John 8 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

According to 7:37-39, the morning event of the Festival of Shelters (the water-drawing ceremony) was fulfilled by Jesus. According to 8:12, the evening event, the candle ceremony, was fulfilled when he “once more” (this is the second of three speeches in a chain of messages, together with 7:37-39 and 8:21ff) declared, “I am the light of the world.” At dusk, the priests would light four huge lamps in the Court of Women in the Temple; these were quite tall and had to be reached by ladders. At the top, each stand held four golden bowls filled with oil, and the worn-out undergarments of the priests were used for the wicks (so Brown, Burge, Keener). Since this took place on the Temple mount, the highest point in the city, it is said that all of Jerusalem was lit from those lamps. There would be more dancing and joy through the night. Probably at the end of the festival (though John does not say), Jesus again stated that he is not just the light of Jerusalem but of the whole world. He was in the “Treasury,” which is in the Court of Women, so he may have been standing beneath the golden bowls as he made his announcement.

The structure of 8:12 closely resembles the “living water” saying of 7:37-38, with three aspects—the claim, a reference to the believer who follows, and the results for those who adhere (so Ridderbos, Blomberg). As in the previous “I am” saying (6:35), Jesus portrays himself as fulfilling Yahweh imagery from the Old Testament, as well as the festival itself. At the Exodus, the special presence of God (or shekinah) was symbolized in the pillar of fire by night and the cloud by day (Exod 13:21-22; 14:24; Ps 78:14), and light became a symbol of the divine presence (cf. the theophany in Gen 15:17), God’s salvation (Ps 27:1, “The LORD is my light and my salvation”; cf. Ps 44:3; Isa 60:19-20), and the deliverance of God’s people (Judg 7:16; 15:4-5). Light was also symbolic of God’s word (Ps 119:105) and Israel, which was called to be “a light to the Gentiles” (Isa 49:6; cf. Isa 9:2). This last point is especially relevant, for according to 1:4, 9, Jesus is the Word who sheds God’s light on every person. Jesus saw himself as the divine light-bearer. He was the divine light that brought light into the darkness (1:5; 3:19-20) of the world.

We earlier noted that Zechariah 14:8 underlies the water ceremony (cf. on 7:37-38). In Zechariah 14:6-7, God promised that when the day of the Lord came it would be “continuous day . . . at evening time it will still be light.” This had relevance for the light ceremony of this festival, as Jesus proclaimed that he was bringing a new light of God not only to the Jews but to the world—a new time of salvation. He went on to tell the people how they could find this salvation: “If you follow me, you won’t have to walk in darkness” (Cf. 1:5; 3:19-20; 12:35-36, 46). As stated in 1:11, Jesus’ own people rejected him and chose the path of darkness. But if they would turn to him, they would “have the light that leads to life.” Israel was delivered by following the pillar of fire. Jesus promised a much greater deliverance, an eternal salvation, to those who would follow the true Light.

The Pharisees raised a legal question (8:13) that is reminiscent of 5:31. Jesus was making “claims” about himself, and self-witness was legally invalid. Deuteronomy 19:15 demands two or three witnesses to validate any legal claim. Jesus here clarifies his statement of 5:31. While his testimony to himself was not valid in a court of law, this was not such a court, and he was not a normal witness. As the Son of God, he knew both his origin (“where I came from”) and his final destination (“where I am going”). The Pharisees’ judgment was faulty because once again they were thinking with an earthly rather than a heavenly perspective. They didn’t know about Jesus and his true origin, not because they could not know but because they had rejected his light.

