clear, concise, and compelling.

[78] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and] ye all [marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> We would render this as y’all. Jesus is speaking to a crowd formed primarily of members of the Jewish religious leaders and Pharisees, along with others who are less hostile toward Him, including non-Jerusalemites. The Jerusalemites are the hostile lot—the “ye all” here—while the non-Jerusalemites are country folks and others. The hostile bunch accused our Lord of performing unlawful acts on the Sabbath, and Jesus is addressing their collective disbelief and hypocrisy. So, the “ye all” refers primarily to those who were openly hostile toward Jesus and His works—decidedly the Jerusalemites and Jewish religious leader types.

[79] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all] marvel–G2296. [Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The present tense indicates a continuous or ongoing action. The people continue to marvel at Jesus’ actions. The subject (the people) is performing the action—per the active voice—they are actively marveling. And their marveling is presented as a real, ongoing reaction per the indicative mood. In this context, Jesus points out the ongoing astonishment of the people at His one, very particular Sabbath healing work He did to highlight their inconsistency and hypocrisy. While they are marveling at His miraculous deed, they simultaneously criticize and oppose Him. This usage shows how their ongoing reaction (marveling) sharply contrasts with their ongoing hostile intentions—a double standard in shoe leather. Isn’t that interesting? Some of the religious leaders (the hostile lot) were actually marveling! While they were astonished by Jesus’ miraculous work, their intentions and actions were still hostile and accusatory. Essentially, their wonder and marvel at Jesus’ abilities didn’t change their underlying intentions to undermine and discredit Him. It’s this contrast between their marveling at His deeds and their continued opposition that exposes their double standard. How can that happen—in these folks, and in people per se? Their reaction makes clear deeper motivations beyond mere religious observance. Their marveling is a begrudging acknowledgment of our Lord’s power, showing that despite their hostility, they cannot deny His miraculous acts. However, their hostility and ugly critique of Jesus also reflect their desire to maintain control and authority. By discrediting Jesus’ actions, they are protecting their own positions of power and prestige within the community. And not least, their hypocrisy indicates they are more concerned with adhering to their own interpretations of the Law so as to nurse their egos and monger power, than with recognizing the true spirit of God’s work through Jesus. Hubris Syndrome anyone? This term describes individuals who develop an exaggerated sense of pride, coupled with contempt for others and a diminished sense of reality. Or maybe it’s “Narcissistic Personality Disorder,” characterized by an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others.

[80] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore] gave–G1325 [unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Verbal usage is Perfect, active, indicative. The perfect tense indicates a completed action with ongoing results or effects. By using this tense, Jesus emphasizes that Moses’ giving of circumcision was a historic event that continues to have significance and influence. The continued observance of circumcision by the Jewish people is an ongoing result of Moses’ action—the perfect’s nuance draws attention to its lasting significance. The subject (Moses) is performing the giving action per the active voice, highlighting his role in instituting circumcision. So, via the active voice, Jesus is subtly inferring Moses’ authority, and via the perfect tense, He asserts the continuity of the Law. Our Lord is making a statement here: since the religious leaders adhere to Moses’ authority and practices, they should acknowledge the consistency and authority of Jesus’ actions, which have been demonstrably in line with God’s institutions given through Moses with which they are intimately familiar. In other words, if the religious leaders respect Moses and his role in giving the Law, they should recognize that Jesus’ works and teachings show themselves to be similarly under the authority of the same God and deserving of similar respect. The indicative mood expresses a statement of fact, presented as an undeniable reality—Moses did indeed give this practice. In this context, Jesus references this circumcision background to challenge His antagonists’ Sabbath-healing accusation against Him and show it to be hypocritical and expedient. He is making a case that everything He does aligns with the Law and certainly with God’s will, so He must argue their Sabbath-breaking claim. To set this up please note Leviticus 12:3. The “allowance” for circumcision on the Sabbath comes from the rabbinic interpretation and tradition upheld by the scribes and Pharisees wherein they interpreted the Leviticus requirement for circumcision on the eighth day to take precedence over the Sabbath rest; this interpretation was based on the importance of the covenant of circumcision, which dates back to Abraham (Genesis 17:10-12); the rabbis concluded that fulfilling this covenantal requirement was more important than the Sabbath prohibition against work (which prohibition they claim Jesus violated by doing a healing on the Sabbath). Jesus is arguing along these lines: If circumcision, which affects only one part of the body, is permissible on the Sabbath to fulfill the letter of the Law, as they say, then healing a man’s whole body should also be permissible in keeping with the spirit of the Law—around which the letter of the Law was written, indeed, to which the letter of the Law points. Jesus is arguing from a greater-to-lesser principle in a couple of ways to cement His argument: from one part of the body to the whole body, and then more abstractly by emphasizing that healing is a greater good than “making sore” (Philippians 3:2-3). It is another brilliant, lock-tight argument that Jesus mustered on the fly in the heat and dust of battle whilst under attack.

[81] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you] circumcision–G4061 [not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> By using the act of circumcision—a sign of the blessed Covenant and spiritual renewal—as an example, Jesus isolates and exposes the inconsistency in the religious leaders’ application of the Law; He is still mowing ‘em down and blowing clippings off the Walkway. They are quite willing to set aside Sabbath constraints for circumcision to uphold the Sabbath-rest Law, yet they accuse Jesus of breaking it by performing Sabbath healings (nowhere disallowed except by their own superadded theology and actually encouraged by the spirit of the Law). Jesus’ argument is that His healing activities, motivated by good and aligned with God’s will, should be seen in the same Divine Light as the eighth day Sabbath “exception.” See also.

[82] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> When Jesus says “…not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers…” He is clarifying that the practice of circumcision predates Moses and originates from the patriarchs, specifically Abraham, as found in Genesis 17:9-14. This indicates that the practice didn’t start with Moses but was passed down to him.

[83] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day] circumcise–G4059 [a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<>Verbal usage is guess what? Present, active, indicative—they always do it on the Sabbath if need be! Thus does the present tense betray precisely them via the active voice, and hands-down so via the indicative. It’s like another Q.E.D. for Jesus.

[84] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day] receive–G2983 [circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Let’s be redundant with the verbal usage so that the point registers and is cozied up to real good—verbal usage is again Present, active, indicative.

[85] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses] should not be broken –G3089 [are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> They circumcise on the Sabbath so that the Law (Law of Moses, specifically, the covenantal law aspect reiterated by Moses, which they prioritized) is not broken, literally MH LUQH—”might not be loosed.” Verbal usage is Aorist, passive, subjunctive. In this context, the aorist tense refers to a single, completed action, emphasizing the requirement to avoid action/inaction that breaks the Law at any point. The passive voice indicates that the Law is the receiver of the action, meaning the Law of Moses must not be broken by their action (or inaction). The subjunctive mood expresses a condition, often one of hypothetical or potential nature, suggesting that breaking the Law must be avoided under any eventuality. In Jesus’ argument, He points out that the religious leaders always perform circumcisions on the Sabbath to ensure the Law of Moses “should not be broken.” By using this verb form, Jesus emphasizes their prioritization of circumcision over their otherwise strict Sabbath observance according to their strict norms, thus exposing their inconsistency when they condemn His healing on the Sabbath. They prioritize their traditional interpretation of the Law, allowing circumcision on the Sabbath, but do not recognize the spirit of the Law that encourages acts of mercy and healing on the Sabbath (Micah 6:8 which this motley crowd quite knew beautifully captures the spirit of the Law). Their actions expose their inconsistency and selective application of the Law, which Jesus highlights to reveal their hypocrisy, and by exposing their hypocrisy, Jesus undermines the credibility of their accusations against Him. Jesus shows them to be phonies, surface-deep, plastic, wanna’ be theologians, unfit to sit in Moses’ Seat, let alone to hold the ”theological gavel” that condemns Him.

[86] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye] angry–G5520 [at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The present tense indicates a continuous or ongoing action, suggesting that the religious leaders are actively being angry or becoming angry at that moment. The active voice betrays the subject, the religious leaders, as being angry, and the indicative mood presents the anger-action as a fact or present reality. In context, Jesus uses this verb form to illustrate the ongoing and active anger of the religious leaders toward Him. He contrasts their willingness to circumcise on the Sabbath, clearly without anger, with their anger toward Him for healing on the Sabbath, further exposing their hypocrisy. While the text doesn’t explicitly state how Jesus knew they were angry, there are several contextual clues that indicate this, as follows:

 

• Jesus was in direct conflict with the religious leaders multiple times, receiving immediate reactions to His teachings and actions. Their body language, facial expressions, and immediate responses likely conveyed their anger.

 

• The religious leaders had previously expressed anger and hostility toward Jesus for performing miracles on the Sabbath, as seen in earlier chapters (e.g., John 5:16-18).

 

• The background is important—Jesus is teaching at the Feast of Tabernacles, openly challenging the leaders. Their verbal confrontations further reveal their anger John 7:19-20, 23-24).

 

Combined, these factors provided Jesus with enough obvious evidence to discern their anger.

[87] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because ] I have made–G4160 [a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist tense presents the action as a single, completed event, signifying that the healing Jesus performed was a definitive, accomplished act. The active voice shows that Jesus Himself is the one performing the action of healing. And the indicative mood presents this action as a factual statement, affirming that the man’s healing is a reality. In context, Jesus uses this verb form to highlight the completeness and finality of the healing He performed on the Sabbath. By doing so, He exposes the inconsistency of the religious leaders who condemn His miraculous Sabbath-work while allowing circumcisions on the Sabbath. This reveals their hypocritical and selective application of the Law. It is important to remember that as Jesus speaks, the motley crowd is listening, and their belief in the religious leaders’ credibility surely is waning (Fig. 1). If you were in the crowd friend, how would all this impact you? By revealing their undeniable hypocrisy, Jesus not only highlights their inconsistency but also diminishes their authority and trustworthiness in the eyes of the people. This exposure of their double standards is a significant element of our Lord’s argument, thereby drawing the crowd’s attention to the true spirit of the Law and supporting Jesus’ own spirit of the Law consistent teachings and actions. Recall that our Lord is presenting Himself as the One sent by very God, One who perfectly does God’s will and reveal’s the same, so it is crucial for Him to establish His Law-keeping integrity. And of course His antagonists are making their case to discredit Him, but we see Him turning the tables on them and discrediting them.

[88] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man] every whit whole–G5199 [on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<>In John 7:23, the Greek word for “whole” translates to “healthy” or “sound.” This term emphasizes complete restoration, implying that the person was not just healed but made entirely well and whole—body, soul, spirit. The purposeful choice of this word stresses the completeness and thoroughness of the healing Jesus performed. In stark contrast, the religious leaders’ efforts leave people undernourished and unhealed. Their convoluted interpretations of the Law result in partial and limited healing, both physically and spiritually. Their approach, driven by hypocrisy, fails to recognize the true spirit of the Law that encourages compassionate acts of mercy and complete restoration. They prioritize their strict norms over the holistic well-being of the people, further exposing their inconsistency and the inadequacy of their so-called “healing.” By highlighting this contrast, this decided discrepancy, Jesus not only showcases the completeness of His miracles but also challenges the authority and credibility of the religious leaders, revealing their actions as insufficient and hypocritical.

[89] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?] Judge–G2919 [not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, imperative. The present tense indicates an ongoing or continuous action, suggesting that the act of judging is happening continually. The subject (primarily Jesus’ antagonists: religious leaders and Jerusalemites) is performing the action of judging per the active voice, and the imperative mood indicates a command or instruction: Jesus is commanding His hearers to change their behavior. In this context, our Lord commands His hearers to “judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” He is emphatically telling them to stop making superficial judgments based on appearances and instead to evaluate situations fairly and justly. This command aligns with His broader message of looking beyond the external and understanding the deeper truths and intentions behind actions. By immediately segueing into the imperative to “judge not according to the appearance but judge righteous judgment” from His Sabbath-miracle declaration, Jesus is expanding on His message about genuine healing and the importance of discerning true righteousness. He is emphasizing here via that immediate segue that the religious leaders’ judgments as per His mighty works are superficial and based on appearances, which is precisely why they fail to understand the fullness of His healing miracles. This leads into the larger point that true justice and righteousness are not limited to following the Law rigidly and externally but involve deeper understanding, compassion, and fairness. Yet again Jesus isolates the hypocrisy of the religious leaders here, and simultaneously stresses the need for true, just, and compassionate judgment aligning with the spirit of the Law. The spirit of the Law—the imperative notwithstanding, can the reader discern how that Jesus is at pains to bring out its importance in His eyes? When religious practices are just that, practices, i.e., following rules and rituals and whatnot, without any deeper meaning, they lose their purpose, which is to inspire deepening gratitude to and love for God and compassion, love, and justice toward others, and to foster transformation unto holiness. Without that thrust, they fall short on all counts. Externalism and perfunctory ritual and rigid norms can leave people spiritually “hungry” or unfulfilled and untransformed unto holiness and Salvation. Jesus was pointing out that the religious leaders were focusing too much on external rules and missing the Law’s true intention: to create a life of compassion, justice, and a deepening relationship with God.

[90] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the] appearance,G3799 [but judge righteous judgment.]<> The “appearances” Jesus speaks of refer to those preconceived notions the religious leaders held—prejudices steeped in tradition and legalism, rather than the true spirit of compassion and justice the Law intended. This focus on external conformity rather than internal transformation led them to miss the essential truths of Jesus’ actions, like His Sabbath miracle, and why they misjudged Him. It’s like being so fixated on the surface of a painting that you miss the entire masterpiece.

[91] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but] judge–G2919 [righteous judgment.]<> Same word as just before, but different verbal usage, here we have Aorist, active, imperative. Why the glaring switch in tense from present to aorist? The shift to the aorist, active, imperative is done to emphasize a specific, decisive action that Jesus commands His hearers to undertake immediately. The aorist tense in Greek is often utilized to convey a sense of immediacy, instantaneousness, and urgency, presenting the action per se as a ‘freeze-frame’ or ‘one-shot’ consummation. In this context, Jesus is emphasizing that the crowd, particularly the religious leaders and Jerusalemites, need to make a critical decision right now (aorist tense) leading to a significant change in their judgment—a judgment He previously pointed out to be continuously flawed (present tense). They must make an immediate and decisive switch (aorist tense) from superficial judgment based on appearances to righteous judgment aligning with God’s true intention of the Law, i.e., the spirit of the Law. So, this switch can be seen as Jesus demanding a definitive break from their current, ongoing (present tense), flawed way of judging. Precisely He (active voice) is flat-out commanding them (via the imperative mood) to begin to truly mirror the heart/spirit of the Law in their judgments. Bottom line, Jesus is demanding a rapid change in judgment here, from superficial to righteous. He ties this urgency to their misjudgment of His Sabbath miracle primarily but also highlights the immediate need for true righteous judgment for the sake of both the spiritually malnourished and misled people and the religious leaders’ own souls. An aside on the beauty of language. We have discussed the same word—judge—in the dress of two different tenses, yet with the same voice and the same mood and have experienced quite a shift in intended meaning. Just like adding a new chord in a piece of music can transform the entire melody, changing the tense in language can significantly deepen our appreciation and understanding of its message. In our case, the switch to the aorist tense serves as that harmonic shift, putting focus on the immediacy and urgency of Jesus’ command, making it resonate more powerfully, much like an unexpected yet beautiful chord change enhancing a song. Thus does the Great Grammarian beautifully hit the right notes… May He by His grace give us all an ear to hear them and the insight to appreciate them, amen.

[92] [Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge] righteous judgment.]<> It means to judge rightly or fairly, making decisions based on genuine understanding and alignment with the Law’s spirit instead of mere appearances. Jesus commands judgment that considers not only superficial aspects but drills down into the deeper truth and essence. If they had been judging righteously, they would have recognized that Jesus’ miracle was perfectly aligned with the spirit of the Law.

[93] [Then] said–G3004 [some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Imperfect, active, indicative. The imperfect tense indicates a continuous or repeated action in the past. Specifically, this implies that some people from Jerusalem (active voice) were repeatedly (imperfect tense) saying or continually discussing among themselves, pointing to an ongoing conversation about Jesus and the intentions to kill Him. Their frequent murmuring emphasizes their constant preoccupation with Jesus’ identity and the implications of His actions. By way of the indicative, this is presented as a fact, a real scenario.

