Chapter 7: “Abraham rejoiced to see My day” John 8

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

“Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad” John 8.56

by Walter A. Boyd, N. Ireland

JESUS, THE ARBITER OF THE LAW OF MOSES – vv.1-11
The Teacher’s Preparation – vv.1-3
The Jewish Leaders’ Proposition – vv.4,5
The Saviour’s Presentation – vv.6-8
The Jewish Leaders’ Predicament – v.9

JESUS, THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD – vv.12-30
Human Standards
Heavenly Origin
Earthly Ignorance
Heaven’s Timetable
The Father’s Pleasure

JESUS, THE MESSIANIC HOPE OF ABRAHAM – vv.31-59

INTRODUCTION

The verse that heads this chapter, with its surrounding context, belongs to the central section of John’s Gospel (chapters 5 to 12), which deals with the growing controversy between the Lord Jesus and the Jewish authorities. This conflict centred on what the authorities regarded as His outrageous claims to be the Son of God, 5.17,21-30; 6.27; 8.16,25, and the Messiah, 7.25-30,41; 8.56. John’s presentation of truth about the Lord Jesus is multi-layered and exceptionally rich with hidden themes, which, if mined, will yield a blessing to careful meditation. The reader of John’s Gospel in particular needs to interpret the text in its obvious meaning and historical setting, and then go beyond that to detect how the various events join together to advance the overall aim of the Gospel to prove that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” 20.31. The context, connections, and consequences of the events recorded by John all harmonise into a beautifully integrated presentation of the Deity and Messiahship of Christ.

John wrote toward the end of the first century, probably between AD 85 and 95. By that time the Temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed and his Jewish readers needed to understand that they did not need a physical Temple, for the fulfilment of all that the Temple stood for was the glorious Person of Whom John wrote: “The Word” Who “dwelt [‘tabernacled’] among us” 1.14. Thus, John presents the miracles of the Saviour as signs that demonstrate His Sonship and Messiahship, and concentrates our minds on the stout refusal of the Jews and their leaders to “believe” Him. For his record of the life of Christ John has selected material that corroborates the Saviour’s claims and should convince his readers that Christ is both the Messiah and the Son of God. By the time John wrote, the ‘Synoptic’ Gospels had been in circulation for some years, therefore he included many details and events not covered by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Chapters 7 and 8 are unique to John’s Gospel and document growing antagonism to the Saviour’s teaching that culminated in His claims to preexist Abraham, which provoked an attempt to stone Him, 8.59.

John chapter 6 concludes with the contrast between many supposed disciples turning back and no longer following the Lord, and Peter’s confession of His Lordship: “We believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” 6.69. That is one of a number of inflection points in the increasing opposition to the Lord Jesus.

Chapter 7 continues that theme of opposition by saying that “after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in Jewry [Judaea], because the Jews sought to kill Him” v.1. Thereafter, the Saviour spoke about being hated, v.7, and when He later returned to the city of Jerusalem the people spoke openly about the authorities seeking to kill Him, v.25. Opposition by the authorities stepped up even more when the Pharisees and chief priests sent their underlings to arrest Him, v.32. As a result of the Saviour preaching about “living water” on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, v.38, the common people spoke openly about Him being “the Prophet” v.40, and “the Christ” v.41. The officers who had been sent to arrest the Lord were rendered powerless by His words for, said they, “Never man spake like this man” v.46.

In chapter 8 the dispute continues and the antagonism of the authorities against the Saviour deepens in spite of the people’s claim that the Saviour is “the Prophet” and therefore “the Christ [Messiah]”. The Saviour’s discourse with the people then develops that theme of Him being the Prophet of Deut.18.15,18, hence John’s references to Moses, 6.31,32, and the Law, 7.19-24; 8.5. The events of our chapter have their roots in the failed attempt by the Jewish authorities to arrest the Saviour, 7.32-45. From chapter 5 onwards the blindness of the Jewish authorities led to a hardening attitude among them until “they sought to kill Him” 7.1. Chapter 7 deals with three separate discourses and identifies three different audiences in which the Saviour dealt with His claims of Deity: “the Jews” v.15, “some of them of Jerusalem” v.25, and “officers” v.32, sent by the Pharisees and chief priests. Chapter 8 continues that controversy, and as in chapter 7 there are three audiences involved: it opens with a challenge from “the scribes and Pharisees” v.3, continues with discourses with “the Jews” in general, v.22, and again at vv.48,52,57, and more specifically “those Jews which believed on Him” v.31. The Saviour predicts the culmination of their controversy by acknowledging that their hatred of Him will result in His death, v.28, but in that death the Father will vindicate Him, v.29. The ‘success’ of their opposition will be short lived and costly for them.

