Bible Commentaries
John 7

Verse 1

I

SEASON OF RETIREMENT

PART I

Harmony, pages 76-89 and Matthew 14:13-16:12; Mark 6:30-8:26; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-7:1.

We now take up Part V of the Harmony, the general theme of which is "Season of Retirement into Districts Around Galilee." The time is six months, i.e., from just before the Passover (John 6:4) to the Feast of Tabernacles. There are four of these retirements, found in sections 57, 61, 62, 63-67, respectively. The occasion of the first was twofold, (1) the hearing of the death of John the Baptist, and (2) the return of the twelve apostles for rest. The place of this retirement was Bethsaida Julias, which is referred to by Luke, as over against the Bethsaida mentioned by Mark, which was near Capernaum. The occasion of the second retirement was also twofold, (1) the fanaticism of the disciples in trying to make him king (John 6:15), and (2) the hostility of the Jewish rulers (Matthew 15:1). The place of the second retirement was Phoenicia, about Tyre and Sidon. The occasion of the third retirement was the suspicion of Herod Antipas, who was a very wicked man and had much fear respecting Jesus and his great works. The place of this retirement was Decapolis. The occasion of the fourth retirement was continued Jewish hostilities, and the place was Caesarea Philippi, in the extreme northern part of Palestine on the east side of the Jordan. In every case he avoided Herod’s jurisdiction.

The first outstanding event of these retirements is the feeding of the five thousand, the account of which is prefaced by the report of the twelve apostles, who had just returned from their first missionary tour. This is a glowing account of their work and their teaching. The latter item of this report is unusual in a missionary report. Matthew says that Jesus withdrew to a desert place apart when he heard of the death of John the Baptist. In this desert place the multitudes thronged from the cities, and this excited the tender compassion of Jesus because they were like sheep without a shepherd. Mark says that he taught them many things. His work here continued until the day was far spent, upon which the disciples besought him to send the multitudes away to buy food. Here begins the beautiful story of "Feeding the Five Thousand," which is told by all four of the evangelists and does not need to be repeated in this expression, but there are certain facts and lessons here that need to be emphasized. First, there is the test of his disciples as to what they were willing to undertake. Second, this furnished the occasion for the great discourse of John 6 on the Bread of Life. Third, it was the occasion of sloughing off unworthy disciples. Fourth, it supplied the physical wants of the people. Fifth, there is here a most excellent lesson on order in doing things. Sixth, Christ is presented here as the great wonder-worker in supplying the needs of his people.

Following this miracle is the incident of Jesus walking on the sea. After feeding the five thousand Jesus retired to the mountain to pray and sent the disciples back across the sea in a boat. A storm arose and they were distressed, but on the troubled sea they saw Jesus walking and they were afraid. Out from the storm of their distress came the voice of Jesus: "It is I; be not afraid." What a lesson for us! Jesus walks on the troubled sea. But Peter, impulsive Peter, must put the matter to a test and he receives the command to try his strength in walking on the sea, but the wind and the waves disturb his faith and he sinks, only to be rescued by the hand divine. Our Lord rebukes his “little faith,” as he does the "little faith" of others in two other instances in this division of the Harmony, (viz., on pp. 88, 95).

This incident made a profound impression on the disciples. Matthew says, "They that were in the boat worshiped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." Mark says, "They were sore amazed in themselves; for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened." John says, "They were willing therefore to receive him into the boat." There seems, at first sight, to be some discrepancy here, but these evangelists are speaking from different standpoints. Matthew seems to look at it from the standpoint of the effect in strengthening their faith in his divinity; John, from the standpoint of their scare when they first saw him, and Mark, from the standpoint of the preceding incident of "Feeding the Five Thousand." Broadus says, "Mark (Mark 6:52) censures their astonishment at this miracle, for which the miracle of the loaves would have prepared them if their minds had not been stupid and dull. This language of Mark does not necessarily forbid the supposition that they were now convinced Jesus was divine; but it best falls in with the idea that they were at a lower standpoint." They straightway landed at Gennesaret, according to Matthew and John, where the people came in great numbers to touch his garment that they might be healed. Mark’s description of this healing work of our Lord is most vivid, closing with the words, "as many as touched him were made whole."

All this prepared the way for the great discourse of our Lord on the Bread of Life in John 6 (Harmony, pp. 81-82). This is a marvelously strong discourse on the spirituality of his kingdom. The introduction (John 6:22-25) explains the connection of this discourse with the miracle of the loaves and how the multitudes found Jesus after that event in Capernaum. In John 6:26-40 we have the first dialogue between them and Jesus in which Jesus reveals their purposes and exhorts them to seek the Bread of Life. Then they ask, "How?" and he explains that it is by accepting him whom the Father sent. Then they demand a sign, referring to the sign of the manna to the Israelites in the wilderness, upon which Jesus showed them the typical and spiritual import of the manna, explaining that it referred to him. In John 6:41-51 we have the second dialogue arising from their murmuring at his teaching, that he came down from heaven. Here he announced the great doctrine of God’s drawing in order to salvation, his relation to the Father and the nature of the salvation he brought as eternal, over against the perishable manna which their fathers ate in the wilderness. In John 6:52-59 we have the third dialogue arising from their strife among themselves about his teaching, in which Jesus shows them their utter hopelessness apart from him and his sacrifice. In John 6:60-65 we have the fourth dialogue, which was between Jesus and his disciples, growing out of their murmuring at his hard doctrine. Here he explains that the words which he had spoken were spiritual and life-giving, and then revealed the fact that one among them was an unbeliever. This he knew, says John, from the beginning. In John 6:66-71 we have the final effect of his discourse upon them, driving many of his disciples back, but confirming his immediate disciples in his divine mission as voiced by this first great confession of Peter: "We believe and know that thou art the Holy One of God." But Jesus let them know that one of them was a devil. Note that this revelation of the betrayer was nearly a year before the revelation of Judas at the Passover supper (John 13), and shows that Jesus knew all the time that Judas would betray him. Note also that this discourse is progressive. Each dialogue brings a new revelation and the effect of this progress upon his audience is marked, finally driving them away from our Lord to walk with him no more, while the severity of the test brought forth from his disciples their strongest expression of faith in his divinity up to this time.

