(b) Christ as the dispenser of the spirit, the real, siloam with its water of life. increasing ferment in the people
Joh_7:37-44
37[Now] In the last day, that [the] great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man [any one] thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38He that believeth on [in] me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly [body] shall flow rivers of living water. 39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on [in] him should [were about to] receive, for the Holy Ghost [the Spirit] was 40not yet given, [omit given] because that [omit that] Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Many [some] of the people [multitude] therefore, when they heard this saying 41[these words], said, Of a truth this is the Prophet [This is truly the Prophet.] Others said, This is the Christ. But [omit But] some [Others] said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee [Doth the Christ then come from Galilee]? 42Hath not the Scripture said, That [the] Christ cometh of [from] the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem [from Bethlehem, the town] where David was?
43So there was a division among the people [the multitude] because of him. And 44some of them would have taken him [wished to seize him]; but no man [one] laid hands on him.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Joh_7:37. In the last day.—Meyer: “As the eighth day (the 22d Tisri according to Lev_23:34; Num_29:35; Neh_8:18) was reckoned in with the seven days of the feast proper, and as, Succah, fol. 48, 1, the last day (
àַçֲøåֹï
) of the feast is the eighth, John certainly meant this day and not the seventh (Theoph., Buxtorf, Bengel, Roland, Paulus, Amnion); especially as it was customary at a later period to speak of an eight days’ celebration of the feast of tabernacles (2Ma_10:6; Joseph. Ant. III. 10, 4; Gem. Eruvin. 40, 2; Midr. Kohel. 118, 3). To this corresponds, too, the translation
ἐîüäéïí
(finale of the feast), by which the Septuagint expresses the designation of the eighth day,
òֲöֶøֶú
[solemn assembly] in Lev_23:36; Num_29:35; Neh_8:18. Comp. Ewald, Alterthümer, p. 481.” Tholuck: “A general jubilee (Plutarch calls it a Bacchanal) and splendid ceremonies of many kinds took place at this feast, so that the Rabbis were accustomed to say: He who has not seen these festivities, knows not what jubilee is. See H. Majus: Diss. de haustu aquarum.”
[Alford takes the same view as to the day, and then tries to solve the difficulty which attaches to it. “The eighth day seems here to be meant, and the last of the feast to be popularly used. But a difficulty attends this view. Our Lord certainly seems to allude here to the custom which prevailed during the seven days of the feast, of a priest bringing water in a golden vessel from the pool of Siloam with a jubilant procession to the temple, standing on the altar and pouring it. out there, together with wine, while meantime the Hallel (Psalms 113-118) was sung. This practice was by some supposed—as the dwelling in tabernacles represented their life in the desert of old—to refer to the striking of the rock by Moses:—by others, to the rain, for which they then prayed, for the seed of the ensuing year:—by the elder Rabbis (Maimonides, cited by Stier, iv. 331, ed. 2), to Isa_12:3, and the effusion of the Holy Spirit in the days of the Messiah. But it was universally agreed (with the single exception of the testimony of R. Juda Hakkadosh, quoted in the tract Succa, which itself distinctly asserts the contrary), that on the eighth day this ceremony did not take place. Now, out of this difficulty I would extract what I believe to be the right interpretation. It was the eighth day, and the pouring of water did not take place. But is therefore (as Lücke will have it) all allusion to the ceremony excluded? I think not: nay, I believe it is the more natural. For seven days the ceremony had been performed, and the Hallel sung. On the eighth day the Hallel was sung, but the outpouring of the water did not take place: ‘desidcraverunt aliquid.’ ‘Then Jesus stood and cried,’ etc. Was not this the most natural time? Was it not probable that He would have said it at a time, rather even than while the ceremony itself was going on?” This accords with the view taken by Lange (see below and Doctr. and Ethical No. 1), but Wordsworth, Owen and others defend the usual opinion that on the eighth day as well as on those preceding, and with louder and more general expressions of joy, the priest brought forth, in a golden vessel, water from the spring of Siloam, and poured it upon the altar, and that Jesus at that very time proffered the water of life to all who would come unto Him and drink.—P. S.]
The last day of the feast of tabernacles was an especially high day, being the close of the feast (as well as of the festal season of the year), and being a Sabbath, a day on which the congregation assembled according to the law (Lev_23:36), and which was therefore distinguished by a special sacrificial ritual. But one thing the day lacked, which distinguished the other days. On each of the seven preceding days, in the morning, occurred the festal water-drawing. A priest drew water daily with a large golden pitcher (holding about two pints and a half) from the spring of Siloam on the temple hill, brought it into the temple, and poured it out mingled with sacrificial wine, into two perforated dishes at the altar. The ceremony was accompanied with the sound of cymbals and trumpets, and the singing of the words of Isa_12:3, which Rabbi Jonathan paraphrased: “With joy shall ye receive the new doctrine from the chosen righteous.” This was the celebration of the miraculous springs which God opened for the people on their pilgrimage through the wilderness. But because the eighth day marked the entrance into Canaan, the water-drawing ceased. On this day the springs of the promised land gave their waters to the people; an emblem of the streams of spiritual blessing which Jehovah had promised to His people. To this symbolical performance the words of Jesus on the last day of the feast evidently refer (Leben Jesu, III. p. 619). It is of no account that, according to Rabbi Juda, the pouring out of the water took place on the eighth day also. This was probably a later supplement, if the statement is not an error.