John does not include many direct quotations from the Old Testament in his Gospel, but in keeping with the Saviour’s invitation to two disciples of John the Baptist to “come and see” 1.39, he records how the Saviour provided visual illustrations of Divine truth. Many of those illustrations are connected with the Tabernacle of Israel – its structure, offerings, and festivals – but that is not the subject of this chapter. John shows that in spite of those illustrations of truth by the Saviour, the Jews in general, and their leaders in particular, were blinded to the truth about Him.

The Saviour’s discussions with those three audiences divide chapter 8 into three main sections, each with its own subject and connection to Moses and his writings:

  • 8.1-11: Jesus as the Arbiter of the Law of Moses, v.5;
  • 8.12-30: Jesus as the Light of the world, connected with the Law of Moses, v.17;
  • 8.31-59: Jesus as the Messianic hope of Abraham, connected with the Pentateuch, v.56.

As the opposition to the Saviour mounts and the Jewish hatred of Him grows throughout these three discourses, their malice moves beyond a desire to kill Him, 7.1, to a blatant attempt in broad daylight to murder Him when He claims His preexistence to Abraham, 8.59. The Jews prided themselves in their spiritual heritage in Moses and the Law and their national heritage in Abraham and the Land, but the Lord Jesus showed Himself to be superior to both, with their true spiritual and national heritage to be in Him.

JESUS, THE ARBITER OF THE LAW OF MOSES – vv.1-11

This incident centres upon a conspiracy by the Jews expressed as “What sayest Thou?” v.5.

The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the most commonly disputed passages in the New Testament. Almost all the modern translations question its integrity, mainly on the grounds of its omission by ‘the most ancient Greek texts’. This author is not qualified to challenge the expertise of textual critics, but would question their refusal to include this incident by pointing out that, firstly, there is substantial internal evidence in the story to suggest that its inclusion easily fits with John’s overall purpose of demonstrating the Messiahship and Deity of Christ. Secondly, the direct reliance upon the Law of Moses by the Jewish authorities in their charge against the woman and by the Saviour in His masterful handling of them, fits neatly within the atmosphere of opposition to Christ that prevailed in Jerusalem. Only the genius of the Son of God could have turned this situation to His advantage and condemned the experts in the Law of Moses as He did. The Saviour’s handling of their trap provides us with a clearer understanding of what might otherwise be an enigmatic incident and how it fits into the wider presentation of truth concerning the Lord Jesus that John is making.

We will look at the elements of the story as it unfolds at the start of chapter 8 and how it influences the other incidents in the chapter. When we understand those two aspects of the story it will strengthen our confidence that vv.1-11 deserve a place in the inspired record in spite of their omission from some manuscripts.

The Teacher’s Preparation – vv.1-3

The Lord Jesus first appears in the story as the Teacher Who had spent the night on the Mount of Olives. Earlier in His ministry He spent a night on a mountain in prayer before choosing His twelve disciples, Lk.6.12. The choices He would make in the morning would have far-reaching effects, and thus He spent the night in prayer. Prior to this incident with the scribes and Pharisees, He had ended the day of preaching with two statements in mind: the assertion by Nicodemus that their Law does not judge a man before it gives him a hearing, 7.50,51, and the words of Jewish leaders that “out of Galilee ariseth no prophet” 7.52. In the morning He is going to use the Law of Moses, referred to by Nicodemus, to prove conclusively that He is indeed the anticipated Prophet of Deut.18.15. It does not stretch the imagination to see the omniscient Saviour contemplating the next day that would begin with a publicly staged challenge to His Deity. And while John does not state it in these terms, it is no surprise that in anticipation of the challenge He would spend the night on the mountain in prayer. It is appropriate that Luke would include the detail of the dependent Man’s prayer before selecting the disciples. However, John does not include the information about the Saviour praying on this occasion, as his emphasis throughout his Gospel is the Son of God in constant communion with the Father. The Jewish leaders likely spent a good part of that night conspiring with the scribes how best to entrap the Saviour so that they might kill Him. The Saviour Who “knew what was in man” 2.25, made prayerful preparation for the trap they would think to spring upon Him: their planned use of this poor woman was no surprise to Him.

