Bible Commentaries

VIII.

(1) It is an instructive example of the way in which the artificial division into chapters often mars the sense. that one verse of this section is found at the close of the last chapter, and the remainder in this.

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.—The Mount of Olives is nowhere mentioned by St. John. In John 18:1 he describes the locality, but without this name (see Note there). His habit, moreover, in giving topographical details of Palestine is to explain them for his Greek readers. (See Note on John 4:5.)

(2) And early in the morning he came again into the temple.—This agrees with His custom during the week preceding the Crucifixion. (Comp. Luke 21:37-38.) The words, “and He sat down and taught them,” are not found in the Cambridge MS., which is the oldest authority for the section.

(3) And the scribes and Pharisees . . .—This is the common phrase of the earlier Gospels, but “the scribes” are never named by St. John. His word to denote the hierarchy in their opposition to Christ is “the Jews.” (See Note on John 1:19.)

(4) The Cambridge MS. reads, “the priests say unto Him, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him,” adding the word “priests,” and placing here the first words of the sixth verse of the Received text.

(5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned.—If we interpret the words strictly, the case they contemplate is not that referred to in Leviticus 20:10, and quoted here in the margin, but that of Deuteronomy 22:23-24, which was the only case for which stoning was specified as a punishment. It would be a case of rare occurrence, and perhaps for this very reason, one on which the opinions of later Rabbis were divided. Strangulation was regarded as the punishment intended when no other was specified; and in the Talmudic distinction in cases of this kind, stoning and strangulation are named as the respective punishments:—“Filia Israelitæ, si adultera cum nupta, strangulanda; cum desponsata tantum, lapidanda. Filia Sacerdotis. si adultera cum nupta, lapidanda; cum desponsata tantum, comburenda (Sanhedrin, fol. 51, 2).

But what sayest thou?—The question is, like that about the tribute money (Matthew 22:17), a snare in which they hope to take Him whatever answer He gives. If He answers that she should be stoned, this would excite the opposition of the multitude, for a lax state of morality had practically made the laws against unchastity a dead letter. The immorality of Rome had spread through the provinces of the empire, and although the Jews were less infected by it than others, the court of the Herods had introduced its worst forms, and Christ Himself speaks of them as “an evil and adulterous generation” (Matthew 12:39. Comp. James 4:4). To have pronounced for a severe law against common forms of sin would have been to undermine popular support, and it is this only that the rulers had to fear. To have pronounced for capital punishment would moreover have brought Him into collision with the Roman government, which reserved to itself the power of life and death. (Comp. John 18:31; John 19:7.) Had He uttered a word in derogation of the majesty of the Roman empire, the charge of treason—in which case to be accused was practically to be condemned—would at once have been brought against Him. (Comp. Notes on John 19:12; John 19:15.) It is clearly the more severe view that the form of the question is intended to draw forth. “Moses said, in express words, . . .; what dost Thou say? You surely will not differ from Moses?” But if He had taken the laxer view, then this, like the Sabbath question, would have been a charge of breaking the Law. He would have been brought before the Sanhedrin as a false Messiah, for the true Messiah was to establish the Law.

(6) On the text, see Note on John 8:4. The last words, in italics, which are an explanatory gloss, should also be omitted. The verse will then read, “But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground”—or, more exactly, was writing on the ground. It is the imperfect of the continued action, and it points to the narrator’s vivid remembrance of the scene. What precise meaning we are to attach to this action is, and must remain, uncertain. Any inquiry as to what He wrote is excluded by the fact that the narrative would certainly have recorded it had it been known; and though writing on sand was practised in the Rabbinic schools, this writing was on the pavement of the Temple (John 8:2). We have to seek the meaning, then, in the symbolism of the action, remembering that the teaching by action and gesture, common everywhere, has always been specially common in the East; and of the many interpretations which may be given, that which seems upon the whole least liable to objection is, that He deprecated the office of judge which they wished to impose on Him, and chose this method of intimating that He took no interest in what they were saying. The commentators tell us that this was a common method of signifying intentional disregard.

An alternative interpretation may be suggested. They had quoted the Law, and asked for His opinion. They were themselves the interpreters of the Law. He claimed no such office. (Comp. Luke 12:14.) He stoops down and writes, and the action intimates that the Law of God was written on tables of stone, and its decrees were immutable. They, by their technical interpretation and tradition, were making it of none effect. He came to fulfil it. The majesty of duty is sinned against by these refinements of casuistry. They are now daring to violate the sacredness of law by making it the subject of a question by which they hope to encompass His death. The solemn silence, as He stooped down in that Temple and wrote upon its pavement, must have spoken in a power greater than that of words.

(7) So when they continued asking him.—He would have avoided their question, and continued, as is here implied, for some time in the action of writing; but they will now interrupt that action. It seems to them that He cannot avoid the snare in which they have placed Him, and that He is seeking the only escape in silence. But there is an answer of which they think not, and this He stands up to give.

He that is without sin among you.—The word rendered “without sin” is frequent in the classical writers, but is found in this place only in the New Testament. It takes here a special meaning from the context, and is to be understood of the class of sins of which her sin was an instance. (Comp. the word “sinner” as used in Luke 7:37.) Of the immorality among the Jewish rulers, which gives force to these words, evidence is not wanting. Still the wider meaning is probably not excluded. They who ask this question about the Seventh Commandment were themselves breaking the Sixth and the Ninth. It is to be noted, in the application of this answer, that our Lord does not lay down sinlessness as the necessary condition of fitness for taking part in the punishment of guilt. This would be to nullify law, for there could be then no human executive power. He is not speaking in a case brought before the appointed tribunal, but in a case where men assume to themselves the position of judges of another’s guilt. In the judge, while he wears the robe of justice, the individual man ceases to exist, and he becomes the representative of God; but these can now speak only as men, and condemn her only by the contrast of a higher purity. (Comp. Notes on John 10:34 et seq.)

Let him first cast a stone at her.—The Received text and some MSS. (not including the Cambridge MS.) read “the stone,” the stone referred to in John 8:5. “Let him first” means “let him first of you”; not “let him cast the first stone.” This was the duty of the witnesses. (See marginal reference.) We must not take the words to express permission only; it is an imperative, expressing command.

(8) And wrote on the ground.—The Cambridge MS. inserts, “with His finger,” as in John 8:6. The repeated action repeats His determination to avoid the office of judge. He has answered them, and He leaves His answer to do its work. There is a law written in their hearts, and this, while He now writes on the ground, is convicting them.

There is a strange addition at the end of the verse, in one of the older MSS. of this section, showing how men have tried to give a definite meaning to the action of writing. It reads, “and wrote on the ground the sin of each one of them.”

(9) The readings of the texts here differ considerably, but without any essential difference of meaning. “Being convicted by their own conscience” is probably an addition made by some copyist to explain the meaning, which is quite clear without it.

Beginning at the eldest.—Literally, beginning at the elders; but our version gives the right sense, and prevents the possible mistake of understanding the word to mean the elders of the people. So “the last” should probably be taken, not of the lowest in official rank, but of the last who went out.

And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.—The scribes and Pharisees had probably stood close to Him. The woman was at some little distance, naturally shrinking from their gaze; but there is a crowd of people, including the disciples, around her, for they are in the Temple, and before this interruption He was engaged in teaching the people (John 8:2). Her accusers had “set her in the midst” (John 8:2), where she now stands. The whole scene is pictured with the minute detail of an eye-witness, who remembers how the persons were grouped, how the accusers went out one after another, and then, how Jesus was left alone, apart from the crowd, but that the others were still present.

(10) Where are those thine accusers?—Here again the Cambridge MS. has a shorter reading—“Where are they?” “Hath no man condemned thee?” or, more exactly, Did no man condemn thee? The “man” is in contrast to “thine accusers” or “they.” “Of all who brought the charge against thee, was there not one to condemn thee?” The question is put to her to lead to thoughts of her sin. He has spoken words which have carried a lesson to them: he has now a lesson for her.

(11) She said, No man, Lord.—She simply answers His question. There is no plea for forgiveness. There is no attempt at defence. We know not what passed in her heart; we know not what was written upon her countenance. We know not whether the word “Lord” was simply the “Sir” of courtesy, or whether it contained something of the reverence of worship. He knew all.

Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.—Or, more exactly, and be no longer a sinner. There is no expression of forgiveness or peace as we find in other cases. (Comp. Matthew 9:2; Luke 7:48.) He does not condemn her, for “God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:17). His words must have come to her as words of mercy in contrast to the angry words of those who dragged her before Him. He does not condemn her, and yet by these words she must have been condemned more truly than by any words of accuser. He does not condemn her; and yet the very words which bid her go are the condemnation of her sin. (Comp. John 5:14.) As in the case of the woman of Samaria (John 4), there is something in the tone and manner of dealing with this woman which goes beyond all words; and as we read the narrative the heart completes the picture, and we feel it preserves for us a real incident in our Lord’s ministry of mercy. It is a mark of truthfulness that the narrative tells us no more. It has not the completeness of an apocryphal story. We feel we should like to know more. She passed from His presence as her accusers had before. What came afterwards to her and to them? Did she, in obedience to the words now heard, go forth to a new life, rising through penitence and faith to pardon, peace, purity? Did they who shrink from His presence now, so learn His words as to come to that Presence again, seeking not judgment on others, but pardon for themselves? Over all the veil is drawn. We may not trace the history of lives known only to themselves and to God; but the lessons are patent, and remain to condemn every human judgment of another’s sin; to condemn every sin in our own lives; to declare to every sinner the forgiveness which condemns not.

[(2) JESUS IS TRUTH, LIGHT, AND LOVE (cont).

(b) Jesus is Light (John 8:12 to John 9:41).

( α) He declares Himself to be the Light, and appeals to the witness of the Father and of Himself (John 8:12-20).]

(12) Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world.—Omitting the inserted section, this verse immediately follows John 7:52, but the words mark an interval, after which the discourse is resumed. Jesus had ceased to speak, but now speaks “again”; and St. John remembers that the words were suggested by some incident which occurred. It was “then,” or therefore, that He found occasion to utter this truth, because the outer form in which He may clothe it was present to their minds. Once again we shall find this mould, in which the truth shapes itself, in the ritual of the Feast of Tabernacles. On the eve of the Lesser Festival (see Note on John 7:14), and on each of the five nights which followed, there was an illumination in the court of the Temple to celebrate the “Rejoicing of the Water-Drawing.” Four large golden candelabra shed their light through the whole city. Then there was dancing and singing, and the music of instruments, which was continued through the night, until at daybreak the procession to the Pool of Siloam was formed. Once again, too, the ritual of the Feast of Tabernacles is a memorial of the wilderness life. As the water-drawing was bound up with thoughts of the water given in abundance to those dying of thirst, so this illumination was bound up with thoughts of the pillar of fire which was the guide of those who walked in darkness. And in this case, as in that, it is probably the absence of the incident on the last day of the feast which gives special force to our Lord’s words. Since the teaching of the last chapter, there had been an interval of, it may be, several hours. We may naturally think that the shades of evening were now drawing on. He is standing in the Treasury near to the court of the women (Note on John 8:20), where for the six nights last past there had been a great light, reminding those who could read its meaning of the greater light which illumined the footsteps of their fathers. On this night the light is not to shine; but the true Light, which was ever in the world, is now in His own Temple, speaking the words of light and life to His own people. There is a Light there whose rays are to illumine, not only the Temple, or Jerusalem, or Judæa, or the Dispersion, but the world.

He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness.—Strong and full of hope as these words are in the English rendering, the Greek is more emphatic still. The negative is in its strongest form, expressing “shall by no means,” “shall in no wise,” “walk in darkness.” The possibility is excluded from the thought. “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” If a man makes a false step in life, it is because he seeks other guides in his own thoughts or in subjection to the thoughts of other men. He that seeks to follow the true Light—to follow, not precede it; to follow always, not only when it coincides with his own will; to follow patiently and trustfully, step by step, wherever it may lead—cannot walk in darkness, for he is never without the presence of the Light. Here, as so often, stress is laid on the certainty and universality of the divine love on the one side, and the action of the human will on the other. There can be no doubt, “shall by no means walk in darkness”; there can be no limit, “he that followeth”; there can be no halting, “he that followeth.” The light ever points the way; it is he who day by day follows it who cannot miss the way. Perception of truth attends its practice. The true journey of this life is here presented as a constant activity; in John 7:37, the source of this action is found in a constant receptivity.

But shall have the light of life.—For the thought of “light” and “life” in contrast to “darkness” and “death,” comp. Note on John 1:5. The sense of the present passage is that he who follows Christ, not only has a light which guides his feet, but that through participation in the Messianic life he actually possesses that light in himself. He is no more dead, but has eternal life. (Comp. John 3:15.) He no more abides in darkness (John 12:46), but the Light which lighteneth every man abideth in him.

This verse is one of the many instances in which our familiar knowledge of the words of Jesus, in some degree, takes from the impression they would leave on us if we heard them for the first time. There is in them the calm assertion of conscious divinity, which in its very simplicity carries its own proof. It needed no formal proof, for He Himself knows it to be true; it needed no formal proof, for those who heard Him felt His words to be divine—“Never man spake like this Man.” “He taught them as One having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Comp. John 8:28.) The witness to the existence of natural light is the eye formed to receive its rays; the witness to the existence of the Light of the world is the eye of the spirit conscious of a night of darkness, which has passed into the brightness of the presence of the Sun of Righteousness.

(13) Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.—Better, Thou bearest witness of Thyself; Thy witness is not true. (Comp. Note on John 5:31.) The Authorised version here, by a change of word, renders the connection less obvious than it really is. The Pharisees, standing probably in the front of the crowd listening to Him, bring a technical objection to His statement, and one which He had Himself admitted the force of. “According to your own words,” they mean, “what you now say is not valid.” They stand in the light of day, but demand a formal proof that the Sun has risen.

(14) Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.—For “record” read in each instance witness, as in John 8:13. The pronoun is emphatic. “Even if I do bear witness of Myself, yet My witness is true.” He had before quoted their law of evidence (John 5:31), and showed that He fulfilled its canons. He is about to show this again (John 8:17-18), but He claims first that in reality the law cannot apply to Him. They claim a human proof of that which transcends human knowledge. They claim the evidence of a witness, to a truth for which there could not possibly be a human witness.

For I know whence I came, and whither I go.—The requirement of two witnesses was based on the imperfection of individual knowledge, and the untrustworthiness of individual veracity. His evidence, as that of One who knew every circumstance affecting that of which He testified, was valid, for the perfection of His knowledge implied that He was divine. He and He only of all who have appeared in human form, knew the origin and issue of His life; He and He only knew the Father’s home from which He came, and to which He was about to return. For the same words, “I go,” or, I go away, as applied to His voluntary death, comp. John 7:33.

But ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.—The Greek word for “cannot tell” is the same as that for “know” in the previous clause. For “and” most of the better MSS. read or. Making these corrections we have, But ye know not whence I come, or whither I go. The change of tense is to be noted. Speaking of His own knowledge, He refers to the Incarnation in the historic past, “I came.” Speaking of their continued ignorance, He refers to the coming as continuing in the present. Every renewed act and word was a coming to them from God. (See John 3:31.) He knew, in the fulness of knowledge, the whence of past coming and the whither of future going. They knew neither the one nor the other. They do not even know His present mission. Once again His present teaching takes up words uttered before. They had said, “When the Christ cometh no man knoweth whence He is” (John 7:27). He has, then, fulfilled their test. He had said, “Ye both know Me, and do know whence I am” (John 7:28); but that knowledge was of the earthly life only, and He now speaks to them of heaven.

(15) Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.—The pronouns are placed in emphatic contrast. “You on your part . . . I for My part.” We must beware of the common mistake of finding the origin of this thought of judgment in John 8:10-11, which as we have seen do not belong to this context. It arises rather from John 8:13. The statement of the Pharisees, “Thou art bearing witness concerning Thyself; Thy witness is not true,” was a condemnatory judgment based upon appearances. (Comp. Note on John 7:24.) They allowed these appearances to carry them away from a righteous judgment. They looked at the form of human flesh, and declared His witness false. Had they listened to the words He spoke, and judged according to their spiritual meaning, they would have heard the voice of the Messiah and have seen the Light of the world.

This thought of the Pharisees, in their ignorance judging that which they knew not, suggests by contrast the thought that He. in perfect knowledge judges no one. (Comp. John 3:17.)

(16) And yet if I judge, my judgment is true.—Though judgment was not the object of His mission, it was, as He had taught in John 3:19 (see Note there) the result of the manifestation of the Light. But in the cases in which the result followed, the judgment was not according to the flesh, but was in accord with the essential truth. The better reading here is, probably, the deeper word for ideally true, which we have had before. (Comp. Note on John 1:9.)

For I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.—Comp. Note on John 5:30. Here, as there. He identifies every act of judgment with the eternal and unchangeable truth of the Father.

(17) It is also written in your law.—He now proceeds to show again that the technical requirement of the Law was satisfied by His witness. The term “your law” is material, as addressed to those who were professed expounders of it and accused Him of being a transgressor of it. (Comp. the parallel reference to the Law in John 10:34; John 15:25.) To assert that Jesus placed Himself in a position of antagonism to the Mosaic law, is to forget the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17); and to assert that the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel differs in this respect from the character as portrayed by the earlier Evangelists, is to forget the teaching of the last verse of John 5, and, indeed, to miss the whole force of these very passages. He does not, indeed, say “our law,” as it was for them what it could not be for Him; but He mentions it to show in each case that He fulfilled it.

That the testimony of two men is true.—See Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15, and comp. Notes on Matthew 18:16 and Mark 14:55-56. The words are here quoted freely, and “two men” is substituted for “two or three witnesses,” which we find in both the passages in Deuteronomy. This prepares the way for the full thought of the “witness,” in the next verse. The requirement of the Law would be satisfied with the evidence of two men: He has the witness of two Persons, but each is divine.

(18) I am one that bear witness of myself.—The Greek has no word to express the English “one.” It is more exactly, I am He who beareth witness. The twofold witness is (1) in His own individuality—I, who know whence I came and whither I go, testify of Myself to you who know neither; and (2) in the fact that the Father sent Him. He is the Ambassador from the Father, accredited by the Father’s works and the voice from heaven, and His word is official as well as personal.

The thought is closely connected with that of John 8:16. His judgment is not individual judgment, because of the union with the Father. His witness is not only individual witness, but that of the Father also. The whole passage should be carefully compared with the close of John 5.

(19) Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father?—The words seem to be asked in scorn. “You speak of two witnesses. We accept you as one. Where is the other? He should be present before us if his evidence is to be accepted.” They must have known well from the earlier discourse that He claimed God as His Father, and the recurring phrase, “the Father that sent Me,” must have now made this clear. We are not to read in these words, then, any reference to a father in the flesh, though this interpretation is that of many ancient and modern expositors. The question, moreover, is not, “Who is Thy Father?” but “Where is Thy Father?” The question is asked in another spirit in John 14:8.

It may be that to their scorn is added the desire to draw from Him express words on which to base an accusation. They perhaps expect an answer such as “My Father who is in heaven.” (Comp. the direct question in John 10:24, and the adjuration of the high priest, Matthew 27:64.) But the time has not yet come. His answer contains no words which they could lay hold of as a technical ground for blasphemy.

Ye neither know me, nor my Father.—He traces their ignorance of the Father to its true cause, i.e., to their neglect of the only means by which God could be known. This thought has met us already in John 1:18 (see Note there), and will meet us again in John 14:9; John 16:3. Here the Pharisees think they know Him, and ask “Where is Thy Father?” The answer is. that if they really knew the witness of one, they would know the witness of both.

(20) These words spake Jesus in the treasury.—Comp. Notes on Mark 12:41 and Luke 21:1. From the passage it is clear that the word “treasury” was applied to the brazen trumpet-shaped chests placed in the court of the women for the reception of alms. There were thirteen of them, and each bore an inscription showing to what purpose the alms placed in it would be devoted. Here the word is apparently used of the place itself in which the chests were deposited, or the preposition must be taken as including the immediate neighbourhood. This notice of place is interesting in many ways. The court of the women was one of the most public places in the Temple area. He taught, then, openly and fearlessly. The chamber in which the Sanhedrin held their session was between the court of the women and that of the men. They had on that very day been assembled to take counsel against Him (John 7:45-52). This gives point to the words which follow, “and no man laid hands on Him, for His hour was not yet come.” The court of the women, moreover, was the spot where the great candelabra stood. (See Note on John 8:12.)

[(b) Jesus is Light (continued).

( β) His return to the Father misunderstood by the Jews, and explained by Him (John 8:21-29).]

(21) Then said Jesus again unto them.—The best MSS. omit the word “Jesus,” and read, He said, therefore, again unto them. The word “therefore” connects the discourse which follows with something which has gone before, probably with the fact that no man laid hands on Him, for His hour was not yet come. He is still free to address the multitude, and after an interval does so. This interval is marked by the word “again,” but is not necessarily more than a short break in the discourse. We shall find reason for believing (see Note on John 9:14) that the whole of the teaching and work which is included between John 7:37; John 10:21, is probably to be placed on the last and great day of the feast. The persons addressed are the people assembled round Him in the Temple. Some of the officials take part in the discussion, for it is “the Jews” who reply in the next verse. We have to think, it may be, of men gathered together in small groups discussing what He had before said. Some are really inquiring with earnest hearts about Him. The rulers are trying to suppress the growing conviction of the multitude. There are thus two currents of thought and feeling. One is found in the honest hearts of the untutored multitude; they know little of argument, and dare not interpret the Scriptures for themselves, but in their rough-and-ready way they are grasping the truth; the heart of man is bowing before the presence of its God. The other is found in the priests and rulers to whom, as a holy and learned caste, the representatives of God to man and the interpreters of their Sacred Books, the people are in intellectual and moral bondage. They seek to bind with their fetters hearts that are finding their way to the truth. Some of these groups have moved on, it may be, and others have taken their place. Seeing a new audience near Him, Jesus speaks to them again; for it is not probable that the words of John 8:27 apply wholly to the same persons as those in John 8:19.

I go my way.—The rendering is a little tinged by the following thought. The Greek word is the same as in John 8:14, where it is rendered “I go.” There, as here, I go away is better. It was, let us again remind ourselves, the last day of the feast, and now its closing hours have come. That thronging multitude would be before the close of another day, leaving Jerusalem to spread itself through all the extent of Palestine and the Dispersion. He also is going away. Many of them will never see Him again. Before another Feast of Tabernacles He will, in a deeper sense, be going away. They will seek Him, but it will be too late. There is in all the discourse the solemn feeling that these are the last words for many who hear Him.

Ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins.—Comp. Notes on John 7:34; John 7:36. But here the result of the seeking and not finding is declared in the sadness of its fatal issue. “In your sins” is not quite exact, and is, perhaps, somewhat misleading. The Greek has the singular not the plural, and should be rendered “in your sin.” It points out the state of sin, rather than actual transgressions. This latter thought is expressed where the words are repeated in John 8:24.

(22) Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself?—They see the deeper meaning of His words, and yet cannot see how that meaning is to be fulfilled. “He is going away, and He clearly refers to His death. But the issues of life are in the darkness of the future. Who can know the hour of His own departure? There is only one class of persons who can speak with certainty of thus going away, and these are persons who by their own act fix the limit of their own lives.”

Because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.—Comp. Note on John 7:35. Then they had asked in scorn if He would go to the Dispersion and teach the heathen? If so, they certainly could not follow Him. Here there is the same scorn. If He intends to go to Hades, He will indeed be beyond their reach. They expect to go to Abraham’s bosom: between Him and them there will be the great gulf which no one can pass. (Comp. Notes on Luke 16:22-26.) Many expositors have seen here a reference to the deeper darkness which, in current Jewish belief, fell on the souls of those who had by their own act passed to the other world. This is supported by the speech of Josephus at Jotapata (Wars, iii. 8, § 5). Their words may imply, “If He is going to that depth, well may He say ‘Whither I go, ye cannot come.’” But if this meaning were expressed in their words, we should have expected some reference to it in the answer of our Lord; and if it be expressed at all it is in their words. It has no sanction in thought or word from Him.

(24) I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins.—He now further explains what He meant by these words in John 8:21. The words, as they are twice repeated in this verse, differ in two particulars from their earlier form. One is, that the singular substantive “sin” has given place to the plural “sins.” He brings home to them the definite and known acts of sin which resulted from their sinful state. Another is, that the order of the words is changed. It is not so easy to preserve this in English; but we may read in John 8:21 “In your sin ye shall die,” and here “Ye shall die in your sins.” The believing not is itself a state of sin. (Comp. John 16:9.) It is a separation from the only source of life, and is necessarily accompanied by death.

If ye believe not that I am he.—The word “He” is not found in the Greek text, and this is marked by the italics in English; but they have been thinking and speaking of the Messiah, though the name has not been mentioned since John 7:42. It was the name ever first in their thoughts, and our version represents the generally received interpretation. It may, however, be doubted whether this interpretation gives to us the full meaning of the words “I am,” as used in this absolute way by our Lord, and as recorded in this Gospel. Within this same chapter they meet us again in John 8:28; John 8:58, and in the account of the arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane we find them repeated. (See Notes on John 18:5 et seq.) The words had a sacred history which told of the revelation of Jehovah to Moses (Exodus 3:14). Uttered as they were by Him who had just claimed to be “from above” and to be “not of this world,” and uttered as they were within the precincts of Jehovah’s Temple, and in the presence of His priests and people, they may well have carried to their minds this deeper meaning, and have been intended as a declaration of His divine existence. The meaning then would be, “If ye believe not that I am, that in Me there is existence which is the life of all who receive it, ye must die in your sins.”

(25) Then said they unto him, Who art thou?—They ask the question in the tone of scorn which they have already expressed in John 8:22. The pronoun is the emphatic word: “Thou, who art thou?” and the phrase was in frequent use to express contempt. He had said, “I am;” but they do not understand the words to be a divine name. Long before this time the name formed from these words, and which is now usually, but wrongly, read “Jehovah,” had been regarded as too sacred to be uttered. They appear to take the sentence as though it was incomplete, “I am . . .;” “Well, who art thou?” We have again, as in John 8:19, to note the attempt to draw from Him some definite statement which may be made the ground of a technical charge; but this He again avoids.

And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.—Almost every word of this answer is in the Greek capable of more than one meaning, and the true interpretation of the whole sentence cannot be decided with certainty. To discuss it with any fulness would be to encumber the page with details which would be unintelligible to the general reader; to discuss it with anything but fulness would be unsatisfactory to the student. There is little room for addition to the investigations which are now accessible. The full notes of Meyer and Stier and Tholuck may be read in English; and Dr. Moulton’s addition to his Translation of Winer’s Grammar (eighth edition, 1877, pp. 581-2), gives in a few words nearly all that can be said on the grammatical difficulty. After a careful consideration of the whole matter, it is believed, though not without hesitation, that the rendering, which is least liable to objection on any ground, is that which regards the answer as itself a question—“What I from the beginning am also speaking to you?” “You ask who I am. This has formed the substance of My teaching from the beginning, and is the substance of My teaching still.” (Comp. John 8:58.) “Can it be that you ask this?”

(26) I have many things to say and to judge of you.—The order of thought here is not certain, and will depend, in part, upon the interpretation we give to the previous verse. These words seem to arise from their judgment of Him as expressed in their scornful question, “Who art thou?” He has, indeed, immediately before (John 8:23), spoken of them. He is about in this discourse to do so again. There are present to His mind now many things to say of them, and these, if said, would be in words of condemnation; but He refrains. There is present to His mind also the great work He had to do—to speak to the world the eternal truth of God.

But he that sent me is true.—The words express a marked contrast to the words and thoughts with which He would come in contact, if He said and judged concerning them. They refer to the calm repose of the divine life in heaven, as contrasted with the misunderstandings and objections with which the manifestation of that life on earth had been encompassed. He turns from them to the thought of Him who sent Him, and who is true.

And I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.—Better, I speak unto the world the things which I heard from Him. It is the truth brought into and announced in the world, and which was heard during the pre-incarnate life with the Father. (Comp. John 8:28; John 8:38.)

(27) They understood not that he spake (better, was speaking) to them of the Father.—We have seen in Note on John 8:21 that a new discourse commences there, and that the hearers are not necessarily the same as those who had asked the question and heard the answer of John 8:19. Still the speakers then, and those spoken of now, are “the Jews” (comp. John 8:13; John 8:22); and they are probably in part identical with those of whom our Lord tells us there, that they knew neither Him nor the Father. Of these men St. John tells us now that they did not know that the Sender and the Father are one. The statement of their want of perception, which strikes us as so marvellous, is made just because it was marvellous. St. John remembers it many years afterwards, and remembers that on account of it Jesus proceeded to declare more fully that every act He did was done in the Father, and that every word He spoke was taught by the Father, and that in every event of His life the Father was present.

(28) Then said Jesus unto them.—Better, There-fore . . . The teaching arises immediately out of the want of understanding just mentioned.

When ye have lifted up the Son of man.—Better, When ye shall have lifted up . . . (Comp. Notes on John 3:14; John 6:62; John 12:32; John 12:34.) Both the Crucifixion and Ascension are implied here. Now. for the first time, they are marked out as the instruments of the Crucifixion (comp. Acts 3:15), and therefore the means by which He will return to His Father’s throne.

Then shall ye know . . .—These words confirm the view that the teaching of these verses arises immediately out of their present ignorance. Then the veil will be removed. Then the death of Christ will be followed by His glory. As we read these words they impress us with that calm of assured certainty with which they are uttered (comp. John 8:12) before the events, and reminds us of the signal way in which they were fulfilled. (Comp., e.g., Notes on Matthew 23:39 and Acts 2:37.)

That I am he.—Comp. Note on John 8:24.

And that I do nothing of myself.—This is dependent on “know that” in the previous clause; as is the remainder of the verse, and probably the first clause of the following verse also. They will then know that He is divine, and that the acts and words which they cannot now understand are part of the divine life in union with the Father. Now they marvel and ask, “How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?” (John 7:15): then they shall know that according as the Father taught Him, He spake these things. Now they cannot understand the witness of the Father (John 8:19): then they shall know that He that sent Him was with Him.

(29) The Father hath not left me alone.—The Greek words mean exactly, the Father (or, as the better MSS. read, without change of meaning, He) left Me not alone, and they are sometimes taken to refer to the time of His mission into the world. The context rather points to their application to every moment of life. He was ever conscious of a Presence which they knew not of, but which the future should reveal to them. We shall find Him resting in this consciousness again when He looks on to the dark hour when the disciples shall be scattered every man to his own, and He shall be left as men would think alone. (Comp. Note on John 16:32.)

For ι do always those things that please him.—It would be less ambiguous to read, because I do always . . . The words furnish the reason for the presence of the Father in every act and moment of His life. All things done by Him at all times were in accordance with the Father’s will. In His human nature perpetual communion is conditioned by perpetual obedience. The same thought recurs in His words to the disciples in John 15:10. Comp. also, on the relation of the Son to the Father, Note on John 5:19.

Emphasis should be laid here upon the pronoun, “for I do always.” It was true of His human nature, as distinct from all others, that no act, at any moment of life, had cast its shadow on the brightness of the vision of the Father’s presence. Later in this same discourse (John 8:46) He appeals to their knowledge of His holy life. Here, in words that none other in human form could ever utter, He appeals to His own consciousness of a life, every act of which was pleasing in the presence of God.

[(b) Jesus is Light (continued).

( γ) True discipleship and freedom (John 8:30-59).

Freedom by the Son’s word (John 8:30-36).

Natural and ethical sonship (John 8:37-47).

Eternal life by the Son’s word. The Son’s eternity (John 8:48-59).]

(30) Many believed on him.—Wonder has often been expressed at the want of apprehension spoken of in John 8:27. There is surely no less room for wonder in the faith spoken of here. Those who believe are of the rulers (“those Jews,” John 8:31). The words which they now heard (John 8:28-29) contain nothing of what we commonly call proof. They are an appeal to the future which should prove them true, and to His own consciousness of perfect obedience to the Father’s will, and of unbroken realisation of the Father’s presence. They are indeed, in part, words which men have since dwelt upon to prove that He who uttered them did not claim to be divine. It was not so with those who heard Him. They are watching for a technical assertion of His divinity, and do not hear it; but they are convinced by the power of His words that He is divine. (Comp. Note on John 7:31.) These scribes and Pharisees feel, as their officers felt before, that “Never man spake like this Man.” Where was priest or Rabbi who could appeal to the spotless purity of a life? There is the irresistible power of truth in the appeal which carries conviction to the heart. We have already found in the case of Nicodemus an example, probably not a solitary one, of a faith among the rulers which dared not confess itself. (See also John 12:42.)

(31) Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him.—Better, to those Jews who had believed Him. The act of faith is mentioned in the previous verse. They are here placed among the believers, with an expression of contrast mixed with, perhaps, something of wonder—Jews and yet believers.

If ye continue in my word.—Or, If ye abide in My word. Comp. Note on John 15:7, where we have the opposite form of the thought, “If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you.” See also for this idea of abiding, Notes on John 5:37-38. His word was the expression of the eternal truth of God, and He therefore was the one great Teacher. Every other must sit as a disciple at His feet, and continue in daily learning and in daily living to grasp the truth which, in that word and that word only, was revealed to man.

Here, as very frequently, part of the force of the sentence is expressed in the emphasis of the pronoun, “If ye continue in My word.” “Ye, on your part, ye who now believe, but have not the courage to rank yourselves openly among My disciples.”

Then are ye my disciples indeed.—The insertion of “then” does not improve the rendering—“If ye continue in My word, ye are My disciples indeed.” The words imply that He who reads the heart has no confidence in this momentary conviction, which will not stand the test of true discipleship, and all that this includes. (Comp. Notes on John 2:23-25; John 6:66.)

(32) And ye shall know the truth.—In the great Intercessory Prayer of John 17, Jesus prays for His disciples: “Sanctify them in the truth: Thy word is truth” (John 8:17). In the answer to the question of Thomas in John 14, He declares, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 8:6). It is this thought that is present in the connection between continuance in His word and knowledge of the truth here. These Jews professed to know the truth, and to be the official expounders of it. They had yet to learn that truth was not only a system, but also a power; not only something to be written or spoken, but also something to be felt and lived. If they abide in His word they will indeed be His disciples; living the life of truth, they will gain perception of truth. “Being true,” they will “in love grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ” (Ephesians 4:15).

And the truth shall make you free.—Here, as in John 17:17, truth and holiness are spoken of as correlative. The light of truth dispels the darkness in which lies the stronghold of evil. Sin is the bondage of the powers of the soul, and this bondage is willed because the soul does not see its fearful evil. When it perceives the truth, there comes to it a power which rouses it from its stupor, and strengthens it to break the fetters by which it has been bound. Freedom from the Roman rule was one of the national hopes bound up with Messiah’s Advent. There is indeed a freedom from a more crushing foe than the legions of Rome. (Comp. Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30.)

(33) They answered him—i.e., the Jews who had believed in Him (John 8:31). There is no indication that this answer was made by others standing near, nor would this supposition have been made but for the difficulty of applying some of the words which follow (John 8:40; John 8:44) to those who had ever professedly been believers; but the explanation is to be found in our Lord’s own warning words in John 8:31. He has tested their faith, and they fail in the first steps of discipleship.

We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man.—Their pride misinterprets His words, and expresses itself in a boast which passes the limits of historical truth. It had been promised to Abraham, “I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies” (Genesis 22:17). This seed they were. This promise they interpret of national prosperity. Abraham’s seed in bondage! the thought is impossible. As in other cases (comp. John 7:52), they forget part of the facts of history, for they have never learned their lessons. The Egyptian slavery and Babylonian captivity are passed over. That very generation witnessed around them the insignia of Rome, paid taxes to Rome, used the coin of Rome, but it was the policy of the empire to leave to the subject provinces a nominal freedom; and it may be that stress is laid on the words “been in bondage,” which occur nowhere else in the Gospels. Those then living may have said with truth that they had never been in actual bondage, and the current expectation of the Messiah at that time may have led them to interpret the promise to Abraham specially of themselves.

(34) Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.—The Cambridge MS. and some of the Fathers omit the words “of sin”; but this is clearly to avoid the difficulty of the connection of thought, and they must be regarded as an integral part of the text.

Committeth sin.—The Greek word is a present participle, expressing the continuance of the deeds of sin. It means, not simply the committing individual sins, from which no man is free, but the state of the life which is sinful; the state which is opposed to doing the will of the Father, and is expressed in other words as “working iniquity” (Matthew 7:21; Matthew 7:23.) The truth is taught in the generality of a well-known maxim, but it has for them a special application. They claimed to be Abraham’s seed, and therefore free. Let their lives decide the question of their freedom. He could appeal (John 8:28-29) to a perfect harmony with the divine will, and therefore had a perfect freedom. For many of them the voice of conscience must have spoken in terrible words, and must have revealed the chain which had bound them, hand and foot, in the slavery of sin.

Is the servant of sin.—The word means bondservant, or slave. It has been rendered by “bondman,” and this brings out the connection of the word with that for “was in bondage,” in the last verse.

It is striking that we have this same thought in the letters of both St. Paul and St. Peter. (See margin.)

(35) And the servant abideth not.—Better, Now the bondman abideth not . . ., as in the last verse.

The Son abideth ever.—Better, for ever, as in the earlier clause. The Greek words are precisely the same. This contrast between the position of the slave, who is a chattel that may be bought or bartered or sold, and has no affinity with the members of the house, and no permanent right in it; and the son, in whose veins is the master’s blood, and who is heir of all things, is obvious and general; but here, again, the present meaning is special. They claim to be the seed of Abraham. Did they remember the history of Isaac and Ishmael? The son of the freewoman abideth in the house; the son of the bondmaid is cast out. Here, once again, too, we have the pupil of Gamaliel taking up and expanding this thought, showing that it was within the range of current exposition. Read carefully Galatians 4:19-31, remembering that the Epistle belongs to the middle of the half-century which separates the utterance of these words by Christ from their record by St. John.

The Greek word for “abideth” is the word which is rendered “continue” in John 8:31, and the Authorised version further obscures the connection by placing a paragraph division between these verses. If we read again John 8:31-32, noting the close connection between abiding, truth, and freedom; and the next verses, John 8:35-36, noting the connection between abiding, the Son, and freedom, we shall have, it is believed, a simpler clue to the meaning than any of the usual explanations.

Our version misleads by the use of the capital. The word “Son” in this verse, should be read “son.” The clause is the expression of a legal maxim holding good for all servants and for all sons, but here specially applied to the sonship in Abraham’s household. It is not before the next verse that there is the transference of thought to the Son in the household of the Divine Father. In this verse the thought is that if they were really the children of Abraham they would be of Abraham’s spiritual nature, abiding in his home, and inheriting the promises made to him. They had not continued in the spiritual freedom of sons, but had departed from the house and had become, spiritually, bondmen.

(36) If the Son therefore shall make you free.—Now the thought of John 8:31-32 is repeated in special reference to the position they had claimed for themselves. There is need for the emancipation of which He has spoken, and His mission in the world is to proclaim it. If they will enter into spiritual union with Him, and abide in this new spiritual relation, it will make them new creatures, freed from sin by the power of truth. In the language of St. Paul, as quoted above, “Christ will be formed in them.” They will become “members of Christ” and “children of God.” The Son of the divine household will make them free, and in Him they will become members of the great family of God Himself. (Comp. the same thought of the divine household as addressed by St. Paul specially to Gentiles, in Ephesians 2:11-22. See also in this Gospel, John 14:2-3.)

Ye shall be free indeed.—Or, ye shall be free in reality.—The word is not the same as that rendered “indeed,” in John 8:31. They claimed political freedom, but they were in reality the subjects of Rome. They claimed religious freedom, but they were in reality the slaves to the letter. They claimed moral freedom, but they were in reality the bondmen of sin. The freedom which the Son proclaimed was in reality freedom, for it was the freedom of their true life delivered from the thraldom of sin and brought into union with God. For the spirit of man, that in knowledge of the truth revealed through the Son can contemplate the Father and the eternal home, there is a real freedom that no power can restrain. All through this context the thoughts pass unbidden to the teaching of St. Paul, the great apostle of freedom. There could be no fuller illustration of the words than is furnished in his life. He, like St. Peter and St. John (Romans 1:1, e.g.; 2 Peter 1:1; Revelation 1:1), had learnt to regard himself as a “bondservant,” but it was of Christ, “whose service is perfect freedom.” We feel, as we think of him in bonds before Agrippa, or a prisoner at Rome, that he is more truly free than governor or Cæsar before whom he stands, and more truly free than he himself was when he was armed with authority to bind men and women because they were Christians. The chains that bind the body cannot bind the spirit, whose chains have been loosed. He is free indeed, for the Son has made him free.

(37) I know that ye are Abraham’s seed.—He uses the word which they had used in John 8:33, acknowledging their merely physical descent from Abraham. He has since used the word “Son,” but does not apply it to them. In John 8:39 He refuses to acknowledge that they are Abraham’s “children.”

But ye seek to kill me.—The difficulty of understanding these words to refer to those who believed on Him (John 8:30-31), have led to the opinion that others of the hierarchy answer in John 8:33. This seems unnatural, and is opposed to the words which immediately follow. As a party, they had been, and still were, seeking to kill Him. These believers, by their question in John 8:33, were showing the spirit which declined discipleship, were identifying themselves with His opponents.

Because my word hath no place in you.—Better, makes no progress in you, “does not advance, does not gain ground in you.” That meaning is established by undoubted examples, and is in exact agreement with the thought of the context. In John 8:31 the test was, “If ye abide in My word.” Their question proves that their faith was momentary. The word had but penetrated the surface of their thoughts, but they had not so received it as to allow it to advance into the mind and influence their conduct.

(38) I speak that which I have seen with my Father.—Some of the older MSS. read “the” for “My,” but without change of sense. For the thought, comp. John 8:28, where we have the same connection between doing and speaking. He is the Word, and His work is to speak what He had seen in His eternal existence with the Father.

And ye do that which ye have seen with your father.—For “seen,” the better reading is probably heard. Here, as in the previous clause, some MSS. omit the possessive pronoun with “father,” but it is rightly inserted to express the meaning. The clauses are in direct opposition to each other, and this is shown by the emphatic personal pronouns—“I, on My part . . . My Father.” “You, on your part . . . your father.” The tenses of the verbs, too, are to be distinguished—“That which I have seen” (during My whole existence in eternity). “That which ye heard” (when ye became servants of sin). The cases of the substantives are also different—“I have seen with my Father” (signifying existence with. Comp. John 1:1). “Ye heard from your father” (what he directed).

Again, there is a word in the original which it is hard to represent in English, and which our version altogether omits. It is not simply “and ye do,” but “and ye therefore, or accordingly, do.” It is the same principle of union between Father and Son which directs His work, which is to reveal God, and their work, of which the seeking to kill Him is an instance.

(39) They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.—They feel the meaning which has not yet been expressed (comp. John 8:44), and claim the descent from Abraham which He has already allowed (John 8:37).

If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.—Almost all the better MSS. read, “If ye are,” for “If ye were.” This must mean, “If ye are Abraham’s children—but the supposition is excluded, for ye would do the works of Abraham, and this is opposed to fact.” They are the physical seed of the patriarch, but they are not the ethical children, for the true child would bear the moral impress of the father which would be seen in his works. The thought of the previous verse is again present here.

The distinction between “seed” and “children” is another instance of an idea which meets us in this section, and was developed in the writings of St. Paul. (Comp. Romans 9:7 et seq.)

(40) But now ye seek to kill me—i.e., As a matter of fact, in opposition to the conduct which would characterise the true children of Abraham, ye are seeking to kill Me. (Comp. Note on John 8:37.)

A man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard (better, which I heard) from God.—The term “a man,” expresses His revelation, by means of human form, of the divine truth which He heard in the pre-human state (John 8:38). The crime of seeking to kill Him is aggravated by the fact that He was One who came to tell them truth, and that from God. They seek to destroy the human life which for the sake of humanity He has assumed.

This did not Abraham.—It is usual to explain these words by a reference to Abraham’s receptivity of the divine truth and messengers (see Genesis 12; Genesis 14; Genesis 18; Genesis 22); but they probably point to the whole course of the patriarchal life as directly opposed to the spirit of those who claim to be his children.

(41) Ye do the deeds of your father.—It is better to read works rather than “deeds,” as in John 8:39. They did not the works of Abraham. They did the works of that father, who is now more clearly pointed out, but still not named. Before, when he was referred to (John 8:38), they could answer that Abraham was their father; but their works prove that they are not the true children of Abraham (John 8:39-40). They see that a spiritual father is intended, and they will claim God as their Father.

We be not born of fornication.—The meaning of this is to be found in the fact that the word became in the Old Testament prophets a frequent symbol for idolatry. Comp. Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 2:20; Jeremiah 3:8-9; Ezekiel 16; Hosea 1:2 (especially), 4:12, and 5:7.) They, as distinguished from the nations among whom they dwelt, had maintained a pure monotheism, and had never been idolaters, or children born of spiritual fornication.

We have one Father, even God.—“We” is strongly emphatic, expressing their pride in the theocracy, and their spiritual superiority to other nations. There may be in this pride also a touch of the scorn with which they asked “Will He go unto the dispersion of the Gentiles?” (John 7:35), or with which they call Him a Samaritan, as they do in this very discussion (John 8:48). “Howbeit every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt.” This is the historian’s account of the spiritual paternity of the Samaritans, and these Jews may well have felt their superiority in contrast with their neighbours. (See the whole passage in 2 Kings 17:26-41, especially John 8:30-31.)

(42) If God were your Father, ye would love me.—This follows because they would then be in a relationship of spiritual affinity to Him. God’s children would bear the spiritual image of their Father, and would love Him who came from God, but they were seeking to kill Him (John 8:40).

I proceeded forth and came from God.—Better, am come, am here. His presence with them was the result of His proceeding from God. As the Son of God He had eternal fellowship with the Father. The Incarnation was not the mission of one whose existence was separate from that of God, but it was the mission of the Son who proceeded from the Father. (Comp. John 16:27 et seq.)

Neither came I of myself, but he sent me.—Literally, for not even of Myself am I come, but He sent Me; as opposed to the thought that His origin was distinct from the Father. His coming was not His own act, but was a mission from God to the world.

But if He is sent from God, if He is present with them from God, if He proceeded from the Father, it must be that all who are true children of God would recognise and love Him.

It is important to note here that in our Lord’s own words there is an assertion of the oneness of nature and of will with that of the Father, and yet the distinction of person is maintained. He is come from God, but He proceeded from the divine essence. He proceeded forth, and yet He was sent.

(43) Why do ye not understand my speech, . . . my word.—The distinction between “speech” (the form) and “word” (the matter which was spoken) is rightly preserved. Comp. John 12:48, “the word that I have spoken.” A good instance of the meaning of “speech is found in Matthew 26:73, “thy speech betrayeth thee.” From John 8:33 onwards, they had constantly misunderstood His expressions. The reason is that the subject-matter of His discourse is altogether above them. He is speaking of spiritual things, which are spiritually discerned. They, if children of the Father whom they claimed, would recognise these spiritual truths and know the language of home.

Ye cannot hear.—Comp. Note on John 6:60. The sense is, “Ye cannot hear, so as to receive and obey.” He supplies the answer to His own question. In the following verses (44-47), He expresses this answer more fully.

(44) Ye are of your father the devil.—“Ye” is emphatic. “Ye who have claimed Abraham and God as your father. Ye are of the father, but that father is the devil.” The possessive pronoun (your) is not expressed in the Greek, and the form of the sentence is one which would have required it if it were included in the sense. The father who has been referred to in John 8:38; John 8:41 is now definitely named. The relation between father and son is maintained, but the father of the thoughts and acts of those to whom He speaks was not God, not Abraham, but the devil.

And the lusts of your father ye will do.—Better, ye desire to do, ye will to do. The verb is not an auxiliary, as it appears to be in our version, but expresses the determination of the will. (Comp. Notes on John 5:40; John 7:17.)

He was a murderer from the beginning.—Comp. Wisdom of Solomon 2:23-24, “For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of His own eternity. Nevertheless, through envy of the devil came death into the world, and they that do hold of his side do find it.” So St. Paul, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Romans 5:12). The Fall was the murder of the human race; and it is in reference to this, of which the fratricide in the first family was a signal result, that the Tempter is called a murderer from the beginning (see Note on John 1:1). “Cain was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.” (Comp. Notes on 1 John 3:8-12, where the thought is expanded.) The reference to the murderer is suggested here by the fact that the Jews had been seeking to kill our Lord (John 8:40). They are true to the nature which their father had from the beginning.

And abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.—Better, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. The word is not that which we have before had in the sense of “abide” (see Note on John 5:38), and the tense of the verb is present in meaning. The words do not refer to the fall of the devil, which is here implied but not stated, but to his constant character. He has no place in the sphere of the truth; it is not the region of his action and outer life; and the result of this is that there is no truth in the sphere of his thought and inner life. Had he been true, he would have come to stand in the light and life of truth.

When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own.—This is in contrast to the work of Christ (John 8:28; John 8:40) and to the work of the Holy Spirit (Note on John 16:13.) The Holy Spirit will not speak of Himself; He came to speak the truth which He heard from God. The devil speaketh a lie (comp. Genesis 3), and this is of his own (see Note on Matthew 12:35).

For he is a liar, and the father of it.—Better, and the father of the liar. This is probably the meaning of the Greek, and it can only be expressed in English by the repetition of the substantive. The verse ends as it begins, by a reference to the Jews whom He is addressing. They were of the nature of him whose spiritual children they were. The murderous thoughts in their hearts, and their non-receptivity of truth, plainly indicated who their father was.

The reader will hardly, perhaps, need to be cautioned against the old heretical rendering of the first and last clauses of this verse, by “Ye are of the father of the devil . . . for he is a liar, and also his father.” Still, as this view has been revived in some quarters in our own day, one word of reminder that it is no less opposed to the context and the teaching of this Gospel than it is to the whole tenor of Biblical truth and of rational theology, may not be misplaced. On the personality of the devil, which, if plain words have any meaning, is here implied in the words of Christ, see Notes on Matthew 4.

(45) And because I tell you the truth.—The pronoun is full of emphatic meaning. And I, as contrary to him, because 1 tell you the truth, as contrary to the lie which is his characteristic.

Ye believe me not—i.e., ye believe not what I say. It does not mean, Ye believe not on Me, but Ye accept not the truth which I speak. There is something startling in this sharp opposition of truth and unbelief. To speak the truth is commonly to command belief. The mind of man is so constituted that truth is the first object of its search. Here was perfect truth presented to men, and they refused to accept it, because it was the truth, and they were themselves children of him who was a liar.

(46) Which of you convinceth me of sin?—He appeals to their knowledge of His sinless life, as in John 8:29. He asserted His own knowledge of entire conformity to His Father’s will. It is an appeal that spotless purity alone could make, and is His own testimony uttered in the dignity of certain knowledge. (Comp. John 14:30.)

If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?—We may suppose that the last question was probably followed by a pause, during which any one might have answered the challenge. No one of all who had watched Him in Galilee and Judæa dared utter a syllable. Their silence is the seal to His own testimony. But if He is thought of by these as without sin, they cannot think of His words as untrue. They admit, then, that He speaks the truth, and yet they do not believe. On the absolute sinlessness of Christ, comp. 1 John 3:5; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 Peter 1:22.

(47) He that is of God heareth God’s words.—Again He answers the question which He has Himself asked, and gives more fully the same reason which He gave in John 8:43. In John 8:44 He asserted that they were of the father the devil, and therefore lived to do the lusts of the devil. In the same way he who is of God does the will of God, and hears the words of God. The words of God are those which He has been speaking unto them (John 8:26). Here, then, is the answer to the question, “Why do ye not believe Me?” Rabbis and priests, teachers of the Law, judges of truth, offerers of sacrifice, keepers of feasts, worshippers in synagogues and Temple—they were all this; but they were not “of God.”

(48) Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?—The words imply that the saying was customary among the Pharisees. The knowledge of this, and the simple way in which the fact is told, is one of many instances of the writer’s minute acquaintance with what was said and done by the leaders of the Jerusalem party. There is no instance given of the term “Samaritan” being applied to our Lord, but the term itself is frequently used by the Rabbis as one of opprobrium. The history of the fourth chapter is at once suggested to our minds, and was probably not absent from theirs. (Comp. Note on John 7:35.) There may have been facts more immediately connected with this very Feast of Tabernacles present to their minds, which are unknown to us. The going up secretly of John 7:10, must almost certainly have been through Samaria. He had kept the last Passover in the despised Galilee (John 6:4). Had He kept Tabernacles in the hated Samaria? It is worth noting that the word Samaritan, in the singular, as applied to an individual, occurs but twice, except here and in John 4. One instance is in the parable spoken at no long interval after the present discourse (Luke 10:25-37). The other tells us that the only one of the ten lepers who turned back to glorify God “was a Samaritan” (Luke 17:16).

The rendering, “and hast a devil,” is one which, probably, cannot now be improved. Wiclif’s word here is “fiend,” which in this sense is obsolete. But every reader of the Greek must feel how little our English word can represent the two distinct ideas, represented by two distinct words here and in John 8:44. “Demon,” used originally for the lower divinities, and not unfrequently for the gods, passed in the Scriptures, which taught the knowledge of the true God, into the sense of an evil spirit. Thus the word which could represent the attendant genius of Socrates came to express what we speak of as demoniacal possession, and the supposed power of witchcraft and sorcery. Socrates is made to say, “For this reason, therefore, rather than for any other, he calls them demons, because they were prudent and knowing” (daçmones, Plato, Cratylus, xxiii.). The history of Simon Magus reminds us that the people of Samaria, from the least to the greatest, had been for a long time under the influence of his sorceries (Acts 8:9 et seq.), and it is probable that there is a special connection in the words here, “Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon.” (Comp. Excursus III. on Notes to St. Matthew’s Gospel, p. 185.)

(49) Jesus answered, I have not a devil.—One of the disciples, who was probably present on this day, and heard these words, speaks of Christ our example, “who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously” (1 Peter 2:23). The charge of being a Samaritan He passes over. His words soon after taught that a Samaritan may be more truly the child of God than priest or Levite is. The statement that He is possessed by an evil power from the spirit world He denies.

I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.—There is a connection between all His works and words and the unseen world. It is the union of Father and Son, and His life had been the constant honouring of the Father, whose will it was His meat to do (John 4:31). Their works and words were as constantly—and this last calumny is an instance of it—dishonouring Him. The contrast suggests that this dishonour was not of Him only; but also of the Father whom He honoured, and whom they claimed as their God.

(50) And I seek not mine own glory.—The words are immediately connected with those which have preceded. They dishonoured Him. This to one who sought His own glory would have been matter of concern. For Him whose whole life was one of self-denial, their dishonour finds nothing which it can wound. His words repeat what He had taught them before. (See Notes on John 5:41; John 7:18.)

There is one that seeketh and judgeth.—Comp. John 5:45. The thought here is that though He Himself seeks not His own glory, the Father seeketh for the honour of the Son, and judgeth between Him and those who dishonour Him. The result of the judgment as to those who keep not His word is expressed in the next verse; and as to Himself in John 16:10.

(51) If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.—Better, If a man keep My word. Our version obscures the close connection with the thought of “continuing in His word” in John 8:31; and also that with “He that heareth my word,” in John 5:24. This last passage is the key to the words before us. Here, as there, the thought of judgment and death leads to the opposite thought of coming not into judgment, but passing out of death into life. Here, as there, the believer is thought of as possessing the true spiritual life which cannot see death, but shall pass into the fuller spiritual life hereafter.

Another interpretation of the phrase rendered “He shall never see death,” is “he shall not see death for ever”—i.e., “he shall indeed die, but that death shall only be in this world, it shall not be in the world which is for ever.” This is the thought in the collect in “The Order for the Burial of the Dead “. . . “our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the resurrection and the life; in whom whosoever believeth shall live, though he die; and whosoever liveth and believeth in him shall not die eternally.”

