5.The Glory the Father Gives the Son (8:48-59)

5.The Glory the Father Gives the Son (8:48-59)

JOHN 8

O. THE SIXTH DISCOURSE —THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD (8:12-59)

It is usually held that the background of this chapter remains the Feast of Tabernacle s(as in ch. 7). In the Jewish celebration of that feast the imagery both of water and of light was very important, and light continues to occupy attention in this section. But it is not always noticed that, though the crowd is mentioned eight times in chapter 7 it is not mentioned at all in this chapter (in fact, it is not mentioned again until 11:42; NIV reads "the people" in v. 12, but the Greek means no more than "them"). Throughout this section of the Gospel Jesus is confronted by his adversaries, not by the people at large. All this appears to mean that the feast was over and the crowd had gone home. Perhaps it was not long over, and the significance of the ceremonies had not yet faded from people's minds.

The discussion is triggered off by Jesus' statement that he is "the light of the world." The first reaction of his enemies is to attack the witness borne to him. Then the discussion goes on to the fate of dying in sins (vv. 21-24), the relationship between the Father and the Son (vv. 25-30), and the fact that the opponents of Jesus are slaves to sin (31-47). It concludes with a section on the glory the Father gives the Son (vv. 48-59). It thus covers a very wide range.

1. The Witness of the Father (8:12-20)

12When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. 13The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid." 14Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimomy is valid,for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father who sent me. 17In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the one who sent me — the Father." ₁₉Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also." 20He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.

Jesus makes a great claim. This provokes the Pharisees into vigorous opposition, and they choose to charge Jesus with invalid witness. Witness is not a new theme. Jesus has already claimed that the Father bears witness to him (5:37). He has said that it is this witness that carries conviction to him, so that he rejects all other witness (5:34), though he has also made it clear that this witness will not be received by his enemies. Here he is not going back on that position, but, in reply to the accusation that no witness is borne to him other than his own (which is legally invalid witness), Jesus insists that there is in fact Another who bears witness to him. Whether the Pharisees accept the witness of the Father or not, it is a fact. And that fact is important. John does not confine his attention to legal niceties, but he makes it clear that the witness borne to Jesus is completely valid.

12 The discussion of chapter 7 is resumed.¹ John does not say when this happened, but he does indicate the situation, namely "near the place where the offerings were put" (v.20). Jesus' opening words, "I am the light of the world," are very impressive. "I am" is emphatic. It is the very style of deity that we have seen employed before in this Gospel (see on 6:35). There has been a good deal of speculation about the origin of the expression "the light of the world" (cf. 9:5; 12:46 for the repetition of the thought in slightly different wording).² Many draw attention to the ceremonies with lights at the Feast of Tabernacles and suggest that Jesus was consciously fulfilling the symbolism suggested by them. There is nothing unlikely in this, especially if the words were uttered reasonably close to the time of the Feast. The feasts were very important to the Jews, who delighted in their observance and rejoiced in their symbolism.³ And it was important to the Christians that the Christ fulfilled all the spiritual truths to which the feasts pointed. Now the brilliant candelabra were lit only at the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles; there is dispute as to the number of nights on which the illumination took place, but none as to the fact that at the close of the feast it did not. In the absence of the lights Jesus' claim to the Light would stand out the more impressively. In favor of this view is also the fact that the candelabra were lit in the Court of the Women, the most frequented part of the Temple, and the very place in which Jesus delivered his address.

Yet, just as the reference to the water in chapter 7 seems to point us back to the rock in the wilderness rather than to the pouring of water from the golden pitcher, so the light may refer us to the pillar of fire in the wilderness. We have noted the reference to the manna in chapter 6, so that in three successive chapters the wilderness imagery seems consistently used to illustrate aspects of Jesus' Person and work.⁴ It must always be bome in mind that light is a common theme in both Old and New Testaments, so that it is not necessary for us to find the source of Jesus' saying in any nonbiblical context.⁵ Elsewhere we read that God is light (1 John 1:5), and Jesus himself said that his followers are "the light of the world" (Matt. 5:14; the expression is identical with that used here).⁶ Paul can also speak of Christians as "stars in the universe" (Phil. 2:15).⁷ It is, of course, plain that such terms must be applied to believers in a sense different from that in which they are applied to Christ. He is the fundamental source of the world's illumination. They, having kindled their torches at his bright flame, show to the world something of his light.

Bultmann sees the emphasis not in the fact that Jesus is distinguished from other claimants to give light, but from that human certainty that it already has the light, (p. 343). Light is not a natural human possession. It comes only from Christ. And it is not a separable entity that may be possessed in itself. It is not an objective revelation that people may receive and hug to themselves. Jesus is the light. To have the light is to have Jesus. There is no light apart from a right relationship to him.⁸

This is the supreme example of John's interest in light, which we have seen from the Prologue on (see on 1:4). In the opening verses of the Gospel he associated both life and light with the Logos. Now the whole world⁹ draws its light from him, and light and life are again connected. This saying does not mean that all people indiscriminately receive the light. Light does not belong to the human race as such. Only those who follow Jesus are delivered from darkness and enjoy the light; the implication is that the whole world, of itself, is in darkness. We should not overlook the present participle, which implies following Jesus continually. Jesus is speaking of wholehearted discipleship, not of casual adherence (cf. 1:37 and note). The follower of Jesus "will never walk in darkness." This may refer to the darkness of the world or the darkness of Satan. Perhaps we are not meant to distinguish sharply between them, for believers are delivered from both. Far from being confined to darkness they will have "the light of life."¹⁰ "The light of the world" does not give only a fleeting glimpse of light; the whole of life is illuminated. "Will have" points to something that continues. The coming of the light means a permanent transformation. For "life" see on 1:4; 3:15. Marsh makes the important point that "light, in a sense, bears witness to itself, though every other object in the world requires light in order to bear witness to itself. Light always illuminates, is never illuminated." (p. 351). Light is unique.

13 The leaders of the opposition to Jesus are the Pharisees. They do not address themselves to the main question. Indeed, they do not speak of light and darkness at all. Typically they fasten on a legal technicality. Jesus is bearing witness (see on 1:7) to himself, they say, and therefore his witness is "not valid." This does not necessarily mean that it is false.¹¹ They are saying that it has no legal worth.¹² There is no reason to accept it (cf. 5:31). The Pharisees' reaction to Jesus' claim to be the light is at base the answer people always make when they do not wish to be convinced: "I do not see it that way. The evidence is not sufficient to establish the claim." But light establishes its claim and does so, not by arguments, but by shining. Light must always be accepted for itself, and notwithstanding the objections of the blind.¹³

14 Jesus insists that his witness is true (cf. Rieu: " 'What if I am?' said Jesus, 'My evidence is sound'"). In 5:31 he has said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true," by which he meant that his witness had to be supported to be accepted (see note). There he agreed with the Pharisees that unsupported testimony has no legal value. He did not mean that his words were not in fact true. They were true. But if his testimony was unsupported it was not to be received. Here he has two points to make: the one is that he is qualified to bear witness though his enemies are not, and the other that in any case his testimony is not unsupported. The Father bears witness of him. Jesus is contrasting himself with the Pharisees. He knows both his origin and his destination,¹⁴ but they know neither.¹⁵ They are not in a position to comment on his witness. They are totally unaware of the great heavenly verities.

15 Their disqualification is further emphasized. They¹⁶ judge, and they can judge, only "by human standards," more exactly "according to the flesh."¹⁷ Now it is the nature of the flesh to be weak and incomplete, so the expression draws attention to the weakness and imperfection of their judgment (and of all judgments like theirs). It cannot but be imperfect and partial. After such a statement we expect something like "I do not judge after the flesh." But Jesus says, "I pass judgment on no one." The statement is a strong one, with an emphatic double negative. A difficulty is posed by its obvious meaning coupled with the fact that in succeeding verses it is clear that Jesus does judge. But we should notice two things: (1) he did not come to judge; that was not his purpose, and (2) the kind of judging that he engages in is not at all the same thing as that which the Pharisees envisage by the term. The two activities are so different that the same term does not describe them both. Judgment "according to the flesh" is not really judgment at all. As the Pharisees under-stand judgment Jesus makes no judgment whatever.¹⁸ The contradiction with "For judgment I have come into this world" (9:39) is no more than apparent. There judgment is the natural consequence of the coming of Jesus. Being what he is, his coming divides people: some accept him, some reject him. His coming is in itself a judgment. But here quite another truth comes before us. Jesus is pointing out in the firmest manner that he does not practice the kind of judgment that the Pharisees practiced. He came for salvation, not for judgment (3:17; 12:47).

16 Jesus turns now to the sense in which he does judge,¹⁹ and the justification for it. "If I do judge" could be understood of the judgment at the last day. But, as often in this Gospel, the context has to do with present judgment and the words should be taken in this sense. Jesus is continuing the thought that his judgment is unlike that of the Pharisees. It is not "according to the flesh" but "true" judgment (for "my judgment is true" NIV has "my decisions are right"), for it arises from his relationship to the Father. It is to sustain this point that Jesus insists that he is not alone. To the Jews he may appear a solitary figure, but the truth is that the Father is with him (cf. v. 29; 16:32).²⁰ This validates his judgment, for any judgment carried out by one who is in the very presence of the Father and in harmony with him must be a valid judgment. Characteristically Jesus adds a reference to his mission. He is "sent" (see on 3:17), but sent in such a way that the Father who sent him has not left him; he is with him still. Some very good manuscripts omit "Father" in this verse,²¹ reading simply, "I and he who sent me." If (as is probable) this is the correct way to take the verse the emphasis is not on the Father-Son relationship, but rather on the mission of Jesus. He is the "sent" one. He is not forsaken by the Sender. His judgment is informed by his intimate contact with the Sender.

17 Jesus now appeals to the Law which the Jews held to be binding. "Your"²² sets him apart from them. The expression is that by which Gentiles refer to the Law in dialogues reported in the rabbinic literature.²³ The Law applies to them in a way that it did not apply to him. Jesus stands with God and they with people. Yet this must not be overpressed, for Jesus was himself a Jew. The primary emphasis, then, is on the fact that this is the law to which they made their appeal (cf. Nicodemus's "our law," 7:51). It is the law that is binding on them and which they must accept. Now this law provided that the agreement of two witnesses was sufficient to establish testimony (Deut. 19:15), even in so serious a matter as an execution (Deut. 17:6).²⁴ In view of what follows it may be significant that Jesus does not cite Deuteronomy exactly. That book speaks of "two witnesses,'' but he of "two men," which he puts in an emphatic position. The Law accepts the testimony of two men. What then shall we say of the testimony of the Father and the Son?

18 Jesus asserts that he has the required twofold testimony. He is emphatic. "I am" may be meant to recall the style of deity; at the very least it adds solemnity and grandeur to the statement.²⁵ The two verbs expressing witness are both in continuous tenses. There is a continuing witness that Jesus bears to himself²⁶ and a continuing witness that the Father bears to him (cf. Brown, "In ν 31-39 Jesus listed a series of ways in which the Father has given testimony (v 37): John the Baptist; the works of Jesus; the abiding word of God in the hearts of the audience; the Scriptures"). In the light of his claims no other witness than that of the Father is sufficient. If Jesus really stands in the relationship to God in which he says he does, then no mere human is in a position to bear witness. No human witness can authenticate a divine relationship. Jesus therefore appeals to the Father and himself,²⁷ and there is no other to whom he can appeal. Once again the Father is described in terms of his sending of the Son.

