John 7 23

John 7:23 kjv

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?

John 7:23 nkjv

If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?

John 7:23 niv

Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man's whole body on the Sabbath?

John 7:23 esv

If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well?

John 7:23 nlt

For if the correct time for circumcising your son falls on the Sabbath, you go ahead and do it so as not to break the law of Moses. So why should you be angry with me for healing a man on the Sabbath?

John 7 verses

John 7 23 Meaning

John 7:23 reveals Jesus' strategic use of an argument from Jewish Law to expose the hypocrisy of those who sought to condemn Him for healing on the Sabbath. He highlights that if circumcision, a physical cutting, is permitted on the Sabbath to uphold the Mosaic Law, how much more justifiable is it for Him to make a person entirely whole and well on the Sabbath, an act of life and restoration? This rhetorical question underscores that an act of mercy and comprehensive restoration, reflecting God's life-giving character, is far superior to ritual observance and should not be considered a violation, but rather a fulfillment of the Law's true intent.

John 7 23 Context

John chapter 7 recounts Jesus' presence at the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) in Jerusalem, where His teachings cause division among the people. The Jewish leaders, specifically the Sanhedrin, are seeking to arrest and kill Him, largely because of His claims and His previous acts of healing on the Sabbath, as documented in John chapter 5. In John 7:19-22, Jesus directly confronts their plot and accusation: "Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?" He then introduces the topic of circumcision as a logical appeal to their own accepted legal interpretations. Verse 23, therefore, serves as the culminating rhetorical question, a "light to heavy" or a fortiori argument (qal va-chomer), intended to expose their selective and hypocritical application of the Mosaic Law, where a small cut to fulfil a ritual is acceptable, but complete restoration of a person's life is condemned. The historical context reveals the strict Halakha (Jewish law) interpretations of the Pharisees, who had expanded upon the biblical commands to include numerous oral traditions concerning Sabbath restrictions. Yet, the divine command for circumcision on the 8th day (Lev 12:3) took precedence over Sabbath rest, a widely accepted legal precedent among Jewish authorities.

John 7 23 Word analysis

• If a man receives circumcision (εἰ ἄνθρωπος περιτομὴν λαμβάνει - ei anthrōpos peritomēn lambanei): This highlights the universally accepted practice of performing circumcision even if the eighth day fell on the Sabbath. The term "man" (anthrōpos) denotes any individual in their communal understanding. "Receives" (lambanei) points to it being an inherited command to be fulfilled.
• on the Sabbath (ἐν σαββάτῳ - en sabbatō): This clearly states the timing of the act, the very day on which work was forbidden. It sets up the direct comparison with Jesus' own action.
• so that the law of Moses may not be broken (ἵνα μὴ λυθῇ ὁ νόμος Μωϋσέως - hina mē lythē ho nomos Mōuseōs): This crucial clause signifies that the circumcision was not a Sabbath "violation" but a "fulfillment" of a higher command within the same Law. "Broken" (lythē) implies annulled or dissolved, indicating a serious offense against the Law's integrity. It demonstrates their own prioritization within the Mosaic covenant.
• are you angry with Me (ἐμοὶ χολᾶτε - emoi cholate): A strong rhetorical question revealing the deep-seated anger (cholate – lit. "to be bitter" or "enraged") of Jesus' opponents. This emotion contrasts sharply with the joy and restoration accompanying His healing.
• because I made a man entirely well (ὅτι ὅλον ἄνθρωπον ὑγιῆ ἐποίησα - hoti holon anthrōpon hygiē epoiēsa): Jesus' action is not merely therapeutic but holistic. "Entirely well" (holon hygiē) means whole and sound, emphasizing complete restoration from suffering, a work of divine compassion and power, far beyond a ritual cut.
• on the Sabbath (ἐν σαββάτῳ - en sabbatō): The direct parallel again emphasizes the perceived transgression.
• Word-group Analysis:
  • "circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses may not be broken" vs. "made a man entirely well on the Sabbath": This core juxtaposition is the heart of Jesus' argument. He pits a commanded physical mutilation for covenant identity against a divine, life-giving act of complete restoration. The argument suggests that if an act that involves "breaking" skin is allowed for the Law, how much more is healing the whole person allowed by the very spirit of that Law.
  • "law of Moses may not be broken" vs. "are you angry with Me": This highlights the hypocrisy. They interpret the law in a way that allows a "work" for ritual but condemn a work of compassion, effectively nullifying the weightier matters of the Law like mercy and love, while upholding only the letter of specific commands. This reveals a polemic against legalistic interpretation that lacks compassion and divine insight.
  • "a man" vs. "a man entirely well": The simple act of circumcision on a baby vs. Jesus restoring a "whole" man from sickness and disability. The latter is an act of creative, life-giving power, bringing flourishing (shalom).

John 7 23 Bonus section

The argument in John 7:23 can be understood through the lens of Jewish scholastic arguments (known as kal v'chomer), where a lighter case allows for a heavier one. If cutting a foreskin, an act causing a small wound, is permissible on the Sabbath, then certainly an act that makes an entire human whole, preventing further suffering or death, should also be. The Sabbath, given by God for humanity's benefit, was meant to be a day of blessing, rest, and drawing near to God, not a day for increased burdens or ritualistic constraints that prevented compassionate action. Jesus consistently demonstrated that works of mercy and saving life aligned with the divine will, not against it. His actions fulfilled the spirit of the Sabbath, revealing Him as the Lord of the Sabbath who brings true rest and wholeness. The dispute was fundamentally about Jesus' authority and His divine nature – if He had the power to make a man entirely well, then His understanding of God's Law carried ultimate authority.

John 7 23 Commentary

John 7:23 distills Jesus' argument against the misapplication of the Sabbath law by His Jewish accusers. His core point is one of proportionality and priority within God's own commands. If performing circumcision, which involves physical work (a surgical act), is deemed necessary on the Sabbath to uphold the Mosaic Law (specifically Lev 12:3), then how illogical and inconsistent is it to condemn Him for performing a vastly superior act: making a human being completely healthy and whole? This healing is not a "breaking" of the Sabbath but an embodying of its deeper purpose—the restoration and preservation of life, a divine work of grace. Jesus exposes their legalism, which elevates ritual over human well-being and God's compassionate action, thereby showing their own failure to truly understand or obey the Law of Moses in its full intent, which includes justice and mercy.