The following are the only passages in St. John where exactly the same formula is used, and a comparison of them will make it clear that it means, as does the Hebrew formula on which it is based, that which we express by “never,” or “certainly never.” “by no means ever,” for the negative is in its strongest form (John 4:14, John 8:52 in this John 10:28; John 11:26; John 13:8). The first and last of these passages refer to subjects (“shall never thirst,” “shall never wash my feet”), which do not admit any possibility of doubt. The others are all parallel to the present text, in thought as well as in word. In all there is the fuller meaning that for the believer who now has spiritual life, and continues to live in communion with God, there cannot be death. “He shall never see death.” What we think of as death is but a sleep. (See Note on John 11:11.) Death has been swallowed up of life, and physical death is thought of, in its true sense, as an entering into life.

(52) Abraham is dead, and the prophets.—They still “do not understand His speech,” and take His words in a merely physical sense. In that sense they were impossible, for they are contradicted by the fact that death came to the great Patriarch and the prophets, and if to them, then surely, much more to ordinary men. They regard it as conclusive that their assertion in John 8:48 is correct. No one, except a man under the influence of a demon, would make an assertion so opposed to the almost unbroken experience of mankind.

If a man keep my saying.—Better, If a man keep My word, as in last verse.

He shall never taste of death.—The expression is stronger than that which He had used, “shall never see death.” They use it to put in the strongest way their wonder at the impossible promise which He had uttered. It has occurred before in Matthew 16:28. (See Note there.) It occurs again in the New Testament only in Hebrews 2:9.

(53) Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead?—The question is exactly the same, with the substitution of “Abraham” for “Jacob,” as that asked by the Samaritan woman in John 4:12 (see Note). “Surely thou art not greater than our father Abraham, who indeed died?”

Whom makest thou thyself?—“If Abraham, who received God’s covenant, himself died, and if the prophets, who uttered the oracles of God, themselves died, what kind of person dost Thou assert Thyself to be that Thy word shall deliver men from death?” The same phrase occurs again in John 5:18; John 10:33; John 19:7.

(54) If I honour myself, my honour is nothing.—The word rendered “honour” is not the same as that in John 8:49. It is better to read glorify here. Following all the better MSS. the tense is past. We have then, If I shall have glorified Myself, My glory is nothing. Stress is to be laid upon the pronoun. “If I, for My part, as distinct from the Father, shall have glorified Myself.”

It is my Father that honoureth me.—Better, as before, . . . glorifieth Me. This is the answer to their question, “Whom makest Thou Thyself?” The attribute of life in Himself, and the power to communicate this to those who kept His word, was the gift of the Father to the Son. (See Note on John 5:26.)

Of whom ye say, that he is your God.—Some of the better MSS., and most modern editors, read . . . “He is our God.” The identification of the Father with the God of Israel is important. It may be, as some have supposed, that the phrase, “He is our God,” belonged to common liturgical forms or hymns, and was thus frequently on their lips.

(55) Yet ye have not known him; but I know him.—The frequency of lip-assertion was not accompanied by any true heart-knowledge. The Father who glorified Him was the God whom they professed to serve. Their question, “Whom makest Thou Thyself? “has its explanation in the fact that this service was independent of any real knowledge of God. The two verbs “know” and “known” here do not represent the same Greek word. More exactly the rendering should be, And ye have not come to know Him: but I know Him. The one clause expresses acquired recognition; the other expresses immediate essential knowledge. (Comp. Note on John 14:7.)

If I should say, I know him not.—The thought of their want of perception of God has led to the assertion by contrast of His own full intuitive knowledge of God. To assert this knowledge is to make Himself greater than Abraham and the prophets; but there is untruth in silence as well as in utterance, and His very truthfulness demands the assertion.

But I know him, and keep his saying.—Or better, His word, as in John 8:51-52. Again the positive statement is made in the certainty of His full knowledge, and this is followed by a statement of the observance of the same condition of communion with the Father which He had made necessary for communion of the disciples with Himself.

(56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day.—They had asked in scorn if He were greater than their father Abraham (John 8:53). .His words have shown that He was. He now, with the thoughts of John 8:39 still present, contrasts the exultation of him whom they claimed as father, when he saw from afar the Messianic advent, with their rejection of the Messiah who is actually among them. Abraham realised the fulness of the promises made to him, and believed in the Lord that the blessing should be fulfilled to his seed. He, too, had kept God’s word, and in the true sense had not seen death (see Genesis 15:1-6; Genesis 22:18). The words, “My day,” are used, as in Luke 17:22, for the manifestation of Christ on earth.

And he saw it, and was glad.—This is the historic fulfilment of the joy which looked forward to the day of Christ. Our Lord reveals here a truth of the unseen world that is beyond human knowledge or explanation. From that world Abraham was cognisant of the fact of the Incarnation, and saw in it the accomplishment of the promise which had brought joy to shepherds watching their flocks, as the Patriarch had watched his; there came an angel, as angels had come to him, and a multitude of the heavenly host, exulting in the good news to men. In that joy Abraham had part. The truth comes as a ray of light across the abyss which separates the saints in heaven from saints on earth. As in the parable, where Lazarus is in Abraham’s bosom, the rich man is represented as knowing and caring for his brethren on earth, so here the great Patriarch is spoken of as knowing and rejoicing in the fact of the Incarnation. The faculty of reason cannot explain how it is, but the faculty of faith can receive the truth that there is a “communion of saints,” and finds in it a comfort which robs separation of its bitterness, and a power which strengthens all the motives to a holy and devoted life. (Comp. Luke 16:19-31; Hebrews 12:1.)

(57) Thou art not yet fifty years old.—There is no reason to doubt that we have the correct reading here, though some, from Chrysostom downward, have sought to avoid what seemed to them a difficulty, by substituting “forty” for “fifty.” Others, and among them were the “Elders who in Asia conferred with John, the Lord’s disciple,” have held that our Lord was between forty and fifty years of age at the time of his public ministry. We know this from the testimony of Irenaeus, who appears to have this very passage in his mind, for he says, “As the gospel and all the Elders witness” (Lib. 2 chap. 22 § 5; Oxford Translation, p. 160). But “fifty years” was the period of full manhood (Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:39; Numbers 8:24). This is expressed in round numbers, and there is no care to be more exact in comparison with the two thousand years which had passed since the close of Abraham’s earthly life. The thought is, “Thou art still a young man, and hast thou seen Abraham who died twenty centuries ago?”

(58) Before Abraham was, I am.—Better, Before Abraham was born, I am. (Comp. Note on John 1:6; and see another striking instance in Luke 6:36, “Become ye merciful as your Father also is merciful.”) Here they ask in wonder, not unmixed with scorn, if He was coeval with Abraham. The answer is that Abraham, like all men, came into being. There was a time when he was not. But there was never a time when the Son of God was not. In the time before Abraham, in the eternity before time (John 1:1), He still was. No word which expresses becoming can be used of His existence. He is the I AM, present equally in the human “was,” and “is,” and “is to come.”

(59) Then took they up stones to cast at him.—At last the meaning of His words flashes upon them. They had heard this I AM before (John 8:24) without perceiving that in it He applied to Himself the name Jehovah. Now there is no room for doubt. His own Divinity is the only explanation of what He has said; and it is in these words so plainly asserted, that those who had constantly misunderstood can misunderstand no more. The subtleties of later days, by which men have tried to show that there is no claim to Divinity here, was not suggested to their minds. They will not acknowledge the claim, but they feel that He has made it. They have heard the fearful words which seemed to them as blasphemy, and they take up the stones which are at hand for the rebuilding of the Temple, in which they are, to cast at the Lord of the Temple. (Comp. John 10:33.)

Going through the midst of them, and so passed by.—These words are omitted in a majority of the better MSS. They were probably inserted in others to explain what was taken to be the miraculous disappearance. (Comp. Luke 4:30.) Here we are simply told that He “hid Himself and went out of the Temple, and this does not imply more than that He passed among the crowd which was around Him, out of the Temple, and thus avoided the stones which they had taken up to cast at Him.