Visit our new blog. It lists all the new things that we are doing and what new material has been added to our site. We even list new missionaries who sign up with us for technical support so you can pray for them. FCM News
1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he
appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered
around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the
law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They
made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher,
this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses
commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They
were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for
accusing him.
7But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his
finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and
said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be
the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down
and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older
ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing
there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where
are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go
now and leave your life of sin."
John 8:1-11
Explanation: Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery
(7:53-8:11)
This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners,
is found only in John. It was almost certainly not part of John's
original Gospel. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest
of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable
manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11."
That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations
and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story.
Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John
(after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of
Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks
that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory
credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many
expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than
those in John.
It appears to have been a well-known story, one of many that circulated
orally from the beginning yet that none of the Gospel writers were
led to include. But some in the later church thought this one was
too good to leave out. The controversy with the teachers of the
law and the Pharisees (v. 3) is similar to stories found in the
Synoptics, as is the theme of God's mercy mediated by Jesus.
Those who believe that authorship is a primary criterion for canonicity
will suspect or even reject this passage. Most of Christendom, however,
has received this story as authoritative, and modern scholarship,
although concluding firmly that it was not a part of John's Gospel
originally, has generally recognized that this story describes an
event from the life of Christ. Furthermore, it is as well written
and as theologically profound as anything else in the Gospels.
What we have here, then, is a bit of Synoptic-like material stuck
in the middle of John's Gospel. Its presence highlights some of
the similarities and differences between John and the Synoptics.
The setting is one of controversy in the temple, though the way
this is introduced in 7:53--8:2 is much more like Luke's style (cf.
Lk 19:47; 20:1; 21:37) than John's. Furthermore, the theme of judgment
also corresponds to the theme of the larger section in John (7:24;
8:15-16). This setting and theme probably led to its inclusion in
John at this point.
Most importantly, however, this story highlights the similarities
and differences between John and the Synoptics regarding Jesus identity.
The clarity of Jesus' self-revelation, typical of John and central
to this larger passage (chaps. 7--8) is missing from this story.
Jesus has spoken clearly and openly of himself by his invitation
to come to himself as the source of living water (Jn 7:37-38). Our
present story is immediately followed by another clear self-revelation
of Jesus as the light of the world (8:12). Thus, Chrysostom, who
does not comment on this story of the adulteress (no one in the
East does so before the twelfth century), notes this larger theme
(In John 52.2), whereas Augustine, who does comment on the text,
does not make these connections (In John 33.2-3).
It is usually said that this story interrupts John's flow of thought,
as though a patch of a different pattern has been sewn onto a piece
of cloth. On the contrary, while the style of Jesus' self-revelation
is quite different in John, this added story contains an example
of the Synoptic form of revelation, which shows that Jesus is more
than a human prophet. So although there is a patch, the patch is
of the same pattern as the whole, albeit less bright.
While the style of the material is very different,
the substance is quite similar. This specific story is a case in
point of what is generally true of the relation between the Synoptics
and John. The Synoptics have as high a Christology as John does,
though they express it differently.
The story unfolds in four stages. The first stage sets the scene
(7:53--8:2). The meeting of the chief priests and Pharisees with
their servants, the "temple guards" (7:45-52), presumably
took place on the last (and seventh) day of the feast (see note
on 7:37). As this passage stands in this context, Jesus is coming
early to the temple to teach on the morning of the added eighth
day of the feast, which was a day of rest (Lev 23:39).
The second stage of the story (8:3-6) describes the challenge presented
to Jesus by the Jewish leaders. Their treatment of the woman is
callous and demeaning. If she had committed adultery the previous
evening (which is perhaps more likely than around dawn, v. 2), then
we can assume these opponents had been holding her during the night
and waiting for Jesus to show up in order to use her to test him.
Her fear would have been great. Putting her in the midst of the
crowd would have added public humiliation. A certain attitude of
male-chauvinism comes across in their statement that the law of
Moses commands the stoning of such women (v. 5). More precisely
the law speaks of the death of both the man and the woman involved
(Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24).
These opponents have a commendable zeal for righteousness, but theirs
is a shallow righteousness that shows no concern for the soul of
this woman. They are also being rather deceitful. There is no evidence
that this law was carried out with any regularity, so they are raising
a question in the name of loyalty to Moses, using a part of Moses'
teaching that they themselves most likely have not kept. Furthermore,
since the law says both the man and the woman who commit adultery
are to be killed, we are left wondering why the man was not brought
in as well. It may be that he had escaped, but the fact that only
the woman is brought raises suspicions and does not speak well of
their zeal for the law of Moses; for if they were really committed,
they would have brought the man as well. Indeed, the law makes it
clear that stoning could only take place after a careful trial,
which included the chance for the condemned to confess his or her
wrong (m. Sanhedrin 6:1-4). The hypocrisy of the opponents is evident.
This situation is apparently just an attempt to entrap Jesus (v.
6). If he is lax toward the law, then he is condemned. But if he
holds a strict line, then he has allowed them to prevail in their
ungodly treatment of this woman and has opened himself up to trouble
from the Romans, for he will be held responsible if the stoning
proceeds. The leaders of Israel are putting God to the test in the
person of his Son, repeating the Israelites' historical pattern
on more than one occasion in the wilderness at Meribah and Massah
(Ex 17:2; Num 20:13; cf. Deut 6:16; Ps 95:8-9; 106:14).
The third stage, Jesus' response to the opponents (vv. 6-9), is
very memorable. While remaining seated he bends over and writes
with his finger on the ground. This act of writing on the ground
is itself very significant. Kenneth E. Bailey has pointed out (in
unpublished form) that it was unlawful to write even two letters
on the sabbath but that writing with dust was permissible (m. shabbat
7:2; 12:5). If this were the eighth day of the feast, which was
to be kept as a day of rest, then Jesus' writing on the ground would
show that he knows well not only the law but also the oral interpretations.
Furthermore, his writing echoes an Old Testament passage, thereby
turning it into a symbolic action (Jeremias 1972:228): "O Lord,
the hope of Israel, all who forsake you will be put to shame. Those
who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they
have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water" (Jer 17:13).
Here "written in the dust" probably means the opposite
of being written in the book of life (Ex 32:32; Dan 12:1); those
who have turned away are consigned to death because they have rejected
the one who is the source of the water of life. Thus it appears
that Jesus is associating his opponents with those whom God condemns
for forsaking himself and whom he consigns to death. The judgment
that they suggest Jesus execute on this adulterous woman is in fact
the judgment that he visits upon them for their rejection of him--the
one who has offered them God's living water (7:38-39). In rejecting
Jesus, they are forsaking God, and thereby committing a most shameful
act. Adultery is shameful, certainly, but they themselves are acting
in a shameful way worthy of death.
All of this is conveyed simply by Jesus' action of writing on the
ground, which alludes to this passage from Jeremiah. This action
could have this meaning whatever it was he wrote. Not surprisingly,
many people have proposed theories of what he actually wrote on
the ground. Perhaps the most common suggestion is still the most
likely--that he wrote out some form of condemnation addressed toward
them. This interpretation has been strengthened in recent years
by the publication of a papyrus fragment from 256 B.C. (Zenon Papyrus
59) that uses the verb found here (katagrapho) in the sense of writing
out an accusation against someone (Bauer, Gingrich and Danker 1979:410).
So perhaps Jesus cited commands he knew them to be guilty of breaking,
or it could be he cited Jeremiah 17:13 putting, as it were, a caption
under his symbolic act. Or maybe he enacted Jeremiah 17:13 by actually
writing out the names of the accusers. Since they did not get his
point right away, perhaps first he cited Jeremiah and then, as they
persisted, he began to write their names. Such suggestions are obviously
speculative, but they indicate possible explanations of what is
happening.
When Jesus calls for the one without sin to cast the first stone
he accomplishes several things: it relieves him from the charge
of having instigated a stoning; it ensures there will not be a stoning,
since none of the accusers will want to take responsibility for
it; and it causes them to reflect on their own sinfulness before
God. It has often been suggested that the eldest accusers were the
first to leave (v. 9) because they recognized their own sinfulness
more readily. However, leaving in this order may simply reflect
the custom of deferring to the elders. In any case, their withdrawal
was in fact a confession of sin. Those who came to condemn ended
up condemning themselves by not casting a stone.
Jesus is left alone, sitting on the ground, bent over and writing,
with the woman standing before him. As Augustine says, "The
two were left alone, misera et misericordia" ("a wretched
woman and Mercy"; In John 33.5). This prepares for the fourth
and final stage of this story--Jesus' response to the woman (vv.
10-11). He straightens up and asks for a report of what happened,
as if he had been totally oblivious to what took place as he concentrated
on his writing. He does not ask her about the charges but rather
about that aspect of the situation most heartening to the woman:
Where are they? Has no one condemned you? (v. 10). They had of course
condemned her in their accusations, but by not following through
on the charge they had thrown out her case.
But there is one left who could still execute the judgment--the
only one present who was without sin and thus could throw the first
stone. Is she hopeful at this point or still quite frightened? We
can only speculate as to whether the woman was familiar with Jesus
and his embodiment of the mercy of God. In any case, she becomes
a memorable example of the fact that "God did not send his
Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through
him" (3:17). Jesus says to her, "Neither do I condemn
you. Go, and from now on no longer sin" (8:11). By adding then
to the beginning of this sentence the NIV allows the most unfortunate
suggestion that Jesus' response was caused by the response of the
teachers of the law and the Pharisees. The translation of the end
of the verse is also unfortunate, since leave your life of sin "almost
paints the woman as an habitual whore (though the Greek bears no
such overtones)" (Carson 1991:337).
Jesus grants pardon, not acquittal, since the call to leave off
sinning shows he knew she was indeed guilty of the adultery. His
noncondemnation is quite different from theirs. They wanted to condemn
but lacked the opportunity; he could have done so, but he did not.
Here is mercy and righteousness. He condemned the sin and not the
sinner (Augustine In John 33.6). But more than that, he called her
to a new life. The gospel is not only the forgiveness of sins, but
a new quality of life that overcomes the power of sin (cf. 8:32-36;
1 Jn 3:4-6).
This story raises very significant pastoral issues. The first issue
is the nature of the commandments of Scripture. We see Jesus upholding
the law's teaching that adultery is sin while also setting aside
the specific regulations concerning the community's enforcement
of that law. The implication is that the law contains revelation
of right and wrong, which is true throughout history, as well as
commandments for embodying that revelation in the community of God's
people, which are not true for all times and places. To understand
this distinction we must understand that the law as revelation of
right and wrong is not an arbitrary set of rules that God made up
to test our obedience. Rather, the law is the transposition into
human society of patterns of relationship that reflect God's own
character. Adultery is wrong because it violates relationships of
faithfulness, and such violation is wrong, ultimately, because God
himself is characterized by faithfulness. The morality of Scripture
is a pattern of life that reflects God's own life. This aspect of
the law is unchanging, but the law's prescription for how the community
is to embody and enforce the revealed vision of relationships may
vary.
This story also illustrates another pastoral issue. As Augustine
noted (In John 33.8), we are in danger from both hope and despair.
That is, we can have a false optimism that says "God is merciful
so I can do as I please" or a despair that says "there
is no forgiveness for the sin I have committed." This story
shows we should keep these two inclinations in balance. There is
no sin that God does not forgive. Christ's death atoned for all
sin. The only sin that remains unforgiven is the one that is not
repented of. But, on the other hand, God's call to us is to intimacy
with himself, and sin cannot be in his presence any more than darkness
can be in the presence of light. Christ's atonement cleanses us
from sin as we repent day by day, and his Spirit is working in us
a transformation so that in the end we will come out pure, though
not in this life (1 Jn 1:8). But sin must be cut off. We must take
it seriously. Jesus himself often tells us to fear God and his judgment.
While addressing these pastoral issues, this passage also contains
extremely significant revelation of Jesus' identity. The fact that
it comes in this Synoptic style and yet fits so well in this context
in John makes it all the more remarkable. The opponents challenged
Jesus regarding the law of Moses by saying, essentially, Moses tells
us to stone such a person, but you--what do you say? (v. 5, you
is emphatic in the Greek). Jesus sets aside Moses' clear command,
albeit one that few ever acted on in Jesus' day. He does not follow
through on Moses' command even when challenged to do so, which leads
us to believe that he is more than just a prophet (see comment on
9:34).
Jesus does not say explicitly that he forgives the woman, but such
is the implication of his saying he does not condemn her and then
telling her to not sin again. So here we seem to have another occasion
when Jesus mediates the forgiveness of God (cf. Mt 9:1-8; Mk 2:3-12;
Lk 5:18-26; 7:36-50). In doing so, he is bypassing the temple and
acting in a divine role. This revelation of Jesus' divinity is as
profound as other such revelations in this Gospel, though it is
expressed in the form it takes in the Synoptics. This patch of cloth
sown onto John's Gospel has the same pattern as the whole, even
if the colors are somewhat different.
12-20
12When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the
light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness,
but will have the light of life."
13The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as
your own witness; your testimony is not valid."
14Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony
is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But
you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15You judge
by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16But if I do judge,
my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the
Father, who sent me. 17In your own Law it is written that the testimony
of two men is valid. 18I am one who testifies for myself; my other
witness is the Father, who sent me."
19Then they asked him, "Where is your father?"
20"You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If
you knew me, you would know my Father also." He spoke these
words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the
offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had
not yet come.
John 8:12-20
Explanation: Jesus Reveals Himself as the Light of the
World (8:12-20)
Jesus has dramatically called people to come to him for God's living
water (7:37-38) and now he again (palin, 8:12) refers to himself
in a most startling way, saying, I am the light of the world (v.
12). This claim, like the claim to give living water, also corresponds
to events at this feast. A lamp-lighting ceremony took place in
the temple every evening of the feast, during which large lamps
were set up in the Court of Women. The lamps' light, it was said,
filled every courtyard in the city (m. Sukka 5:3). In the light
of these lamps there was great singing and dancing all evening in
celebration of God's salvation, especially his deliverance at the
exodus as he lead his people with his presence in a pillar of fire
by night. In the sight of these great lamps in the Court of Women
(8:20), perhaps even in the evening while they blazed, Jesus proclaims
himself to be the light of the world.
Light is a universal religious image (cf. Barrett 1978:335-37; Conzelmann
1974a: 310-43). The primary context for John's use of this image
is the Old Testament, but readers from virtually any background
would find meaning in these words. In the Old Testament the motif
of light is used to refer to God's presence (Num 6:25; Ps 4:6; 104:2;
Ezek 1:4, 27-28), his salvation (Ps 27:1; 44:3; 67:1-2; 80:1, 3,
7, 19; Is 60:19-20) and his revelation (Ps 119:105, 130; Prov 6:23;
cf. Conzelmann 1974a:319-22). Thus, in the setting of this festival,
which celebrates the Israelites' deliverance, Jesus is claiming
to be the divine presence that saves God's people from their bondage.
He is the saving presence for the whole world, not just for the
Jews. He has already spoken of his mission to the world (Jn 6:33,
51; cf. 1:29; 3:16-17), and now he reiterates it in terms that remind
us of the role of the suffering servant, who was to be a "light
to the nations" (Is 49:6).
Israel followed the presence of the Lord in the pillar of fire as
they escaped Egypt and journeyed to the Promised Land (Ex 13:21;
Neh 9:12; Ps 78:14; 2 Esdras 1:14). Now Jesus says that those who
follow him will never walk in darkness, but will have the light
of life (Jn 8:12). Here is a promise of salvation much greater than
the salvation Israel experienced, for it is deliverance not just
from a national enemy, but from the forces of rebellion against
God that lie behind every form of evil in the world. And this deliverance
is not just a rescue from darkness and a glimpse of the light, but
an ongoing life apart from darkness through possession of the light
of life. This pregnant phrase refers to "the light which both
springs from life and issues in life; of which life is the essential
principle and the necessary result" (Westcott 1908:2:3). The
world lies in darkness and death because it has rebelled against
God and thus broken contact with the one source of light and life.
Jesus claims to be the light that brings light and life back to
the world and sets it free from its bondage to sin. All the salvation
that went before, such as the deliverance celebrated at this feast,
was a type of this deepest and truest salvation that Jesus now offers.
The Pharisees do not yet realize the enormity of Jesus' claims regarding
himself, so they do not respond with a charge of blasphemy. Instead,
they challenge the form his self-proclamation takes, charging him
with bearing witness to himself and therefore lacking sufficient
witnesses (8:13). The need for two or three witnesses is laid down
in the law (Deut 19:15), and the later tradition, reflected here,
said that "none may be believed when he testifies of himself"
(m. Ketubot 2:9).
Jesus says his testimony is valid (alethes, "true") because
he knows where he is from and where he is going, even though they
do not (v. 14). That is, he really does know the truth about himself
because he knows the Father and is conscious of his relation to
the Father. They cannot see this truth about him because they are
judging by human standards (v. 15; kata ten sarka, "according
to the flesh"). It is as though they are trying to evaluate
the straightness of a line and their only tool is a crooked yardstick,
or as if they are in an art gallery trying to evaluate the paintings
when they have been blind from birth, never having seen shape nor
color. Their judgment is limited to the human sphere and "breaks
down when applied to anything which puts this sphere in question"
(Bultmann 1971:281).
Jesus contrasts their inability to judge with his own ability (8:15-16).
They judge by human standards, he says, but I pass judgment on no
one (8:15). He does not pass judgment like they do, that is, according
to "mere appearances" (7:24) and "according to human
standards" (8:15). Instead, he passes judgment in keeping with
reality, because he does so in oneness with the Father (8:16). He
judges simply by revealing the truth and pointing out one's distance
from that truth. That is why he says he will not judge but his words
will judge (12:47-48). Such revelation carries implicit condemnation
of that which is untrue, and Jesus makes that condemnation explicit.
So what does he mean when he says he not condemn (3:17-18)? The
Pharisees have determined Jesus is in error, and they have condemned
him in the sense of writing him off. Jesus, on the other hand, has
determined they are in error and has shown that they are culpable
for their rejection of him and for the alienation from God which
lies behind this rejection. But he has not condemned them in the
sense of dismissing them, for he still bears witness to them, offering
them revelation and thereby offering them salvation.
These distinctions regarding judgment are important within the church.
Jesus says, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged"
(Mt 7:1). Clearly this does not mean we should not distinguish good
from evil or truth from error, for Jesus calls us to do just that
a few verses later in his teaching on false prophets (Mt 7:15-20).
But it is one thing to recognize evil and error and quite another
to conclude that an individual is totally lost to God. The final
state of a person's soul is known only to God. Therefore we should
write off no one, yet all the while we should discern the teaching
and behavior to see whether it is of God. Such discernment can only
come from Christ through the Spirit, for our judgments, like Jesus'
(Jn 8:16), can only be right if they are in union with the Father.
Jesus brings up the need for two witnesses (8:17) in order, it seems,
to bring home the point that when he bears witness his is not the
witness of a single person but of two persons, himself and his Father
(8:18; cf. 5:31-32). Since the two witnesses required by the law
do not include the accused this would not be a valid legal argument.
So Jesus seems to use the law in a nonlegal way to bear witness
to his relationship with the Father. The Father is known as the
one who sent me (v. 18); in other words, Jesus is identified by
his relationship to the Father, and the Father, likewise, is known
by his relationship to Jesus.
When the Pharisees ask Where is your father? (v. 19), they reveal
that they do not realize Jesus is talking about God. It is as if
they want to locate this Father so they can interrogate him, as
they will the parents of the blind man in the next chapter. It would
not do them much good, since those who are not open to God cannot
hear him even when he speaks directly to them (12:28-30). They do
not realize that in Jesus they are seeing the clearest revelation
of the Father himself: If you knew me, you would know my Father
also (v. 19; cf. 14:9-11). To know Jesus is to know God--such is
the core proclamation of this Gospel. Their question points up once
again their alienation from God.
Jesus' revelation of himself as the light of the world and this
ensuing discussion take place in the temple near the place where
the offerings were put (v. 20), which is, most likely, in the Court
of Women (Carson 1991:341). In the temple Jesus has revealed himself
as the fulfillment of what the temple itself was about--the presence
of God on earth. And "in the temple itself they gave proof
of their being closed to the Revealer!" (Bultmann 1971:283).
John suggests that the opponents wanted to seize him (v. 20). Just
as Jesus' every action is under the direction of the Father, so
are the circumstances of his life. They were not able to act against
him because his time had not yet come (v. 20). Thus, these opponents
are ignorant of both Jesus and his Father (v. 20), a point already
made clear at this feast (7:28, 34) and driven home over and over
in this chapter.
21-30
21Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away, and you will
look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot
come."
22This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why
he says, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"
23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You
are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you
would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one
I claim to be,[1] you will indeed die in your sins."
25"Who are you?" they asked.
26"Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied.
"I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me
is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."
27They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.
28So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then
you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing
on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29The one
who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do
what pleases him." 30Even as he spoke, many put their faith
in him.
John 8:21-30
Explanation: Jesus Reveals Himself as the One from Above
(8:21-30)
John introduces this section as he did the last (palin, translated
once more; cf. 8:12), indicating a progression as the Light of the
World shines ever more brightly, revealing himself, his Father and
his opponents' true condition. Jesus returns to the theme of his
departure, but now he connects it with his opponents' sinfulness.
His departure has implications for them, for they will look for
him, presumably for help, but they will die in their sins. His conclusion--Where
I go, you cannot come (v. 21)--seems to give the reason they will
die in their sins: they will die in their sins because they are
not able to go with him to the Father. Jesus is the way to the Father
(14:6), the one who takes away the sin of the world (1:29), who
enables sinful mankind to be united with the Father. In rejecting
him the opponents are cutting themselves off from the presence of
the Father.
They speculate that Jesus may be contemplating suicide. According
to Josephus, the Jews viewed suicide as consigning a person to "the
darker regions of the nether world" because it was a crime
"hateful to God" as an act of "impiety toward our
creator" (Jewish Wars 3.375-79). So when Jesus says they will
die in their sins because they cannot go where he is going, they
think he is saying that he himself will die in a sinful way. Their
interpretation of his words shows that either they are missing entirely
what he is saying or they are hardheartedly rejecting his message.
This reference to suicide ironically applies to them, for there
is a sense in which their unbelief is suicide in that they are choosing
to reject his offer of the light of life.
Jesus does not pick up on their reference to suicide. We see here
the mercy of God refusing to be deflected by human perversity or
hardness of heart. Instead, he repeats his witness in different
language: You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world;
I am not of this world (v. 23). What was implied earlier in the
charge that they "judge by human standards" (v. 15) is
now expressed quite clearly: Jesus and the Jews are not in the same
sphere. Jesus has come from God and is bringing God's own presence
into our midst, but they have no openness to God (1:10-11). Jesus
is speaking of states of being, of core realities. He has come into
this world in the fullness of humanity (1:14; cf. Thompson 1988),
but unlike them, he is not of this world, that is, of human society
as it exists apart from God. Indeed, it is because he is above this
world that he is able to help the world.
In saying that he is from above Jesus contrasts himself with every
other agent of revelation. He is not simply a human being who has
achieved enlightenment and now has come to share what he has learned.
His point of origin is not this world to begin with. He is a human
being just as we are, but there is more to him than that. This claim,
in the light of Jesus' use of "I am" (vv. 12, 24, 58),
reveals the two natures of Christ, as the church later came to express
it--fully God as well as fully man.
Jesus concludes by spelling out his identity, their peril and the
remedy: I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not
believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in
your sins (v. 24). Jesus says they must believe that "I am"
(ego eimi). The NIV takes this use of ego eimi as a recognition
formula (see comment on 6:20). This may be correct, but John always
intends Jesus' uses of this formula to echo the divine name, as
becomes clear at the end of this chapter (v. 58). Indeed, the one
I claim to be (to use the NIV's paraphrase) is the I AM. The people
are trying to figure out whether he is the Prophet or the Messiah,
but they still need to believe his identity is much more profound
than anything they mean by these titles.
Without faith in Jesus as God's divine Son who has come from above,
they will die in their sins. By repeating this warning Jesus is
shining as the light of the world, revealing their true condition
and its consequences. If we cannot see God in the clearest and most
accessible revelation of him ever given--the clearest it is even
possible to give--then how can we see him in any lesser manifestation?
How are we going to recognize the cryptic, invisible God whom nobody
has seen (1:18; 6:46) if we cannot recognize his Son incarnate?