After spending the night alone on the mountain, the Saviour returned to the Temple precincts to continue teaching where He had left off the previous day. A crowd soon gathered and He sat down to teach them. The crowd’s attentiveness to the Saviour’s words was soon disturbed by an interruption as the Jewish leaders pushed the adulterous woman between them and the Saviour. They “set her in the midst” v.3, so that there was no way He could avoid the spectacle; there was no apparent escape from their planned entrapment by which they intended to expose the Saviour’s claims to being “the Son of man” 6.62, and the crowd’s acceptance of Him as “the Prophet” 7.40, and “the Christ” 7.41. It was designed by the leaders to be a moment of high drama that would end the career of this Galilean Teacher.

The Jewish Leaders’ Proposition – vv.4,5

Their use of ‘Teacher’ to address the Saviour scarcely hides their contempt for Him. Perhaps they thought it necessary to afford Him that position so that when their imagined plan proved Him to be false, they could charge Him with being a false teacher and thus condemn Him to death, as stipulated by Deut.18.20. Their test case seemed watertight, for it had all the elements necessary to secure a successful conviction of this woman and they were convinced the Saviour would have to agree to her stoning. If He did so, that would ruin His standing among the crowd. If He did not agree to stoning, that would prove Him to be false. To them, this incident had all that was needed for a prima facie case of a breach of the Law of Moses:

  • The offence was indisputable: “taken in the very act” v.4.
  • The witnesses were incontestable: “Moses in the law commanded us” v.5, means they were claiming to be credible witnesses according to Deut.17.6,7.
  • The punishment was irreversible: “Moses … commanded” v.5. In a previous confrontation, the Saviour had not enforced the Law of Moses when, to their minds, He broke the sabbath regulations, 5.10-15, by extending grace to an infirm man. If, as they expected, He extended grace to this adulterous woman that would spring the trap they had set and He would condemn Himself.
  • The judgement was unavoidable: “What sayest Thou?” v.5. The Jewish leaders had no doubts about what He would do in response to their challenge. Had He Himself not said that He had come to save rather than condemn, 3.17? His conversation with and grace towards a Samaritan woman would have been well advertised, chapter 4. He had healed on the sabbath day, chapter 5. To their mind He had disregarded the Law of Moses before and would do so again in this case; He could not avoid it.

The Saviour’s Presentation – vv.6-8

When the Jewish leaders asked the Saviour, “What sayest Thou?” they fully expected that He would answer by making a public declaration.

That answer would be in the presence of a crowd, and they would have the required two or three witnesses to secure His condemnation. The tension mounted, and as they kept demanding an answer, He replied in three stages:

  1. To their first demand of “What sayest Thou?” v.5, He stooped down and in absolute silence wrote on the ground with His finger. You can sense the exasperation of the Jews as they kept asking for His answer, but the Divine Legislator was quietly composed and confidently unflustered, “as though He heard them not” v.6.
  2. Then, eventually, in response to their insistent interrogation, “He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, ‘He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone’” v.7. Not one of them spoke; no-one stepped forward to lift a stone. They had provoked this confrontation, and by a seeming non-response the Saviour had frozen them into inaction as their minds and memories accelerated, throwing their consciences into overdrive.
  3. Finally, in the midst of their embarrassed and awkward silence the Saviour once more “stooped down, and wrote on the ground” v.8. By this stage, the crowd must have been puzzled by the Saviour’s dignified action and amazed at this bizarre behaviour by their leaders after such a bold, assertive entrance.

The Saviour’s action of writing on the ground, combined with His challenge for the one among them without sin to first cast a stone, cut them to their hearts. We are not told what He wrote on the ground, nor is there any profit in speculating. However, we can learn from what the master Teacher said and did by stooping down to write on the ground with His finger. To understand fully what was involved we will identify a number of sub-themes in this chapter that contributed to their unbelief, which created the context for what He said. It is important to note the significance of the words “among you” v.7, for had the Saviour just said, ‘He that is without sin first cast a stone’ it would have meant He would have to stone the woman, for He was the only Person present without sin.