In section 60 (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23; John 7:1) we have the account of another issue between Christ and the Pharisees at Capernaum. They sent an embassy to him from Jerusalem and asked why his disciples did not keep the tradition of the elders with regard to the washing of their hands, the full explanation of which is given by Mark and needs only a careful reading to be understood. To this Jesus responded with a charge of hypocrisy and quotes a prophecy of Isaiah which he applies to them. This prophecy has in it a double charge, (1) of emptiness, of heartlessness, in their service and (2) that they taught the doctrines and precepts of men. This applied to all their traditions, what a comment on the whole of the Jewish Talmud! Then he goes further and charges them with transgressing the commandment of God because of their tradition in respect to honoring parents. If they should say that their property was "Corban," i.e., given to God, that exempted them, according to the Jewish tradition, which made void the word of God. Then he explained the fallacy of their tradition by showing that it was not what goes into a man that defiles him, but that defilement was an issue of the heart. But this offended the Pharisees, to which he replied to his disciples with the parable of the blind guides, which the disciples did not understand, as it applied to the matter under consideration. This called for a more elaborate explanation, that the heart and stomach of a man were vastly different and that sin issuing from the heart was the only true defilement of the man. Mark gives thirteen items in his list of sins coming out of the heart, and Matthew seven, but these are but illustrations of the principle that all sin issues from the heart.

Immediately following this issue with the authorities at Jerusalem, Jesus retired to the region of Tyre and Sidon, in the territory of Phoenicia, which is outside of the land of Israel. This retirement, as already explained, was caused by the fanaticism of his disciples in trying to make him king, and the hostility of the Jewish rulers. Phoenicia (see map) was located northwest of Palestine and contained two cities of importance – Tyre and Sidon. It was in this territory and while on this retirement that Jesus healed the Syrophoenician, or Canaanitish woman’s daughter. The term "Canaanitish," as used by Matthew, refers back to the time when the inhabitants of this section were called Canaanites. It is probable that the Jews continued to apply this name to the inhabitants of Phoenicia, though the after inhabitants may have been of later origin. To Matthew’s Jewish readers this word would show that she was a Gentile. (Broadus’ Commentary). But Mark says that she was a Greek, meaning a Gentile, and a Syrophoenician, meaning an inhabitant of the united countries of Syria and Phoenicia, a term used to distinguish this country from Libyphoenicia, or the Carthaginians. To Mark’s Gentile readers this name also would mean a Gentile. This country of Syria extended from the northern part of Palestine all the way up the Mediterranean coast to the headwaters of the Euphrates, following that river east to the great Syrian Desert, and thence south to the headwaters of the Jordan, including Antioch and Damascus, two cities well known to Bible history. This country has a vital connection with the Greeks. It was conquered by Alexander the Great, allotted to the Seleucids after his death, who built Antioch and ruled this country till it was taken by the Romans. This was in the fourth, third, and second centuries before Christ.

It was in this country Jesus sought retirement and rest for himself and disciples, but this rest was broken by the coming of the Syrophoenician woman to Jesus in behalf of her daughter. Jesus could not be hid because of his fame and his approachableness by those who were in distress. We find that, in every effort which he made at retirement, the people found him. So, this Canaanitish, Greek, Syrophoenician woman found him when he came into those parts. The facts of this case are as follows: This Syrophoenician woman had a little daughter who was grievsouly demonized. She heard of the presence of Jesus in those parts, came and besought him to cast forth the demon out of her. He made no answer. Then the disciples intervened and asked him to send her away, but he answered that he was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The woman personally renews her petition and begs for help, but Jesus tells her that it is not meet to give the children’s bread to the dogs. She answered that she would be satisfied with the crumbs, and this brought forth from the Saviour the highest commendation of her faith.

Now let us look at this picture again and see if we can find in it the lessons intended for us. First, let us look for the proofs of this woman’s faith. There are four of these: (1) Her address in which she calls him the Son of David; (2) she worshiped him; (3) she recognized Jewish priority; (4) her humility and importunity.

This scene was, perhaps, on the road and not in the house, which helps us to understand better some of the points in the story. The seeming indifference of Jesus was only to test and develop her faith. The intervention of the disciples was not to ask that she be dismissed without help, but, rather, to give her the blessing and let her go. Evidently the woman did not hear Christ’s reply to the disciples. Being in advance of the woman on the road, this conversation was not understood by her, which explains the next statement that "she came and worshiped him." The statement of Jesus to the disciples that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel meant that he was unwilling to carry on a general ministry in Phoenicia, because his mission was to the Jews. The "crumb" idea here introduced by the woman and acted upon by Christ does not conflict with this idea of avoiding a general ministry in Phoenicia. This referred to the smaller blessing to a Gentile dog which would not take any of the children’s bread. She seems here to argue that Jesus is now away from the Jews and not feeding them. So a blessing in this isolated case would not interfere with the blessings for the Jews. The dogs here referred to were little dogs. The word in the Greek is diminutive and means the little house dogs allowed to run around in the house and under their master’s table. The woman was willing not only to be called a dog, but to be called a little dog and to have a little dog’s share of food. This incident is also an illustration of the scriptural teaching that we should pray for the salvation of others who are not even interested.

After the incident of the Syrophoenician woman Jesus hastened to return to the land of Israel. Going from the borders of Tyre and Sidon he passed through Sidon, thence across to the east side of the Jordan and down on the east side of the Sea of Galilee through the borders of Decapolis. This was intentional, to avoid the territory of Herod, who was suspicious of Jesus. As soon as he arrived they brought him a deaf and dumb man whom he healed, and charged not to tell it, but he published it the more, which resulted in their bringing the multitudes of the unfortunate to him for a blessing. He healed all of these and then fed four thousand, the circumstances and particulars of which are similar to the feeding of the five thousand.

Then, sending away the multitudes, he crossed over the Sea of Galilee to the borders of Magadan, where he was met again by the Pharisees demanding a sign, but sighing deeply in his spirit he rebuked them and left them, never to return to this part again to teach. This text illustrates the grieving of the Holy Spirit. On leaving here he went across the Sea of Galilee to Bethsaida, where he tarried a short time on his way to Caesarea Philippi. When they arrived at Bethsaida the disciples were reminded by a little parable of Jesus that they had forgotten to take bread with them. This parable referred to the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which was their doctrine, but the disciples did not understand it and thought that he referred to their forgetting the bread. Then he issued a sharp rebuke to his disciples as follows: (1) for hardness of heart; (2) for dimness of perception; (3) for a torpid memory; (4) for lack of faith. Then they understood that he referred to the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Does teaching, or doctrine, leaven? It seems to have leavened them. Does it make any difference what we believe? Certainly there is a moral quality of belief.

At Bethsaida was brought to him a blind man whom he carried out of the village. He healed him by the use of means; at least apparently, and gradually, thus illustrating the gradual perception of conversion. Then he sent him away and would not even permit him to go into the village. This case is very similar to the case of the deaf and dumb whom he healed in the borders of Decapolis. In each case he took the person out and healed him privately. In each case he also used means, apparently. Why this method in these two cases particularly? On the point of the "why" here we cannot be dogmatic. Perhaps it was to prevent excitement as far as possible by making it appear that he used means; that he was healing more in the natural way and thus avoid the excitement that usually followed his regular method.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the theme of Part V of the Harmony?