[94] [Then said] some of them of Jerusalem–G2415 [Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Some, not all. How did some know there was a plot to kill Jesus afoot? Hmm… And they knew precisely from Micah 5;2 where Messiah was from—same place as Jesus, hmm… This “some” is the not so nice Jerusalem crowd, part of the motley crowd Jesus is addressing, often referred to as the “Jerusalemites.” We say “not so nice” because they were significantly influenced by the religious leaders (Pharisees—businessmen, tradesmen, teachers, religious leaders, Sadducees—priestly, custodians of the temple, Sanhedrin—elite religious rulers of the land) and shone those leaders’ contempt of Jesus directly on our Lord. These Jerusalemites were comprised of ordinary citizens, not a few of the aristocracy, they cozied up to the religious leaders who spun a web of deceit about Jesus that impacted these here Jerusalemites’ opinion of Him and response to Him. Whether it was one of the religious leaders, or one of the Jerusalemites, they were men of means that “took care of” each other as in a lot of mutual “back scratching” going on and they had a common “back scratching project” when it came to Jesus who flat exposed them for the rats they really were. See also, and also.

[95] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom] they seek–G2212 [to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The Jerusalemites knew the plot to kill our Lord that was afoot, while the country folks and others in the motley crowd probably did not. Notice how “they” (subject, active voice) use the present tense to describe the headhunt going on or rather ongoing—a nasty reality to kill our Lord (indicative). This mean-spirited plotting captures the essence of their evil intentions in real-time, emphasizing the constant threat posed to Jesus. The Jerusalemites pose a constant threat to Jesus for sure but let us not forget that the theology-cocky, power monger religious leaders are at the root here, they have made the Jerusalemites twice the sons of hell that they themselves are (Matthew 23:15).

[96] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek] to kill–G615 [But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, infinitive. The aorist tense indicates that the intention (conveyed by infinitive) to kill is viewed as a decisive, completed action (conveyed by the aorist). The aorist for its part gives the sense of a “freeze frame” or “snapshot” moment, lifting out a particular plot point without detailing the process or duration. The active voice shows that the subject is performing the action, which subject in this context refers to the Jerusalemite proxies, specifically those deeply influenced by the religious leaders. The infinitive mood Indicates the purpose or result of an action, and here it emphasizes the intent to kill Jesus as the goal or objective. So, this verbal usage in this context highlights the specific, decisive intent to kill Jesus. It hands-down bespeaks the past consideration of the matter as a definitive plan, showing the plotters’ determination.

[97] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo] he speaketh–G2980 [boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is guess what? Present, active, indicative. And the root verb? It is LALEW, as expected when focusing on the act | delivery of speaking. This choice of verb is emphasizing the manner of Jesus’ speaking, i.e., boldly. The present tense indicates an ongoing, continuous action happening right now. The active voice shows that the subject, Jesus, performs the action of speaking boldly. The indicative mood states it as a fact and present reality. This verbal usage shows that Jesus is currently and continuously speaking with boldness and confidence, openly addressing the crowd without fear. This demonstrates His courage and determination in proclaiming His message, despite knowing His antagonists’ malicious intentions against Him.

[98] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh] boldly–G3954 [and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> We have the resonant Greek descriptor PARRHSIA utilized here (causes LALEW | “spaketh” to ring with fullness and meaning, it is an adverb). It means fearlessness, as in courage in the face of threats and hostility, frankness as in openly presenting one’s message without shortcuts or camouflage that deflect hostility off oneself. Notice the contrast between Jesus’ openness and the deceitful, covert actions of His antagonists. This word clearly reflects the divine authority and certainty of Jesus’ mission and message inherent therein—bold, confident, fearless, frank, God-centered, holy, open…, as one would expect of One sent by very God. Jesus is the greatest role model ever, let us be classy like Him.

[99] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and] they say–G3004 [nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The present tense bespeaks an ongoing and continuous action. It says that at the moment, “they” are not currently saying anything to Jesus—that’s what’s ongoing right now. The subject, “they” is performing the action per the active voice, and the indicative mood presents the action as a factual reality, meaning that this non-action (their silence) is a current and observable fact. This silence suggests a sense of bewilderment or maybe hesitation—“they” are aware of the boldness of Jesus’ claims but are not taking any immediate action against Him, verbal or otherwise, at this point. It isolates the tension and uncertainty at the scene owing to Jesus’ public declarations. The witness of the motley crowd maybe had something to do with that non-action at that moment.

 

There are three different “theys” mentioned in John 7:25-26:

 

• “…Whom they seek to kill…”: This “they” refers to a broader group, the religious rulers (Pharisees and chief priests) and their dirty-work proxies—those Jerusalemites deeply influenced by them. This group has a decisive plan to kill Jesus and has been actively plotting against Him. They are all alike “in the know” as it were about the plan.
• “…they say nothing to him…”: This “they” is much narrower and refers to the religious leaders and/or proxies at the scene, who remain silent and do not confront Jesus despite His bold speech. The temple guards were supposed to seize Jesus and bring Him to the religious rulers, so that probably excludes the rulers from this group to some extent and puts emphasis on the guards’ silence (John 7:45-46). This at-the-scene group’s silence indicates a mixture of hesitance, uncertainty, or possibly confusion about how to handle Jesus at that moment given the public setting.
• “…the rulers do not really know that this is the Christ do they…” This one is obvious, it specifically refers to the religious rulers.

[100] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers] know–G1097 [indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Second Aorist, active, indicative. The second aorist tense, like the aorist tense we have described, indicates a past action viewed as a simple, single, completed event. In this context, it emphasizes the decisive nature of the religious rulers’ wondering about Jesus’ identity. The religious rulers are grappling with the question of whether Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), and this moment of questioning is depicted as a definitive, completed action in their minds. It suggests an instant when the “threshold of wondering” was crossed, from flat-out unbelief to wondering about it, this seems reasonable given their posture toward Jesus heretofore—His person, His claims. The active voice tells us that the subject, the rulers, performs the action of wondering, and the indicative mood presents this action as a factual reality. So, the aorist speaks volumes, it depicts this questioned realization about Jesus’ identity as a single, completed event at a “threshold moment” in the past, emphasizing the certainty and conclusiveness of their wondering about Jesus’ identity. This reflects some serious tension and internal conflict among the religious leaders as they grapple with the possibility of Jesus’ identity as Messiah (one can almost hear the “logic-babble” as they tried to debunk the possibility) yet choose to remain silent and not openly confront Him (just yet). The actual

Greek word utilized is GINOSKW, it means to “know,” “to recognize,” or “to understand.” It relates a deeper, more intimate, or experiential knowledge. In this context, it emphasizes a recognition or realization that goes beyond mere intellectual acknowledgment, it implies a more profound understanding or acceptance. The choice suggests that the rulers have come to wondering about a deeper, more intimate understanding or realization of Jesus’ true identity as the Christ. This deeper level of knowing contrasts with other Greek words for “know,” such as OIDA, which often refers to factual or superficial knowledge. The use of GINOSKW helps us to understand the internal conflict among the rulers given the depth and consequent weight of this realization communicated by the word GINOSKW. It implies that their questioning is not just academic but involves a significant recognition of Jesus’ identity. So, this word choice reflects the serious nature of the rulers’ contemplation about Jesus. Their wondering is not casual but involves a deeper, potentially transformative understanding (it happened to Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea at some point, so it’s possible). More than likely though, their wondering bordered more on denial and dread than transformation.

[101] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very] Christ–G5547? [Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> ChristoS is Greek for the Hebrew Mashiach—Anointed One | Messiah. The New Testament, written in Greek, uses ChristoS to convey the concept of Mashiach from the Hebrew Scriptures. This continuity across the Testaments makes clear that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies, and is to be recognized as the Anointed One | Messiah, both in Hebrew and Greek contexts. See also.

[102] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit] we know–G1492 [this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Perfect, active, indicative. OIDA not GINOSKW is utilized this time. The perfect tense indicates that the action of knowing was completed in the past but continues to have relevance or an effect in the present. It makes clear that this “knowledge” is something the speakers—undoubtedly the Jerusalemites—have had for a while and remains pertinent—we could say “their mind was made up”—and it guides their thinking going forward. The subject (“we”, i.e., Jerusalemites) performs the action of knowing as conveyed by the active voice. It shows that the speakers have an ongoing, active knowledge be that as it may. The indicative mood states this knowing-action as a factual reality; it indicates that the speakers’ “knowledge” about Jesus’ origins is a present, certain fact for them. Now, OIDA generally refers to factual or intuitive knowledge; it implies a certain, established understanding or awareness. GINOSKW, on the other hand, implies a deeper, more experiential or progressive understanding. It indicates learning or coming to know something more intimately over time. In this context, the crowd states, “…Howbeit we know (1^st person plural inflection is OIDAMEN) this man whence he is…” This use of OIDA implies that the people have a settled, factual for them, knowledge about Jesus’ origins. They think they know where He comes from (heathen land up yonder in “despicable” Galilee, they hold fast to that “knowing”), which for them is a known, indisputable fact. OIDA reflects the speakers’ certainty and firm conviction regarding Jesus’ earthly origins—that’s a takeaway. They think they understand where He is from, and this knowledge is not up for debate in their minds. This contrasts sharply with GINOSKW used earlier, which suggests a deeper realization or experiential knowledge about Jesus’ identity that the rulers are wondering about. This distinction highlights the differing levels of understanding and perception among the people and the rulers regarding Jesus’ identity. Here’s where it gets interesting—please note that the use of OIDA in the perfect tense reflects an established, unchallenged understanding, which aligns with the idea of an indoctrinated belief system, lending considerable weight to the notion that the Jerusalemites are the misguided speakers here—it means the rulers’ propagandizing poison is likely on display here. OIDA of itself conveys this entrenchment, and in the dress of the perfect tense it comes across super strong.

[103] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ] cometh–G2064, [no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Present, middle/passive deponent, subjunctive. The present tense conveys ongoing or repeated action, and in this context, it is meant to emphasize the continuing expectation of the Messiah’s arrival. Deponent verbs are middle or passive in form but active in meaning, which is the case here; although it has a passive form, it is active in meaning. The subjunctive mood reflects uncertainty or a future possibility, and here it indicates the potential or expectation that Christ will come, but it’s viewed as a future or hypothetical event. So, the speakers are expressing the indoctrinated belief that the true origin of the Messiah would be unknown until He reveals Himself, which Micah 5:2 shows to be errant. Their statement reflects this propagandized expectation and uncertainty about Jesus’ identity as the Christ. The use of the subjunctive mood nevertheless highlights the anticipation and hope among the people for the Messiah’s future coming, while also expressing doubt about Jesus fitting that expectation—the doubt may be inferred precisely because of the subjunctive mood’s nuance.

[104] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man] knoweth–G1097 [whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. Like riding a sawtooth waveform, the Great Grammarian has toggled us away from the “surface-level knowing” of OIDA and has us plumbing knowing’s depths once again with GINOSKW. The present tense indicates an ongoing uncertainty or supposed lack of knowledge about the origin of Messiah in this context. The subject (“no man”) performs the not knowing action per the active voice, which clearly indicates that the speakers do not actively (or willingly) understand where Messiah comes from. The indicative mood presents all this as a factual reality. This verbal usage contrasts with earlier uses of OIDA, indicating a more experiential or deeper understanding that is lacking. It reflects the widespread belief and expectation that the true origin of the Messiah would remain unknown until He reveals Himself, aligning with the people’s indoctrinated views.

[105] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then] cried–G2896 [Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. This verbal usage shows Jesus actively and emphatically addressing the crowd. The aorist tense draws attention to the action’s definitiveness, suggesting a moment of significant declaration. The active voice highlights Jesus’ direct involvement and authority in this action. And the indicative mood confirms this as a concrete event. So, this crying out by Jesus is an authoritative and public declaration. It captures a pivotal moment where Jesus addresses misconceptions about His identity and mission (do picture the scene friend Fig. 1). The particular verb utilized is KRAZW, which implies a loud, emphatic cry, adding to the sense of urgency and importance in Jesus’ words. This moment reflects Jesus’ fearless proclamation amidst doubt and confusion about His identity. Thus did our Savior speak boldly.

[106] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as] he taught–G1321, [saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<>Verbal usage is Present, active, participle. O my, it’s Mr. Dandy Participle II…

 

Hey hey Mr. Dandy Participle II,

you be a verb tickler, ain’t you?

Yup, uh uh baby, I know it’s true,

got this here “taught” gigglin’ too.

Causin’ quite a stir in syntax town,

teachin’ folks, never let ’em down.

You the STAR in this here grammar revue,

Keepin’ yon context fresh, yea, and new, whew! Figure 3.

 

This verbal usage highlights Jesus’ dedication to teaching and guiding the people (especially via the present tense), even as He makes a bold and authoritative declaration—He teaches whilst He declares. The continuous aspect of the present participle indicates that Jesus’ active teaching was not just a one-time event but an ongoing effort to reveal truth and enlighten the audience. The participle functions as an adjective, describing what Jesus was doing while He cried out, while He proclaimed this and that (at the same time He taught). The particle’s function provides additional context to the main action (crying out), showing that our Lord’s proclamation was part of His continuous teaching. That’s the upshot here. But what exactly was our Lord proclaiming? Sticking to this context, we have the following:

 

• His identity and divine mission: He came not on His own initiative but was sent by God.
• His known earthly origins: “…ye both know me and whence I am…”
• His divine knowledge: ‘…I know God, am of Him, was sent by..’

 

What then is Jesus’ immediate and more broad goal as He proclaims/teaches these things? It’s hard to miss—for starters, He is stating His divine authority and mission, and with intimate knowledge of very God He is directly challenging the people’s limited understanding of God, nay, their ignorance of God (…whom ye know not…”), and certainly not least He is presenting Himself as singularly, uniquely, the only authentic and capable Teacher, indeed, Revealer, of Divine Truth (cf. John 14:6). Thus He teaches whilst He proclaims—boldly, emphatically, loudly (Fig. 1).

[107] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught] saying–G3004 [Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, participle. The present tense indicates that the action is ongoing. Jesus is continuously speaking at that moment, rather than just making a single statement. The active voice indicates that Jesus Himself is performing the action of speaking. It’s not something happening to Him, but something He is actively doing. And as a participle, “saying” here functions as both a verb and an adjective, modifying the subject, which is Jesus, and describing His ongoing action while teaching. So, this verbal usage highlights that Jesus was in the midst of His teaching, actively and continuously addressing the crowd with His words. This adds a sense of immediacy and emphasizes our Lord’s authoritative and persistent delivery—in this way the participle enhances meaning and flow. It is noteworthy that the “talk verb” LEGW is utilized, which emphasizes and directs attention to the substance or content of what is said.

