“When they heard these words, some of the people said, ‘This really is the Prophet.’ Others said, ‘This is the Christ.’ But some said, ‘Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?’ So there was a division among the people over him. Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him. The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, ‘Why did you not bring him?’ The officers answered, ‘No one ever spoke like this man!’ The Pharisees answered them, ‘Have you also been deceived? Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.’ Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, ‘Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?’ They replied, ‘Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.’”

There is an appropriate response to the truth, in a general sense, and the ultimate Truth as it is manifested in Christ. The natural response to truth, apart from the influence and stain of sin, would be acceptance, adoption of its principles and living in a way that reflects the truth. Sin, as it does with everything that is good and righteous, strives against this. Sometimes it outright combats it, claiming the polar opposite of the truth, while more frequently it simply tries to muddy the truth, imitating what is real while removing core tenants. Sometimes we as sinners seem to want to be deceived, ignoring the conviction of universal Truth and giving way to our desires under the guise of ignorance. Romans 2:14-16 speaks of the conscience,

“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

While the Law in its entirety is vast, we see in Matthew 22:40 that all of the Law rests on the greatest commandment, that we Love God with all our heart, soul and mind, and the second, which is like it, that we love our neighbor as ourselves. Romans 1 explains the universally observable truth of God’s existence, and we see here in Romans 2 the explanation of the human conscience, the fundamental reality of God’s Law, propped up on the two pillars presented in Matthew 22. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life as is written in John 15, the only path by which we may reach the Father. God is eternal and constant in His nature. As James 1:17 says, there is “no variation or shadow due to change” in the Lord. But while the Truth is self-evident, meaning that the proper response is encouraged and supported, it’s not compelled. God calls us to Him in a variety of ways, but we maintain the freedom to respond, which we see demonstrated in todays’ passage.

Responding to the Offer of Christ

1. Responding Through the Truth

“When they heard these words, some of the people said, ‘This really is the Prophet.’ Others said, ‘This is the Christ.’”

As the Feast of Booths draws to a close, Jesus stands up on this Sabbath day of rest, and makes a declaration to the crowd. John 7:37–38,

“On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”

At the end of a feast commemorating God’s provision for His people during their time in the wilderness, Jesus offers the people water for their parched souls, just as God gave them water in barren places. The response to this, we see as we begin today’s passage, varies significantly among the people. Some acknowledge Him as the Prophet, the one who would come like Moses, prophesied in Deuteronomy 18. While this is absolutely true that Jesus is the fulfilment of this prophecy, it’s not all that He is. To name and revere Him as the Prophet ultimately fails to acknowledge the significance of His station by only granting Him part of the title and authority He holds as the only Son of God. It is true, but it’s not the entire truth, and to purposely fixate on only a piece of the truth is to distort it. Others of the crowd acknowledge Jesus as the Christ. In Ezekiel 34:22–24 God says,

“I will rescue my flock; they shall no longer be a prey. And I will judge between sheep and sheep. And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the LORD; I have spoken.”

One of many Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, promises from God like these had the people looking a hoping for the coming Christ. While this is also true, that Jesus is the fulfilment of these prophecies and is the Christ, we can’t take for granted that this meant they all accepted the truth of His station either. If we look at the Samaritan woman by the well in John 4, we see her comment on the Messiah in a religious discussion with Jesus, in verse 25, “… I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.”

While it may not cover the whole scope of Jesus as the Son of God, it does paint and hopeful and accurate picture of who Jesus is – the Price of Peace, and the manifestation of the holy and universal Truth. When Jesus reveals to her that He is the Christ she speaks of, she’s filled with joy and wonder, and seems to show great respect and deference to His position. This is contrasted harshly against those who saw the coming Messiah as a military leader, and driver of conquest to facilitate an earthly kingdom for the Jews. This fits the response of the crowd in John 6 who, after witnessing Jesus feed the 5,000 (which was actually upwards of 20,000), seek to take Him and begin and insurrection by making Him their king. This is a worldly aim, not honoring the spirit of the prophesies, and distorts the truth. While it’s reasonable that some of the crowd looked to Jesus and called Him Christ for the right reasons, their use of the correct title doesn’t guarantee that they were fully in line with the truth. Adopting the right words is irrelevant in comparison to adopting the right spirit.

