John 7:20

7:20 You’re demon possessed! See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 7:20. Καὶ εἶπε, and said) At Jerusalem there seem to have been some lying in wait to kill Him, and others to have known the fact; Joh 7:25, “Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this He, whom they seek to kill?” and those who speak here seem to have been farther removed from these, and yet not at heart better. Jesus shows that He has a deeper knowledge of them, and He penetrates them with this ray [of His omniscience].—δαιμόνιον ἔχεις, thou hast a demon) The foulest formula of reviling. Possessed, mad. They think, that the hidden design to murder Him could not have become known to Jesus Himself except through an evil spirit.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_7:20. This interruption, no notice of which, seemingly (but see on Joh_7:21), is taken by Jesus in His subsequent words, is a characteristic indication of the genuineness of the narrative.

ὁ ὄχλος] the multitude (not the same as the Ἰουδαίοι, see Joh_7:12), unprejudiced, and unacquainted with the designs of the hierarchy, at least so far as they referred to the death of Christ, consisting for the most part, probably, of pilgrims to the feast.

δαιμόνιον] causing in you such perverted and wicked suspicions. Comp. Joh_8:48, Joh_10:20. An expression not of ill-will (Hengstenberg and early writers), but of amazement, that a man who taught so admirably should imagine what they deem to be a moral impossibility and a dark delusion. It must, they thought, be a fixed idea put into his mind by some daemon, a κακοδαιμονᾶν.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 7:20 . This, some of the crowd think mere raving. He is a monomaniac labouring under a hallucination that people wish to kill Him. Δαιμόνιον … ἀποκτεῖναι ; This question, repudiating the idea that any one seeks to slay Him, needs no answer and gets none.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The people answered, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?--This was said by the multitude, who as yet had no bad feeling to Jesus, and were not in the secret of the plot hatching, as our Lord knew, against Him.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 20. Thou hast a devil] The crowd, who made this answer, were not in the secret of the chief priests. They could not suppose that any person desired to put him to death for healing a diseased man; and therefore, in their brutish manner, they say, Thou hast a demon-thou art beside thyself, and slanderest the people, for none of them desires to put thee to death. The Codex Cyprius (K,) four others, and the margin of the later Syriac, attribute this answer to the Jews, i.e. those who were seeking his life. If the reading, therefore, of οι Ιουδαιοι, the Jews, be received instead of ο οχλος, the multitude, it serves to show the malice of his enemies in a still stronger light: for, fearing lest their wish to put him to death might not be gratified, and that his teaching should prevail among the common people; to ruin his credit, and prevent his usefulness, they give out that he was possessed by a demon; and that, though he might be pitied as a miserable man, yet he must not be attended to as a teacher of righteousness. Malice and envy are ever active and indefatigable, leaving no stone unturned, no mean unused, that they may win the object of their resentment. See Clarke on Joh 7:26.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

20. Thou hast a devil. The meaning is, “Thou art mad;” for it was a customary phrase among the Jews, who had been trained to the doctrine that, when men are excited to rage, or when they have lost sense and reason, they are tormented by the devil. And, indeed, as gentle and moderate chastisements are God’s fatherly rods, so when He treats us with greater harshness and severity, He appears not to strike us with his own hand, but rather to employ the devil as the executioner and minister of his wrath. Again, the multitude reproach Christ with simplicity; for the common people were not acquainted with the intentions of the priests. Those foolish men, therefore, ascribe it to madness, when Christ complains that they are endeavoring to put him to death. We learn from it that we ought to be exceedingly cautious not to form an opinion about subjects which we do not understand; but, if it ever happens that we are rashly condemned by ignorant men, mildly to digest such an affront.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(20) The people.—They know that the rulers have sought for Him (Joh_7:11), but are not aware of their intention to kill Him. When this is referred to, it is “by some of them of Jerusalem” (Joh_7:25). These pilgrims know how far from their own thoughts is any such idea, and they think that its presence in His thoughts must be the work of a demon. (Comp. Note on Mat_11:18.) They utter this, not in hostility, but in wonder that He can think so.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20. Thou hast a devil] The multitude who have come up from the provinces know nothing of the designs of the hierarchy, although dwellers in Jerusalem (Joh_7:25) are better informed. These provincials think He must be possessed to have such an idea. Comp. Joh_10:20, and also Mat_11:18, where the same is quoted as said of the Baptist. In both cases extraordinary conduct is supposed to be evidence of insanity, and the insanity is attributed to demoniacal possession. In Joh_8:48 the same remark is made, but in a much more hostile spirit (see note there); and there Christ answers the charge. Here, where it is the mere ignorant rejoinder of a perplexed multitude, He takes no notice of the interruption.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jesus answered and said unto them,.... Taking no notice of their passion, reproach, and blasphemy; but proceeding upon the thing he had in view, and which he was determined to reassume, and vindicate himself in;

