John 8 - Expositor's Bible Commentary - Abridged

D. The Intensification of Controversy (8:12–59) 1. Teaching in the temple area (8:12–30)

12 Precisely at what time during Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem this segment took place, John does not say. It may have been shortly after the close of the Feast of Tabernacles, while Jesus was still in the city. His claim to be the “light” (GK 5890) of the world is the second of the great “I am’s” of Jesus (see comment on 6:34–36) and recalls 1:4–5. Perhaps Jesus drew his illustration from the Menorah that burned during the Feast. Jesus professes to be not only the inexhaustible source of spiritual nourishment, but also the genuine light by which truth and falsehood can be distinguished and by which direction can be – established.

13–14 As usual, the Pharisees challenged Jesus’ claims. Legally a testimony concerning oneself would be unacceptable because it would presumably be biased (see comment on 5:31). Here Jesus protested vigorously that his self-testimony is valid, for no one knew more about his own nature and experience than Jesus himself. He possessed knowledge concerning both where he came from and where he was going (see 13:3). The testimony about himself was therefore more accurate than that of his opponents, for they had no idea of either his origin or destiny (Cf. 7:25–44).

15–18 Jesus argued further that the Pharisees were not qualified to render a verdict on the validity of his witness because they were using the wrong criterion of “human standards.” He, on the other hand, is not measurable by such standards. He appealed to the rule of the OT law that prescribed two witnesses for an acceptable proposition (Dt 17:6). He would be qualified as one of the witnesses (for no human witness can authenticate a divine origin) and his Father, who sent him, as the other (Cf. 5:23–21, 37).

19 Whether the Pharisees’ question here is a bewildered inquiry or an intentional insult is hard to determine, though in Eastern culture, to question a man’s paternity is a definite slur on his legitimacy. It may be unwise to read into this question more hostility than is necessary (but see also v.41). Jesus was referring to God, and the Pharisees were unwilling to admit that he had so intimate a relation with God. Jesus asserted that the knowledge of the Father depended on knowing him. As the one whom the Father had sent (v.18), Jesus claimed to be an adequate and authoritative representative.

20 The second part of this verse is a footnote John adds that relates to the program of Jesus’ life (see 2:4; 7:6, 30; 12:23, 27; 17:1). Jesus lived a protected life until his work was completed.

21–24 The following discourse marks the dual destiny of Jesus and his opponents: he would return to the Father, and they would die in their sins. Jesus claimed that he belonged to a totally different world from that of his questioners. To him the difference was natural; to them it was unnatural—something they could explain only by assuming that he belonged to the realm of the dead. But Jesus had come from the presence of God, and he asserted that only by faith could they attain his level. An insurmountable barrier separated them—unbelief (v.23). Not only did they repudiate his claims, they completely rejected his person.

25 The question asked by the Pharisees shows their exasperation with Jesus’ hints and seemingly extravagant claims. The crowd had ventured many guesses about his identity (see 7:40–41). The longer his explanation, the less satisfying it seemed to be. Jesus avoided making a direct claim to deity, but he relied on his works and character to speak for themselves (see 5:36–38). They witnessed to the fact that he had come from another world, that he was different from humanity in general, and that he had a unique mission to fulfill.

26 Jesus certainly had enough accusations that he could have mustered to bring judgment on his accusers. The remainder of the verse implies that such judgment is tied to their unwillingness to acknowledge Jesus’ relationship to the Father. Because he was speaking what the Father told him, the Father’s judgment would come on them, too.

27–28 Jesus’ questioners did not understand that he was speaking to them of God, so they missed the point of his peculiar relationship to the Father. He asserted that when they had lifted him up, they would recognize him for what he was. Jesus’ reference to “lifted up” (GK 5738; see comment on 3:14) refers to the cross, but the verb also means “to exalt.” It may carry an additional meaning: that Jesus would be glorified by the cross (see 12:23, 32). Another important phrase is Jesus’ use of “I am” in “then you will know that I am.” It occurs three times in this discourse (vv.24, 28, 58). It may be translated as in v.24, “I am [the one I claim to be],” referring to himself as the Son of Man. But it may also be related to God’s revelation of himself to Moses as the “I AM” (Ex 3:14) and to Isaiah’s theistic proclamations (Isa 41:4; 43:11–13; et al.). The Jews recognized “I AM” as a term for deity (cf. Mk 14:61–62). The term predicates self-existence and eternal being. Along with this claim to divine nature, Jesus reaffirmed his subordination to the Father as the bearer of his message. Both his nature and his message have come from God.