19 Not unnaturally the Jews want to know where this Father of whom Jesus speaks is.²⁸ Jesus' reply indicates that the Father is inaccessible to them. It is possible to know the Father²⁹ only as we know Jesus, for Jesus is the revelation of the Father. It is a key doctrine of this Gospel that it is in the Son, and in the Son alone, that the Father is revealed. No one has ever seen God. It is the Son who has "made him known" (1:18). This is fundamental. If anyone really comes to know Jesus then that person will know the Father also, and acknowledge the Father's testimony to the Son. The two go together (cf. Weymouth, "You know my Father as little as you know me"). But to reject Jesus is to place oneself out of reach of the divine testimony. There is a sense in which the Pharisees know Jesus, but it is not the significant sense (see on 7:28). Their failure to understand the significance of Jesus and enter into an appreciation of his mission and message meant that they were quite unable to perceive the witness of the Father to him. They prided themselves on their knowledge of their God; Jesus tells them that they have no knowledge of him at all.

20 John adds another of those little notes which indicate an exact knowledge of the circumstances. Jesus spoke these things, he says, "in the treasury" (NIV paraphrases). It is most unlikely that Jesus taught in the actual treasure chamber, so the word probably means that part of the Temple area into which people came to cast their offerings into the chests. This must have been part of the Court of the Women (which got its name from the fact that women as well as men were permitted to enter it), for women had access to it (Mark 12:41-43). There were thirteen trumpet-shaped collection boxes there, each with its inscription showing the use to which its contents would be put.³⁰ In no other writing does the name "the treasury" appear to be used for a section of the Court of the Women, but it is difficult to give John's words any other meaning. This court was a place to which people resorted and where teaching could take place accordingly. It is not without its interest in view of the attitude of the authorities to Jesus that it was quite near the hall where the Sanhedrin met. Yet³¹ no one arrested him. Following the open enmity between the Pharisees and Jesus an arrest might have been expected. John explains that its failure to materialize was due, not to any lack of desire or opportunity, but to the will of God. Jesus' "hour" (see on 2:4; NIV has "time") had not yet come. Until it did his enemies were entirely powerless to harm him.

2. Dying in Sins (8:21-24)

21Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come." 22This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, 'Where / go, you cannot come'?" 23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,^a you will indeed die in your sins."

a. 24 Οr I am he

The previous verse appears to denote a break in proceedings. It is impossible to say when what follows was spoken. It follows on naturally enough, but that does not necessarily mean that it was spoken on the same occasion. There is no note of the time of the year between 7:37, when it is still the season of Tabernacles, and 10:22, when it is the Feast of the Dedication. The interval is two months, and there is no way of knowing to what point in this period any of the intervening matter should be dated. This section appears somewhat later than the previous one, but how much later cannot be determined.

The ideas here are important. Indeed, Wright says of verses 21-30: "These profound verses develop and unfold the key thought of Jesus in this Gospel, and cannot, therefore, be understood apart from the Gospel as a whole." John is all the time writing of one who stands in a unique relationship to the Father, one who is the supreme revelation of the Father. In this passage this relationship is the dominating thought.

21 "Once more" links what follows rather loosely with the preceding; it does not mean that it follows on immediately. Jesus begins by telling the Jews that he will leave them and that they will not be able to follow him where he goes (cf. 7:33-34, where see note). The words are mysterious, but we need not doubt that Jesus is referring once more to his departure to be with the Father.³² His death is set in contrast to theirs. They will die in their sin,³³ and this will prevent them from going where he goes. Dying in sin is not further defined. It is an Old Testament expression, but there, as here, it is not explained (Prov. 24:9, LXX; Ezek. 3:18; 18:18). It points to a horror that is all the more terrible for being unexplained. To die with one's sin unrepented and unatoned is the supreme disaster (Amplified renders, "[under the curse of] your sin"). Why the Jews should seek him Jesus does not say. It may be understood as their implacable pursuit of him, which would continue even after he has "gone away." Or Jesus may mean that their moment of insight will come too late. Only after they have crucified him will they realize who he is. Then their seeking of him will be in vain. Throughout this entire section the emphatic personal pronouns are used freely. Jesus and the Jews are set in strong opposition.

22The form in which the question is cast shows that the answer"No" is expected.³⁴ "Surely he will not kill himself?" is the force of it. The Jews do not think of Jesus as a likely suicide,³⁵ but they correctly catch a reference to death. The parting of which he is speaking is final. Some exegetes suggest that the Jews are joking, their meaning being, "If you are going to lowest Hades, we certainly will not be able to follow you!" Their quotation of the words of Jesus at the end of the verse is noteworthy for being exact, and the saying is quoted accurately once more in 13:33.³⁶ The similar words in 7:34 are also quoted accurately in 7:36. In this Gospel the more usual habit is for slight variation (e.g., 1:48, 50; 16:14, 15, etc.; see on 3:5), so that we cannot but feel that John attached especial importance to these sayings.

23-24 Jesus differentiates himself from the Jews with a pair of contrasts.³⁷ "He has to remind them that there are other gulfs dividing men besides the gulf of death" (Murray). His opponents are closely tied up with this word. They are "from below" and "of this world."³⁸ In a sense this can be said of all people. But there is a sense in which the attitude is all-important. These Jews were not only members of the human race. They were of the earth, earthy. Their attention was concentrated on this world instead of on doing the Father's will (contrast Col. 3:1-2). Jesus' meaning here, however, does not appear to center on this aspect (though it will be included) as much as on the fact that he and they differ in their essential being. He comes "from above;" he is "not of this world."³⁹ He is a being of a different order, and thus their pursuit of him when he chooses to leave them will be futile. It is because of this essential nature of theirs that he has told them that they will die in their sins. They belong to the world, the world where Satan is supreme (cf. 1 John 5:19). Therefore (which NIV omits),⁴⁰ when they die they will die in their sins. There is but one way of avoiding this fate, namely by coming to believe⁴¹ in Jesus. And this involves a right estimate of his person. It is important to believe "that I am"⁴² (NIV, "I am the one I claim to be"). This expression is in the style of deity. No predicate is expressed. The same Greek expression occurs a number of times (4:26; 6:20; 8:18, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8, and, of course, it is found several times with a predicate; see on 6:35). But it is not easy to understand what predicate could be supplied here (NIV does not carry conviction). The answer of the Jews shows some mystification. We should probably understand it along the lines of the similar expression in LXX, which is the style of deity (cf. Isa. 43:10).⁴³ Its use here involves the very highest estimate of Christ's Person (see further on v. 58). This, of course, gives a certain intellectual content to faith. Basically faith is trust. But in our reaction against the view that faith means no more than a firm acceptance of certain intellectual propositions we must not go so far as to say that it is entirely a matter of personal relations. It is impossible to have the kind of faith John envisages without having a high view of Christ. Unless we believe that he is more than just another man we can never trust him with that faith which is saving faith.

3. The Father and the Son (8:25-30)

25"Who are you? " they asked. "Just what I have been claiming all along, "Jesus replied. 26 "I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world." 27They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know who I am^a and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him. " 30Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him.

a. 28 Or, know that I am he

This leads to a discussion of Christ's Person and of his relationship to the Father. There is a strong affirmation of the unity between them, and a reference to Christ's death. This concept of the death on the cross of one who was one with the Father is the great central thought of this Gospel.

25 It is unlikely that the Jews perceived the full implications of Jesus' words. There is mystery in them, and the mystery is open only to faith. But they caught enough to discern that Jesus was making a large claim, and the outrageousness of this claim (as it seemed to them) caused them to explode into the question, "Who are you?" The pronoun "is scornfully emphatic" (Plummer) and placed first: "You, who are you to be saying such things?" is the force of it. The meaning of Jesus' answer is not clear.⁴⁴ The expression rendered "all along" is not the usual one.⁴⁵ It really means "at first," "at the beginning," and it is not easy to understand how this fits in. Barrett takes this as the significance of the words, but when he gives the meaning of the whole clause he substitutes "from the beginning," which is not the same thing as "at the beginning" at all. He says, "We must choose between the renderings (a) I am from the beginning what I tell you, and (b) I am what I tell you from the beginning." He thinks (a) is probably right. His (b) is the way GNB and Phillips take it. But nobody seems to have shown that the expression ever means "from the beginning."⁴⁶ If we substitute Barrett's "at the beginning," neither of his suggestions is felicitous. With this rendering the present tense is really difficult. One way of avoiding the difficulty is to go back to an understanding of the expression favored by the Fathers, namely, as "altogether" or the like.⁴⁷ It is the "at all" in our phrase "not at all." On this view Jesus' reply may be regarded either as a question or an exclamation. Quite a few translations take it as a question (NRSV, NEB, Cassirer, Goodspeed, Knox, etc.), which yields such a meaning as "To begin with, why do I even speak to you?" or "Why do I talk to you at all?" This yields a good sense; in the face of the Jews' continued refusal to recognize Jesus for what he was he wonders what is the point of continuing to talk to them. They are willfully obtuse. This meaning, however, does not fit in very well with the context, particularly with the very next verse, where Jesus says he has much to say about them. And it involves an interrogative that is not common anywhere in the New Testament and does not occur elsewhere in John.⁴⁸ This may be avoided by taking the expression as an exclamation, "That I speak to you at all!" But the difficulty of the context remains. Others, retaining the "at all," "altogether," significance, suggest a meaning like "Altogether that which I also speak unto you" (ARV mg; cf. Berkeley, "I am exactly what I tell you"). Jesus is then saying that he is altogether what his words show him to be. But the expression seems to be used with this meaning only when there is a negative. As we have seen, it is the "at all" in "not at all." It does not appear to be used often, if ever, in this positive sense⁴⁹ Hoskyns is of opinion that "beginning" is such an important word for John that he would never allow it to be lost completely, as in some of the above suggestions. Both the beginning of creation and the beginning of Jesus' ministry are important to him, and if he has both in mind at the same time (and we must bear in mind his fondness for double meanings) this may well have complicated the grammar. A further suggestion arises from the unique reading of the great Bodmer papyrus (ρ⁶⁶): "I told you at the beginning what I am also telling you."⁵⁰ This is so much better than the other readings that the only difficulty lies in seeing how, if it was original, it has affected the manuscript tradition so little. Barrett rejects it as secondary.⁵¹

The problem is thus a very complicated one, and it is not surprising that many exegetes hold that it is incapable of solution with the information at our disposal. If we could accept the reading of p⁶⁶ all would be well. Failing that, Hoskyns's suggestion seems to be best, that there is a complication due to the double meaning in the writer's mind. If neither of these be acceptable, then it seems that we are in the presence of a primitive corruption of the text such that the original is irrecoverable without further evidence. Perhaps "What I told you at the beginning" is as good a rendering of the Greek as we can get.⁵²

26 Then Jesus goes on to point out that he has many things to say "about" (not "to") them, and that these things concern judgment. Judgment is necessarily involved in all right teaching and action, and preeminently is this the case where the mission of the Son is concerned. In his function as Judge of us all he cannot overlook such conduct as that of his antagonists. But the right place and the right time to say such things are not yet. There are things that Jesus says now, and a consideration of them leads to his close connection with the Father.⁵³ Once more he thinks in terms of mission. The Father is "he who sent me" (seen 3:17). Once more he thinks of his message as thoroughly reliable because it rests on his contact with the Father. The Father is "true" (NIV, "reliable"), on which see Additional Note D (pp.259-62). Elsewhere Jesus also speaks of himself as ¹'the truth" (14:6), and the things he speaks are only the things that he has heard from the Father.⁵⁴ His message is to "the world";⁵⁵ it is not restricted in its scope.