Jesus then contrasted his own divine judgment with their own “human standards” of judging—that is, their fleshly limitations (8:15-16). In 3:17 we are told that Jesus came not to judge but to save, and yet in 5:22, 30 he said he was called by his Father to judge. And here he again says that he does “not judge anyone.” This is not a contradiction. Jesus did not mean that he never functioned as judge but rather that he could never make a superficial, human judgment the way his opponents did (so Carson, Whitacre). He clarified this in the next verse. “If I did” is equivalent to “when I judge”—in light of his God-given authority in 5:22, 30. When that happens, his judgment is “correct in every respect” because it is not based on “human standards” but is in complete union with the Father who sent him. Jesus’ judgment is equivalent to God’s decision. Putting it all together (3:17; 5:22, 30; 8:15-16), we understand that Jesus did not come to judge but to bring people to salvation; but his coming forced people to make a decision. For all those who rejected his offer of salvation, he became the God-appointed judge, and his decision is a divine decision. Also, in both cases (when he judges and when he does not), he is acting in union with God. When he does not judge, it means he does not do so on his own; when he does, he is acting as the agent of his Father (so Barrett, Blomberg). “I and the Father who sent me” is a Semitism denoting the unity between Father and Son and indicates “that Christ had now taken the place of Israel in relation to God (Cf. 15:5)” (so Köstenberger 2004:255-256).

Jesus then returned to the argumentation of 5:31-40 and the law’s demand (Deut 17:6; 19:15) for two witnesses (8:17-18). He is one, and his Father the other. He calls it “your own law” (8:17) because he is providing a new law—“the Torah of the Messiah,” so to speak—and he is contrasting his new revelation with the legalistic Pharisaic brand of Torah interpretation. Also, at first glance this would not be a valid argument, for Jesus’ self-witness would not be allowed (5:22), but Jesus’ witness to himself transcends that rule because he is the divinely appointed envoy, the Son of God (note “Father who sent me” in 8:16, 18). The Pharisees’ earthbound reaction was, “Where is your father?” (Philip will make a similar error in 14:8). They could not begin to understand or accept what Jesus had said since 5:17, that his Father is in heaven, the place of his own origin (the misunderstanding theme continues, see Carson 1982). Jesus responded as he had elsewhere: they neither knew him (5:37-38) nor God (7:28). This gets at the heart of Jewish self-identity as the covenant people who have identified themselves as the children of God. Jesus’ point was that if they did not know the one sent by the Father, they could not know the sender either. One can only know the Father through “the one and only Son” (1:14, 18; 3:16).

John concludes this section by telling the reader that the dialog took place “in the section of the Temple known as the Treasury,” the place in the Court of Women that contained 13 trumpet-shaped receptacles where people gave their offerings (cf. Mark 12:41-44). Since it was the place where the candle-lighting ceremony took place, it was a natural setting for this discourse (so Michaels). It was right in the open where multitudes could hear the give and take. The leaders still could not arrest him because, as before, “his time had not yet come” (Cf. 7:30). Until the hour of destiny God had stipulated, Jesus’ opponents were powerless.

8:14 These claims are valid. There is a seeming contradiction between 5:31 (“my testimony would not be valid”) and Jesus’ statement here. The reason for this is that Jesus was speaking from a different perspective on each occassion. Legally speaking, his self-witness would not be valid in a court of law, but spiritually speaking, it was valid because he was the Son of God who had came from heaven, speaking with the voice of God.

8:24 believe that I Am. Witherington (1995:175) reminds us that this “does not amount to a claim to be the heavenly Father, or to exhaust the Godhead” but is “a claim to divine status or eternal existence”; Jesus is divine yet still “dependent on the Father, and while on earth as his agent, in a subordinate role to him.” This tension between equality and subordination defines the Christology of John (cf. also 5:18). Jesus is one with the Father in his being and yet subordinate to him in his incarnate state.

die in your sins. Interestingly, “sin” is singular in 8:21 (for the realm of sin) and plural in 8:24 (for the individual sins people commit). As in Rom 5:12 (“for everyone sinned”), every person both inherits the sin principle and participates in it by committing sins.

8:25 The one I have always claimed to be. The Gr. is difficult and has led to several interpretations: (1) it is an affirmation of what has been said, with respect to Jesus’ personhood: “(I am) from the beginning what I tell you” (Miller 1980, Baesley-Murray, Michaels, so NLT); (2) it is an affirmation of his function: “(I am) what I have told you from the beginning” (Bruce, Beasley-Murray, Carson, Comfort, Michaels, Blomberg, RSV, NASB mg, Phillips, NIV, NJB); or (3) it is a question: “Why do I speak to you at all?” (Greek Fathers, NEB, NASB, NLT mg). The affirmation view best fits the Greek and the context. The two options for the affirmation (personhood and function) are very similar, but due to the high Christological content of the surrounding verses, personhood may be slightly preferable.