29 Four times in this discourse Jesus affirmed that he had been sent by the Father (vv.16, 18, 26, 29). His message was not original; he was simply conveying the truth of the one who had sent him and was carrying out his orders. His whole purpose was to please the Father, and his utter devotion produced a life of complete holiness. This revelation forms a contrasting background to the slavery of sin that follows.

30 The validity of the belief referred to here seems questionable. The people’s lack of perception and shallowness of commitment are reflected in the following paragraphs, which begin with proud resentment on the part of the Jews and conclude with an attempted stoning.

2. The discourse to professed believers (8:31–47)

31 Jesus now addressed those Jews who had expressed a measure of faith in him. He began his discourse with the assumption that they would proceed to a further commitment on the basis of his teaching, which would mark them as genuine disciples and lead them into a deeper experience of truth. Jesus did not, of course, wish to extinguish a smoldering wick of faith (cf. Mt 12:20), but he felt the necessity of making perfectly clear the conditions of discipleship.

32–33 The freedom Jesus spoke of was spiritual freedom from sin and its effects, as the following context shows. The Jews’ response indicates that they were thinking of political freedom, since they spoke of being enslaved to persons (v.33). Their protest was ill-founded, for they were forgetting the slavery of Egypt, the oppressions at the time of the Judges, the Exile in Babylon, and the current Roman domination of their land. Because they were descendants of Abraham, with whom God had established a permanent covenant (Ge 12:1–3; 15:1–21; 17:1–14, 19; 22:15–18), they considered themselves exempt from any spiritual danger.

34 Jesus’ reply dealt with the spiritual aspect of freedom. Sin enslaves because every act of disobedience to God creates an atmosphere of alienation and a trend to further disobedience that inevitably makes escape impossible. An act of sin can possibly be overcome, but the attitude and habit of sin are inescapable.

35–36 A slave has no security, for he can claim no family ties that entail an obligation toward him. The son of a family has permanent status within it. Jesus enlarged this analogy by stating that while a son is rightfully a partaker of family privileges, the Son can confer such privileges. The hope for real freedom does not lie in the ancestry of Abraham but in the action of Christ.

37–38 The contrast between the attitude of Abraham and that of his self-styled descendants was proof that they were falsely claiming him as their spiritual ancestor. They were murderous in intent and impervious to revelation. Jesus had brought a message from the Father, and, unlike Abraham, they would not receive it (cf. Lk 3:8). Jesus’ contrast of what he had “seen” and what they had “heard” reinforces the concept of authority implicit in his repeated claim to have been “sent” by the Father (8:29). He spoke from firsthand knowledge; they were acting on misinformation. They had been misled by Satan himself.

39–41 Jesus insisted that the Jews were not the true children of Abraham. Their hatred of Jesus, refusal to listen to truth, and lack of simple faith belied their profession. The Jews’ insistence that they were children of Abraham implied that they regarded their relationship to God as secure because of their lineal descent from the man with whom God had confirmed his covenant. While the covenant had not been abrogated, Jesus made it plain that his hearers needed to exercise individual faith to participate in it. His words give substance to his teaching on the new birth and are paralleled by Paul’s explanation of Abraham’s faith in Gal 3:1–29.

The Jews’ insistence that they were true descendants of Abraham brought Jesus’ flat denial of their spiritual claims, and he attributed their attitude to another source. Their protest, “We are not illegitimate children,” may carry the implication of a sneer: “We are not illegitimate children—but you are!” While John does not speak directly of the virgin birth, there are hints in his gospel of a mystery surrounding his birth. In any case, the Jews were unwilling to listen to Jesus’ claims; yet, at the same time, they were insisting that they came from God.

42 Jesus gave another evidence of the Jews’ hypocrisy. If they truly loved God, they would evidence that love by showing love to his Son. Love for God is a family affair; it involves loving all whom the Father has sent, especially the Son, his most beloved representative.

43–44 The people might have been confused as to why they did not love Jesus if he was indeed sent from the Father. Jesus spoke to that point with a rhetorical question: “Why don’t you know what I am saying?” Then he went on to give the reason: their family association was wrong; they belonged to their father, the devil. And because of this family tie, they were inclined to carry out their father’s desire, just as Jesus carried out his Father’s desire. The devil seeks to deprive life and distort truth. The Jews were merely demonstrating the truth of the adage, “Like father, like son.’

45 “Truth” (GK 237) is an abstract that is difficult for people to know and appreciate (Cf. 18:38). Jesus told the Jews that because they were children of their father, they didn’t know what truth was. They were living in a world of lies, distortion, and falseness.