27-28 The Jews did not catch the allusion. Since they did not recognize Jesus' heavenly origin it meant nothing to them that he could trace his message back to him who sent him, nor that his Sender was "true." What they did think of it is not said. So Jesus went on. "Lifted up" is a curious expression, but it must point to the cross here as in other places where it occurs in this Gospel (see on 3:14).⁵⁶ It is not a natural expression to use for crucifixion, and no other New Testament writer uses it with this meaning. Elsewhere it always means "to exalt." John probably uses it to convey a double meaning. Jesus was "lifted up" on the cross, and he was also exalted in a deeper sense, for his greatest glory consists in accepting the shame and the humiliation of the cross in order that thereby he might bring salvation to sinners. Here he is saying that the Jews will not understand who he really is before they have crucified him.⁵⁷ There is a revelatory aspect to the cross, and after the crucifixion those who reflect on it will be in a position to appreciate that Jesus is indeed more than man.⁵⁸ It is probable that we should put a stop after "I am he" (NIV, "who I am"), so that what follows is not a statement of what the Jews will come to realize, but of what Jesus constantly does (there is nothing in the Greek corresponding to NIVs "that"). He does not act as an isolated individual. He does nothing on his own initiative. He repeats from verse 26 that what he says to people is what God has spoken to him. His message is not of human origin, but divine.

29  This is followed by a statement of the intimate communion that always exists between Jesus and the Father. Again there is the thought of mission (this is the fourth reference to his being "sent" in this discourse; see also vv. 16, 18, 26). It is he who sent Jesus who is with him, and this may perhaps be regarded as part of the consequence of the sending. God does not and will not forsake his messenger. Jesus is not abandoned. The words that follow may give the reason for this in his continual doing of the Father's will. Or we may think of an ellipsis: "(I can say this) because I do always. . . ." The deeds that Jesus did were evidence that the Father was indeed with him. Sometimes objection is taken to the whole idea of "the sinlessness of Jesus" on the grounds that this is a negative concept. Here we have the glorious positive: Jesus is active in doing what pleases the Father. Always.

30  John briefly gives us the result of all this. As Jesus was speaking⁵⁹ these things, many came to put their trust in him (see on 1:12 for the significance of the construction). We are not told who the "many" were. They may have come from the opponents who disputed with Jesus, or they may have been bystanders. But they caught enough of the significance of all this to take their stand with Jesus.

4. Slaves of Sin (8:31-47)

31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." 33They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants^a and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" 34,Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. _38/ am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.^b" 39"Abraham is our father," they answered. "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would⁰ do the things Abraham did. 40As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself." 42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? ₄₇He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.

a. 33 Greek seed; also in verse 37

b. 38 Or presence. Therefore do what you have heard from the Father.

c. 39 Some early manuscripts "If you are Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then

This section of discourse is addressed to those who believe, and yet do not believe. Clearly they were inclined to think that what Jesus said was true. But they were not prepared to yield him the far-reaching allegiance that real trust in him implies. This is a most dangerous spiritual state.⁶⁰ To recognize that truth is in Jesus and to do nothing about it means that in effect one ranges oneself with the enemies of the Lord. It means also that there is some powerful spiritual force holding back the would-be believer from what is recognized as the right course of action. Anyone in that position is not free but a slave. Jesus makes it plain that his adversaries are slaves to sin and in the closest possible relationship to the evil one. True freedom is to be found in the liberty that Christ gives. By setting themselves in constant opposition these Jews did but proclaim their servitude to the evil one.⁶¹

31 There is a puzzle in the meaning of "believed him."⁶² Normally John uses this verb of trust in Jesus, such trust as brings people out of death into life. Especially is this so when the construction means "believe on" (as in v. 30; NIV, "put their faith in him"), but, as we saw in Additional Note Ε (pp. 296-98), it is usually not possible to make a sharp differentiation between the various constructions used with this verb. We would expect a discourse introduced in this fashion to be addressed to genuine disciples, but as it unfolds it appears that these Jews were nothing of the sort. Therefore many commentators look for a change of subject. Some think verse 30 refers to genuine believers and verse 31 to those who did no more than make an outward profession. Others think of real believers in both places, but hold that "they" in verse 33 refers to a different group, the enemies of Jesus.⁶³ But there is no indication in the narrative that different groups of people are meant. The difficulty leads some expositors to think the passage composite and ascribe some of the words to a redactor. This, however, introduces a further difficulty, namely the problem of the mind of a redactor who would take a reasonably straightforward narrative and produce this result, not being concerned about introducing a difficulty of such a magnitude that it has troubled commentators through the centuries. It is best to think that John is speaking of people who had made an outward profession, but a profession that did not go very deep. Jesus' words, then, are meant to drive home to formal and casual adherents the meaning of true discipleship. If people in any sense believe in Jesus it is important that they come to see what real faith means. While "therefore" in this Gospel often denotes a very loose connection (NIV omits it here), there may be point in the use of the word in this place. Since many attached themselves to Jesus, "therefore," he proceeded to unfold what their attachment should mean. The key word here is "abide" (NIV paraphrases with "hold to my teaching"; the Greek means "abide in my word"). It is easy enough to be superficially attracted to Jesus, but the test is "abiding." It is only those who continue who are genuine disciples. There is some emphasis on "you," as if to say, "you, you who have believed, even you can become true disciples by abiding." "My word" stands for the whole of Jesus' teaching (cf. 5:24; 14:23, etc.). The thought is repeated several times in this chapter (vv. 37, 43, 51, 52; cf. v. 55). It is probably significant that Jesus does not say "you will be" but "you are" disciples. He is not laying down a condition of discipleship, but telling them in what discipleship consists. When anyone abides in Christ's word, then that person is a true disciple.⁶⁴

32 Now Jesus does move into the future. Any true disciple will know the truth, and this discourse is especially concerned with truth; it is mentioned seven times (twice here, vv. 40, 44 bis, 45, 46). Truth is closely connected with the Person of Christ (1:17; 14:6), so that knowledge of the truth is naturally associated with being his disciple. What is essentially part of himself he communicates to his followers (see further on 1:14). Jesus goes on to say that "the truth" liberates. This must be understood in the context of this whole Gospel. The meaning is not that truth in a philosophical sense exercises a liberating function so that adherence to the school of Jesus procures such intellectual insight that people are delivered from the bonds of ignorance. There is, of course, a sense in which it is true that only by surrender to the facts is genuine freedom possible, be it in philosophy, science, or what you will. But that is not the point here.⁶⁵ The truth of which John writes is the truth that is bound up with the Person and work of Jesus. It is saving truth. It is the truth that saves people from the darkness of sin, not that which saves them from the darkness of error (though there is a sense in which those in Christ are delivered from gross error; this Gospel has a good deal to say about knowledge). Luke tells us that Jesus saw fulfilled in his ministry the prophecy that "He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners" (Luke 4:18). This is the kind of freedom of which John writes. People do not always, or even usually, realize that they are in bondage. They tend to rest in some fancied position of privilege, national, social, or religious. So these Jews, proud of their religion, did not even know their need to be free.

33 They retort by pointing to their relationship with Abraham. Connection with the great ancestor of the race was a high privilege, and in their view inconsistent with bondage. With a superb disregard for the facts of the situation as typified by the Roman yoke (and of their past history in Egypt and Babylon) they maintain emphatically⁶⁶ that they have never been in a state of subjection.⁶⁷ So they ask triumphantly how those who have never been in slavery can possibly be made free.⁶⁸

34 Jesus' answer is prefaced by the solemn "I tell you the truth" (see on 1:51), which shows that the saying is important. "Everyone who sins" is a participial construction that points us to a continuing state (cf. 1 John 3:6). Jesus is not saying that every individual act of sin represents slavery (though there is a sense in which that, too, is true). He is saying that everyone who continues in sin, who is a sinner, is thereby a slave.⁶⁹ Calvin brings out that people may not realize their true position: "the greater the mass of vices anyone is buried under, the more fiercely and bombastically does he extol free will." Those who sin are slaves to their sin whether they realize it or not. This means that they cannot break away from their sin.⁷⁰ For that they need a power greater than their own.

35-36 Jesus draws attention to the difference between the slave's relationship to the home and that of the son in order to show that he can bring people the freedom they need but cannot procure for themselves. The Jews held themselves to be sons in God's household. They presumed accordingly on rights that, being really slaves, they did not possess. The slave's position is temporary. He may in fact remain in a particular house all his life, but he has no rights, no security. At any time he can be sold or transferred to another part of the property.⁷¹ A son may in fact leave home or be expelled (though either would be unusual). But he has the position of a son, and nothing can alter that. He belongs. He has rights. In the Johannine manner we have a passing over to another meaning. John's interest is not in a son but in the Son.⁷² And he "belongs to it forever" in the sense of eternal existence. It is because he is what he is that he can give the freedom of which he speaks.⁷³ He has rights, and they concern a heavenly, not merely an earthly home. Because he is what he is he is able to give real freedom.⁷⁴ It is possible that we have here an allusion to the words, "I will be his father, and he will be my son. ... I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever" (1 Chron. 17:13-14).⁷⁵ If so, there is a hint at Christ's high majesty, as well as his rights in the house.

37 Jesus concedes their claim to be of Abraham's line. But over against that he sets their attempt to kill him, which stamps them as being of another spirit than Abraham (cf. Luke 3:8). The reason for their hostility is given in terms of Jesus' "word,"that is his whole message (cf. v. 31), which finds no place in them (or perhaps, among them). They have no room for it.⁷⁶ Religious privilege does not guarantee a right attitude to the things of God.

38 There is a series of contrasts in this verse. Jesus is set over against the Jews, "seen" stands over against "heard," his Father against theirs,⁷⁷ his speaking against their doing.⁷⁸ Jesus insists, as always, that his message is derivative. It is from the Father. He has unclouded vision of God, and he speaks accordingly of the things he has seen in him. They by contrast have no vision. They are children of their father and these are the things they do. "Speak" and "do" are both continuous tenses. Jesus is referring to his consistent message and their persistent practice. This assumes that NIV has translated correctly. But "do" might also be an imperative. In this case we must take "Father" in both parts of the verse as referring to God. Jesus is then enjoining his opponents to do what the heavenly Father tells them. This, while not an impossible understanding of the text, seems out of harmony with the general drift. It does away with several of the contrasts of the verse and is not the natural understanding of the Greek.⁷⁹

39-40 Their reply is to reiterate their relationship to Abraham. This is a little strange since Jesus admitted that (v. 37). But probably they discern in his latest words an assertion that they have another kinship, a spiritual kinship, which negates their physical descent from the great patriarch. God called Abraham "my friend" (Isa. 41:8) and spoke to Moses as to a friend Exod. 33:11). The Jews are implying that they are aligned with Abraham as well as friends of God. Jesus' reply is that deeds count for more than impressive ancestry (cf. Luke 3:8; Rom. 9:6-7). If they were really Abraham's children they would do the kind of deeds that Abraham did.⁸⁰ These deeds are summed up in their attempt to kill Jesus. Their murder plot arises out of their fundamental hostility to God.⁸¹ At this point he characterizes himself as "a man⁸² who has told you the truth." Truth receives a good deal of emphasis in this chapter (see on v. 32). And, as is characteristic, Jesus roots his message in God. He is not enunciating truth of himself. The truth he speaks to them he first heard from God. Abraham's conduct was not that of his descendants.

