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.
I. _The facts._ (1) The passage in question is wanting in many if not
most of the best MSS.; pre-eminently the Alexandrian, the Vatican, the
Ephraem, and the Sinaitic. Of the great manuscripts, the Cambridge
alone contains it. (2) It is transposed in some documents; one places
it in John after 7:36; ten at the end of John; four in the Gospel of
Luke, at the close of ch. 21. (3) In those MSS. which contain it there
are great variations. Griesbach distinguishes three entirely different
texts; the ordinary text, that of the Cambridge MS., and that
resulting from a collection of other MSS. Alford gives these three in
his Greek Testament. Sixty various readings are found in these twelve
verses. “No genuine apostolic text has ever undergone such
alterations.”--(_Godet._) (4) The style and character of the narrative
is strikingly unlike John. These differences are partly verbal, and
are apparent only to the Greek scholar. Ten expressions are given by
Meyer as non-Johannean. They are partly structural, and as easily
recognized by the English reader as by the Greek scholar. Such are the
propounding of a question concerning the law to tempt Christ, and the
departure of Christ at night from the temple, both of which agree
rather with the Synoptics’ account of the last sojourn in Jerusalem
than with John’s account of this period of Christ’s ministry. If the
account is omitted altogether, the discourse in ch. 7 and that in ch.
8 appear to be in close connection; the interruption of this incident
is not very clearly cognate to either discourse; and it is not John’s
habit to narrate incidents that are not connected with and do not lead
to some discourse of the Lord. (5) Among the fathers Origen,
Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Tertullian are altogether silent about
the passage; Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine recognize it as authentic;
among critical scholars Lucke, Tholuck, Olshausen, De Wette, Luthardt,
Hengstenberg, Schenkel, Godet, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, and
Schaff apparently agree in regarding it as an addition by some other
hand to John’s Gospel; Bengel and Hilgenfeld are the only scholars of
widely recognized reputation who defend its Johannean authorship. (6)
But though the narrative is unlike John, the act is very like Jesus.
The whole scene possesses an air of historic reality: the arrest of
the woman, the demand on Jesus, the Pharisaic contempt for public
morality in obtruding the crime and the criminal on public attention
in the temple courts; the attempt to entrap Jesus; the skill of his
reply; the subtle recognition of the woman’s shame and despair, and
the gentle avoidance of adding to it, in turning the public gaze from
her to himself by writing on the ground; the final confusion of the
Pharisees and release of the woman. It is impossible to believe that
any monkish mind conceived of this and added it to the narrative. The
deed is the deed of Christ, whether or no the record is the record of
John.
II. _Opinions._ These are three: (1) That the narrative belongs here;
was written by John, and was expunged from the Gospel at an early date
because it was feared that an immoral use would be made of it. This
was Augustine’s opinion. But this hypothesis does not account for the
variety of readings, nor for peculiarities in character and diction
which make it unlike John’s Gospel. (2) That it is an interpolation of
a later age, for a purpose, by some early copyist. But the copyist who
could have conceived this incident must have possessed the moral
genius of Christ himself. “It is eminently Christlike, and full of
comfort to penitent outcasts. It breathes the Saviour’s spirit of holy
mercy, which condemns the sin and saves the sinner. It is parallel to
the parable of the prodigal, the story of Mary Magdalene, and that of
the Samaritan woman, and agrees with many express declarations of
Christ that he came not to condemn, but to save the lost (John 3:17;
12:47; Luke 9:56; 19:10; comp. John 5:14; Luke 7:37, etc.). His
refusal to act as judge in this case has a parallel in a similar case
related in Luke 12:13-15.”--(_Schaff._) (3) That it is a tradition of
the apostolic age, and was incorporated in the present evangelical
narratives, probably in the second or third century, but in different
forms and in different places. It may have been originally part of one
of the lost Gospels. Eusebius relates that the work of Papias
contained “the history of a woman accused before the Lord of numerous
sins, a history contained also in the Gospel of the Hebrews.” This
opinion, which is substantially that of Godet, Meyer, Luthardt, and
Alford, accounts for the existence of the narrative, the apparent
truthfulness of it, the variations of form, and the non-Johannean
characteristics of style. It seems to me inherently the most probable.
On internal grounds it seems to me clear that the narrative is
historical; on critical grounds that it is not John’s; who was its
author and how it became incorporated in John’s Gospel is a matter
only of conjecture.
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple,
and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and
taught them.
=Ch. 7:53 to 8:1, 2. Every man went unto his own house; Jesus went unto
the Mount of Olives.= The force of the contrast is impaired by the
unfortunate and unnatural break between the two clauses of what should
be printed as a single sentence. The auditors had homes; Jesus had no
where to lay his head; and if, as is probable, this incident belongs
to the Passion week, it was not safe for him to spend a night within
the city walls. He either spent it on the mount or went beyond it to
Bethany, the home of his friends Martha and Mary.--=He sat down and
taught them.= One of the indications that this passage is not from
John; for “it is not in John’s manner to relate that Jesus taught
them, without relating what he taught” (_Alford_).
[Illustration: THE MOUNT OF OLIVES. (From the wall of Jerusalem.)]
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman
taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in
adultery, in the very act.
5 Now[305] Moses in the law commanded us that such should
be stoned: but what sayest thou?
[305] Lev. 20:10.
=3-5. Brought unto him a woman.= There was no reason why they should
have brought her to him, except for the purpose of involving him in
difficulty.--=When they had set her in the midst.= This public
exposure to shame was itself a terrible punishment, and aroused the
pity, the shame, and the indignation of Jesus. It was not done in the
interest of public morals. They were flagrantly disregarded in this
obtrusion of a public scandal into the midst of the temple worship, by
accusers who cared not for her, nor for the general public, if they
could but involve in perplexity and bring into disrepute the Rabbi
whom they so bitterly hated.--=In the very act.= The man was equally
amenable under the Mosaic law to the death penalty (Lev. 20:10; Deut.
22:22). But the man they had let go; for then, as now, society
punished the guilty woman, but not the guilty man.--=That such should
be stoned.= Stoning was only commanded by Moses for unfaithfulness in
a betrothed virgin (Deut. 22:23, 24). But infidelity in a wife is made
by the preceding verse punishable with death, and perhaps, by
implication, the same form of death.
[Illustration: THE WOMAN AND HER ACCUSERS.
“_He that is without sin among you let him first cast a stone at her._”]
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to
accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with _his_ finger
wrote on the ground, _as though he heard them not_.
=6. This they said tempting him.= The commentators have been needlessly
puzzled to explain how Christ’s answer to this question could have
furnished matter for accusation. The Pharisees would have accused him
to the people, not to the Roman government. The law of Moses was a dead
letter. There is no authentic instance in post-Mosaic history of an
execution under it. Divorce was easy, and the injured husband generally
avoided public disgrace by simply separating from his unfaithful wife.