2. What was the time and what the time limits of this division?

3. How many retirements in this period and where are they found in the Harmony?

4. What was the occasion and place of each?

5. What was the first outstanding event of this period of retirements and how is it prefaced?

6. What, in order, are the events which led up to the feeding of the five thousand?

7. Tell the story of the feeding of the five thousand.

8. What are the lessons of this incident?

9. Give the story of Jesus walking on the sea and its lessons.

10. How do you harmonize Matthew, Mark, and John on this incident?

11. Where did they land and what incidents there?

12. What was the occasion and nature of the great discourse in John 6?

13. Give an analysis of this discourse, showing its introduction, its dialogues, the progress of the thought in these parts of the discourse, the progress of its effect on the enemy and its effect on the disciples of Jesus.

14. What issue raised between Christ and the Pharisees at Capernaum and how did Christ meet it?

13. Give an account of the progress of this issue and show the final outcome of it.

16. Bid Jesus ever leave the land of Israel? If so, why?

17. In what country were Tyre and Sidon?

18. State the geographical position of Phoenicia.

19. Explain the terms "Ganaanitiah," "Greek," and "Syrophoenician" as applied to the woman who approached Christ in these parts.

20. What is the extent of Syria?

21. What, briefly, was Syria’s connection with the Greeks, and how long since to this incident?

22. Why should Jesus desire to remain incognito here?

23. How was the rest broken?

24. Why could not Jesus be hid?

25. What are the facts of this case in their order?

26. What was the proofs of this woman’s faith?

27. Was this scene in the house or out doors?

28. Why did Jesus so act in this case?

29. Did his disciples ask that she be dismissed without help?

30. Why should Jesus avoid a general ministry in Phoenicia?

31. Explain how "crumbs" did not conflict with this idea.

32. What kind of dogs here referred to and what the import?

33. What is the lesson here on praying for others not interested?

34. Trace on the map the journey of Jesus from Tyre to the neighborhood of the Sea of Galilee. Why this course?

35. What were the events of his stay in this section?

36. Where did he go from there and what were the events at the next place?

37. Where then did he go, and what important lesson did he there teach his disciples and how?

38. What are the items of his rebuke here and what the importance of doctrine as here indicated?

39. Give the incident of the healing of the blind man here and its lessons.

Verses 2-10

IV

SEASON OF RETIREMENT PART IV THE CLOSING INCIDENTS

Harmony, pages 94-103 and Matthew 17:14-18:35; Matthew 8:19-22; Mark 9:9-50; Luke 9:37-62; John 7:2-10.

When Christ and the three disciples who were with him at the transfiguration returned from the Mount they saw a great multitude gathered about the nine and the scribes questioning with them. Then follows the story of the failure of the nine to cast out the evil spirit of a demoniac boy and Jesus’ rebuke of their little faith, upon which our Lord healed the boy and restored him to his father. This story is interesting from several points of view. First, the case was an exceptional One and so difficult that the nine were unable to cast the Evil spirit out. Second, this is the only case of demonical epilepsy in the New Testament, the description of which by Mark is very vivid and much more in detail than that of either of the other evangelists. Third, Christ’s momentary impatience at dwelling amid such an environment is nowhere else so expressed, perhaps the more distressing from the contrast with the scene of the transfiguration, a few hours before. Fourth, the rebuke of the boy’s father is a fine lesson. He said, "If thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us." Jesus answered, "If thou canst!" We see here the point of the rebuke. Herefore we have found the form of faith that said, "If thou wilt, thou canst," but this man reversed it: "If thou canst do anything, help us." But the rebuke of Jesus set him right in his faith and then healed the boy. What a lesson for us! So often the Lord has to set us right in our faith before he can consistently give us the blessing. Fifth, the explanation which Jesus gave of their failure and the possibilities of God through the children of faith are a most helpful encouragement to the Christian of today. All difficulties may be removed by the power of faith. Sixth, the prescription of prayer as a means to the strengthen- ing of faith is a valuable suggestion as to the mans of our overcoming. Prayer is the hour of victory for the child of God. This is the winning point for every worker in the kingdom. All victories for God are won in the closet before the day of battle. Let us heed the lesson.

While on the way from Caesarea Philippi Jesus revealed again to his disciples that he must suffer and die and rise again, but they did not understand and were afraid to ask him. They were very slow to comprehend the idea of a suffering Messiah. This they did not understand fully until after his resurrection. This thought is more fully developed in connection with his submitted test of his messiahship which is discussed elsewhere in this INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS.

When they came to Capernaum an event occurred which made a lasting impression on Peter. This was the incident of the half-shekel for the Temple. When asked if his Lord was accustomed to pay the Temple tax, Peter said, "Yes." But Peter did not have the money to pay it with, and our Lord, after showing Peter that he (Jesus) was exempt, told him to go to the sea and take the piece of money from the mouth of a fish and pay the Temple tax for Peter and himself, in order that there might be left to the Jews no occasion of stumbling with reference to him as the Messiah.

In section 70 (Matthew 18:1-14; Mark 9:33-50; Luke 9:46-50) we have the lesson on how to be great, which arose from their dispute as to who among them should be the greatest. To this Jesus replied that the greatest one of all was to be servant of all, and illustrated it by the example of a little child. The characteristic of the little child to be found in the subjects of his kingdom is humility.. Then he goes on to show that to receive one of such little children was to receive him. Here John, one of the "sons of thunder," interrupted him with a question about one whom he saw casting out demons, yet he was not following with them. Then Jesus, after setting John right, went on with his illustration of the little child, showing the awful sin of causing a little one who believes on him to stumble, and pronounces a woe unto the world because of the occasion of stumbling, saying that these occasions must come, but the woe is to the man through whom they come. The occasions of stumbling arise from the sin of man and the domination of the devil, but that does not excuse the man through whom they come.

