Jesus the Light and Abraham the Forefather (John 8)
Jesus the Light and Abraham the Forefather (John 8)
Vs. 12 Πάλιν οὖν, connected with 7:12. This connection is all the more obvious when: 1) 7:53–8:11 is struck out as an interpolation; 2) 7:45-52 is recognized as a synchronous and not continuous incident, thus a chronological narrative. John 8:12 follows immediately on 7:44, and πάλιν connects the two images, the living water and light. I find the same connection of images in reference to the Feast of Tabernacles in Philo, Sept. sec. 24 (not in the ordinary texts but in Tischendorf, Philomea). There is the ceremonial of the lighting of the great candelabras in the Court of the Women (so John Lightfoot, but Succah v does not give the number of the candelabras but apparently there were four sockets to each candelabra). First was the drawing of the water, then the lighting of the candelabras. The festivities included dancing and music, the torches and the fifteen Psalms of degrees (see Lightfoot I, p. 977sq.; Succah v. 2, 3 cf. with Gem. Hier. Ugol.??, p. 484sq). Philo connects the Festival with the idea of light in another way (see Philomea p. 67).
Points to be observed: 1) the lighting was part of the festivities of the pouring of water, initially connected therewith; 2) it was in the Court of the Women where the γαζοφυλακίον was and where our Lord was speaking. He would point to the candelabras. The duration of the ceremonial is not clear. It must have continued as many days as the libations continued. It must have lasted more than the first day. The account in Succah suggests, based on the continuing to light the candelabras, that libations continued several successive days. The lighting was absolutely necessary because the festivities continued well into the night. Even if the libations concluded on the seventh day, the lighting continued into the eighth day. But suppose both ceased on the seventh day. The significance of our Lord’s comparison would even be advanced. The trickling stream of water has ceased, but the perennial fountain of living water is ever present. The σῶμα takes the place of the σκιά. The light that lit up Jerusalem with a natural grace is quenched. But the light, not of Jerusalem only but of the whole world, still abides.
All this is in strict accordance with our Lord’s mode of teaching, e.g. with the Samaritan woman at the well, or with the Galileans after the feeding of the 5,000. Was Is 42 read at the Feast of the Tabernacles? If so, it was probably chosen with reference to the ceremonial of the lights, and thus the light would be directly connected with the Messiah coming. And the significance of the Lord’s words, and the claims therein, would be all the more appreciated.
περιπατήσῃ the right reading.
Vs. 14 Κἂν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ ‘Supposing I bear witness concerning myself.’ The hypothesis is neither affirmed nor denied.
ὅτι οἶδα πόθεν ἦλθον ‘I cannot be false, I cannot be mistaken, for I know I came from the Father, and that I return to Him.’
ἔρχομαι below (rather than ἦλθον) because it refers to his continuous presence as God’s Messiah.
Vs. 15 κατὰ τὴν σάρκα ‘You can see in me nothing but an unaccredited adventurer, a poor Galilean.’
ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω οὐδένα ‘I do not judge you, nay I do not judge any man at all. It is not my mission to judge’ (cf. 3:17; 12:47, 48). Yet in another sense, he will judge every man (5:22). This statement seems to have been the occasion of the insertion of 7:53–8:11.
Vs. 16 καὶ ἐὰν κρίνω δὲ ἐγώ Observe the δέ. If, by an exceptional circumstance, the ἐγώ is emphatic, then we have ‘I, whose mission it is not . . .’
ἀληθινή Genuine. But א, E (B.M.T. and T.R.) etc. have ἀληθής, probably from vss. 13, 14.
Vs. 17 τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ‘The Law, behind which you are always shielding yourself, which you are always using as a weapon against me.’ See John 10:34.
δύο ἀνθρώπων etc. Deut 17:6; 19:15. See Matt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:2; Heb 10:28; perhaps 1 John 5:5-7.
Vs. 20 ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακίῳ In the Court of the Women. See Josephus, Bell Jud. v.14; John Lightfoot, I, p. 1094.
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐπίασεν αὐτόν etc. A sort of refrain, see 7:30; 8:45; and here. In these two latter cases, closing the account; here the account of our Lord’s application of the two images of the Feast.
Vs. 21 ζητήσετέ με [‘seek me’] and shall not find me, and this in a double sense: 1) you shall not be able to find me in the body: 2) you shall lose me spiritually. The corporal image suggests the spiritual sense.
Hence, ἐν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ὑμῶν ἀποθανεῖσθε. Similarly, the double sense of ύψωθῆναι and the context e.g. 12:32, 34 comp. 3:14; 8:28. So again a double sense in ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν.
Vs. 22 Said in mockery.