Could Christ refuse to adjudge the case? He had claimed to be King of
Israel, in the Sermon on the Mount, had put his own precepts above
those of Moses, and had proclaimed a far more stringent law of purity
than Moses ever enacted (Matt. 5:27-32). Could he acquit her,
and so set aside the Mosaic law? He had declared that not one jot or
tittle of it should pass away till all was fulfilled, and that whoever
relaxed the least of its precepts should be least in his kingdom. Could
he condemn her? He would thus revive an obsolete statute, and enforce
it against a hapless and defenceless woman--he who had come to seek
and to save the lost, who had received the publican and harlot among
his disciples, and had accepted the homage of a notorious woman of the
town (Luke 7:36-39). It often happens that people are unwilling
to have a teacher set aside in theory a law which they are equally
unwilling to see enforced in practice. Only a small minority is willing
in our own day to abolish capital punishment; but only rarely is a
jury willing to inflict it. There are comparatively few persons who
are willing to live according to the Sabbath law which they wish their
minister to preach.--=But Jesus stooped down and with his finger wrote
on the ground.= The words _as though he heard them not_ are an addition
of the translators, though at least one manuscript contains the
idea. What was the meaning of this action? Various opinions have been
suggested, _e. g._, a usual act signifying preoccupation of mind
(_Alford_); to hide his own confusion, the shock to his own moral
sensibility by the grossness of the Pharisees’ public abuse of the
woman (_Geikie_); as a judge, for a judicial sentence is not only
pronounced, but written (_Godet_); as a refusal to interfere, a sign
that he paid no attention to their question (_Meyer_, _Luthardt_).
His object in this writing seems to me to be interpreted by its
result. It turned all eyes from the wretched woman, in an anguish of
shame and terror, to himself. She stood alone and forgotten; all eyes
were then and have ever since been fixed on the figure of Christ,
wondering what and why he wrote in the dust. It is not fanciful to
note the contrast between this writing and that prescribed in case
of the trial of a suspected adulteress by the Mosaic law (Numb.
5:23). The priest was to write certain curses in a book, then
wash them with bitter water, which the accused was required to drink,
that the curses might enter into her if she were guilty. Christ, on
the contrary, writes his sentence on the sand, where, in a moment,
it will be effaced by the pardon, “Neither do I condemn thee; go,
and sin no more.” What he wrote has been made a matter of ingenious
rather than profitable conjecture. The most probable conjecture is that
he wrote the sentence, “He that is without sin amongst you,” etc.,
thus enabling the Pharisees, if they had not been too passionately
intent on their design, to avoid his public rebuke.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself,
and said unto them, He that is without sin among you,[306]
let him first cast a stone at her.
[306] Deut. 17:7; Rom. 2:1, 22.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard _it_, being convicted by _their own_
conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest,
_even_ unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the
woman standing in the midst.
=7-9. So when they continued asking.= They would not take the rebuke
of his quiet contempt. Had they stopped to think, conscience would
have answered their inquiry; but they were too eager; they did not
hear what it had to say to them; Christ must interpret its voice; and
he did so with a poignant rebuke.--=He that is without sin among you,
let him first cast a stone at her.= Christ puts on them the problem
with which they had sought to perplex him. In their vindictive haste
they had forgotten the provision of the law that the witnesses on
whose testimony the accused was condemned should cast the first stone
(Deut. 17:5-7). They had also forgotten the provision of the
Rabbinical law that, in case of accusation, if the husband was not
guiltless, the wife could not be condemned (_Lightfoot_). Christ
recalls these two principles, and leaves them to solve their own
problem. Go on, he says in effect, and try and condemn the accused
according to your own law. Let the sinless cast the first stone. But a
deeper meaning is in his words. Unchastity was a universal sin in the
first century. Its extent in Palestine is illustrated by the
licentious lives of the Herods, father and sons. Nowhere was this vice
more flagrant and unrestrained than among the priests, whose
licentiousness was no secret to the common people (see Matt. 12:39;
James 4:4). It was this revelation of their own guilt, implied in the
words and easily understood by the people, which stung them, and drove
them, self-condemned, one by one, from the presence of both the
accused and the judge.--=And again he stooped down.= To give
conscience in them an opportunity to assert itself, with as little
resistance as possible from pride. He gave them no opportunity to
answer; he did not look to see who was first to withdraw.--=Beginning
with the elders.= The word rendered eldest (πρεσβυτέρων) is almost
universally rendered _elders_, generally as an official designation,
and frequently in connection with the word _ruler_ (_e. g._, Matt.
15:2; 16:21; Mark 8:31; 15:1; Luke 7:3; 22:52). Here it seems to me
more probably to designate rank (_Lucke_, _De Wette_) than age
(_Luthardt_, _Godet_). The leaders in the accusation were the first
to withdraw. The words “even unto the last” are wanting in most
MSS.--=Jesus was left alone.= The circle of accusers had all
withdrawn. The people and the disciples may have still remained; hence
the woman is described as “standing in the midst;” that is, of the
auditors who, before this interruption, had been listening to the
teaching of Jesus (ver. 2). The woman remains waiting, as if to
receive the sentence of Jesus. The people remain waiting to hear the
end of this strange episode.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the
woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine
accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither
do I condemn[307] thee: go, and sin[308] no more.
[307] ch. 3:17.
[308] ch. 5:14.
=10, 11. Hath no man condemned thee?= They had then _all_withdrawn?--
=Neither do I condemn thee.= He contrasts himself with the accusers;
they could not, he will not. He does not, however, pronounce her
forgiven. There is no evidence of repentance or of faith, as, for
example, in the case of the woman that was a sinner in Luke 7:37. His
language condemns the sin, and it gives opportunity for repentance
to the sinner. “It is a declaration of sufferance, not of
justification.”--(_Godet._)--=Go, and sin no more.= Comp. ch. 5:14.
The object of divine forgiveness is a divine life in the forgiven.
* * * * *
Ch. 8:12-20. CHRIST’S DISCOURSE CONCERNING HIMSELF.--HE IS LIGHT,
LIBERTY, LIFE.--HE GIVES LIGHT TO THOSE THAT FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE,
LIBERTY TO THOSE THAT OBEY HIS WORD, LIFE TO THOSE THAT PUT THEIR
FAITH IN HIM.--HE IS ATTESTED BY HIS OWN CHARACTER AND BY HIS FATHER’S
WITNESS.--HE IS MADE KNOWN IN AND BY HIS PASSION AND DEATH.--HIS FATHER
IS THE SOURCE OF HIS TEACHING, HIS WORKS, AND HIS CHARACTER.--HIS
CHARACTERIZATION OF WILFUL OPPUGNERS OF THE TRUTH: CHILDREN OF THE
WORLD; CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL.--CHRIST’S SHORT METHOD WITH DEISTS (ver.
46). See note at end of chapter.
The exact chronology of the events from this point to the close of
the tenth chapter is very uncertain and quite unimportant. One
characteristic feature of the feast of the Tabernacles was the
illumination of the temple; the two great candelabra of the Court of
the Women were lighted, and it is said in the Rabbinical hooks that
the light shone all over Jerusalem. Since Christ was accustomed to
take his text from passing events, it is a not improbable surmise that
this illumination afforded the suggestion for the discourse on the
divine light which follows. The illumination of the temple
commemorated the pillar of fire, as the ceremony of drawing water (see
ch. 7:37, etc., notes) commemorated the striking of the rock in Horeb
and the gift of water from it, and the dwelling in booths recalled the
time when Israel dwelt in tents and booths in the wilderness. We may
therefore see in Christ an antitype of the fiery cloud that guided
Israel in their pilgrimage, and in the Shechinah filling the
Tabernacle (Exod. 40:34, 35), an illustration of the light which
Christ imparts to those that follow him.
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I[309] am the
light of the world: he that[310] followeth me shall not
walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
[309] chaps. 1:4; 9:5.
[310] ch. 12:35, 46.