[108] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both] know–G1492 [me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<>Verbal usage is Perfect, active, indicative. The perfect tense indicates a completed action with a continuing result, and in this context, it signifies that the people’s knowledge of Jesus is not only a completed fact but also has ongoing significance. It emphasizes that the people have had enough (perfect nuance) information to recognize who Jesus is, and this knowledge remains relevant and impactful (perfect nuance). The active voice means that the subject (the people) is performing the action of knowing. This isolates and emphasizes their responsibility and accountability for this knowledge. The indicative mood is used to make a statement of fact, Jesus is here asserting a definite reality that the people do indeed know Him and where He comes from. It is noteworthy that specifically the “know verb” OIDA is utilized, which verb denotes intuitive or inherent knowledge. It implies a more immediate understanding or recognition. By using OIDA, Jesus is stressing that the people have a clear and certain knowledge of Him right now. Why did Jesus not choose to use the “know verb” GINOSKW in this context? This verb typically refers to knowledge gained through learning, experience, or observation. It suggests a process of acquiring knowledge rather than an inherent understanding, and Jesus uses OIDA to drive home the point that the people already have an innate recognition and understanding of who He is and where He comes from. How are we to understand this? Spiritually? That is, did God place it in their minds? Surely, the people had to learn about Jesus through observation of HIs mighty actions and teachings—and this took a while? It makes sense to think that GINOSKW might seem more appropriate given that the people would have learned about Jesus through His teachings and actions, but the glaring choice of OIDA must be seen as emphasizing the certainty of their innate knowledge, rather than simply the process of acquiring/learning it—that’s the communicative intent. OIDA is stressing certainty and innateness. Using OIDA makes the people’s rejection of our Lord all the more significant, as it is not due to a lack of information but rather a willful dismissal of the truth they already flat-out know and know intimately. Okay, if we go with that, the question remains, how did that knowledge find its way into the people’s minds? Their knowledge of Jesus was a result of their centuries-long meticulous study of Scripture, of which Jesus is the Centerpiece. Everything Jesus did aligned with Scripture, God’s Word. Scripture laid the groundwork for Jesus’ coming to them, it prepared them to recognize Him. Think about it—God made it clear who Messiah would be because that way they would not be misled by and follow a messianic pretender—they had to have something by which to identify Messiah, and Scripture was that something. The use of OIDA is meant to drive home the fact that this knowledge was certain, and literally black on white undeniable, making their rejection of Messiah Jesus all the more significant as it was not due to ignorance but a deliberate choice. When one now folds in the verbal usage, particularly the perfect tense, the message is clear—they had certain, complete, immediate, and relevantly impactful knowledge in the Word of God which is internalized spiritually, not just intellectually, though intellectual internalization is understood here. Down through the ages folks have the same responsibility, the dame accountability argument holds for all of us, maybe more so these days given the myriad ways God’s Word reaches us.

[109] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know–G1492 [whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Same OIDA dressed up similarly as a Perfect, active, indicative as just before. By way of this verbal usage repetition, Jesus is emphasizing the people’s ongoing and certain knowledge of His origin. The repetition of OIDA in this verbal form in “ye know me” and “ye know whence I am” serves to highlight their undeniable recognition and understanding of who Jesus is and where He comes from. This redundancy is significant because it stresses the people’s accountability—Jesus is making it clear that their ignorance is not due to a lack of information but rather a deliberate choice to ignore and/or reject the truth they already know. This reinforces the idea of a sort of “Hostile Ostrich Effect,” where their willful ignorance is coupled with hostility toward accepting Jesus’ true identity.

[110] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence] I am–G1510 [and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Present, indicative—no voice, the action is static; “am” is a linking verb connecting the subject (I/Jesus) with the predicate (whence I am). In its application in this instance, the present tense bespeaks an ever-present “now,” an ever-present reality. And the indicative mood in Greek is used to state something as a fact or reality from the speaker’s perspective. Semantically this “I am” carries both an earthly and a heavenly eternal reference. On one level, Jesus is referring to His human origins—His physical presence and ministry on earth. The people clearly knew Him as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph and Mary. On a deeper level it also alludes to Jesus’ divine nature and eternal existence. This echoes the eternality inherent in the divine Name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, where God declares, “I AM WHO I AM.” Jesus uses “I am” in several instances in the Gospel of John (e.g., John 8:58), emphasizing His identity as the eternal Son of God. Thus, the present, indicative of (whence) “I am” here conveys both Jesus’ earthly origin and ministerial locales, and His eternal divine nature, stressing His unique identity as both human and divine.

[111] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not] come–G2064 [of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Perfect, active, indicative. The present tense indicates an ongoing action. Jesus is emphasizing that He is actively and continuously here, not by His own initiative. The active voice shows that Jesus Himself is performing the action—He is the one who has come, but not on His own accord. And the indicative mood is used to state a fact, in this context Jesus is declaring as a fact that His coming is not self-initiated but was sent by someone else. By saying “…I am not come of myself…” Jesus is framing His mission and presence as divinely ordained: He is sent by God, which adds weight to His actions and teachings. This association isolates and emphasizes Jesus’ reliance on the Sender, God the Father, it emphasizes that His authority and purpose are rooted in His divine origin, not in human initiative. In this way, our Lord is clarifying to His hearers that He is not acting independently, thus addressing any misconceptions about His authority, which aligns with His consistent message of being sent by God. So, besides making clear that He has entirely subjected His all to the will of the Father, the Sender, Jesus is saying in so many words that very God validates Him, His message, and His mission.

[112] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that] sent–G3992 [me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, participle. The aorist tense indicates a past action without specifying the duration or process, it focuses on the action of sending as a singular, definitive, completed event in the past. In this context, it highlights the fact that Jesus was sent by God at a precise, specific point in time. The active voice shows that the subject (God) is performing the action—God is the one who has sent Jesus. And as a participle, “sent” functions as both a verb and an adjective, modifying the subject (God) and describing the action of sending in relation to Jesus. So, this verbal usage emphasizes the divine initiative in Jesus’ mission, it makes clear that Jesus was sent by very God and thus with the weightiest of purposes and incontestable authority. The aorist tells us that this sending was a decisive and completed action, reinforcing the idea that Jesus’ presence and mission are part of God’s divine Plan which lends immeasurable weight to His actions and teachings, it validates His authority and His message, as He is not acting independently but as a representative of very God. Bottom line, this verbal usage makes clear the divine origin and hence authority of Jesus’ mission, emphasizing that He was sent by God with a specific purpose and validating His actions, role, and teachings.

[113] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye] know–G1492 [not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is perfect, active, indicative. The perfect tense indicates a completed action with ongoing results. In this context, it means that the people’s lack of knowledge about God is a settled fact with continuing relevance. They have persistently failed to recognize or understand God, and this ignorance has ongoing consequences. The active voice indicates that the subject (the people) is performing the action. They are actively ignorant or unknowing of God. This bespeaks precisely their responsibility and accountability for this lack of knowledge. The indicative mood is used to state a fact—Jesus is making a definitive statement about the people’s ignorance of God; it is presented as an undeniable reality from Jesus’ perspective. Again, OIDA is utilized, indicating an intuitive or inherent knowledge, suggesting a certain and immediate understanding or recognition. By using OIDA Jesus is emphasizing that the people should have a clear and certain knowledge of God (and thus be able to clearly recognize Messiah Jesus).

[114] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But ] I know–G1492 [him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.]<> Verbal usage is guess what? Perfect, active, indicative, with which verbal root? OIDA for sure. EGW de OIDA AUTON “…but I know Him…..” Consummate OIDA-knowledge of God here: certain, complete, direct, immediate, inherent, innate, intrinsic, not learned or discovered—no way—ever relevant—thus shouts OIDA in the dress of the perfect tense. Jesus has this consummate knowledge of God because of His own divine origin—Jesus is deity friends—which hands-down authenticates His message and mission. The active voice isolates the subject as the speaker, precisely Jesus, and the indicative mood presents it as a statement of fact from the Eternal Word’s own lips, of course… When the Eternal Word speaks everything He says is factual, always, an undeniable reality. Jesus is telling us that He has always known God and continues to know Him fully and perfectly. He is telling us, therefore, that He is Himself very God. The logic is extremely simple: who else but God can know God completely? Who else but God has OIDA-knowledge of God? Contrast the people’s ignorance of God: Jesus’ perfect knowledge of God quite sets Him apart; it draws attention to the people’s failure to recognize and accept the divine truth that Jesus embodies. So, this dandy verbal usage chock full of Jesus-identifier goodies emphasizes Jesus’ complete and inherent and unique knowledge of God, quite stressing His authority, divine origin, divine nature, and attendant intimate relationship with the Father.

[115] [Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he] hath sent–G649 [me.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist tense indicates a past action that is viewed as a single, completed event drawing attention to the decisiveness and immediacy inherent in the completed action. The aorist tense relates nothing, implies nothing, about the duration or process of the action—completion, decisiveness, immediacy, are its salient nuances. In this context, it emphasizes the fact that Jesus was sent by God at a specific, purposed, point in time. The aorist nuance tells us that this sending was a decisive and completed action that has ongoing significance for Jesus’ mission. If ongoing significance is stressed, why not a perfect tense here instead? We must fold in theological implications to understand that. The aorist tense highlights the decisive moment when God sent Jesus, emphasizing the initiation of Jesus’ mission—it’s a completed beginning, and that, among other things, is what the aorist is trying to tell us (duration and process of action are not implied via an aorist), This sending is not just a historical event but carries enduring significance because it marks the decided beginning of Jesus’ divine mission on earth, a “one-shot” event; the mission crossed the threshold from divine plan to divine beginning at an “aorist moment.” Although the aorist tense itself does not indicate ongoing results, we must realize that the completed action of God sending Jesus has lasting implications (a completed beginning isn’t much of a beginning if there’s nothing that follows). The completion of the decisive sending action means that Jesus’ mission, teachings, and the purpose for which He was sent continue to unfold and impact humanity bottom line. As for the perfect tense, it explicitly conveys ongoing results unfolding from a completed action—no need to deduce that with the perfect—yet the aorist too can imply significance beyond some initial completed event, especially when considering the broader theological and narrative context. So exactly why was the aorist chosen? The focus is on the decisiveness and attendant consummation of sending Jesus by Father God—our Father’s purpose, authority, decision, and consummation of the sending are being isolated and emphasized. Okay, the active voice shows that the subject (God) is performing the action—Father God is the one who has sent Jesus, highlighting the Father’s divine authority and initiative in the mission of Jesus: subtle, but extremely important to not lose sight of—Jesus wants to make that very clear and leave no doubt in anyone’s mind about it, both to His audience in His day and to all believers going forward. And the indicative mood is used to state a fact, Jesus is making a definitive statement about His being sent by God. It is presented as an undeniable reality, drawing attention to the certainty and truth of our Lord’s divine mission. So, this verbal usage highlights the divine origin and authority of Jesus’ mission, emphasizing that He was sent by Father God at a specific point in time with a specific purpose, validating His role and teachings.

[116] [Then they] sought–G2212 [to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Imperfect, active, indicative. The imperfect tense indicates an ongoing or repeated action in the past—-we are looking back in time from some escalatory point in Jesus’ ministry to the present, i.e., to the Feast of Tabernacles—and in this context, it means that Jesus’ antagonists were continually or repeatedly seeking to seize Him throughout. This imperfect emphasizes the persistent and ongoing nature of their efforts to apprehend our Lord, drawing attention to the ongoing and repeated attempts by the Jewish religious leaders in particular and others to seize Jesus. These efforts were part of a broader pattern of opposition that had been escalating throughout Jesus’ ministry, particularly heightened during the Feast of Tabernacles. The active voice shows that the subject (Jesus’ antagonists) is performing the action, they are actively seeking to seize Him, highlighting their determined and deliberate efforts—it is not hard to see that Jesus was under constant threat here and in constant danger, which makes it all the clearer that the protective hand of God was upon Him, for His appointed time had not yet come. And the indicative mood is used to state a fact from the speaker’s perspective—the Great Grammarian is presenting this ongoing hostility as an undeniable reality that took place. So, this verbal usage emphasizes the persistent and repeated attempts by Jesus’ antagonists to seize Him, which conveys their strong opposition and determination to eliminate Jesus thus stopping His ministry (they disdained Jesus and thought lowly of Him for sure, but His ministry hit them where they lived and it was their primary target, and to stop it they had to stop Jesus personally). The ongoing nature of their attempts to apprehend Jesus quite adds to the conflict and tension surrounding Jesus, it highlights the growing hostility toward Him and the serious threat He faced from those who opposed Him. But despite their persistent efforts, they were unable to lay hands on Jesus “…because his hour was not yet come…” which indicates that Jesus was under divine protection and that His mission would unfold according to God’s timing as we know it precisely did.

[117] [Then they sought to] take–G4084 [him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, infinitive. The aorist tense indicates a past action viewed as a single, completed event. It conveys completion, decisiveness, and immediacy. In this context, it emphasizes the intention or plan of taking Jesus as a specific, decisive action. It’s the aorist’s immediacy nuance that is very meaningful here, sort of like “jumpin’ someone,” catching them unawares, or like a gunshot coming out of nowhere—bang, totally got ya’, that sort of thing is coming through via the aorist. The active voice shows that the subject (the antagonists) would be performing the action. They are the ones who intended or planned to take Jesus, highlighting their deliberate intention. The infinitive form functions as a verbal noun, expressing purpose or result, and in this context, it conveys the purpose or intention of the antagonists’ actions—they were seeking to completely seize (all eventualities covered) Jesus, swiftly, in an “aorist immediate instant” if possible. This verbal usage quite focuses on the antagonists’ deliberate intention and plan to decisively seize Jesus “in an instant,” sort of unawares if possible. But again, despite their obsession to take Jesus, they were unable to take Him because “…his hour was not yet come…” Given their unrelenting, demonic obsession here, this inability to take Jesus indicates that their plans were subject to divine timing and that Jesus’ mission was unfolding according to God’s sovereign plan. So, this verbal usage highlights the antagonists’ deliberate intention to seize Jesus, a surprise attack no less, emphasizing the decisive and purposeful nature of their actions, and it makes obvious the mounting tension and conflict in the unfolding scene and the divine timing that protected Jesus until the appointed hour of His mission.

[118] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour] was not yet come–G2064 [And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Pluperfect, active, indicative. The pluperfect tense indicates an action that was completed in the past before another past action, or said differently, the pluperfect tense helps us order two events, both in the past, where the first event is completed before the second one takes place (Fig. 4). In this context, it emphasizes that the specific time (“hour”) for Jesus’ arrest and subsequent crucifixion had not yet arrived. This action was anticipated but had not yet occurred. While the specific hour for Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion had not yet arrived, it was flat out anticipated as a reality. This means the “anticipated hour” was a completed plan in God’s divine timeline (Event A in the figure) before the people’s attempts to seize Jesus (Event B in the figure). The active voice shows that the subject (the “hour” or appointed time) is performing the action. It “says” that the divinely appointed time had not yet come to pass. The indicative mood is used to state a fact. The Great Grammarian is presenting this as a definitive statement about the timing of Jesus’ mission. It is presented as an undeniable reality. A bit more on the pluperfect tense’s role. It isolates and lifts out the divine control over the timing of events in Jesus’ life. It indicates that there is a specific, completely determined/set, and divinely ordained time for Jesus’ crucifixion, which had not yet arrived at this point. Despite the ongoing attempts to seize Jesus (as per the imperfect tense in “sought” we discussed at the beginning of verse thirty), the pluperfect tense indicates that the schemers were unable to do so because the predetermined time had not yet come. This makes clear the divine protection over Jesus until the appointed hour. The pluperfect form creates a sense of anticipation and tension, as it signals that an important and inevitable event is on the horizon, but its arrival is still pending. So, this quite deliberate verbal usage employed by the Great Grammarian draws attention to the divinely appointed timing of Jesus’ mission, emphasizing that the specific time for His arrest and crucifixion had not yet arrived, which makes clear the divine control over the events and the protection of Jesus until the appointed hour. God is in control, in this context, and always, and we believers can rest in that control.

[119] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And] many–G4183 [of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> The Greek adjective POLUS (modifying the noun “people”) is utilized, it means many, numerous, or a large quantity. Its usage here is significant because it indicates that a considerable number of people believed in Jesus. This suggests that His teachings and miracles had a decided impact on the crowd, leading to widespread faith in Him. The mention of “many” believers stands in contrast to the opposition Jesus faced from the religious leaders and some others—despite the hostility and attempts to seize our Lord, a substantial portion of the motley crowd recognized and accepted His divine authority. This use of many/POLUS should draw our attention to the broad and widespread acceptance of Jesus among the people per se, thus reinforcing the idea that His message resonated deeply with a diverse group, cutting across different segments of society. How are we to understand this theologically? The large number of believers can be seen as a sign of divine approval and the fulfillment of Jesus’ mission. It highlights the success of His ministry in drawing people to faith, despite the challenges and opposition He encountered. So, the use of the word “many” in this context makes clear the significant impact of Jesus’ ministry, the widespread acceptance of His message, and the glaring hostility/non-hostility contrast between the opponents and the believers with an implicit numerical contrast understood. Bottom line, it highlights the success of Jesus’ mission in bringing people to faith.

