Jesus’s Alleged Deception

In John 7:8-10 did Jesus mislead his brothers, or simply change his mind, or is there something about the account we might be missing? The greatest challenge in our attempts to understand this passage is the ambiguity of what it actually says due to variant readings among the Greek manuscripts. 

Contextually in the 7th chapter of John’s Gospel, Jesus and his disciples are in Galilee as the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles draws near, and the Lord’s unbelieving brothers tell him to go ahead and make the pilgrimage to Judea. His verbal response, in part, is recorded in v. 8, followed by a report of his seemingly capricious actions in v. 10.

The ESV reads: “‘You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come’ …. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.” 

The NKJV reads: “‘You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come’ …. But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.”

The Textual Issue

The first ambiguity is created in v. 8 by the presence in some manuscripts of the adverb οὐκ (“not”),¹ whereas in others οὔπω (“not yet”) occurs.² If the former reading is correct, why did Jesus say he was not going to the feast but then he went? If the latter reading is correct, it was just a matter of timing (a delayed departure), but how is the more difficult variant to be explained? If the scribal amendment was intentional, it makes no sense to replace a fairly harmonious reading with an apparent discrepancy.

The other ambiguity is created in v. 10 with the positioning of the phrase, “up to the feast.” In some manuscripts this is descriptive of the Lord’s brothers, while in others it applies to Jesus. If the former reading is correct (as in the ESV), then Jesus simply went up to Jerusalem but not necessarily to the feast in which his brothers were participating. If the latter reading is correct (as in the NKJV), then Jesus did attend the feast, albeit later and in a different manner than his brothers expected.

Tackling the Textual Issue

The problem for text critics, translators, and exegetes is weighing the external documentary evidence against the internal evidence, while trying to account for textual variation in the transmission process. If each of these factors is granted equal value, we seem to be at an impasse.  

Reasoned transmissionalism considers both internal and external information, giving more weight to the documentary evidence. The earliest extant confirmation (closest in time to the original) supports the reading οὔπω (“not yet”) in John 7:8. Documents inclusive of this version of the text, dating back as early as the 2nd century,³ have been recognized as the “best witnesses.”⁴

Reasoned eclecticism considers both internal and external information,⁵ giving more weight to internal evidence. Proponents of this approach regard the reading οὔπω to have been “introduced at an early date … in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10.”⁶ Leon Morris, for example, reasons, “If the original read οὔπω, why should anyone alter it to οὐκ? I cannot find any convincing answer, so I incline to the reading οὐκ.”⁷ Philip Comfort adds further, “the variant [οὐκ] is the more difficult reading (Jesus eventually went to this festival) and therefore a candidate for being the original wording.”⁸

In seeking to trace the transmissional history of any textual variant, of paramount concern is which reading best explains the existence of the others. Preference is usually given to the more difficult reading, the assumption being that copyists would ordinarily prefer smoothness, harmony, and clarity over a presumed inconsistency and have little to no apprehension about altering the biblical text. It further assumes the changes were on purpose, even though unintentional scribal error was all too common. 

There is no solid consensus among NT scholars as to what was first penned and subsequently changed in John’s text. Since the manuscript evidence can be more objectively scrutinized than the somewhat subjective evaluation of internal issues, I tend to lean in favor of the οὔπω (“not yet”) reading in John 7:8. At the same time, however, I struggle to come up with a reasonable explanation for the scribal change to οὐκ unless it was accidental rather than determined (i.e., confusion of letters in the uncial script). Perhaps the best exegetical approach is to consider the question from all angles and find a solution that is consistent with what we know about the integrity of Christ and the biblical record. 

A Parabolic Play on Words?

It has been suggested that the tension between vv. 8 and 10 of John 7 is simply one of multiple occasions in John’s Gospel of two levels of meaning.⁹ Thus the words, “not going up to this feast” (v. 8), were intended parabolically rather than literally. The Lord’s brothers, as earthly-minded unbelievers, may have inferred the uphill climb toward Jerusalem, but since Jesus did in fact make the journey in v. 10, this is not what he meant in v. 8. The real meaning, as the argument goes, concerns the timing of his death, resurrection, and subsequent return to heaven (vv. 1-8, 19, 25, 33-34). In other words, it was not going to happen at the upcoming Feast of Tabernacles (vv. 30, 44; cf. 8:59). As a play on words, the “going up” in v. 8 is a veiled allusion to his ascension to the Father (cf. 3:13; 6:62; 20:17), perhaps even including his elevation on the cross (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). 