=12. I am the light of the world.= The illumination of the temple
lighted Jerusalem; that of the fiery cloud, Israel. Christ is
the light, not merely of his disciples, or of the Jewish nation,
but of the _world_, a word which here, as always in the N. T.,
stands for the whole human race. Comp. ch. 1:4, 9, notes. He is
the _light_ as well as the life, coming to instruct as well as
to revive; a Saviour from ignorance as well as from wilful sin.
Therefore no ignorance or doubt need keep the soul that desires
light away from Christ. He need not wait for instruction, any more
than for reformation, before he comes to Christ.--=He that follows
me need not walk in darkness.= The best reading is subjunctive,
not indicative. _Following Christ_, not believing something about
him, is the way out of darkness into light. Comp. ch. 7:17, and note
the fact that in no single instance did Christ call on any one of
his disciples to form correct opinions about him before becoming
his follower. They followed first and learned afterward. Even he
who doubts whether Christ is not a myth can still follow the ideal
life.--=But shall have the light of life.= That is, the light which
guides and nourishes the true, the spiritual life. Comp. ch. 6:48,
“bread of life.” See Ps. 119:105, where the Bible is compared to a
lantern carried to light the path on a dark night. He is a light not
for the illumination of doubtful questions in science or metaphysics or
abstract theology, but for the solution of practical problems in the
moral and spiritual life.
13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou[311] bearest
record of thyself; thy record is not true.
[311] ch. 5:31.
14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record
of myself, _yet_ my record is true: for I know whence I
came, and whither I go; but[312] ye cannot tell whence I
come, and whither I go.
[312] chaps. 7:28; 9:29, 30.
=13, 14. Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.=
See ch. 5:31, note; perhaps the Pharisees here refer to Christ’s
declaration there.--=Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is
true; for I know whence I have come= (my origin) =and whither I go=
(my destiny). In general no man can bear testimony of himself, however
truthful he may be, for no man understands his own mission. He may
faithfully do from day to day the work which God gives him to do, and
yet not comprehend the relation which that work bears to the great
problems of life and destiny which the Eternal Spirit is working out
in the race. But Christ could bear record of himself, for he knew
himself; he knew the Father; he knew his own origin and his own
destiny; and he knew the relation which his life and death sustained
to the world’s life.--=Ye know not= (not merely cannot tell) =whence I
am coming and whither I am going=. Christ knew whence he _had come_
(ἠλθον, past tense), _i. e._, from the glory he had with the Father
from the beginning of the world (chaps. 1:1; 17:5); the Pharisees did
not know whence he was ever _coming_ (ἔρχομαι, present tense), _i.
e._, they had no spiritual sense to perceive and appreciate that
divine grace of which he was ever the recipient, and that constant
communion with the Father from which he was ever bringing divine light
and life wherewith to bless his followers.
15 Ye judge after the flesh; I[313] judge no man.
[313] chaps. 3:17; 12:47.
16 And yet if I judge, my[314] judgment is true: for[315] I
am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
[314] 1 Sam. 16:7; Ps. 45:6, 7; 72:2.
[315] verse 29; ch. 16:32.
=15, 16. Ye judge according to the flesh.= They therefore rejected
Jesus Christ as the Messiah, because he did not come with the earthly
pomp, or bring the earthly deliverance, which they had expected.--=I
judge no one.= Yet his fan is in his hand; and even while he lived he
was sifting the wheat from the tares. He judges not; the world is
self-judged and self-condemned. Every soul that rejects the light doth
thereby write its own condemnation. “Light is come into the world, and
men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil”
(John 3:19).--=Yet if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not
alone, but I and the Father that sent me.= Comp. ch. 5:30. The Spirit
of the Father, given without measure to Christ, makes his spiritual
judgments absolutely without error. In the measure in which this
spirit is received and followed by the disciple, it similarly makes
the disciple’s judgments true. See Matt. 16:19, note; John 20:22, 23.
17 It is also written[316] in your law, that the testimony
of two men is true.
[316] Deut. 17:6; 19:15.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the
Father[317] that sent me beareth witness of me.
[317] ch. 5:37.
19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus
answered, Ye[318] neither know me, nor my Father: if[319]
ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
[318] verse 55; chaps. 16:3; 17:25.
[319] ch. 14:7, 9.
20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury,[320] as he
taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him;
for[321], his hour was not yet come.
[320] Mark 12:41.
[321] ch. 7:30.
=17-20. Also in your own law.= Not in _our_ law; Christ never classes
himself with the Jews, nor counts himself as under their law. He obeys
it, not because it is binding, but by a voluntary subjection, for
example’s sake (Matt. 3:15; 17:27). The reference here is to Deut.
17:6; 19:15.--=I am one that bear witness concerning myself.= Not
merely nor mainly by words; for Christ said comparatively little in
public concerning his character; but by his life and works. See John
14:11.--=And the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.= By direct
declarations to his divine character and mission (Matt. 3:17; John
12:28); by the testimony of prophets and apostles, especially of John
the Baptist (Luke 2:28-32, 38; John 1:32-34, 36); by the voice of
angels (Luke 2:9-14); by the miracles wrought (John 11:42); but still
more by that manifestation of the divine presence which made itself
felt in many ways in Christ’s person, as in his attraction of
publicans and sinners to himself, his expulsion of the traders from
the temple, his passing through the mob at Nazareth, etc. Godet tells
a story in illustration of the power of this witness of the Spirit.
About 1660, Hedinger, chaplain to the Duke of Wurtemberg, took the
liberty of censuring his sovereign, at first in private, but afterward
in public, for a serious fault. The latter, much enraged, sent for
him, resolved to punish him. Hedinger, after seeking strength by
prayer, repaired to the prince, the expression of his countenance
betokening the peace and the presence of God. The prince, after
looking at him for a moment, asked, in agitation, “Why did you not
come alone?” and dismissed him unharmed. The vital communion of this
servant of God with his God was a sensible fact, even to one whom
anger had exasperated. Comp. Acts 4:13; 6:15.--=Who is your Father?=
Asked, not in perplexity, for Christ’s reference to God as his
Father had been so frequent at Jerusalem that they could not have
misunderstood his meaning, but in scorn. Christ’s reply is adapted to
the spirit of their inquiry.--=Ye neither know me nor my Father.= They
gloried in being the peculiar people of God; but they as little
apprehended him as they did Christ his Son.--=If ye had known me ye
would have known my Father also.= For the Son is the way to the
Father. The converse of this proposition is also true, He that knows
the Father will know the Son. Both are known by the spiritual
sense; and the same faculty which appreciates the divine qualities
resplendent in the Son will answer to and be ready to receive and be
impressed by the divine qualities in the invisible Spirit, the Father
whom no one hath seen or can see.--=In the treasury.= See Luke 21:1,
note. The thirteen trunks or chests placed for the reception of the
gifts of the worshippers, and properly called the treasury, were in
the Court of the Women. Each bore an inscription, indicating the use
to which the money placed therein was devoted. Probably either that
part of the Women’s Court where these chests stood, or, more probably,
an adjoining apartment used in connection with them, perhaps where the
money was kept, was also designated the treasury, and it is this
apartment that is indicated by the word here.--=For his hour was not
yet come.= See ch. 7:30, note.
21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and
ye[322] shall seek me, and[323] shall die in your sins:
whither I go, ye[324] cannot come.
[322] ch. 7:34.
[323] Job 20:11; Ps. 73:18-20; Prov. 14:32; Isa.