41 Jesus repeats that his enemies do the works of their father, but again he does not say who this father is. It is plain, both from this verse and from verse 38, that he is thinking of someone other than Abraham, but in neither place is this explicit. The implication in both places is that the evil deeds of his opponents are the result of their paternity: there is a family likeness. Grammatically it is possible to take "you are doing" as an imperative ("do") and to understand "your father" as God. But this involves the idea that the Jews know what his works are and scarcely seems consistent with the context (cf. v. 43; their whole failure to recognize Jesus as sent by God shows that they do not know the ways of God). It is better to take the verb as indicative and "your own father" as the devil. It is explicitly said that their father is the devil (v. 44), and it would be perverse to understand this verse differently. They answer that they are "not illegitimate children," which is a very curious response. They may be reviling Jesus. While they would not have given countenance to the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth, the Jews may well have known that there was something unusual about the birth of Jesus and have chosen to allude to it in this way.⁸³ Their emphatic "we" sets them over against someone else who they imply was born in this way. By contrast with the unfortunate manner of birth of which they speak they main-tain that they themselves are children of God (they go on to accuse him of being a Samaritan [v. 48], and they may be thinking that the Samaritans were not legitimate Jews; cf. 2 Kings 17:24). They dimly perceive the drift of Jesus' discourse. He was not speaking of physical paternity when he spoke of their father. They apparently now realize this, and proceed to claim the highest spiritual paternity. Not only are they Abraham's seed, but, they say, in spiritual things they are closely related to God. Their spiritual, as their physical, descent is impeccable (cf. Knox, "God, and he only, is the Father we recognize"). Alternatively it is possible to take the words in the sense often found in the Old Testament, where the forsaking of Yahweh is frequently likened to fornication or adultery. The Jews would then be asserting that they are not apostate, that they retain a firm hold on true religion.⁸⁴

42 The form of the conditional denies both propositions: "If God were your Father (as he is not), you would love me (as you do not)." Jesus finds evidence for this in their attitude to him. He came out from⁸⁵ God (the tense points to a moment of time, the incarnation) and has come (this time the tense indicates a continuing state). His was not a self-originated mission. It was the Father⁸⁶ who sent him (see on 3:17). Once more we get this concept of mission. John is full of it. There is the thought of dependence.

43 Everything in this verse depends on the contrast between "my language" (lit. "my speech) and "what I say" ("my word").⁸⁷ The former term will denote the form of expression, the outward shape of the discourse, while the latter signifies rather its content. Cf. Rieu, "Why do you not under-stand my language? Because you cannot comprehend my thought." It is a constant charge that the Jews do not hear Jesus' teaching. They are so wrapped up in their preconceptions that they cannot perceive its truth. It repels them. "We are here dealing with the terrible reality of the bondage of the human will, and this has as much to do with twentieth-century Christians as with first-century Jews or early Christian apostates" (Newbigin, p. 112). Phillips renders, "you cannot bear to hear what I am really saying." And because the essential content is alien to them, they do not understand the discourse in which the message is set forth. But Jesus is speaking basically of spiritual incomprehension, not of any failure of intellect. The Jews take no notice of what Jesus says because they have no notion of what he stands for. This has to be borne in mind in interpreting the frequent misunderstandings of Jesus recorded in this Gospel. If there is a lack of sympathy and comprehension of the basic position, then all manner of details will inevitably be misunderstood.

44 Now comes Jesus' explicit assertion of the kinship of his enemies with Satan. He has previously hinted at it, but now he affirms it in set terms. They take their origin from the devil, their father.⁸⁸ Consequently they set their will on doing his evil desires. They voluntarily choose to do his will. "To carry out" is continuous and points to an attitude. Their difficulty was not primarily intellectual but spiritual. The word rendered "desire" may on occasion denote good desire (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:17), but this is rare in the New Testament. The basic idea is that of very strong desire, and usually of strong desire directed in the wrong way ("lust"). Here it is plainly evil desire. Specifically Jesus has charged them with trying to murder him (v. 40; cf. 7:25), and indeed, has said that in the end they will succeed (v. 28). This he puts down to Satan's proclivity for this kind of thing. "From the beginning" will possibly refer to the murder of Abel (cf. 1 John 3:12), more probably to the fact that it was through Satan that Adam became mortal (Rom. 5:12ff.; cf. Wis. 2:24). Satan thus became the murderer of the whole human race. Though the devil existed before that time, people did not, so there was no opportunity for him to show himself as a "man killer." Once again there is a reference to truth.⁸⁹ Truth is associated with God and with Christ. Satan has no interest in them or in truth. His habitat is falsehood.⁹⁰ When he speaks a lie (NIV, "lies"), he is at home.⁹¹ That is what we expect from him. Basically he is a liar and the father of lying.⁹² Therefore those who live in a false way, as Jesus' opponents were doing, do but reflect their kinship with the devil. There is a change of tense: Satan "was" from the beginning a murderer, and was not standing in the truth. But then comes there "is" no truth in him; that is his present and continuing characteristic.⁹³

45  This essential relationship of his foes with the devil and that of the devil with falsity made it impossible for the Jews to believe in Jesus. He and they were in opposite camps. They had contradictory presuppositions. We should notice that Jesus says "because,"⁹⁴ not "although I tell the truth." They being what they were, it was not to be expected that they would respond to the truth.

46  The hollowness of their attitude is exposed. The first part of the verse is a staggering assertion of sinlessness, and they do not respond to it. We are often so interested in the fact that they found no charge to lay that we overlook that other fact that the really striking thing is the making of the challenge.⁹⁵ It betokens a clear and serene conscience. Only one who was in the closest and most intimate communion with the Father could have spoken such words. It is impossible to envisage any other figure in history making such a claim. In the light of their inability to point to any sin in him their continuing failure to believe in him is shown for the sham it was. If there was no sin, then he was indeed speaking the truth and if he was speaking the truth then they should have believed.

47 Jesus gives the answer to his own questions. A man must "belong to God" really to hear "what God says."⁹⁶ His opponents do not "belong to God." He has already pointed out that they are of their father the devil (v. 44). And because they lack the necessary kinship with heaven they do not heed the things he says.

5, The Glory the Father Gives the Son (8:48-59)

48The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?" 49"I am not possessed by a demon, " said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51I tell you the truth, if a man keeps my word, he will never see death." 52At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if a man keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53Are you greater than our father Abraham ? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?" 54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad. " 57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" 58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was bom, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

John brings this section of his Gospel to its close by leading up to a resounding climax — Jesus' claim to deity. This is recognized by the Jews for what it is and rejected with decision. The logical result is their attempt to stone him. But John always has before him the thought that no harm can befall Jesus until his "hour" has come. So he was concealed from them and went away from the temple.

48  The Jews remain totally unconvinced. Their accusation that Jesus was a Samaritan is puzzling,⁹⁷ but clearly it points to a laxity, as they saw it, in the observance of the tenets of Judaism. Possibly they have in mind Jesus' failure to observe the traditions of the elders; in their view this is being disloyal to the faith. He is observing only those parts of their religion which the heretical Samaritans observed and is thus to be classed with them. Or his refusal to agree with the Jews that they had an exclusive right to be called Abraham's children may be the point (cf. vv. 39-40). The Samaritans disputed this with some vigor, and Jesus' enemies may be saying, "You are no better than a Samaritan!"⁹⁸ "Aren't we right in saying . . ." appears to mean that this is a standing accusation, but we have no information about its being levelled at Jesus on any previous occasion.⁹⁹ The charge of demon possession is found in 7:20; 8:52; 10:20. It is also reported in the Synoptic Gospels, where it is regarded as particularly heinous, being linked with the unforgivable sin (Matt. 12:24ff.; Mark 3:22ff.; cf. Matt. 9:34; 11:18, etc.).

49  Jesus ignores the charge that he is a Samaritan (which in any case probably counted for less to him than it did to them), and quietly denies that he has a demon. Against this he sets the contrasting thought that¹⁰⁰ it is his practice to honor his Father, which, of course, is as far removed from demon possession as is possible. With that is to be taken the fact that they are dishonoring him. Rieu's "you insult me" appears to be too strong. Jesus is saying that he gives honor where it is due while they do not. This failure on their part is the reason they make such erroneous statements.

50  Immediately Jesus goes on to disclaim self-seeking. His words just spoken might perhaps be misinterpreted to mean that he sought glory for himself. This was not his aim at all. He reminds his hearers that there is One who seeks. In this context this must mean "seeks glory." Jesus is not concerned that people should give him the glory that is his due; God is looking after that. God seeks out the glory that people bestow, and not only seeks what they do, but judges it. Jesus' hearers may act as though they are supreme and dispense justice. Actually they are under judgment. It is therefore not an indifferent matter where they give glory. God searches out what they do and judges accordingly. The present tense shows that, as elsewhere in this Gospel, judgment takes place here and now. There is possibly some of John's irony here. The Jews were continually "seeking" Jesus in their mistaken zeal for God's glory, and their seeking was aimed at and would ultimately issue in Jesus' death (5:18; 7:1, 19, 25, 30; 8:37, 40; 10:31, 39; 11:8; 18:3). But in a deeper sense the real seeking was done by God. And he sought not the treatment of Jesus that the Jews sought, but his own glory. Further, this seeking means judgment for those who, for all their zeal, are so hopelessly opposed to God's purposes. There is a further ironical touch in that, while the Jews sought the death of Jesus, when it was brought about this would torn out to be his real glory.

51   Now comes the climax of this short speech, as the solemn "I tell you the truth" (see on 1:51) shows. As earlier in this chapter, "word" means the whole of Jesus' message (vv. 31, 37, and 43). There is some emphasis on "my."¹⁰¹ The Jews are ready to classify him as a demon-possessed Samaritan. Yet it is his word that anyone must keep¹⁰² if that person would enter life. Jesus chooses to put his statement into the negative form, "he will never see death." "Death" is in an emphatic position: "Death he will not see." This is possibly occasioned by the preceding thought that the Jews are under judgment. But death is not the lot of anyone who keeps Jesus' message.¹⁰³

52  The Jews think that their previous statements about Jesus are now proved. None but such as they held him to be could say such things. They point out that Abraham, the great forebear of the race, died. The prophets, the spiritual giants of the race, died. Yet in the face of these facts Jesus ("you" is scornfully emphatic) says that keeping his "word" will avoid death.¹⁰⁴ Obviously, their reasoning runs, this claim is something bigger than anything accomplished by the greatest of the ancients. It does not occur to them that it is not therefore necessarily false.