Finally, Jesus repeats (8:28b) what he has often said—that he does nothing on his own (5:19, 30; 6:38; 7:16, 28; 8:16). He had the absolute knowledge that everything he did was from God. He spoke only what he had “heard” from God, and now he states that he does only what his Father has taught him. What he says and does is absolute truth because his Father is “truthful” (8:26). This was the basis of his confidence. His opponents wanted to kill him (5:18; 7:1, 19), and many of his followers had deserted him (6:60-66). He was soon to die the most horrible death imaginable. Yet still he was supremely at peace with it all. Why? Because “the one who sent me is with me—he has not deserted me” (8:29). When even his closest followers and friends deserted him, he said, “The time is coming—indeed it’s here now—when you will be scattered . . . leaving me alone. Yet I am not alone because the Father is with me” (16:32). There is a lesson in this for us. When we face our own trials and troubles, we need to be aware of God’s presence with us. As Paul says in Romans 8:31, “If God is for us, who can ever be against us?” (Cf. 8:31-39). The result is that “many” of his hearers “believed in him.” In 2:23, many who saw his deeds put their faith in him, and that faith turned out to be immature. Here, many who heard his words found faith, and perhaps that faith would be stronger (Cf. 4:41 for the discussion of word-based faith). As stated before, John’s theme is that it is important to see Jesus’ deeds and hear his words in coming to faith.

As they continued to fail to recognize that God the Father had sent Jesus, so they also failed to recognize that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus had already told them of his approaching departure (8:21), and in 8:28a he tells them that at that time they will finally understand who he is. Note the great irony in the fact that when the Jews crucify Jesus, they are actually “lifting him up” to glory (so Köstenberger, following Bultmann). This is the second of three sayings in John about the Son of Man being “lifted up” (with 3:14; 12:32); these sayings are John’s equivalent to the Synoptic passion predictions. As stated in the commentary on 3:14, the double meaning is powerful: When Jesus is “lifted up” on the cross, he will be “lifted up” in glory. The cross is his throne, his time of exaltation. In this sense, the Cross, Resurrection, and Ascension become one event in salvation history. Therefore, it is at that time that the Jews finally “will understand that I AM he.” This hardly means mass conversion, although after Pentecost there were 3,000 conversions (Acts 2:41). The national revival will not occur until the Lord returns (cf. comment on Rom 11:25-32 in Osborne 2003).

It was natural that the crowd responded to this with “Who are you?” (8:25). Jesus responded by reiterating his previous teaching regarding himself—“The one I have always claimed to be.” He wanted them to understand that he had been telling them who he was from the beginning. Their problem was that they had not been listening, and what they had understood they had rejected. Therefore, Jesus went on, having much to say, primarily in the area of judgment due to their unbelief (5:45-47; 6:26-27, 41-42, 52; 7:7, 34). It was no use, though—they were on a completely different wavelength. He reiterated that the source of his teaching was “the one who sent me.” (For Jesus doing what he “sees” his Father doing, see 5:19; for his saying what he hears from the Father, see 5:30; 8:26, 40; for both seeing and hearing, see 3:32.) As expected, the crowd still did not get it. They failed to realize that Jesus was “talking about his Father” (8:27), even though he had used the phrase “the one who sent me” of his Father so often.

As always, the Jewish people failed to understand and this time asked if Jesus was planning suicide (8:22), thinking that when he said “you cannot come,” he meant they would not want to join him in death. There is certainly irony here, for Jesus was referring to his death but not in the way they thought. He would surrender his life, but it would be in the “hour” of destiny (NLT, “time,” 8:20; Cf. 2:4; 7:30) established by God’s plan of salvation, not in some suicidal act. Then Jesus gave the second contrast—they are “from below,” he “from above” (8:23). In the same way that salvation is “from above” (3:3, NLT mg), Jesus is “from above.” “From below” does not mean the realm of Satan but rather this earthly sphere (so Comfort). Jesus and they were from two different realms—that of God and that of sinful mankind. The gap could not be bridged except by Jesus himself (1:51; 14:6); now he has descended to the lower realm and “opened up a way—indeed, himself constituting the way—by which others may ascend there too” (Bruce 1983:192).

