:

ye

ver. 40. m ch. iii. 39: v. 19, 30: xiv. 10, 24.

ver. 33. ix. 7. Gal. iii. 7, 29.

Rom. i. 25: ver. 37.

r

8

lxiv. 8. Mal.

either to the liberation of the sabbatical year, or to the subject of Heb, iii. 5, 6. 37.] Ye are Abraham's seed, according to the flesh and the covenant: but-and here the distinction appears'ye are doers of sin by seeking to kill Me, because My word (see above on ver. 31) gaineth no ground-does not work (spread, go forward,-ne marche pas') in you' (not, among you). 38.] We have the same remarkable relation between speaking and doing, as in ver. 28: except that here the doing is applied to the Jews only; speaking being used in the same comprehensive sense as there. But

notice the distinction in the restored text between I have seen with my father and ye heard from your father. The possessive pronouns my, and your, are not expressed in the original; the term father is common to both sentences, and on it the stress should be laid in reading. The speaking and doing were in each case from the father of each. But Jesus was "with God," in a relation of abiding unity with His Father: they were sprung from their father the devil,he was the suggester of their course, the originator of their acts. Jesus was the son, who remains in the house and sees the father's acts: they the bond-slaves, merely prescribed to, and under coercion. The word too implies accordingly, by the same rule. 39, 40.] There is a distinction between seed and children. The

s 1 John v. 1.

former our Lord grants that they were (ver. 37), but the latter (by implication; see below on the construction) He denies them. See Rom. ix. 6, 7, "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children." 41. We were not born

of fornication] Stier remarks, that they now let fall Abraham as their father, being convicted of unlikeness to him. They see that a spiritual paternity must be meant, and accordingly refer to God as their Father. This consideration will rule the sense of the words not born of fornication, which must therefore be spiritual also. And spiritually the children of fornication (see Hos. ii. 4) are idolaters. Ishmael cannot well be alluded to; for they would not call the relation between Abraham and Hagar one of fornication. Still less can there be, as Origen thought, any allusion on the part of the Jews to our Lord giving Himself out as being miraculously born, but being in reality that which they would insinuate for our Lord never proclaimed this of Himself. There may possibly be a reference to the Samaritans (ver. 48), who completely answered in the spiritual sense to the children of fornication: see Deut. xxxi. 16; Isa. i. 21; Ezek. xvi. 15 ff.; xx. 30 al. 42.] If you were the children of God, the moral proof of such descent would be, that you would love Me, who am specially the Son of God, and who am come by the mission, and bearing

t ch. xvi. 27: xvii. 8, 25. u ch. v. 43:

vii. 28, 29.

x ch. vii. 17.

1 John iii. 8.

from God;

g render, am come.

i

render, like to do.

1

am come con

the character of God.' veys the result of proceeded forth, as Meyer; who also remarks that mere sending will not exhaust the term proceeded forth, which must be taken in its deeper theological meaning, of the proceeding forth of the Eternal Son from the essence of the Father. 43.] to understand a man's speech, as here used, is literally to understand the idiom or dialect in which a man speaks, his manner of speech;-see Matt. xxvi. 73, where the same word is used in the original. But this of course does not here refer to the mere outward expression of the Lord's discourses, but to the spiritual idiom in which He spoke, and which can only be spiritually understood. Then my word is the matter of those discourses, the Word itself.

The connexion of the two clauses is, Why do ye not understand my speech? Because ye cannot receive, hear with the inner ear (see ch. vi. 60), that which I say. And the verification and ground of this cannot, is in the next verse.

44.]

This verse is one of the most decisive testimonies for the objective personality of the devil. It is quite impossible to suppose an accommodation to Jewish views, or a metaphorical form of speech, in so solemn and direct an assertion as this.

ye like to do] The rendering of the A. V. here, as in several other places where the same expression is used in the original (compare for instance ch. v. 40; Matt. xi. 27; Luke xi. 31), is wholly inadequate and misleading. The words "Ye will do" convey to the mind of the reader a mere future, whereas the original means, your will is to do, you love, or, are inclined, to do. The expression indicates, as in ch. v. 40, the freedom of the human will, as the foundation of the condemnation of the sin

ner.

a murderer] The most obvious reference seems to be, to the murder of Abel by Cain :-see the Apostle's own com

ment on these words, 1 John iii. 12, 15. But this itself was only a result of the introduction of death by sin, which was the work of the devil: Adam and Eve were the first whom he murdered. But then again both these were only manifestations of the fact here stated by divine omniscience respecting him: that he was a murderer. from the beginning, the author and bringer in of that hate which is equivalent to murder, 1 John iii. 15. The mention of murder is introduced because the Jews went about to kill Jesus; and the typical parallel of Cain and Abel is certainly hinted at in the words. The A. V. " abode," is ungrammatical, the original word being present in sense. Still, it is not a mere present, but a present dependent on and commencing with an implied past fact. And that fact here is, the fall of the devil, which was not an insulated act, but in which state of apostasy from the truth he standeth,-it is his condition.

the

father thereof] i. e. either of that which is false, the lie, implied in the word liar, which has just preceded,- or, of the liar generally. The former is not the fact,for the devil is not the father of that which is false, but of liars, by being himself one whose very nature has become a lie. Certainly by this he has become the author, promoter, of falsehood among men; but this kind of paternity is not here in question: the object being to shew that he was the father of these lying

1 John iv. 6.

Jews. I therefore hold the latter interpretation, with Bengel, Meyer, and Stier. 45.] And the very reason why ye do not believe Me (as contrasted with him) is, because I speak the truth;-you not being of the truth, but of him who is falsehood itself. This implies a charge of wilful striving against known and recognized truth. Euthymius fills up the context-" If I told you lies, ye would have believed me, as speaking that which belongs to your father" see ch. v. 43.

46.] The meaning here of sin is to be strictly adhered to, and not softened into error in argument,' or 'falsehood.' This would be to introduce, in this most solemn part of our Lord's discourse, a vapid tautology. The question is an appeal to His sinlessness of life, as evident to them all, as a pledge for His truthfulness of word: which word asserted, be it remembered, that He was sent from God. And when we recollect that He who here challenges men to convict him of sin, never could have upheld outward spotlessness merely (see Matt. xxiii. 26-28), the words amount to a declaration of His absolute sinlessness, in thought, word, and deed. Or, the connexion may be as stated by Euthymius: "If it is not because I speak the truth that ye disbelieve me, tell me, which of you convicts me of any sin done by me, on account of which you may have a pretext for disbelieving?" If I say the truth] and if it be thence (from the impossibility of convicting me of sin) evident, that I speak the truth, why do ye not believe me? (not "believe on me," but simply believe me, give credence to me.) 47. gives the answer to the previous question, and concludes the discourse with the final disproof of their assertion, ver. 41. This verse is cited 1 John iv. 6. 48.] The Jews attempt

a ch. vii. 20:

x. 20. ver. 52.

no answer, but commence reviling Him. These are now properly the Jews, in St. John's sense,-the principal among the Jews. a Samaritan] So they called 'outcasts from the commonwealth of Israel' and so afterwards they called the Christians. They imply, that He differed from their interpretation of the law,-or perhaps, as He had convicted them of not being the genuine children of Abraham, they cast back the charge with a senseless recrimination. There may perhaps be a reference to the occurrence related in ch. iv. 5 ff.; but it has been shewn that Thou art a Samaritan is found in the Rabbis as addressed to one whose word is not to be believed. and hast a devil] As in the first clause they sundered Him from the communion of Israel, so now from that of Israel's God.' Stier. Or perhaps they mean the reproach more as expressing aggravated madness owing to dæmoniacal possession. The Say we not well? alludes probably to the charge twice brought against Him by the Pharisees, of casting out devils by the prince of the devils.' See Matt. ix. 34; xii. 24. 49.] The former term of reproach Jesus passes over, and mildly answers (1 Pet. ii. 23) the malicious charge of having a devil, by an appeal to his whole life and teaching (see ch. iv. 34), which was not the work of one having a devil. There is no retort of the charge in the emphatic I (it is not I but you that have a devil), as Cyril and Lücke imagine. At present the I, followed by you, both emphatic, only brings out the two parties into stronger contrast.

and ye do dishonour me] Our mutual relation is not that which you allege, but this: that I honour Him that sent me, and ye, in dishonouring me, dishonour Him. It is the same contrast, the being (sprung) "of (from) God" and "not of

b ch. v. 41: vii. 18.

c ch. v. 24: xi. 26.

d Zech. i. 5. Heb. xi. 13.

e ch. v. 31.

fch. v. 41: xvi. 14: xvii. 1.

Acts iii. 18. g ch. vii. 28, 29.

h Heb. xi. 13.

me.

you,

see

death.

and the prophets; and

whom makest thou a honour myself, my

X

I render, But.

render, behold.
u render, glorify.
y render, glorifieth.

God," as before, ver. 47, which lies at the root. 50.] Ye dishonour me;-not that I seek my own honour, but His who sent me. There is One who seeketh my honour (ch. v. 23), and will have me honoured; and who judgeth between me and you, between truth and falsehood.'

Supply the words "my glory" after seeketh, but not after judgeth. 51.] There is no pause (De Wette) between ver. 50 and this. This is the direct carrying on of the discourse, arising out of judgeth in the last verse, and forming a new attempt of grace to plead with them, as Lampe calls it. Ye are now children of the devil, but if ye keep My word, ye shall be rescued from that murderer.

to keep my word, as "to continue in my word," ver. 31, is not only outward obedience, but the endurance in, and obedience of faith. to behold death, as to taste of death, is a Hebrew way of speaking for to die, and must not be pressed to mean, 'shall not feel (the bitterness of) death,' in a temporal sense, as Stier has done. The death of the body is not reckoned as death, any more than the life of the body is life, in our Lord's discourses; see ch. xi. 25, 26, and notes. Both words have a deeper meaning. 52, 53.] The Jews, not knowing what "death" really imports, regard the saying as a decisive proof of their surmise ver. 48. "Their misunderstanding (says De Wette) keeps to the well

known type (ch. iii. 4; iv. 11 ff.), but this time theocratic pride is added to carnal sensuousness:-" the Old Test. Saints died!"""

54, 55.] The argument in these verses is: The same God who is the God of Abraham, is my Father;- He it is who honours (glorifies) me, and it is His word that I keep. I was promised by Him to Abraham.' If I glorify myself, i. e. glorify myself to this high designation, of being able to deliver from death.' whom ye say] Whom you are in the habit of calling your God-i. e. the God of Israel. A most important identification, from the mouth of our Lord Himself, of the Father, with the God of Israel in the Old Test.

of

55.] The sense is, of Whom ye say 'He is our God,' and (not "yet” nor but") know Him not. Then what follows sets forth the contrast between them, the pretended children of Abraham, who know not Abraham's God (the liars), and Him who knows Him, and keeps His word, so that His word works in and by Him; yea, He is the Word of God. His allowing their denial of this state of knowledge and union would be as great a lie in Him, as their assumption of it was in them. 56.] The Lord does not deny them their outward title of children of Abraham :-it is of spiritual things that He has been speaking, in refusing them the reality of it. rejoiced to see] literally, rejoiced, that He should see. The intent is to shew