65:20; Ephes. 2:1.
[324] Luke 16:28.
=21. I go away.= Not _my way_, a translation for which there is no
authority whatever in the original.--=And ye shall seek me, and shall
die in your sins.= _In your sins_ means not, _by reason of your sins_,
but, _while continuing in a state of sin_. This verse is not to be
taken as an evidence that a sincere and contrite seeking of Christ as
a pardoning and redeeming Saviour will ever be in vain. It is
interpreted by many a so-called death-bed repentance, in which
deliverance from a future penalty is sought, without any real
contrition of heart for past sins. But, coupled with the next clause,
it seems to me strongly opposed to the doctrine of a universal
restitution.--=Whither I go ye cannot come.= Compare ch. 7:34, “Ye
shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot
come,” and contrast ch. 14:3, “I will come again and receive you unto
myself, that where I am, there ye may be also.” See also ch. 17:24.
22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he
saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from
above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 I said[325] therefore unto you, that ye shall die in
your sins: for[326] if ye believe not that I am _he_, ye
shall die in your sins.
[325] verse 21.
[326] Mark 16:16.
=22-24. Will he kill himself?= This they said to each other, partly in
perplexity, partly in scorn. Contrast their different interpretation
but similar spirit in ch. 7:35. Christ, in his reply, repels the idea
that he had referred to his death; they cannot come where he is going,
because he is going to that heaven from which he first came, and they
are of the earth earthy. Comp. 1 Cor. 15:50, “Flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God.”--=Ye are from beneath, I am from above.=
This statement is interpreted by the clause which follows.--=Ye are
of= (_from_, ἐκ) =this world, I am not of= (_from_, ἐκ) =this world=.
Man is born of the flesh, and therefore is flesh, needing to be born
anew and from above in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven (ch.
3:5, 6). Christ was born, even in his earthly nature, of the Spirit
(Luke 1:35), was from his birth the Son of God, and therefore did not
need to experience the new birth. Though John does not describe his
supernatural birth, he recognizes it. Christ’s language here would be
incomprehensible but for the interpretation afforded by the narratives
of his advent in Matthew and Luke. The declaration “Ye are from
beneath” here is not equivalent to the declaration of ver. 44, “Ye are
of your father the devil.” Here he speaks only of the earthly nature
inherited; there of the wilful sin superadded.--=If ye believe not
that I am, ye shall die in your sins.= In the phrase “I am” there is a
reference to Exod. 3:14, and the language implies the divinity of
Christ, and would be so understood by his Jewish auditors, and was so
understood by them. See ver. 38 and note. But it is not equivalent to
a general statement that belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ is
essential to salvation. It was addressed to men who had abundant
reason to believe that Christ was the divine Messiah of prophecy, and
who were wilfully ignorant of the truth. We must not give the words
any wider application than our Lord gave to them himself. To reject
Christ is fatal; to be ignorant of him is not.
25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith
unto them, Even _the same_ that I said unto you from the
beginning.
=25. Who art thou?= A question asked possibly partly in perplexity and
partly in scorn, but more for the purpose of evoking an answer which
would give them a point for an attack upon Christ.--=Even the same that
I said unto you from the beginning.= The grammatical difficulties in
the correct rendition of this passage are almost insuperable, and no
two scholars give exactly the same shade of meaning to it, while none
of the interpretations afforded are altogether satisfactory, even to
the interpreter. The principal interpretations are: (1) _What I from
the beginning am teaching you? do you ask that?_ An interrogative
expression of surprise. According to this view Christ does not answer
the question at all. (2) _Why indeed do I still speak to you at all?_ A
language of reproach. (3) _Even the same that I said unto you from the
beginning_, the rendering of our English version. (4) _Essentially that
which also I discourse to you_; _i. e._, You are to ascertain my nature
by a study of my discourses. Neither one of these interpretations, it
will be seen, affords a direct answer to the question.
26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but[327]
he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those
things which I have heard of him.
[327] ch. 7:28.
27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
=26, 27. Many things I have which I might say, and many sentences
which I might pronounce concerning you.= The meaning and the
connection is obscure, and the translation which I have given is not
so literal as that of the English version. But Christ elsewhere
declares that he has not come to judge the world (ver. 15; chaps.
3:17; 12:47), and to understand him here to assert the contrary makes
his utterances contradictory. Moreover, if we interpret his
declaration as the English version does, it is difficult to see any
connection with the preceding or the subsequent clause. I understand
therefore that he means that he _has_ many things to say, and many
judgments formed in his own mind, which he might pronounce, but that
he will only speak those things which he has been commissioned by the
Father to speak; and his commission at this time is not to judge, but
to save the world.--=They understood not that he spake to them of the
Father.= Strange! Less strange, perhaps, than it now seems to us, for
we read this discourse in the light of eighteen centuries of
Christianity. So far, too, Christ had not designated by any title the
One who had sent him. He had veiled his meaning, as he did in the
parables, that he might not be fully understood at once; for he could
hope to get lodgment for the truth only by gradually unfolding it.
“There is no accounting for the _ignorance of unbelief_ as any
minister of Christ knows by painful experience.”--(_Alford._)
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up[328]
the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am _he_, and
_that_ I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught
me, I speak these things.
[328] chaps. 3:14; 12:32.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left
me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
30 As he spake these words, many[329] believed on him.
[329] ch. 10:42.
=28-30. When ye have lifted up the Son of man.= The phrase Son of man
was used by the rabbis, who borrowed it from David, for the Messiah
(see Matt. 10:23, note). The Greek verb here rendered _lifted up_
(ὑψόω) is used by John only with reference to the crucifixion (chaps.
3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34), but everywhere else in the N. T. is used in
the sense of _exalted_, and is so translated except in James 4:10. See
Matt. 11:23; Luke 1:52; Acts 2:33; 5:31, etc. This fact is of itself
an indication that John’s Gospel was written after the cross had been
seen to be the means by which Christ was himself exalted, his glory,
not his shame. It is the cross which has led to his recognition among
men as the Son of God (Mark 15:39; 1 Cor. 1:23, 24); to his exaltation
by the Father (Phil. 2:8-10); to his adoration in heaven (Rev.
5:12).--=Ye shall know that I am.= See on ver. 24. The passion and
death of Christ is the attestation of his divinity (Mark 15:39).--=I
do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me I speak these
things.= In Christ’s time the things _done_, _i. e._, the miracles,
were recognized as signs of divine presence and power; more and more
the _words spoken_ are recognized as still greater signs of the divine
presence and power. The word is more than the external work, the truth
is greater than the miracle.--=He that sent me is with me.= The Son is
a manifestation of the Father, because the Father is ever in and
working and speaking through the Son. He is not merely an ambassador
sent by, he is a tabernacle in which dwells, the Eternal King. So
Christ, who sends forth his disciples (ch. 17:18), is ever with them
(ch. 14:17, 23; Matt. 28:20).--=The Father hath not left me alone; for
I do those things that please him always.= _Always_ is emphatic. In
this uniformity of obedience to the Father’s will is the secret of the
abiding of his presence; it is true for us, as for Christ, that doing
the Father’s pleasure secures the divine fellowship (chaps. 14:21;
15:10).--=Many believed on him.= Comp. ch. 12:42. Faith, like
knowledge, is of different degrees, and the quality of this faith is
not indicated. It may have been like the seed received on stony places
(Matt. 13:20, 21). But beware of understanding here, or anywhere, by
this phrase a mere intellectual belief in Christ as either Rabbi,
Prophet, or Messiah. To _believe on_ always signifies an emotion or
heart action. “Our Lord’s words did not appeal to the understanding;
they were not argumentative; we cannot account for their influence by
any processes of logic. So far as we can judge from a very simple
statement, they went straight to the heart; the faith which they
called forth was a faith of the heart.”--(_Maurice._)
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If
ye continue[330] in my word, _then_ are ye my disciples
indeed;
[330] Rom. 2:7; Col. 1:23; Heb. 10:38, 39.