  “The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, ‘Why did you not bring him?’ The officers answered, ‘No one ever spoke like this man!’”

The crowd shows mixed responses to Jesus, some of them seeming to be on board, some opposed, and some hovering somewhere in the middle. The response of the officers of the temple guard, while not explicit in claiming or denouncing Jesus as the Christ, is far more direct and honest. We saw in John 7:32 where the Pharisees sent them to arrest Jesus, but it’s now when we see them return empty handed, that we hear their reasoning for not completing their task. Their response, that “no one ever spoke like this man,” is a significant enough claim on its own, but if we take it in context, it carries far more weight. The officers of the temple guard were taken from among the Levites. Their job is in direct association with the temple, keeping order within it and in the surrounding grounds. While they are not teachers of the Law, they are from a tribe that is centered around it more so than the others, and are in an occupation that is completely centered around the temple. It seems fair to think that these men would have a better grasp on the Law than your average Jew. When they’re sent to arrest Jesus, His words resonate, and they have a response to the Truth. They could have chosen to not arrest Him because of the opposition of some of the crowd, a factor that has stayed the hands of the Pharisees at other times, but this isn’t the reason they give. When they return to the chief priests, those who would hold the highest station and authority within Jewish Law, and the Pharisees, their response as to why they didn’t arrest Jesus is an open rebuke. The men they address are supposed to be the teachers of the Law, and their report about Jesus is essentially, “You know that thing that you guys do? Well He’s doing it better than any of you ever have, and we couldn’t arrest Him for that.” The officers may not have intended their report to be an insult, the text doesn’t state that they did, but it’s certainly taken that way. But then what is the Truth if not an open condemnation of lies?

2. Responding Through the Law

“Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, ‘Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?’”

We saw the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3, where Nicodemus comes to Jesus under the cover of night to acknowledge Jesus’s position (at least to some degree), and to learn more about Him. While Nicodemus shows clear respect for Jesus, calling Him “Rabbi” and acknowledging that God is with Him in His work, he does seem to struggle with the full weight of the Truth Jesus brings. This is the beginning of something that we see culminate in Nicodemus’ public acceptance of the identity of the Christ, as he assists in the preparation and burial of Jesus after the crucifixion in John 19. We don’t where Nicodemus is in the process of knowing the full Truth of God when we see him here in John 7, but we do see that what he offers is in support of Jesus, at least in a general sense. His response isn’t purely spiritual, but instead appeals entirely to the Law. This is actually brilliant, because the Law, when understood and followed properly, isn’t about legalism, but is a physical act with spiritual aims. If we look at Deuteronomy 17:8–13, we see the breakdown of how large legal matters were to be handled under the Law,

“If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the LORD your God will choose. And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the LORD will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you. According to the instructions that they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the verdict that they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear and not act presumptuously again.”

What we see is that in all cases, it was important that the spirit of the Law, that the Truth was honored. If the matter couldn’t be resolved between individuals or within a community, then God had specifically set aside priests and judges with authority to decide things. What this shows us is that, even from a standpoint of unbiased legalism, the aim of the Law is still the Truth. With Nicodemus simply reminding his fellows of the order and nature of the Law, he makes an appeal for Jesus without publicly siding with Him. This is reminiscent of what Gamaliel does in Acts 5. The apostles are brought before the Sanhedrin for performing miracles and preaching Christ resurrected (this is after being arrested illegally, freed in the night by an angel, and resuming their ministry work in the temple), they are charged to stop teaching in the name of Jesus. When they respond that they “must obey God rather than men,” along with reminding the council that it was they who had Jesus crucified, and again declaring Jesus as raised and glorified, the council flies into a rage. Acts 5:33–35 says,

“When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, ‘Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men…’”

Gamaliel goes on to remind them of rebellions and uprisings of the past that have collapsed and failed. He doesn’t place himself on the side of the apostles, but on the side of the Law, and reason. He cautions them in verses 38–39,

“So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!…”

His appeal shows wisdom, and the council takes his advice, at least in part. They still beat the apostles and charge them again to stop their ministry, but they release them. It is only two chapters later however where Stephen becomes the first Christian martyr, stoned to death by the council as they attacked him in their rage.