The great day [
ôῇ ìåãÜëῃ
].—That is, especially great in comparison with the other days. See the preceding remarks. Philo also [De Septenaris II. 298] observes that it was the close of the yearly feasts; i.e. of the three great feasts, not of all.
Cried, saying.—Jesus had not hitherto so openly presented Himself as the personal object of a saving faith.
If any one thirst [i.e.whosoever thirsts] let him come to me and drink.—See the observations on Joh_7:37. The reference of this preaching of salvation under the promise of a miraculous draught and fountain of water to the water-drawing is groundlessly considered by Meyer to be dubious. It agrees entirely with the character of the fourth Gospel, in which Jesus presents Himself in the most varied ways as the fulfilment of the Old Testament symbols. The spiritual import of the water-drawing appears in Isa_12:3 [“with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation”]. This water-drawing must be distinguished from the devotional water-drawing on days of humiliation and fasting, 1Sa_7:6.
[The invitation first given to the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, is here extended to all the people on the great feast in Jerusalem. The N. T. closes with a similar offer of the water of life (Rev_22:17). There is an inner thirst as there is an inner man, and the former is deeper and stronger than the thirst of the body, and can only be satisfied from the fountain of life in Christ. “Under the imagery of one thirsting for water, which everywhere, and especially in countries like Palestine where the want of water is so frequently experienced, would be well understood, our Lord proffers to all such persons that which will forever satisfy the longings of the soul and give it permanent rest.” Owen. “An allusion to the water drawn in a golden vase from the pool of Siloam and poured on the altar in the temple… as a memorial of the water from the rock smitten in the wilderness, and typical of the living water of the Spirit from the true Rock (1Co_10:4).” Wordsworth.—P. S.]
Joh_7:38. He that believeth in me, etc.—Explaining the expression: “Come unto me and drink.”—As the scripture hath said.—These words are not to be connected with
ὁ ðéóôåýùí
, as if the meaning were: “He who according to the scripture believeth in Me” (Chrysostom, Calovius, and others). An
ἔóôé
may be understood. Meyer:
Ὁ ðéóôåýùí
is nominat. absol. The question then is, what words of Scripture the Lord means. The expression [which follows: “out of his body shall flow rivers of living water”] does not occur literally in the Old Testament; so that Whiston and others took up the idea that it was from some canonical or apocryphal sources now lost. Against this are (1) the usage of the New Testament, (2) the general reference to “the scripture,” which, as such, seems to be intended to point rather to a promise running through the Old Testament than to any particular passage (see Isa_44:3; Isa_55:1; especially Isa_58:11; Eze_47:1 ff.; Joe_2:23; Zec_13:1; Zec_14:8). Olshausen fixes particularly on those passages which promise a flowing forth of living water from the temple, the believer being considered as a living temple. And undoubtedly Christ at least would as surely have Himself considered the true temple-fountain, as He in John 2 presented Himself as the true temple. The notions of the temple (John 2) and the fountain (John 4) here run together. The question is whether the believer also will himself be a temple-spring. See the next paragraph.
Out of his belly (body)—
Ἐê ôῆò êïéëßáò áὐôïῦ
. That
êïéëßá
(
áֶּèֶï
) may denote in Hebrew usage the inward part, the heart, is proved by Pro_20:27, and similar passages (see Bretschneider’s Lexicon); hence Chrysostom [his successors] and others have taken
êïéëßá
as equivalent to
êáñäßá
. [Augustine: the inner man, the heart’s conscience.—P. S.] The only question is, why the Lord chose the strong term. Meyer [p. 312] thinks it should be strictly understood of the abdomen [Bauchhöhle, as the receptacle of water taken into a man], and then this should be taken figuratively. His body shall give forth living water as a stream of a fountain (through the mouth!); without the figure, the divine grace and truth which the believer has taken from the fulness of Christ into his inner life, remains not shut up within himself, but imparts itself in overflowing abundance to others. This rendering accounts for the striking expression
êïéëßá
no better than that of Chrysostom.
Êïéëßá
, in the wider sense denotes any belly-like cavity [the belly of the sea, of a mountain, of a large vessel, etc.]. If we keep in view the symbolical reference to the “water-feast,” we may refer the expression to the belly of the temple hill (Gieseler [in the Studien und Kritiken, 1829, p. 138 f.]; see Lücke, II. p. 229), and also to the body of the great golden pitcher with which the priest drew the water (Bengel). We have previously (Leben Jesu, II., p. 945) given the former interpretation. But as Christ Himself is the parallel of the temple hill with the spring of Siloam, so the believing Christian is well represented by the golden pitcher with which the priest drew the water; at least this enters into the choice of the expression. The meaning is: The whole Christian is a vessel of grace emptied of vanity, filled with the Spirit. Of course the pitcher of itself yields no stream of living water; but this is just the miracle of the true life, that, being drunk (Joh_4:10) or drawn in faith (as in our passage), it becomes a flowing fountain of living water. To refer the
ἐê ôῆò êïéëßáò áὐôïῦ
to Christ (Hahn: Theologie des Neuen Testaments, I. p. 229 [and Gess: Person Christi, p. 166]), jars with the context, especially Joh_7:39. The living water is explained below.