This third message in the series at the Festival of Shelters (cf. “once more” in 8:12, 21, pointing to a chain of messages—7:14ff; 8:12ff, 21ff) adds further material on Jesus’ divine origins and the terrible destiny of those who refuse to believe. In it, a series of oppositions is established between Jesus and the Jews: He is from above; they are from below. He is not from this world; they are of this world. His destiny is not theirs. His father is God; theirs is the devil (so Barrett, Carson). His first contrast centers on his destiny, repeating the message of 7:33-34. He would soon depart, and they would search for him (meaning they would continue to seek their Messiah, never accepting the fact that they had already met him)—but they could not go where he was going. On the surface, this could mean anything. In 7:35, they thought he was moving to another country. His departure, of course, would be at the Cross, when he became the atoning sacrifice for sin. They knew nothing of that, for they had rejected him. Therefore, they would “die in (their) sins” rather than experience that atoning sacrifice. This is why they could not accompany Jesus to his final destination—the Father in heaven. The only way to get there is through faith (3:16; 5:24, 38; 6:35, 47; 7:38). The disciples would be told something very similar (13:33, 36) but without the menacing danger. They were to remain on earth and follow Jesus later (14:2-4), while these opponents would never be able to go.

8:28 When you have lifted up. This is the only one of the three “lifted up” sayings that is in the active voice. The others (3:14; 12:32) have passive voices (“the Son of Man must be lifted up”). Here the emphasis is on Jewish guilt for putting Christ on the cross. Yet, as in the sermons in Acts (e.g., Acts 2:23, 36, 38; 3:13-19), their guilt should not lead to anti-Semitism. Instead, the message is a call to repentence: You killed Jesus, but he died for your sins; therefore, repent.

Because they had chosen to belong to the realm of sinful humanity, they would “die in (their) sins” (8:24). They would not only die physically but spiritually in an eternal death. The noun for “sin” only occurs once before this (1:29, “the Lamb of God who takes away [your] sin”) but is found three times in 8:21 and 24, emphasizing the terrible danger they were in. “Sin” is in absolute opposition to the holiness of God and is the primary barrier between mankind and God. To “die in your sins” is to die without any hope of reconciliation with God. There are only two options: have their sins forgiven via the Lamb’s atoning sacrifice or face God’s wrath in eternal punishment (3:36). The only way to life is stated clearly by Jesus: unless you believe that I am who I claim to be (8:28), with double meaning also implying “that I am Yahweh” (cf. commentary on 6:19-21). There are three occurrences of the absolute “I am” in this chapter (8:24, 28, 58; Cf. 13:19; 18:5-6). Jesus deliberately makes the phrase ambiguous to provide multiple levels of meaning. At one level is the translation here: they must believe the claims he has made in the preceding context—to be the Bread of Life, the one who descended from heaven, and the Light of the World. At another level is the immediate context: believe that I am the one soon to ascend to my Father at the appointed hour for my death. At the third level is the major theme, the deity of Christ. This was not understood by the crowd and leaders, but since they eventually tried to stone Jesus (for blasphemy), they must have begun to catch on to this nuance. The disciples did not begin to understand this until Thomas’s proclamation in 20:28: “My Lord and my God.”

8:31 Jesus said to the people who believed in him. These people—apparently those who came to faith in 8:30—seem to be described later as “slave[s] of sin” (8:34), trying to kill him (8:37a, 40), hardened to his message (8:37b), children of the devil (8:44), unbelievers (8:45-47), and liars (8:55). Several explanations have been offered (cf. Beasley-Murray, Carson): (1) There is a distinction in Greek between “believe in” (actual believers, 8:30) and “believe” with the dative (quasi-believers, 8:31)—but this does not fit, since the former is also used of halfhearted faith in 2:23 and the latter of true faith in 5:24. These two constructions are virtually synonymous, and are accordingly translated in the NLT. (2) The faith in 8:30 and 31 was false faith, and Jesus exposed it in 8:31-59—but in Johannine theology, word-based faith, such as that in 8:30-31, is a strong faith. (3) These are Judaizing Christians who demanded that all Christians follow the law of Moses—but this does not fit the context, for this debate did not occur in Jesus’ day. (4) These are genuine believers, but the polemic is addressing a problem in the time of John rather than Jesus—possible, but such a manufactured situation is unnecessary in this context. (5) Jesus is addressing a crowd in which some have been converted (8:30-31) but many opponents still remain. It is the latter that Jesus is addressing in this discourse. These could be the immature believers of 2:23-25, but the language of this passage does not fit their situation. This last view is the best for the context here.