We can sometimes associate “the Law” with the corrupt and hypocritical practices of the religious rulers, but we can’t forget that in Matthew 5:17 Jesus tells us that He has not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. The Law was given from God and is in itself a good and righteous thing. It’s practices, when observed in line with the Truth of the Spirit, all draw one closer to God. The Pharisees and council of Jesus’s day make a mockery of what the Law is supposed to be, and so when Nicodemus makes a point that is legally sound, which pushes against their persecution of Jesus, it fails to be received.

3. Responding Through Willful Blindness

“But some said, ‘Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?’ So there was a division among the people over him.”

When we ask a question, how often are we looking for the answer we want as opposed to the answer that is right? This is something I’ve seen atheist apologists do when they pose questions concerning the truth and validity of the Bible. In an interview I watched recently between Jordan Peterson and Alex O’Connor, Mr. O’Connor was attempting to present a counter resurrection argument by citing the gospel of Thomas. He seemed like someone who had done some research and approached the discussion seriously, the problem with his case (or maybe I should say, one of the problems), is that no one in learned circles believed that the “gospel of Thomas” was written by Thomas, or even during the lifetime of any of the apostles. This, this along with other false “gospel” accounts are omitted from the Bible for a reason, and it’s not because anyone’s trying to hide anything. The research has been done and the historians and scholars have reached a consensus – these “gospels” amount to nothing more than heretical, gnostic fiction. They’re not true, they’re not spiritually or historically validated and so they’re not relevant in discussions that are trying to agree upon the truth of the Bible. It would be like trying to agree on the plot of a movie, but inserting scenes from another film, and then blaming them for ruining the sequence. If Godzilla shows up in “Saving Private Ryan” while they’re storming the beaches of Normandy, it can be pretty easily reasoned that something has been meddled with and this isn’t authentic. But oftentimes the goal of an atheist debating against a Christian (or even just having a religious discussion), isn’t to seek the truth, it’s to affirm what they already believe to be right. People will outright ignore the information that counters their belief, or else they won’t ask questions to even vet what’s true and what’s not. And so we see members of the crowd in John 7 who push back against those who think Jesus could be the Christ. They question Jesus’s origins, his coming from Galilee and how He could be the Christ. But as we know, though Jesus was raised in Nazareth, and His ministry began and carried great weight in Galilee, that’s not where He was originally from. Before living in Galilee, he also lived in Egypt during the time when Herod the Great killed all the male children two years old or under who were in the region – but this didn’t make Jesus Egyptian. So this begs the question, how hard would it have been to find out that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Because not only does He fulfill this prophecy, but He is also in the lineage of David. This is affirmed through Joseph in Matthew’s gospel, but Luke’s account shows us that Mary too was of the Davidic line. There’s the possibility that this was obtainable information by some, but what could have been even simpler was to ask Jesus Himself. We see assumptions being made on both side of the crowd. They take Jesus and place Him in the position they want Him in, or where they think He fits, instead of asking for clarification. How hard would it have been to respectfully say, “Excuse me, you’re claiming to be the Christ and you certainly seem to be checking an awful lot of boxes. We know you come from Galilee, but where were you born?” But that doesn’t happen. No one asked the question, but assumes His origin, or that the prophecy meant that the ministry of the Christ has to come from Bethlehem, placing weight on the text that isn’t there. These members of the crowd know the region He comes from and dismiss His credibility simply off of that. This is willful, chosen blindness. We see the same thing when the Pharisees respond to Nicodemus in verse 52.

“They replied, ‘Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.’”