[Shall flow rivers of living water.—
Ðïôáìïß
is put first in the original to emphasize the abundance. Chrysostom comments on the plural: “Rivers, not river, to show the copious and overflowing power of grace: and living water, i.e. always moving; for when the grace of the Spirit has entered into and settled in the mind, it flows freer than any fountain, and neither fails, nor empties, nor stagnates. The wisdom of Stephen, the tongue of Peter, the strength of Paul, are evidences of this. Nothing hindered them; but, like impetuous torrents, they went on, carrying everything along with them.”—P. S.]
Joh_7:39. But this spoke he of the Spirit which they that believe in him were about to receive.—[An explanatory remark of the Evangelist similar to the one in Joh_2:21. Important for apostolic exegesis. Otherwise the Evangelists never insert their own views or feelings to interrupt the flow of the objective narration which speaks best for itself.—P. S.].—According to Lightfoot the Rabbins also considered the water-pouring or libation of the feast of tabernacles as the outpouring of the divine Spirit (haustio Spiritus Sancti). [Comp. the prophetic predictions of the Messianic outpouring of the Spirit, Joe_3:1; Isa_32:15; Isa_44:3; Eze_36:25; Eze_39:29].
According to Lücke (II. p. 230) the “living water” is intended to mean as much as “eternal life” [Joh_4:10; Joh_4:14], but not the Holy Spirit; and John’s exposition may be indeed “epexegetically correct, but is not exegetically accurate.” His arguments are: (1) “The outflowing,
ῥåýóïõóéí ἐê
, is not a receiving (
ëáìâÜíåéí
).” But the receiving is everywhere identical with faith, and the Spirit, which the believers received, also in fact flowed forth. (2) “The
ῥåýóïõóéí
cannot be an absolute future, excluding the present.” But neither has the gospel history made the outpouring of the Holy Ghost so; for before this, in fact, a certain miraculous power already flowed forth from the apostles [comp. also Joh_20:22]. (3) “Olshausen, it is true, observes that even in the New Testament the Spirit is conceived under the figure of water, as the description of the Spirit as ‘poured out,’ Act_10:45, Tit_3:6, clearly shows. But how comes it, that the corresponding emblem of water is never expressly used in the New Testament for the Holy Ghost. We have
ὕäùñ ôῆò æùῆò
, but never
ὕäùñ ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò
.” This is accounted for by the fact that the symbol arose from the contrast, so vivid to Palestinians, between the stagnant water of cisterns and the living water of springs. The legal system gave a certain measure of life, like cistern water, which did not propagate itself, and easily corrupted. The gospel dispensation of faith gave the water of life, which like a fountain replenished itself, increased, and was always fresh. And this was the Spirit. Lücke says: “The essential affinity of the expressions
æùὴ áἰþíéïò
and
ðíåῦìá
is undeniable.” Here, however, is more than affinity; the two expressions denote the same life of the Spirit, only under different aspects.
Meyer rightly adduces for the correctness of the Evangelist’s explanation the strength of the term
ðïôáìïß
(to which
ῥåýóïõóé
may be added). But when he goes on to remark, that John does not consider the Holy Ghost Himself to be meant by the living water, but only says of the whole declaration, that Jesus meant it of the Holy Ghost, leaving the Christian mind to conceive the Spirit as the Agens, as the impelling power of the stream of living water,—he runs substantially into Lücke’s interpretation.
We have only to distinguish between the Spirit of the life, as the cause, and the life of the Spirit, as the effect; carefully remembering that the cause and the effect are here not physically separate, but penetrate each other. Assuredly the words of Jesus speak directly of the operation of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit is a self-supplying spring.
On the doctrine of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament and of the Holy Ghost in the New, comp. the biblical and dogmatic theologies; Spirit is the uniting formative principle of visible life. So the air, the symbolical spirit of the earth; so the spirit in man. And the Spirit of God is, in the first place, the uniting life and formative principle of the creation (Gen_1:2; Psa_33:6); then, of the life of the creature, and in particular of man (Gen_6:3; Psa_104:29-30); then, of the theocracy (Num_11:25, etc.). Subsequently the promise of a new kingdom (see the Prophets). So in the New Testament, the one life and formative principle of the life of Jesus, of the body of disciples, of the New Testament Church, of the new world.