[120] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the] people–G3793 [believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> We have the Greek OCHLOS utilized, which refers to a crowd or a large group of people. It can describe a casual collection of individuals gathered in a place, often without any specific organization. It can also denote the common people as opposed to rulers or leaders, emphasizing the broader, general populace. “Motley crowd” is an apt descriptor for OCHLOS in this context, emphasizing the diverse and casual nature of the gathered multitude, many of whom believed in Jesus. The use of OCHLOS highlights that the belief in Jesus was not limited to a small, specific group but was widespread among the general populace, it draws attention to the significant impact of Jesus’ teachings and miracles on a broad audience. By referring to the “people” as OCHLOS the text sets up a stark contrast between the common people who believed in Jesus and the religious authorities who opposed Him; this contrast points to the divide between the general populace who were receptive to Jesus and the religious authorities who were hostile. The term suggests that Jesus’ message resonated with a motley crowd, a diverse group of individuals from various backgrounds, reinforcing the inclusive nature of our Savior’s ministry. So, the use of OCHLOS in this context highlights the widespread belief among the general populace, and contrasts sharply with the hostility of the religious authorities, it makes clear the inclusive nature of Jesus’ ministry.

[121] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people] believed–G4100 [on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist tense indicates a past action viewed as a single, completed event, it relates completion, decisiveness, and immediacy. In this context, it means that the people’s belief in Jesus occurred as a decisive and completed action, they made a definitive decision to believe in Jesus at that moment. The use of the aorist tense in this context is meant to isolate and lift out before us the decisiveness of the people’s belief, highlighting that their faith was not a gradual process but a specific, momentary decision. How so? They were like immediately impressed with what they saw and heard (Fig. 1). The active voice shows that the subject (the people) is performing the action, specifically they are the ones who actively chose to believe in Jesus. This draws attention to their personal responsibility and initiative in coming to faith. And the indicative mood is used to state a fact from the speaker’s perspective—the Great Grammarian presents this belief as a factual event that genuinely occurred, it’s not hypothetical or potential, but a real and concrete act of faith, which indicates a real, growing movement of faith in Jesus happening despite the decided hostility and propaganda afoot against Him.

[122] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ] cometh–G2064 [will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is the Second aorist tense, active, indicative. The second aorist tense functions like the first aorist tense (first aorist is often given simply as “aorist”) but has different verb forms. As with the aorist, it indicates a single, completed action in the past and expresses completion, decisiveness, and immediacy. In this context, it emphasizes the definitiveness of the Christ’s coming as a specific event. The active voice shows that the subject (Christ | Messiah) is performing the action, it highlights that Christ Himself is the one who will come, emphasizing His agency and initiative. And the subjunctive mood is used to express potential, possibility, or conditionality. In this context, it indicates the anticipated or expected coming of Christ. It reflects the people’s speculation about what Christ might do—miracle proliferation—when He comes. The people are speculating about the miracles and signs He might perform when He arrives over against what Jesus has done. It is not hard to see that the people are actually expressing their belief in Jesus by comparing Him to the anticipated Messiah (Christ). They wonder if the Christ, when He comes, will perform more miracles than Jesus has already done which speaks volumes to what Jesus has done in that regard. So, this verbal usage emphasizes the anticipated, definitive, and active nature of Christ’s coming. It highlights the people’s expectations and speculation about Messiah’s future actions, comparing them to what Jesus has already done—quite an affirmation of Jesus’ mighty works.

[123] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more] miracles–G4592 [than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Extraordinary acts performed by Jesus that signaled His divine authority and power, described using the Greek word SHMEION, which translates to “sign,” in context we get the sense of “miraculous sign.” The reference is to healing miracles: Jesus healing the sick and disabled, resurrection miracles: bringing the dead back to life, nature miracles: Jesus’ control over nature, provision miracles: Jesus providing for the needs of people. These signs authenticated Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, they revealed His divine nature and mission. In this context we see that Jesus’ miracles prompted people to believe in Him, as per John 7:31, where many believed in Jesus because of the miracles He performed. The people’s question in that verse makes clear the reality of Jesus’ miracles foremost, and not least their significance and impact on the people’s faith.

[124] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man] hath done–G4160? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist tense in Greek generally denotes a simple, completed action in the past without specifying the duration or repetition or process of the action. It’s often translated into English as a simple past tense. In this context it emphasizes that the miracles Jesus performed are viewed as complete and significant events that have already occurred. The active voice indicates that the subject of the verb/action (Jesus) is performing the action. It highlights Jesus’ direct involvement and understood authority in performing these works. The indicative mood is primarily used for presenting facts from the speaker’s perspective, it presents the action as a reality thereby. In this context the indicative affirms the reality of the miracles Jesus performed, and we see that the people acknowledge this reality, these miracles that is, as historical facts that have already taken place—the crowd is recognizing the miracles Jesus performed as concrete evidence of His divine power. So, this verbal usage highlights the completed and factual nature of the miracles Jesus performed, emphasizing their significance and impact on the people’s belief in this context. The root verb POIEW is utilized, which is significant because it precisely conveys the idea of actively doing something, a manifest work, which shows Jesus actively doing or making miracles, rather than merely being involved in them passively (POIEW encompasses a wide range of actions, including creating, causing, or producing something). There are other Greek verbs that could convey similar meanings, such as ERGAZOMAI which also means “to work” or “to perform,” however, POIEW is a more fitting choice for emphasizing the active performance of the miracles—thus did the Great Grammarian choose to clothe precisely POIEW in the grammar discussed, a not-so-little, decked-out semantic faith nugget to excite our appreciation of Jesus’ divine capabilities.

[125] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The[ Pharisees–G5330 [heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> The Pharisees are believed to have formed after the Babylonian Exile during the so-called Second Temple period (c. 516 BC-AD 70) as a response to the challenges of maintaining Jewish identity and laws amidst foreign influences. They emphasized strict adherence to the Torah and developed an extensive body of oral traditions to interpret and apply the Law of Moses in daily life. They gained significant influence as interpreters and teachers of Jewish laws, positioning themselves as guardians of religious purity and Tradition. Their focus on piety, ritual purity, and adherence to the Law resonated with many common people, giving them considerable social and religious authority. So, the Pharisees emerged after the Babylonian Exile, focusing on maintaining Jewish identity, laws, and traditions, which led to their significant influence in religious and social matters during the Second Temple period. As concerns us in this context, the Pharisees, along with other religious leaders, played a significant role in scheming against Jesus, motivated by the threat He, indeed, His growing invluence, posed to their authority and control over the people. See also.

[126] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees] heard–G191 [that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist tense indicates that the Pharisees heard the murmurings of the people as a completed action, emphasizing that the hearing event is perceived as a single, whole occurrence. The active voice indicates that the subject of the action/verb (the Pharisees) performs the action—the Pharisees themselves actively heard the people’s murmurings, showcasing their direct involvement and obsessive alertness to what was being said about Jesus. And the indicative mood presents the hearing action as a reality, affirming that it is a factual event that the Pharisees heard the people’s discussions about Jesus, thus presenting this hearing as a concrete reality that spurs their subsequent actions—the Pharisees’ hearing of the people’s discussions about Jesus’ identity and miracles prompted them to take action against Him, but why? The Pharisees were super jealous of Jesus’ renown and attendant influence and fearful of losing their control over the people, which control afforded them various benefits and perks, including financial support from the community. They were known for their strict adherence to the Torah and oral traditions, which gave them authority in religious and social matters, and this influence often translated into material advantages, such as donations and offerings from those seeking their favor or guidance. They were also concerned that Jesus’ growing influence could attract Roman attention, potentially leading to political repercussions for the Jewish leaders. So, this verbal usage draws our attention to the completeness and reality of this hearing event, setting the stage for the schemers’ response. One last point should be addressed: were the Pharisees eavesdropping? No, probably not, the murmurings seem to have been noticeable enough without that.

[127] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people] murmured–G1111 [such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, participle. The present tense indicates an ongoing or habitual action, it describes something happening continuously or repeatedly, it tells us that the people’s murmuring or grumbling about Jesus was an ongoing activity, not just a one-time event. It captures the continuous nature of their discussions largely comprised of divided opinions and mixed reactions to Jesus’ identity, miracles, and teachings. The active voice shows that the subject, the people, performs the action, the people themselves are actively murmuring and discussing Jesus, which emphasizes their direct involvement and engagement in the conversations about Him. A participle often functions as an adjective and can express continuous or ongoing action, it can describe a state or condition related to the main verb in the sentence. This participle, “murmuring,” describes the ongoing action of the people, in this context it simply indicates that the people’s murmuring was a continuous sort of background activity/buzz that the Pharisees became aware of. The continuous murmuring of the people about Jesus’ identity and miracles and teachings irked the Pharisees, the people’s ongoing debates and discussions were no doubt heated and passionate and maybe to the extent that they created a sense of urgency for the religious leaders who didn’t need much prompting to take action against Jesus in the first place, it gave them all the “reason” they were looking for anyway to take action against Jesus. You know, He was the main speaker, the focus of the crowd, and with all the fussing and whatnot going on He could easily be made to look like an insurrectionist—that’s how they perceived Him anyway since He challenged them and their funky norms and made them look like the religious frauds they in fact were. So, this verbal usage in this context highlights the ongoing and continuous nature of the people’s no doubt not so calm debates and discussions about Jesus that came across like a thick hum hanging in the air. It emphasizes the direct involvement of the crowd showing them doing all the fussing and grumbling and murmuring and the impact that had on the Pharisees, who we think were sitting on a hair pin trigger to do something about Jesus anyway and welcomed all the commotion. As for the murmuring itself, it likely involved various groups within the crowd, including the inhabitants of Jerusalem (“Jerusalemites”) and other Jewish pilgrims who had come to the city for the feast. The Jerusalemites, being more familiar with the religious leaders’ views, were likely influenced by the Pharisees and other authorities who disdained and quite opposed Jesus. Any dissatisfaction with our Lord on their part would stem from loyalty to their leaders and those leaders’ skepticism about Jesus’ claims and hatred and jealousy of Him personally. The Jewish pilgrims from different regions who had come to Jerusalem for the feast might have had mixed reactions, some may have been curious or supportive, while others were probably confused or influenced by the negative opinions of the local religious authorities—the Pharisees and other religious leaders actively sought to discredit Jesus and protect their own authority. Their opposition and critical stance quite contributed to the murmuring and divided opinions among the people. So, the murmuring likely involved both the residents of Jerusalem and visiting pilgrims influenced by the religious leaders’ opposition to Jesus, and country folks, less clued into the religious leaders’ scheming against Jesus—like His only friends and supporters in the motley crowd besides the objective thinkers open and responsive to the Spirit’s guidance.

[128] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent] officers–G5257 [to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> These officers were likely members of the temple guard, a group responsible for maintaining order in the temple and enforcing the decisions of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish ruling council). They acted as the attendants or servants of the Pharisees and chief priests, carrying out their orders, such as arresting individuals who were deemed to be disrupting public order or challenging the religious authority.

[129] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to] take–G4084 [him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, subjunctive. The aorist tense emphasizes the intended action (nuanced by the subjunctive) of the officers to arrest Jesus as a specific and decisive event (the aorist nuance). The aorist and subjunctive function as a communicative team here, they rely on each other to convey intended meaning. The active voice shows that the subject (the officers) performs the action—the officers themselves are the ones who are to actively take Jesus into custody. This highlights their direct involvement in carrying out the Pharisees’ orders. The subjunctive mood is used to express potential or hypothetical actions, often involving intention, purpose, or possibility, and in this context, it indicates the purpose or intention of the Pharisees and chief priests—to have the officers take (arrest) Jesus. It’s a planned action that has not yet been realized but is intended to happen hence the subjunctive mood. The Pharisees and chief priests sent the officers with the intention (expressed through the subjunctive mood) of arresting Jesus, and this intention is shown to be a complete, rock solid done deal, and decisive, via the aorist—we get the sense of some real serious intent here bottom line. So, this verbal usage emphasizes the planned and deliberate nature of this action, it highlights the intended and deliberate nature of the officers’ action to arrest Jesus, emphasizing their direct involvement and the specific purpose of the Pharisees’ orders (arrest/take Jesus). The Pharisees and chief priests capitalized on and no doubt contributed to the commotion among the people largely through their proxies to create a pretext for arresting Jesus, thereby addressing the threat He posed to their authority. The more visible and heated the debates, the easier it would be for the religious leaders to present Jesus as a disruptive figure who needed to be apprehended to prevent further unrest. Our Lord is in a tough spot here on their turf, one can almost feel the noose tightening around His throat and smell the rank carnivores as they circle in a little closer. Stepping back, we remember that it’s all part of a bigger Plan—He deliberately went there to shine Light in the Darkness (Fig. 1). He deliberately made His throat available there for you and me friend—He knew exactly where all this was going and why and how it would end in the short term some six months later and for the long haul, even on into eternity for you and me friend (the events of our John seven occurred roughly six months before the Passover during which Jesus would be crucified as a Sacrificial Lamb for the sins of the world, our blessed Savior “A Letter of Invitation”).

[130] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them] Yet a little while am I with you [and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> About six months’ worth of “a little while,” for at Passover just around the corner our Redeemer and Savior would be crucified for whosoever desires to have their disgusting, miserable, sinful in the sight of God hide cleansed and made fit for eternity in heaven in the presence of the Sender and the Sent, even Jehovah God (John 3:16<—>if ever there was such a thing as a “sure bet,” this is it friend).

[131] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then] I go–G5217 [unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The present tense shows Jesus emphasizing that His departure is a present, even imminent and ongoing process, drawing attention to the reality that He is actively preparing to return to the Father who sent Him. The active voice indicates that the subject (Jesus) performs the action; Jesus Himself is actively undertaking the action of going to the Father, which emphasizes His direct involvement and agency in the process. The indicative mood presents the action as a reality—Jesus’ statement “I go” is presented as a factual declaration, confirming the certainty and reality of His upcoming departure. Jesus is informing His listeners that His time with them is limited and that He will soon be returning to the Father. This verbal usage emphasizes the immediacy and certainty of Jesus’ departure, highlighting the ongoing, direct, and factual nature of His imminent departure to the Father who sent Him. But how does the present tense convey immediacy? The present tense emphasizes that the action of Jesus going to the Father is already in motion. It is not something that will happen far in the future but is an imminent and active process. This interesting construction reverberates with purpose—by using the present tense for a future event, it conveys a sense of certainty and inevitability, stressing that Jesus’ departure is a definite and ongoing reality. So, we realize from this context that Jesus is prophesying His death (cf. John 12:32-33, Acts 1:9-11), it is meant to prepare His disciples for the reality of His death and to sober them to the necessity of understanding Him, His mission, and His message while He is still with them. This is something they will grasp better later when they reflect on these words and the myriad other things He said and did when He was among them.

[132] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that] sent–G3992 [me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> We have seen this action/verb before (John 7:16, 18, 28, 33), it consistently shows up as an Aorist, active, participle verb form—why? This verbal usage of “sent” in these references is consistent in its form and function, emphasizing the divine authority and initiative (Father God, the Sender) in Jesus’ mission. It highlights the completed action (aorist) of the Father sending Jesus and the ongoing reality (participle) of specifically Jesus’ mission, as specifically He (active voice) being the One who is sent. This precise and consistent verbal usage communicates a timeless message that resonates across the centuries—thus it was spoken precisely, consistently, on purpose. It shows, is meant to show, that Jesus’ mission, initiated by a decisive act of God, continues to have ongoing relevance and impact. This text clearly shows itself to be God-breathed, amen? Indeed, this text is God-breathed and ever stirs our hearts, guiding our attention to the mission of Jesus. It whispers through the ages, igniting our souls with divine purpose and eternal truth, reminding us that on the other end, there is a Servant who was sent, and who came, a Savior, a Messiah, who offers Redemption, Salvation, yea, exceeding hope for realized glory. Praised be His blessed and dear Name, amen.

