NOTES for Joh 7:1-36

This is one of the strangest dialogues in the Gospel. It looks as if the Jews simply do not understand what Jesus is talking about, while He Himself does not answer their words but says things that appear irrelevant. Yet if we consider the remarks of the people and of Jesus separately, their logical coherence is immediately revealed. They are simply conducting the conversation (if it is a conversation at all) in different directions. The Lord speaks about His mission - to bring people the word about the Father (for He Himself is the Father's Word), while the crowd's remarks show its complete lack of understanding.

Sometimes it feels as if this situation repeats again and again: Christ speaks to us through the Gospel, and we answer Him about something entirely different. To some extent this is natural, because we belong to different worlds (He is "from above," we are "from below"); He speaks of what we have not seen, but He has seen. This is not a lecture; it is testimony. And it is grasped only through the love and faithfulness of disciples who, not yet fully understanding and not yet believing perfectly, feel that Jesus speaks the words of eternal life and do not want to leave Him.

What is wrong, it would seem, with what Jesus' relatives suggest? They are concerned for the success of His preaching, so that He can gain new disciples in Judea. This is so natural, and therefore for those accustomed to the ordinary behavior of promoters of their own ideas, the evangelist's remark that even His brothers did not believe in Him can sound unexpected. If the brothers had spoken mockingly, that would be one thing, but they appear to have offered their advice quite seriously. In what, then, does their unbelief consist?

It is already shown in the fact that the brothers advise Christ to resemble a person who seeks to make himself known. They still find it hard to understand that He is not striving for His own glory, but seeking glory for the heavenly Father and receiving it only from Him. In addition, the advice to go and gain popularity in a situation where people already want to kill Jesus recalls how Satan tempted Him by offering Him the chance to throw Himself down...

Jesus bears witness that the works of the world are evil not only by the words of His preaching, but by His whole presence. That is why the world cannot tolerate Him, regardless of His words and signs. His presence is a silent reproach to an uneasy conscience, not because He wants to rebuke, but because beside Him it is simply impossible to remain indifferent.

For an ordinary person, the path that the Lord Jesus' relatives suggest to Him is completely natural and understandable. In their own way they are right: if He wants to be a spiritual leader, He should seek human renown. And that is why today's Gospel passage shows so vividly how different God's plan is from human thoughts.

The Lord refuses what they offer Him. This means that the matter is not leadership; the Savior did not come in order to become the spiritual leader of the people. The Lord Himself says that the world hates Him because He testifies that its works are evil. This is testimony that each person accepts or does not accept personally, in full independence before God.

From this we can conclude that the purpose of Christ's coming is not to lead the people after Himself as a single whole. On the contrary, each individual person, when confronted with Christ's testimony, is singled out from the human groups and ties in which we are entangled and becomes precisely individual. Let me recall that the idea of being separate, or set apart, is expressed in biblical language by the word "holiness." Only on the basis of this separateness, this setting apart of each person from his social and national environment, does the Lord build the new unity of the Church, which is rooted in His uniqueness.

By the time this conversation between Jesus and His brothers takes place, He has already performed a number of miracles in Galilee and has become a noticeable figure there. According to human logic, this success should be developed by performing in Judea the miracles and signs that the Galileans had seen. All the more so because Christ is doing nothing bad or forbidden; otherwise they would not have urged Him so insistently to "show Himself to the world." They expect that, when He comes to Jerusalem, to that center of the Jewish faith, He will declare Himself the Anointed One. But divine logic is arranged differently, and so, after answering them that "the time has not yet been fulfilled," He remains in Galilee.

Is this not how we too often ask the Lord to manifest His power in an obvious way? We wait for signs and wonders from Him that would reveal His glory to the world and thereby bring even more people to Him. But God acts quietly and unnoticeably, just as Jesus came to Jerusalem "not publicly, but as it were in secret." He does not impose Himself on people, but waits for them of their own will to entrust their hearts to Him; He patiently waits for each of us to acknowledge in Him the King of kings.

The wavering between these two opinions is no longer a matter of public discussion. Publicly no one dares to speak about Jesus at all. People talk about anything: about how bad or good everything is in the church, about how and what should be done, about what someone thinks of the most important universal human problems, about who distorted history and how. But not about Jesus. The attempt to find out who He is and what He is like gives rise to fear, exposing our superficiality and inadequacy in the most important question of life.

The fear of answering these questions openly and directly takes us back 2,000 years. Only then people discussed this at least among themselves, secretly perhaps, but they argued. Now this dispute goes on implicitly, in the depth of each person’s soul. Is He good or a deceiver? Who is He? What is He like? Why did He come to me? However frightening it may be to be laughed at, to be thought an oddity or a madman, sooner or later everyone will have to answer these questions honestly.