32 And ye shall know[331] the truth, and the truth shall
make you free.[332]
[331] Hos. 6:3.
[332] ch. 17:17; Ps. 119:45; Rom. 6:14, 18, 22; James
1:25; 2:12.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never
in[333] bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be
made free?
[333] Lev. 25:42.
=31-33. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.=
A promise and a condition. The thing promised is discipleship. “They
should be--what? Saints? divines? doctors? No; but what is much
better than any of the three--what all the three should wish to
be raised into--_disciples_. They will then be learners, learners
sitting continually at the feet of the true Teacher.”--(_Maurice._)
The theology of Christ is a progressive theology; the promise to his
followers is not that they shall be learned, acquiring the truth once
for all, but learners, ever acquiring it more and more. This promise is
conditioned on--what? Receiving his word? defending his word? No; but
abiding in his word, _i. e._, living, moving, and having their being
in it. The word of Christ cannot be accepted once for all; the soul,
to be nourished on it, must abide in it, as the body abides in and is
nourished by the atmosphere (comp. chaps. 5:38; 6:56; 15:4-10; 1
John 2:6, 10, 14, etc.; 3:6). To be Christ’s disciples indeed, we
must _continue_ (Matt. 13:20, 21; John 6:66; Col. 1:23; Heb. 10:38;
Rev. 2:7-11, 17) _in_ (John 15:1-7; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 2:20; Col.
1:27) _the word of Christ_ (Matt. 11:29, 30; 1 Cor. 3:11; Gal.
1:8).--=And ye shall know the truth.= Living according to the word
of Christ is the condition precedent to a true apprehension of
the truth. Christ teaches that life precedes creed; the church
has too often reversed this, making the creed precede life. But
a creed that does not grow out of spiritual experience is dead.
There is no virtue in the doctrine of native depravity except as
an outgrowth of personal humility; nor in belief in a personal
God, except as it is rooted in a living experience of faith in
him.--=And the truth shall make you free.= This, too, the church
has often reversed, bringing men into bondage unto a creed, instead of
using the creed as an instrument to enlarge their intellectual
independence.--=We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any
one.= This is the language of pride, and it is not more true than the
language of pride is ordinarily. Politically the nation had been in
bondage to Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome. Spiritually it had been in
bondage to idolatries in past times, _e. g._, the reign of Manasseh,
and was now in bondage to the rabbis, literalists in interpretation,
and without spirituality or sympathy (Matt. 23:4). Christ, however,
rarely enters into argument; he makes no attempt to refute their
statement, pays no heed to their interruption, but goes on with his
discourse.
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Whosoever[334] committeth sin is the servant of sin.
[334] Rom. 6:16, 20; 2 Pet. 2:19.
35 And the servant[335] abideth not in the house for ever:
_but_ the Son abideth ever.
[335] Gal. 4:30.
36 If[336] the Son therefore shall make you free, ye[337]
shall be free indeed.
[336] Isa. 61:1.
[337] Rom. 8:2; Gal. 5:1.
=34-36. Whosoever committeth sin= (lives in the commission of sin) =is
the slave= (not servant) =of sin=. He is in bondage to sin. For action
forms habit, and habit becomes second nature. Thus every sinful act
tends to bring the soul into bondage to the law of evil habit.
Striking illustrations of this law of human nature are afforded by
self-indulgence in appetite; but the same principle is involved in all
evil-doing--it tends to fasten evil habits on the soul. See Rom.
6:16-18; 7:9-24. And this law belongs to human nature; it is equally
operative in Jew and Gentile, in church-member and in man of the
world. Every sin helps to weld a chain.--=The slave abideth not in the
house forever, but the Son abideth ever.= The language is parabolic;
the meaning seems to me to be this: The world is in bondage; it
_seems_ to be under Satan; his promise to Christ, “All these things
will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me,” appears not
like a vain promise. But this bondage is short-lived. The kingdoms of
the world are _in truth_ the kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ.
He shall reign forever and forever (Rev. 11:15). He, therefore, who
yields to the yoke of bondage by conforming to the world gets only a
brief advantage, for the period of bondage to sin and Satan will soon
be over. He that accepts Christ as his Lord, and acknowledges
allegiance to him, will have an eternal freedom in the house which God
has built, and over which Christ is to have eternal rule (Heb. 3:2-6).
The world is God’s house, not Satan’s.--=If the Son therefore shall
make you free.= From past penalty, by himself bearing it for us; from
the bondage of sin, by giving us power to become the sons of God; from
the law, by imparting to us a new spiritual life. See Paul’s Epistle
to the Galatians, especially chaps. 4 and 5, which may be regarded as
his sermon on this text.--=Ye shall be free indeed.= Made free by the
_truth_ (ver. 32) as it is in Christ Jesus. For freedom is not
independence of all law--that never is and never can be; God himself
is not thus free; it is the comprehension and the right use of law. We
are free when we perfectly comprehend the laws of nature, _i. e._, of
God, perfectly and cheerfully comply with them, and so know how to get
the advantage and profit of them. All progress in material
civilization has been attained by increasing knowledge of the divine
laws, and consequently an increased use of them. We have yet to learn
the gain that there is in a similar comprehension of and obedience to
the intellectual and the spiritual laws of the universe. Thus it is
that the _truth_ makes _free_ (ver. 32).
37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed: but ye seek to kill
me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 I[338] speak that which I have seen with my Father: and
ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
[338] ch. 14:10, 24.
=37, 38. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed.= Not equivalent to _I
know that ye regard yourselves as Abraham’s seed_. The reference is
to the covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 17:4-8), which
involved a promise of divine protection and blessing to the nation. The
Pharisees adhere to the idea of political freedom. Christ assents to
their declaration that they are the seed referred to in that covenant,
but returns to the spiritual idea which underlies his discourse, and
emphasizes the extent to which, in character, they have wandered from
the pattern set by Abraham.--=Nevertheless= (ἀλλὰ, notwithstanding you
are Abraham’s seed) =ye seek to kill me= (chaps. 7:1, 19, 32; 8:59;
10:31, 39). To whom were these words spoken?--to the believing
Judeans mentioned in ver. 30, or to enemies? The true answer is that
believers and unbelievers were intermixed in the crowd, and that it
is as little possible for the reader now as it would have been for
the observer then to distinguish between them.--=Because my word
makes no progress in you.= They heard it--nay, crowded round him to
hear it, were willing and interested listeners. But the truth did not
get entrance into their hearts, nor permeate their character. It was
not like the leaven hid in three measures of meal. They were thus a
type of many modern hearers who listen to the truth, but in whom the
truth does not work. The words rendered _hath no place_ (οὐ χωρεῖ)
signify, literally, does not _work, spread, go forward_.--=I do that
which I have seen with my Father, and ye do that which ye have heard
with your father= (ἠκούσατε, _heard_, not ἑωράκατε, _seen_, is the
better reading). Christ approaches a truth whose depths, in our
ignorance of the spirit world, we cannot sound. This is that every
soul draws its inspiration from an invisible world--either belongs to
the kingdom of light and is taught of God, or belongs to the kingdom
of darkness and is taught of evil spirits. The unseen companions of
the soul are the most influential. Demoniacal possession is only an
exceptional fruitage of a universal demoniacal inspiration. See below,
on ver. 44.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham[339] is our
father. Jesus saith unto them, If[340] ye were Abraham’s
children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
[339] Matt. 3:9.