8:36 truly free. Hendriksen (1953:54) says that there are two levels of freedom in Christ—first freedom from slavery to sin and second freedom plus sonship—that is, in Christ alone the emancipated slave is also adopted as God’s own child, rejoicing in the glorious freedom of sonship (cf. 2 Cor 3:17; Gal 4:6, 7). This is more than John intended but is nevertheless true theologically.

The Jews tried to stone him for blasphemy (8:59), showing they understood his claim (Cf. 5:18; 10:31). They were unable to do so, however, because Jesus “was hidden from them and left the Temple.” This hints at a miracle: the Son of God hid himself from them because his hour of destiny had not yet arrived (Cf. 7:30, 44; 8:20). Jesus’ departure from the Temple in this scene is his last appearance at the Temple in John’s account. It is possible that there is symbolic meaning in this, picturing the shekinah presence of God abandoning the Temple (so Schnackenburg, Carson). As such, Jesus would be symbolically proclaiming divine judgment on the Temple (as in the Olivet Discourse; cf. Mark 13 and parallels). “Jesus left Jerusalem behind, abandoning the beloved city to its own spiritual ruin (cf. Matt 23:37-39; Luke 13:34-35). Subsequently, his task was to call his believers out from Judaism, even as a shepherd calls his sheep to leave the fold for lush, green pastures” (Comfort 1994:86-87).

The response of the crowd is interesting (8:57) and once more is firmly anchored in a worldly perspective, “You aren’t even fifty years old.” Jesus was probably 33 or 34, so this is a round number. M. J. Edwards (1994:451-454) argues that John had in mind the year of Jubilee, possibly building on the 50-year cycles of the book of Jubilees. The people’s statement would in this light be an unconscious prophecy of Jesus as lord over history and lead into Jesus’ response in 8:58. Abraham had been dead for nearly 2,000 years, so they were aghast at Jesus’ statement. Jesus’ answer (the third double amēn [TG281, ZG297] saying in this chapter, Cf. 8:34, 51) is one of the better known sayings in John: “Before Abraham was even born, I AM!” The absolute egō eimi [TG1473/1510, ZG1609/1639] here is the clearest example yet (Cf. 8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5-6) of the proclamation, “I am Yahweh,” seen in its Isaianic background (cf. Isa 41:4; 43:10-13, 25; 45:18-19; 48:12; 52:6) as a divine self-disclosure. Jesus was saying in effect, “Before Abraham was even born, I, Yahweh, was there.” Thus, this is a claim not only of divinity but also of preexistence. Jesus, as part of the divine Godhead, was in existence long before Abraham. Hoskyns (1947:349) says, “The contrast is between the existence initiated by birth and an absolute existence. . . . The Being of the Son is continuous, irrespective of all time (Chrysostom [Homilies on John]).” The emphasis is not just on Jesus’ personhood but on what he means for salvation, in keeping with Exodus 3:14-15 (Yahweh as the faithful God of the covenant) and Isaiah 43:11-13; 46:4; 48:12 (so Beasley-Murray). The point is that Jesus was not acting as a mere messianic figure; he is the Word, the divine Revelation, God himself. The various categories bandied about throughout the Festival of Shelters (wonder-worker, prophet, Messiah) were transcended by Jesus, who claimed to be the living water, the light of the world, and the “I am” (so Dodd, Whitacre).