I have done one work; that is, on the sabbath day; meaning, his cure of the man that had had a disorder eight and thirty years, who lay at Bethesda's pool; which single action, they charged with being a breach of the sabbath, he mentions with a view to their many, and daily violations of it:

and ye all marvel; at it, as a thing unheard of, as a most shocking piece of iniquity, as an intolerable evil; wondering that any man should have the front, to bid another take up his bed and walk, on the sabbath day: they did not marvel at the miracle that was wrought; but were amazed, offended, and disturbed, at its being done on the sabbath day.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?

Ver. 20. Thou hast a devil] This he passeth by as a frontless slander, not worth refuting, but proceeds to maintain the lawfulness of what he had done on the sabbath day. Sincerity throws off slanders, as Paul did the viper; yea, in a holy scorn, it laughs at them, as the wild ass does at the horse and his rider. Wicellius and Cochleus say that we betrayed the Rhodes (saith Melancthon), and some other such foul businesses they lay to our charge. These are such gross lies, that we need not disprove them; let them tell as many such lies of us as they will, dicant ipsi talia quoad velint, our names are oiled, they will not stick.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The people - Perhaps some of the people who were not aware of the designs of the rulers.

Thou hast a devil - Thou art deranged or mad. See Joh 10:20. As they saw no effort to kill him, and as they were ignorant of the designs of the rulers, they supposed that this was the effect of derangement.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Thou hast a devil: art possessed with a devil, mad, &c. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The Jews had an opinion, that whosoever was beside himself, and talked distractedly, was influenced with an evil spirit; so as,

Thou hast a devil, is no more than, Thou art mad; unless we will take the phrase as a mere term of reproach, such as we ordinarily hear at this day from some men in their passions, when they hear any speak what is false, and hath no congruity with truth, according to their apprehensions, saying, The devil is in you: the former is the milder interpretation, though in that was sin enough, considering who it is that spake.

Who goeth about to kill thee? It is very probable that the common people (to whom our Saviour was now speaking) knew nothing of the design of their rulers, mentioned Joh 5:18, so spake this innocently, (though in their passion), having no such design in their hearts; but they ought not so peremptorily to have denied what our Saviour positively affirmed, who knew the designs and counsels of all men’s hearts, though they knew them not.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

20. The people—This base interruption seems to be ejaculated from his enemies in the crowd. His imputation of murderous purpose they denounce as the frenzy of one possessed. The utterers might have supposed they spoke truth; but there are others in the crowd (Joh_7:25) that know the reality of the murderous intent.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 20-24. (3) Treatment of the ignorance and insolence of the multitude.

The multitude, who broke out in angry and ignorant remonstrance, answered (and said). Thou hast a daemon. Who is seeking to kill thee? Thou must have some evil spirit tormenting thee with such cruel and melancholy foreboding. (cf. Joh_8:48 Joh_10:20) This was an outburst of insolent and ignorant amazement on their part, that One who taught so wonderfully should imagine what they deem a moral impossibility and dark delusion" (Meyer). The design rankling in the hearts of the authorities was too well known to our Lord, and, not deigning to notice the interruption and the insult, he continued

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The people answered, Thou hast a devil - A lying spirit. Who seeketh to kill thee? - These, coming from distant parts, probably did not know the design of the priests and rulers.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

devil demon.