[133] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye] shall seek–G2212 [me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Future, active, indicative. In biblical contexts, the future tense can often be understood to be prophetic. This is because the future tense is used to convey not just future events, but also divinely foreordained and inevitable outcomes. As per the grammar, this tense simply indicates an action that will take place, and in this context, it means that the people will seek Jesus in the future. This emphasizes the inevitability of the action—they will indeed seek their Savior, not a few with deep longing, but it will be in the future, after His departure. The active voice shows that the subject (the people) will perform the action of seeking, which highlights the direct involvement and effort of the people in seeking Jesus, drawing our attention to their active pursuit. The indicative mood is our fact framer. It presents the action as a reality, and here, Jesus’ statement is not a mere possibility or hypothetical scenario; it is a certain and factual declaration. The people will flat-out seek Him, and this will in fact happen. The root verb is ZHTEW, meaning “to seek,” “to search for,” “to look for,” or “to desire.” It carries a sense of earnestness and effort in the pursuit. By using specifically ZHTEW, Jesus emphasizes the earnest and, in some cases, desperate search that people will undertake to find Him. This ” ZHTEW seeking” our Lord declares signifies a deeper longing and desire to find Him, especially after folks realize His absence and sorely miss Him. So, this verbal usage that clothes ZHTEW highlights the inevitability and certainty of the people’s future search for Jesus. It isolates and lifts out in our mind’s eye the effort they will put into seeking Him, yet also the futility of their search once He has returned to the Father. Thus, Jesus not so subtly emphasizes the urgency of recognizing and understanding Him and His mission right now, while He is still with them. If someone is legitimately not “getting it,” He’s right there and physically accessible, manifestly so, to help them get on board. (Through the blessed Holy Spirit nowadays John 3:5-6, 16:7-8, Acts 2:38, Romans 8:14-16, Ephesians 1:13-14, Titus 3:5-6).

[134] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and] shall not find–G2147 [me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Future, active, indicative. ‘…shall seek me…’, and ‘…shall not find me…’, are both prophetic, similarly clothed with the same verbal form. hEURISKW is the root verb utilized here, it means “to find,” “to discover,” “to locate,” or “to obtain.” It carries a sense of successfully reaching a goal or achieving a result. By using this particular verb in the negative, Jesus sets up a contrast that emphasizes the futility of the people’s future efforts to find Him. Despite their earnest searching as indicated by ZHTEW, they will not hEURISKW, that is, they will not achieve the result they earnestly seek of finding Him. Is this not very sad? The inability to find Jesus after His departure signifies a spiritual separation, does it not? Those who did not recognize and accept Him during His earthly ministry probably missed the opportunity for Salvation—therein lies the sadness. Look friends, what happened to them can happen to us. Jesus’ message emphasizes the importance of accepting Him and understanding His mission while He is still present, nowadays through His Spirit–no excuses (John 6:44, 16:7-11, 14:16-18, 26). Failure to do so will result in the same spiritual loss this context bespeaks. The prospect that some people earnestly seek Jesus but cannot find Him because they did/do not recognize Him during His earthly ministry/via His Spirit is heartbreaking. It highlights the urgency and importance of the Gospel message, it is a call to action, a clarion call, the Christian call to spread the message of Jesus’ Salvation and to help others understand and accept His mission before it is too late. Our days are like the mist, fleeting and transient. As Jesus warned in John 7:34, the time to seek and find Him is now. Once our days vanish like dew, the opportunity is lost, and the chance to embrace our Savior forever in glory slips away (“A Letter of Invitation”).

[135] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where] I am–G1510 [thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> We have static action inferred—no voice—the verbal usage is Present, indicative. This verbal usage indicates a state of being that is continuous and timeless. It conveys an ever-present reality, not limited by past or future constraints. The lack of voice points to the unchanging and static nature of the action, emphasizing a state of being rather than doing. The use of “I am” without an action implies a fixed, eternal presence, a place where mortals cannot go. It signifies that Jesus’ existence is not bound by time; He is the eternal “I AM,” echoing God’s self-revelation in Exodus 3:14 (“I AM WHO I AM”). So, this verbal usage conveys Jesus’ divine nature, affirming His identity as the eternal, self-existent God. It points to His unchanging and ever-present reality, beyond the temporal limitations of human existence (cf. John 8:58, Hebrews 13:8). Moreover, the place where Jesus is, being in the divine presence of the Father, is inccessible to mortals (“…where I am you cannot come…”). This emphasizes the profound separation between the divine and human realms. The present indicative “I am” thus addresses the familiar dimensions of time and space, highlighting both eternality and inaccessibility in this context. It makes clear Jesus’ continuous and unchanging presence and the divine place where He resides, which meld into the same reality. How so? Just as “CHRONOS” and “KAIROS” provide different perspectives on time, “TOPOS” and “CHORA” offer different views on space, with “TOPOS” focusing on specific, concrete locations and “CHORA” on more general, abstract spaces. In heaven, “time”” is surely thought of in terms of KAIROS, where the emphasis is on the quality and significance of moments rather than their sequential order. It represents the fullness of time and God’s perfect timing. And in theological terms, heaven is often described as an infinite, divine realm beyond our physical understanding. It is less about a specific, concrete location (TOPOS) and more about a vast, spiritual expanse (CHORA) where God’s presence and eternal reality exist. So, just as KAIROS represents the opportune, significant moments in time, CHORA represents the expansive, spiritual concept of space. Obviously, in heaven, time and space transcend our earthly limitations and constraints, instead of a chronological sequence of events (CHRONOS) and defined physical locations (TOPOS), heaven operates within KAIROS and CHORA—significant moments and boundless space, but as a unified reality, consistent with the eternal, divine nature of the God of heaven, where the fullness of God’s presence and purpose are experienced. So, “Heaven” can be thought of as a unique, integrated reality that combines KAIROS and CHORA, heaven’s reality integrates KAIROS and CHORA into a seamless experience allowing for a continuous, eternal experience of God’s presence and purpose. Let’s bring this down to earth and to our context. When Jesus operated according to KAIROS—recognizing and acting within significant, divinely appointed moments—and viewed His surroundings as CHORA—perceiving a more expansive, spiritual concept of space—it aligned perfectly with His (accustomed) divine nature, and His mission. For our Lord, operating within KAIROS time and viewing space as CHORA was a natural reflection of His divine understanding and connection to God’s eternal plan. This mode of existence allowed Him to act with divine purpose and significance, transcending the limitations of earthly time (CHRONOS) and space (TOPOS). Jesus’ way of operating within KAIROS and CHORA gives us a glimpse into a reality that transcends our earthly limitations, it’s a window into heaven, it’s a window to the fullness of God’s presence and purpose. It’s a window to our future existence as believers—an existence within a reality that integrates KAIROS and CHORA.

[136] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot] come–G2064. [Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come]<> Verbal usage is, guess what? Second aorist, active, infinitive. The second aorist tense, like the first aorist, emphasizes a completed and definitive action. It tells us that the inability to come to where Jesus is, is a fixed and unalterable reality for some. The active voice reveals the people’s active effort in seeking to come to where Jesus is, yet specifically their inevitable failure to do so. And the infinitive mood presents the action as a general impossibility—infinitives express capability and result, among other things—emphasizing the absolute nature of the separation. It’s almost like a “double amen” between the aorist and infinitive effects, highlighting the eternal separation between the divine presence of Jesus and those who do not recognize and accept His mission. It adds to the urgency of understanding and embracing Jesus’ mission while He is still present: Once He has returned to the Father, the opportunity is irrevocably lost. There is conveyed here a serious and final declaration that makes painfully clear the eternal and unchangeable separation for those who do not believe. There is left no “wiggle room” for doubt here whatsoever, it is “double amen” sealed.

[137] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither] will he go–G3195+G4198 [that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is (will) Present, active, indicative + (go) Present, middle/passive deponent, infinitive. (will) The present tense indicates an ongoing action. It tells us that the action is currently happening or about to happen—the use of the present tense here shows the immediacy and ongoing nature of the question. The Jews are actively wondering where Jesus is planning to go presently (at that very moment). The active voice indicates that the subject (Jesus) is performing the action, which highlights Jesus’ deliberate and intentional action of going somewhere. The indicative mood is presenting the action as a reality—the question is asked as a genuine inquiry into Jesus’ intended action. (go) The present tense here also indicates an ongoing action, emphasizing the current deliberation about Jesus’ movements, it suggests that the action of going is something Jesus is currently considering or in the process of doing. In Greek, some verbs are deponent (a quirk of the language’s accommodations, changes, and “upgrades” across time), and practically speaking, this “deponent” word simply means they have a middle or passive form but an altogether active meaning–although “go” looks like it is middle/passive owing to its grammatical form as beheld with the eyeballs, it functions actively here, indicating Jesus’ active, deliberate action of going. The infinitive expresses the action in a general sense, often used to convey capability, purpose, or result, and here it expresses the action of going as a general possibility or intention. The Jews are contemplating the purpose or result of Jesus’ “going action” says the infinitive. So, putting it all together, the Jews are for real questioning where Jesus intends to go, using the present, active, indicative (will) to express their immediate curiosity, and using the present, middle/passive deponent, infinitive (go) to contemplate the potential action or result of His going. This combination does seem to indicate an active effort or their part in trying to understand Jesus’ movements and the possible implications of His actions. Be that as it may, they end up mocking their Messiah, their Savior here shortly in this context. So, the use of these verbs quite brings to the fore the Jews’ confusion and their earnest attempt to make sense of Jesus’ statements, it no doubt reflects their active engagement in trying to figure out His plans. On a deeper level if that be possible, the verbs also point to the mystery and purposefulness of Jesus’ mission. The Jews’ inability to grasp His intentions highlights the deeper, divine nature of Jesus’ actions and the glaring separation between their understanding and Jesus’ true mission.

[138] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we] shall not find–G2147 [him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Future, active, indicative. This verbal usage repeats through the lips of the people what Jesus had declared about not being able to find Him. Though couched as an inquiry, it serves to affirm the very truth of Jesus’ declaration, re-emphasizing the certainty and reality of their failure to find Jesus in His absence through their own words. By echoing Jesus’ words, God has them affirming the eternal and unchangeable separation between Jesus and those who do not believe, again highlighting the urgency of accepting His mission while He is still present.

[139] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him?] will he go [unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> We have the same verbal usage as just before: “will” (Present, active, indicative) and “go” (Present, middle/passive deponent, infinitive). The Jews there are actively wondering where Jesus intends to go, using these verbs to express their curiosity and confusion about His movements. Their questions seem to reflect a genuine attempt to understand Jesus’ plans, revealing their efforts to make sense of His declarations. This repeated verbal usage in “will he go” shows their active and immediate questioning of Jesus’ intentions, emphasizing their confusion and likely earnest attempt to comprehend His mission.

[140] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the] dispersed–G1290 [among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> The term “dispersed among the Gentiles” (Greek DIASPORA) refers to the Jewish people who lived outside of Israel, scattered across various foreign nations. This dispersion, or scattering of Jewish people, began with the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles and continued through different periods of history. In this context, the Jews are wondering if Jesus will go to these dispersed Jewish communities living among the Gentiles (=non-Jewish people—that’s the key emphasis here) to continue His teaching. Their question appears genuine, but there is an underlying tone of mockery. Their skepticism and disbelief about Jesus’ statements lead them to question His plans in a way that subtly ridicules His authority and mission, thus undermining the same: By suggesting that Jesus might go to teach the dispersed Jews among the Gentiles, they imply that His mission is not significant enough to warrant staying within the central Jewish community. This flat-out undermines Jesus’ claims and teachings. The question seems innocent enough on the surface, but it is blatantly belittling. By suggesting that Jesus might resort to teaching those outside the main Jewish community, they imply that His mission is not important enough to stay within the central Jewish context. The mockery lies in their speculative question—they are not merely seeking information but are also questioning the validity and importance of Jesus’ mission, which adds a layer of ridicule to their question. See also.

[141] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the] Gentiles–G1672 [and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> The term “Gentiles” refers to non-Jewish people, encompassing all the nations and peoples outside of the Jewish community. In the Old and New Testaments, “Gentiles” often denotes those who do not belong to the Covenant Community of Israel. It highlights the distinction between Jews (God’s Covenant People) and other nations (Gentiles). In this context, by asking if Jesus will go to the dispersed Jews among the Gentiles, the Jews are expressing both genuine curiosity and underlying mockery. They find it hard to believe that Jesus’ mission would extend to the Gentiles (because of cultural, historical, and theological “roadblocks”), subtly ridiculing the idea, but the real dagger in their question implies that Jesus’ mission is not significant enough to stay within the central Jewish community—that’s the gut punch so to speak. But notice the counter punch: Although the question is posed skeptically dripping with mockery and ridicule, it foreshadows the broader mission of Jesus and the early Church to reach both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15, 13:46-47, 22:21, 26:17-18, Romans 11:13 Galatians 2:7-9). Indeed, the Gospel would eventually be proclaimed to all nations, fulfilling God’s plan of Salvation for all people. So, the term “Gentiles” in this context refers to non-Jewish people and highlights the Jews’ skepticism and mockery of Jesus’ mission. Their question reflects both genuine inquiry and an underlying attempt to undermine Jesus’ authority, while also inadvertently pointing to the broader scope of our Savior’s decidedly inclusive ministry and mission. Hardly does anyone turn the tables for good like Jehovah God. See also.

[142] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and] teach–G1321 [the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, infinitive. the present tense indicates an ongoing action, suggesting that the teaching is something that could happen continuously or repeatedly. The active voice shows that the subject (Jesus) is the one performing the action of teaching. And the infinitive mood expresses the action in a general, timeless sense, specifically utilized here to convey capability or purpose. In this context, the Jews’ question: “Will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles and teach the Gentiles?” reflects their confusion and speculation about Jesus’ intended destination and mission. While their question appears genuine and innocent, there is an underlying tone of mockery. They find it very hard to believe that Jesus’ mission would extend to the Gentiles, it jumps out of the text pretty strong, sort of like ‘…hey ya’ll, looky what we got right here—a Jewish teacher gonna’ minister to the Gentiles!! Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha…’ belly laughter. That’s in the text sad to say, although we do not see those actual words and hear the laughter. You see friend, the Jews back then viewed themselves as God’s Chosen People, and they were right about that. They understood themselves to be bound by their special Covenant with Jehovah God, and the idea of extending religious teachings to those outside this Covenant, i.e., to the Gentiles, well, that was ludicrous, it was flat contrary to their understanding of their unique relationship with God, and only a fraud and a phony would even think about doing that. Perhaps the real kicker is the Messianic angle: Many Jews expected the Messiah to be a nationalistic figure who would restore Israel’s sovereignty and not someone who would reach out to non-Jewish populations—are you kidding? The concept of the Messiah teaching Gentiles did not align with their expectations of a Jewish Redeemer, not at all, and surely only a phony would do that. So, we see that the significant differences in religious beliefs and practices between Jews and Gentiles, and a massive cultural divide, made it seem fraudulent for someone to try it on the one hand, and very unlikely that Gentiles would embrace Jewish teachings on the other, leading to robust skepticism and not a little belly laughter humor about such a “teach-mission.” All of that is packed into that word “teach” they throw out here—they are throwing it out as a joke, basically, it’s like, ‘…what do ya’ mean we ain’t gonna’ find him! Say what? I get it, he be a goin’ to them Gentiles and teachin’ them rascals…’ (because no Jew would go there, certainly not them, thus He cannot be found). Big-time mockery and ridicule are packed into that word “teach” here and the surrounding context. How that must have hurt Jesus deeply.

[143] [Then they sought to take him but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that he] said–G2036 [Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me and where I am, thither ye cannot come?]<> Verbal usage is Second aorist, active, indicative. The aorist tense indicates a past action that is definitive and complete. In this context, it emphasizes that Jesus’ statement is perceived by the Jews as a definitive declaration—that much they concede. The active voice shows that Jesus is the one performing the action of speaking, and the indicative mood presents the action (what Jesus said) as a factual and certain event. This use of the verb “said” highlights the weight and significance of Jesus’ declaration because the Jews are reflecting on His statement, which indicates the impact it had on them. Their repetition of Jesus’ words shows, at least to some extent, their confusion and desire to understand what He meant. However, more to the point, it isolates and highlights the tension between their curiosity and their mockery and skepticism.

