*7:1 All of chapter six took place in Galilee, so why make a point of Jesus' continuing there? 6:4 says that the Passover was near, but 7:2 says that the Feast of Tabernacles was near—that is six months later. As a God-fearing male, Jesus had to go to Jerusalem for the Passover, so He must have gone, although none of the Gospels records it. I take it that He went without calling attention to Himself, and returned immediately to Galilee, for the reason given in the second half of the verse.

†7:1 Between 6:71 and 7:2 six months elapsed. For events that occurred during that period see Matthew 15:1-18:35, Mark 7:1-9:50 and Luke 9:18-50.

‡7:3 These would have to be dwellers in Judea who were not following Jesus around. Since His statement about eating His flesh, the number of hangers-on was drastically reduced, giving the impression that He was losing popularity in Galilee.

§7:5 Well now, those brothers were not very nice, were they? I take it that they knew very well that the hierarchy was plotting to kill Jesus (it seems to me obvious that the Jews had researched Jesus' past and family, and had doubtless been working on His brothers), so they were trying to send Him to His death. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

*7:6 I assume that He meant that they could repent and believe into Him at any time.

†7:7 If we raise the standard of biblical values in the public arena, calling a spade a spade, the world will hate us too—try it and see!

‡7:8 Perhaps 3% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “yet” (as in NASB, TEV, RSV, etc.). The reading of the so-called ‘critical’ text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Jesus, since He did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do). Among the 97% are 𝕻66,75 and B—since the UBS editors usually attach the highest value to 𝕻75 and B, isn't it strange that they reject them in this case?

§7:9 That is, His brothers started out on their way to Jerusalem and Jesus stayed behind, for the moment.

*7:15 That is, He had never been to a recognized theological seminary, rabbinical school, or whatever. But He knew more than they did! (Which of course was hard for them to swallow.)

†7:16 Jesus is evidently aware of what they are saying or thinking, since He addresses it.

‡7:17 If we want to do, we will know. The Lord did not say, if we just want to know—we have to be committed to obey before we know what the order is. Once we are committed to obey, it is in God's own interest to talk to us.

§7:20 The ‘crowd’ is made up of common people who are not in the know with a sprinkling of Pharisee types, the bosses. Jesus is really addressing the bosses, but the common people don't get it.

*7:22 It started with Abraham, 430 years before Moses.

†7:23 The Lord seems to be contrasting circumcision, which involves only a small part of the body, with His healing, which involved the whole body.

‡7:23 Hey, the last healing on a Sabbath in Jerusalem, as recorded by John, happened a year and a half ago! In fact, none of the four Gospels records any activity by Jesus in Jerusalem during the year and a half since John 5. Jesus seems to be implying that they are still mad about that!

§7:27 If no one could know where the Messiah came from, how come the rulers were able to tell Herod that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem? The people had bought into a false idea. Verses 25-27 presumably record bits from various speakers.

*7:29 The Lord is very emphatic about His heavenly origin. Of course the Jews want to be rid of Him because He most definitely is not fitting into their scheme of things. I take it that there is divine intervention at work so they are not able to arrest Him.

†7:34 “Where I am”—that is what the Text says. I imagine that the idea is the same as in John 3:13, “who is in Heaven”. He has just said in verse 33 that He is going back to Heaven. So, He is telling those Jewish leaders that they cannot go to Heaven!

‡7:38 Just where does the Scripture say this, and why “rivers” (pl); wouldn't one be enough? Reference Bibles will give a variety of suggestions, none of which really fit. I personally believe that the reference is to Ezekiel 47:1-12, and most especially to verse 9 where the Hebrew text has two rivers (or torrents)—when that river got to the Dead Sea it evidently divided, so as to go along both banks at once. Living water takes life and health wherever it goes. So how much living water is flowing out of me, or you? The secret of that water is given in verse 12: “their water flows from the sanctuary” (compare 1 Corinthians 6:19).

§7:39 When you believe into Jesus you receive the Holy Spirit.

*7:42 I smell a rat. In verse 27 above they claimed that no one knew where the Christ was coming from; now here they say it is Beth-lehem. I suspect that there were people planted in the crowd whose job it was to create confusion, and they felt no obligation to tell the truth.

†7:52 A bit of an overstatement—Jonah was from Gath Hepher of Zebulun, north of Natsareth (2 Kings 14:25).

‡7:53 Some 15% of the Greek manuscripts omit 7:53-8:11, including most of the early ones; but that means that 85% contain it, including the Latin tradition that dates from the 2nd century. Assuming (for the sake of the argument) that the passage is spurious, how could it ever have intruded here, and to such effect that it is attested by some 85% of the MSS? Let's try to read the larger passage without these verses—we must go from 7:52 to 8:12 directly. Reviewing the context, the chief priests and Pharisees had sent officers to arrest Jesus, to no avail; a ‘discussion’ ensues; Nicodemus makes a point, to which the Pharisees answer: (7:52) “Are you also from Galilee? Search and look, for no prophet has arisen out of Galilee.” (8:12) Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world…” What is the antecedent of “them”, and what is the meaning of “again”? By the normal rules of grammar, if 7:53—8:11 is missing then “them” must refer to the “Pharisees” and “again” means that there has already been at least one prior exchange. But, 7:45 makes clear that Jesus was not there with the Pharisees. Thus, UBS [the ‘critical’ text] introduces an aberration. And yet, Metzger claims that the passage “interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff.” (p. 220)! To look for the antecedents of 8:12 in 7:37-39 not only does despite to the syntax but also runs afoul of 8:13—“the Pharisees” respond to Jesus' claim in verse 12, but “the Pharisees” are somewhere else, 7:45-52 (if the Pericope is absent). Metzger also claims that “the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel”—but, would not the native speakers of Greek at that time have been in a better position than modern critics to notice something like that? So how could they allow such an “extraneous” passage to be forced into the text? I submit that the evident answer is that they did not; it was there all the time. I also protest their use of brackets here. Since the editors clearly regard the passage to be spurious they should be consistent and delete it, as do NEB and Williams. That way the full extent of their error would be open for all to see. Unfortunately, NIV, NASB, NRSV, Berkeley and TEV also use brackets to question the legitimacy of this passage. But why was the story omitted? Leading church father and theologian, Augustine (about ad 430), answers: “Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's acts of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” (See Augustine, “Adulterous Marriages” [2.7] trans. by Charles T. Huegelmeyer, in Saint Augustine: Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects [New York: Fathers of the Church, 1955], p. 107.) [I took this material on Augustine from Living Water: The Gospel of John—Logos 21 Version, Absolutely Free Incorporated, p. 74.]