For the (Holy) Ghost was not yet [
ïὔðùãÜñἦíðíåῦìá
(
ἄãéïí
).—For the reasons above given we keep the
ἅãéïí
. The Spirit was already always present; the Spirit of God had evidenced Himself even in the Old Testament; but the revelation of God as Holy Ghost was not yet given. In the glorification of Christ the Spirit of God first came to view as the Holy in the specific New Testament sense. The
ἦí
is therefore emphatic; He was not yet present and manifest upon earth to men. The addition [
äåäïìÝíïí
, given, in the E. V.] in cod. B. (Lachmann) seems to be a gloss explanatory of the difficult term. Christ was conceived, in deed, by the Holy Ghost, and anointed with the fulness of the Spirit; but this was as yet a mystery to the world; the Holy Ghost could not come into the world till after the ascension of Christ, Joh_16:7. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis I., p. 196): “The outpouring of the Spirit was the demonstration of His super-mundane nature”—and of His intra-mundane existence; the appropriation of His perfect form of life and vital operation to the world (comp. Act_19:2).—“The Macedonians were unwarranted in applying this passage against the personality of the Holy Ghost. It is metonymia causæ pro effectu.” Heubner. (Or also: metonymia existentiæ pro revelatione),
[Because Jesus was not yet glorified (
ἐäïîÜóèç
).—By the atoning death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God the Father, from whence He promised to send and did send the Spirit, as the Spirit of the gospel redemption. In promising this Spirit, Christ expressly said that He must withdraw His visible presence from the disciples and return to the Father before the Comforter could come (Joh_16:7). The previous working of the Spirit under the old dispensation was preparatory, prophetic, fragmentary and transitory, like the manifestations of the Logos before the Incarnation. On the day of Pentecost the Spirit took up His abode in the Church and in individual believers, as an immanent and permanent principle, as the Spirit of the God-Man and Saviour, as the Spirit of adoption, as the Spirit of truth and holiness, who reveals and glorifies Christ in the hearts of believers, as Christ revealed and glorified the Father, and abides with them forever.—P. S.]
Joh_7:40-41. When they heard the sayings [instead of this saying].—The reading: “heard the sayings,” has the weight of authorities. The total impression of Christ’s utterances at the feast is therefore intended. The “heard” is emphatic: those of the people who listened to Him with earnestness (
ἀêïýóáíôåò ôῶí ëüãùí
), said, etc.—Of a truth this is the Prophet.—Meyer groundlessly says, this means the prophet who was to precede the Messiah, not the Messiah Himself; and yet it means the person promised in Deu_18:15. That is, these people are all agreed that Jesus is the Prophet in general. After this, however, they divide. Some are decided, others are not. The
ἀêïýóáíôåò
separate into
ἄëëïé
,
ἄëëïé
. The former declare outright, that He is the Prophet of Deu_18:15; He is the Messiah. The latter, who would admit Him to be the Prophet, the forerunner of the Messiah according to the Jewish theology, have a difficulty—the supposed Galilean origin of Christ. The birth of Christ in Bethlehem was unknown to them. John considers it superfluous to show up their error, and hence De Wette has gratuitously inferred that John himself did not know that Christ was born in Bethlehem. John well knew that the conditions of faith had to lie higher and deeper than such a circumstance. Minds which sincerely yield themselves to the impression of Christ, could easily learn His origin, and so be delivered from their error.
Joh_7:42. Hath not the scripture.—Isa_11:1; Jer_23:5; Mic_5:1.—Where David was.—1 Samuel 16.
Joh_7:43. So there was a division.—This division or violent split among those who accorded recognition to the Lord in different degrees, must be distinguished from the division between all those who were friendly to Him and the enemies, of whom Joh_7:44 at once goes on to speak, or the analogous divisions in Joh_9:16; Joh_10:18. There were at first but a few among the people, who made common cause with the hostile Pharisees. See below.
Joh_7:44. And some of them.—That is, not of the two preceding classes, but of the people who heard His words. As
ἐî áὐôῶí
stands after
ἔèåëïí
, it is even a question whether the words should not be
ἐî ἑáõôῶí
: would have taken Him of themselves, on their own responsibility. De Wette thinks they might have wished to rally the intimidated officers. But the probability is that the officers, as a secret police, as under-sheriffs, had mingled with the people; for no point is mentioned, at which they showed themselves openly; and such an arrangement would correspond with the scrupulous caution of the Sanhedrists. These hostile people, therefore, felt an impulse to open the summary process of zealotism against Jesus.—But no man laid hands on him.—They were still fettered by the counsel of God, on the one hand, the fear of the adherents of Jesus, on the other, an involuntary awe. And that the servants of the Sanhedrin did not venture to seize the Lord, we first learn in the next section.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. It yields an incongruous conception, to suppose (with Tholuck and the older expositors,) that Jesus stood and proclaimed aloud the words of Joh_7:37-38, while the priest was carrying that holy water through the fore-court, and the people were giving themselves up entirely to their jubilations over this symbol. Just then He would have announced that in Him was offered in reality what was there signified in symbol. So public an assault upon the temple-worship, as should assume even the appearance of a vehement rivalry, cannot be expected of the Lord. On the contrary, the eighth day, with its lack of the festal water-drawing, must have brought with it to the attendant people a sense of want, to which Jesus addressed His call with good effect. At that moment, when the symbolical lights of a legally inefficient religion were burning low and going out, the evangelical substance of the symbols appears. The points which determine the symbolical utterance of the Lord are these: (1) The water-drawing was a symbol of spiritual blessing. The redeemed of Israel, on their second return to Canaan, were to draw water on the way with joy out of the wells of salvation, Isa_11:12; Isa_12:3. (2) Siloam was situated, indeed, on the temple-hill, but it rose not in the temple itself, but outside of it, at the foot of the holy mountain. So the true spirit of life was lacking in the sacerdotal worship of the temple; it appeared most in the prophetic office, symbolized by the fountain of Siloam in Isa_8:6. (3) Hence the prophets foretold the future priest-hood and worship of the Spirit under the figure of a stream issuing from the temple, Ezekiel 47; Joe_3:18. All Jerusalem was to become full of fountains, Zec_14:8; in fact the whole people was to be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, Isa_58:11. (4) The eighth day of the feast of tabernacles, in its symbolical place, denoted the time of this gushing life of the Spirit; hence it was primarily a day of expectation, of longing, of prayer for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost (see Leben Jesu, II. p. 942). This is the Lord’s opportunity. In Him the miraculous fountain of the eighth day, for the breaking forth of which from the temple they hoped, was given to the people.