[340] Rom. 2:28, 29; 9:7; Gal. 3:7, 29.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the
truth, which I have heard of God: this[341] did not Abraham.
[341] Rom. 4:12.
=39, 40. Abraham is our father.= They recognize, as we all recognize,
that there is a source from which are drawn the ideas and the
influences which mould our character. This fountain is, according to
their conception, Abrahamic. It is true that character is moulded
by national influences; but these are not the profoundest nor the
most potent.--=If ye were Abraham’s children ye would do the works
of Abraham.= Seed they are, children they are not. Descendants? yes!
disciples? no! They do not do that which they have heard from Abraham.
We are the children of a noble ancestry, the Reformers, the Puritans,
and the like, only as we show their spirit in dealing with the men and
the problems of our own time.--=This did not Abraham.= Called of God
to leave his country, and his kindred, and his father’s house, he did
not resist, but left all to go out, not knowing whither he went.
Abraham obeyed the divine message; the seed of Abraham would kill the
divine messenger.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him,
We be not born of fornication; we[342] have one Father,
_even_ God.
[342] Isa. 63:16; 64:8.
42 Jesus said unto them, If[343] God were your Father, ye
would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God;
neither came I of myself, but[344] he sent me.
[343] Mal. 1:6; 1 John 5:1.
[344] ch. 17:8, 25.
=41, 42. Ye do the deeds of your father.= A generic truth; the
spiritual paternity of any soul may be known by its deeds; the
source of its life is witnessed by the life itself.--=We be not
born of fornication.= It is a Jewish legend to this day that
Jesus was born of adultery. This is the Jewish explanation of his
premarital birth. I believe that this legend had been invented in
Christ’s own time to account for his supernatural birth, and that
the expression here is a scornful allusion to this dishonoring
report. This, at least, though I do not find it suggested by any
of the commentaries, seems to me the most natural explanation of
the language of the Pharisees, which has given the scholars
no little difficulty. Other explanations suggested--_e. g._, that Sarah
was not an adulteress, and therefore the Jews were certainly children
of Abraham (_Meyer_), or that, unlike the Samaritans, there was no
taint of heathen blood in their veins (_Alford_, _Godet_)--seem to me
unnatural and far-fetched, and are apparently not very satisfactory
even to those who suggest them.--=We have one Father, even God.= They
abandon their claim to have derived their life from Abraham, and
substitute a claim to derive it from the God of Abraham. Or we may
suppose that, the first interlocutors being silenced, others make this
assertion.--=If God were your Father ye would love me.= The practical
and present application is that every soul whose life is truly rooted
in God will be drawn toward Christ by spiritual sympathy.--=For I came
forth and am here from God.= The first verb (ἐξῆλθον) indicates
Christ’s _coming forth_ from the glory which Christ had with the
Father from the beginning of the world (John 17:5); the second verb
(ἥκω, present formed from a perfect) indicates the _perpetual
presence_ of the Father with Christ, and Christ’s continuous
manifestation of the Father to the world.--=Neither came I of myself.=
Therefore that phase of theology which represents the Son as
interceding to make a just God merciful, and thus induce him to
forgive the sinful, is thoroughly false. The mercy of Christ
originated with the Father; the mission of Christ was wrought out by
the Father. Christ came not of his own will, but of the Father’s. See
chaps. 3:16, note; 6:38, note.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? _even_ because ye
cannot hear my[345] word.
[345] Isa. 6:9.
44 Ye[346] are of _your_ father the devil, and the lusts
of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the
beginning, and abode[347] not in the truth, because there
is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of
his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
[346] Matt. 13:38; 1 John 3:8.
[347] Jude 6.
=43, 44. Why do ye not understand my speech?= He has thus far spoken
parabolically, as though reluctant to characterize them openly as
children of the devil. He now abandons the dark saying, and speaks
plainly.--=Even because ye cannot hear my word.= _Word_ is the doctrine
taught, _speech_ is the form in which it is clothed; to _hear_ is to
receive with the heart, as in Matt. 13:16, 20; John 5:24; 8:47, etc.;
to _understand_ is to comprehend intellectually. The implication then
is that he who is unwilling to receive and act upon the doctrine of
Christ in his heart and life cannot comprehend the forms in which it is
couched. The declaration is thus the converse of ch. 7:17.--=Ye are
from your father the devil.= God is the Father of Christ, and of all
those who through faith in Christ are born again; they become by
adoption his children (Rom. 8:15-17), are sent into the world by their
Father (ch. 17:18), and manifest their Father unto the world (Phil.
2:15). In like manner they that resist the truth are children, by
their own choice, of the devil, commissioned by him, serving him, and
manifesting his spirit, in their selfishness, cupidity, malice, and
all uncharitableness. In each case the soul derives its spirit from
its own chosen father. The whole contrast would be almost meaningless
if by the devil Christ understood only a poetic personification of
evil in human nature. There are two households, one of God, the other
of Satan; two churches, one of truth and love, the other of falsehood
and malignity. “This verse is one of the most decisive testimonies for
the objective personality of the devil. It is quite impossible to
suppose an accommodation to Jewish views, or a metaphorical form of
speech, in so solemn and direct an assertion as this.”--(_Alford._)--
=The will= (lusts is too narrow a word; the original signifies earnest
desire, but generally of a bad sort) =of your father ye are determined
to do=. Literally, _will to do_. Resolute determination to evil is
clearly indicated by the form of the sentence (θέλετε ποιεῖν). The
language of Christ here, therefore, does not apply to sins of
ignorance and inattention. He is speaking to wilful opposers of the
truth.--=He was a murderer from the beginning.= Not because he
inspired Cain’s murder of his brother Abel, but because, from the very
outset, he endeavored to seduce into disobedience, and so to destroy,
the human race. His declaration “Ye shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:4)
was not merely a lie, but a lie having for its object the death of
mankind.--=Stood not in the truth.= It seems to me that there is here
a reference to the fall of the devil. So Augustine and the Roman
Catholic commentators generally; _contra_, Meyer, Alford, and the
moderns. Satan was in a high position, but he did not _stand_, because
truth was not his foundation, and--=Because truth is not in him=. No
definite article is appended to _truth_ here. Satan did not _stand_ on
the truth of God, because in him, in his inner character, truth found
no place. We can only stand _by_ the truth when truth is in _our
inward parts_ (Ps. 51:6), _i. e._, in our desires and our affections.
The truth must be _in_ us to be _under_ us.--=He speaketh of his own.=
Out of (ἐκ) his own treasury of evil things. So the evil man, out of
the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things (Matt. 12:35).--=For he
is a liar, and the father of it.= Or _of him_; either the father of
_lying_ or the father of the _liar_. Either rendering is grammatically
possible. The latter better fits the context.
45 And because[348] I tell _you_ the truth, ye believe me
not.
[348] Gal. 4:16; 2 Thess. 2:10.