His Claim to be Jehovah

The nub of this ongoing dispute with the Saviour was their refusal to believe that Jesus is Jehovah: “If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins” v.24. The Saviour had first used the Jehovah title (“I AM”) for Himself in 5.43 and has used it frequently from then throughout these chapters of opposition to Him. The scribes would have known that the Law was given to Moses by Jehovah, and here is One Who claims to be that Jehovah. The climax of this stage of the Jews’ opposition was when He said, “Before Abraham was, I am” 8.58, and they lifted stones to stone Him.

The Prominence of the Law of Moses

They said the charges against the woman and the punishment they desired to be meted out were as “Moses in the law commanded” v.5. It is also significant that this is the only time in John’s Gospel where the scribes, the experts in the Law, are mentioned. One commentator says the scribes not being mentioned elsewhere by John confirms that this story is not part of the inspired record. This unique mention does the very opposite, for by the Pharisees bringing the scribes to support them in dealing with this breach of the Law, it draws the attention of a careful reader to John’s mentions of the Law and Moses in these chapters of opposition to the Saviour. The Pharisees thought this was the test case that would trump all others, and as if to bolster their argument they brought the legal experts so that there would be no possibility of the Saviour outwitting the legal ‘heavyweights’.

His Reenactment of the Law

By stooping to write twice with His finger on the ground there is a clear reenactment of what took place when Jehovah gave the two tables of the Law to Moses. The first tables were written by the finger of God, Ex.31.18, and broken by Moses, Ex.32.19, and a second set was written again by God, Ex.34.1. In order to write those tables of the Law “the Lord descended in the cloud” upon Mount Sinai, Ex.34.5. John saw the significance of the Saviour stooping to write twice, just as Jehovah had descended to the mount twice to write the Law. The action of stooping down to write with His finger was as much as saying that He is Jehovah Who wrote the Law, and thus, as the giver of the Law He superseded any command of Moses.

The Ultimate Claims of the Law

The statement “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” v.7, when sandwiched between the two stoops of the Saviour presented claims that the scribes and Pharisees could never reach. “Without sin” has the idea of never having sinned at all: not one breach of the Law of any sort. “Among you” means that this was said to the scribes and Pharisees and not the crowd in general. The “us” of v.5 became the “you” of v.7, which focussed the Lord’s challenge upon the scrupulous scribes and punctilious Pharisees with such accuracy that none of them could speak.

They brought this breach of Deut.22.22 to the Saviour with Deut.17.8 in mind, where a matter too difficult for a leader was to be taken to the priest for adjudication. The Saviour was not suggesting that the scribes and Pharisees were guilty of adultery, but was reminding them of the demands of Deut.19.16-21, that a “false” (malicious) witness who brought an accusation should suffer the punishment he or she intended his or her victim to suffer. He was, in effect, saying to them, ‘Go ahead and stone her, and as you do so make sure you fulfil all the requirements of the Law in respect of eligible witnesses.’ These men knew full well that they were malicious in this charge against the woman; their accusation was brought with no other interest than to trap the Saviour. Another indication of their malice was that according to Deuteronomy chapter 22 both the man and the woman were to be punished; here they had brought only the woman. She had been caught “in the very act” of a sin that cannot be committed alone, and it would have been as easy to bring the man with her had their motive been only to uphold the Law. This one-sided application of the Law showed their motives as ill-intentioned.

The Jewish Leaders’ Predicament – v.9

The scribes and Pharisees brought charges based on Deuteronomy and the Saviour refuted them by the requirements of the same Book! His words convicted their consciences; they knew well that their intentions were malicious and, therefore, they were not “without sin” v.7. But their predicament was not just that they had been found out by the One they had hoped to entrap; He had exposed their real motives in such a way that if they said anything they would condemn themselves to the same punishment they thought the woman was due. Jehovah, Who had written the Law with His finger upon the tables of stone for Moses, had stooped down in their midst and was writing in the dust. They knew He had exposed their breach of the Law. When faced with their hypocrisy and malice, their only recourse was to leave in utter silence. As many a sinner has discovered, there are only two ways to deal with a troubled conscience in the presence of Christ: either confess the accusing sin and repent or get out of the presence of the Saviour. Like many, these men chose the latter, and yet another time silenced their consciences. With every act of stifling the conscience they became harder and their conscience less responsive. It was a shocking defeat for them, and it was made worse by being before a crowd of people who were beginning to accept the Messiahship of Christ. They had hoped to turn the crowd against the Saviour by proving Him to be a false prophet, but had done the very opposite; they had given Him the opportunity to demonstrate that He was indeed the Prophet of Whom Moses wrote. They not only failed in their mission, but they strengthened the Saviour’s claims to Deity.

The Saviour’s Pronouncement – vv.9-11

“Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” v.11.

With His enemies having left and Himself still stooped towards the ground, the Saviour “was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst” v.9. She was still standing where she had been accused and publicly shamed, but instead of accusing hypocrites around her there was only the Saviour in the non-threatening position of humility where He had stooped to write. He had finished writing; there was no need to reenact the Law before this woman. She was about to see an enactment of the truth of Jn.1.16,17: “And of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” She was going to receive a blessing out of the fulness of His grace. She would never forget this incident that had begun with the Law of Moses and ended with grace and truth.

The question, “Hath no man condemned thee?”, to which she replied, “No man, Lord” vv.10,11, shows that not one of the accusing scribes and Pharisees could fulfil the requirement for a credible, honest witness to condemn her. It is important not to miss the woman’s form of address for the Saviour, which indicates her acceptance of Him as Lord. This is a second reason why He did not condemn her, and having acknowledged Him as Lord, she should show it by a changed lifestyle.

The Saviour did not condone her sin or overlook its seriousness; in fact He acknowledged it by saying, “Go, and sin no more” v.11. The Lord did not condemn her; the case had been brought under Mosaic Law with its stringent requirements for witnesses, and had failed. In return, He was respecting the Law that required two or more witnesses. By omniscience He knew her sin, but to condemn her according to the Law required another witness along with Himself. The coming of Christ would provide forgiveness and relief that the Law of Moses could never give, and that is demonstrated by the Saviour in this case of a sinner who owned Him as Lord. The grace and truth that came by Jesus Christ were seen in Him giving the woman an opportunity to “go, and sin no more” (grace) and by Him adhering strictly to the Law of Moses in respect of qualified witnesses (truth). The One by Whom grace came said, “Neither do I condemn thee”, and by Whom truth came identified her sin but said, “Go, and sin no more” v.11.

JESUS, THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD – vv.12-30

This incident centres on a contradiction by the Jews expressed as “Thy record is not true” v.13.

After the interruption by the scribes and Pharisees about a matter of strictly Jewish interest (a woman taken in adultery) the Saviour continued teaching where He had left off at the end of chapter 7, where He had spoken about “any man” coming to Him for blessing, v.37, and the Jews had identified His work among the Gentiles in Galilee, v.52. The parochial attitude of the Jewish leaders at the commencement of chapter 8 had interrupted His teaching about those universal aspects of His work, which He now takes up again by saying, “I am the light of the world: and he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” v.12. John highlights this lovely title, “the Light of the world” to underscore the universal nature of His mission, in the same way as “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” 1.29, and “the bread of God … which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world” 6.33. See other references by John to the world, which emphasise the universal aspect of His mission, for example, 1.10; 3.16,17,19; 4.42; 6.14,51.

Even though the Saviour had successfully routed His enemies by the skilful use of the Law’s requirement for two witnesses, the Pharisees returned for another confrontation in response to the Saviour’s claim to be Jehovah, “I am the light of the world” v.12. Throughout John’s Gospel, the objections by the Jews were based upon what the Saviour claimed for Himself (His Person) and what He claimed He had been sent by the Father to do (His work). Their challenge to His claim to be Jehovah, the Light of the world, was not an outright denial, but that since He was speaking for Himself and had no second witness His testimony was untrue. They were continuing the thread of their disagreement with the Lord’s words in 7.28: “Ye both know Me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true, whom ye know not.” The Saviour had silenced them in the incident with the adulterous woman by adhering strictly to the Law’s requirement for two witnesses. Their tactic now in vv.12-20 was simple to the point of being petty, as if to say, ‘You turned our claims of serious moral misconduct by a woman on the number of witnesses required, so we will turn your claims to be Jehovah, the Light of the world, by a similar dependence upon the number of witnesses required.’

Human Standards

Little wonder the Lord chided them for judging “after the flesh” v.15. The way they introduced the Law’s requirement for stoning, v.5, and now the requirement for two or more witnesses, v.13, was judging by human standards. The Saviour’s Divine origin meant that He could not be judged by man’s standards, but the Jews could never grasp that. In their darkness they judged as men judge, but the Saviour judged no man in that way, v.15. As in the previous confrontation, to answer this challenge the Saviour called upon the Law, v.17, and pointedly described it as “your law”. By describing the Law of Moses as “your law” the Saviour was giving a subtle hint of the Law’s obsolescence: it was theirs in the sense of being the Law to which they adhered, and only for their day. As in Gal.3.24, the Law was the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, Who would supersede it. He had arrived and would show by this incident how He would do that. They could see no other way to judge men than according to the requirements of their Law, but the Saviour did not do that; He came to save, not condemn. Their Law, which they so much delighted in and depended upon to decide their disputes, stated “that the testimony of two men is true” v.17. That meant, if the Saviour could call a second witness to testify on His behalf, He would fulfil their Law’s requirement.

Heavenly Origin

The Saviour said that the witness to His testimony of being the Light of the world was “the Father that sent Me” v.16. If the testimony of two men was valid in law, how much more so ought the testimony of the Father and the Son be valid and accepted? Since their Law stated that “the testimony of two men is true” v.17, that ought to have settled the matter. But it would not do for men who judged by merely human standards, who then demanded to know, “Where is Thy Father?” v.19. The Jews had already complained when the Saviour spoke of being sent by the Father when they asked, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He saith, ‘I came down from heaven’?” 6.42. By their human reasoning, if Joseph was His father, He could not be from heaven. And conversely, if He was from heaven, Joseph could not be His father.

Earthly Ignorance

The Saviour took the opportunity of their question, “Where is Thy Father?” v.19, to show that human ignorance was because of spiritual darkness. His diagnosis was blunt but accurate: “Ye neither know Me, nor My Father: if ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also.” Not knowing Christ means not knowing the Father. The Pharisees thought they had Divine light but for this Galilean Preacher to say that by following Him one would have the light of life, was more than they could endure. They could read the implication of the Saviour’s words: to not follow Him was to be in darkness. How dare He say such a thing!

Heaven’s Timetable

The hatred of the Jewish leaders in confrontations like these was palpable. They had plotted behind the scenes to kill the Saviour, and even had sent officers to arrest Him, but every plan failed. Here He was now telling the crowds listening in the Temple, the most sacred place in their sacred city, that they were in darkness unless they followed Him. Yet, “no man laid hands on Him”, because it was not “His hour” v.20. “His hour” corresponds to “My way” v.21: “My way” was describing His death and return to His Father, 7.33,34; His “hour” and “way” were both within heaven’s gift and were not determined or influenced by men. The very fact that they had plotted every which way and had failed in their attempts to arrest Him ought to have spoken loudly to them, but men in darkness follow their own base instincts rather than Christ. The comforting truth for all believers is that until heaven’s “hour” comes, no man can harm them. And, on the other hand, when heaven’s “hour” had come, no man could prevent the Saviour’s death. The Jewish authorities thought they could plan His death to be “not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people” Matt.26.5, but heaven said otherwise, and He was crucified on the very day of Passover celebration that prefigured the death of the Lamb of God. God’s plan never fails, and His programme never runs late.

The Father’s Pleasure

Verses 21-30 contain a very tightly packed argument regarding the Lord’s Deity and Sonship, which gives the context for the next stage of His discourse regarding their claim to be descendants of Abraham. Having told the Jews that they neither knew Him nor His Father, v.19, and that they “are from beneath” and He is “from above” v.23, He follows it with a very direct statement regarding their destiny: “if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins” v.24. This provoked their question about the Lord’s identity: “Who art Thou?” v.25. The Saviour’s answer was to remind them that He is Who He had always said He is, and that He speaks to the world only those things which He heard from the Father, v.26. But their darkness was such that they did not understand that the Light of the world was speaking about His Father in heaven. He then asserted that when they have crucified Him then they shall know that He is Jehovah, v.28, and that He had spoken only what the Father taught Him and has not been left alone by the Father, v.29. He added, “for I do always those things that please Him”, which was more than could be said of them.

JESUS, THE MESSIANIC HOPE OF ABRAHAM – vv.31-59

This incident contains a conviction of the Jews expressed as, “Which of you convinceth Me of sin?” v.46.

The discourse reaches a climax as the Saviour continues His discourse with “those Jews which believed on Him” v.31, by stating the criteria for being a true descendant of Abraham. As with those in 2.23,24, “who believed in His name”, He “did not commit Himself unto them, because He knew all men”. If these Jews who believe are genuine, He expects them to provide evidence of their reality by abiding in His word, 8.31. There is a close connection between the Saviour’s “word” v.31, and “the truth” v.32: the Jews who rejected the Saviour’s word (His teaching) were strangers to the truth and the freedom it brings. Their continuance in the Saviour’s word would mean they know the truth, and that knowledge alone would bring them into freedom from sin. The Jews thought that was ridiculous, for they were Abraham’s seed and had never been in bondage, so how could His word set them free, v.33? These, who had relied so heavily upon the Law of Moses to deal with their sin, had conveniently forgotten their bondage in Egypt, in Babylon, and now being subject to Roman authority. In response to the Lord speaking about His Father, the Jews insisted again that Abraham was their father, as if that was the condition of discipleship, v.39. The Saviour exposed the emptiness of their claim to ancestry in Abraham by pointing out the contradiction of a descendant of Abraham, the father of faith, seeking to kill the Son of God, v.37. The Saviour acknowledged that they were the natural descendants of Abraham, but the only possible explanation for their animosity was that “My word hath no place in you”. The word of the Lord Jesus came from His Father, and the works of these Jews came from their father, v.38, and they were in direct opposition.

The Saviour then directed the conversation towards what it means to be a true disciple by reminding them that if they were true descendants of Abraham they would manifest Abraham’s faith: “do the works of Abraham” v.39. The Lord pointed out a glaring contradiction by saying, “I know ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill Me, because My word hath no place in you” v.37. “Ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth … this did not Abraham” v.40. They did not “understand” what the Saviour said, simply because they were so blinded by prejudice that they could not hear His “word” v.43.

This discourse with Jews who “believed on Him” contains six conditional clauses that test their profession of faith and expose the emptiness of their claims:

  • “If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed” v.31.
  • “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” v.36.
  • “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham” v.39.
  • “If God were your Father, ye would love Me” v.42. “If I say the truth, why do ye not believe Me?” v.46.
  • “If a man keep My saying, he shall never see death” v.51.

They failed each test in these conditional clauses, from which there was one fundamental spiritual diagnosis: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do” v.44. Had they been true children of Abraham they would not have been of their father, the devil. To be faced with the truth that they were “not of God” v.47, and that they were “of … the devil” v.44, provoked an even deeper hatred of the Saviour, which was manifested by their double response: “Say we not well that Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?” v.48, and “Now we know that Thou hast a devil” v.52. Just like “the prince of this world”, who “cometh and hath [findeth] nothing” in the Saviour, 14.30, none of these Jews could convince Him of sin, v.46. Yet, to them, for anyone to claim to be greater than Abraham was more than they could bear. To their darkened minds it could not be true: “Whom makest Thou Thyself?” v.53, which in today’s language was to say, ‘Who do you think you are?’ In answer, the Lord Jesus draws His discourse with them to a conclusion by showing them that He is the One to Whom Abraham looked forward; therefore He must be greater than Abraham. He prefaces that observation by admitting that self-praise would be futile, and stating that He was not honouring Himself, but was being honoured by the Father, vv.54,55. The Son both knows and honours the Father, therefore His teaching is true. The implication was that the Jews did not know the Father and their assertions about Him having a devil, vv.48,52, were not true.