Then Jesus returned to the subject of Abraham (8:56), whom they had claimed as their father (8:33, 39). They thought they were related to him, but Jesus had a far greater right to speak, for Abraham “rejoiced as he looked forward to [Jesus’] coming” (8:56). There is some question as to which event in Abraham’s life this rejoicing refers. Most agree that Jesus is building on Genesis 15:17-21 (Abraham’s vision of the covenant ceremony). Jewish rabbis differed in their interpretation of Genesis 15, some saying it referred to this age and the age to come (Akiba) while others restricted it to this world (Johanan ben Zakkai). Literally, this says that Abraham rejoiced “to see my day,” and for Judaism this most likely referred to “the Day of the LORD,” with Jesus making the Day of Yahweh his day. It is sometimes debated whether the “day” refers to Jesus’ life and ministry or to the events of the last days, but actually this is a moot point since Jesus’ life and ministry inaugurated the last days. Mainly, it points to the Incarnation as the dawning of the final age (so Carson, Ridderbos, Morris, Köstenberger).

Jesus once again reiterated the points he had been making all along (8:54-56). This short paragraph could well be called a summary of the main points in the discourses of chapters 5–8: (1) Jesus did not seek his own glory or do anything on his own (5:19, 30; 6:38, 57; 7:16, 18, 28; 8:16, 26, 28, 42, 50). Every aspect of his existence was in conscious union with the Father and had as its goal the glory of the father. (2) All his glory comes from the Father (5:23; 6:27; 8:50). Because Jesus is completely oriented to God’s glory, God gives him glory (Cf. 12:28; 17:1-5), but not the glory the Jews understood. The glory of Jesus was in being lifted up on the cross (3:14; 8:28; 12:32). (3) The people didn’t really know God, even though they claimed he was their God (5:37-38, 42; 7:28; 8:19, 47). This is the heart of the conflict and repeats a frequent Old Testament theme (Isa 1:3; Jer 2:8; 4:22; Hos 4:1). They had rejected Jesus because he did not fit their conception of the Messiah; they did not realize that he was more than Messiah—he was the Son of God. Therefore, they did not know the true God. (4) Jesus both knew God and obeyed him (5:19; 6:46; 7:28-29; 8:29). There is only one path to God (14:6) and only one way to know God—through the one and only Son who knows him utterly and completely (1:18).

Using another double amēn [TG281, ZG297] saying (8:51, “I tell you the truth”; see note on 1:51), Jesus pointed to a critical truth: “Anyone who obeys my teaching will never die.” Note that the emphasis in this saying has moved from believing (as in 5:24) to its result: “obeys my teaching.” Of course, obedience is inherent in “listen to my message” in 5:24; in the Bible, to hear is to obey. Literally, Jesus challenges his hearers to “keep” his teaching, which involves not only obedience but also maintaining its priority in the church and in our personal lives. Those who base their lives on Jesus’ teaching will have eternal life (Cf. 6:39-40, 47, 50-51, 58). Still hearing Jesus at the superficial level (Cf. 8:19, 22, 33, 39, 41, 48), the people interpreted “never die” as living on this earth forever. They were astonished, for “even Abraham and the prophets died” (8:52)—and that in spite of their faithful obedience to God. How then could Jesus say that those who obeyed his teaching would never die? Such blasphemy could only come from a demonic delusion. Was he making himself greater than Abraham? They concluded with the question, “Who do you think you are?” (8:53). Note the irony—the one who, more that anyone who ever lived, does not seek his own glory (7:18; 8:49-50) is the one they accused of magnifying himself.

Jesus then asked two questions centering on their charges: (1) “Which of you can truthfully accuse me of sin?” (8:46). Jesus knew that they thought him to be a Sabbath-breaker and blasphemer (5:18), a messianic pretender (6:41-42; 7:27, 41-42, 52), a false teacher (7:47), and demon possessed (7:20; 8:48). His question was a legal one: on what grounds could they accuse him and make it stand? Jesus dared them to convict him of sin. (2) “Why don’t you believe me?” (8:46). The answer to the first question (i.e., they could not convict him of sin) should lead to a proper response to the second (they should put their trust in him). He was the only one actually telling them the truth, and yet they rejected it. Of course, Jesus himself had already answered this—it was because they followed their father, the devil. Only the one “who belongs to God” can “[listen] gladly to the words of God” (8:47). This goes back to 6:35-44; God had given some to Jesus, and they rejoiced in the truth. But generally the Jews refused to listen because they didn’t belong to God—a point made throughout this discourse. They had rejected the Son and so were no longer the children of God. One could virtually say that they had switched fathers!