53  So they ask Jesus to reflect on the implications of his words. Their question is so framed as to look for the answer "No." This is another example of John's irony. The true situation is the very opposite of that presupposed by their words. Is he greater than Abraham who¹⁰⁵ died? And the prophets died. The use of the aorist tense in both clauses points to the actuality of these happenings. Death comes to all, and it came to these men. What, then, does it mean that Jesus can deliver other people from death? Clearly it means a claim to superhuman power. They imply that to expose the claim for what it is is to show it to be impossible of fulfilment. They do not face the fact that Jesus is aware of the implications and still makes the claim. It is worth noticing that the Jews constantly accuse Jesus of "making" himself divine (5:18; 10:33; 19:7). But this Gospel stresses Jesus' continual dependence on the Father (5:19, etc.). He is aware of his high dignity, but speaks of it in terms of obedience and service. He does not see his dignity as enhanced or even brought out by the making of exaggerated claims. At the end of the verse NIV renders "Who do you think you are?" but the force of the Greek is rather "Whom do you make yourself out to be?" (so Bruce, p. 203).

54  For the moment Jesus leaves Abraham and returns to the thought of glory. If he were to glorify himself (which he has just disclaimed, v. 50), that would be nothing. All self-glorification is to be discounted. But that does not mean that Jesus is not glorified. The Father glorifies him. The Jews are attempting to make nothing of Jesus. Before dealing specifically with the case of Abraham that they have raised, Jesus points out that he is not without his glory. But it is God-given, not self-given. He speaks of God as "my Father," then differentiates his relationship from theirs by pointing out that him whom he calls "Father" they call not "Father" but "God."¹⁰⁶

55  Yet he is not really their God at all. They have not known him. This probably includes the thoughts that they have never known him in the past and that they do not know him in the present. In this their case is different from that of Jesus. He really does know him (see on 4:18), and to say otherwise would be to reduce himself to the class of liars to which they belong. In their case it means saying that they know God whereas in fact they do not. In his it would be the opposite error, but error for all that. Facts must be faced. Jesus does more than know him. He keeps his word. That is to say, he acts in accordance with all that God has revealed of himself.

56  Now Jesus returns to the case of Abraham on which they built so much. Abraham, so far from being opposed to Jesus, rejoiced at his "day."¹⁰⁷ Abraham is characterized as "Your father." His relationship to the Jews is noticed at the same time as his joy in Christ is brought out. The Jews were being false to their great ancestor. Their reliance on Abraham was baseless. "Rejoiced" is a wholehearted word, and signifies something like "exulted," "was overjoyed."¹⁰⁸ Two points are to be considered here — the occasion of Abraham's rejoicing and the meaning of Christ's day. Taking the latter first, "my day" is not defined. Elsewhere "the day of Christ" points to the second coming and to final judgment (Phil. 1:10; 2:16). Here a reference to the incarnation is more probable. The whole of Christ's work for people seems to be in mind. The occasion of Abraham's rejoicing is difficult. Some take it as present, and think of Abraham as rejoicing in Paradise over Christ's work on earth. This, however, ignores the use of the past tenses (cf. the similar statement about Isaiah, which is definitely located in the prophet's lifetime, 12:41). There are various possibilities suggested by Jewish thought about Abraham, though it should be noted that the rabbis were more concerned about Abraham's foresight of later events than about his rejoicing. Thus some apparently pointed to the promise, "all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Gen. 12:3), and held that Abraham then rejoiced at the prospect of the Messiah being born from his descendants.¹⁰⁹ Others concentrated on the vision of Genesis 15, thinking that Abraham then foresaw the future of the nation, and thus of Messiah.¹¹⁰ A view that seems to involve misinterpretation of Scripture saw in the laughter of Genesis 17:17 not incredulity but happiness that the birth of this child would lead on to God's Chosen One.¹¹¹ And there is a very curious piece of rabbinic exegesis in connection with Genesis 24:1, "Abraham was . . . well advanced in years," which literally is "gone into the days." This was understood to mean that Abraham entered into all the days of the future.¹¹² Though much of this seems fanciful to us, it shows that among the Jews the idea that Abraham looked forward to the day of the Messiah and rejoiced in it was not strange. We cannot, however, feel confidence in any of the proposed occasions, and it may be significant that Jesus does not refer to any.¹¹³ In other words, he may well mean that Abraham's general attitude to this day was one of exultation, rather than referring to any one specific occasion in the life of the patriarch.

57  The Jews' incredulity breaks out in a reference to the age of Jesus; a man not yet fifty years old could not have seen Abraham! It is curious that they use the number "fifty." Luke tells us that Jesus was "about thirty years old" (Luke 3:23) when he began his ministry, and all the indications are that the ministry occupied no more than about three years. It is not likely that John is presenting us with another tradition about the age of Jesus.¹¹⁴ More probably fifty is thought of as a good age, possibly as the completion of a person's working life and the entrance on to old age. It is the age at which the Levites completed their service (Num. 4:3). Marsh gives the meaning as, "Are you, still not retired, old enough to have seen Abraham?" (p. 371). Or it may be meant to contrast one short lifetime with the centuries that had elapsed since Abraham's day. In any case we must not overlook Lagrange's point that they thought of Jesus as being out of his mind. They were certainly not discussing his age with careful precision; they simply gave good measure.¹¹⁵ Jesus was still a young man. He could not claim even to be one of the elders. How then could he possibly have seen Abraham? The Jews do not quote Jesus exactly: he speaks of Abraham seeing his day, they of his seeing Abraham.

58 So we reach the climactic point in this chapter with Jesus' magnificent affirmation, "before Abraham was born, I am!" John began his Gospel by speaking of the preexistence of the Word. This statement does not go further than that. It could not. But it brings out the meaning of preexistence in more striking fashion. Before the great patriarch, who lived centuries before, Jesus' existence went on. His "I tell you the truth" marks this out as an important and emphatic statement (see on 1:51). Whether we translate "before Abraham was" (KJV) or "was born" (NIV, etc.) the meaning will be "came into existence," as the aorist tense indicates.¹¹⁶ A mode of being that has a definite beginning is contrasted with one that is eternal. "I am" must here have the fullest significance it can bear. It is in the style of deity (see on vv. 24 and 28), "a reference to his eternal being" (Haenchen).¹¹⁷ It is not easy to render into Greek the Hebrew underlying passages like Exodus 3:14, but the LXX translators did so with the form we have here.¹¹⁸ It is an emphatic form of speech and one that would not normally be employed in ordinary speaking. Thus to use it was recognizably to adopt the divine style.¹¹⁹ In passages like verses 24 and 28 this is fairly plain, but in the present passage it is unmistakable. When Jesus is asserting his existence in the time of Abraham there is no other way of understanding it.¹²⁰ It should also be observed that he says "I am," not "I was." It is eternity of being and not simply being that has lasted through several centuries that the expression indicates.

59 The Jews could interpret this only as blasphemy. They therefore took up stones to stone him, the proper punishment for that offense (Lev. 24:16). In their angry state they apparently saw no other course. They could, of course, have chosen to proceed by legal means. This would have meant trying Jesus on this count and stoning him only when he was duly sentenced by a proper authority.¹²¹ But their passions were aroused. They were incensed. So they took the law into their own hands. That they found stones ready to hand in the Temple area seems to indicate that building operations were in progress at the time. "Hid himself" is really a passive, "was hidden."¹²² John is perhaps hinting that God protected his Son. It is not so much that Jesus by superior cleverness concealed himself from them. It was rather that he was concealed by Another, and so passed out of the Temple. It may well be that we are to discern symbolism in this action. "At this point Jesus symbolically abandons his own people (the temple) and goes out to humanity (the man born blind; chap. 9)" (MacGregor).

——————————————————

1 The aorist έλάλησαν signifies "uttered a discourse" rather than "was teaching."

2. For John's habit of introducing variations in repetitions though without substantial difference of meaning see on 3:5. Here and in 9:5 Jesus is called "the light of the world," but the word order is different in the Greek and the emphatic ἑγώ is lacking from 9:5. In 12:46 we read that he came "into the world as a light."

3. Philo sees the time at which the Feast of Tabernacles was observed as significant. On the first day of the feast the moon succeeded the sun without interval so that there was no dark interlude (De Spec. Leg. 2.210). This kind of symbolism may have suggested "the light of the world." The strength of the illumination at Tabernacles is also significant: the Mishnah says that there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by the light from the great candlesticks (Sukk. 5:3).

4. Cf. the chapter headed "The Light of the World and the Three Gifts" in T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London, 1963), pp. 60ff.

5. Barrett has a lengthy and important note in which he shows that the background of the saying is complex. He finds it in the ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles, in pagan religions (notably in the Hermetic literature), in Judaism, and in the Synoptic Gospels. He concludes: "John stands within the primitive Christian tradition.... Nevertheless, it remains very probable that in the formulation of his statement he was influenced both by Hellenistic religion and by Jewish thought about Wisdom and the Law. . . . Yet for John 'the light of the world' describes what is essentially a soteriological function rather than a cosmological status." MacGregor sees in the expression an echo of the Prologue and specifically rejects a reference to the symbolism of Tabernacles. Light is of course one of the major themes of the Qurnran scrolls. The good spirit may there be called "the prince of lights," and good men are designated "sons of light." There is even a reference to looking at "the light of life" (1QS 3:7; DSS, p. 373). As often, there is similarity in terminology and even ideas, but difference in the basic concept. The scrolls have nothing like Christ's statement that he is "the light of the world."

6. This should not blind us to the uniqueness of Christ's claim. The assertion that he is the light of the world means that he is the source of light for the whole world and sets him apart from all others. To say that his followers are collectively the light of the world is to say that, in contrast to outsiders, the church mediates light to the world. But its light is derivative. It comes from Christ and cannot be more than a reflection of the light that streams from him.

7.P aul's word is φωστῆρες, whereas here and in Matthew the term is φῶς. φωστῆρ is used primarily of the heavenly bodies, and seems to mean "light-bearers," though it has "light" as a secondary meaning.

8. The rabbis sometimes used "Light" as a name for the Messiah, which may point to the same truth (SBk, I, p. 67).

9. The implications of the use of χόσμος should not be overlooked. John is not writing about a parochial salvation, a gospel for some small, restricted group (like tiny Israel). Jesus is the light of nothing less than the world.

10. The meaning of the genitive in τò φῶς τῆς ζωῆς is not obvious. It might signify "the light that gives life" or "the light that is life" or "the light that springs from life" or"the light that illuminates life." Probably in the Johannine manner none of these meanings is meant to be excluded. The expression is found in the Qumran scrolls, where we read that the man whose sins are atoned "will look at the light of life" (1QS 3:7; DSS, p. 373). This would favor the first of the suggestions. Schnackenburg understands the meaning as "the life which frees a person from the sphere of death," and this certainly is included.

11. The Pharisees would, of course, have affirmed that Jesus' witness was false. This may be another of John's many uses of a word with more meanings than one. But the main thrust of the passage is clearly that the witness of Jesus has not complied with the legal requirements for valid testimony.