Sin is separation from God and therefore a state of death, since
God is the source of all life. Jesus says they are in their sins,
which means they are alienated from God and thus under the wrath
of God (cf. 3:36). Human beings apart from God are not in neutral
territory. They are in a state of rebellion against God that began
at the first rebellion (Gen 3) and is characterized by death (Gen
2:17). The people Jesus addresses are as ignorant of their own condition
as they are of his identity.
Jesus' lucid statement leads them to ask the right question: Who
are you? (v. 25). Jesus does not respond with a fresh statement
right away (though he will do so in what follows immediately in
vv. 28-29) but instead points them back to what he has already told
them. This question, after all, has been raised throughout this
festival. They are viewing him according to human standards (v.
15), so he makes no sense to them. Until they are willing to open
themselves to his message and accept him on his own terms they will
make no headway.
Unfortunately, they are not close to doing so. Jesus warns them
that he will need to spell out further their own condition: I have
much to say in judgment of you (v. 26). This judgment is not just
Jesus' own assessment. Here, as always, he is passing on what he
has heard from the Father, who is himself reliable (alethes, "true").
He pronounces his judgment in what follows in this chapter.
They still do not understand that he was telling them about his
Father (v. 27), so he speaks yet more clearly. They will know his
identity when the Son of Man is lifted up (v. 28). Again, ego eimi
can be used here as a recognition formula, as the NIV takes it (cf.
v. 24), or as a reference to the divine name, as will be the case
at the end of the chapter (v. 58). In either case, the Son of Man's
death at their own hands (When you have lifted up) will reveal both
his unique identification with the Father and his dependence on
the Father as one distinct from the Father. They may be confused
now, but they will know then. Whether this knowledge will result
in salvation or judgment is not said. The idea is probably that
they will at that point see the revelation shining at its brightest
and have their hearts revealed as, in the light of that revelation,
they either embrace or reject Christ and the God he reveals (cf.
Schnackenburg 1980b:203).
Jesus concludes by repeating his witness to the Father's presence:
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I
always do what pleases him (v. 29). He had just spoken of not being
alone but standing with the Father (v. 16), though the way he expressed
himself could have merely suggested that he has the Father's backing.
Now he repeats his claim that he is not alone, but here he makes
it clear that he is talking about the Father's personal presence
with him at all times, including right at that moment. Most of his
disciples may have left him at this point (6:66), but he has not
been deserted by his Father. Here we get a glimpse into the mystery
of the relations between the Father and the Son, for the Father
sends the Son and yet is present with the Son. The sending refers
to the incarnation and the presence to the eternal relations (cf.
Augustine In John 35.5; 36.8; 40.6; Chrysostom In John 53.2).
By saying this presence is due to his always doing what is pleasing
to the Father, Jesus reveals the primacy of the Father. Not only
the created order but the eternal Son of God is at one with the
Father through sharing in the Father's will. That will is simply
life itself--Reality. All else in existence, even the Son and the
Spirit in their eternal, uncreated being, are dependent upon the
Father as the source of all life. All life is an expression of the
Father's one life. To do what pleases him is not simply a matter
of morality but of sharing in his life itself. It is another way
of saying that Christ does what he sees the Father doing and speaks
what he hears from the Father. As such he is the model of all discipleship.
The life Jesus is offering involves being taken up into the one
life of the Father himself.
As Jesus thus speaks clearly, many put their faith in him (v. 30).
Earlier in the Gospel such faith was tested and so also this faith
will now be tested through more scandalous teaching by Jesus. This
testing will reveal whether this faith is genuine or whether it
is like that of an earlier crowd at an earlier feast in Jerusalem,
which proved false (2:23-25).
In this section we have Jesus' very clear statement of his divine
identity, of the necessity to have faith in him and of how the cross
will reveal most clearly his identity as I AM. We also see the opponents
asking the right question, but their ignorance of the Father is
evident. The rest of this chapter will spell out as clearly as anywhere
in the Gospel the truth about these opponents.
The Children of Abraham
31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold
to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know
the truth, and the truth will set you free."
33They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants[2] and have
never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set
free?"
34Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is
a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family,
but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free,
you will be free indeed. 37I know you are Abraham's descendants.
Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word.
38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and
you do what you have heard from your father.[3] "
39"Abraham is our father," they answered.
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then
you would[4] 40 do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined
to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.
Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your
own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The
only Father we have is God himself."
The Children of the Devil
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love
me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own;
but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you
are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the
devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a
murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there
is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language,
for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the
truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of
sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who
belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is
that you do not belong to God."
The Claims of Jesus About Himself
48The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you
are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
49"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but
I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory
for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.
51I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see
death."
52At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed!
Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone
keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53Are you greater than
our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you
think you are?"
54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing.
My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies
me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not,
I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.
56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day;
he saw it and was glad."
57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to
him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before
Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to
stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple
grounds.