Now follows a pointed address in the second person singular, showing the cases in which we become stumbling blocks, in which he also shows the remedy, indeed a desperate remedy for a desperate case. This passage needs to be treated more particularly. Then, briefly, what the meaning of the word "offend"? If thy hand offend thee, if thine eye offend thee, if thy foot offend thee; what is the meaning of this word? We find it in the English in the word "scandal," that is, "scandal" is the Anglicized form of the Greek word here used. But the word "scandalize," as used in the English, does not express the thought contained in this text, since that is a modern derived meaning of the word. Originally it meant the trigger of a trap, that trigger which being touched caused the trap to fall and catch one, and from that of its original signification it came to have four well-known Bible meanings. An instance of each one of the four meanings, fairly applicable to this passage here, will be cited. First, it means a stumbling block, that which causes any one to fall, and in its spiritual signification, that which causes any one to fall into a sin. If thy hand causeth thee to fall into a sin, if thine eye causeth thee to fall into a sin, if thy foot causeth thee to fall into a sin, cut it off, pluck it out. It is more profitable to enter heaven maimed than to have the whole body cast into hell. The thought is as we see it in connection with a stumbling block, that we fall unexpectedly into the sin, as if we were going along not looking down and should suddenly stumble over something in our regular path, where we usually walk. Now, "if thine eye causeth thee, in the regular walk of life, to put something in that pathway that, when you were not particularly watching, will cause you to stumble and fall into a sin" – that is the first thought of it.

Its second meaning is an obstacle or obstruction that causes one to stop. He does not fall over this obstacle, but it blocks his way and he stops. He does not fall, but he does not go on. To illustrate this use of the word, John the Baptist, in prison, finding the progress of his faith stopped by a doubt, sent word to Christ to know, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" Evidently showing that some unbelief had crept into his heart that had caused him to stop. He was not going on in the direction that he had been going, and hence, when Jesus sent word to John of the demonstrations of his divinity, He added this expression, using this very word, "Blessed is the man who is not offended in me." "Blessed is the man who in me does not find an obstacle that stops him." Anything that is an occasion of unbelief fulfils this meaning of the word. If thine eye causes something to be put in thy path that suggests a doubt as to the Christian religion, and by that doubt causeth thee that had been going steadily forward, to stop, pluck it out. Let me give another illustration: In the parable of the sower, our Saviour, in expounding why it was that the grain that had fallen upon the rock and came up and seemed to promise well for awhile, afterward, under the hot sun, withered away and perished, says, "There are some people that hear the word of God and, for awhile, seem to accept it, but when tribulation or persecution cometh they are offended – they are stopped." That is the meaning of the word strictly. Persecution and tribulation cometh and an obstacle is put in their path that causes them to stop. Now, if thine eye causes an obstacle to be put in thy Christian path, that causeth thee to stop and not go forward, pluck it out. Yet another illustration: Our Saviour, who had announced a great many doctrines that people could easily understand and accept, suddenly, on one occasion, announced a hard doctrine, very hard, and from that time it is said that many of his disciples followed him no more. They stopped. Now, there was something in them, in the eye or the hand or the foot, that found an occasion of unbelief in the doctrine he announced, and they stopped. I remember a very notable instance, where a man, deeply impressed in a meeting, and giving fair promise of having passed from death to life, happened to be present when the scriptural law of the use of money was expounded, and he stopped. Some obstacle stretched clear across his path. It was the love of money in his heart. He couldn’t recognize God’s sovereignty over money. As if he had said, "If you want me to cry; if you want me to say I am sorry, I will say it; if you want me to join the church, I will join it; if you want me to be baptized, I will be baptized; but if you want me to honor God with my money, I stop."

Now, the third use of the word. It is sometimes used to indicate, not something over which one stumbles and falls into a sin, and not an obstacle that blocks up his pathway, but in the sense of something that he runs up against and hurts himself and so becomes foolishly angry. As when one, at night, trying to pass out of a dark room, strikes his head against the door, and in a moment flies into a passion. "Now, if thine eye causeth thee to run up against an object that when you strike it offends you, makes you mad, pluck it out and cast it from thee."

These three senses of this word have abundant verifications in the classical Greek and a vast number of instances in the Bible, in the Old and New Testaments. But there is a fourth use of the word. That is where the eye has caused a man to turn aside from the right path and to reject the wise counsel of God, and to indulge in sin until God has given him up; then God sets a trap for him right in the path of his besetting sin. In Romans 11:9 we find that use of the word: "Let their table be made a trap for them." That is to say, God, after trying to lead a man to do right, if he persists in doing wrong, the particular sin, whatever hat may be, whether it be of pride, or lust, or pleasure, whatever it may be, that particular, besetting sin which has caused him to reject God, will make the occasion of his ruin, and in the track of it God will set the trap, and the man is certain to fall into it and be lost. Now, these are the four Bible uses of this term "offend." Greek: Scandalon, the noun, and skandalizo, the verb. "If thine eye causeth thee to offend," that is, "If your eye causeth you to put something in your path over which you will unexpectedly fall into a sin; if thine eye causeth thee to put an obstacle clear across your path, so that you stop; if thine eye causeth thee to put some object against which you will unthoughtedly run and hurt yourself and become incensed; if thine eye causeth thee to go into a sin that shall completely alienate you from God, and in the far distant track of which God sets a trap that will be sure to catch your soul – pluck it out."

The next thing needing explanation: People who look only at the shell of a thing may understand this passage to mean mutilation of the body. They forget that the mutilation of the body is simply an illustration of spiritual things. Take a case: One of the most beautiful and sweet-spirited girls I ever knew, before whom there seemed to stretch a long and bright and happy future, was taken sick, and the illness, whatever the doctors may call it, was in the foot, and the blood would not circulate. The doctors could not bring about the circulation and that foot finally threatened the whole body. Then the doctors said, "This foot must be amputated." And they did amputate it. They amputated it to save her life. They cut off that member because it offered the only possible means of saving the other foot and both hands and the whole body and her life. It was sternness of love, resoluteness of affection, courage of wisdom that sacrificed a limb to save the body. Now using that necessity of amputation, as an illustration, our Saviour says, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; if thy foot offend thee, cut it off. If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out." But that he does not mean bodily mutilation is self-evident from this: that if we were to cut off our hand we could not stop the spiritual offense; if we were to pluck out the eye we could not stop the spiritual offense on the inside, in the soul; no lopping off to external branches would reach that. But what our Saviour means to teach is this: That as a wise physician, who discovers, seated in one member of the body, a disease that if allowed to spread will destroy the whole body, in the interest of mercy cuts off that diseased limb, so, applying this to spiritual things, whatever causes us to fall into sin, we should cut loose from it at every cost.