Nicodemus gave them an honest, unbiased comment on the situation, and they respond by mocking him for saying something that could be supportive of Jesus. After this they make a claim that could be taken several different ways, but is wrong in all of them. If they’re saying that the Messiah will not come from Galilee, then they make the same mistake as the naysayers among the crowd, not bothering to ask questions that may contradict what they want to believe. If they mean that no prophet has ever come from the northern kingdom, they’re wrong and fail in knowing or acknowledging their own history, as Elijah (1 Kings 17:1), Jonah (2 Kings 14:25), and quite possibly Nahum (Nahum 1:1), were all recorded as being from the northern region. Finally, if they’re saying that God couldn’t bring forth a prophet from this region, they’re wrong. While the south, Judea, and specifically Jerusalem exists as the Jewish seat of power, it is foolish to limit God to raising up servants from this region alone. The Old Testament shows again and again as God raises up unlikely servants from among His people. From taking second, and sometimes youngest sons, and lifting them to positions of prominence within His will, to blessing women who were thought barren to give birth to some of His most noteworthy servants (Issac, Samuel and John the Baptist – and Samson too, though his record carries some complications that the other’s don’t). To apply a bias or prejudice that God couldn’t or wouldn’t bring forth a prophet from Galilee (if that is in fact what they’re doing, which I admit is debatable), then they again show themselves blind by seeking to limit God.

The final example we see of this willful blindness is in the response that the Pharisees give to the officers who don’t arrest Jesus.

“The Pharisees answered them, ‘Have you also been deceived? Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.’”

While it occurs in the middle of the passage, I wanted to address this section last as I think it shows us the most egregious, willfully blind response to Jesus – it’s also the section I find most personally offensive. They start by accusing those responding who have had a sincere response to Jesus and the significance of His teaching, of being deceived. They claim that no authorities have believed Jesus, however throughout the Gospels we know of at least two who were secretly in favor of Jesus. Nicodemus, who we discussed previously, and Joseph of Arimathea, who was a member of the Sanhedrin, a secret disciple of Jesus, and is responsible for providing the tomb where Jesus is laid to rest after the crucifixion. While this only gives two examples, both of whom were kept secret until after the crucifixion, it shows us something. The blanket statement implying that none of the religious rulers have believed Jesus is flawed. It’s the culture and the party that is so venomously opposed to Jesus, but this is the mob, not the discernment of the individual. They show themselves as carried away with their own desires and aims, instead of actually looking to what’s true.

Finally, we see their claim, “But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.” In this one statement they reveal the depth of their blindness and hypocrisy. For the majority of my professional career, I have been trained and operated with the guiding principle that you are responsible for the mistakes of your subordinates. If they do something wrong, you teach them to own the mistake, but you take accountability of what you could have done better. Was the goal explained clearly? Was proper training given? Was someone who displayed incompetence left in a position they shouldn’t have been in? You can’t take all of the responsibility for another person’s action, but you also can’t lay the entire burden on someone you were tasked to lead. This statement from the Pharisees, “this crowd that does not know the law is accursed,” is the epitome of failed accountability from leadership. They are tasked as the teachers of the Law to educate and guide God’s people, but when the people look to Jesus, who they don’t agree with, they accuse the people of being heretics and condemn them as accursed. If the people on a mass scale are so ignorant of the Law that they cannot see a false teacher, then all this means is that any teachers of the Law have failed in the extreme. In Ezekiel 3, God sets Ezekiel as a watchman for Israel, which He later affirms again in Ezekiel 33. In 33:7–9 God says,

“So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, that person shall die in his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.”

The responsibility of those who have been given the Truth, as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Sanhedrin were given the Law, is to honor the weight of what they’ve been given, and to obey in sharing it with reverence and respect. But the religious rulers, as they’ve show again and again, are blind to the Spirit of God. They have set aside what is holy, giving up the true Law, in favor of layered rules that boost their moral standing. They’ve abandoned their responsibility as teachers and guides, in favor of lies that prop up their own goals and means. They tell on themselves when they claim that the people do not know the Law, failing to see in their willful blindness what they’re confessing to. It is tragic and ironic that while they condemn the crowd, it is they who are accursed.

When we look at today’s passage, we see a variety of responses to Jesus in the aftermath of His offer of living water. Some are close to the mark, while others are pointedly opposed to the mission of the Christ, but they all help us see things that apply to our own lives. The reality and Truth of Jesus can mean something different to different people, but it never changes what it is – it never alters who He is. The Truth is the Truth – you can lie about it, you can omit sections, you can misinterpret it, or simply not bother to seek it, but none of that changes what the Truth is. Jesus is constant, regardless of our response.

Pastor Chris’s sermon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhvwRWoowfw