=50-52.= On the character of Nicodemus, see notes on ch. 3. The impression which Jesus had made upon him in that interview was an abiding one. There is a covert sarcasm in his question here, _Doth our law judge the man except it first hear him and know what he doeth?_ They themselves knew not the law, and were openly disregarding it. The Rabbinical laws explicitly required that every accused person should have a hearing, with an opportunity to confront the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them. See Vol. I, p. 298. That Nicodemus’ rebuke was felt by the Pharisees is shown by the tone of their answer. They replied, not by argument, but by a sneer, _Art thou also of Galilee?_ and by a falsehood, _Out of Galilee hath arisen_ (perfect, not present) _no prophet_. Jonah was of Galilee (2 Kings 14:25), Elijah very probably so (1 Kings 17:1;--_Alford_), and Nahum either of Galilee or of Assyria, a heathen land (Nahum 1:1). The prejudices of the Pharisees led them to forget their history as well as their law. In lieu of _doth our law judge any man?_ read _the man_, _i. e._, this man; Nicodemus refers specifically to Jesus. In lieu of _ariseth_ read _hath arisen_; though there is some uncertainty. Alford gives the present tense, _ariseth_; Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Meyer, with greater probability, the past tense, _hath arisen_. With either reading the meaning is substantially the same; not, as Godet, The promised prophet is not now arising, but, as Meyer and Alford, No prophet ever ariseth from Galilee. 53 And every man went unto his own house. =53.= This verse belongs with the next chapter. CHAPTER VIII. Ch. 7:53 to 8:11. THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY.--ILLUSTRATES: THE TACT OF CHRIST--THE PRECEPT, JUDGE NOT, THAT YE BE NOT JUDGED--THE POWER OF CONSCIENCE--THE CHRISTIAN TREATMENT OF THE FALLEN. PRELIMINARY NOTE.--Verse 53 of ch. 7 belongs unquestionably with the first eleven verses of ch. 8. Whether the whole passage is really a part of John’s Gospel or no is one of the most difficult and doubtful questions in Biblical criticism. The weight of critical authority is against it; the weight of internal evidence is in its favor. For a complete discussion of the considerations _pro_ and _con_, the student must be referred to the commentaries of Alford, Meyer, Luthardt, and Godet, the last being, of the three, the most comprehensive in its treatment. Here I give briefly (1) the facts, (2) the different opinions, (3) my own conclusion.