Text -- John 8:1-11 (NET)

8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 8:2 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. 8:3 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 8:4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 8:5 In the law Moses commanded us to stone to death such women. What then do you say?” 8:6 (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. 8:7 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.” 8:8 Then he bent over again and wrote on the ground. 8:9 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. 8:10 Jesus stood up straight and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 8:11 She replied, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Joh 8:1

But Jesus went ( Iēsous de eporeuthē ).

Same deponent use of poreuomai as in Joh 7:53 and in contrast to the Sanhedrin’ s conduct, though it seems "pointless"(Dods). Apparently Jesus was lodging in the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.

Robertson: Joh 8:2

Early in the morning ( orthrou ).

Genitive of time, orthros meaning daybreak, old word, not in John, though in Luk 24:1; Act 5:21. John uses prōi (Joh 18:28; Joh 20:1; Joh 21:4).

Robertson: Joh 8:2

He came again into the temple ( palin paregeneto eis to hieron ).

If the paragraph is genuine, the time is the next day after the eighth and last day of the feast. If not genuine, there is no way of telling the time of this apparently true incident.

Robertson: Joh 8:2

And all the people came unto him ( kai pās ho laos ērcheto pros auton ).

Imperfect middle of erchomai picturing the enthusiasm of the whole (pas ) crowd now as opposed to the divisions in chapter 7.

Robertson: Joh 8:2

Taught ( edidasken ).

Imperfect active of didaskō . He took his seat (kathisas , ingressive active participle of kathizō ) as was customary for Jesus and began to teach (inchoative imperfect). So the picture.

Robertson: Joh 8:3

The scribes and the Pharisees ( hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi ).

John does not mention "scribes,"though this combination (note two articles) is common enough in the Synoptics (Luk 5:30; Luk 6:7, etc.).

Robertson: Joh 8:3

Bring ( agousin ).

Vivid dramatic present active indicative of agō . Dods calls this "in itself an unlawful thing to do"since they had a court for the trial of such a case. Their purpose is to entrap Jesus.

Robertson: Joh 8:3

Taken in adultery ( epi moicheiāi kateilemmenēn ).

Perfect passive participle of katalambanō , old compound to seize (Mar 9:18), to catch, to overtake (Joh 12:35), to overcome (or overtake) in Joh 1:5.

Robertson: Joh 8:3

Having let her in the midst ( stēsantes autēn en mesōi ).

First aorist active (transitive) participle of histēmi . Here all could see her and what Jesus did with such a case. They knew his proneness to forgive sinners.

Robertson: Joh 8:4

Hath been taken ( kateilēptai ).

Perfect passive indicative of katalambanō (see Joh 8:3), caught and still guilty.

Robertson: Joh 8:4

In adultery ( moicheuomenē ).

Present passive participle of moicheuō , "herself suffering adultery"(Mat 5:32). Used of married people. Not in John.

Robertson: Joh 8:4

In the very act ( ep' autophōrōi ).

Old adjective (autophōros ,autos , self, and phōr , thief) caught in the act of theft, then extended to any crime in which one is caught. Old idiom, but not elsewhere in the Greek Bible. One example in a Berlin papyrus.

Robertson: Joh 8:5

Commanded ( eneteilato ).

First aorist middle indicative of entellō , old verb to enjoin (Mat 4:6).

Robertson: Joh 8:5

To stone such ( tas toiautas lithazein ).

Present active infinitive of lithazō (from lithos ), from Aristotle on. Stoning was specified for the case of a betrothed woman guilty of adultery (Deu 22:23.) and for a priest’ s daughter if guilty. In other cases just death was commanded (Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22). The Talmud prescribes strangulation. This case may have strictly come within the regulation as a betrothed virgin.

Robertson: Joh 8:5

What then sayest thou of her? ( su oun ti legeis ).

"Thou then, what dost thou say?"This was the whole point, to catch Jesus, not to punish the woman.

Robertson: Joh 8:6

Tempting him ( peirazontes auton ).

Evil sense of this present active participle of peirazō , as so often (Mar 8:11; Mar 10:2, etc.).

Robertson: Joh 8:6

That they might have whereof to accuse him ( hina echōsin katēgorein autou ).

Purpose clause with hina and present active subjunctive of echō . This laying of traps for Jesus was a common practice of his enemies (Luk 11:16, etc.). Note present active infinitive of katēgoreō (see Mat 12:10 for the verb) to go on accusing (with genitive autou ). It was now a habit with these rabbis.

Robertson: Joh 8:6

Stooped down ( katō kupsas ).

First aorist active participle of kuptō , old verb to bow the head, to bend forward, in N.T. only here and Joh 8:8; Mar 1:7. The use of katō (down) gives a vivid touch to the picture.

Robertson: Joh 8:6

With his finger ( tōi daktulōi ).

Instrumental case of daktulos for which see Mat 23:4.

Robertson: Joh 8:6

Wrote on the ground ( kategraphen eis tēn gēn ).

Imperfect active of katagraphō , old compound, here only in N.T., to draw, to delineate, to write down, apparently inchoative, began to write on the sand as every one has done sometimes. The only mention of writing by Jesus and the use of katagraphō leaves it uncertain whether he was writing words or drawing pictures or making signs. If we only knew what he wrote! Certainly Jesus knew how to write. And yet more books have been written about this one who wrote nothing that is preserved than any other person or subject in human history. There is a tradition that Jesus wrote down the names and sins of these accusers. That is not likely. They were written on their hearts. Jesus alone on this occasion showed embarrassment over this woman’ s sin.

Robertson: Joh 8:7

When they continued asking ( hōs epemenon erōtōntes ).

Imperfect active indicative of epimenō (waiting in addition or still, epi , old verb) with supplementary active participle of erōtaō , to question. See same construction in Act 12:16 The verb epimenō does not occur in John. They saw that Jesus seemed embarrassed, but did not know that it was as much because of "the brazen hardness of the prosecutors"as because of the shame of the deed.

Robertson: Joh 8:7

He lifted himself up ( anekupsen ).

First aorist active indicative of anakuptō , the opposite of katakuptō , to bend down (Joh 8:8) or of katō kuptō (Joh 8:6).

Robertson: Joh 8:7

He that is without sin ( ho anamartētos ).

Verbal adjective (an privative and hamartētos from hamartanō ), old word, either one who has not sinned as here and Deu 29:19 or one who cannot sin, not in the N.T.

Robertson: Joh 8:7

Among you ( humōn ).

Objective genitive.

Robertson: Joh 8:7

First cast ( prōtos baletō ).

The nominative prōtos means first before others, be the first to cast, not cast before he does something else. See Joh 20:4. The verb is second aorist imperative of ballō , old verb to fling or cast. Jesus thus picks out the executioner in the case.

Robertson: Joh 8:8

Again he stooped down ( palin katakupsas ).

First aorist active participle of katakuptō , old and rare verb (in Epictetus II, 16. 22) instead of katō kupsas in Joh 8:6.

Robertson: Joh 8:8

With his finger ( tōi daktulōi ).

Not genuine, only in D and Western class.

Robertson: Joh 8:8

Wrote on the ground ( egraphen eis tēn gēn ).

Imperfect active of the simplex graphō , not katagraphō . The second picture of Jesus writing on the ground.

Robertson: Joh 8:9

Went out ( exērchonto ).

Inchoative imperfect. Graphic picture.

Robertson: Joh 8:9

One by one ( heis kath' heis ).

Not a Johannine phrase, but in Mar 14:19 where also the second nominative is retained as if kath' (kata ) is regarded as a mere adverb and not as a preposition.

Robertson: Joh 8:9

Beginning from the eldest ( arxamenoi apo tōn presbuterōn ).

"From the elder (comparative form, common in Koiné as superlative) men,"as was natural for they had more sins of this sort which they recalled. "They are summoned to judge themselves rather than the woman"(Dods).

Robertson: Joh 8:9

Was left alone ( kateleiphthē monos ).

First aorist effective passive indicative of kataleipō , to leave behind, with predicate nominative monos . "Jesus was left behind alone."

Robertson: Joh 8:9

And the woman, where she was, in the midst ( kai hē gunē en mesōi ousa ).

The woman was left behind also "being in the midst"as they had placed her (Joh 8:3) before they were conscience stricken and left.

Robertson: Joh 8:10

Lifted up himself ( anakupsas ).

First aorist active participle of anakuptō as in Joh 8:7.

Robertson: Joh 8:10

Where are they? ( Pou eisin ).

Jesus had kept on writing on the ground as the accusers had slipped away one by one.

Robertson: Joh 8:10

Did no man condemn thee? ( oudeis se katekrinen ).

First aorist active indicative of katakrinō , old and common verb to give judgment against (down on) one, but not in John. No one dared to cast a stone at the woman on Christ’ s terms.

Robertson: Joh 8:11

No man, Lord ( Oudeis ,Kurie ).

"No one, Sir."She makes no excuse for her sin. Does she recognize Jesus as "Lord"?

Robertson: Joh 8:11

Neither do I condemn thee ( Oude egō se katakrinō ).

Jesus does not condone her sin. See Joh 8:15 for "I do not judge (condemn) any one."But he does give the poor woman another chance.

Robertson: Joh 8:11

Henceforth sin no more ( apo tou nun mēketi hamartane ).