The hesitations between these two opinions are no more subject of public discussion. Nobody has the boldness to speak at all about Jesus publicly. The conversations concern anything, about how everything is bad or good in the church, how and what should be done, who thinks about the most important human problems, who and how distorted history. Only not Jesus. The attempt to find out, who He is engenders fear, exposes to the light superficiality and inconsistency in the most important question of our life. The fear to answer openly and directly makes us return 2000 years before. Only that, at the time people discussed of it even though between themselves, although secretly, but they argued at least. Now the argue goes unobvious and inside every person. He is good or a liar? Who is He?  What kind of person He is? Why did He come to me? No matter how horrible it is to be ridiculous, to gain the character of a droll fellow or madman, in any case, sooner or later everyone will have to answer honestly to himself to each of these questions.

Speaking to the people, Jesus continually tries to bring His listeners back to the foundations, to the spiritual core of the Yahwist and Jewish tradition. As we know, He was accused more than once of breaking Shabbat by healing people on the day of Shabbat. And He reminds them of circumcision, which is performed on the appointed day even when that day happens to be Shabbat. And He adds: what, then, are you accusing Me of?

The logic is clear: circumcision is only a sign of the Covenant, a sign of faithfulness to the Torah. And so, in order to mark a person's faithfulness to the Torah, it is possible to set aside the rest of Shabbat; such neglect is not considered a violation of Shabbat. Can the One who heals a person on the day of Shabbat, bringing him into the life of the Kingdom, be considered a violator of Shabbat? This is not about medicine, not about treatment, which in some cases Jewish tradition does indeed regard as a violation of Shabbat. It is about opening the Kingdom of God to a person in all its fullness. Is this not, in the end, the true meaning of Shabbat? After all, all the prohibitions and restrictions surrounding the Sabbath day ultimately have only one purpose: to shift a person's attention completely from everyday life to the presence of God, without which no spiritual life is possible.

Faithfulness to the Torah is an essential condition of communion with God; that is why circumcision, as a sign of such faithfulness, is performed even on Shabbat. And is the manifestation of the Kingdom of God not even a sign or symbol, but a vivid manifestation of that same faithfulness? If it is, why must people seize stones when the One appears who manifests the Kingdom, and manifests it in all its fullness?

In this way Jesus tries to convey to His listeners the true meaning both of Shabbat and of spiritual life itself. Yet many of them, remaining more attached to their tradition than to the Kingdom, are still ready to grab stones.

When Jesus says that they want to kill Him, He means not only the concrete situation unfolding at that moment before the eyes of those listening to Him. Here the issue is His ministry as a whole and people's attitude toward it - not only those who heard Him at that specific moment, but also all who considered themselves zealots for orthodoxy. Of course, on that very day when He spoke these words, no one was actually planning to kill Him. But Jesus understands: what He is doing can either be accepted or rejected - there is no middle ground here. And if it is rejected, then it can only be rejected together with Him, which means that those who reject it will have to try to get rid of Him - to kill Him.

They have no other way out: rejection of His words and of Himself must be carried through to the end, just as acceptance of both must be. For this is not about a new teaching and not even about a new religion; here is a new reality that He has brought into the world. One can refuse to accept a religion and ignore its adherents; one can decline to share a teaching and pay no attention to its followers. But it is impossible to pay no attention to the reality of the Kingdom and ignore it completely. Or rather, it is possible only if one can somehow get rid of that reality. And the first thing that comes to mind is to get rid of the One who brought this new reality into the world, since a conflict arises that cannot otherwise be resolved.

Jesus describes the problem very precisely by comparing healing on the Sabbath with circumcision on the same day. The first is unacceptable, the second quite permissible, although circumcision is only a sign of the covenant made with God, a tradition that in itself does not carry the spiritual component but only points to it, like every sign.

But here religion, this sign and its acceptance, has become a ritual prescription. And the Sabbath prohibitions over time also became ritual prescriptions, losing their original meaning: to give a person the opportunity to spend the day in rest, so that inward stillness might be added to outward quiet. In this case two rituals collide, and the collision is entirely resolvable. But healing on the Sabbath is a return to the spiritual foundations, to the original meaning of the Sabbath, which is precisely to spend the day with God. And now a healing takes place, a manifestation of the power of God and His Kingdom; and this is what turns out to be, for the zealots of orthodoxy, a violation of the religious norm.

This conflict is truly irresolvable. Here one must choose: either religious ritual or the Kingdom. And if ritual is chosen, then the Kingdom must be gotten rid of - as must the One who brought it into the world. That is why they want to kill Him, sometimes without even realizing it themselves. And He knows this, but such is His earthly path.