Since the people followed “the father of lies,” they naturally didn’t believe Jesus when he told the truth. In fact, the Greek says that “because” he spoke truth they didn’t believe. The truth of God in Jesus was so repugnant to them that they automatically rejected it. It is the greatest tragedy imaginable for anyone to reach that state. It is as close to the unpardonable sin (Mark 3:28-29; Heb 6:4-6) as one can get. As Köstenberger says (2004:267), “Hence, unbelief is shown to be rooted ultimately in people’s subjection to satanic lies and deception rather than merely lack of comprehension or human choice.”

Jesus spelled out clearly what he had been hinting at all along (8:44). Their true father was neither Abraham (8:39) nor God (8:41) but rather the devil—“You are the children of your father the devil.” They were slaves of sin (8:34) and children of Satan. Their true paternity was revealed, as Jesus confronted them at the deepest level. There are three ways in which their kinship to the devil was manifest: (1) They loved the same kind of evil deeds he does. There is a double emphasis on their desires and the resultant deeds. Satan’s basic desire is to set himself up as god, and this has led him to oppose God at every level. They followed in his footsteps and turned their backs on the God of their fathers by rejecting his Son. (2) They sought to kill Jesus, following the one who “was a murderer from the beginning.” The “beginning” is a reference to Satan’s seduction of Adam and Eve (cf. 1 John 3:8, 15), leading to their expulsion from Eden and the introduction of death to mankind (cf. Rom 5:12-14). The death of Jesus was ultimately attributable to Satan (13:2, 27). (3) By rejecting God’s truth in Jesus, they had followed the one who “has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him.” Satan’s chief characteristic is deception (Rev 12:9; 20:3, 8, 10); he does not overpower people so much as lead them astray via lies. In fact, lying is at the heart of “his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies.” We expect lies from him; there will never be truth in anything he says or does. All lies (for instance, those spoken by the leaders about Jesus) have their origin with Satan. There was a book written a few years ago that said the average American speaks 600 lies a day, most of them things like, “I’m fine” or “You look great.” Indeed, the natural man lives with lies every moment of the day—the only place for truth is in Christ.

Jesus’ retort (8:42) repeats the point of 8:37. If God were truly their father, they would love his Son. Jesus had been “sent” by him, and therefore the reception of God’s envoy was a sign of love for God. As stated so often in chapters 5–8, Jesus had come to this earth from heaven (6:33, 38, 51, 58; 7:28; 8:14, 23) and had been sent from God (5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29, 33; 8:16-17). Since the Father and Son are one, to love one is to love the other. At the same time, to hate one is to hate the other. Their attitude toward Jesus showed that God was not their father. In frustrated indignation, he first asked, “Why can’t you understand what I am saying?” and then tells them why. “It’s because you can’t even hear me!” Their ears had been stopped, first by unbelief and then by an outside force, their father, Satan. As Morris says (1995:463), “They are so wrapped up in their preconceptions that they cannot perceive the truth. It repels them.”

Jesus’ hearers misunderstood his point about “the advice of [their] father” and so claimed, “Our father is Abraham” (8:39), going back to their physical lineage. The spiritual problem remained, so Jesus repeated the point he had just made. If their father was truly Abraham, they would “follow his example.” When my wife taught first grade, she could tell which children belonged to which parents within the first minute of meeting them. The children were the image of their parents. That was Jesus’ point; the Jewish people’s actions showed who their true parent was, and it was not Abraham. Again, the proof was their desire to kill Jesus. This showed that they had completely rejected the truth. In other words, their actions proved their true heritage. To reject the Son is to reject the Father. To refuse Jesus’ truth is to refuse God’s truth, and in this refusal, they were no longer the covenant people of God. Abraham never rejected God’s message or tried to kill God’s messengers (as at Sodom and Gomorrah), so this proved they were in actuality imitating their real father, the devil, not Abraham.