By saying that Abraham, in whom the Jews boasted, looked forward “to see My day” v.56, the Saviour was saying that Abraham anticipated the coming Messiah as those in the Epistle to the Hebrews who “not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off … were persuaded of them, end embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” Heb.11.13. Abraham’s understanding of the promise caused him to rejoice “that he might see” Messiah’s coming, Jn.8.56, Newberry margin, and “saw it [he did actually see it], and was glad”. Abraham rejoiced at the sight by faith of Messiah’s Incarnation and was glad. What caused Abraham’s rejoicing was the promise of a seed (Isaac) through whom the Messiah would come and all the nations of the world would be blessed. Abraham saw Isaac born and, in him, saw figuratively the promised Messiah – His Incarnation and future glory – and was glad. Then and there, in that birth, Abraham saw what the Saviour calls “My day”. The promise of the Messiah’s coming to and blessing of mankind as prefigured in Isaac, the son of promise, brought gladness to the heart of Abraham, Gen.18.18. In this way the Lord Jesus is “greater than our father Abraham” v.53: He is the fulfilment of all that was contained in the promise to Abraham. Abraham not only saw the Incarnation of Christ by faith, but “looked for a city [literally, ‘the city’] which hath foundations” Heb.11.10. The faith that rejoiced to recognise the fulfilment of Divine promises through Isaac also waited for the eternal city of Revelation chapter 21 that would be the ultimate and eternal outcome of those promises prefigured in Isaac. Christ, Who is the fulfilment of all that Abraham saw by faith, is therefore, greater than Abraham.

The Jews were incredulous: that assertion, if intended literally, was impossible. As far as they were concerned, for Abraham to have seen Jesus would mean He would have to be approximately 2,000 years of age, and by looking at Him He was not yet 50 years old, v.57. The Saviour’s answer, with one of His “Verily, verily” prefixes, enraged them: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am” v.58. The tenses used in the text make abundantly clear what the Saviour was saying: “Before Abraham was” is an aorist tense meaning ‘Before Abraham came into being’. “I am” is a present tense meaning ‘I already existed’. Thus, with a very simple construction and straightforward words the Lord stated His eternal preexistence and oneness with the Father, 1.1. The Saviour Who had earlier described Himself with the words, “I am” v.12, concludes by saying He is the “I AM” of Moses’ experience, Ex.3.14. The Jews were quick to recognise what He was saying: that not only did the Saviour preexist Abraham, but He was also superior to Him, for Abraham rejoiced to see His day. The Jews who gloried in the Law of Moses saw that these claims by Christ had echoes of Moses at the burning bush. To them it was blasphemy and they were quick to try to implement the punishment of Lev.24.16: “… he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him …” They had no intention of waiting to bring Him before the Sanhedrin to investigate what they viewed as outrageous claims: they would put Him to death by an action of community ‘justice’. This saying by Jesus takes the reader of chapter 8 back to chapter 5, where the Jewish opposition became openly hostile: “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” v.18. Now in 8.59 they lift stones with the intention of killing Him, but, as in 7.30 and 8.20, “His hour was not yet come” and He was able to hide Himself in the Temple and make His exit to safety. This attempt to stone the Saviour was not the first manifestation of malice towards Him, and would not be the last attempt to take Him before “His hour” 10.39.

CONCLUSION

The antagonism and opposition to the Lord Jesus of the Jewish leaders continually grows throughout this middle section of John’s Gospel. John records in a factual way the basics of the Saviour’s claims to Deity as we read the to-and-fro of the discussion between Him and the Jews in chapter 8. The Jews raise two subjects of great importance to them: “Where is Thy Father?” v.19, and “Abraham is our father” v.39. The Saviour responds by bringing His teaching towards a climax to answer their challenge on these two subjects: “It is My Father that honoureth Me” v.54, and “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad” v.56. Abraham’s joyful anticipation of the promised Messiah contrasts starkly with the bitterness of these Jews who clung on to their Abrahamic heritage, arbitrated and adulterated by a misplaced Mosaic fixation. The animosity of the scribes and Pharisees is exposed as unjustified and at times illogical and unreasonable. Their opposition is identified as the product of spiritual darkness, which meant they could not see the Messiah in their very midst, let alone see beyond that to His future glory.

In chapter 9 the subjects of “the light of the world” and parentage will arise again, vv.5,18-21, and be used by the Saviour to press home His claims as the Son of God, v.35. On each occasion of dispute, the Lord Jesus shows them their character and spiritual condition as He demonstrates Himself to be the Son of God. He is bold and fearless as He makes His way towards that moment when He will shout, “It is finished”, bow His head, and give up the ghost, 19.30.