(See Scofield "Mat 7:22").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A reference to the healing of the sick man:

v. 20. The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil; who goeth about to kill Thee?

v. 21. Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.

v. 22. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the Sabbath-day circumcise a man.

v. 23. If a man on the Sabbath-day receive circumcision that the Law of Moses should not be broken, are ye angry at Me because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath-day?

v. 24. Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

The remarks of Jesus were directed principally to the leaders of the Jews, some of whom were always present whenever He taught. The fact that the Lord read their thoughts so easily and openly accused them of their heinous intention aroused the Jews. Their bad conscience prompted them to deny vociferously and vehemently that they had harbored such intention. They told Him that He must be possessed with an evil spirit even to insinuate such a thing. But Jesus refuses to be turned aside from His argument. He knows exactly when their hostility entered into this stage. A matter of six months ago He performed one single miracle, on account of which they were astonished and, offended; it was His healing of the man on the Sabbath. But they were to take their own case. They had the rite of circumcision, an ordinance which went beyond Moses, to the patriarchs, but which Moses formally codified. This rite continued through all their generations and regularly set aside the Sabbath law. For circumcision involved an act, a work, and yet it was performed on the Sabbath. if the time so required. This was not considered a breaking of the Sabbath law, because the Jewish baby was thereby received into the congregation. In the case of circumcision it was only ceremonial purity which was effected, but Jesus had made the whole man well on the Sabbath. He therefore scored the sanctimoniousness of the Jews in emphasizing the out. ward observance of the Sabbath, while they actually transgressed the letter of the Law with every Sabbath circumcision, and then threw up their hands in horror at the great benefit which Christ had granted to the sick man on the Sabbath. Such sanctimonious exclusiveness is the very essence of hypocrisy and lacks altogether that mercy which the Lord demands rather than sacrifice. The Lord therefore tells them that they should consider and weigh the facts of the evidence properly. They should not judge according to appearances, as matters appear on the surface, at first glance. A righteous and true judgment depends upon careful consideration and weighing of all evidence. This same argument should be used against the fanatics of all kinds in our days. They have, in regard to many questions, lost all sense of proportion and must be reminded of the fundamental principles

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20. The people answered. Not “the Jews,” but the masses. They did not then know that the rulers were seeking his death, and hence rebukes such a suggestion. Thou hast a devil. Such a mistake must be due to the whisper of a demon, they thought.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

20. Δαιμ. ἔχεις. Thou hast a demon (see on Joh 8:48). The multitude from the provinces know nothing of the designs of the hierarchy, although dwellers in Jerusalem (Joh 7:25) are better informed. These provincials think He must be possessed to have such an idea. Comp. Joh 10:20, and also Mat 11:18, where the same is quoted as said of the Baptist. In both cases extraordinary conduct is supposed to be evidence of insanity, and the insanity is attributed to demoniacal possession, the κακοδαιμονᾷν of the Greeks. In Joh 8:48 the same remark is made, but in a much more hostile spirit, and there Christ answers the charge. Here, where it is the mere ignorant rejoinder of a perplexed multitude, He takes no notice of the interruption.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20.] The multitude, not the rulers, replied this. Indeed their question, τίς σε ζητεῖ ἀποκτεῖναι; shews their ignorance of the purpose of their rulers, which our Lord had just exposed and charged them with. It would not now be their policy to represent Him as possessed.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20. ἀπεκρίθη ὁ ὄχλος κτλ. The crowd had been listening with eagerness to the controversial discussion between Jesus and the Rabbis (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, v. 15); and they interrupt now to disclaim the idea that there was any thought of killing Him. This is a lifelike touch. It was not the “people,” but the “Jews,” who had begun the plot; the people knew nothing of it.