John 8:31-59
Explanation: Jesus Clearly Reveals Both His True Identity
and His Opponents' Identity (8:31-59)
Jesus' critique of his opponents here reaches its clearest expression,
revolving around the theme of Abraham's children. Jesus makes it
clear that they do not have the freedom they claim as children of
Abraham nor do they reveal the characteristics of the children of
Abraham. Instead, their attitudes and actions reveal that they are
really children of the devil (v. 44). This is the deepest glimpse
into the heart of his opponents, and it occurs in the context of
Jesus' clearest revelation of his own identity. He is the unique
Son of God who can use the divine I AM of himself, even though he
is also distinct from God.
Many are now putting their faith in Jesus (v. 30), and his following
seems to be growing again after its low point (cf. 6:66). Whenever
people put their faith in Jesus he immediately tests that faith.
In this case he begins by explaining what is behind such testing.
Those who are really his disciples hold to his teaching, they remain
in it (meinete, v. 31). Jesus tests his disciples by giving them
further revelation that stretches them and requires them to put
their trust in him, rather than in their understanding of all he
is saying and doing. They need to understand him well enough to
recognize that he is from God, but the very fact that he is from
God means he is going to speak and act in ways that are not in keeping
with this world. Being able to humbly remain in Jesus' teaching
is a sign of a true disciple because it is evidence of openness
and loyalty to Jesus.
Jesus promises that if they do remain in his teaching, you will
know the truth and the truth will set you free (v. 32). This is
surely one of the most abused texts in the Bible, for it is often
cited with no regard for either the condition attached (remaining
in Jesus' teachings) or the sort of freedom in view, namely, freedom
from sin (v. 34). In Judaism it was the study of the law that set
one free (Ps 119:45; m. 'Abot 3:5; 6:2), so Jesus is claiming for
his teaching that which is recognized as true of God's own teaching.
This implicit claim to divinity will be spoken clearly when he uses
the divine I AM of himself at the end of this chapter. To know Jesus
is to be liberated from all error and evil, for it is to know God
himself, who is truth and purity and life.In Jesus' teaching and
in the teaching of Judaism obedience to God is true freedom. This
truth is quite different from the thinking of most people today,
for it takes God, rather than our own personal feelings and ambitions,
as the one good. The freedom in view is not a freedom to do whatever
we wish according to the dictates of our own fallen selves, but
a freedom from our fallen selves and the power and guidance to act
in accordance with God himself, the source of all goodness and life.
The Jews who have believed in Jesus do not respond as true disciples.
Instead of receiving with docility, they question see note on 2:20).
They do not react to the implications of Jesus' identity (although
they will do so before too long) but to the implications concerning
their own condition (v. 33). At first their claim to have never
been slaves of anyone (v. 33) seems delusory, since they probably
said it within sight of Roman soldiers. In addition to Rome, Israel
at one time or another had been subject to Egypt, Philistia, Assyria,
Babylon, Greece and Syria. Yet though these nations had ruled over
them, they "had never accepted the dominion of their conquerors
or coalesced with them" (Westcott 1908:2:15). They had maintained
their national identity as children of Abraham throughout, so their
claim is not entirely groundless.
Their response is a typical example of their misunderstanding. They
think Jesus is speaking of national freedom, but he is speaking
of inner freedom, which he now makes clear (v. 34). Spiritual freedom
is the freedom from sin, and sin, at its heart, is an alienation
from God. This alienation is caused by sin in the sense of both
error and evil. The antidote, faith, corresponds to both of these
aspects since it is the appropriation of knowledge of God (which
replaces the error) and of forgiveness for our rebellion against
God (which overcomes the evil). Jesus is offering a restored relationship
of intimacy with God, which brings life in place of death.
Jesus continues to work with them and give them revelation despite
their misunderstanding, just as he did with the woman of Samaria
(4:13, 16). As always in this Gospel, the focus comes back to Jesus'
own identity: Now a slave has no permanent place in the family,
but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you
will be free indeed (vv. 35-36). Jesus clearly contrasts his status
in the family of God with that of the rest of humanity, which is
enslaved to sin. Given this unique status he is the one who has
freedom in God's household and is able to offer it to others. Only
God can liberate us from sin, yet here Jesus says that he, the Son,
can do so. Once again we see the implied claim regarding his unique
oneness with the Father (cf. Chrysostom In John 54.2).
After he says the truth will liberate (v. 32), he says that he,
the Son, will liberate (v. 36). In fact the Son is the truth, and
as such he is the way to the Father (14:6). The freedom he is offering
is, precisely, union with the Father, the source of all true life.
The way to receive this life, with its freedom from sin's alienation
and death, is to remain in his teaching. This involves an actual
remaining in the Son himself, which includes remaining in his commands
(15:1-17). In order to receive the power to become children of God
we must receive the Son of God (1:12). We share in the Son's own
relationship with the Father (17:20-26), a thought that Paul develops
(Gal 4:6) with the same implications regarding freedom (Gal 5:1).
Jesus then returns to their claim to have Abraham for a father.