12. In the Mishnah we read, "none may be believed when he testifies of him-self. . . . None may testify of himself" (Ket. 2:9).

13. Cf. Wright: "there are types of so-called religious apologetic, which, distrusting the intrinsic claims of religion itself, seek to put in its place 'external evidences' and 'institutional safeguards.' How can light convince us that it is light except by what it does for us? We do not demonstrate that light is light by treatises, or by analyses of its constituent rays. It is only light to us when it illumines and quickens us." He also says, "Anyone can, to his own satisfaction, confute the claim which Beauty makes, by saying, I do not see it; or the claim inherent in Goodness, by saying, I do not hear it; or the self-evidencing nature of Truth, by saying, I do not know it. But man does not create Goodness, or Truth, or Beauty; and to say that he cannot see them is to condemn himself, not them." So with Light.

14. Cf. Westcott: "In the past lie the manifold elements out of which the present grew; in the future lies the revelation of what the present implicitly contains. He can bear witness to himself who has such knowledge of his own being."' For John's use of ύπάγω see on 7:33.

15. There is a change from the aorist ἦλθον, "I came," to the present ἔρχομαι, "I come." It may be that Jesus is contrasting his own knowledge of a definite event with the continuing uncertainty of the Pharisees. MiM comments, "The past fact (Ί came') is not one which the Pharisees could know, except by inference: His present mission from the Father (Ί come') should have been discerned by all who saw His works and heard His words." Jesus uses χαί, while the Pharisees have ᾔ: he knows both, but they know neither.

16. ύμεῑς and έγώ are set in emphatic contrast.

17. κατά τήν σάρκα. NiVs paraphrase brings out the error of the Pharisees, but not the weakness and incompleteness that are implied. The same is true of many translations.

18. Bernard reminds us that Jesus did not set himself up as a judge during his earthly life. In fact people charged him with not judging enough, for he mingled with publicans and sinners (Mark 2:16; Luke 15:2), he did not repulse the sinner in Simon's house (Luke 7:39), and even when confronted with the adulteress whose guilt was clear he refused to condemn her (John 8:11).

19. δέ comes unusually late in the sentence (fourth word); it supports χai to give a meaning like "even if."

20. There is no verb in the last part of the verse; it reads "I and the Father that sent me," placing Jesus and the Father side by side in impressive simplicity.

21. The words are not found in * D syr^{s c}.

22. The expression is έν τῷ νόμφ δὲ τῷ ύμετέρφ. The following γέγραπται signifies "it stands written" (see on 2:17 for John's method of citation). "Your law" is very unusual (though cf. 10:34; 15:25). It must not be taken as though Jesus repudiated the authority of the Law. Rather, it is an argumentum ad hominem. By their own principles, by the Law they invoked and so proudly claimed as their own, they were shown to be in the wrong. We see here a further example of the Johannine irony. The Jews sought conformity to the Law they accepted. Jesus offers the testimony, not merely of one under the Law like themselves, but of the very Giver of the Law. But they cannot accept it

23. IFG, p. 82.

24. Num. 35:30 provides that one witness is not sufficient. The Jews took this so seriously that they interpreted Scripture to mean "two witnesses" wherever a witness is mentioned unless it is specifically laid down that only one is required (SBk, I, p. 790).

25. The expression is found in Isa. 43:10 (where it is used of Yahweh), as is the thought of witness.

26. Field argues for the correctness of KJV here: "In making out the two witnesses, we should say in English: "There is I (or myself) that bear witness of myself, and there is the Father,' &c. But the Greek idiom for 'There is I,י or 'It is 1,' is not έστίν έγώ, but έγώ εϊμι (Ch. vi.20). Hence the A.V. (only italicizing one) exactly expresses what is intended" (p. 93).

27. Among the Jews the combined witness of a father and son was not acceptable, at least for some purposes (Mishnah, Rosh. Hash. 1:7). But this is not laid down in the Law, and it is the Law to which Jesus appeals, not tradition.

28. Tenney comments: "Whether the Pharisees' question is a bewildered inquiry or an intentional insult is hard to determine. In Western culture it would be more likely t o be the former. In the East, to question a man's paternity is a definite slur on his legitimacy. It may be unwise to read into this question more hostility than is necessary; yet in the ensuing discussion the same idea recurs (v. 41)" (EBC).

29. Abbott points out that in this Gospel cxv always follows an emphatic word, so that "my Father" is more emphatic than "know."

30. The inscriptions are quoted in the Mishnah, Shek. 6:5.

31. καί is used in the sense καίτοι (see on 1:5).

32. When John uses ὑπάγω of Jesus it most commonly refers to his going to the Father; in other words, it is a reference to his death.

33 I f there is significance in the singular άμαρτία as against the plural of verse 24 it will be to concentrate attention on the sin of all sins, that of rejecting Jesus (so Barrett), of failing to believe in him (cf. 16:9). It is placed before the verb for emphasis, whereas in verse 24 it is the thought of death that is more prominent. But it is a habit of John's to introduce small variants in his threefold repetitions, and this could be another example (see on 3:5). The word occurs 6 times in this chapter and 3 times more in chapter 9, but not again until the discourse in the upper room.

34. Μήτι άποκτενεϊ έαυτόν;

35. The Jews had a very severe attitude to suicide. Thus Josephus says, "But as for those who have laid mad hands upon themselves, the darker regions of the nether world receive their souls, and God, their father, visits upon their posterity the outrageous acts of the parents" (Bell. 3.375). Occasional exceptions, such as Samson (Judg. 16:30) and the Jews who died at Masada in a.d. 73, were regarded as praiseworthy, but the general attitude was one of abhorrence.

36. This is the only threefold repetition in this Gospel with all three members identical that I have been able to find. See SFG, ch. 5.

37. The imperfect ελεγεν suggests to Bernard that this was a habitual saying of the Lord's. Lagrange sees in the use of καί ελεγεν rather than έλεγεν οΰν an indication that Jesus does not reply to the Jews' question but merely continues with what he had in mind to say to them.

38. There is a variation in word order here. "This world" is τούτου τοϋ κόσμου when used of the Jews, but τοϋ κόσμου τούτου at the end of the verse. Since the latter is John's normal order the former may well be emphatic. Indeed, this is the only place in the whole New Testament where ούτος precedes the noun in the expression "this world." There is emphasis on this world.

39. The preposition έx denotes origin in each case. For είναι έx see on 3:31.

40. This is one of the few examples in this Gospel of the use of ούν in speeches of Jesus (see on 6:62). It links the saying that they will die in their sins very closely with the foregoing.

41. The aorist πιστεύσητε means "make an act of faith," "come to believe."

42. Temple maintains that this "cannot be reproduced in English, for it combines three meanings: (a) that I am what I say — 5c. the Light of the World; (b) that I am He — the promised Messiah; (c) that I am — absolutely, the divine Name. All these are present; none is actually indicated." GNB renders, "I Am Who I Am."

43. See n. 117 below.

44. There is a good discussion of the passage by E. R. Smothers, HTR, LI [1958], pp. 111-22.

45. The expression is τήν άρχήν. It is more usual in the New Testament to find άπ' αρχής, which means "from the beginning"; sometimes έν άρχη or έξ άρχής is preferred. This is the only place in the New Testament where τήν άρχήν is used adverbially, though the accusative is not uncommon elsewhere, as LS shows. This lexicon gives the meaning as "to begin with, at first." It is not usual to have a present tense with such an expression, and this increases the difficulty of the present passage.

46. It may be possible to derive this meaning from the adverbial accusative. So, for example, BDF 160, but the meaning "from the beginning" is there bracketed with "at all," and in 300(2) the latter appears to be favored.

47. Cf. Chrysostom, "What He saith, is of this kind; 'Ye are not worthy to hear My words at all, much less to learn who I am' " (53.1; p. 191).

48. δ τι is, of course, used in indirect questions, but it is not common in direct questions. BDF cites examples from LXX, from Mark, and from early Christian literature, and considers the construction "a piece of 'biblical Greek'." In the present passage it favors the reading of ρ⁶⁶ (είπον ύμΐν τήν άρχήν), though noting that this is rejected by Barrett (300[2]). Abbott rejects the idea t hat δ τι is interrogative here (2155). If δ τι is read as introducing a question it will, of course, have the meaning "why?" (unless it is read as δτι, "that").

49. See Abbott, 2154, 2154c. Hendriksen accepts this meaning ("Exactly what I am also telling you"), but cites no example of this use without a negative (he says it is "not without parallel elsewhere," but he cites no parallel). Dods takes up much the same position, but again cites no examples. Jacob Eisner cites a few but prefers to understand the expression in the sense initio, a principio (Observationes Sacrae [Jacob van Poolsum, 1720], pp. 319-21). Clearly this construction is very rare, and that is the objection. It is not a natural way of understanding the text.

50. In the text of p⁶⁶ there is a mark to show an omission just before τήν άρχήν and in the margin is written εΐπον ύμϊν. Prof. V. Martin, who edited this papyrus, thinks the marginal correction was made by the original scribe and says that there are many examples of this throughout this papyrus. R. W. Funk argues for accepting this reading (HTR, LI [1958], pp. 95-100), and J. R. Michaels favors it (BT, 8 [1957], p. 154).

51. ExT, LXVIII (1956-57), pp. 176-77. He translates it, "I told you in the beginning that which also I am speaking to you (now), since I have many things to speak and judge concerning you." His conclusion is, "It seems doubtful whether this is an improvement on the current text, of which it is probably a secondary development."

52. Other meanings have, of course, been suggested. Thus Rieu renders, "So we go back to our starting-point!" and Barclay, "Anything I am saying to you is only the beginning," Black finds a mistranslation of an Aramaic expression. But he has to do a considerable amount of rearrangement of the text, and he offers no explanation of how such disorder is possible (AA, pp. 172ff.). Torrey thinks an original έτι has been corrupted to δτι and translates "I am even yet in the beginning of my word to you." But I have not found a solution that carries conviction.

53. This is introduced by άλλ'. It is not easy to understand why this emphatic adversative is chosen. Perhaps a contrast is intended between what the Jews understood to be Christ's origin and the facts of the case. Or the thought may be "But now is not the time. That must await the Father's time."

54. κάγώ is an emphatic aligning of Jesus with the Father's message. The aorist ήκουσα accords with the custom in this Gospel when reference is made to Christ's hearing anything from the Father (3:32; 8:26, 40; 15:15). It may be that John has in mind "that message which He heard when He came down from the Father to save mankind" (Abbott, 2451 on 3:32). Cf. also Deut. 18:18.

55. Unless we take εις τον κόσμον as equivalent to έν τω κόσμω. The construction λαλέω εις is found only here in John (elsewhere 1 Cor. 14:9). λέγω is occasionally followed by είς, as in Luke 22:65; Acts 2:25; Eph. 5:32, but the meaning then is "with reference to."

56. "Here it is a grim suggestion that the Jews will help him on his upward way — by killing him" (Hunter).