δαιμόνιον ἔχεις. The same thing was said of John the Baptist, as an explanation of his asceticism (Mat 11:18); and later on, Jn. records that the Jewish leaders, or some of them, accused Jesus of being possessed with a demon (8:48, 49, 10:20; cf. Mar 3:22). But here it is the people who say “Thou hast a demon,” meaning not to impute moral blame but mental infirmity. It is a well-known sign of insanity to believe that other people are in league against one. “Who seeks to kill you?” It is only your disordered imagination which makes you suspect it (cf. Mar 3:21). See Introd., p. clxxvii.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A devil [δαιμονιον] . Or more correctly, a demon. See on Mr 1:34. The name was applied to Jesus by the multitude [οχλος] and not by those whom He was addressing in ver. 19, because of the gloomy suspicions which they thought He entertained, and in entire ignorance of the design of the Jews which Jesus had penetrated. The same term was applied to John the Baptist, the ascetic, as one who withdrew from social intercourse (Mt 11:18).

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vv. 20, 21. Jesus was going to explain Himself, when the portion of this multitude which was not acquainted with the designs of the rulers, interrupts Him and charges Him with giving Himself up to gloomy ideas and suspicions without foundation. Despondency, melancholy, sombre thoughts were attributed to a diabolical possession (theκακοδαιμονᾷν of the Greeks). Jesus, without noticing this supposition, which must fall of itself, simply takes up again and continues His argument which had been already begun. He acknowledges having done one work, not a miracle in general, but an act in which one can see a work contrary to the Sabbatic ordinance: “And thereupon,” He adds, “behold you are all crying out with offense and wishing for my death because of this work!” The word θαυμάζειν expresses here the horror which one feels at a monstrous act. ῝Εν ἔργον, one single work, in contrast to all theirs of the same kind, which they, every one of them, do in the case which He is about to cite to them.

The first words of Joh 7:22 : Moses has given you circumcision, reproduce the analogous words of Joh 7:19 :Has not Moses given you the law? and complete them. The point in hand is to render this fact palpable to them: thatMoses indeed, their own lawgiver, places himself on His side in the act which He is about to call to their minds. Indeed, this Moses who gave them the law of Sinai and established the Sabbath (Joh 7:19), is he who also prescribed to them circumcision (Joh 7:22). Now, by giving you this second ordinance, he has himself made all the Israelitish fathers of families transgressors of the first. For, as each one of them is bound to circumcise his child on the eighth day, it follows that every time that the eighth day falls upon a Sabbath, they themselves sacrifice the Sabbatic rest to the ordinance of circumcision. In the single word of Moses relative to circumcision (Lev 12:3), the inevitable collision of this rite with the Sabbatic ordinance was neither provided for nor regulated. It was the Israelite conscience which had spontaneously resolved the collision in favor of circumcision, rightly placing the well-being of the man above the Sabbatic obligation. In our first edition, we referred the διὰ τοῦτο, for this cause, with most modern interpreters (Weiss, Keil, etc.; Waitz does not decide), to the verb: you are in astonishment, of Joh 7:21.

This reference is justified by the difficulty of making the for this bear upon the following idea: Moses has given. How, indeed, can we make Jesus say that Moses has given to the Jews the command to circumcise with a view to the conflict which would result from it with the Sabbatic command? We do not discuss the opinion of Meyer and Luthardt, who make the διὰ τοῦτο, for this cause, of Joh 7:22, refer to the clause οὐχ ὅτι, not that ..., an interpretation which evidently does violence to the text. But is it not possible to justify the grammatical reference of the words: for this, to the totality of Joh 7:22? The following, in that case, is the sense: “It is precisely for this, that is to say, with the design of teaching you not to judge as you are doing—when you are scandalized (θαυμάζετε) at my Sabbath work—that Moses did not hesitate to impose the rite of circumcision upon you, while introducing into his law this conflict with the law of the Sabbath. Thereby, he has justified me in advance, by making all of you commit the transgression for which you are seeking to kill me.” Thus understood, this for this cause contains the most piquant irony: “Moses has in advance pleaded my cause before you, by making you all jointly responsible for the crime with which you charge me, and by himself proving to you in this way that, when the good of man demands it, the rest of the Sabbath must be subordinated to a higher interest.” If we accept this sense, we must make the for this cause refer also to the last clause of Joh 7:22 : “For this cause indeed has Moses given you...and consequently you perform the rite of circumcision even on the Sabbath.”