[144] In the] last day, that great day of the feast [Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> This refers to the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles. This feast, aka SUKKOT, is a seven day feast, the eighth is simply its climax and close. On this eighth day aka HOSHANA RABBAH, the Water Libation (NISSUCH haMAYIM) ceremony is performed, where water is drawn from the Pool of Siloam and poured out at the altar in the temple as a symbol of prayer for rain and blessings for the coming year. The water libation symbolized the outpouring of God’s blessings and the prayers of the people for said blessings. This day, HOSHANA RABBAH, is considered the most solemn and significant day of the feast because of the Water Libation ceremony, which is itself the great pinnacle of the feast. This eighth day is also a time of intensified prayer and repentance, akin to YOM KIPPUR (Day of Atonement). What interests us is that the celebration of HOSHANA RABBAH carries prophetic and Messianic implications, symbolizing the ultimate redemption and the coming of the Messiah. And right here, in this amazing context, we find Jesus showing up publicly (His CHRONOS AND KAIROS are syncing up), He attends the feast and quite draws attention to Himself as He stands and cries out, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink,” drawing an unmistakable parallel between the Water Libation ceremony and His offer of living Water, emphasizing His role as the Source of spiritual blessings, sustenance, and eternal life. It’s not rocket science—the Water Libation ceremony, like so many other ceremonies, rituals, and whatnot steadfastly maintained by the Jewish people across the centuries in expectation of the coming of Messiah, points directly to Messiah Jesus in whom we find them one-by-one fulfilled, like this here Water Libation ceremony. The upshot is this—HOSHANA RABBA is without question the “great and final” day of the feast precisely because it points directly to Jesus Christ, who is the culmination, indeed consummation of Scripture, not least of which includes the myriad Old Testament prophecies like this here Water Libation ceremony.

[145] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus] stood–G2476 [and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> Verbal usage is Pluperfect, active, indicative. The pluperfect tense indicates an action that was completed in the past and had continuing results up to another point in the past (Fig. 4). It tells us that Jesus had already been standing (event A) for some time before He cried out (event B). It’s not that maybe Jesus sat down and then stood up again—we can’t’ address that—what we do know for sure is that He was standing for some time before He cried out—that’s the picture we can be sure of. The active voice shows that Jesus is the one performing the action of standing, and the indicative mood presents the action as a factual and certain event. The use of the pluperfect tense suggests that Jesus had taken a deliberate stance and had been standing for a while before making His proclamation. How’s that for eyewitness detail? This pluperfect usage speaks volumes here. It flat-out adds weight to Jesus’ action and emphasizes the significance of this KAIROS-moment. Without this tense, we might miss the full weight of the moment—how Jesus deliberately positioned Himself and commanded attention before delivering His profound message about Living Water. John could have used another tense, and we wouldn’t have known the difference or even suspected that the account wasn’t accurate—talk about textual credibility, wow. By standing up in a public setting, especially during a significant religious feast, Jesus signals that He is about to make an important declaration—His stance commands attention and draws attention to His authority and to what He is about to do. It is not hard to understand that standing ensures that Jesus is visible to the large crowd gathered for the pilgrimage Feast of Tabernacles (it sort of corroborates that there was a large crowd). And of course, this physical standing enhances the impact of Jesus’ message. So, this verbal usage highlights the deliberate, authoritative, and significant nature of Jesus’ action. His standing, having done so for some time before then crying out—this bespeaks loud—quite serves to command attention, to draw attention to His presence, and amplify the importance of His proclamation.

[146] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and] cried–G2896 [saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist tense indicates a past action that is complete and definitive . In this context, it emphasizes that Jesus’ act of crying out was a significant, one-time event during the feast. The active voice shows that Jesus is the one performing the action of crying out. He is taking the initiative and making a deliberate, powerful declaration to the listeners. And the indicative mood presents the action as a factual and certain crying out action, which reinforces both the reality and importance of Jesus’ loud proclamation. Let’s picture the backdrop: This crying out occurs on the last and greatest day of the Feast of Tabernacles, it is a time of great celebration and religious significance, it’s bustling, and against this backdrop Jesus’ loud proclamation is dramatic and attention-grabbing; it is intended to reach a large audience amidst the feast’s hustle and bustle. By crying out, our Lord emphasizes the urgency and importance of His message: “…if anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink…” This is both an invitation and a declaration of Jesus as the very Source of spiritual blessings and sustenance and eternal life, drawing a parallel with the Water Libation ceremony going on that symbolized God’s blessing and provision. So, this crying out in this verbal form makes clear the intent of Jesus to draw attention to the significance, urgency, and reality of His proclamation. Jesus’ deliberate and powerful act of crying out combined with His standing up (Fig. 1) is meant to capture the attention of the crowd, but more, it serves to emphasize the hands-down importance of His message, itself made lucid by very boldly delivering it during a symbolically crucial moment of the feast (Water Libation ceremony). A Final note: Jesus was not one to cry out per se (Matthew 12:18-21<>Isaiah 42:1-4), but at key moments He flat thundered His words (Matthew 27:46, John 7:28-probably already standing here, John 7:37, 11:43).

[147] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried] saying–G3004 [If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, participle. The participle enhances meaning in this context because it tells us that as Jesus was crying out, He was specifically speaking His Living Water invitation, i.e., Jesus blasted the invitation to the crowd. And the use of the participle via its intent nuance draws attention to the exact words Jesus spoke in the invitation, emphasizing the significance of His message about offering living water to those who believe in Him. All this helps us to reconstruct the scene and put ourselves in it, helping us understand that Jesus’ cry was not just a loud shout, but a purposeful declaration with profound meaning. By describing the action of speaking as ongoing, the participle enhances the dramatic effect of the scene in that it communicates the sense that Jesus was actively engaging with the crowd, delivering His message in a way that commanded attention and emphasized the urgency and importance of His invitation yet in an engaging manner—explaining whilst teaching, personal interaction, maybe Q&A, maybe a call for folks to step forward and publicly accept. Bottom line, it was an ongoing engagement centered on an invitation—thus does this dandy present participle unambiguously clue us in by enhancing meaning—and the active voice has precisely Jesus performing this here ongoing action. What exactly is enhanced meaning by the way? In a context like this one we like to think of it as a flask with markers that betrays how fully we can immerse ourselves in the scene staying true to the text; how well are we able to place ourselves next to Jesus and live out the scene to which He is central. The Great Grammarian helps us here.

[148] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man] thirst–G1372, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, subjunctive. For starters, this “thirst” bespeaks the desire, the longing for satiation, attending spiritual need. The present tense relates ongoing or continuous action, and here it tells us that the state of thirst Jesus refers to is current and continuous. The active voice shows that the subject (“any man” = anyone) is performing the action of thirsting. It points to the active spiritual desire of the individual. And the subjunctive mood expresses a condition, hypothetical situation, or possibility. It often shows up in conditional sentences, as in this context. By using the subjunctive mood here, Jesus makes a universal invitation to all who are spiritually thirsty: The condition (“if any man thirst”) applies to anyone, making the offer of living water available to all. Let’s reconstruct, let’s meld the pieces and get the Dove’s Eye view. The present tense and active voice team up to highlight the continuity and urgency of the spiritual need—it presents this thirst is an ongoing condition (general present tense nuance) that requires immediate attention (specific present tense nuance) and fulfillment for the given individual (active voice). And then the subjunctive mood is like a huge “overcoat” in that it leaves the invitation open-ended, allowing anyone who recognizes their own spiritual thirst here to get under that overcoat, i.e., to respond, and come to Jesus for fulfillment. So, this verbal usage emphasizes the ongoing, active nature of spiritual thirst and presents a conditional, universal invitation to come to Jesus for satiation for all who see precisely themselves as the one with this spiritual need. Is that you friend (“A Letter of Invitation”)?

[149] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him] come–G2064 [unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> Verbal usage is Present, middle/passive deponent, imperative. Wow, we have an imperative mood here. The present tense for both “come” and “drink,” which we will look at in a moment, emphasizes that the invitation is ongoing—it’s not a one-time event but a continuous call for thirsty people to come to Jesus and receive spiritual nourishment and refreshing. The middle/passive deponent form looks middle/passive but functions actively, and in this context, it calls for active participation—its use tells us that thirsty individuals must actively participate in coming to Jesus and drinking, not just the parched, but all who are thirsty, all who recognize their thirst. It should be a personal and deliberate action on our part once that “thirst feeling” hits us. The mood is imperative and that is very interesting. It reveals an urgent command to come to Jesus and drink and highlights the urgency and importance of Jesus’ invitation. It’s not merely a suggestion but a command for those who recognize their spiritual thirst to take immediate (present tense nuance) action. Why? Just as physical thirst requires immediate hydration to prevent dehydration and maintain health, spiritual thirst demands prompt fulfillment, probably more so (The human body is composed of approximately 60% water, and it requires constant hydration to function properly—blood volume, cell function, joint lube, etc.). Delaying the response to spiritual thirst can lead to continued spiritual dryness and a sense of emptiness. However, drinking immediately upon recognizing our spiritual thirst allows us to experience the Holy Spirit’s refreshing transformative power without delay. So, Jesus’ use of this verbal form is meant to draw attention to the universal and continuous nature of His invitation that addresses the universal and continuous spiritual thirst that ever vexes humankind: It’s open to all who are spiritually thirsty, and it requires ongoing participation—a sip or two now and then ain’t gonna’ get it. Think of the human body again, a pattern of just a few sips of water now and then will flat kill you sooner or later. Individuals, whatever the degree of spiritual dehydration, must actively come to Dr. Jesus D.S.N., and continually receive the spiritual refreshing and sustenance this Doctor of Spiritual Nutrition offers. It’s a no-brainer.

[150] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and] drink–G4095 [He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, imperative. The present tense indicates ongoing or continuous action. It emphasizes that the act of drinking (receiving spiritual nourishment) should be a continuous process. The active voice shows that the subject (the individual) is actively performing the action. It stresses the need for personal engagement and deliberate action in the process of drinking. And the imperative mood expresses a command or exhortation; it highlights the urgency and importance of the action, urging the listeners to take immediate and continuous action to drink in this context. The act of drinking here symbolizes receiving the spiritual nourishment and the life-giving presence of the Holy Spirit. It highlights the necessity of continually seeking and receiving this divine sustenance. The active voice and imperative mood team up to emphasize that it is our responsibility to actively and continuously seek the spiritual fulfillment Jesus offers. We must take deliberate action to come to Him and drink. So, this verbal usage emphasizes the ongoing, active, and urgent nature of Jesus’ invitation. It highlights the necessity of continually seeking and receiving refreshing spiritual nourishment from Him (drinking), and it calls for a personal and immediate response to His command. Okay, well and good, but exactly what does this “drinking” mean? How do we do it? How is it done practically, in shoe leather? It means to come to Jesus, believe in Him, and receive the spiritual sustenance He offers. One, two, three. Come to Jesus, believe in Jesus, receive from Jesus. Notice how Jesus is central to this “drink”:

 

1. Coming to Jesus involves recognizing our spiritual thirst and seeking Him as the source of spiritual fulfillment. That’s square one: an inner acknowledgment of our need for Him and a deliberate action, an effort, to come to Him.
2. Believing in Jesus—Belief is this “drinking” spelled out because Jesus is central to it, belief anchors it. Believing needs no explanation—everyone knows how to believe; everyone believes in something. This step isn’t hard to understand, but it can be hard for some folks to do. This belief is not just intellectual assent but a deep, personal trust and reliance on Jesus as the Savior and Source of eternal life.
3. Receiving the Holy Spirit—now, receive the best drink ever—receive the Holy Spirit, friend. Jesus’ promise of living water refers to the Holy Spirit, which we believers receive from precisely Jesus. Drinking, this last leg, means accepting and being filled with the Holy Spirit—God within—leading to spiritual refreshing, renewal, and transformation. Of course, it is God within, after all. The blessed and dear Holy Spirit of God within brings new life to our spirits, renewing us from…within. This spiritual renewal changes our actions, desires, and thoughts, aligning each with the God within’s will. The God within empowers us believers to live out our faith, providing guidance, strength, and spiritual gifts to serve God and others. Just as physical water quenches our thirst, this divine Living Water Jesus offers satisfies our deepest spiritual longings. This divine inner filling, this decided inner fulfillment, brings peace, joy, and a sense of purpose unspeakable.

 

So, to manifestly “drink” means to come to Jesus, believe in Him, and receive the Holy Spirit of God. It is like spiritually “imbibing IMMANUEL” in the most intimate manner possible.

[151] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that] believeth–G4100 [on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, participle. The present tense indicates ongoing or continuous action, and here it emphasizes that believing in Jesus is not a one-time event but a continuous, active faith. The active voice shows that the subject (the believer) is actively performing the action of believing. It emphasizes personal commitment, and in tandem with the present tense, the ongoing faith-engagement of the individual. The participle form functions as a connector, linking the action of believing with the promise of Living Water—those who continuously believe in Jesus will experience the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, symbolized by rivers of living water flowing from within them. The promise of Living Water signifies the abundant and life-giving presence of God within the lives of believers. It highlights the transformative and sustaining power of God’s blessed Spirit. Notice that Jesus references scripture here, likely drawing from passages like Isaiah 44:3 and Ezekiel 47:1-12, which speak of God’s Spirit being poured out like water and bringing life, note Joel 2:28. This scriptural connection not so subtly draws attention to the fulfillment of prophetic promises in Jesus, and there are myriad. So, this verbal usage emphasizes the ongoing, active nature of faith in Jesus. It highlights the necessity of continuous, personal trust in Him and connects this faith with the promise of receiving the Holy Spirit, leading to spiritual renewal and transformation.

[152] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the] scripture–G1124 [hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> Jesus is referring to what we now call the Old Testament. In Jesus’ day, the Hebrew Scriptures, comprising the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Book Order of the Christian Bible”), were commonly referred to as “the scriptures.” But Jesus primarily used the Septuagint (LXX), which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint was widely used among Jews in Jesus’ day because many Jews, especially those living outside of Israel, were more familiar with Greek than Hebrew. Not to give the wrong impression, please note that Jesus and His disciples were well-versed in the Hebrew Scriptures, but they quite frequently quoted from the Septuagint in their teachings and writings. (When Jesus quotes Old Testament passages in the gospels, He uses the text of the Septuagint about 90% of the time.) Bottom line, Jesus’ Living Water declaration and promise is unambiguously a direct allusion to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. When He speaks these “Living Water words,” He is isolating and lifting out before our eyes how His offer of Living Water and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit fulfill the promises made in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).

[153] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture] hath said–G2036 [out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> Verbal usage is Second aorist, active, indicative. The aorist denotes a past action that is viewed as a decisive, whole or completed event without reference to duration or process. The active voice indicates that the subject (the scripture) is actively performing the action of speaking and witnessing. And the indicative mood represents a statement of fact. It is used to make an assertion or declare something that is real or factual, and in this context, it refers to Old Testament prophecies and promises that are in fact fulfilled in Jesus’ declaration. The use of this verbal form emphasizes that these prophecies were spoken in the past and are now being fulfilled in Jesus’ words and actions. So, by using this specific verbal form, Jesus is drawing attention to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies along these lines:

• The aorist tense indicates that the prophecies were decisively spoken in the past; they are now understood to be completed or fulfilled in Jesus.
• The active voice shows that the scriptures themselves actively conveyed these promises about the Holy Spirit, lending authority and credence to Jesus’ proclamation.
• The indicative mood presents that this fulfillment is a factual reality. Jesus is not merely making a suggestion; He is declaring a fulfilled truth.

[154] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his] belly–G2836 [shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> We have the Greek word KOILIA, which can mean “womb,” an internal, central source of life. Life is conceived and nurtured in the womb, and in this biblical context, we understand it as the place where spiritual renewal and transformation by the Spirit of God within occur. Just as the womb provides nourishment and a safe environment for a developing baby, the Holy Spirit nurtures and sustains the spiritual life of a believer, leading to growth and maturity. So, when Jesus speaks of “rivers of living water” flowing from the “belly” or “womb,” He is emphasizing the deep, internal source of spiritual life and nourishment that the Spirit of God within provides.