Vs. 23 ἐκ τῶν κάτω The interpretation adopted by Alford is too strained. Obviously ἐκ τῶν κάτω is to be interpreted by ἐκ τούτου τοῦ κόσμου ἐστέ. E.g. Acts 2:19 quoted by Meyer. They were of the earth, earthy.
Vs. 24 ἐγώ εἰμι ‘I am he’ i.e. the expected One, the Messiah, the hope of Israel comp. vs. 28 and 12:19. Also Mark 13:6 (comp. 14:62); Luke 21:8 and 22:70. Three points: 1) here the predicate is understood; 2) but with no predicate, the verb denotes absolute existence (as in vs. 58 here); 3) ἐγώ is the predicate! ‘It is I.’ In Matt 14:27 and elsewhere it is different still, for there too ἐγώ is the predicate.
Vs. 25 Τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; Two questions to be decided: 1) Is it ὅτι or ὅ τι? Certainly, the latter. 2) Is it interrogative or affirmative? ‘Do you ask me that which I have been telling you all along?’ Comp. Matt 26:50 Ἑταῖρε, ἐφ’ ὃ πάρει.
ἀρχὴν or Τὴν ἀρχὴν? Originally a cognate accusative. Many adverbs have arisen in this way. All (?) those end in -ήν, e.g. ἀνεδήν etc. ‘As a beginning,’ ‘to begin with,’ ‘and so from first to last.’ Hence, it is used most frequently with a negative, and signifies ominum = ‘at all.’ But it occasionally, as here, stands without the negative. The question here is not so much one of difference of meaning (as Dean Alford seems to make it) ‘altogether’ or ‘throughout,’ but whether it is to be taken with εἰμι understood, ‘I am altogether that, etc.’ or ‘all along . . .’ or instead with the following λαλῶ ‘that which I have been telling you all along.’ The latter seems to me more simple. Alford (after de Wette) seems to go wrong about the present, not understanding that the present tense can refer to an action begun in the distant past and continued into the present. Thus Πάλαι λέγω is as good Greek and much more pregnant than Πάλαι ἔλεγον or ἔλεξα.
Vs. 26 πολλὰ ἔχω περὶ ὑμῶν ‘I might say much about you also, I might pronounce many judgments on you. But this would interrupt my message, would interfere with the work. I came not to judge or discuss men, I am the bearer of my Father’s message and into it I must delve.’
εἰς τὸν κόσμον as 1 Cor 14:9, quoted by Alford.
Vs. 28 ὑψώσητε See on vs. 24. To the natural eye, they raised Him on a cross of ignominy and shame. But in the sight of God he was raised to be adored by all. Comp. Phil 2:9 διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν. They exalted Him to shame, but God through their act exalted Him to honor.
Vs. 31 πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Πιστεύω used of the initiative act not the continuous state. Not πεπιστευκότας εἰς αὐτῷ. See my notes on Gal 2:16. It is evident that our Lord, though speaking to those Jews who in some sense believed Him, yet in speaking through them to their fellow countrymen we must suppose that though the believing Jews about Him were more immediately addressed, the greater part of his word was focused on the unbelieving and they take up the condemnation in vs. 48, if not before.
μείνητε here is emphatic.
Vs. 33 σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ἐσμεν and therefore the destined rulers of the world. See Gen 17:16; comp. Rom 4:13.
οὐδενὶ δεδουλεύκαμεν πώποτε This was not strictly true, and can only be understood of the freedom of spirit which had never acquiesced in the external bondage whether to Egypt, or to Babylon, or to Syria, or to Rome. The boast of liberty was strong amongst the Jews. The selling of an Israelite into slavery was looked upon with the highest disfavor. See John Lightfoot here. But perhaps here it refers to the present generation. Titus, addressing the Jews, stresses that they were allowed the free exercise of their laws and customs (in Josephus, Bell Jud. vi.6.2).
Vs. 34 δοῦλός, a favorite Stoic term, perhaps derived from the East by the Stoics.
Vs. 35 ὁ δὲ δοῦλος οὐ μένει ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Note the reference to Ishmael and Isaac; see Gal 4:30.
εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα not the preferred phrase but it = ‘always’ here.
Vs. 36 ἐὰν οὖν ὁ Υἱὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλευθερώσῃ, ὄντως ἐλεύθεροι ἔσεσθε. Will be free indeed, will be co-heirs with Him (Rom 8:17), will abide in His house forever, as He abides forever.
Vs. 37 οὐ χωρεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν ‘Does not advance in, does not make any progress in your hearts.’ See Plutarch, Pomp. 54. See the references in Wettstein and Meyer. The A.V. ‘hath no place’ seems erroneous and perhaps a confusion with the other sense of χωρεῖν—‘to contain,’ ‘to have a place for,’ but not in.