The words of Jesus are clear on one hand: it is wrong of course to judge according to appearance, to visibility, to outward behaviors. Judgment must be fair, considering also internal invisible factors: intentions, prehistory, possible long-term consequences... Problem appears when we remember that the same Jesus commands not to judge in general (Mt 7:1). Obvious contradiction, but God cannot indeed contradict Himself!

Actually, there is no contradiction. Christ calls not for a fair judgment from our point of view, but rather for a righteous judgment. But only a righteous man is capable of making a righteous judgment. Righteousness - is what belongs only to God. That is why Jesus does not approve de facto in these words human judgment, and instead rejects it: only God's judgment can be righteous.

Messianic ideas in Gospel times were quite developed; there was even a distinctive "messianic" theology describing everything connected with the Messiah, with His ministry, His appearance, and how and from where He should come. All the events that, according to the corresponding concepts, were to happen before the Messiah's appearance and immediately after His appearance were also described and explained, including those signs and miracles that the Messiah had to demonstrate publicly or privately to those who were supposed to see them, as proof of His messiahship. Such signs, it was assumed, were necessary: without them it was impossible to recognize the true Messiah, impossible to distinguish Him from the false messiahs constantly appearing then in Judea.

At the same time, one of the signs of the true Messiah was His acceptance as such, in particular by the temple leadership headed by the high priest and by the authoritative spiritual leaders of the Synagogue. Such acceptance was considered necessary because the Messiah was viewed then first of all as an earthly King after all, though not an entirely ordinary one. His reign would be accompanied by extraordinary signs and miracles connected with such a measure of God's presence as the world had never known before, but the Kingdom itself, as people thought, would still exist on earth, though according to the laws of the Torah given by God. It was impossible to build such a Kingdom without the participation of the Temple and the priesthood, just as it was impossible to build it without the participation of the believing people. Therefore the Messiah would necessarily need the support of both the high priest and the leaders of the Synagogue.

And now the people are watching: how do the priesthood and the authoritative people in the Synagogue, whom the people call "the rulers," relate to this unusual Man? If they do not hinder Him, perhaps He really is that very Messiah whom everyone is awaiting? The gathered people did not think that both the high priesthood and the elders of the Synagogue were simply at a loss, not knowing what to do, and they took this confusion for readiness to acknowledge Jesus' messiahship. Very soon it will become clear that those who thought this way were mistaken, but for the moment the silence of the temple and synagogue leadership could be understood in two ways.

Before us is an example of how certain knowledge and convictions can cloud our eyes and distort the "correct" view of life, a view filled with the Holy Spirit, which sees everything happening around it and gives it a proper assessment. We see people whose certainty about the unknown place of Christ's origin has closed Jesus off from them. Having stopped at this point and pulled the "handbrake," they no longer see anything else. They do not hear His words and are not convinced by looking at His works. That is precisely why Jesus says to them: "He who sent Me is true, and you do not know Him." After all, knowledge of the Lord presupposes fulfilling His will in the Spirit, and Christ was sent to earth by the will of the Father for the redemption of sins, the conversion and sanctification of many.

In the Gospel there are quite often situations when Jesus speaks in hints that His listeners do not understand at all or understand incorrectly. A misunderstanding arises, which Jesus nevertheless does not resolve. Or rather, He resolves it in a rather distinctive way: instead of a direct answer He offers a new hint.

As a result, those listening to Him remain in complete perplexity, arriving at conclusions very far from those which, as it turns out, Jesus expected from them. What is this: deliberate mystification? Hardly: Jesus was never a mystifier. Or is the matter what is sometimes called the messianic secret - the fact of His messiahship, carefully hidden by Him until the time? Perhaps - when the question concerned His messiahship, Jesus gave no direct answer; it was voiced no earlier than the Lord's entry into Jerusalem.

But the matter is hardly only the messianic secret; the features of human nature are also important. It is not by chance that in the culture of the East, and in a certain period also of the West, the parable, the hint, and the unsaid played such a large role. It was thought better to hint at the answer and give readers or listeners the possibility of finding it themselves than to give everything ready-made. And the point is not only that a solution found independently is remembered better. The state in which the seeking person abides also plays an enormous role. This state presupposes the rejection of all ready-made and habitual cliches - not always their complete destruction, but always rejection.

For a paradox is always built on the possibility of seeing something new in what is well known, by looking at it from an unexpected angle. And the capacity for such a view is connected with a person's fundamental openness. Not only intellectual openness, for intellectual openness alone without spiritual openness usually does not exist, but precisely spiritual openness is needed for full life, especially for the life of the Kingdom. And Jesus prepares His listeners for this life by His very word, for the word too is an instrument of the Kingdom.