One other word needs to be explained, the word "Gehenna." It is a little valley next to Jerusalem that once belonged to the sons of Hinnom. It came to pass that in that valley was instituted an idol worship, and there the kings caused their children to pass through the fire to Moloch, and because of this iniquity a good king of Israel defiled that valley, made it the dumping ground of all refuse matter from the city. The excrement, the dead things, the foul and corrupt matter was all carried out and put in that valley. And because of the corruption heaped there, worms were always there, and because of the burning that had been appointed as a sanitary measure, the fire was always there. Now that was used as an illustration to indicate the spiritual condition of a lost soul; of a soul that had become as refuse matter; of a soul that had become entirely cut loose from God and given up to its own devices; that had become bad through and through; that had become such a slave to passion, or lust or crime, that it was incorrigible, and the very nature of the sin which possessed it was like a worm that never dies. There was a gnawing, a ceaseless gnawing going on, referring to conscience, and there was a burning and a thirst going on. Now those images our Saviour selected were to represent the thought of hell.

Having explained its words, look now at the passage itself: "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out." What is the principle involved in that exhortation? First, that it is a man’s chief concern to see that he does not miss the mark; that he does not make shipwreck; that he does not ruin himself. That is the chief concern of every boy, of every girl, of every man and woman, to see to it that he does not miss the mark of his being; that he does not make shipwreck; that he does not go to utter ruin.

The next thought involved in it is that in case we do miss the mark; in case we do make shipwreck; in case our soul is lost, then there is no profit and no compensation to us in any thing we ever had. "For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" If he misses the main thing, if he makes shipwreck of his own soul, then wherein does the compensation come to him that in his life he had this or that treasure, this pleasure or that; that he was able to attain to this ambition or that; that he for such a while, no matter how long, was on top in society or fashion in the world? What has it profited him if the main thing worthy of supreme concern, is lost?

The next thought is this: Whatever sacrifice is necessary to the securing of the main thing, that we must make. That is what this passage means, and no matter how dear a treasure may be to us; no matter how much we esteem it, if it be necessary that we should give it up or that our soul should be lost, this passage calls on us to give it up. A man may have in a ship a vast amount of money which he idolizes, but in the night he is alarmed by the cry of fire; he rushes upon the deck and he finds that the ship is hopelessly in flames and that the only way of escape is to swim to the shore. Now he stands there for a moment and meditates: "I have here a vast amount of money, in gold. If I try to take this gold with me in this issue in which the main thing, my life, is involved, it will sink me. My life is more than this money. O glittering gold, I leave you. I strike out, stripped of every weight and swim for my life." It means that he ought to leave behind everything that would jeopardize his gaining the shore. A ship has a valuable cargo. It has been acquired by toil and anxiety and industry. It may be that the cargo in itself is perfectly innocent, but in a stress of weather, with a storm raging and with a leak in the vessel and the water rising, it becomes necessary to lighten that ship. Now whatever is necessary to make it float, to keep it above water, that must be done. If there be anything which, if permitted to remain in that ship, will sink it, throw it out. They that do business in great waters know the wisdom of this. Why? It is a question of sacrificing the inferior to the greater and better.

The next thought involved is this: Whenever it says, "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out," I venture to say that it is a demonstration, by the exhortation addressed to us personally, that if ruin comes to us it comes by our own consent. I mean to say that no matter what is the stress of outside seduction, nor how cunningly the devil may attempt to seduce and beguile us, all the devils in hell and all the extraneous temptations that may environ a man can never work his shipwreck if he does not consent.

The next point involved is, that whenever one does consent to temptation, whenever the ruin comes to him, it comes on account of some internal moral delinquency. Out of the heart are the issues of life. Out of the heart proceed murder, lust, blasphemy, and every crime which men commit. I mean to say that as the Bible declares that no murderer shall inherit eternal life, that external incentives to murder amount to nothing unless in him, in the man, in the soul, there be a susceptibility or a liability or moral weakness that shall open the door to the tempter and let in the destroyer.

Now if that be true we come naturally to the next thought in this text, that is, God saves a man, and if God can save a man, he must save him in accordance with the laws of his own nature. That is to say, that God must, in order to the salvation of that man, require truth in the inward part; that nothing external will touch the case; that God’s requirements must take hold, not of the long delayed overt act, but of the lust in the heart which preceded the act and made the act. And therefore, while a human court can take jurisdiction only of murder actually committed, God goes inside of the man and says, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer." From hate comes murder. If God saves you he must save you from the internal hate. Human law takes hold of a case of adultery. God’s law goes to the eye: "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." God requireth truth in the inward part. And if one is saved he must be saved internally; he must be saved, not only from the guilt and penalty of sin, but he must be saved from the love of it and from the dominion of it.

The next point: With that law looking inside, looking at our thoughts, looking at the springs of action, the question comes up, "How shall one save his soul? How shall one so attain to the end of his being as that in the main thing he shall not miss the mark?" He has to look at it as an exceedingly sober question. There is no child’s play about it. He must not rely upon the quack remedies of philosophers and impostors, or rely upon any external rite, upon joining the church or being baptized, or partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The awful blasphemy of calling that the way to heaven! God requireth truth in the inward part, and if we are saved, we must be saved inside. As a wise man, having my chief business to save my soul, I must scrupulously look at everything with which I come in contact. Some men’s weaknesses are in one direction and some in another, but the chief thing for me is to find out my weakness, what is my besetting sin, where is the weak point in my line of defense, where am I most susceptible to danger, where do I yield most readily? And if I find that the ties of blood are making me lose my soul, I must move out of my own family, and therefore in the Mosaic law it is expressly said, "If thine own son, if the wife of thy bosom, shall cause thee to worship idols and turn away from the true God, thou shalt put thine own hand on the head as the first witness, that they may be stoned. Thou shalt not spare." It is a question of our life, and if our family ties are such that they are dragging us down to death, we must strike out for our life. And that is why marriage is the most solemn and far-reaching question that ever came up for human decision. More souls are lost right there, more women go into hopeless bondage, more men are shipwrecked by that awful tie, than by anything else.

Then he goes on to show that these little believers must not be despised, because their angels are always before their heavenly Father, just as the angels of more highly honored Christians. This thought he illustrates with the parable of the ninety and nine, the interpretation of which might be considered as follows: (1) If there are many worlds and but one is lost, (2) if there are many creatures and only man is lost, (3) if there were many just persons, and only one is lost, then we find the lost world, the lost race, the one lost man is near the heart of the Saviour, the principle being that the weakest, the most needy, the most miserable are nearest the Shepherd’s heart. "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish," is the conclusion of the Saviour.

In section 71 (Matthew 18:15-35) we have our Lord’s great discussion on forgiveness, i.e., man’s forgiveness of man. This subject is amply treated in volume 1, chapter xvi of this INTERPRETATION and also in my sermon on "Man’s Forgiveness of Man." (I refer the reader to these discussions for a full exposition of this great passage.)