2. Out of his belly. Tholuck: “Luthardt’s observation, that ‘even the corporeal nature was to be an abode of the Holy Ghost,’—is irrelevant.” Yet this is, in fact, involved in the idea of regeneration, of the inner man, of the members made instruments of righteousness (see Leben Jesu, II. John 945: “Their new human nature itself will become the ground whence these springs of water shall issue”). Rivers of living water. While in Joh_4:14, the self-replenishing of the inner life is promised, here the impartation of new life appears in its tendency to issue into the world as a stream for the refreshing of others. Comp. Tholuck, p. 224.
3. On the relation between the Holy Ghost and eternal life, comp. the Exegetical and Critical remarks on Joh_7:39.
4. For the Holy Ghost was not yet (given). In what sense? since even in the Old Testament the Spirit of God, as the Holy Spirit, inspired the prophets, 2Pe_1:21, and was the principle of life in the devout, Isa_63:10-11; Psa_51:12; Psa_143:10. That the prophets of the Old Testament were conscious of a difference between the measure of the Spirit vouchsafed to them and the New Testament revelation of the Spirit, is shown just by the Old Testament predictions of the streams of living water (see above); of the effusion of the Spirit (Joe_3:1); of the anointing of the Messiah with the sevenfold Spirit of God (Isa_11:2; Isa_61:1); and of the Spirit of the inward law, or of regeneration (Jer_31:33; Eze_36:26). Tholuck: “The majority of ancient and modern commentators consider the difference only quantitative (one of degree). Chrysostom:
Ἤìåëëå ôὸ ðíåῦìá ἐê÷åῖóèáé äáøéëῶò
, etc. Chrysostom, however, gives a qualitative difference (difference in kind(?) not in the
ðíåῦìá
itself, but in the aim of its operations:
Åἶ ÷ïí ìὲí ïἱ ðáëáéïὶ ðíåῦìá áὐôïß
,
ἄëëïéò äὲ ïὐ ðáñåῖ÷ïí
. Such a difference in the
ðíåῦìá
itself Augustine points out, in the fact that the Christian impartation of the Spirit was connected with miraculous gifts; so Maldonatus, the Lutheran expositors Tarnow, Hunnius, Gerhard, Loci, I., 308, Lyser, Calovius, Meyer.” Evidently this would not prove much; for the Old Testament prophets also wrought miracles. Brenz, in singularly arbitrary style: “Not till after Pentecost did the preaching de remissione peccatorum go forth, which was in the strict sense the opus Spiritus.”—This is, after all, of the centre of the thing, though not the whole thing. On the contrary Luthardt regards as the qualitative difference that which is indicated in Rom_8:15 and 2Ti_1:7 : “The Holy Ghost was not yet in His office; the old preaching and law were still in force.” That is, correctly, it was not yet the economy of the Holy Ghost. “Cocceius also, in opposition to the identification of the economies which was current in his time, presses this distinction of the tempus promissionis et consummationis. Equidem puto, hic evidentissime dici, adeo multum interesse inter tempus, quod antecessit glorificationem Christi et id, quod consecutum est,” etc. P. 226.—The complete exhibition of Christ and His work in history was the objective condition precedent of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost; the complete spiritual susceptibility of the disciples, as matter of history, and in them the susceptibility of the world, was the subjective condition.” Not until all the elements of the life of Christ and of His redeeming agency had appeared in objective and subjective reality, could the Spirit of the life of Christ enter into believers, and become the Spirit of believers. And not till then could it become manifest and begin an economy of its own as the Holy Ghost, who has His life personally in Himself (Leben Jesu, II. 2, 946). The absolute exaltation of Christ above the world was the condition of His absolute sinking within the world, which made Him the principle of the new life in believers; this first brought into full manifestation that glory of the Holy Ghost which is a new form, and the third form of the personality of God, and at the same time a wholly gracious operation (gratia applicatrix). Yet this blessing of the life of Jesus must be distinguished from His personality itself, and the Spirit imparted to believers is not to be considered, as it is by Tholuck, “the Son of man Himself transfigured into Spirit.”
5. Important as it is that the dispensation of the Spirit he duly appreciated, it is wrong to talk, as the Montanists, the Franciscan Spiritualists, the Anabaptists, and Hegel do, of a separate age or kingdom of the Holy Ghost, supposed to lie beyond the kingdom of the Son.
6. The divisions among the disciples of Jesus themselves, of which the Evangelist tells us, are intimated also in Matthew (Joh_16:14). In them is reflected the much larger division which was germinating between the friends and the enemies of Christ, and which is the main thing in the section before us. Lücke’s supposition that the ostensible objection that Jesus was not from Bethlehem, whence the Messiah ought to come, was made in particular by the scribes among the people, is gratuitous. But it could not enter into the Lord’s plan, to work upon the people with the testimony of His birth in Bethlehem; because His way was, to leave the popular notion of the Messiah quite aside, and to have His Messiahship recognized from His spirit and His work.
7. Here at last a knot of fanatical enemies of Jesus, who would fain seize Him, comes to light in a marked manner among the people themselves. It was the murderous intent of which Jesus had before testified: “Ye seek to kill Me.” They fain would, they well might; but involuntary reverence for the Lord, fear from above, and fear of the people, still restrained them.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Jesus at the feast of His people: 1. At the beginning: staying out of sight. 2. In the middle: appearing and teaching. 3. At the close: standing and calling aloud.—The last day of the feast, the most glorious.—As the hours of grace decline, Christ sounds His gracious call the louder.—How majestically Christ will stand at the last day of the feast of the world, and how loud His call will be then.—Christ the true end of all feasts.—Christ the truth and substance of every sacred feast.—Even of that feast.—As the need of salvation is a thirst, so faith is a drinking (a refreshment) in the highest and holiest sense.—Thirst, as a prophetical pointing: (1) to spiritual thirst; (2) to the spiritual refreshment of salvation; (3) to the destination of the man to be a fountain of life to others.—The call of Christ at the feast of water-pouring: 1. His invitation. 2. His promise.—The measure of the supply which Christ gives to the believer’s thirst: 1. The believer himself shall drink. 2. Out of his belly shall flow streams of living water (he shall give drink to many).—As Christians are to be lights through the light of Christ, and shepherds through the staff of Christ, so they are to be fountains of life through Christ, the fountain of salvation.—“Out of his belly (body):” Even our bodily nature is to be sanctified as a vessel of the Spirit (from mouth and hand, eye and footsteps, it should trickle and stream with blessing).—The promise of the new life a promise of the Spirit.—“The Holy Ghost was not yet:” 1. The declaration. 2. Its import for us.—How the outpouring of the Holy Ghost was dependent on the exaltation of Christ: 1. The world must first be perfectly reconciled, before it can be sanctified. 2. Christ must first transcend sensuous limitation in time and space, before He can communicate Himself to all everywhere according to His essential life. 3. Christ must first be fully the Lord of glory, before He can glorify Himself through the Spirit in all hearts.—In Him the world was offered up to God; therefore through Him God could enter into the world.—All parts of His redemptive manifestation were completed; therefore the Spirit of the whole could come forth.—When the manifestation of the Father was completed, it was followed by the manifestation of the Son. “When the manifestation of the Son was finished, it was followed by the manifestation of the Holy Ghost; while yet this itself was a glorifying of the Son, and of the Father through the Son.—The glory of the dispensation of the Holy Ghost.—The different effects of the words of Christ.—The division over the words of Christ.—The division between the friends and enemies of Christ shades off among His adherents themselves (Joh_7:41), and among His enemies (Joh_7:44).—The hand of God overruling the hands of the enemies of Christ: 1. A hand of omnipotence (they can do nothing, so long as He restrains). 2. A hand of wisdom (they can do no harm, when He lets them loose). 3. A hand of faithfulness (they must serve His people, when He lets them prevail). 4. A hand of triumph (they must destroy their own work, and judge themselves).
Starke: What it is to thirst. To long after righteousness and salvation, Mat_5:3; Rev_22:17, etc.—Nova Bibl. Tub.: We can most nobly keep our feast-days by coming to Jesus.—Majus: The wells of salvation are open to all men who are like dry ground.—Quesnel: In vain do we seek to satisfy our desires and quench our thirst among created things; we only thirst the more, with a thirst unquenchable, till we come to Christ.—According to the breadth and depth of the vessel of our faith will be our portion of the water.—“Rivers,” a type of overflow, Isa_48:18; Isa_66:12.—Majus: True faith is like a copious fountain; it cannot restrain itself from gushing forth in holy love.—Hedinger: Christianity spreads; it is fain to communicate itself by holy conversation, testimonies of disapproval, patience, etc.—Cramer: The world will never be of one mind concerning Christ; and yet amid a multitude of divisions the true church and the true
religion can easily be maintained.—He who loves and seeks the truth, finds it. But he who contemptuously asks, What is truth? falls into error.—Quesnel: We have not so much to fear from the evil will of men, as from our own.—Ibid.: Blessed is he who is in the hand of God, whom no fleshly arm of man can hurt.—It is the method of antichrist always to use force.—Osiander: God upholds those who follow their calling in spite of all the rage and bluster of enemies, till they have finished their course.