[155] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly] shall flow–G4482 [rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> Verbal usage is Future, active, indicative. The future tense of itself, let alone being wrapped with the indicative mood, tells us that this promise of living water flowing from within believers is something that will definitely happen. It assures us believers that this transformative experience is guaranteed for those who believe in Jesus. While the future tense points to an event that will happen, the action itself (flowing) suggests ongoing and continual activity (rivers don’t just flow once, they continue to flow, so we dig this ongoing nuance out of the context, not the grammar). This continuity highlights the ever-present and renewing work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. The active voice conveys dynamism, it shows that the Living Water (the Holy Spirit) is not passive but actively flowing, continually bringing life and renewal per the context. It stresses the dynamic nature of the Spirit’s presence and work within believers. And the indicative mood asserts this future flowing of Living Water as a certain and definite reality—Jesus is making a factual statement about what will happen for those who believe in Him. This imagery of living water flowing connects with Old Testament prophecies, such as in Ezekiel 47:1-12, where water flows from the temple, symbolizing life and healing; by saying specifically “shall flow,” Jesus emphasizes the fulfillment of these prophecies in Himself. So, this verbal usage of “shall flow” in this context emphasizes the promised future fulfillment of the Holy Spirit’s presence in believers, it highlights the dynamic and continuous nature of this action and asserts it as a certain and definite reality.

[156] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow] rivers of living water.[ But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> This symbolizes the abundant and life-giving presence of God within the lives of believers. It emphasizes the continuous and overflowing nature of the Holy Spirit’s work, bringing empowerment, spiritual renewal, and inner fulfillment to those who believe in Jesus. It signifies a dynamic, transformative Force that nourishes and sustains the believer’s spiritual life, flowing from deep within, issuing from the God within. (When we say “the God within” here and elsewhere, we mean specifically the Holy Spirit, and not some personally generated force.)

[157] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the] Spirit–G4151 [which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.]<> The third person of the Holy Trinity, referred to as the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Christ. He is distinct, but coequal and coeternal with God the Father (Jehovah | Yahweh in Old Testament contexts) and God the Son (Jesus Christ, New Testament contexts). This is “the God within” in the context of John seven, the Source of Living Water in this context. The doctrine of the Trinity explains that God is one in essence, but exists in three distinct persons. See also, and also, and also.

[158] [In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus] was not yet glorified–G1392.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, passive, indicative. This verbal usage emphasizes the decisive and completed nature of Jesus’ glorification (aorist nuance). It highlights that this glorification is an action performed by God the Father on Jesus (passive nuance) and asserts the reality of this future event (via the indicative). The key takeaway is that the timing of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is directly connected to Jesus’ glorification. Jesus’ glorification refers to His death, resurrection, and ascension. It marks the completion of His earthly mission and the beginning of His Exaltation. This glorification is essential for the fulfillment of God’s Salvific Plan in that it paves the way for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on us believers (John 16:7), empowering us for spiritual renewal and transformation unto holiness. The fact that Jesus includes His separation from God, His suffering, and His death, as part of His glorification makes abundantly clear the profound unity of purpose within the Godhead. Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension are all part of God’s Salvific Plan for humanity, a Plan willed by the Father, carried out by the Son, and empowered by the Holy Spirit—it is a threefold Work. Jesus’ willingness to suffer and die on the cross highlights His submission to the Father’s will, and this act of obedience aligns perfectly with the Father’s purpose and demonstrates their exceeding unity. The Holy Spirit’s work in believers, as promised by Jesus, further highlights this unity—the Spirit’s presence and empowerment are a seamless continuation of Jesus’ mission, bringing spiritual renewal and transformation to us believers as discussed previously. And there’s the Plan spelled out—it is God’s love, and mercy, and grace poured out on us to make us fit for eternity in heaven in His presence. Jesus started that “prep” work; the Holy Spirit continues it in His absence. The goal is Christlikeness—sons and daughters of God like unto the holy Son of God Himself. That kind of transformation is massive and is something that only the God within can do aright.

[159] [Many of the] people–G9793 [therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.]<> We have the Greek OCHLOS, in this context it refers to the general crowd or multitude, which includes a diverse group of people: Pilgrims, Jerusalemites, country folks, and others, who were present at the feast. The term indicates a motley crowd, comprising individuals from various backgrounds and regions, all gathered in Jerusalem for the feast.

[160] [Many of the people therefore, when] they heard–G191 [this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.]<>Verbal usage is Aorist, active, participle. The aorist tense highlights that the action of hearing Jesus’ statement is a completed event—the people have already heard His words, and their reaction is based on that hearing. The active voice indicates that the people are actively engaged in the act of hearing. They are not passive recipients but are actively processing and reacting to Jesus’ words; the diversity of responses, ranging from belief to skepticism, further suggests that the people were intently processing and reacting to Jesus’ words. And as a participle, “heard” lends a descriptive quality to the people, in that it identifies them as those who have heard Jesus’ declaration and are now responding to it. So, this verbal usage emphasizes the completed and decisive action of the crowd actively hearing Jesus’ statement. It describes the people as those who have heard Jesus’ words and are now reacting to them, leading to the various responses recorded in the verse.

[161] [Many of the people therefore, when they heard this] saying–G3056, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.]<> The saying is Jesus’ Living Water declaration: “…If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water…” It alluded to Old Testament scriptures (Isaiah 12:3, 44:3, 55:1, Ezekiel 47:1-12, Joel 2:28-29), and Jesus clearly tied those prophecies to Himself. This is why the crowd reacted with such disconcertment. By way of this “saying” of His, Jesus was unambiguously identifying Himself as the fulfillment of these prophecies.

[162] [Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the] Prophet–G4396. [Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.]<> The expectation of “the Prophet” was a significant part of Jewish messianic hope, rooted in Moses’ prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15-18. Jesus’ authoritative teaching, miraculous deeds, and scriptural fulfillments led many to believe He was the fulfillment of this prophecy, while others remained skeptical due to their indoctrination by the religious leaders, preconceptions, and/or general lack of understanding. As we see in the Deuteronomy verses, the Jews of Jesus’ day were expecting a prophet like Moses—a leader and lawgiver who would liberate them from the Roman yoke and restore the kingdom to Israel—and some even identified this figure with the Messiah. The thing is that Jesus seemed to fit the bill in the minds of some of the people because He spoke with great authority and performed numerous miracles, which reminded the people of Moses, who also performed signs and wonders.

[163] [Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the] Christ–G5547. [But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.]<> “Christ” is the Greek form of the Hebrew Mashiach (Messiah). The text here presents the Jewish expectation centered in Deuteronomy 18:15-18 that was afoot in the crowd. Most Jews understood “the Prophet” and the Messiah as two separate figures, while others believed they were the same person. The latter is the view Jesus wants them to see with Him fulfilling both roles.

[164] [Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of] Galilee–G1056 [Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.]<> Ouch. It’s a slam, a dig with a dozer. But why? Cultural and regional biases. No doubt these are the “prim and proper” and culturally “refined,” and religiously “clued in” Jerusalemite city slickers popping off. Galilee was a region in the northern part of Israel—far from the religious and cultural center of Jerusalem is the point. It was seen as more country baby, and less “sophisticated” compared to Judea. And Galilee had a significant population of them funky Gentiles (non-Jews) living in amongst, betwixt and between the Jewish folks, which led to perceptions of it being less religiously “pure.” And them thar’ Galileans talked funny, lots of waterfront twang to them fishy rascals’ tone, a flat-out funky accent and dialect that identified them plainly as, here it comes, GALILEAN, which kinda sorta set them apart and made them seem “provincial” to them more “refined” Judean folk (back in the day, to be clear, we are not at all talking about today). They were rough and tough country folk and fishermen, with a loose tongue that let a cuss word or two fly every now and then and would flat mix it up “at the drop of a hat,” so to speak. And another big deal here was that many Jews expected the Messiah to come from Bethlehem in Judea, as prophesied in Micah 5:2. The notion that the Messiah could come from Galilee, an area not traditionally associated with Messianic prophecies, well, as you can imagine, that added bigtime to the skepticism and “scorn,” shall we say, to put it nicely. See also.

[165] [Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?] Hath not the scripture said–G2036 [That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.]<> Indeed, it hath “said,” here with a Second aorist, active, indicative. That is, it was “said” completely and decisively (aorist), by Scripture itself (active voice), and mark it down (indicative mood). Like for example 2Samuel 7:12-13, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, Matthew 1:1-7,8-14, 15-16, and as for the place of birth Micah 5:2 (The Birth of Messiah”).

[166] [Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the] seed of David [and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.]<> This term refers to the descendants of King David, and in this context it highlights the expectation that the Messiah would come from David’s lineage. This lineage was a crucial aspect of the Jewish messianic hope, and God’s New Testament mouthpieces emphasize, they stress Jesus’ fulfillment of this expectation (Matthew 1:1-7, 8-14, 15-16). Essentially, the term bespeaks all the genealogical expectations, historical promises, and prophecies that the Messiah would descend from precisely King David’s line. See also, and also.

[167] [Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of] Bethlehem–G965 where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.]<> “Bethlehem” literally means “House of Bread” in Hebrew, which is quite fitting since Jesus, who refers to Himself as the “Bread of Life,” was born there (Matthew 2:1, 5-6, Luke 2:4-7; John 6:35). It was originally called Ephrath (Genesis 35:16-19). Before Jesus’ time, Bethlehem was renowned as the birthplace of Israel’s beloved King David, and it is oftentimes referred to as the “City of David.” This connection to David buttresses the messianic prophecies linking the Messiah to David’s lineage. The prophet Micah specifically foretold that the Messiah’s birthplace would be in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). Micah’s prophecy draws attention to Bethlehem’s small and humble state yet its pivotal role in God’s Salvific Plan. Nowadays, Bethlehem remains a major pilgrimage site for Christians worldwide; the Church of the Nativity, built over the traditional site of Jesus’ birth, attracts countless visitors and holds profound spiritual significance. This not so little town symbolizes the fulfillment of God’s promises and the hope of Salvation, its humble beginnings contrast sharply with the greatness of Messiah Jesus who was born there, reflecting the unexpected ways God works. See also.

• [168] [Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a] division–G4978 [among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.]<> A schism. Greek SCHISMA, this word is purposely chosen to communicate to us the severity of the rift/separation going on. What’s up? The disputations were rooted in fundamental questions about Jesus’ identity. Some believed He was the Prophet or the Christ, while others doubted, based on the propaganda floating around, or their own misunderstanding of the Messiah’s origins, or the regional biases against Galilee. The strong division makes clear the profound impact of Jesus’ teachings and actions—His claims and miracles forced people to take a stand, leading to polarized reactions. Jesus’ presence and message were so impactful that they led to a significant and pronounced split in opinions, they forced people to make a choice, leading to bigtime divisions and disputes. This division is a direct result of the transformative and challenging nature of Jesus’ teachings: The profound nature of our Lord’s teachings caused people to take sides, leading to disputes and separations even among close relationships, precisely as desired (Matthew 10:34-36). Jesus came to shock the world—yea to shock the world, to shake it up, to shatter old norms and bring in the New, thus drawing a line in the sand which forced folks to settle in on one side or the other, sort of like sheep and goats, the former on the right side, the latter on the left side. How about you friend, you have been reading about Jesus, has He shocked you yet? What side are you tending to settle in on, the sheep side or the goat side (“A Letter of Invitation”)?

[169] [Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them] would+have taken–G2309+G4084 [him; but no man laid hands on him.]<> Verbal usage is (Imperfect, active, indicative—would) + (Aorist, active, infinitive—have taken).This is a very telling construction. “Would” is in the imperfect tense, thus its job is to emphasize the persistent (imperfect nuance) intention (Greek root THELW-would) of some individuals to seize Jesus. And it’s an active intent, its “handsy” per the active voice, and it’s for sure, it’s all too real this intent, via the indicative nuance.. But that’s only half the story, the other half has to do with the manifest action being pointed to, i.e., “have taken,” which is in the aorist tense, active voice, and infinitive mood. Here’s the thing—we have this ongoing, handsy, for real intent, married to an action—take/seize—which is presented as an aorist tense, which bespeaks a decisive, sort of “done deal” intended seizure, in other words, they themselves (active voice) were determined (imperfect nuance behind the intent spilling over onto the manifest seize action) to get this intended seizure completed (aorist nuance). And if that weren’t enough to project into our minds the scheming going on in their little minds, the manifest take/seize action is presented in the infinitive mood, which emphasizes purpose or result! The take/seize mood “feeds back” onto the would/intent verb which feeds back onto the take/seize verb through its mood, and back and forth, an elegant grammatical positive feedback loop of sorts. Bottom line, the Great Grammarian couldn’t have made this any clearer as to what our Lord is facing. So, this was a lock-down scheming seizure that they were intending to actively complete for real no matter what. It suggests that they were going to keep trying until they completed the intended seizure of our Lord. When we put the two verbs together as presented in the text, the Great Grammarian’s picture of the evil and malice and plotting going on is all too clear. Our Lord is in a tight spot here folks, He’s walking a tightrope! As powerful as they were, and as resolute as they were to get the job done, and the fact that we are dealing with an ancient time and people and mindsets, it is truly a miracle that our Lord was not seized according to their timing but God’s timing. When Scripture tells us that Jesus escaped out of their hands in this or that setting, that’s a big deal to put it mildly.

[170] [Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.]<> The primary motivation to seize Jesus in this context was driven by the religious leaders and their proxies, not the general crowd. The crowd had mixed reactions, but it was the authorities who actively sought to arrest our Lord

[171] [Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees and they said unto them, Why have ye not] brought–G71 [him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.]<> Verbal usage is Second aorist, active, indicative. The second aorist functions like the first aorist, it emphasizes that the officers’ action of bringing (or not bringing) Jesus was completed in the past. It points to a specific event that occurred. The active voice shows that the officers were the ones who were supposed to carry out the task of bringing Jesus to the religious leaders. And the indicative mood confirms that the question posed by the religious leaders was about a real action or event—why the officers had not succeeded in bringing Jesus to them. So, this verbal form emphasizes the completed action that the officers were expected to perform, it highlights the officers’ active role and the factual nature of the event, focusing on their failure to bring Jesus to the religious leaders, and here’s the key—despite their orders.

[172] [Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man] spake–G2980 [like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. The root verb is significant: it is LALEW. The aorist tense indicates a simple, completed action in the past, it emphasizes that the action of speaking happened at a specific point in time without indicating whether it was ongoing or repeated. The active voice shows that the subject (Jesus) performed the action—Jesus is the one who spoke. And the indicative mood indicates that the action truly took place. This verbal usage in this context emphasizes the flat-out definitiveness and uniqueness of Jesus’ speech—content, delivery, impact. The officers are stating a fact about Jesus’ manner of speaking bottom line. The root verb LALEW means “to speak” or “to talk. This choice of LALEW over other verbs for speaking, such as LEGW, is meant to draw attention to the manner of Jesus’ speech. While LEGW often refers to saying or declaring something, LALEW emphasizes the act of speaking itself, including the tone, manner, and impact of the speech. By using LALEW, the emphasis is placed on the distinctive quality and manner of Jesus’ speech, which left a profound impression on the officers. They were struck not just by what He said, even though that caused divisions and certainly caught their attention, but by how He said it. So, this verbal usage isolates and lifts out before us the definitive and impactful nature of Jesus’ unique manner of speaking the profound things He said. The specific use of the verb LALEW highlights the distinct and impactful way in which Jesus spoke, making it clear that never a man, yea, no one, had ever spoken like Him. Let’s put ourselves into the crowd and hear and watch Jesus speak, let’s turn back the clock and take a trip to Jerusalem, to this Feast of Tabernacles, let’s go there to hear our Lord speak. Let’s make it real as best as humanly possible so that we “feel” and “appreciate” our Lord’s LALEW. My, there He is, do you see Him (Fig. 1)?! Okay, let’s listen to Him and watch Him as He speaks. This great Orator is speaking with a sense of divine authority, which sets Him apart from other teachers, we notice that right away. His shocking declarations, like “…I am the bread of life…”, and “…I and the Father are one…”, leave a lasting impression on us, a profound sense of confidence in Him and revealed Truth overwhelms us. We are taken aback by His deep knowledge of Scripture and ability to interpret it with authority, with ease, which impresses us and the folks around us. And look, do you notice His engaging style? He uses parables and stories to convey deep spiritual truths in a relatable and engaging manner, which captivate us and the other listeners—my, O my—how He makes complex ideas accessible! And notice how direct and personal our Lord’s teaching is, addressing individuals’ needs and questions (I think He is looking over here at us, He must realize that there’s a lot of stuff I can’t figure out, I should raise my hand I reckon), my how that personal touch makes His message resonate more deeply. Do you hear Him varying His tone to match the message He is conveying? Wow, how wonderfully relatable that makes His message—see how He is gentle and compassionate when comforting the brokenhearted and my goodness, He is flat-out authoritative and stern when confronting hypocrisy. And His teachings here are so filled with emotion, have you noticed that? Notice the deep compassion, righteous anger, divine wisdom…. This emotional engagement sure draws me in, how about you friend? It’s gonna’ leave a lasting impact on me for sure. And the expressive body language, the gestures, and facial expressions really enhance the message, did you catch that? But actually, it’s His very presence and charisma that commands attention I must say. Our Lord’s overall demeanor is just flat compelling. I’m gonna’ write this style of His down and try to follow it, I better write it down so that when I get back to my part of the world He placed me in I have something concrete to guide my memory, I wouldn’t want to forget this treasure. Now let me think and recollect, His communication is a harmonious blend of divine authority, engaging storytelling, emotional depth, and expressive non-verbal cues, right, I think I remember all that correctly. And all these elements came together just right as He presented His profound claims in a way that left a lasting impact on me and everybody else there, right, got it. Well, let me save this little file in the cloud, and… bingo, good to go.