In section 72 (Matthew 8:19-22; Luke 9:57-62) we have a very plain word on the sacrifices of discipleship. Here three different ones approached Christ asking permission to be his disciples. The first one that came proposed to go with him anywhere. Jesus told him that he had no abiding place; that he was a wanderer without any home, which meant there were many hardships in connection with discipleship. The second one that came to him wanted to wait till he could bury his father, which according to Oriental customs, might have been several years, or at least, thirty days, if his father was dead when he made the request, including the time of mourning. Luke tells of one who wanted first to bid farewell to them of his own house. But Jesus said, "No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." The import of all this is that Christ will not permit his disciples to allow anything to come between them and him. He must have the first place in their affections. The expression, "No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God," means that the man who is pretending to follow Christ and is looking back to the things he left behind is not fit for his kingdom. This is a strict test, but it is our Lord’s own test.

Then, following the Harmony, we have, in the next section, the counsel of the unbelieving brothers that Jesus go into Judea and exhibit himself there. But he declined to follow their counsel and remained in Galilee. This incident shows that the brothers of Jesus had not at this time accepted him, which was about six months before his death and thus disproves the theory that the brothers of Jesus were apostles.

We now come to the close of this division of the Harmony in section 74 (Luke 9:51-56; John 7:10), which tells of Jesus setting his face toward Jerusalem in view of the approach of the end of his earthly career. This going up to Jerusalem, John says, was after his brothers had gone, and it was not public, but as it were in secret. He sent James and John, the "sons of thunder," ahead to Samaria to make ready for him, but the Samaritans rejected him because he was going toward Jerusalem, which exemplifies the old, deep-seated hatred between the Jews and the Samaritans. This section closes with a rebuke to James and John for wanting to call down fire upon these Samaritans. The next chapter of this INTERPRETATION connects with this section and gives the results of this trip to Jerusalem and his ministry in all parts of the Holy Land.

QUESTIONS

1. What was the incident immediately following the transfiguration?

2. What are the points of interest in the story of the epileptic boy?

3. What revelation did Jesus again make to his disciples while on the way from Caesarea Philippi, how did the disciples receive it and why?

4. Tell the story of Peter and the Temple tax and give its lesson.

5. What was the lesson on "greatness" here and what its occasion?

6. What was the point in the illustration of the little child?

7. What is the lesson from John’s interruption of our Lord here?

8. How does Jesus show the awfulness of the sin of causing a little child who believes on him to stumble?

9. From what do the occasions of stumbling arise and upon whom rests the responsibility for them?

10. What would you give as the theme of Matthew 18:8-9; and Mark 9:43; Mark 9:45; Mark 9:47-50?

11. What are the several meanings of the word "offend" in these passages? Illustrate each.

12. What is the application of all these meanings? Illustrate.

13. Explain the word "Gehenna" as used here.

14. Looking at the passage as a whole, what is principle involved the exhortation? Give details.

15. What reason does Christ assign for the command not to despise one of these little ones and what does it mean?

16. How does he illustrate this

17. In a word what is the author’s position on the subject of man’s forgiveness of man?

18. What is Christ’s teaching here on discipleship and what is the meaning of his language addressed to each of the three, respectively, who approached him here on the subject?

19. What advice here given Jesus by his brothers, how did Jesus regard it, and what the lesson of this incident?

20. What are the closing incidents of this division of our Lord’s ministry and what are their lessons?

Verses 11-21

V

CHRIST’S DISCOURSES AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES

Harmony, pages 104-110 and John 7:11-10:21.

The great Galilean ministry is ended and we now take up the closing ministry of our Lord in all parts of the Holy Land. The time is about six months before the crucifixion, probably in the autumn of A.D. 29. These incidents occurred in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles. The law of this feast is found in Leviticus 23:34-36; Leviticus 23:39-43; Deuteronomy 16:13-15. The time of it was the fifteenth day of the seventh month of the Jewish year, or the month of Tisri, which corresponds to our September and October. The duration was one week and there were two distinct ideas: (1) it was a memorial, Leviticus 23:42-43, and (2) an ingathering, Exodus 23:16.

The writer of these sections is John, and there are several peculiarities of his Gospel. First, he confines himself mainly to the Judean ministry of our Lord. Second, special incidents and miracles were the occasions of his great discourses. Third, John is truly the theologian of the evangelists, as may be seen in these discourses. Fourth, there are mighty lessons here. Fifth, these sections are of special homiletic value, abounding in great public themes. Each of these peculiarities will have special attention as we proceed with the discussion.

There were several notable incidents at this Feast of Tabernacles. The first was that of the interest of the people. They inquired about him and some murmured because of him. One faction said that he was a good man, while the other contended that he led the multitude astray. His teaching brought forth the inquiry, "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" To this he replied with a discourse, the points of which will be noted presently. The second great incident at this feast was the issue with the leaders on the sabbath question. This connects with the miracle wrought on the impotent man, the account of which is recorded in John 15 (Harmony, pp. 39-41). The third event was the attempt to arrest him, but they were not able. The fourth incident was the report of the officers, that "never man so spoke." The fifth incident was the reasoning of Nicodemus, that their law did not condemn a man until he had been heard.

In reply to their question, "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" Jesus made the following points in his discourse with them: First, the message was not his, but God’s. Second, if any man desired to know the doctrine let him will to do God’s will and he would know. Third, he replied to their sabbath question by showing that they circumcised on the sabbath day, and then he entreated them to judge righteous judgment. Fourth, his reply to their seeking him was, that they knew him, but they did not know his Father, and this was the reason why they tried to kill him. Fifth, he closes with the great invitation and the promise of the Holy Spirit and his effect in the outflowing life.

Upon this the multitude divided in their opinion of him, some saying that he was a prophet and others that he was the Christ. They were greatly puzzled with reference to his birthplace and parentage, not being able to reconcile his residence in Galilee with the prophecies of the lineage of the promised Messiah. They were not willing to believe that any prophet should arise out of Galilee.

Section 76 (John 7:54-8:11*) gives the account of the adulterous woman brought to Jesus. This section is now generally considered to be spurious, though perhaps a true story, very likely taken from the collection of Papias (see note in Harmony). This accords with Luke 21:38 and John 21:25. The evangelists did not pretend to give a full history of Christ’s work, but selected only such material from his life and ministry as suited their purposes, respectively. The lesson of this incident is the rebuke of the censorious spirit of this woman’s accusers. Christ did not mean here that the woman was not guilty of sin, but that she was no more guilty than her accusers. This fact seems to have made a deep impression on them, as they did not stone her, but sneaked away. His words to the woman here are in line with his utterance in John 3:17, "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world should be saved through him" and shows that Christ had a tender compassion for the fallen and outcast of earth. Note carefully his final words: "From henceforth sin no more." How we would like to know what Jesus wrote on the ground! But alas I We are left to conjecture.