Vs. 38 An important v.l. Meyer IV, p. 317 is very explicit about the reading. And it should be: 1) ἠκούσατε not ἑωράκατε (B.M.T. and T.R.); 2) παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός, not παρὰ τῷ Πατρί. For ἑωράκα comp. 1:34; 3:11; 19:35; 1 John 1:1 etc. ἃ ἑωράκα παρὰ τῷ Πατρί implies absolute truth, but ἃ ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ Πατρος may involve falsehood; hearing is not seeing. This distinction of hearing and seeing is carried out in the distinction of cases dative and genitive.
Vs. 39 They are σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ (vs. 37) but it still remains a question whether they are τέκνα. See Rom 9:7 οὐδ’ ὅτι εἰσὶν σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, πάντες τέκνα, ἀλλ’ Ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα.
ἐποιεῖτε T.R. adds ἄν. Comp. Winer, p. 321. Not ποιήσετε the natural apodosis of εἰ τέκνα τοῦ Ἀβραάμ ἐστε. The apodosis indirectly negatives the statement in the protasis. I do not understand Tregelles punctuation here.
Vs. 40 ἄνθρωπον ὃς ‘the One who . . .’; comp. 4:29 v.l.; 7:22 etc.
οὐκ ἐποίησεν On the contrary, Abraham even interceded for the Sodomites facing judgment. Gen 18:23sq.
ἐκ πορνείας They begin to discuss that our Lord’s mention of Abraham has a spiritual bearing. See especially Is 57:3, where idolatry is described as immorality. Comp. Hos 2:4; Ezek 16 and 23. The spiritual mother has been true to her allegiance to her divine spouse, not like the Samaritan mother who had committed spiritual fornication. Comp. Philo, de. Confus. Ling. Sec. 28 p. 426M; de Migra. Abr. 12 p. 447 where the image is manipulated.
Vs. 42 καὶ ἥκω ‘and as such I present myself to you.’
ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω The former verb refers to the origin, the latter the destination.
Vs. 43 λαλιά the form, my way of speaking, my language. The λαλιά should have declared to them his parentage, his race. λόγος, the substance (of dialect see Matt 26:73; Mark 14:7sq.).
οὐ δύνασθε They had disabled, incapacitated themselves.
Vs. 44 ἀνθρωποκτόνος . . . ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς He refers to the first murder, of Abel by Cain. Comp. 1 John 3:12-15; See my notes on Clement of Rome 6. See Gospel of Nicodemus 23 where the devil is called the origin of death and the root of sin. The reference is to their intent to kill him (vs. 40).
ὅταν λαλῇ (i.e. τίς or ἄνθρωπος)? See Telf. Gramm. sec. 373.6 where are several references e.g. Plato, Gorg. 456D, and see the Strabo note. This was common in Plato. And possibly John 7:51. But generally in the New Testament there is something explaining the τίς e.g. John 16:17. The sense however seems absolutely to require it.
The common interpretations are: 1) ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ. ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος ‘for he is a liar and the father of it’ (i.e. the Lie). And if λαλῇ must refer to ὁ διαβόλος, this is the best. I see no objection to the expression ‘father of falsehood.’ Comp. Clement of Rome ii.2, ‘the father of truth.’ It is so taken by all the Greek Fathers (e.g. Chrysostom who takes λαλεί to refer to ὁ διαβόλος). But still the αὐτῷ is awkward and the ὁ before ‘father’ slightly so. 2) ‘for he is a liar, and the father of him’ (i.e. the ψεύστης). This is still more objectionable. αὐτῷν would be intelligible, but ψεύστης has been specialized, individualized, and he cannot be the father of the same liar that he is himself! Yet this interpretation has found great favor.
The interpretation which I have given seems certainly to be that of Origen (see Opus iv, p. 345sq. and investigate). So too Pseudo-Ignatius, Philadel. 6—‘the liar is just as also his father, the devil.’
Some manuscripts read ὡς and others καθώς for καί. The transcribers of these manuscripts must have referred λαλῇ to someone other than the devil. See Epiphanius xxxvi.4; xl.5 and other references to the Fathers in Tisch. In some cases it is as if their text had ὅς αν, which would make excellent sense and Lactant. II, p. viii disposed to adopt it (see on the other hand Lücke II, p. 829). But the authority is quite insufficient.
Meyer, p. 308 refers to some early heretics who referred the αὐτῷ to the devil, but on what authority? Nothing in Irenaeus or Hippolytus refers the word to ὁ διαβόλος. Rather the Father is the Demiurge, and he is the father of the devil. See Plotinus, Quaest. Amphil. 88. (See Ewald, Jahrbuch v. p. 198 from Meyer). Hilgenfelds(?) has taken up this monstrous notion, taking the phrase to mean ‘the father of the devil’!!