As insightful and creative as this explanation is, however, it does not readily correspond to the actual wording of the text. Jesus’s reference to “going up,” whether parabolically or topographically, was not “at” or “during” the feast but εἰς (“to,” “unto,” “toward”) the feast. It would be less of a stretch, granting the words “not yet” and “this feast,” to take the Lord’s statement as anticipatory of “the next paschal journey,” when “the time was fulfilled.”¹⁰   

Operating on His Own Timetable?

If the original text of John 7:8-10 included “not yet” and “he went up to the feast,” there is no inconsistency between Christ’s words and actions. He intentionally delayed his departure from Galilee because of impending dangers (vv. 1, 6-9), arriving in Jerusalem by “the middle of the feast” (v. 14). The harmony of the text supported by the weight of manuscript evidence makes a solid case for this interpretation. The only nagging concern, then, is how to account for the textual variant.   

Did Not Necessarily Attend the Feast?

The prepositional phrase “to the feast” in v.10 has been mispositioned in a number of manuscripts. If the biblical record states, “his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up,” Jesus made his way to the city of Jerusalem but not to engage in the festivities. This is consistent with what he told his brothers in v. 8, particularly if οὐκ is the original wording. 

The Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths) started on the 15th day of the 7th month (Tishri = September/October), lasted seven days, and officially ended on the 8th day (Lev. 23:34-36). John reports that Jesus was in Jerusalem “about the middle of the feast” (John 7:14), as well as “the last day” (v. 37), presumably having missed the first few days. While others were celebrating, Jesus was about his Father’s business, teaching in the temple, and avoiding a premature death (John 7:10–8:59). Even if credence is given to the textual variant, “he went up to the feast,” he apparently did not go up as one who kept the feast.¹¹

Conclusion

This is one of those passages I wish was more straightforward than it actually is. Nonetheless, any alleged incongruity is easily resolved, albeit with multiple possibilities. The primary concern, at least for Bible believers, is that the integrity of our Lord and the biblical record remains intact. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ This is the reading of the standard text of NA²⁸ and UBS⁵. See ASV, ESV, H/CSB, NASB, NET, NIV(2011), N/RSV.

     ² This is the reading of the Byzantine Majority Text and Textus Receptus. See ERV, N/KJV, NIV(1978), WBT, WEB, YLT. Despite the English translation in more recent editions, the NT text upon which the NIV was originally based favors οὔπω (see R. J. Goodrich and A. L. Lukaszewski, A Reader’s Greek New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003]: 221).

     ³ In addition to the 2nd-century Bodmer papyri P⁶⁶ and P⁷⁵, the following also support the οὔπω reading: codices Vaticanus (B), Borgianus (T), Washingtonianus (W), as well as L X Γ Δ Λ Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 f¹¹³ Maj syr^h,p cop^sa,ac2.

     ⁴ Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XII), AB (NY: Doubleday, 1966): 307. See K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the NT: Study and Lecture Notes (Henderson, TN: Hester, 2006): 26-32. Proponents of the more extreme historical-documentary eclecticism would rely almost exclusively on the external textual evidence.

     ⁵ The οὐκ reading is supported by the 4th and 5th century codices Sinaiticus (א) and Bezae (D), as well as K M Π it syr^c,s cop^bo. Based on this reading, Porphyry of Tyre (ca. 234-305) accused Jesus of vacillation.

     ⁶ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994): 185. Advocates of the more extreme thoroughgoing or rigorous eclecticism rely almost exclusively on the internal evidence.

     ⁷ Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Rev. ed. NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995): 354 n. 21.

     ⁸ Philip Wesley Comfort, A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2015): 257.

     ⁹ See R. Brown, op. cit. 308; R. H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957): 175-76.

     ¹⁰ B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (London: James Clarke, 1958): 117; also F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877): II: 270-72. Another textual variant is the dual usage of the pronoun ταύτην (“this” feast) in the Byzantine Majority Text, supported by א* Γ Δ Λ, along with eight uncials, numerous miniscules, and some ancient versions, whereas a lone appearance in NA²⁸ and UBS⁵, based on א a b B D K L T X Π, along with a number of minuscules and quotations.

     ¹¹ B. F. Westcott, op cit. 117. J. H. Bernard offers as a possibility that Jesus merely altered his plans (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1953]: I:270).

 

Related Posts: Interpretive Ambiguities, John 5:3-4, John 7:53-8:11  

 

Image credit: adapted from http://www.ngkfgcs.com/Blog/November-2018/Stay-vs-Go-6-HQ-Location-Strategy-Trigger-Factors

 

The Man of Lawlessness (Part 2 of 3): Description and Fate

     The descriptions of “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 readily fit into the genre of apocalyptic literature, which “needs to be recognized, along with the degree to which their literary medium has shaped the message they give” (J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul 304-305).

The Man of Lawlessness Described

     “The [one] opposing and exalting himself above every so-called god¹ or object of worship, so as to sit down in the temple of God, setting forth himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:4).² At the time of writing, “the man of lawlessness” was already at work. The word for “temple” here is ναός, which is not the whole temple but the innermost sanctuary, representing the presence of God (cf. Rev. 7:15; 11:1, 19; 15:8; 16:17; 21:22). False religion, in drawing people away from God and his church, essentially takes the place of God.

     “Do you not remember that, still being with you, I said these things to you?” (2 Thess. 2:5). In the next verse and in 3:7 there are reminders of what these Christians already know, as noted multiple times in the previous correspondence (1 Thess. 1:5; 2:1, 2, 5, 11; 3:3, 4; 4:2; 5:2). Here, however, the rhetorical “do you not remember” is comparable to “do you not know,” serving as a mild rebuke. During the inaugural evangelistic campaign, the missionaries had done extensive teaching (1:10; 1 Thess. 1:5–2:13; 3:4; 4:2, 11), particularly Paul (cf. Acts 17:2-3). The imperfect active indicative form of the verb ἔλεγον (“I said”) indicates that he had repeatedly spoken of these things (cp. Acts 20:27-31).

     “And now the [thing] restraining [τὸ κατέχον – neuter], you know, for him to be revealed in his time, for the mystery of the lawlessness is already working; the one restraining [μόνον ὁ κατέχων – masculine] now, until he might be [taken] out of [the] midst [‘out of the way,’ cf. Col. 2:14]” (2 Thess. 2:6-7). The ESV offers a smoother translation: “And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.” The adverb “now” [νῦν] indicates something current, of which the Thessalonians are presently aware. The verb κατέχω [to “restrain”] means to (a) hold back or detain; (b) hinder or restrain; (c) hold fast or keep secure; (d) possess or take possession of.

     Contextually, “the [thing] restraining” may simply be “the love of the truth” (vv. 10, 12) that keeps false religion at bay, and “the one restraining” characterizes the one who loves the truth (vv. 13-15; cf. 2 Tim. 3:17; also Matt. 12:35a; 1 Cor. 2:15), refusing to yield to the enticement of false religion. The word “mystery” [μυστήριον] is descriptive of the subtle and deceptive nature of false religion (cf. v. 10a; Eph. 4:14; 5:6; Col. 2:8; 1 John 2:26), while the phrase “of the lawlessness” reveals its actual nature, i.e., contrary to the law of God (cf. Matt. 7:21-23; 13:41; 23:28; 24:11-12; Rom. 2:12, 20-23; 7:22–8:8).

     The fact that this “is already working” indicates something happening at the time of writing (cf. Acts 20:27-31; Rom. 16:17-18; Jude 4; 1 John 2:26; 4:1, 3). After issuing a similar warning to the Ephesian elders, Paul commits them “to God and to the word of his grace” (Acts 20:29-32). What the Thessalonians “know,” having repeatedly been reminded, is that they have eagerly embraced the truth of God’s word (vv. 13-14; cf. 1 Thess. 1:5–2:13), “which also is working in you, the believing [ones]” (1 Thess. 2:13) as the restraining force against religious deception and corruption.

The Man of Lawlessness Destroyed

     “And then the lawless [one] will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, and will abolish by the appearing of his coming” (2 Thess. 2:8). The “lawless [one]” is clearly “the man of lawlessness” (v. 4), responsible for “the lawlessness” (v. 7). While many commentators maintain that the lawless figure will be revealed prior to the Lord’s return, this is an assumption not explicitly stated in the text. The restraining continues “until” [ἕως] the Lord’s return (vv. 6-7). Contextually the circumstances involve “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ …. the day of the Lord” (2:1-2), at which time “the man of lawlessness is revealed” (2:3), viz. “in the revelation of the Lord Jesus” (1:7). In other words, all will be exposed as Christ returns, and those drawn into the deception of false religion will finally see the error to which they have allowed themselves to be blinded; see esp. 1 Thess. 2:14-16. From the revealing of “the lawless one,” the text immediately speaks of his destruction.

     False religion (personified) is doomed, “whom the Lord Jesus will destroy … and will abolish …” The principal character of the second coming is “the Lord Jesus” who executes the judgment (cf. 1:7; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:16). The verb ἀναιρέω means to “take away, do away with, destroy” (BAGD 54-55), and the verb καταργέω means to “abolish, wipe out, set aside …. bring to an end” (BAGD 417). This will be accomplished “with the breath of his mouth [cp. Isa. 11:4] … by the appearing of his coming.” The apocalyptic imagery here reiterates 1:7b-8, “… in the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with angels of his power, in a fire of flame inflicting vengeance on the [ones] not knowing God and the [ones] not obeying the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” False religion will be annihilated, and those entangled in it will face the Lord in judgment.

     Lest we get distracted by the fantastic descriptions of this extraordinary event, remember the original intent of the writing. G. Fee observes, “Everything about the passage suggests that Paul is here offering a word of encouragement to these persecuted believers, since the emphasis is now altogether on God’s ultimate, righteous judgment of their persecutors” (Thessalonians 290).

The Satanic Influence Behind the Deception

     The description continues: “of whom is coming according to [the] working of Satan in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood” (2 Thess. 2:9). The present tense, “is coming,” reaffirms that “the mystery of the lawlessness is already working” at the time of writing (v. 7) and is spawning “the apostasy” (v. 3). Readers are now informed that all this is “according to [the] working of Satan.” Satan has already been active, attempting to thwart this good work at Thessalonica and elsewhere (1 Thess. 2:18). He “masquerades himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). He “has blinded the minds of the unbelieving [ones], lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, shines forth” (2 Cor. 4:4b). Unbelievers have allowed themselves to fall into “the snare of the devil, having been captured by him [to do] his will” (2 Tim. 2:26; cf. 1 Tim. 3:7; 6:9). Believers, on the other hand, who are open to and enlightened by the gospel, “are not ignorant of his schemes” (2 Cor. 2:11). Satan’s devious work is not limited to sorcery, black magic, satanic cults, and pagan idolatry. He is behind every form of false religion, including so-called “Christian” movements that deviate from the narrow path of truth (cf. Matt. 7:13-23; 2 Pet. 2:1-2, 18-22; etc.).

     The “power and signs and wonders” are not genuine miracles, like those confirming divine teaching (cf. Mark 16:20; John 2:23; 3:2; Acts 14:3; Heb. 2:3-4). Rather, these are “of falsehood,” i.e. “false miracles, signs, and wonders” (CSB), cf. Matt. 24:11, 24; Acts 8:9-11; 13:6; 19:13-16, 19; Rev. 13:13. Myths, legends, superstitions, amulets, relics, shrines, mysteries of the occult, and numerous elaborate claims have been propagated by false religion throughout history.

     We read further, “and in every deceit of unrighteousness [to] the ones perishing, which instead they did not accept the love of the truth for them to be saved” (2 Thess. 2:10). The “every deceit” is the result of the aforementioned “falsehood” (v. 9; cf. v. 3). Linking this passage to the earlier discussion in 1:5-9 is another word with the δικ- root, viz. ἀδικία (“unrighteousness”). The judgment of God is “just” or “righteous” [δίκαιος] (1:5, 6) in taking “vengeance” [ἐκδίκησις] (1:8) and meting out the “penalty” [δίκη] (1:9) because of “unrighteousness” [ἀδικία] (2:10). Those deceived by unrighteousness are “the ones perishing,” the same who consider the message of the cross foolish, in contrast to the ones being saved who regard the same message as the power of God (1 Cor. 1:18; cf. 2 Cor. 2:15; Rom. 1:16).³

     The reason for judgment is that “they did not accept [‘receive,’ ‘welcome’] the love of the truth …” This is in stark contrast to the Thessalonian Christians, “having received the word …” (1 Thess. 1:6); “you accepted … [the] word of God …” (1 Thess. 2:13). Refusing to welcome and love the truth is a rejection of what God requires “for them to be saved,” i.e., saved from divine wrath and everlasting destruction (1:6-9; cf. 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:16).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Should θεός here be rendered “god” (CSB, ESV, ISV, NASB, NET, NLT, N/RSV) or “God” (ASV, N/KJV, NIV)?

     ² Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ³ In 2 Cor. 4:3, we read: “But even if our gospel [preached by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, 1:19; cf. 1 Thess. 1:5; 2 Thess. 2:14] is veiled [‘covered,’ ‘concealed’], it is veiled in those [who are] perishing.” Not everyone understands, appreciates, or amenably responds to the preaching of the gospel, viz. “those perishing,” whose prejudices and predispositions render them incapable of receptivity, unwilling to understand and obey, leading to their spiritual demise (cf. 2 Cor. 3:14-15; 1 Cor. 1:18, 23; 2:14; also Rom. 8:5-8).

Related Posts: Man of Lawlessness Part 1, Part 3

Image credit: https://kenanmalik.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/religion-praying.jpg