*This paragraph can no longer be considered a part of the Gospel of John, but it is in all probability a true story of Jesus, very likely drawn by early students from the collection of Papias, published about A.D. 140. See Hovey on John (American Comm. on N. T.)

In section 77 (John 8:12-59) we have a continuation of Jesus’ contest with the Pharisees begun in section 75 (John 7:11-52). Omitting section 76 (John 7:54-8:11*), the story of the adulterous woman brought to Jesus, the contest goes right on without a break. This great passage consists of a dialogue between the Pharisees and Jesus touching the great questions of his mission.

First, Jesus announced that he was the light of the world, to which the Pharisees objected that he was bearing witness of himself. Jesus replied that even if he did bear witness of himself, his witness was true, because his Father bore the same testimony. Then they raised the question as to who his Father was, to which Jesus replied that they did not know his Father because they did not know him.

Second, Jesus tells them of their responsibility and sin because they rejected him; that except they should believe that he was the Messiah they should die in their sins. This is a plain statement of the necessity of accepting Jesus as the Messiah and Saviour in order to salvation. Here they raise again the question as to who Jesus was, to which he replied, "Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning.” Then he submitted the text by which they would recognize him as the Christ, viz.: his death at their hands. Upon this "many believed on him."

Third, from John 8:31-59 we have our Lord’s great discussion with the Pharisees on true liberty. While I was pastor in Waco, Ingersoll, the great infidel, delivered his lecture there on "Liberty for Man, Woman, and Child," to which I replied in a sermon on this passage. (See author’s sermon on "Liberty for Man, Woman, and Child.") Here several things are evident: (1) There is a faith which does not constitute discipleship nor secure freedom. To be truly a disciple one’s faith must not only be in the head, but extend to the life. We must abide in his word. (2) Truth and not falsehood leads to freedom. Not indeed scientific truth, but truth concerning God – the truth of revelation; the truth as it is in Jesus. But this truth is not speculative nor theoretical – it must be inwrought in the life. (3) There may be, as in the case of these Pharisees, unconscious bondage; indeed, the most deplorable of all bondage, resulting from such blunting of the moral perceptions and such perversion of sensibilities, as will make one call bitter sweet, and put light for darkness – yea, that will make one hug his chains and hate the coming deliverer. (4) The great slavery of this world is bondage to sin, and the great slave master is the devil. (5) Jesus Christ is the only liberator. (6) The most enslaved of all can talk eloquently of "liberty." (7) The only true liberty is the glorious liberty of the children of God.

In section 78 (John 9:1-41) we have the case of the blind man. The place was Jerusalem, going out from the Temple. The time was the sabbath, i e., the eighth day of the feast, a sabbath construction. The topics here are as follows: A question concerning sin, the work of God, the miracle itself and the means used, the problem to Christ’s enemies, the difficulty of rejecting the evidence, a question of prayer, and the law of excommunication. The first of these, in order is

A question concerning sin. – There were certain prevalent beliefs concerning sin, implied by this question: (1) That there is a connection between sin and suffering. (2) That every affliction is proof of some special sin. (3) That this sin was on the part of immediate parents of child. (4) That a child might sin before birth (John 8:34). The answer implies certain limitations. It does not deny (1) that all suffering in some way comes from sin; (2) nor that the consequences of parental sin fall on the children; (3) nor that children may inherit sinful tendencies; (4) nor that children have sinful natures; (5) nor that sickness is sometimes the direct consequence of sin – (Leviticus 26:16; Deuteronomy 28:22; 1 Corinthians 11:30); (6) nor that judgments are sometimes direct (See the cases of Herod, Ananias, and Elymas). But it shows (1) that suffering is a large and varied problem; (2) that God often distributes sufferings for other than punitive purposes, for example: the cases of Job, Esau, and Jacob (Romans 9:11); the death of Josiah, Lazarus (John 11:4); the fall of the Jews (Romans 11:11), the Galatians, the tower of Siloam; and the chastisements of Christians. The next thought is

Work and its season. – Whatever the cause of affliction we must work. (See author’s sermon on "Working for Christ.") Here we have set forth the obligation to work: "We must work, etc.," then who must do it? "We must, etc.," then whose work is it? "Of him that sent me," then the time is specified: "While it is today," i.e., in this life; then the reason for it: "For the night cometh," i.e., the night of death. This thought is enforced by Psalms 104:23 and finds its application in every phase of our religious life.

The miracle itself and the means used. – Jesus spat on the ground, made clay of the spittle and with the clay anointed the eyes of this man. Then he commanded him to go wash in the pool of Siloam, which means, "Sent." The man went and washed and came seeing. Such is the simple story of the miracle, but why this use of means? Here the record is silent and we are left wholly to conjecture. Perhaps it was to test the man’s faith, as in the case of Naaman.

A problem to Christ’s enemies. – They did not agree as to the fact, though many affirmed that a great miracle had been "wrought. They raised the question of his identity with the beggar whom they knew, but the man said, "I am he." Then they raised the question as to the means of his healing. To this the man responded definitely that it was a man called Jesus, and then he detailed the process to them. They were not satisfied and called for the healer, but he was gone. So they brought the man to the Pharisees and they asked him to state the case again. This the man did, but they brought the charge against Jesus of the sin of breaking the sabbath law, because this miracle was wrought on the sabbath. Then they divided, some saying he was a sinner and others that no sinner could do such signs. Therefore they asked the man his opinion of the healer and he replied that he was a prophet. This led to the complete distrust of all he had said. So they called for his parents, and they identified the man as their son who was born blind, but for fear of the threatened excommunication they declined to give testimony as to the healer and put the responsibility off on the son. Here they called him the second time and tried to make him waver in his testimony, but the man gave the clear, unwavering testimony of his conviction that the healer was from God. Then follows their

Difficulty of rejecting the evidence. – They had to confess (1) that they knew not whence Jesus was, (2) that they could not tell how a sinner could do such works, nor (3) how God would hear such a sinner, but they did not mind a contradiction. So they resorted to excommunication.