Braune: “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.” Faith has three constituents: Longing for the satisfaction of the most stringent wants; turning of the heart to the Saviour who helps; and reception of that which He offers, and which exactly meets the longing.—From Him, from His personality as sanctified by faith, rivers of living water, active, vigorous quickenings in rich abundance overflow to others. The believer came with thirst, with the feeling of want; and he sends forth rivers.
Gerlach: While John records the grand words of the yearning invitation and mighty promise, he feels how far they were from being fulfilled to any disciple who came to the Lord at he time he spoke them; and that the day of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost was but the beginning of their true fulfilment.
Heubner: Pfenninger: Every good thing in the world must be longed for, thirsted for; else it is not a good.—Bengel: Nothing but thirst, yet sincere thirst, is needed. To him who has a true thirst, nothing is of so great account as the satisfaction of it. Without Christ everything is dry and barren: everything should drive and draw us to Him.—The believer is not only to receive vital force for himself, but also to become a fountain of life for others.—The Spirit of God is a fulness, out of which we are to impart to others.—When Christians can give but little, they prove thereby that they themselves have not much of the Spirit.—What comes from the Spirit tastes, so to speak, like fresh spring-water, not flat like water which has grown stale in a vessel.—We lack in faith, therefore lack in the spirit.—Discord commonly arises wherever Jesus and the gospel attack men.—Thorough inquiry and thorough knowledge would have solved the doubt and discord. The authors of divisions and schisms are swelling smatterers, who have no true knowledge of the Scriptures.
Schleiermacher: We see everywhere, that the Redeemer of the old, to which His people ever persist in adhering, points them at every opportunity to the new.—But what else was the fruit which the life of the Lord was to bring forth, than just this: that the fulness of the Godhead which dwelt in Him, should pass thence to the community of believers, the whole congregation of the Lord.—Besser: There is a doubleness in the nature of the church [and of every believer]: like Abraham, she is blessed and she is a blessing (Gen_12:2).—She is both at once: a garden and a “fountain of gardens” (Son_4:15-16).
Footnotes:
Joh_7:37.—[The
äÝ
after
ἐí
is not without force, and should not have been omitted in the E. V.—P. S.]
Joh_7:38.—[
ἐê ôῆò êïéëßáò áὐôïῦ
. Alford and Conant retain the strong term of the A. V. Noyes translates: from within him; Luther and Lange: body.
ÊïéëéÜ
properly means belly, abdomen, bowels, stomach, as the receptacle of food, but tropically also, in Hellenistic usage, the inward parts, the inner man, the heart (
êáñäßá
comp. the Lat. viscera), and so it is taken here by Chrysostom and others. The LXX. often interchange
êïéëßá
and
êáñäßá
. See the Exeg.—P. S.]
Joh_7:39.—Lachmann [Alford] reads
ðéóôåýóáíôåò
[those who believed] instead of
ðéóôåýïíôåò
on the authority of B. L. T. [
à
. D. rel. Tischend.:
ðéóôåýïíôåò
.—P. S.]
Joh_7:39.—
Ἄãéïí
[Holy before Spirit] is omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf, after the Vulgate, Itala, most versions K. T. As B. D. and others have the word, we may suppose the omission of
ἅãéïí
to have been occasioned by doctrinal considerations, which, however, have rather made the passage more difficult than easier.
ÄåäïìÝíïí
[given] which Lachmann, after Cod. B., retains, stands less firm. [Both
ἅãéïí
and
äåäïìÝíïí
are wanting in Cod. Sin. which simply reads
ïὕðù ãᾶñ ἥí ðíåῦìá
(without the article). So Tischendorf in the 8th ed. Alford omits
äåäïìÝíïí
and retains
ἅãéïí
, but puts it in brackets. Westcott and Hort put [
ἅãéïí
]
äåäïìÝíïí
on the margin.—P. S.]
Joh_7:40.—
Ἐê ôïῦ ὅ÷ëïõ ἁêïõóáíôåò
. The
ðïëëïß
[text. rec.] or
ôéíὲò
[explanatory] are dropped, according to B. D. L. T. &c.
Joh_7:40.—
Ôῶí ëüãùí
Lachmann, Tischendorf, according to [
à
] B. D. E. G. &c. [Cod. Sin., Tischend., Alf.:
ôῶí ëüãùí ôïýôùí
, Lat. hos sermones, verba illa, hæc verba. The text. rec. reads
ôὸí ëüãïí
—P. S.]
Joh_7:41.—Instead of
ἅëëïé äὲ
Lachmann has
ïἱ äÝ
after B. L., etc. [Tischend. after Cod. Sin.:
ἄëëïé
—
ἄëëïé
without
äÝ
—P. S.]