They are indeed Abraham's descendants (sperma, v. 37), but they
are not Abraham's children (tekna, v. 39) because they are seeking
to kill Jesus (vv. 37, 40). Jesus is telling them what he has seen
in the Father's presence (v. 38) and heard from God (v. 40), but
they are not receptive because, he says, you have no room for my
word (v. 37). In other words, once again we understand that they
reject Jesus because of their inner disposition. Their problem is
a form of spiritual heart disease. Their heart has no room for Jesus'
revelation; there is no room at their inn, as it were. Since he
is telling them what he has seen and heard from the Father, their
inability to accommodate his word means they have no room for God
himself in their lives. Yet again, we see their alienation from
God.
The Great Physician is diagnosing their disease, and they are not
happy about it. They have put faith in Jesus (v. 30), yet they rebel
as he tries to help them become true disciples. When confronted
with their inner disease they should have accepted his assessment
and repented. This is what each of us must do as a disciple of Jesus,
for each of us has inner disease that he desires to cure and that
must be cured. His diagnosis is perfect, and he knows how to heal
us. He does not have to leave us waiting while he goes in the next
room to consult his medical books. Nor does he lack the resources
to effect our cure. He lacks nothing except our signature on the
permission slip to get on with the process. Discipleship includes
allowing Jesus to deal with our inner brokenness and deadness. He
will not be satisfied until we come out entirely clean and whole,
a fact that is part of the good news. To be a disciple one needs
not only the humility to receive what Jesus reveals about himself
but also the ability to receive what he reveals about oneself. He
always reveals in order to redeem. The judgment the light brings
is meant to lead us to salvation, not condemnation. The sin is condemned
in order to reveal it as sin and lead us to repentance. If we reject
the diagnosis or the cure, then the light does indeed bring condemnation,
for we have chosen to remain in our state of alienation from God,
who is the one source of life.
Jesus sets his revelation of what he has seen in the Father's presence
in opposition to their own activity of doing what you have heard
from your father (v. 38). This obviously creates a contrast between
his Father and theirs. They claim Abraham as their father (v. 39),
to which Jesus responds by comparing their attempt to kill him with
what Abraham did (vv. 39-40). This refers, most likely, to Abraham's
reception of the heavenly visitors (Gen 18), since in this interchange
Jesus is addressing his would-be disciples' receptivity.
The imitation of Abraham was discussed within Judaism in terms very
similar to what we find in John. For example, the disciples of Abraham
are said to have "a good eye and a humble spirit and a lowly
soul," while disciples of Balaam have "an evil eye, a
haughty spirit, and a proud soul" (m. 'Abot 5:19 [5:22 in some
editions]). These descriptions correspond to John's description
of the characteristics of Jesus' disciples and Jesus' opponents.
Furthermore, at a later date some of the rabbis seem to explicitly
compare Jesus to Balaam (b. Sanhedrin 106a-b). Thus, it is possible
that the charges Jesus brings against these Jewish opponents are
the same charges the Jewish opponents bring against Jesus and his
followers. Both are claiming humbleness of heart in loyalty to Abraham
and God, and both see in their adversaries those who are haughty
and false to God, like Balaam, the archetypal false prophet in the
Old Testament (Num 22--24; 31:16, Deut 23:5-6; Josh 24:9-10; Mic
6:5; 2 Pet 2:15; Jude 11; Rev 2:14; cf. Kuhn 1964a).
Behind the claim to have Abraham for a father is the claim to have
God as a father, which becomes clear as we now approach the heart
of the polemic. After Jesus says these folk are not behaving like
Abraham, he adds, You are doing the things your own father does
(v. 41). This obviously suggests someone besides Abraham is their
father, and they take this, rightly, as an attack on their loyalty
to God. They reject the charge, saying, We are not illegitimate
children (v. 41). Literally, they say they are not born "from
unchastity" (ek porneias). Instead, they claim that the only
Father we have is God himself, which indicates their reference to
unchastity alludes to the Old Testament notion that the covenant
with God is like a marriage, and, correspondingly, idolatry is like
unchastity (Deut 31:16; Jer 3:14; Hos 1:2; 2:1-13; 5:3; Philo De
Migratione Abrahami 69; Numbers Rabbah 2:15-16). Central to the
covenant was the idea that Israel was God's son (Ex 4:22) and that
the Lord was Israel's father (Deut 32:6), "a theme reiterated
constantly in the prophetic preaching (Isa lxiv 8; Mal ii 10)"
(Brown 1966:364).
Jesus proceeds to attack precisely his opponents' claim to have
God for a father (Jn 8:42-47). Here is the heart of the polemic
between Jesus and these Jewish opponents: Jesus is one with God
the Father, expressed here once again in terms of his origin and
obedience (v. 42). It follows that anyone who rejects him is rejecting
God the Father who sent him and to whom he is obedient. The rest
of this section (vv. 43-47) works out the implications of this point.
Jesus has said the opponents have no room for his word (v. 37),
and now he says that they are not able to hear his word (v. 43).
This inability (ou dynasthe) indicates that something is radically
wrong with them. The next verse is the central accusation: they
have the wrong father--they are of their father, the devil. The
centrality of this verse is signaled by its place at the center
of a chiasm:
