John 8 JOHN 8:1-11 A Woman Caught in Adultery But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came to the temple courts again. All the people came to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. The experts in the law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught committing adultery. They made her stand in front of them and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. In the law Moses commanded us to stone to death such women.
What then do you say?" (Now they were asking this in an attempt to trap him, so that they could bring charges against him.) Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground with his finger. When they persisted in asking him, he stood up straight and replied, "Whoever among you is guiltless may be the first to throw a stone at her." Then he bent over again and wrote on the ground. Now when they heard this, they began to drift away one at a time, starting with the older ones, until Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they?
Did no one condemn you?" She replied, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you either. Go, and from now on do not sin any more." The narrative which begins the eighth chapter of John's Gospel is of a rather peculiar character. In some respects it stands alone. There is nothing quite like it in the whole range of the four Gospels. In every age some scrupulous minds have stumbled at the passage, and have doubted whether it was ever written by John at all. But the justice of such scruples is a point that cannot easily be proved.
To suppose, as some have thought, that the narrative before us palliates the sin of adultery, and exhibits our Lord as making light of the seventh commandment, is surely a great mistake. There is nothing in the passage to justify such an assertion. There is not a sentence in it to warrant our saying anything of the kind. Let us calmly weigh the matter, and examine the contents of the passage. Our Lord's enemies brought before Him a woman guilty of adultery, and asked him to say what punishment she deserved.
We are distinctly told that they asked the question, "to trap Him." They hoped to entrap Him into saying something for which they might accuse Him. They fancied perhaps that He who preached pardon and salvation to "publicans and harlots" might be induced to say something which would either contradict the law of Moses, or His own words.
Our Lord knew the hearts of the malicious questioners before Him, and dealt with them with perfect wisdom, as He had done in the case of the "tribute-money." (Matt. 22:17.) He refused to be a "judge" and lawgiver among them, and specially in a case which their own law had already decided. He gave them at first no answer at all. But "when they continued asking," our Lord silenced them with a withering and heart-searching reply.
"He that is without sin among you," he said, "let him first cast a stone at her." He did not say that the woman had not sinned, or that her sin was a trifling and excusable one. But He reminded her accusers that they at any rate were not the people to bring a charge against her. Their own motives and lives were far from pure. They themselves did not come into the case with clean hands. What they really desired was not to vindicate the purity of God's law, and punish a sinner, but to wreak their malice on Himself.
Last of all, when those who had brought the unhappy woman to our Lord had gone out from His presence, "convicted by their own conscience," He dismissed the guilty sinner with the solemn words, "Neither do I condemn you--go and sin no more." That she did not deserve punishment He did not say. But He had not come to be a judge. Moreover, in the absence of all witnesses or accusers, there was no case before Him.
Let her then depart as one whose guilt was "not proven," even though she was really guilty, and let her "sin no more." To say in the face of these simple facts that our Lord made light of the sin of adultery is not fair. There is nothing in the passage before us to prove it. Of all whose words are recorded in the Bible there is none who has spoken so strongly about the breach of the seventh commandment as our divine Master.
It is He who has taught that it may be broken by a look or a thought, as well as by an open act. (Matt. 5:28.) It is He who has spoken more strongly than any about the sanctity of the marriage relation. (Matt. 19:5.) In all that is recorded here, we see nothing inconsistent with the rest of His teaching. He simply refused to usurp the office of the judge and to pronounce condemnation on a guilty woman, for the gratification of His deadly enemies. In leaving this passage, we must not forget that it contains two lessons of great importance.
Whatever difficulties the verses before us may present, these two lessons at any rate are clear, plain, and unmistakable. We learn, for one thing, the power of conscience. We read of the woman's accusers, that when they heard our Lord's appeal, "being convicted by their own conscience, they went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even into the last." Wicked and hardened as they were, they felt something within which made them cowards. Fallen as human nature is, God has taken care to leave within every man a witness that will be heard.
Conscience is a most important part of our inward man, and plays a most prominent part in our spiritual history. It cannot save us. It never yet led any one to Christ. It is blind, and liable to be misled. It is lame and powerless, and cannot guide us to heaven. Yet conscience is not to be despised. It is the minister's best friend, when he stands up to rebuke sin from the pulpit. It is the mother's best friend, when she tries to restrain her children from evil and quicken them to good. It is the teacher's best friend, when he presses home on boys and girls their moral duties.
Happy is he who never stifles his conscience, but strives to keep it tender! Still happier is he who prays to have it enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and sprinkled with Christ's blood. We learn, for another thing, the nature of true repentance. When our Lord had said to the sinful woman, "Neither do I condemn you," He dismissed her with the solemn words, "go and sin no more." He did not merely say, "go home and repent." He pointed out the chief thing which her case required--the necessity of immediate breaking off from her sin. Let us never forget this lesson.
It is the very essence of genuine repentance, as the Church catechism well teaches, to "forsake sin." That repentance which consists in nothing more than feeling, talking, professing, wishing, meaning, hoping, and resolving, is worthless in God's sight. Action is the very life of "repentance unto salvation not to be repented of." Until a man ceases to do evil and turns from his sins, he does not really repent. Would we know whether we are truly converted to God, and know anything of godly sorrow for sin, and repentance such as causes "joy in heaven"?
Let us search and see whether we forsake sin. Let us not rest until we can say as in God's sight, "I hate all sin, and desire to sin no more." Technical Notes: 1. Jesus went to the Mount of Olives . 2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him; and he sat down and taught them. 3. And the Scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman taken in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4. they said to him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned.
But what do you say? 6. This they said, tempting him, that they might have something of which to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with his finger, as though he did not hear. 7. So when they continued asking him, he raised himself up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8. And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9. And those who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the eldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10.
When Jesus had raised himself up and saw no one but the woman, he said to her, Woman, where are your accusers? Has no man condemned you? 11. She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more. These eleven verses, together with the last verse of the preceding chapter, form perhaps the gravest critical difficulty in the New Testament. Their genuineness is disputed. It is held by many learned Christian writers—who have an undoubted right to be heard on such matters—that the passage was not written by St.
John, that it was written by an uninspired hand and probably at a later day, and that it has no lawful claim to be regarded as a part of canonical Scripture. It is held by others—whose opinions, to say the least, are equally entitled to respect—that the passage is a genuine part of St. John’s Gospel, and that the arguments against it, however weighty they may appear, are insufficient and admit of an answer. A summary of the whole case is all that I shall attempt to give.
In the list of those who think the passage either not genuine or at least doubtful , are the following names: Beza, Grotius, Baxter, Hammond, A. Clarke, Tittman, Tholuck, Olshausen, Hengstenberg, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Scrivener.
In the list of those who think the passage genuine , are the following names: Augustine, Ambrose, Euthymius, Rupertus, Zwingle, Calvin, Melancthon, Ecolampadius, Brentius, Bucer, Gualter, Musculus, Bullinger, Pellican, Flacius, Diodati, Chemnitius, Aretius, Piscator, Calovius, Cocceius, Toletus, Maldonatus, á Lapide, Ferus, Nifanius, Cartwright, Mayer, Trapp, Poole, Lampe, Whitby, Leigh, Doddridge, Bengel, Stier, Webster, Burgon. Calvin is sometimes named as one of those who think the passage before us not genuine.
But his language about it in his Commentary is certainly not enough to bear out the assertion. He says, “It is plain that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here.
But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches and is found in many old Greek manuscripts and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage.” [A.] The arguments against the passage are as follows: (1) That it is not found in some of the oldest and best manuscripts, now existing, of the Greek Testament. (2) That it is not found in some of the earlier versions or translations of the Scriptures. (3) That it is not commented on by the Greek Fathers, Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, and Theophylact in their expositions of St.
John, nor quoted or referred to by Tertullian and Cyprian. (4) That it differs in style from the rest of St.
John’s Gospel and contains several words and forms of expression which are nowhere else used in his writings. (5) That the moral tendency of the passage is somewhat doubtful, and that it seems to represent our Lord as palliating a heinous sin. [B.] The arguments in favor of the passage are as follows: (6) That it is found in many old manuscripts, if not in the very oldest and best. (7) That it is found in the Vulgate Latin, and in the Arabic, Coptic, Persian, and Ethiopian versions. (8) That it is commented on by Augustine in his exposition of this Gospel, while in another of his writings he expressly refers to and explains its omission from some manuscripts; that it is quoted and defended by Ambrose, referred to by Jerome, and treated as genuine in the Apostolical constitutions. (9) That there is no proof whatever that there is any immoral tendency in the passage.
Our Lord pronounced no opinion on the sin of adultery but simply declined the office of a judge. It may seem almost presumptuous to offer any opinion on this very difficult subject. But I venture to make the following remarks and to invite the reader’s candid attention to them. I lean decidedly to the side of those who think the passage is genuine, for the following reasons: 1. The argument from manuscripts appears to me inconclusive. We possess comparatively few very ancient ones. Even of them some favor the genuineness of the passage. The same remark applies to the ancient versions.
Testimony of this kind, to be conclusive, should be unanimous. 2. The argument from the Fathers seems to me more in favor of the passage than against it. On the one side, the reasons are simply negative. Certain Fathers say nothing about the passage but at the same time say nothing against it. On the other side, the reasons are positive. Men of such high authority as Augustine and Ambrose not only comment on the passage but defend it s genuineness, and assign reasons for its omission by some mistaken transcribers.
Let me add to this that the negative evidence of the Fathers who are against the passage is not nearly so weighty as it appears at first sight. Cyril of Alexandria is one. But his commentary on the eighth chapter of John is lost, and what we have was supplied by the modern hand of Jodocus Clichtovoeus, a Persian doctor, who lived in the year 1510 A.D. (See Dupin’s Eccles. hist.) Chrysostom’s commentary on John consists of popular public homilies, in which we can easily imagine that such a passage as this might possibly be omitted. Theophylact was notoriously a copier and imitator of Chrysostom.
Origen, the only remaining commentator, is one whose testimony is not of first-rate value, and he has omitted many things in his exposition of St. John. The silence of Tertullian and Cyprian is perhaps accountable on the same principles by which Augustine explains the omission of the passage in some copies of this Gospel in his own time. Some, as Calovius, Maldonatus, Flacius, Aretius, and Piscator, think that Chrysostom distinctly refers to this passage in his Sixtieth Homily on John, though he passes it over in exposition. 3.
The argument from alleged discrepancies between the style and language of this passage and the usual style of St. John’s writing is one which should be received with much caution. We are not dealing with an uninspired but with an inspired writer. Surely it is not too much to say that an inspired writer may occasionally use words and constructions and modes of expression which he generally does not use, and that it is no proof that he did not write a passage because he wrote it in a peculiar way. I leave the subject here. In cases of doubt like this, it is wise to be on the safe side.
On the whole I think it safest to regard this disputed passage as genuine. At any rate, I prefer the difficulties on this side to those on the other. The whole discussion may leave in our minds, at any rate, one comfortable thought. If even in the case of this notoriously disputed passage (more controverted and doubted than any in the New Testament) so much can be said in its favor, how immensely strong is the foundation on which the whole volume of Scripture rests! If even against this passage the arguments of opponents are not conclusive, we have no reason to fear for the rest of the Bible.
After all, there is much ground for thinking that some critical difficulties have been purposely left by God’s providence in the text of the New Testament in order to prove the faith and patience of Christian people. They serve to test the humility of those to whom intellectual difficulties are a far greater cross than either doctrinal or practical ones. To such minds it is trying, but useful, discipline to find occasional passages involving knots which they cannot quite untie and problems which they cannot quite solve. Of such passages the verses before us are a striking instance.
That the text of them is “a hard thing” it would be wrong to deny. But I believe our duty is not to reject it hastily, but to sit still and wait. In these matters, “he who believes shall not make haste.” The following passage from Augustine (De conjug. Adult.) is worth notice.
Having argued that it well becomes a Christian husband to be reconciled to his wife upon her repentance after adultery (because our Lord said “Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no more”), he says: “This, however, rather shocks the minds of some weak believers—or rather unbelievers and enemies of the Christian faith—insomuch that, afraid of its giving their wives impunity of sinning, they struck out of their copies of the Gospel this that our Lord did in pardoning the woman taken in adultery; as if He granted leave of sinning when He said, “Go, and sin no more.” Augustine, be it remembered, lived about 400 A.D.
Those who wish to look further into the subject of this disputed passage will find it fully discussed by Gomarus, Bloomfield, and Wordsworth. 1.--[ Jesus went to the Mount of Olives . ] The division of the chapter in this place is to be regretted. The last verse of the preceding chapter and the verse before us are evidently intended to be taken together. While the Pharisees and members of the Council “went every man to his own house,” our Lord, having no home of His own, retired “to the Mount of Olives” and there spent the night in the open air.
In such a climate as that of Judea, there was nothing remarkable in His doing this. The garden of Gethsemane, at the foot of the mount, would supply sufficient shelter. That this was our Lord’s habitual practice, we are distinctly told in Luke xxi.37.
Lampe remarks that we never read of our Lord lodging, sleeping, or tarrying a night in Jerusalem. 2.--[ And early in the morning. ] This expression is worth noticing because, according to some, it explains our Lord’s subsequent use of the figure “I am the light of the world.” They think that it refers to the break of day, or rising of the sun. [ He came again into the temple. ] This means the outer courts of the temple where it was customary for the Jews to assemble and listen to teachers of religion.
In eastern countries and in the times when there was no printing, it must be remembered, much instruction was given in this way, by open air addresses or conversations. Thus Socrates taught at Athens. [ All the people came to Him. ] “All” here must mean great multitudes of the people. After all that had happened in the last three or four days, we may easily understand that our Lord’s appearance would at once attract a crowd.
His fame as a teacher and speaker was established. [ He sat down and taught. ] That it was common for the teachers to sit and the hearers to stand is evident from other texts. “I sat daily with you teaching in the temple.” (Matt. xxvi.55.) In the synagogues of Nazareth, when our Lord began to preach He first “gave the book to the minister and sat down.” (Luke iv.20.) “He sat down and taught the people out of the ship.” (Luke v.3.) “We sat down and spoke to the women.” (Acts xvi.13.) 3.--[ The Scribes and Pharisees. ] This is the only place in St.
John’s Gospel where He mentions the “Scribes” at all. He names the Pharisees twenty times (sixteen times alone and four times in conjunction with the chief priests). This fact is thought by some to be an argument against the genuineness of the passage, but without just cause. St. Mark, in his Gospel, speaks twelve times of the Pharisees and only twice mentions the Scribes in conjunction with them. Moreover, this is the only occasion recorded in St. John when a formal attempt was made to entrap our Lord by a subtle question.
That being so, there may be a good reason why the Scribes should be mentioned as well as the Pharisees as principal agents in the attempt. [ Brought...woman...adultery. ] It seems not improbable that this attempt to ensnare our Lord was one result of His enemies’ failure to apprehend Him during the feast. Defeated in their effort to meet Him in argument, or to apprehend Him in the absence of any legal charge, they tried next to entrap Him into committing Himself in some way and so giving them a handle against Him. No times was to be lost.
They had failed yesterday, and found their own officers unwilling to apprehend our Lord. They resolved to try another plan today.
They would ensnare our Lord into doing something illegal or indiscreet and then get an advantage over Him. [ Set her in the midst. ] This means in the middle of a ring or circle composed of themselves and their followers, our Lord and His disciples, and the crowd listening to His teaching. 4.--[They said...woman was taken in adultery, etc. ] It throws some light on this charge to remember what immense crowds came up to Jerusalem at the great public feasts, and especially at the feast of tabernacles.
At such a season, when every house was crowded as at a fair time, when many consequently slept in the open air and no small disorder probably ensued, we can well understand that such a sin as a breach of the seventh commandment would be very likely to be committed. 5.--[ Now Moses...commanded...stoned. ] This is the legitimate conclusion of the two texts, Lev. xx.10 and Deut. xxii.22, when compared. There seems no ground for the comment of some writers that Moses did not command an adulteress to be put to death by stoning.
It is worth notice that the expression “Moses in the law” is not used either by Matthew, Mark, or Luke. But it is used by St. John both here and at chapter i.45. [ But what do you say? ] This would be more literally rendered, “ Therefore what do you say?” The Greek word rendered “but” by our translators is hardly ever so rendered in the New Testament, and in most places is either “therefore,” “then,” “so,” “ now,” or “and.” John ix.18 and Acts xxv.4 are the only parallel cases.
Ecolampadius thinks the Pharisees were especially sore and irritated because our Lord had said that “publicans and harlots” would enter the kingdom of God before Pharisees. (Matt. xxi.31.) 6.--[ This they said tempting...accuse Him. ] In what did this temptation consist? How did the Jews hope to find ground for an accusation? The answer seems easy. If our Lord replied that the woman ought NOT to be stoned, they would have denounced Him to the people as one that poured contempt on the law.
If our Lord, on the contrary, replied that the woman ought to be stoned, they would have accused Him to the Romans as one who usurped the prerogative of putting criminals to death. See John xviii.31: “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” Moreover, they would have published everywhere our Lord’s inconsistency in offering salvation to publicans and harlots and yet condemning to death an adulteress for one transgression.
Let it be noticed that subtle ensnaring questions like these—putting the person questioned into an apparent dilemma or difficulty, whatever answer he might give—seem to have been favorite weapons of the Jews. The Pharisees’ question about “tribute money,” the lawyer’s question about “the great commandment of the law,” and the Sadducees’ question about “the resurrection,” are parallel cases. The question before us is therefore quite in keeping with other places in the Gospels. Augustine remarks: “They said in themselves, ‘Let us put before Him a woman caught in adultery.
Let us ask what is ordered in the law concerning her. If He shall say stone her, He will not have the repute of gentleness. If He gives sentence to let her go, He will not keep righteousness.’” Euthymius says the same. [ But Jesus stooped down, etc. ] Our Lord’s intention in this remarkable sentence can hardly admit of doubt.
He declined to answer the subtle question put to Him, partly because He knew the malicious motives of the questioners, partly because He had always announced that He did not come to be “a judge and divider” among men or to interfere in the slightest degree with the administration of the law. His silence was equivalent to a refusal to answer. But the peculiar action that our Lord employed in “writing with His finger on the ground” is undeniably a difficulty. St.
John gives no explanation of the action, and we are left to conjecture both why our Lord wrote and what He wrote. (1) Some think, as Bede, Rupertus, and Lampe, that our Lord wrote on the ground the texts of Scripture which settled the question brought before Him, as the seventh commandment, and Lev. xx.10 and Duet. xxii.22. The action would then imply, “Why do ye ask Me?
What is written in the law, that law which God wrote with His own finger as I am writing now?” (2) Some think, as Lightfoot and Burgon, that our Lord meant to refer to the law of Moses for the trial of jealousy, in which an accused woman was obliged to drink water into which dust from the floor of the tabernacle or temple had been put by the priest. (Num. v.17.) The action would then imply, “Has the law for trying such a one as this been tried? Look at the dust on which I am writing.
Has the woman been placed before the priest and drunk of the dust and water?” (3) Some think, as Augustine, Melancthon, Brentius, Toletus, and á Lapide, that our Lord’s action was a silent reference to the text Jer. xvii.13: “They that depart from Me shall be written in the earth.” (4) One rationalist writer suggests that our Lord “stooped down” from feelings of modesty, as if ashamed of the sight before Him and of the story told to Him.
The idea is preposterous and entirely out of harmony with our Lord’s public demeanor. (5) Some think, as Euthymius, Calvin, Rollock, Chemnitius, Diodati, Flavius, Piscator, Grotius, Poole, and Hutcheson, that our Lord did not mean anything at all by this writing on the ground, and that He only signified that He would give no answer and would neither listen to nor interfere in such matters as the one brought before Him.
Calvin remarks: “Christ intended, by doing nothing, to show how unworthy they were of being heard; just as if anyone, while another was speaking to him, were to draw lines on the wall or to turn his back or to show by any other sign that He was not attending to what was said.” I must leave the reader to choose which solution he prefers. To my eyes, I confess, there are difficulties in each view. If I must select one, I prefer the last of the five as the simplest. Quesnell remarks: “We never read that Jesus Christ wrote but once in his life.
Let men learn from hence never to write but when it is necessary or useful, and to do it with humility and modesty, on a principle of charity and not of malice.” 7.--[So when they continued...said to them. ] The Scribes and Pharisees seem to have been determined to have an answer, and to have made it necessary for our Lord to speak at last. But His first silence and significant refusal to attend were a plain proof to all around that He did not wish to interfere with the office of the magistrate and had not come to be a judge of offenses against the law.
If they got an opinion from Him about this case, they could not say that He gave it willingly but that it was extorted from Him by much importunity. [ He who is without sin...stone at her. ] This solemn and weighty sentence is a striking example of our Lord’s perfect wisdom. He referred His questioners to Scripture—Deut. xvii.7 says, “The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death.” It sent their minds home to their own private lives.
“Whatever the woman may deserve, are you the people to find fault with her?” It neither condemned nor justified the adulteress and yet showed our Lord’s reverence for the law of Moses. “I decline to pronounce sentence on this woman because I am not the judge. You know yourselves what the law is in such cases as well as I do. You have no right to assume that I do not reverence the law as much as yourselves. But since you profess to honor the law of Moses so much, I remind you that this same law requires the witnesses to be the executioners.
Now are you the persons who ought to punish this woman, however guilty she may be? Do you yourselves come before Me with clear consciences about the seventh commandment?” Many think that when our Lord said, “He that is without sin,” He meant the expression to be taken in a general sense. I cannot hold this view. It would involve the awkward conclusion that no one could be a judge at all or punish a criminal, because no one is altogether and absolutely “without sin.” I am decidedly of the opinion that our Lord referred to sin against the seventh commandment.
There is too much reason to think that such sin was very common among the Jews in our Lord’s time. The expression “an adulterous generation” (Matt. xii.39; xvi.4; and Mark viii.38) is full of meaning. (See also Rom. ii.22, Luke xviii.11, and James iv.4.) [ And again He stooped down, etc. ] This repeated act would greatly add to the weighty solemnity of the sentence which had just fallen from our Lord’s lips. “I have given my opinion; now what are you going to do?
I wait for your reply.” 9.--[ And those who heard...conscience. ] This sentence seems to me to confirm the opinion that when our Lord said “He who is without sin,” He referred to sin against the seventh commandment. A general charge would hardly have produced the effect here described. A charge of breaking the seventh commandment would be just such a one as a man would shrink from, if made publicly. The sin is peculiarly one which brings with it afterwards a certain sense of shame. It is commonly a deed of darkness and one in secret, and the doer of it dreads the light.
The power of conscience stands out here in a very striking manner. It is a part of man’s inward nature which is far too little remembered by ministers and teachers. Fallen and corrupt as man is, we must never forget that God has left him a certain sense of right and wrong, called conscience. It has no power to save or convert or lead to Christ. But it has a power to accuse and prick and witness.
Such texts as Rom. ii.15 and 2 Cor. iv.2 should be carefully considered. [ Went out one by one, etc. ] The words “eldest” and “last” in this sentence are in the plural number, which does not appear in the English version. The oldest would probably have the greatest number of sins on their minds. [ Jesus was left alone, and the woman, etc. ] This must, of course, mean that the Scribes and Pharisees who accused the woman were all gone away. It does not necessarily follow that the crowd of hearers who were about our Lord when the case was brought to Him had gone away.
They must have stood by and seen and heard all that passed. 10.--[ When Jesus had raised Himself up, etc. ] How long the pause must have been during which our Lord stooped down and wrote on the ground a second time, we are not told. But it must probably have been several minutes. When it says that our Lord “saw none but the woman,” it must mean “none of the party who came and interrupted His teaching, except the woman.” The accusers had disappeared, and the accused alone remained. The question that our Lord put to the woman must have been for the satisfaction of the crowd around.
Let them mark, from the question and answer, that the case had fallen to the ground. No evidence was offered. No accuser appeared. No sentence therefore could be pronounced, and none was needed. 11.--[ She said, No man, Lord. ] We may observe here that our Lord, with merciful consideration, did not ask the woman whether she wa guilty or not. Thus she could with truth reply to His question and yet not incriminate herself. [Jesus said...Neither do I...sin no more. ] The mingled kindness and perfect wisdom of this sentence deserve special notice.
Our Lord says nothing of the question whether the woman deserved punishment and what kind of punishment. He simply says, “I do not condemn you.” It is not my province or office to judge or pronounce any sentence.” Nor yet does He tell the woman that she may go away without stain or blemish on her character. On the contrary, He implies that she has sinned and was guilty. But in the absence of witnesses, she might go away clear of punishment. Nor yet does He say, “Go in peace,” as in Luke vii.50 and viii.48.
“Go,” He says, “and sin no more. ” How anyone, in the face of this text, can say that our Lord palliates and condones the woman’s sin it is rather hard to understand. That He refused to condemn her is clear and plain, because it was not His office. That He ignored or connived at her sin, as Hengstenberg says (in his argument against the genuineness of the whole passage), can never be proved. The very last words show what He thought of her case: “Sin no more.” She had sinned and had only escaped from lack of evidence. Let her remember that and “sin no more.” Augustine remarks: “How Lord?
Do you then favor sin? Not so, assuredly. Mark what He says. ‘Go: henceforth sin no more.’ You see them that the Lord condemned, but He condemned sin, not man. For were He a favorer of sin, He would say, ‘Neither will I condemn you. Go: live as you will.’” The remark of Euthymius, that our Lord considered the public shame and exposure sufficient punishment for the woman’s sin, is thoroughly unsatisfactory and not warranted by anything in the context.
The view of Bullinger and some others, that one principal object of the passage is to teach our Lord’s mercy and readiness to pardon great sinners, appears to me quite destitute of foundation. Christ’s abounding mercy is a great truth, but not the truth of this passage. There seems no parallel between this woman and the Samaritan woman in John iv. Poole observes that our Lord does not merely say, “Commit adultery no more, but, Sin no more.
No partial repentance or sorrow for any particular sin will suffice a penitent that hopes for mercy from God, but a leaving off all sin, of what kind soever it is.” JOHN 8:12-20 Jesus as the Light of the World Then Jesus spoke out again, "I am the light of the world. The one who follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." So the Pharisees objected, "You testify about yourself; your testimony is not true!" Jesus answered, "Even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true, because I know where I came from and where I am going.
But you people do not know where I came from or where I am going. You people judge by outward appearances; I do not judge anyone. But if I judge, my evaluation is accurate, because I am not alone when I judge, but I and the Father who sent me do so together. It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I testify about myself and the Father who sent me testifies about me." Then they began asking him, "Who is your father?" Jesus answered, "You do not know either me or my Father.
If you knew me you would know my Father too." (Jesus spoke these words near the offering box while he was teaching in the temple courts. No one seized him because his time had not yet come.) The conversation between our Lord and the Jews, which begins with these verses, is full of difficulties.
The connection between one part and another, and the precise meaning of some of the expressions which fell from our Lord's lips, are "things hard to be understood." In passages like this it is true wisdom to acknowledge the great imperfection of our spiritual vision, and to be thankful if we can glean a few handfuls of truth. Let us notice, for one thing, in these verses, what the Lord Jesus says of Himself. He proclaims, "I am the light of the world." These words imply that the world needs light, and is naturally in a dark condition.
It is so in a moral and spiritual point of view--and it has been so for nearly 6,000 years. In ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, in modern England, France, and Germany, the same report is true. The vast majority of men neither see nor understand the value of their souls, the true nature of God, nor the reality of a world to come! Notwithstanding all the discoveries of art and science, "darkness still covers the earth, and gross darkness the people." (Isaiah. 60:2.) For this state of things, the Lord Jesus Christ declares Himself to be the only remedy.
He has risen, like the sun, to diffuse light, and life, and peace, and salvation, in the midst of a dark world. He invites all who want spiritual help and guidance to turn to Him, and take Him for their leader. What the sun is to the whole solar system--the center of light, and heat, and life, and fertility--that He has come into the world to be to sinners. Let this saying sink down into our hearts. It is weighty and full of meaning. False lights on every side invite man's attention in the present day.
Reason, philosophy, earnestness, liberalism, conscience, and the voice of the Church, are all, in their various ways, crying loudly that they have got "the light" to show us. Their advocates know not what they say. Wretched are those who believe their high professions! He only is the true light who came into the world to save sinners, who died as our substitute on the cross, and sits at God's right hand to be our Friend. "In His light we shall see light." (Psalm 36:9.) Let us notice, secondly, in these verses, what the Lord Jesus says of those who follow Him.
He promises, "He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." To follow Christ is to commit ourselves wholly and entirely to Him as our only leader and Savior, and to submit ourselves to Him in every matter, both of doctrine and practice. "Following" is only another word for "believing." It is the same act of soul, only seen from a different point of view. As Israel followed the pillar of cloud and fire in all their journeyings--moving whenever it moved, stopping whenever it tarried, asking no questions, marching on in faith--so must a man deal with Christ.
He must "follow the Lamb wherever He goes." (Rev. 14:4.) He that so follows Christ shall "not walk in darkness." He shall not be left in ignorance, like the many around him. He shall not grope in doubt and uncertainty, but shall see the way to heaven, and know where he is going. He "shall have the light of life." He shall feel within him the light of God's countenance shining on him. He shall find in his conscience and understanding a living light, which nothing can altogether quench.
The lights with which many please themselves shall go out in the valley of the shadow of death, and prove worse than useless. But the light that Christ gives to every one that follows Him shall never fail. Let us notice, lastly, in these verses, what the Lord Jesus says of His enemies. He tells the Pharisees that, with all their pretended wisdom, they were ignorant of God. "You neither know Me nor my Father--if you had known Me, you would have known my Father also." Ignorance like this is only too common.
There are thousands who are conversant with many branches of human learning, and can even argue and reason about religion, and yet know nothing really about God. That there is such a Being as God they fully admit. But His character and attributes revealed in Scripture, His holiness, His purity, His justice, His perfect knowledge, His unchangeableness, are things with which they are little acquainted. In fact, the subject of God's nature and character makes them uncomfortable, and they do not like to dwell upon it. The grand secret of knowing God is to draw near to Him through Jesus Christ.
Approached from this side, there is nothing that need make us afraid. Viewed from this standpoint, God is the sinner's friend. God, out of Christ, may well fill us with alarm. How shall we dare to look at so high and holy a Being? God in Christ is full of mercy, grace, and peace. His law's demands are satisfied. His holiness need not make us afraid. Christ in one word is the way and door, by which we must ever draw near to the Father. If we know Christ, we shall know the Father.
It is His own word--"No man comes unto the Father but by Me." (John 14:6.) Ignorance of Christ is the root of ignorance of God. Wrong at the starting-point, the whole sum of a man's religion is full of error. And now, where are we ourselves? Do we know? Many are living and dying in a kind of fog. Where are we going? Can we give a satisfactory answer? Hundreds go out of existence in utter uncertainty. Let us leave nothing uncertain that concerns our everlasting salvation.
Christ, the light of the world, is for us as well as for others, if we humbly follow Him, cast our souls on Him, and become His disciples. Let us not, like thousands, waste our lives in doubting, and arguing, and reasoning, but simply follow. The child that says. "I will not learn anything until I know something," will never learn at all. The man that says. "I must first understand everything before I become a Christian," will die in his sins. Let us begin by "following," and then we shall find light. Technical Notes: 12. Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, I am the light of the world.
He who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. 13. The Pharisees therefore said to him, You bear witness of yourself; your witness is not true. 14. Jesus answered and said to them, Though I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but ye do not know where I come from and where I am going. 15. Ye judge according to the flesh; I judge no man. 16. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me. 17.
It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18. I am one who bears witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me. 19. Then they said to him, Where is your Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me nor my Father. If ye had known me, ye should have known by Father also. 20. These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; and no man laid hands on him, for his hour had not yet come.
Before beginning the notes on this section, I will ask anyone who doubts the genuineness of the first eleven verses of the chapter to consider how very awkwardly the twelfth verse would come in if it immediately followed the 52nd verse of the seventh chapter. The omission of the disputed passage about the woman taken in adultery, however necessary some may think it, undoubtedly makes a breach in the connection which cannot be reasonably explained.
Omit the passage, and our Lord appears to break in upon the angry council of the Pharisees, foiled in their attempt to take Him and vexed with Nicodemus for pleading for Him. This is surely very improbable, to say the least. Retain the disputed passage, on the other hand, and the whole connection seems plain. A night has passed away. A sunrise is over the whole party assembled in the temple court.
And our Lord beings again to teach by proclaiming a beautiful truth appropriate to the occasion: “I am the light of the world.” 12.--[ Then Jesus spoke to them again. ] The expression “spoke again” exactly fits in with the preceding narrative. It carries us back to the 2nd verse, where we read that our Lord was sitting in the temple and teaching the people when the woman taken in adultery was brought before Him. This, naturally, interrupted and broke off His teaching for a time. But when the case was settled and both accuser and accused had gone away, He resumed His teaching.
Then the expression comes in most naturally, “He spoke again.” Once admit that the narrative of the woman is not genuine and must be left out, and there is really nothing with which to connect the words before us. We are obliged to look back as far as the 37th verse of the last chapter. The same remark applies to the word “them.” The natural application of it is to “the people” whom our Lord was teaching in the 2nd verse when the Scribes and Pharisees interrupted Him.
Leave out the narrative of the woman, and there is nothing to which the word “them” can be referred except the angry council of the Pharisees at the end of the seventh chapter. [ I am the light of the world. ] In this glorious expression our Lord, we cannot doubt, declares Himself to be the promised Messiah or Savior of whom the prophets had spoken.
The Jews would remember the words, “I will give Thee for a light of the Gentiles.” (Isa. xlii.6, xlix.6.) So also Simeon had said He would be “a light to lighten the Gentiles.” (Luke ii.32.) Why He used this figure and what He had in His mind in choosing it, is a point on which commentators do not agree. That He referred to something before His eyes is highly probable and in keeping with His usual mode of teaching. (1) Some think, as Aretius, Musculus, Ecolampadius, Bullinger, and Bp. Andrews, that He referred to the sun, then rising while He spoke.
What the sun was to the earth, that He came to be to mankind. (2) Some think, as Stier, Olshausen, Besser, D. Brown, and Alford, that He referred to the great golden lamps which used to be kept burning in the temple courts. He was the true light, able to enlighten men’s hearts and minds; they were nothing but ornaments, or at most, emblems. (3) Some think, as Cyril and Lampe, that He referred to the pillar of cloud and fire which gave light to the Israelites and guided them through the wilderness. He was the true guide to heaven through the wilderness of this world.
The first of these three views seems to me most probable and most in harmony with the context. Rupertus remarks that two grand declarations of Christ followed each other on two successive days at Jerusalem. On the last day of the feast He said, “If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink.” (John vii.37.) The very next day He said, “I am the light of the world.” [ He who follows Me. ] This means “following” as a disciple, servant, traveler, soldier, or sheep.
What the teacher is to the scholar, the master to the servant, the guide to the traveler, the general to the soldier, the shepherd to the sheep, that is Christ to true Christians. “Following” is the same as “believing.” See Matt. xvi.24, xix.21, John x.27, xii.26. Following here, we must always remember, does not mean copying and imitating, but trusting, putting faith in another. Musculus and Henry observe that it is of no use that Christ is the light of the world if we do not follow Him. “Following” is the point on which all turns. It is not enough to gaze upon and admire the light.
We must “follow” it. [ Shall not walk in darkness. ] The expression “darkness” in the New Testament sometimes denotes sin, as 1 John i.6, and sometimes ignorance and unbelief, as 1 Thes. v.4. Some have thought that our Lord referred to the woman taken in adultery and to such deeds of moral darkness as she had been guilty of.
The meaning would then be, “He who follows Me and becomes my disciple shall be delivered from the power of darkness and shall no longer commit such sins as you have just heard of.” Others, on the contrary, think that our Lord only referred to the intellectual darkness and ignorance of man’s mind, which He had come to illuminate. The meaning would then be, “He who follows Me as my disciple shall no longer live in ignorance and darkness about his soul.” I decidedly prefer this second view.
The promise seems to me to have a special reference to the ignorance in which the Jews were about everything concerning Christ, as shown in the preceding chapter. [ Shall have the light of life. ] This expression means, “He shall possess living light. He shall have spiritual light, as much superior to the light of any lamp or even of the sun, as the living water offered to the Samaritan woman was superior to the water of Jacob’s well.” The spiritual light that Christ gives is independent of time or place, is not affected by sickness or death, burns on forever and cannot be quenched.
He who has it shall feel light within his mind, heart, and conscience; shall see light before him on the grave, death, and the world to come; shall have light shining round him, guiding him in his journey through life, and shall reflect light by his conduct, ways, and conversation. Chrysostom thinks that one purpose of this promise was to draw on and encourage Nicodemus, and to remind him of the former saying Jesus had used about light and darkness, John iii.20,21.
Augustine remarks on this verse: “What it is our duty to do, Christ puts in the present tense; what He promises to them that do it, He has denoted by a future time. He who follows now shall have hereafter , who follows now by faith shall have hereafter by sight. When by sight?
When we shall have come to the vision yonder; when this night of ours shall have passed away.” I should be sorry, however, to confine the promise to so limited an interpretation as this; and though I have no doubt it will only be completely fulfilled at the second advent, I still think that it is partially and spiritually fulfilled now to every believer. Calvin remarks, that in this verse “Benefit is offered not only to one person or another, but to the whole world.
By this universal statement, Christ intended to remove the distinction not only between Jews and Gentiles but between learned and ignorant, between persons of distinction and common people.” He also says, “In the latter clause of the verse, the perpetuity of light is stated in express terms. We ought not to fear, therefore, lest it leave us in the middle of our journey.” Brentius remarks that if a man could continually “follow” the sun, he would always be in broad daylight in every part of the globe. So it is with Christ and believers. Always following Him, they will always have light.
In this most precious and interesting verse, there are several things which deserve our special attention. (a) We should note the great assumed truth which lies underneath the whole verse. That truth is the fall of man. The world is in a state of moral and spiritual darkness. Men in their natural state know nothing rightly of themselves, God, holiness, or heaven. They need light. (b) We should note the full and bold manner of our Lord’s declaration. He proclaims Himself to be “the light of the world.” None could truly say this but One, who knew that He was very God.
No Prophet or Apostle ever said it. (c) We should note how our Lord says that He is “the light of the world.” He is not for a few only, but for all mankind. Like the sun, He shines for the benefit of all, though all may not value or use His light. (d) We should note the man to whom the promise is made. It is to him “who follows Me.” To follow a leader—if we are blind, ignorant, in the dark, or out of the way—requires trust and confidence. This is just what the Lord Jesus requires of sinners who feel their sins and want to be saved.
Let them commit themselves to Christ, and He will lead them safe to heaven. If a man can do nothing for himself, he cannot do better than trust another and follow him. (e) We should note the thing promised to him who follows Jesus: viz., deliverance from darkness and possession of light. This is precisely what Christianity brings to a believer. He feels, and sees, and has a sense of possessing something he had not before.
God “shines into his heart and gives light.” He is “called out of darkness into marvelous light.” (2 Cor. iv.4-6, 1 Pet. ii.9.) Melancthon thinks that this verse is only a brief summary of what our Lord said, and must be regarded as the text or keynote of a long discourse.
Bullinger remarks how useful it is to commit to memory and store up great sentences and maxims of Christ, list this verse. 13.--[ The Pharisees therefore said to Him. ] These “Pharisees” were probably some of the multitude who had come together to hear our Lord’s teaching, and not those who brought the woman taken in adultery to Him.
The Pharisees were a powerful and widely-spread sect, and members of their body would be found in every crowd of hearers, ready to raise objections and find fault with anything our Lord said wherever they thought there was an opportunity. [ You bear witness of Yourself. ] This would be more literally rendered, “You do witness about Yourself.” [ Your witness is not true. ] This means, “Your testimony is not trustworthy and deserving of attention.” The Pharisees evidently could not mean “Your testimony is false.” They only meant that it was an acknowledged principle among men that a man’s testimony to his own character is comparatively worthless.
Our Lord Himself had admitted this on a former occasion, when He said before the Council, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” (John v.31.) Solomon had said, “Let another praise thee and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.” (Prov. xxvii.2.) 14.--[Jesus answered...though I bear witness...true. ] Our Lord meant by these words that even if He did testify of Himself and make assertions about His own office and mission, His testimony ought not to be despised and disregarded as not trustworthy.
Whether His enemies would hear it or not, what He said deserved credit and was worthy of all acceptation. “The testimony that I bear is not the testimony of a common witness, but of one who is thoroughly to be depended on.” [ For I know where I came from, etc. ] Our Lord here gives a solemn and weighty reason why His testimony to Himself ought to be reverently received by the Jews and not refused. That reason was His divine nature and mission.
He came to them and stood before them not as a common prophet and an everyday witness, but as one who knew the mysterious truth that He was the Divine Messiah who should come into the world. “I know where I came from: I came forth from the Father to be His Messenger to a lost world. I know where I go: I am about to return to my Father when I have finished His work, and to sit down at His right hand after my ascension. Knowing all this, I have a right to say that my testimony is trustworthy. You, on the other hand, are utterly ignorant about Me.
You neither know nor believe My Divine origin nor mission. Justly, therefore, I may say that it matters little whether you think my testimony deserving of credit or not. Your eyes are blinded, and your opinion is worthless.” Chrysostom observes that our Lord “might have said, I am God.
But He ever mingles lowly words with sublime, and even these He veils.” Bucer, Chemnitius, and Quesnel observe that our Lord’s argument is like that of an ambassador from a king, who says, “I know my commission and who sent Me, and therefore I claim attention to my message.” Webster paraphrases the sentence: “I speak in the full consciousness of my previous and future existence in the glory of the Father; and I therefore feel and assert my right to be believed on my own testimony. If you knew where I came from and where I go, you would not want any other witness than myself.
And this you might know if you were spiritual; but you are carnal and judge after the flesh.” 15.--[ Ye judge after the flesh. ] The meaning of this sentence seems to be, “You judge and decide everything on fleshly and worldly principles, according to the outward appearance. You estimate Me and my mission according to what you see with the eye. You presume to despise Me and set light by Me, because there is no outward grandeur and dignity about Me. Judging everything by such a false standard, you see no beauty in Me and my ministry.
You have already set Me down in your own minds as an impostor, and worthy to die. Your minds are full of carnal prejudices, and hence my testimony seems worthless to you.” Calvin thinks that “flesh” is here used in opposition to “spirit,” and that the meaning is, “You judge on carnal wicked principles;” and not, You judge after the outward appearance. Most commentators think that the expression refers to our Lord’s humble appearance. [ I judge no man. ] In these words our Lord puts in strong contrast the difference between Himself and His enemies.
“Unlike you, I condemn and pass judgment on no man, even on the worst of sinners. It is not my present business and office, though it will be one day. I did not come into the world to condemn, but to save.” (John iii.17.) It is useless, however, to deny that the connection between the beginning and end of the verse is not clear. It seems to turn entirely on the twice-repeated word “judge,” and the word appears to be used in two different senses.
Some have thought that our Lord refers to the case of the woman taken in adultery and contrasts His own refusal to be a judge in her case with the malicious readiness of the Pharisees to judge Him and condemn Him even when innocent. “I refuse to condemn even a guilty sinner.
You, on the contrary, are ready to condemn Me in whom you can find no fault, on carnal and worldly principles.” Some, as Bullinger, Jansenius, Trapp, Stier, Gill, Pearce, and Barnes, have thought that the sentence before us means, “I judge no man according to the flesh, as you do.” But this view does not seem to harmonize with the following verse. Bishop Hall paraphrases the verse thus: “Ye presume to judge according to your own carnal affections and follow your outward senses in the judgment ye pass on Me.
In the meantime ye will not endure Me, who do not challenge or reconcile that power which I might in judging you.” 16.--[ And yet if I judge, my judgment, etc. ] This verse seems to come in parenthetically. It appears intended to remind the Jews that if our Lord did not assume the office of a judge now, it was not because He was not qualified. The sense is as follows: “Do not however suppose, because I say that I judge no man, that I am not qualified to judge. On the contrary, if I do pass judgment on any person’s actions or opinions, my judgment is perfectly correct and trustworthy.
For I am not alone. There is an inseparable union between Me and the Father who sent Me. When I judge, it is not I alone, but the Father with Me who judges. Hence, therefore, my judgment is and must be trustworthy.” The reader should compare John v.19 and 30. The doctrine is the same. That mighty truth—the inseparable union of the Father and the Son—is the only key that unlocks the deep expression before us. Our Lord’s frequent reference to that truth, in St.
John’s Gospel, should be carefully noted. 17.--[ It is also written, etc. ] Our Lord, in this verse, reminds the Jews of an admitted principle of the law of Moses—that the testimony of two witnesses deserved credit. (Deut. xvii.6, xix.15.) “You will admit that the testimony of two witnesses deserves credit at any rate, although one witness alone may prove nothing. Now admitting this, hear what testimony I can adduce to the divine character of my mission.” Let it be noted that where our Lord says “in your law,” He did not mean that He was above the law and did not recognize its authority.
He only intended, by laying stress on the word “your,” to remind the Jews that it was their own honored law of Moses (to which they were continually professing to refer) that laid down the great principle to which He was about to direct their attention. “It is written in the law that you speak of so much, and that you so often quote.” It admits of consideration whether our Lord did not mean to use the expression “of two men” emphatically. It may be that He would put in strong contrast the testimony of two mere men , with the testimony of Himself and His Father in heaven.
It is like the expression, “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.” (1 John v.9.) At any rate, the word rendered “men” is emphatic in the Greek. 18.--[ I am one, etc. ] The connection and sense of this verse are as follows: “Admitting that the testimony of two witnesses is trustworthy, I bid you observe that there are two witnesses to my Divine nature and mission. I myself, the Eternal Son, am one of these witnesses; I am ever testifying concerning myself. The Father who sent Me into the world is the other witness; He is ever testifying concerning Me.
He has testified by the mouth of the Prophets in the Old Testament. He is testifying now by the miraculous works which He is continually doing by my hands. The reader should compare John v.31-39. There is undeniably something very remarkable about this verse. It seems a singular condescension on our Lord’s part to use the train of argument that it contains. The true solution probably lies in the very high dignity of the two witnesses, whom He places together before the Jews. The Greek words beginning the verse are peculiar and can hardly be rendered in English.
They will almost bear to be translated, “I, the great I am, am the person witnessing about myself; and the Father,” etc. Chrysostom and Theophylact both remark that our Lord here claims equality of honor with the Father by putting His testimony and the Father’s side by side.
Poole remarks: “Our Savior must not be understood here to distinguish himself from His Father in respect of His Divine being, for so He and His Father are one; but in respect of His office as He was sent, and His Father was He who sent Him.” 19.--[ Then they said...Where is your Father? ] This question of the Jews was probably not asked in a tone of serious inquiry or from real desire to know. It was more likely sneering and sarcastic.
Calvin observes: “By these words they meant that they did not so highly value Christ’s Father as to ascribe anything to the Son on His account.” Hengstenberg bids us observe that they did not ask, “Who is thy Father?” but, “Where is thy Father?” It sounds as if they looked round in contempt, as if scornfully expecting an earthly father to stand forth and testify to Christ. [ Jesus answered, Ye neither know Me nor my Father. ] Our Lord here tells His enemies that they were ignorant both of Himself and of His Father in heaven.
With all their pride of knowledge and fancied high attainments, they knew nothing rightly either of the Father or the Son. The expression certainly favors the idea that the expression “Ye know Me” (John vii.28), must be taken as a slight sarcasm. Let it be noted that great familiarity with the letter of Scripture is perfectly compatible with gross spiritual darkness. The Pharisees knew the Old Testament prophecies well; but they neither knew God nor Christ. [ If ye had known Me...my Father also. ] These words teach plainly that ignorance of Christ and ignorance of God are inseparably connected.
The man who thinks he knows anything rightly of God while he is ignorant of Christ is completely deceived. The God whom he thinks he knows is not the God of the Bible, but a God of his own fancy’s invention. At any rate, he can have a most imperfect conception of God but little idea of His perfect holiness, justice, and purity. The words teach also that Christ is the way by which we must come to the knowledge of God. In Him, through Him, and by Him, we may come boldly into the Father’s presence and behold His high attributes without fear.
He who would have saving, soul-satisfying religion and become a friend and servant of God, must begin with Christ. Knowing Him as his Savior and Advocate, he will find it easy and pleasant to know God the Father. Those who reject Christ, like the Jews, will live and die in ignorance of God however learned and clever they may be. But the poorest, humblest man who lays hold on Christ and begins with Him, shall find out enough about God to make him happy forever. In the matter of becoming acquainted with God, it is the first step to know Jesus Christ, the Mediator, and to believe on Him.
Augustine and others think that the thought here is the same as that in the words spoken to Philip, when in reply to Philip’s question (“Lord, show us the Father”), Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” (John xiv.8,9.) I think this is at least doubtful. The thing that Philip needed to know was the precise relation between the Father and the Son.
The thing that the Jews needed was a right knowledge of God altogether. 20.--[ These words spoke Jesus...temple. ] This sentence seems meant to mark a pause or break in the discourse, and to show also how publicly and openly our Lord proclaimed His Messiahship. It was in a well known part of the temple called the treasury that He declared Himself to be “the light of the world,” and defended His testimony.
Calvin thinks that “the treasury was a part of the temple where the sacred offerings were laid up, and therefore a much frequented place.” [ No man laid hands on Him. ] The remark made on a former occasion applies here. (John vii.30.) A divine restraint was laid on our Lord’s enemies. They felt unable to lift a finger against Him. They had the will to hurt, but not the power. [ His hour had not yet come. ] The same deep thought that we remarked in ch. vii.30 comes up here again.
There was a certain fixed time during which our Lord’s ministry was to last, and till that time was expired His enemies could not touch Him. When the time had expired, our Lord said, “This is your hour, and the power of darkness.” (Luke xxii.53.) The expression should be carefully noticed and remembered by all true Christians. It teaches that the wicked can do no harm to Christ and His members until God gives them permission. Not a hair of a believer’s head can be touched until God in His sovereign wisdom allows it. It teaches that all times are in God’s hand.
There is an allotted “hour” both for doing and for suffering. Till the hour comes for dying, No Christian will die. When the hour comes, nothing can prevent his death. These are comfortable truths and deserve attention. Christ’s members are safe and immortal till their work is done. When they suffer, it is because God wills it and sees it good. Quesnel remarks: “A man enjoys the greatest peace of mind when he has once settled himself in a firm and steadfast belief of God’s providence and an absolute dependence upon His design and will.”