46 Which of you convinceth[349] me of sin? And if I say the
truth, why do ye not believe me?
[349] Heb. 4:15.
47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear
_them_ not, because ye are not of God.
=45-47. But because I tell you the truth ye believe me not.= “A
thoroughly tragical _because_; it has its ground in the alien character
of the relation between that which Jesus speaks and their devilish
nature, to which latter a lie alone corresponds.”--(_Meyer._) Truth
has not always its evidence in human nature; for human nature may be
so warped as to be more ready to believe a lie than the truth (Rom.
1:21; Ephes. 4:18; 2 Thess. 2:11). If Christ had told a lie they
would have believed him, just as many of those who now rejected him
did subsequently believe the false Christs of a later date.--=Which of
you convinceth me of sin.= Not of _error_ (_Calvin_), but of _sin_
(_Alford_, _Godet_, _Meyer_). Indeed, _error_ in Christ’s teaching in
this matter would be _sin_; for if his declaration respecting himself,
that he came not from the earth but from above, from the Father, and
was the long-anticipated Messiah, was not true, it would have been
false and fraudulent--not merely a mistake, but a lie. By this
question he asserts, by implication, his sinlessness; he defies his
opponents to point out a single sin in his life, a single flaw in his
character. And they were speechless, as scepticism has been ever
since, before his incomparable character. The argument is this: If I
am not the Son of God, find out some human defect that indicates a
human origin and kinship. And this has never been done. I imagine a
pause, a moment’s expressive silence, no answer from the Pharisees,
and then the crushing words that follow, calmly uttered:--=If I say
the truth, why do ye not believe?=--=He that is of God=--as the
Pharisees had claimed to be (ver. 41)--=heareth= (receiveth) =God’s
words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God=. This is
Christ’s method with deists. Point out a single flaw in his stainless
character. You cannot? Then at least listen with reverent attention to
the words of the sinless man. To refuse a hearing to such an one
demonstrates hostility to purity and truth, and so to God.
48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not
well that thou art a Samaritan, and[350] hast a devil?
[350] ch. 7:20.
49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my
Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50 And I[351] seek not mine own glory: there is one that
seeketh and judgeth.
[351] ch. 5:41.
=48-50. Say we not well thou art a Samaritan and hast an evil
spirit?= The Jews take to the common resort of men silenced
and convinced against their will; they reply to argument
by calling names. _Devil_ is an unfortunate translation, giving the
English reader the impression that they use the same word which Christ
has used in ver. 44. Their word is _demon_ (δαιμόνιον), and signifies
primarily, in classic usage, a tutelary demon or genius; in N. T.
usage, an evil spirit. These spirits are represented as fallen angels
(2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), subject to Satan (Matt. 9:34; 25:41;
2 Cor. 12:7; Rev. 12:9), possessing the power of working miracles
(Rev. 16:14), dwelling in the idols of the heathen and uttering
the heathen responses and oracles (Acts 16:17; 1 Cor. 10:20; Rev.
9:20), and the authors of evil to mankind (2 Cor. 12:7; 1 Tim.
4:1). See _Rob. Lex._, art. δαιμόνιον. The charge had before
been made by the Pharisees that Christ cast out devils by Beelzebub
the prince of devils (Matt. 12:24). It is not necessary to trace any
connection between the two epithets _a Samaritan_ and _possessing a
demon_. Passion is never coherent. The language is wild, bitter,
passionate, but illogical and inconsequential.--=I have not a devil *
* * * ye do dishonor me.= He passes by the charge of being a Samaritan
in silence, for the author of the parable of the Good Samaritan
refuses to recognize opprobrium in it; he calmly denies the charge of
having a demon, and declares that by the discourses which they
attribute to a demon he honors the Father, while they dishonor him.
Peter’s declaration (1 Pet. 2:23), “Who, when he was reviled, reviled
not again, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously,” is
illustrated by Christ’s response here. Contrast his indignation at the
wrong done to others (Matt. 23:14, 15, 23, etc.) with his mildness
when wrong is done to himself. And the next verse gives the secret
reason of his calmness.--=I am not seeking my own glory.= Therefore he
is comparatively indifferent to public abuse and dishonor.--=There is
one who seeks and judges.= Because God cares for the honor of his
children, they can well be unconcerned respecting it; because God
judges them righteously, they can well disregard the unrighteous
judgments of men.
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying,
he shall never see death.
=51. Verily, verily.= With Calvin and Godet, I regard Christ’s
discourse to his opponents as ended with the preceding verse.
Recognizing the fact that some of his auditors have been inclined
toward him, though with but a feeble faith, he addresses them in the
words that follow, that he may strengthen their faith. The connection
which Alford and Meyer endeavor to trace between this and the
preceding verse I cannot perceive: _e. g._, “Ye are now the children
of the devil; but if ye keep my word ye shall be rescued from that
murderer.”--(_Alford._) The very words with which Christ begins the
sentence, “Verily, verily” (ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν) indicate a new topic.--=If any
one.= Emphasis is put on the pronoun. The promise is universal; it
embraces Jew and Gentile.--=Keep my word.= _Keep_, as a guard his
prisoner, with watchfulness (Matt. 19:17, note), against all
seductions and assaults; _Christ’s word_, that which he had taught,
and therefore pre-eminently that faith in him as a divine Saviour
which had been the pre-eminent theme of his teaching. We are to keep
not merely the _sayings_ in _memory_, or the _teaching_ in the
_heart_, but, with sentiments of reverence and affection, the _truth_
in our _life_, both in the inward experience and in the outward
conduct.--=Shall not see death for ever.= Not, _Shall not see eternal
death_, but, _Shall never see death_. “The death of the body is not
reckoned as death, any more than the life of the body is life, in our
Lord’s discourses. See ch. 11:25, 26.”--(_Alford._) Christ puts
himself in contrast with the devil, whose slaves, by evil-doing, the
Jews have become (ver. 34). The devil is a murderer, a life-taker
(ver. 44); Christ is a life-giver, even to those that are dead in
trespasses and sins (Ephes. 2:1).
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast
a devil. Abraham is dead,[352] and the prophets; and thou
sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of
death.
[352] Zech. 1:5.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead?
and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
=52, 53. The Judeans.= Not the believers of ver. 30. The opponents of
Christ reply to words which were not addressed to them.--=Abraham is
dead.= * * * * --=Art thou greater than our father Abraham?= * * *
=Whom makest thou thyself?= Their argument is, as Chrysostom
interprets it: “They who have heard the word of God are dead, and
shall they who have heard thee not die?” Their perplexity was real,
for the unspiritual never comprehend either spiritual natures or
spiritual teaching. They are literalists, and understand Jesus to
speak of natural death. They are dull and will not comprehend his
declaration that he is the Messiah in hope of whom Abraham and the
prophets had lived. Compare with their question here that of the
Samaritan woman (ch. 4:12), “Art thou greater than our father Jacob?”
but contrast their spirit with hers. She is in doubt; they are
scornful. See also Christ’s declaration in Matt. 12:42, “Behold, a
greater than Solomon is here.”
54 Jesus answered, If[353] I honour myself, my honour is
nothing: it is my Father[354] that honoureth me; of whom ye
say, that he is your God:
[353] ch. 5:31, 41.
[354] ch. 17:1.
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I
should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto
you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he[355]
saw _it_, and was glad.
[355] Gen. 22:13, 14; Heb. 11:13.