Jesus then specified the true status of his Jewish listeners (8:37-38). Yes, they “are descendants of Abraham” in terms of lineage, but that was not the whole truth, for they were not Abraham’s children (8:39). They did not qualify spiritually—that is, they were Jews outwardly but not inwardly (Rom 2:28-29; cf. Jer 9:25-26). There were two problems: First, some were trying to kill Jesus, which was the ultimate proof that they had rejected God’s path and had turned against his divinely sent envoy. Second, there was no room in their hearts for Jesus’ message—further proof that they had turned their backs on God’s truth. As stated in 8:31, the true disciple remains faithful to Jesus’ message. Their actions were proof positive that they qualified as Abraham’s descendants only physically and were not his children spiritually. Jesus could prove that he was one with his Father because he had given the revelation he saw when he was with his Father. His message had its origin in heavenly reality and came from the Father. In contrast, they were “following the advice of (their) father” (8:38), later identified as the devil (8:44). They were enslaved to sin just like their true father, and that is why they had no access to God or heaven.

Jesus then developed this metaphor into an illustration contrasting the status of the slave with that of the son (8:35-36). The purpose was to make his Jewish hearers aware of their misperception. They thought of themselves as children of Abraham (8:33, 39), but in reality they were slaves of sin (8:34). In fact, many think Jesus was quoting an existing parable here (Dodd, Lindars, Bruce). In the ancient world, the nuclear family didn’t only consist of husband, wife, and children but also included one’s slaves. A slave, however, was never “a permanent member of the family” because he or she could be sold to someone else or could earn his or her freedom. (In Judaism a slave was to be given freedom after six years in the “sabbatical year” [Deut 15:12-14], but this was probably not observed that often. In the Greco-Roman world, manumission occurred more frequently than one would think, many were freed even before they reached 30 [[ABD6.71].) A son, however, was “part of the family forever” (8:35). He would always be a part of the family, even after death. Jesus was obviously contrasting his Jewish hearers (slaves to sin) with himself (the Son of God). He descended from heaven and came directly from God, while they had rejected God’s Son and chosen the path of sin. He offered hope, however. These slaves could be freed from their bondage—but in this case, that freedom could only be purchased by the Son. In the ancient household, a son could, when he became an adult, free a slave. Jesus had been given that authority from God (3:35), and he was the only path to freedom. When he frees people, they “are truly free”—the power of sin has been broken once and for all. Paul speaks of Christians’ “old selves,” which have been nullified by the Cross (Rom 6:6), and the liberation that has brought us into a new realm, that of Christ and the Spirit.

The crowd once more failed to understand Jesus and centered on his use of “set you free” (8:33), interpreting it as freedom from enslavement by other nations. Since they had maintained their national identity throughout their subjugation to Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome (conveniently ignoring their enslavement by Egypt), they centered on the Abrahamic covenant and said, “We have never been slaves.” Their point was that in spite of political dominance, they had never been truly controlled by the others. As Carson says (1991:349, following Barrett), “compare Mark 2:17, where the Jews are convinced they are whole and therefore need no physician—just as they are convinced they are free and therefore need no liberation (cf. also 9:40-41).” The people challenged Jesus’ statement that they needed to be “set free.” The importance of Jesus’ response is seen in his solemn double amēn [TG281, ZG297] introduction, rendered “I tell you the truth” in the NLT (8:34; Cf. 1:51; 5:19, 24, 25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53). He corrected their mistaken political understanding and made it clear that he was speaking of spiritual and moral enslavement instead. The true slave is “everyone who sins” (8:34) because sinners sell themselves to a vicious taskmaster. Paul used the same image in Romans 6:6-7, 14, 16-23, telling us that everyone is a slave of something, either of sin or of righteousness. Only Christ can set us free from the one to follow the other. For Jesus and Paul (Rom 6:1-14), sin is a conquering power that takes people captive and then controls their lives.

This dramatic dialog is the culmination of the conflict between Jesus and the Jews in chapters 5–8. It consists of three parts: the Jewish claim to be descendants of Abraham (8:31-41a); Jesus’ countercharge that their true father is the devil (8:41b-47); and Jesus’ claim to deity (8:48-59).

8:56 rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. Some scholars (Lindars, Haenchen) believe this refers to Abraham in paradise watching the events of Jesus’ life unfold. This is possible, given Jesus’ use of Abraham in paradise in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), but in light of the past tenses of the verbs here it is unlikely.