Joh_7:42.—[This is the position of the Greek,
ἀðὸ Âçèë
.
ôῆò êþìçò ὅðïõ
—P. S.]
[Meyer: The
ìåãáëüôçò
of the eighth day consisted just in this, that it brought the great feast to a solemn close.]
[
Ὁ ðéóôåý ùí
is an emphatic absolute nominative. The predicate is not expressed, but implied in the words
ðïôáìïß
…
ῥåýóïõóéí
. Such irregularity is not unfrequent in the best Greek classics. It is intended to give greater prominence to the noun, hence to the necessity of faith. Similar instances Joh_6:39 (
ðᾶí
); Joh_17:2; Act_7:40; Rev_2:26 (
ὁ íéêῶí
–
äþóù áὐôῷ
); Joh_3:12; Joh_3:21; comp. Buttmann, Neutestamentl.Grammatik, p. 325.—P. S.]
[The most remarkable and appropriate of these passages are Eze_47:1-12, where rivers are prophetically described as issuing from under the threshold of the temple eastward (Joh_7:1), and making alive and healing all that is touched by them (Joh_7:9); Zec_14:8 : “And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem” (
ἐîåëåýóåôáé ὕäùñ æῶí ἐî ἸåñïõóáëÞì
); and Isa_58:11, where Jehovah promises the thirsty to satisfy his soul in drought and to make him “like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.” To these prophetic words the quotation applies in a free and comprehensive way, and the characteristic
ἐê ôῆò êïéëßáò áὐôïῦ
is an interpretation in application to the individual believer. Compare here also the remarks on p. 182 in regard to the fact made almost certain by recent researches that there was a living spring beneath the altar of the temple, from which all the fountains of Jerusalem were fed, the source of the “Brook that flowed hard by the oracles of God,”—the “perennial river the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God” (Psa_46:1).—P. S.]
[So also Olshausen: The believer is here represented as a living temple. Alford: The temple was symbolic of the Body of the Lord (see Joh_2:21); and the Spirit which dwells in and flows forth from His people also, who are made like unto Him, Gal_4:6; Rom_8:9; 1Co_3:6.—P. S.]
[This interpretation seems rather far-fetched. The cavity of a small vessel is hardly designated by belly. Besides the Christian is not only an instrument, but a living member, of Christ, and Christ Himself is in him. Godet’s reference to the rock in the wilderness, which Moses smote, so that
ἐê ô
.
êïéëß áò áὐôïῦ
corresponds to
îִîֶּðּåּ
, Exo_17:6, is still mere artificial.—P. S.]
[Alford justly remarks that it is lamentable to see such an able and generally right-minded commentator as Lücke carping at the interpretation of an apostle, especially John, who of all men bad the deepest insight into the wonderful analogies of spiritual things. The difficulties raised by Lücke rest in his own misapprehension. John does not say that the promise of our Lord was a prophecy of what happened on the day of Pentecost, but of the Spirit which the believers were about to receive. The water of life after all is the life of the Spirit, for the “Spirit is life” and “the mind of the Spirit is life.” Rom_8:6; Rom_8:10. The communication of eternal life always implies the gift of the Spirit of Christ.—P. S.]
[The
ἦí
can, of course, not refer to the essential or personal existence and previous operation of the Spirit, who is coëternal with the Father and the Son, who manifested Himself in the creation (Gen_1:3; Psa_33:6) and through the whole O. T. economy, as the organizing, preserving, enlightening, regenerating and sanctifying principle (Gen_6:3; Exo_31:3; Psalms 51; Psalms 104, etc.), who inspired Moses and the prophets (Num_11:25; 1Sa_10:19; 1Sa_10:26; Isa_61:1; 2Pe_1:21), who overshadowed Mary at the conception of Christ (Mat_1:20; Luk_1:35), who descended upon Him without measure at the baptism in Jordan (Joh_1:32-33; Joh_3:35), but to the presence and working of the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ with the fulness of the accomplished redemption in the Christian Church, or to the dispensation of the Spirit, which, according to the promise of Christ (John 14-16), commenced after His resurrection and ascension, on the day of Pentecost.
The readings
äåäïìÝíïí
,
äïèÝí
,
ἐð
’
áὐôïῖò
, are all superfluous glosses to guard against a misunderstanding. If anything is to be supplied to
ἦí
, it should rather be present (aderat), or working (
ἐíåñãïῦí
), or in the believers (
ἐí ðéóôåýïõóé
) from the preceding.—P. S.]
[Alford: “The mention of the question about Bethlehem seems to me rather to corroborate our belief that the Evangelist was well aware how the fact stood, than (De Wette) to ismply that he was ignorant of it. That no more remarks are appended, is natural. John had one great design in writing his Gospel, and does not allow it to be interfered with by explanations of matters otherwise known. Besides… if John knew nothing of the birth at Bethlehem, and yet the mother of the Lord lived with him, the inference must be that she knew nothing of it,—in other words, that it never happened.” Owen argues from this passage in favor of the importance of the genealogical tables of Matthew and Luke to answer Jewish objections like these against the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah.—P. S.]