46 Jesus’ challenge “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” would have been impossible for anyone else to utter (Cf. 8:7). No human being could risk making that challenge without many flaws in one’s character being revealed. Had Jesus not been sinless, someone in the hostile crowd would eagerly have charged him with at least one sin.

47 Jesus closed the argument by repeating that the Jews refused to hear him because they did not belong to God. Their bitterness toward him and their obtuseness toward his teaching contradicted their spiritual claims.

3. The response of the unbelievers (8:48–59)

48 The hardened opposition to Jesus’ claims appears in an accusation apparently leveled at him frequently that he was “a Samaritan and demon-possessed.” The Samaritans held many beliefs in common with the Jews, for they also relied on the Pentateuch as the supreme authority for their faith. They differed, however, in their interpretation and were much more lax in their attitude toward other religious influences. Since Jesus did not agree with all the traditional interpretations of the Law, the Jews may have classed him with the Samaritans as a heretic. According to John, demon-possession was attributed to Jesus on three occasions (7:20; 8:52; 10:20). In this context it is the equivalent of calling a man crazy.

49–50 Jesus denied the allegations and placed the burden of proof back on his adversaries. His aim was to honor the Father; theirs, to bring Jesus into disgrace. He disclaimed all selfish desire for prestige and relegated the final evaluation of his works to the judgment of God.

51 With a solemn affirmation, Jesus declared that anyone who receives his message will not experience death. This is a negative version of the positive principle declared later by Jesus (see 10:10). It summarizes his mission, for he came “to destroy the devil’s work” (1Jn 3:8) and to undo the penalty for sin that was pronounced in Eden (Ge 2:17). A fuller statement of this principle appears in Jesus’ promise to Martha (Jn 11:25).

52 To receive eternal life by keeping Jesus’ word seemed to the Jews the height of absurdity. They felt that their charge of demon-possession was confirmed. If their ancestor Abraham and the OT prophets as God’s accredited messengers died, how could this obscure Galilean claim to have the power of life and death?

53 A better translation of this question would be, “You are not greater than our father Abraham, are you?” A negative answer is assumed. While Jesus’ opponents frequently charged him with making himself divine (5:18; 10:33; 19:7), Jesus himself seldom asserted his deity, but preferred to live and act in such a way that others would observe his divine nature and confess it spontaneously (cf. Mt 16:13–17).

54 Again Jesus referred his defense to the Father, for God was responsible for Jesus’ message and vindication. He reminded them that the God they claimed to be theirs was his own personal Father. Their relation to God was formal; his was familial.

55 By using two different Greek words for “know” (GK 1182 & 3857) Jesus seems to be saying: “You have not really attained an experience of God; I have a full consciousness of him.” Jesus could not deny his intimate knowledge of God without making himself a liar.

56 Jesus claimed that Abraham had a preview of his ministry and had rejoiced in it. This probably refers to the promise God gave to Abraham that his seed would become the channel of divine blessing to all the nations (Ge 12:3). By “my day” Jesus was likely referring to his redemptive work, which would summarize his career. Isaac represented to Abraham the “seed” through which God would fulfill his promise. The miraculous birth of Isaac, his unquestioning trust in his father, his willingness to become a sacrifice to fulfill the command of God, and his deliverance from certain death all seem to point forward to the coming incarnation, death, and resurrection of the promised Seed, Jesus (see Ge 22:1–18; Heb 11:17–19).

57 The Jews’ retort that Jesus was “not yet fifty years old” affords an interesting sidelight on Jesus’ age. Fifty years was the limit observers would assign to him on the basis of appearance. If, as many think, Jesus was born between 6 and 4 B.C., and if the Crucifixion took place in A.D. 33, Jesus would not have been older than his late thirties. Perhaps the tensions of his life had aged him prematurely, yet he was obviously less than fifty years of age (see also Lk 3:23).

58 The rejoinder of Jesus, “Before Abraham was born, I am” could only mean a claim to deity. “Was born” (or “came into being”) implies the event of entering into a new state or condition of existence (the same verb is used in 1:14 to denote the Incarnation). “I am” (GK 1609 & 1639) implies continuous existence, including existence when Abraham appeared. Jesus was, therefore, asserting that at the time of Abraham’s birth, he existed (see also comments on 8:28 for a discussion of “I AM”), “I AM” was recognized by the Jews as a title of deity.

59 The crowd unmistakably understood Jesus’ words as a blasphemous claim and immediately prepared to stone him. He did not protest their action as a mistake of judgment; he simply withdrew. How he managed to escape their wrath is not explained, though he had done so on previous occasions (7:30; cf. Lk 4:30).