See also Joh 5:14 where this same language is used to the impotent man. It literally means (prohibition with present active imperative): "Henceforth no longer go on sinning."One can only hope that the woman was really changed in heart and life. Jesus clearly felt that even a wicked woman can be saved.

Wesley: Joh 8:5

If they spoke accurately, this must have been a woman, who, having been betrothed to a husband, had been guilty of this crime before the marriage was completed; for such only Moses commanded to be stoned. He commanded indeed that other adulteresses should be put to death; but the manner of death was not specified. Deu 22:23.

Wesley: Joh 8:6

Either of usurping the office of a judge, if he condemned her, or of being an enemy to the law, if he acquitted her. Jesus stooping down, wrote with his finger on the ground - God wrote once in the Old Testament; Christ once in the New: perhaps the words which he afterward spoke, when they continued asking him. By this silent action, he, fixed their wandering, hurrying thoughts, in order to awaken their consciences: and, signified that he was not then come to condemn but to save the world.

Wesley: Joh 8:7

He that is not guilty: his own conscience being the judge) either of the same sin, or of some nearly resembling it; let him - as a witness, cast the first stone at her.

Wesley: Joh 8:9

Or the elders.

Wesley: Joh 8:9

By all those scribes and Pharisees who proposed the question. But many others remained, to whom our Lord directed his discourse presently after.

Wesley: Joh 8:10

Hath no judicial sentence been passed upon thee?

Wesley: Joh 8:11

Neither do I take upon me to pass any such sentence. Let this deliverance lead thee to repentance.

JFB: Joh 8:1-2

This should have formed the last verse of the foregoing chapter. "The return of the people to the inert quiet and security of their dwellings (Joh 7:53), at the close of the feast, is designedly contrasted with our Lord's homeless way, so to speak, of spending the short night, who is early in the morning on the scene again. One cannot well see why what is recorded in Luk 21:37-38 may not even thus early have taken place; it might have been the Lord's ordinary custom from the beginning to leave the brilliant misery of the city every night, that so He might compose His sorrowful and interceding heart, and collect His energies for new labors of love; preferring for His resting-place Bethany, and the Mount of Olives, the scene thus consecrated by many preparatory prayers for His final humiliation and exaltation" [STIER].

JFB: Joh 8:3-6

Foiled in their yesterday's attempt, and hoping to succeed better in this.

JFB: Joh 8:4-5

Simply put to death (Deu 22:22), but in aggravated cases, at least in later times, this was probably by stoning (Eze 16:40).

JFB: Joh 8:4-5

Hoping, whatever He might answer, to put Him in the wrong:--if He said, Stone her, that would seem a stepping out of His province; if He forbade it, that would hold Him up as a relaxer of the public morals. But these cunning hypocrites were overmatched.

JFB: Joh 8:6

It will be observed He was sitting when they came to Him.

JFB: Joh 8:6

The words of our translators in italics ("as though He heard them not") have hardly improved the sense, for it is scarcely probable He could wish that to be thought. Rather He wished to show them His aversion to enter on the subject. But as this did not suit them, they "continue asking Him," pressing for an answer. At last, raising Himself He said.

JFB: Joh 8:7

Not meaning sinless altogether; nor yet, guiltless of a literal breach of the Seventh Commandment; but probably, he whose conscience acquits him of any such sin.

JFB: Joh 8:7

"the stone," meaning the first one (Deu 17:7).

JFB: Joh 8:8

The design of this second stooping and writing on the ground was evidently to give her accusers an opportunity to slink away unobserved by Him, and so avoid an exposure to His eye which they could ill have stood. Accordingly it is added.

JFB: Joh 8:9

That is, without one of her accusers remaining; for it is added.

JFB: Joh 8:9

That is, of the remaining audience. While the trap failed to catch Him for whom it was laid, it caught those who laid it. Stunned by the unexpected home thrust, they immediately made off--which makes the impudence of those impure hypocrites in dragging such a case before the public eye the more disgusting.

JFB: Joh 8:10

What inimitable tenderness and grace! Conscious of her own guilt, and till now in the hands of men who had talked of stoning her, wondering at the skill with which her accusers had been dispersed, and the grace of the few words addressed to herself, she would be disposed to listen, with a reverence and teachableness before unknown, to our Lord's admonition. "And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more." He pronounces no pardon upon the woman (such as, "Thy sins are forgiven thee" [compare Luk 5:28; Luk 7:48] --"Go in peace" [compare Mar 5:34; Luk 7:50; Luk 8:48]), much less does He say that she had done nothing condemnable; He simply leaves the matter where it was. He meddles not with the magistrate's office, nor acts the Judge in any sense (Joh 12:47). But in saying, "Go and sin no more," which had been before said to one who undoubtedly believed (Joh 5:14), more is probably implied than expressed. If brought suddenly to conviction of sin, admiration of her Deliverer, and a willingness to be admonished and guided by Him, this call to begin a new life may have carried with it what would ensure and naturally bring about a permanent change. (This whole narrative is wanting in some of the earliest and most valuable manuscripts, and those which have it vary to some extent. The internal evidence in its favor is almost overpowering. It is easy to account for its omission, though genuine; but if not so, it is next to impossible to account for its insertion).

Clarke: Joh 8:3

A woman taken in adultery - Some of the popish writers say that her name was Susanna; that she was espoused to an old decrepid man, named Manasseh; that she died a saint in Spain, whither she had followed St. James. These accounts the judicious Calmet properly terms fables

It is allowed that adultery was exceedingly common at this time, so common that they had ceased to put the law in force against it. The waters of jealousy were no longer drunk, the culprits or those suspected of this crime, being so very numerous; and the men who were guilty themselves dared not try their suspected wives, as it was believed the waters would have no evil effect upon the wife, if the husband himself had been criminal. See the whole of the process on the waters of jealousy in the notes on Num 5:14 (note), etc.; and see at the end of chap. 18 (note).

Clarke: Joh 8:5

That such should be stoned - It is not strictly true that Moses ordered adultery in general to be punished by stoning. The law simply says that the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22. The rabbins say they were strangled. This they affirm was the ordinary mode of punishment, where the species of death was not marked in the law, If the person guilty of an act of this kind had been betrothed, but not married, she was to be stoned: Deu 22:23. But if she was the daughter of a priest, she was to be burned alive: Lev 16:9. It appears, from Eze 16:38, Eze 16:40, that adulteresses in the time of that prophet were stoned, and pierced with a sword

Selden and Fagius suppose that this woman’ s case was the same with that mentioned, Deu 22:23. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall stone them with stones that they die, the damsel because she cried not, and the man because he hath humbled his neighbors wife. As the Pharisees spoke of stoning the woman, it is possible this was her case; and some suppose that the apparent indulgence with which our Lord treated her insinuates that she had suffered some sort of violence, though not entirely innocent. Therefore he said, I do not condemn thee, i.e. to death, because violence had been used. Sin no more. Nevertheless thou art in certain respects guilty; thou mightest have made more resistance.

Clarke: Joh 8:6

That they might have to accuse him - Had our Lord condemned the woman to death, they might have accused him to Pilate, as arrogating to himself the power of life and death, which the Romans had taken away from the Jews; besides, the Roman laws did not condemn an adulteress to be put to death. On the other hand, if he had said she should not be put to death, they might have represented him to the people as one who decided contrary to the law, and favored the crime of which the woman was accused

Clarke: Joh 8:6

With his finger wrote - Several MSS. add their sins who accused her, and the sins of all men. There are many idle conjectures concerning what our Lord wrote on the ground, several of which may be seen in Calmet

We never find that Christ wrote any thing before or after this; and what he wrote at this time we know not. On this the pious Quesnel makes the following reflections: -

"1. Since Jesus Christ never wrote but once that we hear of in his whole life; 2. since he did it only in the dust; 3. since it was only to avoid condemning a sinner; and, 4. since he would not have that which he wrote so much as known; let men learn from hence never to write but when it is necessary or useful; to do it with humility and modesty; and to do it on a principle of charity. How widely does Christ differ from men! He writes his Divine thoughts in the dust: they wish to have theirs cut in marble, and engraved on brass."Schools for children are frequently held under trees in Bengal, and the children who are beginning to learn write the letters of the alphabet in the dust. This saves pen, ink, and paper

Ward.

||&&$

Clarke: Joh 8:7

He that is without sin - Αναμαρτητος, meaning the same kind of sin, adultery, fornication, etc. Kypke has largely proved that the verb ἁμαρτανειν is used in this sense by the best Greek writers

Clarke: Joh 8:7

Let him first cast a stone at her - Or, upon her, επ ’ αυτῃ . The Jewish method of stoning, according to the rabbins, was as follows: The culprit, half naked, the hands tied behind the back, was placed on a scaffold, ten or twelve feet high; the witnesses, who stood with her, pushed her off with great force: if she was killed by the fall there was nothing farther done; but, if she was not, one of the witnesses took up a very large stone, and dashed it upon her breast, which generally was the coup de grace, or finishing stroke. This mode of punishment seems referred to, Mat 21:44. However, this procedure does not appear to have been always attended to. See Lev 24:16, and Joh 8:59 of this chapter.

Clarke: Joh 8:9

Being convicted by their own conscience - So it is likely they were all guilty of similar crimes. Their own is not in the original, and is needless: being convicted by conscience is expressive enough

Clarke: Joh 8:9

Beginning at the eldest even unto the last - Απο των πρεσβυτερων ἑως των εσχατων, from the most honorable to those of the least repute. In this sense the words are undoubtedly to be understood

Clarke: Joh 8:9

The woman standing in the midst - But if they all went out, how could she be in the midst? It is not said that all the people whom our Lord had been instructing went out, but only her accusers: see Joh 8:2. The rest undoubtedly continued with their teacher.

Clarke: Joh 8:11

Neither do I condemn thee - Bishop Pearce says: "It would have been strange if Jesus, when he was not a magistrate, and had not the witnesses before him to examine them, and when she had not been tried and condemned by the law and legal judges, should have taken upon him to condemn her. This being the case, it appears why Jesus avoided giving an answer to the question of the scribes and Pharisees, and also how little reason there is to conclude from hence that Christ seems in this case not enough to have discouraged adultery, though he called it a sin. And yet this opinion took place so early among the Christians, that the reading of this story was industriously avoided, in the lessons recited out of the Gospels, in the public service of the churches; as if Jesus’ s saying, I do not condemn thee, had given too much countenance to women guilty of that crime. In consequence of this, as it was never read in the churches, and is now not to be found in any of the Evangelistaria, and as it was probably marked in the MSS. as a portion not to be read there, this whole story, from Joh 8:1-11, inclusive, came, in length of time, to be left out in some MSS., though in the greater part it is still remaining."Thus far the judicious and learned bishop. How the passage stands in all the MSS. hitherto collated may be seen in Wetstein and Griesbach. After weighing what has been adduced in favor of its authenticity, and seriously considering its state in the MSS., as exhibited in the Var. Lect. of Griesbach, I must confess, the evidence in its favor does not appear to me to be striking. Yet I by no means would have it expunged from the text. Its absence from many MSS., and the confused manner in which it appears in others, may be readily accounted for on the principles laid down by Bishop Pearce above. It may however be necessary to observe, that a very perfect connection subsists between Joh 7:52 and Joh 8:12 - all the intermediate verses having been omitted by MSS. of the first antiquity and authority. In some MSS. it is found at the end of this Gospel; in others a vacant place is left in this chapter; and in others it is placed after the 21st chapter of Luke. See at the end of this chapter.

Calvin: Joh 8:3

3.And the scribes and Pharisees bring to him It is plain enough 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 Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage. When the Evangelist says that the scribes brought to him a woman, he means that it was done by an agreement among them, in order to lay traps for Christ. He expressly mentions the Pharisees, because they were the chief persons in the rank of scribes In adopting this pretense for slander, they display enormous wickedness, and even their own lips accuse them; for they do not disguise that they have a plain commandment of the Law, and hence it follows that they act maliciously in putting a question as if it were a doubtful matter. But their intention was, to constrain Christ to depart from his office of preaching grace, that he might appear to be fickle and unsteady. They expressly state that adulteresses are condemned by Moses, (Lev 20:10,) that they may hold Christ bound by the sentence already given by the Law, for it was not lawful to acquit those whom the Law condemned; and, on the other hand, if he had consented to the Law, he might be thought to be somewhat unlike himself.

Calvin: Joh 8:6

6.And Jesus stooping down By this attitude he intended to show that he despised them. Those who conjecture that he wrote this or the other thing, in my opinion, do not understand his meaning. Nor do I approve of the ingenuity of Augustine, who thinks that in this manner the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is pointed out, because Christ did not write on tables of stone, (Exo 31:18,) but on man, who is dust and earth. For Christ rather intended, by doing nothing, to show how unworthy they were of being heard; just as if any person, 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. Thus in the present day, when Satan attempts, by various methods, to draw us aside from the right way of teaching, we ought disdainfully to pass by many things which he holds out to us. The Papists teaze us, to the utmost of their power, by many trifling cavils, as if they were throwing clouds into the air. If godly teachers be laboriously employed in examining each of those cavils, they will begin to weave Penelope’s web; ²⁰⁸ and therefore delays of this sort, which do nothing but hinder the progress of the Gospel, are wisely disregarded.

Calvin: Joh 8:7

7.He who is without sin among you He said this according to the custom of the Law; for God commanded that the witnesses should, with their own hands, put malefactors to death, according to the sentence which had been pronounced on them; that greater caution might be used in bearing testimony, (Deu 17:7.) There are many who proceed rashly to overwhelm their brother by perjury, because they do not think that they inflict a deadly wound by their tongue. And this very argument, had weight with those slanderers, desperate as they were; for no sooner do they obtain a sight of it, than they lay aside those fierce passions with which they were swelled when they came. Yet there is this difference between the injunction of the Law and the words of Christ, that in the Law God merely enjoined that they should not condemn a man with the tongue, unless they were permitted to put him to death with their own hands; but here Christ demands from the witnesses perfect innocence, so that no man ought to accuse another of crime, unless he be pure, and free from every fault. Now what he said, at that time, to a few persons, we ought to view as spoken to all, that whoever accuses another, ought to impose on himself a law of innocence; otherwise, we do not pursue wicked actions, but rather are hostile to the persons of men.

In this way, however, Christ appears to take out of the world all judicial decisions, so that no man shall dare to say that he has a right to punish crimes. For shall a single judge be found, who is not conscious of having something that is wrong? Shall a single witness be produced who is not chargeable with some fault? He appears, therefore, to forbid all witnesses to give public testimony, and all judges to occupy the judgment-seat. I reply: this is not an absolute and unlimited prohibition, by which Christ forbids sinners to do their duty in correcting the sins of others; but by this word he only reproves hypocrites, who mildly flatter themselves and their vices, but are excessively severe, and even act the part of felons, in censuring others. No man, therefore, shall be prevented by his own sins from correcting the sins of others, and even from punishing them, when it may be found necessary, provided that both in himself and in others he hate what ought to be condemned; and in addition to all this, every man ought to begin by interrogating his own conscience, and by acting both as witness and judge against himself, before he come to others. In this manner shall we, without hating men, make war with sins.

Calvin: Joh 8:9

9.And being reproved by their conscience Here we perceive how great is the power of an evil conscience. Though those wicked hypocrites intended to entrap Christ by their cavils, yet as soon as he pierces their consciences by a single word, shame puts them to flight. This is the hammer with which we must break the pride of hypocrites. They must be summoned to the judgment-seat of God. Though it is possible that the shame, with which they were struck before men, had greater influence over them than the fear of God, still it is a great matter that, of their own accord, they acknowledge themselves to be guilty, when they thus fly away as if they were confounded. It is immediately added,

Beginning from the eldest even to the last Our attention is drawn to this circumstance, that, according as each of them surpassed the others in honorable rank, he was the more quickly moved by his condemnation. And would to God that ²⁰⁹ our scribes, who in the present day sell their labors to the Pope to make war with Christ, had at least as much modesty as those men; but they are so destitute of shame that, while they have rendered themselves infamous by every detestable crime, they glory in the fact that they are permitted to be as abominable as they choose, without being punished. We ought also to observe how widely this conviction of sin, by which the scribes were affected, differs from true repentance. For we ought to be affected by the judgment of God in such a manner, that we shall not seek a place of concealment to avoid the presence of the Judge, but rather shall go direct to Him, in order to implore his forgiveness.

Jesus was left alone This was brought about by the Spirit of wisdom, that those wicked men, having gained nothing by tempting Christ, went away. Nor is there any reason to doubt that we shall succeed in defeating all the contrivances of our enemies, provided that we permit ourselves to be governed by the same Spirit. But it frequently happens that they gain an advantage over us, because, not attending to their snares, we are not careful to take advice, or rather, trusting to our own wisdom, we do not consider how much we need the government of the Holy Spirit. He says that Christ remained alone; not that the people, whom he was formerly teaching, had left him, but because all the scribes, who had brought the adulteress, gave him no farther annoyance. When it is said that the woman remained with Christ, let us learn by this example that there is nothing better for us than to be brought, as guilty, to his tribunal, provided that we surrender ourselves mildly and submissively to his government.

Calvin: Joh 8:11

11.Neither do I condemn thee We are not told that Christ absolutely acquitted the woman, but that he allowed her to go at liberty. Nor is this wonderful, for he did not wish to undertake any thing that did not belong to his office. He bad been sent by the Father to gather the lost sheep, (Mat 10:6;) and, therefore, mindful of his calling, he exhorts the woman to repentance, and comforts her by a promise of grace. They who infer from this that adultery ought not to be punished with death, must, for the same reason, admit that inheritances ought not to be divided, because Christ refused to arbitrate in that matter between two brothers, (Luk 12:13.) Indeed, there will be no crime whatever that shall not be exempted from the penalties of the law, if adultery be not punished; for then the door will be thrown open for any kind of treachery, and for poisoning, and murder, and robbery. Besides, the adulteress, when she bears an unlawful child, not only robs the name of the family, but violently takes away the right of inheritance from the lawful offspring, and conveys it to strangers. But what is worst of all, the wife not only dishonors the husband to whom she had been united, but prostitutes herself to shameful wickedness, and likewise violates the sacred covenant of God, without which no holiness can continue to exist in the world.

Yet the Popish theology is, that in this passage Christ has brought to us the Law of grace, by which adulterers are freed from punishment. And though they endeavor, by every method, to efface from the minds of men the grace of God, such grace as is every where declared to us by the doctrine of the Gospel, yet in this passage alone they preach aloud the Law of grace. Why is this, but that they may pollute, with unbridled lust, almost every marriage-bed, and may escape unpunished? Truly, this is the fine fruit ²¹⁰ which we have reaped from the diabolical system of celibacy, that they who are not permitted to marry a lawful wife can commit fornication without restraint. But let us remember that, while Christ forgives the sins of men, he does not overturn political order, or reverse the sentences and punishments appointed by the laws.

Go, and sin no more Hence we infer what is the design of the grace of Christ. It is, that the sinner, being reconciled to God, may honor the Author of his salvation by a good and holy life. In short, by the same word of God, when forgiveness is offered to us, we are likewise called to repentance. Besides, though this exhortation looks forward to the future, still it humbles sinners by recalling to remembrance their past life.

Defender: Joh 8:3

This striking narrative, from John 7:53-8:11, has been deleted from a few very ancient (but error-filled) Greek manuscripts. Accordingly, it has been deleted (or relegated to a footnote or special section) from most modern English translations. However, it is unreasonable to assume that someone would invent such a story and insert it in an accepted copy of John's gospel. Furthermore, these twelve verses do appear in the overwhelming majority of extant Greek texts. There is no good reason not to retain it as is."

Defender: Joh 8:5

Lev 20:10 and Deu 22:22 indicate that both parties to the adultery were to be put to death. Since the woman was caught "in the very act" (Joh 8:4), it is obvious that the man was caught also, so the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees is apparent in their double standard. They were concerned with finding an action they could take against Jesus, not with upholding the Mosaic law."

Defender: Joh 8:6

The only other recorded instance of God writing "with his finger" is when God wrote the Ten Commandments on two slabs of stone (Exo 31:18). It would have been profoundly significant, as well as profoundly stirring and convicting to the woman's accusers, if Jesus also was seen writing out these commandments instead of speaking. The account does not say what He wrote but this would seem to be the most probable suggestion."

Defender: Joh 8:9

It was the tradition that in an execution by stoning, the oldest should cast the first stone and so on. Thus, in this case, the eldest accuser was the first to be convicted - by the divine accusing finger - that he also had broken God's law and thus deserved to die. Only Jesus had the right, therefore, to stone her, but He also had the right to forgive her (Luk 5:23, Luk 5:24) and did so - evidently because He knew she was repentant (Joh 2:25)."

TSK: Joh 8:1

Mat 21:1; Mar 11:1, Mar 13:3; Luk 19:37

TSK: Joh 8:2

early : Joh 4:34; Ecc 9:10; Jer 25:3, Jer 44:4; Luk 21:37

and he : Mat 5:1, Mat 5:2, Mat 26:55; Luk 4:20, Luk 5:3

TSK: Joh 8:5

Moses : Lev 20:10; Deu 22:21-24; Eze 16:38-40, Eze 23:47

but : Mat 5:17, Mat 19:6-8, Mat 22:16-18

TSK: Joh 8:6

tempting : Num 14:22; Mat 19:3; Luk 10:25, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54, Luk 20:20-23; 1Co 10:9

But : Joh 8:2; Gen 49:9; Jer 17:13; Dan 5:5

as though : Psa 38:12-14, Psa 39:1; Pro 26:17; Ecc 3:7; Amo 5:10,Amo 5:13; Mat 10:16, Mat 15:23; Mat 26:63

TSK: Joh 8:7

and said : Joh 7:46; Pro 12:18, Pro 26:4, Pro 26:5; Jer 23:29; 1Co 14:24, 1Co 14:25; Col 4:6; Heb 4:12, Heb 4:13; Rev 1:16, Rev 2:16, Rev 19:15

He that : Deu 17:6; Psa 50:16-20; Mat 7:1-5, Mat 23:25-28; Rom 2:1-3, Rom 2:21-25

TSK: Joh 8:9

being : Gen 42:21, Gen 42:22; 1Ki 2:44, 1Ki 17:18; Psa 50:21; Ecc 7:22; Mar 6:14-16; Luk 12:1-3; Rom 2:15, Rom 2:22; 1Jo 3:20

went out : Job 5:12, Job 5:13, Job 20:5, Job 20:27; Psa 9:15, Psa 9:16, Psa 40:14, Psa 71:13; Luk 13:17

alone : Joh 8:2, Joh 8:10,Joh 8:12

TSK: Joh 8:10

where : Isa 41:11, Isa 41:12

TSK: Joh 8:11

Neither : Joh 8:15, Joh 3:17, Joh 18:36; Deu 16:18, Deu 17:9; Luk 9:56, Luk 12:13, Luk 12:14; Rom 13:3, Rom 13:4; 1Co 5:12

go : Joh 5:14; Job 34:31; Pro 28:13; Isa 1:16-18, Isa 55:6; Eze 18:30-32; Mat 21:28-31; Luk 5:32, Luk 13:3, Luk 13:5, Luk 15:7, Luk 15:10,Luk 15:32; Rom 2:4, Rom 5:20,Rom 5:21; 1Ti 1:15, 1Ti 1:16; 2Pe 3:15; Rev 2:21, Rev 2:22

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Joh 8:1

Mount of Olives - The mountain about a mile directly east of Jerusalem. See the notes at Mat 21:1. This was the place in which he probably often passed the night when attending the feasts at Jerusalem. The Garden of Gethsemane, to which he was accustomed to resort Joh 18:2, was on the western side of that mountain, and Bethany, the abode of Martha and Mary, on its east side, Joh 11:1.

Barnes: Joh 8:5

Moses in the law ... - The punishment of adultery commanded by Moses was death, Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22. The particular manner of the death was not specified in the law. The Jews had themselves, in the time of Christ, determined that it should be by stoning. See this described in the notes at Mat 21:35, Mat 21:44. The punishment for adultery varied. In some cases it was strangling. In the time of Ezekiel Eze 16:38-40 it was stoning and being thrust through with a sword. If the adulteress was the daughter of a priest, the punishment was being burned to death.

Barnes: Joh 8:6

Tempting him - Trying him, or laying a plan that they might have occasion to accuse him. If he decided the case, they expected to be able to bring an accusation against him; for if he decided that she ought to die, they might accuse him of claiming power which belonged to the Romans - the power of life and death. They might allege that it was not the giving an opinion about an abstract case, but that she was formally before him, that he decided her case judicially, and that without authority or form of trial. If he decided otherwise, they would have alleged that he denied the authority of the law, and that it was his intention to abrogate it. They had had a controversy with him about the authority of the Sabbath, and they perhaps supposed that he would decide this case as he did that - against them. It may be further added that they knew that Jesus admitted publicans and sinners to eat with him; that one of their charges was that he was friendly to sinners (see Luk 15:2); and they wished, doubtless, to make it appear that he was gluttonous, and a winebibber, and a friend of sinners, and disposed to relax all the laws of morality, even in the case of adultery. Seldom was there a plan more artfully laid, and never was more wisdom and knowledge of human nature displayed than in the manner in which it was met.

Wrote on the ground - This took place in the temple. The "ground,"here, means the pavement, or the dust on the pavement. By this Jesus showed them clearly that he was not solicitous to pronounce an opinion in the case, and that it was not his wish or intention to intermeddle with the civil affairs of the nation.

As though he heard them not - This is added by the translators. It is not in the original, and should not have been added. There is no intimation in the original, as it seems to be implied by this addition, that the object was to convey the impression that he did not hear them. What was his object is unknown, and conjecture is useless. The most probable reason seems to be that he did not wish to intermeddle; that he designed to show no solicitude to decide the case; and that he did not mean to decide it unless he was constrained to.

Barnes: Joh 8:7

They continued asking him - They pressed the question upon him. They were determined to extort an answer from him, and showed a perseverance in evil which has been unhappily often imitated.

Is without sin - That is, without this particular sin; he who has not himself been guilty of this very crime - for in this place the connection evidently demands this meaning.

Let him first cast a stone at her - In the punishment by death, one of the witnesses threw the culprit from the scaffold, and the other threw the first stone, or rolled down a stone to crush him. See Deu 17:6-7. This was in order that the witness might feel his responsibility in giving evidence, as he was also to be the executioner. Jesus therefore put them to the test. Without pronouncing on her case, he directed them, if any of them were innocent, to perform the office of executioner. This was said, evidently, well knowing their guilt, and well knowing that no one would dare to do it.

Barnes: Joh 8:9

Beginning at the eldest - As being conscious of more sins, and, therefore, being desirous to leave the Lord Jesus. The word "eldest"here probably refers not to age, but to benefit - from those who were in highest reputation to the lowest in rank. This consciousness of crime showed that the state of the public morals was exceedingly corrupt, and justified the declaration of Jesus that it was an adulterous and wicked generation, Mat 16:4.

Alone - Jesus only was left with the woman, etc.

In the midst - Her accusers had gone out, and left Jesus and the woman; but it is by no means probable that the people had left them; and, as this was in the temple on a public occasion, they were doubtless surrounded still by many. This is evident from the fact that Jesus immediately Joh 8:12 addressed a discourse to the people present.

Barnes: Joh 8:10

Hath no man condemned thee? - Jesus had directed them, if innocent, to cast a stone, thus to condemn her, or to use the power which he gave them to condemn her. No one of them had done that. They had accused her, but they had not proceeded to the act expressive of judicial condemnation.

Barnes: Joh 8:11

Neither do I condemn thee - This is evidently to be taken in the sense of judicial condemnation, or of passing sentence as a magistrate, for this was what they had arraigned her for. It was not to obtain his opinion about adultery, but to obtain the condemnation of the woman. As he claimed no civil authority, he said that he did not exercise it, and should not condemn her to die. In this sense the word is used in the previous verse, and this is the only sense which the passage demands. Besides, what follows shows that this was his meaning.

Go, and sin no more - You have sinned. You have been detected and accused. The sin is great. But I do not claim power to condemn you to die, and, as your accusers have left you, my direction to you is that you sin no more. This passage therefore teaches us:

1.\caps1     t\caps0 hat Jesus claimed no civil authority.

2.\caps1     t\caps0 hat he regarded the action of which they accused her as sin.

3.\caps1     t\caps0 hat he knew the hearts and lives of men.

4.\caps1     t\caps0 hat men are often very zealous in accusing others of that of which they themselves are guilty. And,

5.\caps1     t\caps0 hat Jesus was endowed with wonderful wisdom in meeting the devices of his enemies, and eluding their deep-laid plans to involve him in ruin.

It should be added that this passage, together with the last verse of the preceding chapter, has been by many critics thought to be spurious. It is wanting in many of the ancient manuscripts and versions, and has been rejected by Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Tittman, Knapp, and many others. It is not easy to decide the question whether it be a genuine part of the New Testament or not. Some have supposed that it was not written by the evangelists, but was often related by them, and that after a time it was recorded and introduced by Papias into the sacred text.

Poole: Joh 8:1

Joh 8:1-11 Christ letteth go uncondemned the woman taken in adultery.

Joh 8:12-30 He declareth himself to be the light of the world,

and justifieth his doctrine against the Pharisees.

Joh 8:31-32 He promises freedom through knowledge of the truth

to those Jews who believed on him,

Joh 8:33-47 confutes their vain boast of being Abraham’ s seed,

and the children of God,

Joh 8:48-58 answereth their reviling by showing his authority and

dignity,

Joh 8:59 and by miracle rescueth himself from their attempts

to stone him.

A mountain within less than two miles of Jerusalem, whether our Saviour, when he was at Jerusalem, was wont often to withdraw, for privacy and devotion, Mat 24:3 26:30 Luk 21:37 22:39 .

Poole: Joh 8:2

So at our Lord’ s last passover Luke notes, Luk 21:38 , that all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, to hear him. Our Saviour’ s early going into the temple to teach, and the people’ s diligence in coming so early to him to hear, ought to check our slothfulness in sacred business. Multitudes of people came to him; for so the universal particle all must be expounded in a multitude of Scriptures.

He after the manner of the Jewish teachers, sat down, and taught them Of this custom of theirs, for their doctors, while they taught, to sit down, we have had occasion to speak before.

Poole: Joh 8:3

There were (as they say) three sorts of scribes amongst the Jews. The first were secretaries to princes and great men; so Sheva was scribe to David, 2Sa 20:25 . A second sort were such as we call scriveners, or public notaries, who made instruments for people, and were employed in their more private bargains and contracts. Neither of these seem to have been of authority enough to have done this act; and besides, the Pharisees being joined with them makes it evident, that these scribes were those who expounded the law in the temple and in the synagogues, and are therefore called lawyers. They are often joined with the Pharisees in our Saviour’ s discourses, Mat 23:13-15 , &c. And we find them often joining with them in their discourses and actions, tending to entrap our Saviour: such was their design at this time.

Poole: Joh 8:4

They bring to our Saviour a woman taken in the act of adultery, and set her before him.

Poole: Joh 8:5

Moses in the law, Lev 20:10 , commanded that such malefactors should be put to death; but we read of no law commanding this kind of death. And their rule was, that when the law had set no kind of death for an offence, there the mildest kind of death was to be their punishment, which they counted strangling to be. But they ordinarily entitled Moses to their traditional additions to the law; and death being commanded by the law, as the punishment of such offenders, they took themselves to be at liberty to determine the kind of death, as prudence and reason of state ruled them; so as, probably, they, seeing that that sin grew very frequent amongst them, appointed stoning to be the kind of death such malefactors should be put to. The manner of which we are told was this: The guilty person was to be carried up to some high place, and thrown down from thence headlong by such as witnessed against him; then they threw stones at him till they had killed him, if not killed by the fall; or covered him, if he were dead. This they tell our Saviour Moses commanded, because he had commanded in the general, that such a person should die, and their sanhedrim had determined this particular death to such malefactors. But they would know what our Saviour said to this.

Poole: Joh 8:6

Their design was from his answer to take some colourable pretence to accuse, and either to discredit him with the people, or to expose him to the displeasure of the superior powers. If he had directed to send her to be punished by the Roman governors, who administered justice in capital causes, the people would be fired with indignation; for they looked upon them as invaders of the rights of government that belonged to the Israelites. If he had advised them to put her to death by their own power, they would have accused him of sedition, as an enemy of the Roman authority. If he had dismissed her as not worthy of death, they would have accused him to the sanhedrim, as an infringer of the law of Moses, as a favourer of dissoluteness, an enemy to civil society, and worthy of universal hatred. This malicious design, so craftily concerted, our Saviour easily discovered and defeated; whereas they thought it would require his most attentive consideration to extricate himself from the snare. He seemed not at all to attend to what they said, but, stooping down, wrote on the ground: what he wrote, or how he could write upon the floor of the temple, (which was of stone), are very idle questions; the first not possible to be resolved, the second impertinent; for it is not said, that he made any impression upon the ground, though it be said, he wrote upon it. It appeareth plainly to have been but a divertive action, by which our Saviour signified that he gave no ear to them.

Poole: Joh 8:7

They will not let our Saviour alone, but importune him for an answer. He saith,

He that is without sin, let him first cast a stone at her The law of God was, Deu 17:7 , that in the execution of malefactors, The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death. In reason those who are zealous for the punishment of others, should neither be guilty of the same, nor of greater crimes, themselves. By this saying of our Saviour, we must not understand it the will of God, that those who are magistrates, and employed in executing the Lord’ s vengeance on malefactors, should themselves be free from all guilt, for then no justice should be done. The vengeance is God’ s, not theirs; it is the law of God which they execute. He only by this minds them of that compassion which ought to be found in persons prosecuting others justly, that they may execute judgment with compassion and tenderness, and such moderation as the law will allow them, considering that they are not free from guilt, but as obnoxious to the justice of God for other sins, as those poor creatures whom God hath suffered to fall into sins punishable by human judges.

Poole: Joh 8:8

When our Saviour had said this, he returneth to his former posture and action, (it being not a thing wherein he was concerned, who was not sent into the world to be a secular judge), as not at all regarding them.

Poole: Joh 8:9

This was an age of very great corruption as to men’ s lives and manners, as well as to doctrine, and corruption of worship; and as other enormities of life were very common and ordinary amongst them, so it is very probable were adulteries, and that their rulers and teachers were not without great guilt. Now, see the power of conscience, when set on work by God; these accusers’ consciences were to them as a thousand witnesses; they were reproved and convicted by them, and not able to stand under the reflections of them, or to say any thing in answer to what our Saviour had said: they went away one after another; and possibly it is particularly noted that they began

at the eldest because the consciences of the eldest of them charged them more deeply for more and greater sins. Jesus was left not wholly alone, for the next words tell us, that the woman was still left standing in the midst; and no doubt but his apostles were there, for they constantly attended him; and no doubt divers others were also there: but the meaning is, that he was by this means quit of the scribes’ and Pharisees’ company, who were gone out of shame, being thus convicted by their own consciences, which told them, that whatsoever this woman was, they were no fit accusers.

Poole: Joh 8:10

The close of the former verse told us, that though the scribes and Pharisees were gone, yet the woman was left in the midst, expecting Christ’ s sentence. Christ knew well enough that the scribes and Pharisees, this poor woman’ s accusers, were gone; but yet he acts warily, and calls for her accusers, and asks if no man had condemned her? Thereby intimating, that the law against adultery was a just law; and if the crime were proved against her, she deserved to die; but she must first be convicted, and condemned. He asks her, If she were condemned? For then he had nothing to say.

Poole: Joh 8:11

She tells him, None had. He replies, Neither did he. He did not acquit her, for he was not to make void the law of God; nor did he condemn her: he was neither a witness in the case, nor yet a secular judge, to whom such judgments did belong; he was only to speak to her, as the Mediator and Saviour of man.

Go I discharge thee, as being coram non judice, before one who in my present capacity am no judge to hear this cause, and to give sentence in it.

Sin no more whatever becometh of thee as to man’ s judgment, thou hast reason to fear the greater judgment of God, if thou goest on in a course of sin. Nor doth he 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 any mercy from God; but a leaving off all sin, of what kind soever it be.

Lightfoot: Joh 8:1

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.   

[Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.] But whether to the town of Bethany, or to some booth fixed in that mount, is uncertain. For because of the infinite multitude that had swarmed together at those feasts, it is probable many of them had made themselves tents about the city, that they might not be too much straitened within the walls, though they kept within the bounds still of a sabbath day's journey.   

"'And thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents,' Deu 16:7. The first night of the feast they were bound to lodge within the city: after that it was lawful for them to abide without the walls; but it must be within the bounds of a sabbath day's journey. Whereas therefore it is said, 'Thou shalt go unto thy tents'; this is the meaning of it. Thou shalt go into thy tents that are without the walls of Jerusalem, but by no means into thine own house."   

It is said, Joh 7:53, that "every man went unto his own house"; upon which words let that be a comment that we meet with, After the daily evening sacrifice, the fathers of the Sanhedrim went home.   

The eighth day therefore being ended, the history of which we have in John_7, the following night was out of the compass of the feast; so that they had done the dancings of which we have spoken before. The evangelist, therefore, does not without cause say that "every man went unto his own house"; for otherwise they must have gone to those dancings, if the next day had not been the sabbath.

Lightfoot: Joh 8:3

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst.   

[A woman taken in adultery.] Our Saviour calls the generation an adulterous generation; Mat 12:39; see also Jam 4:4; which indeed might be well enough understood in its literal and proper sense.   

"From the time that murderers have multiplied amongst us, the beheading of the heifer hath ceased: and since the increase of adultery, the bitter waters have been out of use."   

" Since the time that adultery so openly prevailed under the second Temple, the Sanhedrim abrogated that way of trial by the bitter water; grounding it upon what is written, 'I will not visit your daughters when they shall go a whoring, nor your wives when they shall commit adultery.' "   

The Gemarists say, That Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai was the author of this counsel: he lived at this very time, and was of the Sanhedrim; perhaps present amongst those that set this adulterous woman before Christ. For there is some reason to suppose that the "scribes and Pharisees" here mentioned were no other than the fathers of the Sanhedrim.

Lightfoot: Joh 8:5

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?   

[That such should be stoned.] Such. Who? what, all adulteresses? or all taken in adultery, in the very act? There is a third qualification still: for the condition of the adulteress is to be considered, whether she was a married woman, or betrothed only.   

God punisheth adultery by death, Lev 20:10. But the masters of traditions say, that "wherever death is simply mentioned in the law," [that is, where the kind of death is not expressly prescribed,] "there it is to be supposed no other than strangling." Only they except; " a daughter of an Israelite, if she commit adultery after she is married, must be strangled; if only betrothed, she must be stoned. A priest's daughter, if she commit adultery when married, must be stoned; if only betrothed, she must be burnt."   

Hence we may conjecture what the condition of this adulteress was: either she was an Israelitess not yet married, but betrothed only; or else she was a priest's daughter, married: rather the former, because they say, "Moses in the law hath commanded us that such should be stoned." See Deu 22:21. But as to the latter, there is no such command given by Moses.

Lightfoot: Joh 8:6

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.   

[Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.] Feigning as though he heard them not; had of old crept into some books: and it is plain enough that it did creep in. For when Christ had given proof enough that he took cognizance of the matter propounded to him by those words, "He that is without sin among you," etc., yet did he stoop down again, and write upon the earth.   

Many have offered their conjectures why he used this unusual gesture at this time; and, with the reader's leave, let me also offer mine.   

I. The matter in hand was, judging a woman taken in adultery: and therefore our Saviour in this matter applies himself conformably to the rule made and provided for the trial of an adulteress by the bitter water, Numbers 5.   

II. Among the Jews, this obtained in the trial of a wife suspected: "If any man shall unlawfully lie with another woman, the bitter water shall not try his wife: for it is said, If the husband be guiltless from iniquity; then shall the woman bear her iniquity."   

"When the woman hath drunk the bitter water, if she be guilty, her looks turn pale, her eyes swell up, etc. So they turn her out of the Court of the Women; and first her belly swells, then her thigh rots, and she dies. The same hour that she dies, the adulterer also, upon whose account she drank the water, dies too, wherever he is, being equally seized with a swelling in his belly, rottenness in his thigh, or his pudenda. But this is done only upon condition that the husband hath been guiltless himself: for if he have lain with any unlawfully himself, then this water will not try his wife.   

"If you follow whoring yourselves, the bitter waters will not try your wives."   

You may see by these passages how directly our Saviour levels at the equity of this sentence, willing to bring these accusers of the woman to a just trial first. You may imagine you hear him thus speaking to them: "Ye have brought this adulterous woman to be adjudged by me: I will therefore govern myself according to the rule of trying such by the bitter waters. You say and you believe, according to the common opinion of your nation, that the woman upon whom a jealousy is brought, though she be indeed guilty, yet if the husband that accuseth her be faulty that way himself, she cannot be affected by those waters, nor contract any hurt or danger by them. If the divine judgment proceeded in that method, so will I at this time. Are you that accuse this woman wholly guiltless in the like kind of sin? Whosoever is so, 'let him cast the first stone,' etc. But if you yourselves stand chargeable with the same crimes, then your own applauded tradition, the opinion of your nation, the procedure of divine judgment in the trial of such, may determine in this case, and acquit me from all blame, if I condemn not this woman, when her accusers themselves are to be condemned."   

III. It was the office of the priest, when he tried a suspected wife, to stoop down and gather the dust off the floor of the sanctuary; which when he had infused into the water, he was to give the woman to drink: he was to write also in a book the curses or adjurations that were to be pronounced upon her, Num 5:17; Num 5:23. In like manner our Saviour stoops down; and making the floor itself his book, he writes something in the dust, doubtless against these accusers whom he was resolved to try, in analogy to those curses and adjurations written in a book by the priest, against the woman that was to be tried.   

IV. The priest after he had written these curses in a book blots them out with the bitter water, Num 5:23. For the matter transacted was doubtful. They do not make the suspected woman drink, unless in a doubtful case.   

The question is, Whether the woman was guilty or not? If guilty, behold the curses writ against her: if not guilty, then behold they are blotted out. But Christ was assured, that those whom he was trying were not innocent: so he does not write and blot out, but writes and writes again.   

V. He imitates the gesture of the priest, if it be true what the Jews report concerning it, and it is not unlikely, viz. that he first pronounced the curses; then made the woman drink; and after she had drunk, pronounced the same curses again. So Christ first stoops down and writes; then makes them as it were drink, in that searching reflection of his, "He that is without sin among you"; and then stoops down again and writes upon the earth.

Lightfoot: Joh 8:9

And they which heard it; being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.   

[Being convicted by their own conscience.] Our Saviour had determined to shame these wicked men before the common people: and therefore adds that peculiar force and energy to what he said that they could not stand it out, but with shame and confusion drawing off and retiring, they confess their guilt before the whole crowd. A thing little less than miracle.

Haydock: Joh 8:1

The last verse of the foregoing chapter, and the eleven verses that follow in this, are not found in the greater part of our present Greek copies, yet they are in some manuscripts and so are retained in the Protestant translation. We read nothing of them in the commentaries of St. John Chrysostom or St. Cyril; but St. Jerome (lib. ii. con. Pelag. tom. 4, part 2, p. 521. Ed. Ben.) says, they were found in many both Latin and Greek copies. St. Ambrose (Ep. 52.) says this passage, of the woman taken in adultery, was always famous in the Church. St. Augustine expounds them, tract. in Joan, &c. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

In multis Latinis et Græcis codicibus invenitur. S. Hierom. [i.e. St. Jerome] See the Greek edition of the New Testament, at Amsterdam, ex officina Westenians, an. 1711, in notis Criticis in fin, p. 17.

Haydock: Joh 8:6

Wrote with his finger, as one that was musing about something else. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 8:7

We cannot with any propriety reprehend or condemn faults in others, if we ourselves be guilty of the same, or other great faults, St. Cyril, in Joan. ---

See annotations on Matt. vii, ver. 1.

Haydock: Joh 8:9

Went out one by one, [2] confounded, and as it is in the ordinary Greek copies, convicted by their own conscience. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Greek: apo tes suneideseos, elegchomenoi.

Haydock: Joh 8:11

Hence we may see how impious is the doctrine of those who say that God is the author of sin. Christ did not say to the woman: I do not condemn thy sin; or, go and live now as thou pleasest, I will free thee from all punishment due to any sin thou shalt commit: but he only said, Go, and from henceforth sin no more: thus preserving his amiable virtue of clemency, and still not encouraging vice. (St. Augustine)

Gill: Joh 8:1

Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. Which lay eastward of Jerusalem, about a mile from it; hither Christ went on the evening of the last day of the feast of tabernacles; partly to decline the danger, and avoid the snares the Jews might lay for him in the night season; having been disappointed and confounded in the daytime; and it may be for the sake of recreation and diversion, to sup with his dear friends Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, who lived at Bethany, not far from this mount; and chiefly for private prayer to God, on account of himself as man, and for his disciples, and for the spread of his Gospel, and for the enlargement of his interest; this being his common and usual method, Luk 21:37.

Gill: Joh 8:2

And early in the morning he came again into the temple,.... Which shows his diligence, constancy, and assiduity, in his ministerial work, as well as his courage and intrepidity; being fearless of his enemies, though careful to give them no advantage against him, before his time:

and all the people came unto him; which also commends the industry and diligence of his hearers, who were forward to hear him, and were early at the temple for that purpose, and that in great numbers:

and he sat down and taught them; he sat, as his manner was; See Gill on Mat 5:1; and taught them as one having authority, and such doctrine, and in such a manner, as never man did; with all plainness, boldness, and freedom.

Gill: Joh 8:3

And the Scribes and Pharisees,.... The members of the sanhedrim, who had been so miserably disappointed the day before, were no less diligent and industrious in their wicked way, seeking all opportunities, and taking all advantages against Christ; and fancying they had got something whereby to ensnare him, and bring him into disgrace or danger, they pursue it; and

brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; who, as some conjecture, might have been taken in it the day before, in one of their booths; being drawn into it through intemperance and carnal mirth, which at this feast they greatly indulged themselves in; which shows, that they were far from drawing the Holy Ghost at this time upon them; that on the contrary, they fell into the hands, and under the power of the unclean spirit: who this woman was, is not material to know; what is pretended to be taken out of the annals of the Spanish Jews, is no doubt a fable; that she was the wife of one Manasseh of Jerusalem, an old man, whose name was Susanna ^d:

and when they had set her in the midst; of the company, as the Persic version reads, to be seen by all the people. This history of the woman taken in adultery, is wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in other ancient copies; nor is it in Nonnus, Chrysostom, and Theophylact; nor in any of the editions of the Syriac version, until it was restored by De Dieu, from a copy of Archbishop Usher's; but was in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions, and in the Harmonies of Tatian and Ammonius; the former of which lived about the year 160, and so within 60 years, or thereabouts, of the death of the Evangelist John, and the other about the year 230; it was also in Stephens's sixteen ancient Greek copies, and in all Beza's seventeen, excepting one; nor need the authenticness of it be doubted of; Eusebius ^e says, it is in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; nor should its authority be called in question.

Gill: Joh 8:4

They say unto him, Master,.... They applied to him in a handsome and respectful manner, the better to cover their ill design:

this woman was taken in adultery; by two persons at least, who could be witnesses of it; otherwise the accusation was not legal; see Deu 19:15; though in the case of a wife suspected of adultery, they admitted a single witness as valid ^f:

in the very act; or "in the theft itself", for adultery is a theft; it is an unlawful use of another's property; see this word used in the same sense, in Heliodor, l. 1. sect. 11.

Gill: Joh 8:5

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should, be stoned,.... Not in Lev 20:10; for though according to the law there, an adulteress, one that was a married woman, and so an adulterer, that was a married man, were to be put to death; yet the death was not stoning, but strangling; for it is a rule with the Jews ^g, that where death is simply mentioned (without restraining it to any particular kind) strangling is intended, and which rule they apply to this law: and accordingly in their Misna, or oral law, one that lies with another man's wife, is reckoned among those that are to be strangled ^h: Kimchi indeed says ⁱ, that adulteresses, according to the law, are to be stoned with stones; but then this must be understood of such as are betrothed, but not married; and such a person, Moses has commanded in the law, to be stoned, Deu 22:23. And with this agree the traditions of the Jews ^k;

"a daughter of Israel must be stoned, who is ארוסה ולא נשואה, "betrothed, but not married".''

And such an one we must believe this woman was; she was betrothed to a man, but not married to him, and therefore to be stoned: the Jews ^l have also a saying, that

"if all adulterers were punished with stoning, according to the law, the stones would be consumed; but they would not be consumed;''

adultery was so common with that people:

but what sayest thou? dost thou agree with Moses, or not?

Gill: Joh 8:6

This they said, tempting him,.... For they brought this woman, and exposed her in this manner, not because of their abhorrence and detestation of the sin; nor did they put the above question to Christ, out of their great respect to the law of Moses; which in many instances, and so in this, they in a great measure made void, by their traditions; for they say, that for such an offence as adultery, they did not put to death, nor beat, unless there was a previous admonition; the use of which was, to distinguish between presumptuous sins, and wilful ones ^m; but if there was no admonition, and the woman, even a married woman, if she confessed the crime, all her punishment was to have her dowry taken from her, or to go away without it ⁿ: now these masters say nothing about the admonition, nor do they put the question, whether this woman was to be dealt with according to their traditions, or according to the law of Moses? but what was the sense of Christ, whether Moses's law was to be attended to, or whether he would propose another rule to go by? and their view in this was,

that they might have to accuse him; that should he agree with Moses, then they would accuse him to the Roman governor, for taking upon him to condemn a person to death, which belonged to him to do; or they would charge him with severity, and acting inconsistently with himself, who received such sort of sinners, and ate with them; and had declared, that publicans and harlots would enter into the kingdom of heaven, when the Scribes and Pharisees would not; and if he should disagree with Moses, then they would traduce him among the people, as an enemy to Moses and his law, and as a patron of the most scandalous enormities:

but Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground; some think ^o he wrote in legible characters the sins of the woman's accusers; and the learned Wagenseil ^p makes mention of an ancient Greek manuscript he had seen, in which were the following words, "the sins of everyone of them": Dr. Lightfoot is of opinion, that this action of Christ tallies with, and has some reference to, the action of the priest at the trial of the suspected wife; who took of the dust of the floor of the tabernacle, and infused it in the bitter waters for her to drink; but it is most likely, that Christ on purpose put himself into this posture, as if he was busy about something else, and did not attend to what they said; and hereby cast some contempt upon them, as if they and their question were unworthy of his notice: and this sense is confirmed by what follows,

as though he heard them not; though this clause is not in many copies, nor in the Vulgate Latin, nor in any of the Oriental versions, but is in five of Beza's copies, and in the Complutensian edition.

(See Jer 17:13, "they that depart from me shall be wriiten in the earth". It could be that Christ was writing their names in the earth, thus fulfulling this prophecy in Jeremiah. They knew the Old Testament and this passage, and were convicted in their hearts. Editor.)

Gill: Joh 8:7

So when they continued asking him,.... For observing that he put himself in such a posture, they concluded that they had puzzled and perplexed him, and that he knew not what to say; and therefore they were more urgent for a speedy answer, hoping they should get an advantage of him; and that they should be able to expose him, and that his confusion would appear to all the people:

he lift up himself and said unto them; having raised up himself, he looked wistly at them, and returned them this wise answer to, their confusion:

he that is without sin among you; meaning, not that was entirely free from sin, in heart, in lip, and life; for there is no such person; the most holy man in life is not, in such sense, free from sin; but that was without any notorious sin, or was not guilty of some scandalous sin, and particularly this of adultery; which was in this age a prevailing sin, and even among their doctors; hence our Lord calls that generation an adulterous one, Mat 12:39; and which was literally true of them; with this compare Rom 2:22. Adultery increased to such a degree in this age, that they were obliged to leave off the trial of suspected wives, because their husbands were generally guilty this way; and the waters would have no effect, if the husband was criminal also: so the Jews say ^q,

"when adulterers increased, the bitter waters ceased; and Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai (who was now living) caused them to cease.''

In vindication of which, he cited the passage in Hos 4:14; and this agrees with their own account of the times of the Messiah, and the signs thereof, among which stands this ^r;

"in the age in which the son of David comes, the house of assembly (the gloss interprets it the place where the disciples of the wise men meet to learn the law) shall become, לזונות, "a brothel house".''

And that this sin so greatly prevailed, our Lord well knew; and perhaps none of those Scribes and Pharisees were free from it, in one shape or another; and therefore bids him that was,

let him first cast a stone at her; alluding to the law in Deu 17:7, which required the hands of the witnesses to be upon a person first, to put him to death; and as Dr. Lightfoot thinks, referring to their own sense and opinion, in trying a wife suspected of adultery; that if the husband was guilty the same way, the waters would have no effect: by this answer of our Lord, he at once wrought himself out of the dilemma, they thought to distress him with; for though he passed no sentence upon the woman, and so took not upon him the judiciary power, with which they could accuse him to the Roman governor, yet he manifestly appeared to agree with Moses, that such an one deserved to be stoned; wherefore they could not charge him with being contrary to Moses; and by putting him that was without sin, to cast the first stone at her, he showed himself merciful to the woman, and to them, to be the searcher of hearts.

Gill: Joh 8:8

And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. As before, having said enough to confound them; and yet unwilling to pursue the matter any further, or publicly expose them in any other way; and that they might have an opportunity of withdrawing themselves without any further notice of his, he took this method.

Gill: Joh 8:9

And they which heard it,.... Not all, not the disciples of Christ, nor the multitude, but the Scribes and Pharisees:

being convicted by their own conscience; that they were not without sin, nor free from this; they had a beam in their own eye, who were so forward to observe the mote in another's; and oftentimes so it is, that those who are most forward to reprove, and bear hardest on others for their sins, are as culpable in another way, if not in the same; when sin lies at the door, and conscience is awakened and open, it is as good as a thousand witnesses; and lets in, and owns the sin which lies heavy, and makes sad work; and fills with anguish, confusion, and shame, as it did these men: who

went out one by one; from the temple, in as private a manner, and as unobserved as they could:

beginning at the eldest: who might have been most culpable, or however soonest took the hint; being more wise and sagacious:

unto the last; this is wanting in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions, and in two of Beza's copies, and the Basil edition:

and Jesus was left alone; not by his disciples, nor the multitude, but his antagonists, who came to tempt and ensnare him: for it follows,

and the woman standing in the midst; that is, of the company as before.

Gill: Joh 8:10

When Jesus had lift himself up,.... From the earth, towards which he stooped, and on which he had been writing:

and saw none but the woman; that is, none of those that had brought her there, and had accused her to him:

he said unto her, woman, where are those thine accusers? the Syriac and Arabic versions read only, "where are these?" these men, that brought thee here, and charged thee with this crime:

hath no man condemned thee? has no one offered to do unto thee what I proposed? what, not one that could take up a stone, and cast at thee? was there not one of them free from this sin? could no man take upon him to execute this sentence?