It is not easy to understand the purpose of the limitation: Not that circumcision is of Moses, but of the fathers.If it were intended, as a large number of interpreters will have it, to exalt the rite of circumcision by recalling to mind its high antiquity, it would weaken rather than strengthen the argument; for the more venerable the rite of circumcision is, the more natural is it that it should take precedence of the Sabbath, a point which diminishes the force of the argument. Besides, might it not have been answered: The Sabbath also is anterior to Moses, it is anterior even to Abraham, for it dates from the creation? Hengstenberg and many others think that, in inserting this remark, Jesus means to defend His Scriptural erudition, which was praised in Joh 7:15, from the charge of inaccuracy which the preceding declaration might bring upon Him. This explanation is puerile; if it were well founded, nothing would remain, as Lucke says, but to impute this parenthesis to the narrator.

The true explanation is, perhaps, the following: “Although circumcision does not form a part of the totality of the Mosaic code, given by means of the angels and placed in the hands of the mediator (Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2), and although it was only the result of a patriarchal tradition, nevertheless Moses did not hesitate to assign to it, in the Israelitish life, a dignity before which he made the Sabbath itself give way; an evident proof that everything which is of importance to the salvation of man takes precedence of the Sabbath.” This remark would serve to confirm the entire argument of the Lord. Or it might be necessary to explain the matter in this way: In general, the more recent regulation abolishes ipso facto the earlier one. It would seem, then, that the ordinance of circumcision must yield precedence to that of the Sabbath, which was more positive and more recent. And yet here there is nothing of the kind; it is the Sabbath that must give way. This circumstance would also rise in evidence against the absolute, exaggerated importance which was attributed by the Jews to the Sabbatic rest. Renan cites this passage as one of those which “bear the marks of erasures or corrections” (p. xxxii.). When properly understood, the passage becomes, on the contrary, from one end to the other, an example of the most concise logical argumentation.

The words of Joh 7:23 : that the law of Moses may not be broken, have a special force: the Jews transgress the Sabbath (by circumcising on that day) precisely to the end that they may not disobey Moses!—In order thoroughly to understand the a fortiori of Joh 7:23, we must remember that there are in these two facts which are placed in a parallelism, circumcision and the cure wrought by Jesus, at once a physical and a moral side. In circumcision, the physical side consists in a local purification; and the moral side in the incorporation into the typical covenant of the circumcised child. In the miracle of Jesus, the physical fact was a complete restoration of the health of the impotent man, and the moral end, his salvation (Joh 7:14 “Thou hast been healed, sin no more”). In these two respects, the superiority of the second of these acts to the first was beyond question; and consequently the infraction of the Sabbath was justified, in the point of view of its utility for the human being, in the second case still more than in the first. We must avoid the explanation of Bengel and Stier, who think that by the expression: a whole man, Jesus here means to designate the physical and moral man, in contrast to the purely physical man, the end in view in circumcision. Circumcision was not, in the eyes of the Jews, a merely medical affair.

What is remarkable in this defense is, in the first place, the fact that Jesus does not set forth the miraculousnature of the act which was made the subject of accusation; one work, He modestly says: it is nevertheless clear that the marvelous character of this work forms the imposing rear guard of the argument. In the next place, there is the difference between this mode of justification and that of chap. 5: Jesus here speaks to the multitudes; His demonstration is not dogmatic; He borrows it from a fact of practical life, of which every Jew was constantly a witness, if even he was not a participator in it: “What I have done, you all do, and for much less!” What could be more popular and more striking? We find again, at the foundation of this argument, the axiom which is formulated by Jesus in the Synoptics: “Man is not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath is made for man” (Mar 2:27).

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.