[173] [Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees] Are ye also deceived–G4105? [Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.]<> Verbal usage is Perfect, passive, indicative. The perfect tense in Greek relates a completed action with ongoing results or effects. It indicates that the action was completed in the past but has present implications (notice how sly their grammar is…). The passive voice shows that the subject (the officers) received the action. They were acted upon, meaning they were (supposedly) led astray or deceived by an external influence. And the indicative mood indicates that the action truly took place and is being asserted as a reality. This verbal usage emphasizes that the officers had been deceived in the past, and this deception has ongoing effects in the present. The Pharisees are implying that the officers’ inability to arrest Jesus is due to having been led astray or misled by Jesus’ teachings or the crowd’s opinions. They are questioning whether the officers have been led astray, reflecting their frustration and disbelief at the officers’ reaction to Jesus’ words. This verbal usage quite draws attention to the Pharisees’ frustration and suspicion, as they perceive the deception as something that has “taken hold of” the officers and is affecting their judgment and hence their ability to carry out their orders.

[174] [Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees] believed–G4100 [on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist draws attention to the consummate and definitive nature of the non-belief action. The Pharisees are making a factual statement (indicative nuance) about the absence of belief among the religious leaders (active voice—subject/leaders performing the action of [not] believing), using this as an argument to question the credibility of Jesus’ followers. It’s another very arrogant slam—it implies that the belief of the general populace is invalid or misguided because it is not shared by the wisenheimer religious elite! ‘…If the smart and educated among us don’t believe, well then, the rest of you must certainly be wrong…’ The religious leaders, specifically the scribes and Pharisees, believed they were the rightful interpreters and guardians of the Law because they “sat in Moses’ seat.” This designation implies a position of authority and teaching within the Jewish community, essentially as successors to Moses in the role of teaching and interpreting the Law of Moses (the Torah), which successorship Jesus Himself acknowledged (Matthew 23:2-3). “Moses’ seat” carried a lot of weight; it symbolized the authoritative teaching position they held, and accordingly, they saw themselves as the legitimate interpreters of the Law and believed that their understanding and application of it were correct. In the outworking of their role, they relied heavily on the traditions handed down through generations and believed therefore that their interpretations were rooted in a long-standing tradition that traced back to Moses. Moreover, many of them were highly educated in the Scriptures and Jewish law, and their extensive study and training reinforced their belief in their own correctness. It follows that they held significant authority and influence within the community, and this societal position gave them yet more confidence in their interpretations and teachings and made them quite resistant to any new teachings or interpretations that challenged their established understanding and authority. Jesus’ teachings and claims were seen as a threat to their position, which further entrenched their opposition. Their confidence in their own correctness, coupled with their resistance to Jesus’ revolutionary, “shock the world” teachings, led them to dismiss Him and His followers out of hand as misguided or deceived.

[175] [Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who] knoweth–G1097 [not the law are cursed.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, participle, and the root verb is GINOSKW. The present tense indicates continuous or ongoing action, and in this context, it means that the crowd continuously or habitually does not know the Law (Law of Moses). The active voice shows that the subject (the crowd) is performing the action, they are the ones who are not knowing or recognizing the Law. And as a participle, “knoweth” functions as a verbal adjective modifying “this people” (the crowd), describing their characteristic, ongoing state (of not knowing). So, this verbal usage describes the continuous and habitual ignorance of the Law by the crowd as put forth by the Pharisees. This ongoing lack of knowledge is used to justify their dismissal and condemnation of the people as cursed (Deuteronomy 27:26, Hosea 4:6). The root verb is GINOSKW, it means “to know,” “to recognize,” or “to understand.” It conveys the sense of a deep or experiential knowledge rather than mere surface-level or singularly intellectual awareness. By using GINOSKW, the Pharisees emphasize not just a lack of intellectual knowledge and even simple awareness, but a deeper, more profound lack of understanding and recognition of the Law. It is meant to suggest that the crowd’s ignorance is more fundamental and pervasive—the crowd is not merely uninformed but lacks a true, deep and experiential understanding of the Law. This deeper level of ignorance justifies, in the Pharisees’ eyes, their condemnation of the people as cursed.

[176] [Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the] law–G3551 [are cursed.]<> The Law of Moses. It included the commandments, statutes, and ordinances given to the Israelites through Moses and is primarily found in the first five books of the Old Testament (Hebrew: the Torah, Greek: the Pentateuch, both terms refer to: the five book collection comprised of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The Law of Moses was the foundational legal and ethical code for the Jewish people. It governed their religious, moral, and societal conduct. The religious leaders, particularly the scribes and Pharisees, saw themselves as the authoritative interpreters of this sacred Law, emphasizing its importance and their role in maintaining its observance. Knowledge and observance of the Law of Moses were seen as essential for righteousness and maintaining a covenant relationship with Jehovah God. Ignorance of the law was considered a serious failing, which is why the Pharisees refer to the people who do not know the law as cursed (John 7:49). See also.

[177] [Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed–G1944.]<> Cursed or under a curse. In this context, being “cursed” means a state of separation from God’s blessings, favor, and protection, it implies that the people are in a spiritually perilous state. By their use of this pejorative the Pharisees reveal yet again their elitist attitude. They consider themselves superior because of their personally assessed knowledge and adherence to the Law, and they look down on those who do not meet their standards. Jesus’ upbraiding of these proud hypocrites in that regard is a thing of beauty (“Matthew Chapter Twenty-three Commentary”).

[178] Nicodemus–G3530 [saith unto them, he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. And every man went unto his own house.]<> Nicodemus was both a member of the Sanhedrin (Jewish ruling council and highest court) and a Pharisee (John 3:1), and thus a very influential Jewish religious leader. This is the Nicodemus that came to Jesus under the cover of night to get clarity on His teachings (John 3:1-2. He became a staunch follower of Jesus and at his own risk took part in Jesus’ burial (John 19:39-40). In this context, Nicodemus is essentially advocating for a fair hearing for Jesus according to Jewish law. At a meeting of the Sanhedrin, he challenges his fellow members by reminding them that their law requires a person to be heard before being judged. His intervention reflects his willingness to stand up for Jesus and for fairness and justice, despite the prevailing opposition to Jesus among the religious leaders—risky stuff on his part. Despite the potential risks to his authority, reputation, and personal safety, brother Nicodemus chose to speak up for what he believed was right.

[179] [Nicodemus saith unto them, he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them Doth our law] judge–G2919 [any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. And every man went unto his own house.]<> Verbal usage is Present, active, indicative. The present tense indicates continuous or ongoing action, and in this context, it means that the Law continuously or habitually judges. The active voice shows that the subject (the Law) is performing the action, the Law judges. And the indicative mood is used for statements of fact, indicating that the judging action truly takes place and is being asserted as a reality. Nicodemus is here questioning his fellow members of the Sanhedrin, reminding them of the legal procedure required by their own laws. He points out that the Law does not judge a person without first hearing from them and understanding what they have done, and this verbal usage is stressing that such due process is an ongoing and habitual aspect of the Law (due process is a technical legal term that means fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen’s entitlement; Jesus was a Jew, an Israelite, and had the right to a fair hearing according to the principles laid out in the Torah Deuteronomy 1:16-17, 19:15). So, Nicodemus is essentially advocating for due process and fair treatment according to their legal standards, challenging the Sanhedrin to uphold the principles of justice inherent in the Law. But notice that instead of addressing Nicodemus’ valid point about their Law requiring a fair hearing, they dismiss him with a condescending remark, questioning whether he too is from that “despicable,” as it were, Galilee. Their response here is filled with prejudice–by stating that no prophet comes from Galilee, they are showing their bias against Jesus’ Nazareth/Galilee upbringing (born in Bethlehem/Judea, reared in Nazareth/Galilee) and are willing to ignore their own legal principles to condemn Him. This retort really shows their hypocrisy: While they prided themselves on being the guardians of the Law, they were willing to bend or even ignore it to serve their own agenda against Jesus! Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites (Matthew 23:13-15, 23, 25, 27, 29-31).

[180] [Nicodemus saith unto them, he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them Doth our law judge any man, before it] hear–G191 [him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. And every man went unto his own house.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, subjunctive. Nicodemus’ use of the aorist tense emphasizes the importance of the action of hearing as a definitive and completed step before judgment. The active voice makes it clear that the judges or those upholding the Law must actively engage in hearing the accused. And the subjunctive mood is clever, it indicates that this hearing is a required condition—that’s the subjunctive message/nuance—that must be fulfilled for the Law to judge anyone. This condition is elegantly isolated via the subjunctive, thus drawing attention to the necessity of following proper legal procedures. So, this verbal usage emphasizes the principle that the Law must definitively and completely and actively hear a person as a necessary condition before judging them. Nicodemus is stressing the obvious to his fellow members who would have picked up on it immediately through the verbal usage and semantics and context/background, i.e., the importance of due process and fair treatment according to their legal standards bottom line. Nicodemus was for real friends, the kind of person you want by your side in the heat and dust of battle.

[181] [Nicodemus saith unto them, he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee?] Search–G2045 [and look for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. And every man went unto his own house.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, active, imperative. Wow, catch the condescending imperative here, it’s like ‘…hey little man, God ain’t talkin’ to that rabble up north, get your head out of the clouds and back in the scrolls Jesus-hero…’ This verbal usage clearly shows the authoritarian and dismissive and quite condescending command given to Nicodemus by the Pharisees. Flat-out telling him to “search and look” is belittling and reflects their hostility and bias, and yet their claim about no prophets from Galilee is not accurate, highlighting their willingness to overlook facts to discredit Jesus. Note that Jonah was from Gath-hepher, a town in the region of Galilee (2Kings 14:25), and Nahum was from Elkosh which is thought to be in Galilee (Nahum 1:1). These examples show that there were indeed prophets from the region of Galilee, contrary to the claim made by the Pharisees. They were too well-versed in Scripture to have forgotten about these early prophets, it was a willful oversight to discredit Jesus and gut-punch Nicodemus for standing up for Jesus.

[182] [Nicodemus saith unto them, he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and] look–G2396 [for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. And every man went unto his own house.]<> Verbal usage is as with search: Aorist, active, imperative. The aorist tense bespeaks a single, decisive, completed action—look, look once and for all. The active voice shows that the subject (Nicodemus) is to do the looking, and the imperative mood, well, here we go again—as if “search” wasn’t condescending enough, they twist the knife a little more. It’s like a double blow: ‘…use your head, pal…’, and the knife twist—‘…it wouldn’t hurt if you opened your eyes some…’ It’s down-talking at its “best.” The price of befriending Jesus and standing up for Him is belittlement here, plain and simple. These are the words and grammar doing the ripping and tearing for these here Torah-tweaking Pharisees. There is hardly a doorway wide enough for fatheads like that to shoehorn through.

[183] [Nicodemus saith unto them, he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look for out of Galilee] ariseth–G1453 [no prophet. And every man went unto his own house.]<> Verbal usage is Perfect, passive, indicative. The perfect indicates a completed action with ongoing results, and in this context, it means that the action of a prophet arising from Galilee has not happened in the past and still has no result in the present. The passive voice shows that the subject (the prophet) receives the action, it emphasizes that no prophet has been raised or come forth from Galilee. And the indicative mood is used for statements of fact, indicating that the action is being presented as a reality or truth. This verbal usage in this context emphasizes the Pharisees’ assertion that, to their “knowledge,” no prophet has ever arisen from Galilee and thus none will (the perfect nuance = completion+completion’s relevance). They present this as a definitive statement of fact, aiming to dismiss any claims about Jesus’ legitimacy. The Pharisees’ use of this verb form, combined with the imperative commands “search,” and “look,” reflects their condescending and dismissive attitude toward Nicodemus. They are effectively saying, ‘…Look it up (search) and see for yourself (look)—no prophet has ever come from Galilee…’ But as mentioned earlier, this claim is not accurate, given that Jonah was from Gath-hepher (2 Kings 14:25) and Nahum from Elkosh (Nahum 1:1), both in the region of Galilee. This highlights their willingness to overlook facts to discredit Jesus. So, this verbal usage signifies a completed action with ongoing results, used by the Pharisees to assert that no prophet has ever arisen from Galilee nor has one arisen presently. It reflects their condescending and dismissive tone toward Nicodemus, while also making clear their hostility and bias against Jesus—that’s the root cause of the condescension toward Nicodemus.

[184] [Nicodemus saith unto them, he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look for out of Galilee ariseth no] prophet–G4396. [And every man went unto his own house.]<> Someone through whom Jehovah God speaks to reveal His plans, His will. Through whom He reveals hidden things known only to God, and through whom He blesses, guides, and rebukes (Deuteronomy 18:18-19, Jeremiah 1:4-5, Acts 2:16-18, Ephesians 4:11-12). Bottom line, prophets are chosen by God to deliver His messages, they can be divinely ordained even before birth, their role can extend to many through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and they are crucial for the growth and edification of the Church. See also.

[185] [Nicodemus saith unto them, he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. And every man] went–G4198 [unto his own house.]<> Verbal usage is Aorist, passive deponent, indicative. Buckle up friends, this is an explosive verb in this context—a fitting way for the Great Grammarian to end it, with a two-edged sword, not peace. He done got them ‘ol boys thinkin’ it through some and pickin’ sides… The aorist tense conveys a completed, decisive action, emphasizing that the action of going happened at a specific point in time. It imparts a sense of abruptness and finality. The passive deponent functions as an active voice, showing the subject (everyone) performing the action of “going their separate ways” to their houses. The indicative mood states this abrupt end to the meeting as a fact. Everyone “aorist-going” to their own house suggests an abrupt, decisive, ending to the discussion. Such an ending implies that the matter was left unresolved and heated—maybe not a fistfight and chair-throwing sort of heat, but exceedingly, you know, “tense.” The decision to “lickety-split bail out” indicates that tensions were indeed high, and that further discussion was, shall we say, “unproductive” at that moment. The bigger picture concerns the “shock the world” impact Jesus’ two-edged sword is having, and that Nicodemus is…defending. We no doubt see divisions in the council here—that two-edged sword done got them ‘ol boys thinkin’, and they ain’t fightin’ Nicodemus, not really, they be fightin’ what they be a thinkin’, it’s flat nerve-rattlin’, they don’t like them thoughts, them “shock the world” thoughts. Yup, it’s a contentious atmosphere right here for sure, surroundin’ discussion/s about Jesus. And them ‘ol boys flat picked sides and called ‘er quits…and jist went on home them rascals did. I’m wonderin’ how many of them fellers, if any, picked the right side and fell in line behind brother Nicodemus? The divisions within the council, of which we cannot be sure because the text does not tell us that explicitly, it just seems to suggest it, anyway, if they existed, would have concerned both Jesus’ revolutionary message generally and His right to be heard more specifically (cf. John 7:43 in the context of the people). (See also as per John 7:53-8:11 manuscript attestation). And so a sharp two-edged sword done sliced right on through that puffy ‘ol Sanhedrin on that thar’ day kinda’ deflatin’ it some…