Joh_7:19. There is no ground for supposing that some unrecorded words on the part of the Jews (Kuinoel and many others), or some act (Olshausen), intervened between Joh_7:18-19. The chain of thought is this: Jesus in Joh_7:16-18 completely answered the question of the Jews, Joh_7:15. But now He Himself assumes the offensive, putting before them the real and malicious ground of all their assaults and oppression, namely, their purpose to bring about His death; and He shows them how utterly unjustifiable, on their part, this purpose is.
The note of interrogation ought to be placed (so also Lachm. Tisch.) after the first
τὸν
νόμον
; and then the declaration of their contradictory behaviour is emphatically introduced by the simple
καὶ
. In like manner Joh_6:70.
οὐ
Μωϋσῆς
,
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.] The emphasis is upon
Μωϋσ
. as the great and highly esteemed authority, which had so strong a claim on their obedience.
τὸν
νόμον
] without limitation; therefore neither the commandment forbidding murder merely (Nonnus, Storr, Paulus), nor that against Sabbath-breaking simply (Kuinoel, Klee. So once Luther also, but in his Commentary he refers to Romans 8 : “what the law could not do,” etc., which, indeed, has no bearing here), which, according to Godet, Jesus is said to have already in view.
καὶ
οὐδεὶς
ὑμ
.
ποιεῖ
τ
.
νόμον
] so that you, all of yon, are liable to the condemnation of the law; and instead of seeking to destroy me as a law-breaker, you must confess yourselves to be guilty.
τί
] why? i.e. with what right? The emphasis cannot be upon the enclitic
με
(against Godet).