(4) Some, fis Chemnitius, Musculus, and De Dieu, interpret "therefore" as "because," and make the sentence mean, " Because Moses gave you circumcision, you circumcise a man on the Sabbath day," etc. But it seems a violent strain to make the Greek word we render "therefore" mean "because."— (5) Some, finally, as Alford, Burgon, Barradius, Toletus, and Lyranus, would connect "therefore" with the middle of this verse, and would have it mean, " For this reason Moses gave you circumcision, viz., not because it was an ordinance ap- pointed first by him, but because it was given to the fathers," — i. c, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This last is perhaps as tenable a view as any. But it is undeniably a difficulty, and must remain so. Adopting this view, the whole verse may be paraphrased as follows : — " Moses, whose name and law you highly reverence, gave you among other things the ordinance of circumcision. He gave it, remember, for this reason : because it was an old ordinance, handed down to him by your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not an ordinance first com- municated to him like the Levitical law. Now you, in obedience to the ordinance of circumcision, which ought to be administered on the eighth day after a child's birth, think it no breach of the fourth commandment to circumcise a child on the Sabbath day. In fact, you postpone the law of the Sabbath to the law of circumcision. You admit that a work of piety and necessity may be clone on the Sabbath day. You admit that the fourth commandment which was given on Mount Sinai was not so important as the older law of circumcision."
Burgon shows that " therefore " is used just in the same way as here, at the beginning of a sentence, and pointing forward, in John v. 16, 18 ; viii. 47 ; x. 17 ; xii. 18, 39.
We should note how here, as elsewhere, our Lord refers to Moses as a real person, and to the Old Testament history as real true history.
23. — [If a man, etc.'] The argument in this verse is as follows : — " Even among yourselves you circumcise a child on the Sabbath day, when it happens to be the eighth day after his birth, in order that the law of circumcision, which your great lawgiver, Moses, sanctioned and re-ordained, should not be broken. You thus admit the whole principle that there is some work which may be done on the Sabbath day. Is it then just and fair to be angry with me, because I have done a far greater work to a mau on the Sabbath, than the work of circumcision? I have not wounded his body by circumcision, but made him perfectly whole. I have not done a purifying work to one particular part of him, but have restored his whole body to health and strength. I have not done a work of necessity to one single member only, but a work of necessity and benefit to the whole man."
I cannot see any ground for the idea suggested by Alford, that our Lord implies in this verse, that the law of the Sabbath
25
is a mere Judaical practice and comparatively a modern crdinance, and that as such it properly gave way to the older and higher law of circumcision, which was "of the fathers." — It might be replied, firstly, that the Sabbath is so far from being a Jndaical institution, that it is actually olclerthan circumcision, and was appointed in Paradise. — It might be replied, secondly, that our Lord seems purposely to guard against the idea by speaking of circumcision as " given by Moses," and as a part of "the law of Moses." In fact, He does this twice with such curious particularity, that one might think He meant to guard against any one wresting this passage into an argument against the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath day. He is pleased for the occasion to speak both of circumcision and the SabT)ath as part of " the law of Moses." He did this purposely, because the minds of His hearers were full of Moses and the law at this particular period. And His argument amounts to this, that if they themselves allowed the Mosaic law of the Sabbath must give way in a case of necessity to the Mosaic law of circumci- sion, they admitted that some works might be done on the Sabbath day; and therefore His work of healing an entire man on the Sabbath day could not be condemned as sinful.
The marginal reading, " without breaking the law of Moses," instead of "that the law of Moses should not be broken," appears to me inadmissible and unnecessary. It is inadmissible, because it is a forced and unnatural interpretation of the Greek words. It is unnecessary, because our Lord is evidently speaking of circumcision as part of " the law of Moses."
The idea of some commentators, as Trapp, Rollock, Plutcheson, Beza, and Stier, that " every whit whole " means 11 wholeness" of soul as well as body, and implies conversion of heart as well as restoration to entire health and strength of the physical man, appears to me unlikely and far-fetched. It is a pious thought, but not apparently in our Lord's mind. More- over, it is not quite certain that the man healed at Bethesdawas healed in soul as well as body. There is no clear proof of it.
2\.— [Judge not according to the appearance, etc.'] The sense of this verse mu»t. be sought in connection with the subject of which our lord has just been speaking. The Jews had condemned our Lord and denounced Him as a sinner against the fourth commandment, because He had done a work on the Sabbath day. Our Lord refers to this and says,—" Judge not the deed I did according to the appearance. I did a work on the Sabbath unquestionably. But what kind of a work was it? It was an act of necessity and mercy, and therefore an act as lawful to be clone as circumcision, which you yourselves perform on the Sabbath clay. In appearance the Sabbath was broken. In reality it was not broken at all. Judge fair and just and righteous judgment. Do not hastily condemn an action, such as this, without looking below the surface."
26