=54-56. If I glorify myself my glory is nothing.= To _honor_ or
_glorify_ (δοξάζω) is to attribute honor, generally by words. Christ’s
reply to the question, _Whom makest thou thyself?_ is that he makes
nothing of himself; he leaves others to interpret his character from
his life and teachings. And this is singularly true; Christ is to each
soul what its spiritual sight is able to discern in him. He does not
declare himself.--=It is my Father that glorifieth me.= He leaves his
reputation in the hands of his Father, an example to his followers
when belied and misrepresented. See on ver. 18.--=Ye have never
learned him, but I know him.= There is a double contrast in the two
verbs (γινώσκω and οἶδα), the one signifying acquired, the other
direct intuitive knowledge; and in the tenses, the one signifying a
past act, _never have known_, the other a perpetually present
possession, _I always know_. The sense may be expressed: _Ye have
never acquired any knowledge of God, but I am always in fellowship
with him._--=I should be a liar like unto you.= To boast of one’s
spiritual experience is to glorify one’s self; such glory is nothing.
To deny it, under pretence of humility, is to become a liar. There may
be hypocrisy in disavowing the sense of God’s presence and love, as
well as in falsely pretending to it. The true method is that of
Christ, who showed it by his life, not by his professions.--=Your
father Abraham exulted that he might see my day= (_i. e._, that it was
promised to him); =and he has seen it and was glad=. There is some
difficulty in the interpretation of this passage, to which I have
given a literal translation. Some scholars regard it as wholly
prophetical, “Abraham rejoiced in anticipation of Christ’s advent;”
others as historical but typical, “He rejoiced, seeing in the birth of
Isaac a type of the advent of the Messiah,” and they even suppose that
Christ refers to Abraham’s laughter (Gen. 17:17); still others
interpret it as partly prophetic and partly historical, “He rejoiced
in anticipation of the promised advent; he has since seen it from his
home in paradise, and was glad.” The latter view seems to me best to
accord with the original and with the context. So Godet, Meyer,
Alford. For a statement of different views, see _Meyer_. The
declaration is responsive to the question, Art thou greater than our
father Abraham? The answer is, Your father Abraham rejoiced because he
was promised that he should see my advent, and the realization of his
hope has given him new joy in the heavenly kingdom. If this
interpretation be correct, the language incidentally confirms the
doctrine that the saints in heaven are cognizant of what passes upon
earth.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty
years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you.
Before Abraham was, I[356] am.
[356] ch. 1:1, 2; Exod. 3:14; Isa. 43:13; Col. 1:17;
Rev. 1:8.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid
himself, and went out of the temple, going through the
midst of them, and so passed by.
=57-59. The Judeans therefore said to him, Thou art not yet fifty years
old.= No indication of his actual age. The fifty years was specified
because this was the age of a perfected maturity, according to Jewish
notions (Numb. 4:3, 39; 8:24--Lightfoot).--=And hast thou seen
Abraham?= He did not say that he had, but that Abraham had seen him.
They pervert his words, partly through stupidity, partly through
wilfulness.--=Verily, verily.= The precursor of a specially solemn
declaration.--=Before Abraham was born, I am= (γίγνομαι-εἰμί). Two
Socinian explanations are afforded of this passage: (1) Before Abraham
was born I (Christ) existed in the divine counsels, _i. e._ I was
purposed by God and foretold by him; (2) Before Abram can become
Abraham, a spiritual father of nations, I (Christ) must be sent forth
as the Messiah. They both seem to me to be shifts devised to
accommodate Scripture to a theological preconception. All independent
Greek scholars (Meyer, Luthardt, Alford, Godet, Tholuck, etc.) agree
substantially in their interpretation of the language. Its meaning is
made clear by a consideration of the original Greek, in which the
contrast is strongly marked between Abraham, who began to be, and
Christ, who eternally is; by the context, in which the pre-eminence of
Christ above Abraham is clearly implied; by the unexpressed but hardly
doubtful reference to the appellation given by the O. T. to Jehovah as
the I AM (Exod. 3:14; comp. Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; 14:62; John 8:24,
25); and by the interpretation which was put upon Christ’s words by
his auditors, who understood them as a claim of divinity, and took up
stones to stone him as a blasphemer. Christ, then, by these words, as
I understand him, identifies himself, as the N. T. manifestation of
the unseen God, with the I AM of the O. T., the One who had manifested
the Invisible to Israel in all their history.--=Then took they up
stones to cast at him.= The building of the temple was still going on,
and stones were probably lying about in the temple court. Stoning was
the O. T. punishment for blasphemy, but it could not be lawfully
inflicted without trial and judgment.--=Jesus hid himself.= There is
no good ground to suppose any miraculous escape, either here or in
Luke 4:30. And there is good reason to believe that there was not a
miraculous interposition, for Christ never availed himself of any
miracle for his own benefit. See Matt. 4:6, note. The clause “going
through the midst of them, and so passed by,” is wanting in the best
MSS., and is omitted by Alford, Meyer, Godet, Luthardt. The latter
traces a curious analogy between this typical expulsion and the final
crucifixion of Christ. He hides himself from the eyes of those whom
the God of this world has blinded; he leaves the Pharisees apparent
victors and in possession of the field; in taking up stones to stone
him they show themselves to be murderers at heart, as they afterward
became in outward act.
In this discourse, or these discourses, for it is not quite clear
whether it is one or more, the connection is sometimes obscure, and
the meaning accordingly difficult. The student must remember (1) that
Christ addresses a very different audience from that in Galilee. There
he spoke to willing but ignorant disciples; in Jerusalem he speaks to
obstinate and perverse enemies. (2) Hence the difference in spirit. In
Galilee gentleness is predominant, in Jerusalem severity. (3) The
continuity of the discourse is affected by the sudden transitions of
feeling in Christ, which are great, as in all natures of deep and
ready sympathy. He speaks now with great pathos, as in the question, a
semi-soliloquy, Why do ye not understand my speech? (ver. 43), then
with indignation, Ye are of your father the devil (ver. 44); now with
self-abnegation, I judge no man (ver. 15), If I honor myself my honor
is nothing (ver. 54), again with divine self-assertion and the power
of an unconcealed divinity, I am from above (ver. 23), Before Abraham
was I am (ver. 58). (4) The continuity of his speech is constantly
broken in upon by rude interruptions (verses 19, 22, 39, 41, 48, 52,
53, 57), and by changes in the direction of his discourse, which is
sometimes addressed to his disciples (ver. 31), and sometimes to his
opponents (verses 42, 49, etc.). (5) Nevertheless we may say generally
that the discourse embodies Christ’s teaching respecting himself, and
embraces the following points: He is (_a_) the light, _i. e._, the
moral and spiritual illuminator, of the world (ver. 12); (_b_)
superhuman in his origin (ver. 23); (_c_) the manifestation of the
Father, because the tabernacle (ch. 1:14) in which the Father dwells
(ver. 29); (_d_) the emancipator of all those that accept and obey the
truth as manifested by him (verses 31-36); (_e_) sinless (ver. 46);
(_f_) the life-giver (ver. 51); (_g_) the great I AM (ver. 58). To
receive the benefit of the light which he confers, we must follow his
example (ver. 12); to receive the benefit of the freedom he brings, we
must live habitually in the truth which he teaches (verses 31, 32); to
receive the life which he bestows, we must be born from above (ch.
3:3) by faith in him as our Messiah (ver. 24).