In John 7:1-13 it is recorded that Jesus’ brothers urged him to attend the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem in order that he might display his miracle-working power there.

Jesus replies:

7:8 You go up to the feast yourselves. I am not going up to this feast because my time has not yet fully arrived.” 7:9 When he had said this, he remained in Galilee.

However, it is then stated:

7:10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then Jesus himself also went up, not openly but in secret.

How do we deal with this apparent contradiction?

1. Some appeal to a textual variant, which replaces ouk – ‘not going’ with oupō – ‘not yet going’.  So AV, RV, NKJV, NIV (1984), So older commentators, such as Matthew Henry, Poole, Barnes, JFB, Ryle, and also (more recently) Hendriksen.  Thus, for them, there is no real problem.  This reading of the text has quite good manuscript support.  But textual scholars tend to regard difficult readings as more likely, and thus suggest that οὔπω was an early scribal amendment, introduced in order to ease the apparent discrepancy.

Hendriksen thinks that the evidence for the two readings is about equal in strength, and prefers the simplicity of the oupō reading.  On the alternative reading, only ‘unnatural’ explanations are possible:

‘According to some, when Jesus said, “I go not up,” he meant, “I am not going up in order to manifest myself as the Messiah. That I will do at a later feast.” According to others, verse 8 must be interpreted on this fashion: “I am not going up publicly, but secretly.” These commentators appeal to verse 10. Still others believe that Jesus changed his mind or that the Father changed his mind for him.’

But most modern translations (RSV, NASB, GNB, NIV 2011, NRSV, NLT, CSB, NET)  and commentators concur that ouk is the correct reading.  (But most translations from the modern do era note the alternative reading).  Therefore, we must give more careful consideration to their attempts to explain this.

2. Others argue that ‘not yet’ is implied, even if oupō is inauthentic (as it probably is).  This judgment is based on various factors, including the continuous tense of the saying (“I am not going”), and the nature of the explanation (‘because my time has not yet fully arrived’).

This is the view of most commentators, including Osborne, Carson, Morris, Barrett, Barclay, Ridderbos, Bruner, Michaels and Milne.

In other words, Jesus answered, ‘I am not going’ because the request was made for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time, and in the wrong way.  He will go when and if his Father signals that he should go (Carson), not at the suggestion of any would-be ‘campaign managers’.

Morris: ‘I am not going up to this Feast’, ‘but he was absent for a good part of the ceremonies, perhaps for all of them.’  (According to v14, Jesus began to teach in the Temple area when the Feast was ‘half over’.

Milne:

‘Jesus must wait for the Father’s direction. He will do only what the Father shows him (5:20). When he does set out for the feast, he goes in a manner which is the opposite of that recommended by his brothers, in secret (10).’

Osborne:

‘The key is to realize that Jesus was saying that he wouldn’t go until the Father designated that the time was right. He would not go in the way they wanted—that is, to provide public proof that he was the Messiah—but he would go in the way his Father wished, in private. He would not go with his brothers and do it the world’s way.’

Bruner tentatively supports this interpretation, observing that the present tense is used: ‘I am not going to this Festival (now), because my time has not yet come.’

Barrett regards this as a ‘superficial contradiction’, noting:

‘The point is that John’s οὐκ ἀναβαίνω merely negatives the request of the brothers, and does not negative absolutely the intention of Jesus to go to Jerusalem at the proper time. He refuses in the plainest terms to comply with human—and unbelieving—advice, acting with complete freedom and independence with regard to men, but in complete obedience to his Father.’

Jesus’ brothers wanted him to go ‘openly’; but, as v10 says, he did go, but ‘in secret’.

Beasley-Murray:

‘No evasion is intended here, any more than there was in Jn 2:4. Jesus is represented as not yet having received word from God as to his next move.’

Talbert sees in Jesus’ words one of those double meanings that we see elsewhere in this Gospel (cf.Jn 3:5; 4:10).  For Jesus, ‘going up’ could refer either to Jerusalem or to the Father (glorification).  It will not be the former, for his time has not yet fully come (Jn 2:4; 3:14; 7:30, 44; 8:20, 28; 10:17–18, 39; 12:23, 27, 31–36; 13:1, 31).  Talbert comments further:

‘Jesus refuses to have his salvific timetable determined by human pressures, even from those closest to him (mother, Jn 2:3–5; brothers, Jn 7:3, 10; beloved friends, Jn 11:3–6). If he acts (Jn 10:17–18), it will be when he sees what the Father is doing or hears what the Father is saying (Jn 5:19; 15:15b; 17:8). So while the brothers go up to the feast, Jesus stays in Galilee.’