A question of prayer. – The following scriptures should be studied carefully in the light of this passage: Job 13:16; Job 27:9; Job 35:13; Psalms 50:16; Psalms 66:18; Psalms 109:7; Proverbs 1:28; Proverbs 15:8; Proverbs 15:29; Proverbs 21:27; Proverbs 28:9; Isaiah 1:11-15; Isaiah 59:1-2; Jeremiah 14:12; Amos 5:21-23; Micah 3:4; James 4:3. They reveal the following facts: (1) That the hypocrite may not come before God; (2) that there is prayer that may be too late; (3) that a wicked man, persisting in sin, need not come before him; (4) that one who regards iniquity in his heart will not have a hearing with God; (5) that prayer with the wrong motive will not avail anything; (6) that prayer may be sin, if offered for obedience (Cf. case of Saul and Samuel). All this furnishes the background for the statement of the man here that God does not hear sinners, but it has no reference whatever to God’s hearing a humble, penitent sinner who comes to God confessing his sins. The Bible teaches abundantly that a penitent sinner may come to God with the assurance that God will hear him and save him.

Jewish excommunication. – "Put out of the synagogue – they cast him out." There were three kinds of excommunication. First, that which prohibited (a) the bath, (b) the razor, (c) the convivial table, (d) approach to any one nearer than four cubits (e) making the circuit of the Temple in the usual way. The time of this kind was thirty days and might be extended to sixty or ninety days. Second, if the subject was contumacious, he was prohibited (a) from teaching or being taught in company with others, (b) from hiring or being hired, (c) from any commercial transactions beyond purchasing the necessaries of life. A court of ten men delivered the sentence with malediction. Third, the entire cutting off from the congregation of Israel.

There are some things that need to be noted in the last paragraph (John 9:35-41) of this section. First, Jesus found the "outcast" and led him to accept him as the Messiah. Notice how he develops the man’s faith: "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" (Cf. John 8:22). The emphasis here is on "thou." Second, what is the meaning here of "judgment"? It means that our Lord is a touchstone (Luke 2:34-35), a rock of offense (1 Peter 2:8) a savor of death (2 Corinthians 2:16). and a means of strife (Matthew 10:10), according to the different attitudes of people toward him. So to those who do not receive him his work becomes judicial, and though they see now, they are blinded judicially when they reject the offered light. This is forcefully illustrated in the case of the Jews themselves. This discussion is vitally connected with the parable and discussion of the next chapter, furnishing the background for the great John 10.

This chapter (section 79 - John 10:1-21) is introduced by a parable (John 10:1-6) founded on visible facts. There was one large enclosure for sheltering many small flocks. All the shepherds brought their flocks to this one enclosure and caused the sheep to pass under the shepherd’s rod for the purpose of counting. A porter kept the door and knew all the shepherds. The porter guarded all night, but the thief did not come to the door, but climbed up some other way. In the morning each shepherd came to the one door and, being recognized by the porter, was admitted into the enclosure. There he called the names of his several sheep which heard and followed him. Then he counted them as they came out and passed under the rod, led them forth to pasture, guarded them by day, and defended them against the attacks of the wolves. Such is the story of the parable.

Now let us look at the interpretation. Jesus is the door to the shepherd. There is no rightful way to the office of the shepherd except by him. Therefore we have the divine call to the ministry. Yet some assume the office without the call. The Holy Spirit is the porter. He will not open the door to the uncalled, and the uncalled who assume this office climb over the wall. Their motive is selfish. Jesus is also the door of the sheep. Through him they find life. His motive is to give life and life more abundantly. Then Jesus is the Good Shepherd. The false shepherd cares not for the sheep, but flees when the wolf comes.

There are certain great doctrines taught in these sections of John, which need special attention. Let us note them in order:

First, as they relate to the life of Jesus. – (a) His preexistence: "Before Abraham was, I am." (b) His unity with the Father, (c) He was consecrated and sanctified to be sent into the world, (d) The object of his coming was to give his life for his people.

Second, as they relate to his death. – (a) It was voluntary: “I lay down my life." (b) It was according to his Father’s will and was by his own will. (c) Without his will he could not be put to death by the Father, by the people or by the devil, (d) It was expiatory in its nature: "I lay down my life for the sheep."

Third, as they relate to his resurrection: (a) His resumption of life was a part of the original purpose, (b) It was accomplished by his will and power: "I take it up." (c) It was one of rights: "Other sheep I have." (d) It was one of activity: "Then must I bring."

Fourth, as they relate to his redeemed: (a) They are the Father’s covenanted gift: "He gave them to me." (b) Their regeneration is assumed – their heavenly parentage, (c) Their safety is forever guaranteed from deception: "I know them – they recognize me"; from danger: "They shall never perish." (d) Their food is guaranteed: "Shall find pasture."

Fifth, as they relate to his coming day: (a) This day was revealed, (b) It was in sight by faith: "Abraham saw my day." (c) The sight of it filled Abraham with gladness: "And was glad."

This great division of John’s Gospel is a mine of homiletical material. There are many texts and themes here for sermons. These may be found in every paragraph from John 7:17-10:18.

QUESTIONS

1. What was the time, place, and date of the incidents of these sections of the Harmony

2. What was the law, date, duration, and ideas of the Feast of Tabernacles?

3. Who was the writer of this part of the Harmony and what are the peculiarities of his Gospel?

4. What was the first notable incident of this Feast of Tabernacles? Discuss.

5. What was the second incident and what was its remote occasion?

6. What was the third and fourth incidents and what the results?

7. What was the fifth incident?

8. What are the points in the reply of Jesus to the question, "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?"

9. What was the result of this discourse and what was the puzzle of the multitude concerning him?

10. What can you say of the incident of the adulterous woman brought to Jesus and what was its lessons?

11. What was the connection between sections 75 and 77 and of what do these sections consist?

12. What was the Pharisees’ objection to the announcement of Jesus that he was the light of the world, and what was his reply?

13. How did Jesus show their responsibility, what questions did they raise in response and what was his reply?

14. What is the theme of John 8:31-39 and what historic incident connects?

15. What things are evident from this passage?

16. What was the place and time of the incident of healing the blind man?

17. What were the topics growing out of this incident?

18. What were the prevalent beliefs concerning sin implied in the question?

19. What are the limitations implied in the answer?

20. What further does the answer show? Illustrate.

21. On the text, "We must work, etc.," show (1) the obligation, (2) who must work, (3) whose work it is, (4) the time to do it and (5) the reason for it.

22. What was the story of the miracle, what were the means used and why?

23. Discuss the problem to Christ’s enemies arising out of this miracle.

24. What were the points of their confession in their difficulty?

25. What question about prayer here and what is the Bible teaching on this?

26. What is meant by the Jewish excommunication? Discuss.

27. What are the points to be noted in John 9:35-41?

28. Give the parable of John 10:1-21 and its interpretation.

29. What are the great doctrines here as they relate to the life of Jesus?

30. What, as they relate to his death?

31. What, as they relate to his resurrection?

32. What, as they relate to his redeemed?

33. What, as they relate to his coming day?

34. Search out from this section thirty good texts and indicate the theme suggested by each.