57. Bultmann reminds us that this prophecy has significance for all, and not only for Jesus' contemporaries: "it applies to all those who refuse to believe in the Revealer, whenever and wherever the word is heard; to all those who through their unbelief identify themselves with the Jews who set Jesus upon the Cross. The Cross was the Jews' last and definitive answer to Jesus' word of revelation, and whenever the world gives its final answer in the words of unbelief it 'lifts up' the Revealer and makes him its judge" (p. 350).

58. Dodd sees a possible reference to Isa. 43:10 and adds, "It is difficult not to see here an allusion to the divine name " (IFG, p. 95).

59 There is a genitive absolute αύτοϋ λαλοϋντος, though the participle might have agreed with αύτόν.

60. Cf. Temple, "As we read the stern words that follow, let us not ask so much how He the Lord of Love should so speak to the Jews, as whether we have deserved that the Lord of Love should so speak to us. Above all, let us remember, and here observe, how resistance on grounds of self-will to what we recognise as right and noble, has a hardening and embittering effect on those in whom it is found which involves mortal peril to the soul."

61. Wright points out that "The answers of Jesus deepen the perplexity, for that is grounded, not in serious and anxious inquiry, but in the blind determination of the whole nature. The perplexity hardens into exasperated hostility, and then, at the end of the chapter, into open violence."

62. τους πεπιστευκότας αύτω 'Ιουδαίους. The perfect may, as Abbott suggests (2506), be due to the fact that there is no pluperfect active participle, and John wants something to indicate more than a simple past. Certainly the context rules out the possibility ⁶²   of taking it to mean a continuing belief. The use of the dative often denotes simple credence rather than trust in a person, and the change to this construction from είς + accusative of the previous verse may be significant. But John does not appear to make much of a distinction between the two (see Additional Note E, pp. 296-98), and in any case it appears to be the same persons who are spoken of. Nor should we overlook the fact that είς + accusative may apparently be used of a defective faith (cf. 2:23-24; 12:42). Of the kind of conditional clause here Burton says, "The thought would be expressed more fully but less forcibly by supplying some other phrase as it will appear that or it will still be true that" (Moods, 263). It says nothing about whether the condition is fulfilled or not, but explains what would be the case were it to be realized.

63 Augustine, for example, thinks of a change of subject here (41.2; p. 230).

64. Of the kind of conditional clause here Burton says, "The thought would be expressed more fully but less forcibly by supplying some other phrase as it will appear that or it will still be true that" (Moods, 263). It says nothing about whether the condition is fulfilled or not, but explains what would be the case were it to be realized.

65. For this reason parallels sometimes adduced from the Stoics and others to the effect that wisdom or the like liberates are misleading. Even χάρις ϰαΐ φιλία έλευθεροΐ (Prov. 25:10a, LXX; not in the Hebrew) is not really parallel. Perhaps the nearest appreaches are in Epictetus. That philosopher says to the tyrant, "How can you be my master? Zeus has set me free" (1.19.9; Loeb edn. I, p. 131); "no one has authority over me. I have been set free by God. I know His commands, no one has power any longer to make a slave of me" (4.7.16-17; Loeb edn. II, p. 367). But this is simply the expression of a proud self-sufficiency. Epictetus also says, " I pay attention only to myself. But if you wish me to say that I pay attention to you too, I tell you that I do so, but only as I pay attention to my pot" (1.19.10; Loeb edn. I, pp. 131-32). This is far from the spirit of Jesus.

66. ύμών is read after τοϋ πατρός by C Κ Θ fl fl3 etc., but is to be omitted with ρ⁶⁶ ρ⁷⁵ Β L W Or etc. Hellenistic Greek proliferates personal pronouns, but sometimes the New Testament follows classical usage by employing only the article. This does not lead to ambiguity. In this verse, for example, there is no suggestion that Jesus' Father is identical with the father of the Jews. The whole sentence structure seems to show that there is a contrast, not an identity. Moulton argues from the absence of a possessive pronoun that "the Father" (i.e., God) is meant (Μ, I, p. 85), but this scarcely seems evidence enough.

67. Ryle comments, "The power of self-deception in unconverted man is infinite. These Jews were not more unreasonable than many now-a-days, who say, ,We are not dead in sin; we have grace, we have faith, we are regenerate, we have the Spirit,' while their lives show plainly that they are totally mistaken."

68. Some suggest that their meaning is "We have never been in bondage to other deities" or "We have never lost our freedom of spirit," rather than "We have never been in subjection to a conqueror," the latter being so patently false. Moreover, "truth" would not set free from such bondage. Yet i f this is the meaning it is rather curiously expressed. The most natural way of taking their words is with reference to outward bondage. But in any case Jesus' reply will stand. A proud assertion of self-sufficiency is itself evidence of the bondage of which he speaks. Josephus quotes a speech of Eleazar in which he says,"Long since, my brave men, we determined neither to serve (δουλεύειν) the Romans nor any other save God" (Bell. 7.323; he also cites the followers of Judah the Galilean as holding that God is their only Ruler and Lord, Ant. 18.23-25). The Talmud records a saying that "R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, R. Simeon, R. Ishmael, and R. Akiba, all hold that all Israel are royal children" (Shab. 128a; Soncino edn. p. 637).

69. The words της άμαρτίας are omitted by D b d syrs CI Cypr. If this is the true reading, we have a very terse and pointed epigram. But whether the shorter or the longer reading be accepted the meaning is essentially the same.

70. Augustine points out that slavery to sin is worse than other forms of slavery:"at times a man's slave, worn out by the commands of an unfeeling master, finds rest in flight. Whither can the servant of sin flee? Himself he carries with him wherever he flees. An evil conscience flees not from itself; it has no place to go to; it follows itself. Yea, he cannot withdraw from himself, for the sin he commits is within. He has committed sin to obtain some bodily pleasure. The pleasure passes away; the sin remains. What delighted is gone; the sting has remained behind. Evil bondage!" (41.4; p. 231).

71. In the New Testament ού . . . είς τον αιώνα means "never." I f we take the normal meaning of this expression the passage, after saying that the sinner is a slave, goes on to affirm that, being a slave, the sinner never has security in the household. It is a household of God's people, of God's free people. No slave, specifically no slave of sin, can ever have place there.

72. John, of course, habitually uses υιός of Christ, not the believer (for whom he prefers τέκνον). Cf. Heb. 3:5 for a contrast between Moses as a servant (θεράπων) and Christ as the Son of the house.

73. This is another example of John's rare use of ούν in speeches of Jesus (see on 6:62). It is because it is the Son who frees that they will indeed be free.

74. όντως occurs here only in John. Westcott views it as appearing to express"reality in essence from within, as distinguished from reality as seen and known (άληθώς . . .)." Carson aptly comments, "True freedom is not the liberty to do anything we please, but the liberty to do what we ought; and it is genuine liberty because doing what we ought now pleases us."

75. S. Aalen takes this allusion as "something beyond doubt" (NTS, VIII [1961- 62], p. 237).

76. The verb χωρεί, often transitive (as in 2:6), is here used intransitively. Tasker rejects the translation "hath not free course in you" and says, "The meaning, however, is not that these Jews have received the word but not allowed it to make progress, but that they have never really made room for it at all."

77. ύμών is read after τοϋ πατρός by C Κ Θ f l f l3 etc., but is to be omitted with ρ66 ρ75 Β L W Or etc. Hellenistic Greek proliferates personal pronouns, but sometimes the New Testament follows classical usage by employing only the article. This does not lead to ambiguity. In this verse, for example, there is no suggestion that Jesus' Father is identical with the father of the Jews. The whole sentence structure seems to show that there is a contrast, not an identity. Moulton argues from the absence of a possessive pronoun that "the Father" (i.e., God) is meant (Μ, I, p. 85), but this scarcely seems evidence enough.

78. There is also a contrast of cases, παρά τώ Πατρί of God, and παρά τοϋ πατρός of the devil. Abbott finds a contrast "between the distinctness with which the Son 'sees' the things in the House of the Father and the indistinctness with which men receive promptings from the invisible, whether for good or for evil" (2359).

79. For the rare use of οΰν in the words of Jesus see the comments on 6:62. Abbott argues that this conjunction here means "that there is a correspondence between the conduct of Christ and that of His persecutors. They are as consistent in evil as He in good" (2194).

80. Both the text and the interpretation are difficult. In the first clause the verb is certainly έστε, though ήτε is read in some MSS. The big difficulty is whether to read in the second clause ποιείτε with ρ⁶⁶ B* 700 lat syr^s, έποιεϊτε with p⁷⁵ (vid) * D W Θ 070 13 22 28 etc., or even έποιεϊτε δν with ^C CK L . Grammatically we should expect either έστε . . . ποιείτε or ήτε ... έποιεϊτε &v. Transcriptional probability accordingly favors έστε . . . έποιεϊτε, for there would be every temptation to scribes to alter this, and each of the other readings is explicable on this basis. Since there is really good MS attestation it appears that this is the reading we should accept. The meaning then will be "If you are . . . you would do. ..." If we were to read ποιείτε it would be possible to take it as imperative. But the indicative is more likely. The following νϋν δέ would perhaps also accord better with an indicative.

81. Dods paraphrases: "this has not only the guilt of an ordinary murder, but your hostility is roused against me because I have spoken to you the truth I heard from God. It is murder based upon hostility to God."

82. For John's use of "man" for Jesus see above on 4:29.

83. There was, of course, a Jewish slander that Jesus was born out of wedlock (see the passages cited in R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash [London, 1903], pp. 35ff.), though, as far as our information goes, it was later than this.

84. Odeberg understands this to be the explanation: "The Jews are blind to J's (i.e. Jesus') Divine origin: this shows that they are directed away from God's world to the world of 'another one'. Quite naturally such an utterance would to a Rabbinic mind imply an accusation of idolatry. . . . Thence the vehemence of their retort: 'We be not born of fornication, we have one Father, even God' " (FG, p. 302; in a footnote he explains further, "Fornication is the Rabbinic as well as O.T. simile for idolatry").

85. The preposition is έx, which denotes origin. Dodd sees a distinction from ούδέ γάρ άπ' έμαυτοϋ έλήλυθα, for άπό expresses no more than mission: "Christ's coming was not initiated by Himself — He came, not άπ' έμαυτοϋ but άπό τοϋ θεοϋ, since the Father sent Him; but not only so — He had His origin in the being of the Father" (IFG, p. 259). This may well be the meaning, but we must bear in mind John's penchant for slight variations in vocabulary without real difference of meaning (see on 3:5).

86. "He" renders the emphatic έκεΐνος, for which see on 1:8.

87. λαλιά and λόγος.

88. έx denotes origin here, as it does in vv. 23 and 42. For είναι έx see on 3:31.

89. Of the devil it is said, ούϰ έστηκεν, i.e., he was not standing fast in the truth. The smooth breathing is to be noted; it points us to the imperfect of στήκω rather than the perfect of ϊστημι, and thus to the meaning "He was not standing fast" rather than "he does not stand."

90. Harold Blair points to this passage as indicating that the fundamental sin is not so much pride, as is often asserted, as falsehood (The Ladder of Temptations [London, 1960], p. 79).

91. έx των ιδίων λαλεί = "he speaks from his own family" or "he speaks from his own things," depending on whether we take ιδίων to be masculine or neuter. The meaning here is somewhat like that in Matt. 12:34: "out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks," where we also have έx. In the previous clause δταν λαλη points to simultaneous action: whenever he speaks the lie, at that very time he shows himself to b e . . . ."