Vs. 45 ἐγὼ δέ ‘but unlike your father the devil, unlike your own lying proposition, I . . .’
Vs. 46 ἁμαρτίας this is not = to ψεῦδος, but including this and much more. ‘If I am free from sin, I am free from falsehood, I speak the truth.’
Vs. 47 This verse contains the answer to the question posed in the previous verse διὰ τί? The fault is not in the speaker who speaks the truth and how he claims to be heard, but rather in the hearers who have a repugnance to the truth, and refuse to listen. With this verse comp. 1 John 4:6. And on καὶ διὰ τοῦτο together see John 5:16, 18; 10:17; 12:18, 39 etc.
Vs. 48 Οὐ καλῶς λέγομεν ἡμεῖς ὅτι Σαμαρείτης εἶ σὺ καὶ δαιμόνιον ἔχεις; The assumption is Samaritans are both heretics and foes to Israel. These two seem to be the main ideas in using the term ‘Samaritan’ pejoratively. See Sirach 50:26 οἱ καθήμενοι ἐν ὄρει Σαμαρείας καὶ Φυλιστιεὶμ καὶ ὁ λαὸς μωρὸς ὁ κατοικῶν ἐν Σικίμοις. Comp. the saying in Wettstein of R. Shammai. Perhaps there is an allusion here to the dialogue of Jesus with the Samaritans (John 4) assuming something which has not been narrated, which is common in St. John. The δαιμόνιον ἔχεις might be explained by Matt 12:24; Luke 11:15, and there is no mention elsewhere of the charge. Cutheans (Samaritans) was a term that later Jews used to denigrate the followers of Christ.
Vs. 49 He makes no reply to the charge that ‘you are a Samaritan.’ In the parable of the Good Samaritan, he speaks of himself under the image of one of that nation. Augustine connects these facts together comp. Sermo. 171.a.2; Evan. in Ps. cxxxvi.3. See Tisch. Parables, p. 317.
ἀτιμάζετέ με dishonors me, and Him in me.
Vs. 50 ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ ζητῶ τὴν δόξαν μου ‘Not that I seek my own however, so that I shall notice this dishonor paid to me.’
ἔστιν ὁ ζητῶν See vs. 45.
καὶ κρίνων This introduces the subject of the next issue.
Vs. 54 ἡμῶν T.R. wrongly has ὑμῶν.
Vs. 55 ἐγνώκατε The process of acquiring knowledge, whereas οἶδα, the absolute possession John 21:17; Eph 5:6; Gal 4:8; 1 John 2:29; 5:20.
Vs. 56 Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἠγαλλιάσατο ἵνα. ἵνα here is not final but denotes the object etc. See Matt 5:29, 30; John 4:34;17:3; 18:39 etc.
‘Rejoiced at the thought of seeing . . .’ But in what sense and with what closeness the idea of Messiah’s day was present before in Abraham’s mind, we are not told. Perhaps it was nothing more than a firm faith in the promise in Gen. 16, 17, 22 (on the reference to the laughing see Meyer). See John 13:41.
εἶδεν i.e. he saw this in Paradise. On the rabbinical fantasies about what Abraham knew in Paradise see Falina (?) Cod. Pseud. I, p. 423; Beer, Leben Abraham, p. 90sq. and 205sq. These absurdities need not prejudice the interpretation here.
Vs. 57 Πεντήκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις καὶ Ἀβραὰμ ἑώρακας; What was our Lord’s age at this time? 1) Our Lord was born before Herod’s death (St. Matthew) and Herod died before the Passover in 750 A.U.C. His ministry began in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, or at least the Baptist began preaching in that year. The fifteenth year of Tiberius began 19th August 781. Thus our Lord must have been in his thirty-second year at the point of St. Luke’s notice (3:23), though that notice is intended to be vague. One must ask about the length of his life before he began his ministry. 2) As to the length of the ministry, the better part of three years. It must have ended before Pilate’s recall, i.e. before the death of Tiberius (A.D. 37; A.U.C. 790); therefore the Passion was not later than A.U.C. 789. The notice in John 2:20 agrees with this calculation. Unwarranted inference from it mentioned by St. Augustine. See Irenaeus ii.22.5 with the v.l. here of 40.
Vs. 58 Note the opposition of γενέσθαι and εἰμί. Absolute eternal being is in view here, not merely priority in time that could be expressed by ἐγὼ ἦν. Observe St. Paul in Col 1:17 καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν. The sense is drained in the A.V. ‘He is before all things.’ No, ‘He is, prior to all things.’ A reference to Exod 3:14; see Rev 1:4.
Vs. 59 ἦραν οὖν λίθους The Temple was still unfinished (see 2:20) so that loose stones would be lying about. See the rabbinical story in John Lightfoot about R. Gamaliel, about the mountain used in building the Temple.