20. St. John vi. 68, 69.
And this brings us to the second claim which Christ made, that of being sent by God.
There is yet another logical link in His reasoning. He had said: 'He shall know of the
teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from Myself.' From Myself? Why,
there is this other test of it: 'Who speaketh from himself, seeketh his own glory' - there
can be no doubt or question of this, but do I seek My own glory? - 'But He Who seeketh
the glor y of Him Who sent Him, He is true (a faithful messenger), and unrighteousness
is not in Him.'21 Thus did Christ appeal and prove it: My doctrine is of God, and I am
sent of God!
21. St. John vii. 18.
Sent of God, no unrighteousness in Him! And yet at tha t very moment there hung over
Him the charge of defiance of the Law of Moses, nay, of that of God, in an open breach
of the Sabbath-commandment - there, in that very City, the last time He had been in
Jerusalem; for which, as well as for His Divine claims, the Jews were even then seeking
'to kill Him.'22 And this forms the transition to what may be called the second part of
Christ's address. If, in the first part, the Jewish form of ratiocination was already
apparent, it seems almost impossible for any one acquainted with those forms to
understand how it can be overlooked in what follows.23 It is exactly the mode in which a
Jew would argue with Jews, only the substance of the reasoning is to all times and
people. Christ is defending Himself against a charge which naturally came up, when He
claimed that His Teaching was of God and Himself God's real and faithful Messenger. In
His reply the two threads of the former argument are taken up. Doing is the condition of
knowledge - and a messenger had been sent from God! Admittedly, Moses was such,
and yet every one of them was breaking the Law which he had given them; for, were
they not seeking to kill Him without right or justice? This, put in the form of a double
question,24 represents a peculiarly Jewish mode of a rgumentation, behind which lay the
terrible truth, that those, whose hearts were so little longing to do the Will of God, not
only must remain ignorant of His Teaching as that of God, but had also rejected that of
Moses.
22. St. John v. 18.
23. I regard this as almost overwhelming evidence against the theory of an Ephesian
authority of the Fourth Gospel. Even the double question in ver. 19 is here significant.
24. St. John vii. 19, 20.
A general disclaimer, a cry 'Thou hast a demon' (art possessed), 'who seeks to kill
Thee?' here broke in upon the Speaker. But He would not be interrupted, and
continued: 'One work I did, and all you wonder on account of it'25 - referring to His
healing on the Sabbath, and their utter inability to understand His conduct. Well, then,
Moses was a messenger of God, and I am sent of God. Moses gave the law of
circumcision - not, indeed, that it was of his authority, but had long before been God-
given - and, to observe this law, no one hesitated to break the Sabbath,26 since,