92. This seems to be the meaning of αύτοϋ. Torrey finds support for this view in Aramaic: " 'Liar' was b'el sh'qar, 'master of falsehood'; which explains the pronoun, 'The father of it,' at the end of the verse." It is possible to take the expression to mean, "he is a liar and so is his father," from which some scholars conclude that there is a reference to the Gnostic idea that the God of the Old Testament was the father of the devil. But there is no real reason for finding an allusion to such speculations, let alone an acceptance of them. Scripture never refers to such a being as Satan's father. There are those who hold that we should understand "anyone" as the subject of λαλη, with the meaning, "whenever anyone speaks . . . he is a liar and so is his father" (i.e. the devil)." It is not at all certain that this is grammatically permissible, but in any case it is simpler to take αύτοϋ as referring to the thing that is false. Others again take the meaning to be that the devil is a liar and the father of the liar. This is possible, but it does not seem as probable as the meaning I have adopted.

93. The Qumran scrolls oppose "the spirit of truth" to "the spirit of error" (1QS, 3:19). The former expression is found very rarely outside these scrolls and John, which is one of the pieces of evidence pointing to a connection of some sort (see on 14:17). John does not have the other expression, "the spirit of error," but this verse shows that he thinks of Satan as diametrically opposed to truth.

94. For causal δτι see on 1:50.

95. Cf. Godet, "The perfect holiness of Christ is proved in this passage, not by the silence of the Jews, who might very well have ignored the sins of their interlocutor, but by the assurance with which Jesus lays this question before them. Without the immediate consciousness which Christ had of the perfect purity of His life, and on the supposition that He was only a more holy man than other men, a moral sense so delicate as that which such a state would imply, would not have suffered the least stain to pass unnoticed, either in His life, or in His heart; and what hypocrisy would there not have been in this case in addressing to others a question with the aim of causing them to give it a different answer from that which, in His inmost heart, He gave Himself!"

96 Cf. Barclay, "it is quite possible that a man may lack the something essential which will enable him to have the experience. A man who is tone deaf cannot ever experience the thrill of music. A man who is colour blind cannot ever appreciate a picture . . . unless the Spirit of God is in a man's heart he cannot recognize God's truth when he sees it."

97. Some expositors find a reference to Samaritans like Simon Magus and Dositheus, but these are too late. Hoskyns thinks that 2 Kings 17:24ff. could naturally be interpreted of unions between Gentiles and Israelite women and that the Jews are now contrasting their legitimate birth with "the irregularity of the birth of Jesus." This seems to be reading a good deal into the words.

98. Edersheim thought that the word may have been misunderstood. Shomroni, he says, means "Samaritan," but it is also used as the equivalent of "Ashmedai, " a name of the chief of the demons. "Samaritan" on this view means much the same as "hast a demon" (LT, Π, pp. 174-75). This would be supported by the fact that Jesus refuted the charge that he was demon-possessed but said nothing about being a Samaritan. It is an attractive hypothesis, but the evidence for this use of Shomroni does not appear to be early enough to carry complete conviction. Matthew Black thinks that "the word 'Samaritan' had become practically equivalent in meaning to 'schismatic' or 'heretic', and appears to have passed almost as a term of abuse" (The Scrolls and Christian Origins [London, 1961], p. 70).

99. There is a passage in the Talmud that says, "It has been reported, If one has learnt Scripture and Mishnah but did not attend upon Rabbinical scholars, R. Eleazar says he is an 'Am ha-arez; R. Samuel b. Nahmani says he is a boor; R. Jannai says he is a Samaritan" (Sot. 22a; Soncino edn., pp. 109-10). It is just barely possible that there is a connection with 7:15, where it is mentioned that Jesus had never learned in the schools.

100. Jesus sets himself and his opponents in contrast with εγώ and ύμεΐς. The strong adversative άλλά sets his honoring of the Father in emphatic contrast to their suggestion of demon possession.

101. The expression is τόν έμόν λόγον. John's normal habit is to place the possessive after the noun with a repeated article, as in v. 43 (and in v.l. here). The form here is much less common and appears to be used for the purpose of adding emphasis. For John's use of possessives see on 3:29.

102. Calvin emphasizes this verb: "Therefore in this passage, Christ promises eternal life to His disciples, but demands disciples who will not merely nod their assents like donkeys, or profess with the tongue that they approve His teaching, but who will keep it as a precious treasure." The verb is used 18 times in this Gospel, 7 times in 1 John and 11 times in Revelation, while no other book of the New Testament has it more than Acts with 8 times. The Johannine frequency is accounted for very largely by the emphasis in all these writings on keeping the commandments of God or of Christ. A minority of passages in them speaks of God or Christ as keeping believers.

103. Temple admits to some exaggeration when he translates "he shall not notice death." He explains that if anyone's mind "is turned towards (Jesus') word it will not pay any attention to death; death will be to it irrelevant. It may truly be said that such a man will not 'experience' death, because, though it will happen to him, it will matter to him no more than the fall of a leaf from a tree under which he might be reading a book. It happens to him, but he does not in any full sense see or notice it." It seems better to interpret "death" here as spiritual death, but I cite Temple as a notable statement of the attitude of the believer to physical death.

104. There are small changes between what Jesus said and their report of his words — τόν λόγον μου for τόν έμόν λόγον, γεύσηται for θεωρήση and θανάτου in a less emphatic position than θάνατον. Probably these changes are not significant since John often has small changes when sayings are repeated (see on 3:5). Abbott, however, refers "seeing" death to spiritual death and "tasting of" death to physical death (2576).

105 There is probably point in the use of the relative of quality δστις (the masculine here only in this Gospel; the neuter occurs a number of times). It brings out the truth that Abraham (and by inference all people, even the greatest) was of such a quality as to die. BDF views this as an example of δστις correctly used "with reference to a definite person where the relative clause expresses the general quality . . . 'who neverthe-less was a man who died' " (293).

106. This is so even if we read ήμών (ρ⁷⁵ A Β ² W Θ) and not υμών ( Β* D; G. D. Fee shows that p⁶⁶ supports this reading, JBL, LXXXIV [1965], p. 69). The signif-icant thing is the noun, not the possessive.

107 'ίνα ιδη is difficult, for 'ίνα seems to have no telic force. Abbott thinks that "this exultant and ecstatic belief was a gift from God with a view to (ίνα) the fulfilment of divine purpose," and he cites Rom. 4:18 (2689). BDF prefers the meaning, "he longed with desire, rejoiced that he was to..." (392[ 1a]); cf. NRSV, "rejoiced that he would ..."). Moule thinks that it denotes content (IBNTG, pp. 145-46), and this appears to be the preferable view.

108. ήγαλλιάσατο,

109. Barclay gives this as a Jewish interpretation, though he does not cite authori-ties. Wright adopts it as his understanding of this verse. Cf. Bultmann, "Abraham knew that he was not himself the fulfilment of the saving will of God, nor the yard-stick for judging the greatness of divine revelation; he looked forward to the fulfilment in the Messiah, and welcomed the day when he himself would be judged by one greater than himself" (p. 326).

110. SBk cites R. Eleazar, R. Nathan, and others for views of this type (Π, pp. 525-26). Beasley-Murray cites Schlatter: "to say that Abraham saw the Messiah was neither new nor offensive to Jewish teachers; it was its application to Jesus that was unbelievable."

111. In Jub. 16:19 we are told that Abraham and Sarah rejoiced "with exceeding great joy" at the prospect of Isaac's birth. Philo sees joy in the very name Isaac, which name "is that of the best of the good emotions, joy, the Isaac who is the laughter of the heart, a son of God" (De Mut. Nom. 131). E. Nestle pointed out that the Targum on Gen. 17:17 renders Heb, , "to laugh," "not by , laugh, as in 18¹²■¹³·¹⁵ 19¹⁴, but by , to rejoice, to be glad; likewise in 21⁹" (ExT, XX [1908-09], p. 477).

112. k cites Tanch. Β for this view (loc. cit.).

113. Cf. Lagrange, "Jesus n'argumente pas le livre a la main et ne cite ici aucun texte."

114. Strachan thinks that "the words suggest His youthfiilness. The Jewish objec-tors interpret Jesus' reply prosaically and ironically as meaning that Abraham had actually seen one who still had his reputation to make, and was as yet undistinguished."

115. Chrysostom reads, "thou art not yet forty years old" (60.2; p. 198). Irenaeus argues that Jesus must have been over forty, for had he been less they would have said "thou art not yet forty years old" (Adv. Haer. 2.22.6). G. Ogg examines the question and concludes that Jesus would have taught when in his forties and that his birth must have been earlier than has generally been thought (NTS, V [1958-59], pp. 294-96).

116. The verb is γενέσθαι, "came into being."

117. έγώ είμι in LXX renders the Hebrew , which is the way God speaks (cf. Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; 46:4, etc.). The Hebrew may carry a reference to the meaning of the divine name (cf. Exod. 3:14). We should almost certainly understand John's use of the term to reflect that in the LXX. It is the style of deity, and it points to the eternity of God according to the strictest understanding of the continuous significance of the present είμι. He continually IS. Cf. Abbott: "taken here, along with other decla-rations about what Jesus IS, it seems to call upon the Pharisees to believe that the Son of man is not only the Deliverer but also one with the Father in the unity of the Godhead" (2228).

118. LXX has Έγώ είμι ό ών for the Hebrew rendered "I am who I am" in Exod. 3:14, and ό ών for "I AM" in the last clause of that verse.

119. "That is a supreme claim to Deity; perhaps the most simple and sublime of all the things He said with that great formula of all, the great '1 AM'. . . . These are the words of the most impudent blasphemer that ever spoke, or the words of God incarnate" (Morgan).

120. E. Stauffer has an important examination of the I AM formula in Jesus and His Story (London, 1960), pp. 142-59. The mention of Abraham, he thinks, "recalls the insertion of the figure of Abraham in God's speeches in the rabbinic Targum on Isa. 40-55. This is certainly not an accident. It agrees with the evangelist's report that the opponents only at this point grasp the monstrous meaning and claim of Jesus' ANI HU — and at once set about to do away with the blasphemer by stoning him on the spur of the moment" (p. 154). Of the I AM formula he says, "It is Jesus' boldest declaration about himself. '1 AM'. This means: where I am, there is God, there God lives, speaks, calls, asks, acts, decides, loves, chooses, forgives, rejects, hardens, suffers, dies. Nothing bolder can be said, or imagined" (p. 159). See also N. Walker, ZATW, 74 (1962), pp. 205-6. Jesus is not saying that he is identical with the Father, but he is claiming that this expression which is used of the Father may also be used of him.

121 The difficulty in the way of carrying out the sentence even if it were imposed by a Jewish court would also have been a deterrent. Cf. 18:31 and note.

122 The aorist passive έκρύβη is used in the sense of the middle in the LXX and most interpreters understand it so here. But the New Testament usage is rather to take the form as passive. The Amplified version renders, "Jesus by mixing with the crowd concealed Himself," but this is based on inferior manuscripts and in any case includes a large element of interpretation.

↑ Back to top