Burge (NIVAC), similarly:

‘When Jesus says that he will not “go up” at the festival, he explains that he cannot because it is not yet his time (Jn 7:8). “Going up” in Greek can mean both pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Mark 10:33; John 12:20) or ascension (John 20:17). For him, “going up” is symbolic of his “hour” of betrayal, death, resurrection, and ascension. Thus in 7:30 when they do try to arrest him at the festival, they fail because “his time had not yet come.” Jesus knows that his departure from this world must await the coming Passover in the spring.’

Michaels, however, regards the imagery of ‘going up’ as hinting at Jesus ‘going up’ to the cross or to heaven as far-fetched.  For him, the more straightforward meaning is the more likely:

‘The usage is idiomatic. Because Jerusalem was the center of Israel—and of the world—for the observant Jew, one always “went up” to Jerusalem, no matter from what direction one was coming. Also, from most locations in Israel, at an altitude of 2,500 feet, Jerusalem would have been quite literally “up.”’ (UBNT)

Whiteacre suggests, perhaps a little speculatively:

‘Jesus says he is not going to the feast because for me the right time has not yet come (7:8). When he made the statement to them he had only their word that he should go, and he rejects them as a source of guidance. The fact that he does actually go to the feast suggests that he received instructions from the Father to go after he spoke to his brothers.’ (Emphasis added)

See this post by Bill Mounce.

3. Still others think that this may be an instance of deliberate ambiguity, or even of ‘positive’ deception.

Kruse (2nd ed.) cites Wesley, who likens this incident to that of Joseph, prior to his reconciliation with his brothers.

Kruse summarises the argument of Wesley:

‘Wesley suggests that had the brothers known that Jesus would follow them to the feast later, they would have sought to ‘orchestrate opportunities’ for him to display his power and to bring honour to their family. This may have brought on prematurely the opposition to Jesus that in the divine plan was not to culminate until the next festival. Wesley further notes that if Jesus did knowingly employ deception, it conformed to the three criteria for deception that restores shalom: it is limited to the person who caused the original wrong, it must not disadvantage the deceived person, and it must not advantage the deceiver beyond his or her status prior to suffering the original wrong. It can be shown that Jesus’ ‘deception’ of his brothers met these criteria.’

Kruse also cites Waltke (NBC), who discusses the instance of Rahab and the spies, adding:

‘So also the OT recognizes that in war intelligence, counter-intelligence and decoys are all part of “the game”. Joshua set an ambush (Jos. 8:9), and David used Hushai as a mole in conjunction with a network of spies (2 Sa. 15:32–37; 16:15–22). In the NT Paul escaped the Jews under the cover of night (Acts 9:23–26), and the angel took advantage of the sleeping soldiers to release Peter from Herod’s clutches (Acts 12:6–10). In most situations, however, lies are wrong (Pr. 30:7–8), and truth is required (Eph. 4:15). The believer must listen to God’s Spirit through Scripture and conscience so as not to rationalize the situation.’

Lincoln comments that what is recorded in v10, while representing a change of plan, fits an emerging pattern:

‘A request or suggestion is made to him and he rebuffs it, but then in a delayed response he accedes to it, yet on his own terms. This pattern was at work in his responses to his mother in accomplishing the first sign (Jn 2:3–10) and to the official from Capernaum in the second sign (Jn 4:47–53) and will recur in his reaction to the message from Martha and Mary in the account of the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11:3–15). Here Jesus refuses to act in accordance with his brothers’ agenda and timetable. He does eventually go the festival but it is now a decision that is taken in line with the divine schedule. It is also on his own terms. His brothers had urged him to show himself publicly, but Jesus does not go up as part of the public pilgrimage but rather travels in secret and only puts in an appearance halfway through the festival (cf. v. 14).’

We might add the conversation with the Cananite woman as another instance of Jesus appearing to change his mind (Mt 15:26).

Malina and Rohrbaugh (Social-Science Commentary) discuss this issue in relation to collectivist versus individualistic cultures.  They conclude:

‘What Jesus does here would thus be considered right and proper by a collectivist culture. For, as the author notes in v. 5, his brothers had no loyalty toward him; they stood outside his in-group. Jesus withholds the truth from the brothers because they are out-group persons and have no right to it. In so doing, he shows himself to be an honorable person who knows with whom the truth is properly to be shared.’

Klink (following Westcott) notes the following stress in Jesus’ statement: “I am not going up to this feast”.  The Feast of Tabernacles was associated with the eschatological hopes of Israel.  But these hopes rested on the shoulders of Jesus himself.  The celebrations were nothing without him.  Putting it simply:

‘he could not be a normal participant at the Feast, for he is the tabernacle, the thing to be celebrated, the fulfillment of the eschatological hopes.’

Conclusion

I feel most comfortable with the second interpretation.  However, I am also open to some elements of the third, given the penchant for double meanings in the Fourth Gospel.