Gill: Joh 8:11

She saith, no man, Lord,.... No man said a word to me, or lift up his hand against me, or moved a stone at me:

and Jesus said unto her, neither do I condemn thee; Christ came not into the world to act the part of a civil magistrate, and therefore refused to arbitrate a case, or be concerned in dividing an inheritance between two brethren, Luk 12:13. Nor did he come into the world to condemn it, but that the world, through him, might be saved, Joh 3:17; nor would he pass any other sentence on this woman, than what he had done; nor would he inflict any punishment on her himself; but suitably and agreeably to his office; as a prophet, he declares against her sin, calls her to repentance, and bids her

go and sin no more; lest as he said to the man he cured at Bethesda's pool, a worse thing should come unto her. Wherefore the Jew ^s has no reason to object to this conduct of Christ, as if he acted contrary to the law, in Deu 13:5. "Thou shalt put the evil away from the midst of thee"; and also to the sanctions of all civil laws among men, which order the removal of evil, by putting delinquents to death; and he observes, that those that believe in him, do not follow him in this, but put adulterers and adulteresses to death; and that indeed, should his example and instructions take place, all courts of judicature must cease, and order be subverted among men: but it should be observed, that our Lord manifested a regard, even to the law of Moses, when he bid this woman's accusers that were without sin, to cast the first stone at her; though as for the law in Deu 13:5, that respects a false prophet, and not an adulterer or an adulteress; nor do the civil laws of all nations require death in the case of adultery; and did they, Christ here, neither by his words nor actions, contradicts and sets aside any such laws of God or man; he left this fact to be inquired into, examined, and judged, and sentence passed by proper persons, whose business it was: as for himself, his office was not that of a civil magistrate, but of a Saviour and Redeemer; and suitably to that he acted in this case; he did not connive at the sin, he reproved for it; nor did he deny that she ought to suffer according to the law of Moses, but rather suggests she ought; but as this was not his province, he did not take upon him to pronounce any sentence of condemnation on her; but called her to repentance, and, as the merciful and compassionate Saviour, gave her reason to hope pardon and eternal life.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Joh 8:1

¹ sn The Mount of Olives is a hill running north to south about 1.8 mi (3 km) long, lying east of Jerusalem across the Kidron Valley. It was named for the large number of olive trees that grew on it.

NET Notes: Joh 8:2

¹ tn An ingressive sense for the imperfect fits well here following the aorist participle.

NET Notes: Joh 8:3

¹ tn Or “The scribes.” The traditional rendering of γραμματεύς (grammateu") as “scribe” does not communicate much to the modern English reader, for whom the term might mean “professional copyist,” if it means anything at all. The people referred to here were recognized experts in the law of Moses and in traditional laws and regulations. Thus “expert in the law” comes closer to the meaning for the modern reader.

² sn See the note on Pharisees in 1:24.

NET Notes: Joh 8:4

¹ tn Grk “to him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Joh 8:5

¹ sn An allusion to Lev 20:10 and Deut 22:22-24.

² sn The accusers themselves subtly misrepresented the law. The Mosaic law stated that in the case of adultery, both the man and woman must be put to death (Lev 20:10, Deut 22:22), but they mentioned only such women.

NET Notes: Joh 8:6

¹ tn Grk “so that they could accuse.”

² sn This is a parenthetical note by the author of 7:53–8:11.

³ tn Or possibly “Jesus bent down and wrote an accusation on the ground with his finger.” The Greek verb καταγράφω (katagrafw) may indicate only the action of writing on the ground by Jesus, but in the overall context (Jesus’ response to the accusation against the woman) it can also be interpreted as implying that what Jesus wrote was a counteraccusation against the accusers (although there is no clue as to the actual content of what he wrote, some scribes added “the sins of each one of them” either here or at the end of v. 8 [U 264 700 al]).

NET Notes: Joh 8:7

¹ tn Or “he straightened up.”

² tn Grk “and said to them.”

³ tn Or “sinless.”

NET Notes: Joh 8:8

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “Then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

NET Notes: Joh 8:9

¹ tn Or “beginning from the eldest.”

NET Notes: Joh 8:10

¹ tn Or “straightened up.”

² sn Woman was a polite form of address (see BDAG 208-9 s.v. γυνή 1), similar to “Madam” or “Ma’am” used in English in different regions.

NET Notes: Joh 8:11

¹ tc The earliest and best mss do not contain 7:53–8:11 (see note on 7:53).

Geneva Bible: Joh 8:3

^{( 1 )} And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

^{( 1 )} While the wicked go about to make a snare for good men, they make a snare for themselves.

Geneva Bible: Joh 8:7

^{( 2 )} So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

^{( 2 )} Against hypocrites who are very severe judges against other men, and flatter themselves while they are sinning.

Geneva Bible: Joh 8:10

^{( 3 )} When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

^{( 3 )} Christ would not take upon himself the office of the civil magistrate: he was content to bring sinners to faith and repentance.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Joh 8:1-59

1 Christ delivers the woman taken in adultery.

12 He declares himself the light of the world, and justifies his doctrine;

31 promises freedom to those who believe;

33 answers the Jews that boasted of Abraham;

48 answers their reviling, by shewing his authority and dignity;

59 and conveys himself from their cruelty.

Combined Bible: Joh 8:1-11

of the Gospel of John   

CHAPTER 28   

Christ and the adulterous woman   

John 8:1-11   

We begin with the customary Analysis:—   

1. Jesus retires to the mount of Olives: verse 1.  

2. Jesus teaching in the temple: verse 2.  

3. The Pharisees confront Him with an adulterous woman: verses 3-6.  

4. Christ turns the light upon them: verses 6-8.  

5. The Pharisees overcome by the light: verse 9.  

6. The woman left alone with Christ: verse 10.  

7. The woman dismissed with a warning: verse 11.  

In this series of expositions of John’ s Gospel we have sedulously avoided technical matters, preferring to confine ourselves to that which would provide food for the soul. But in the present instance we deem it necessary to make an exception. The passage which is to be before us has long been the subject of controversy. Its authenticity has been questioned even by godly men. John 7:53 to 8:11 inclusive is not found in a number of the most important of the ancient manuscripts. The R.V. places a question mark against this passage. Personally we have not the slightest doubt but that it forms a part of the inspired Word of God, and that for the following reasons:  

First, if our passage be a spurious one then we should have to pass straight from John 7:52 to 8:12. Let the reader try this, and note the effect; and then let him go back to John 7:52 and read straight through to John 8:14. Which seems the more natural and reads the more smoothly?  

Second, if we omit the first eleven verses of John 8, and start the chapter with verse 12, several questions will rise unavoidably and prove very difficult to answer satisfactorily. For example: "Then spake Jesus"— when? What simple and satisfactory answer can be found in the second part of John 7? But give John 8:1-11 its proper place, and the answer is, Immediately after the interruption recorded in verse 3. "Then spake Jesus again unto them" (verse 12)— unto whom? Go back to the second half of John 7 and see if it furnishes any decisive answer. But give John 8:2 a place, and all is simple and plain. Again in verse 13 we read, "The Pharisees therefore said unto him": this was in the temple (verse 20). But how came the Pharisees there? John 7:45 shows them elsewhere. But bring in John 8:1-11 and this difficulty vanishes, for John 8:2 shows that this was the day following.  

In the third place, the contents of John 8:1-11 are in full accord with the evident design of this section of the Gospel. The method followed in these chapters is most significant. In each instance we find the Holy Spirit records some striking incident in our Lord’ s life, which serves to introduce and illustrate the teaching which follows it. In chapter 5 Christ quickens the impotent man, and makes that miracle the text of the sermon He preached immediately after it. In John 6 He feeds the hungry multitude, and right after gives the two discourses concerning Himself as the Bread of life. In John 7 Christ’ s refusal to go up to the Feast publicly and openly manifest His glory, is made the background for that wondrous word of the future manifestation of the Holy Spirit through believers— issuing from them as "rivers of living water." And the same principle may be observed here in John 8. In John 8:12 Christ declares, "I am the light of the world," and the first eleven verses supply us with a most striking illustration and solemn demonstration of the power of that "light." Thus it may be seen that there is an indissoluble link between the incident recorded in John 8:1-11 and the teaching of our Lord immediately following.  

Finally, as we shall examine these eleven verses and study their contents, endeavoring to sound their marvelous depths, it will be evident, we trust, to every spiritual intelligence, that no uninspired pen drew the picture therein described. The internal evidence, then, and the spiritual indications (apprehended and appreciated only by those who enter into God’ s thoughts) are far more weighty than external considerations. The one who is led and taught by the Spirit of God need not waste valuable time examining ancient manuscripts for the purpose of discovering whether or not this portion of the Bible is really a part of God’ s own Word.  

Our passage emphasizes once more the abject condition of Israel. Again and again does the Holy Spirit call our attention to the fearful state that Israel was in during the days of Christ’ s earthly ministry. In chapter 1 we see the ignorance of the Jews as to the identity of the Lord’ s forerunner (John 1:14), and blind to the Divine Presence in their midst (John 1:26). In chapter 2 we have illustrated the joyless state of the nation, and are shown their desecration of the Father’ s House. In chapter 3 we behold a member of the Sanhedrin dead in trespasses and sins, needing to be born again (John 3:7), and the Jews quibbling with John’ s disciples about purifying (John 3:25). In chapter 4 we discover the callous indifference of Israel toward their Gentile neighbors— "the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans" (John 4:9). In chapter 5 we have a portrayal of God’ s covenant people in the great multitude of impotent folk, "blind, halt and withered." In chapter 6 they are represented as hungry, yet having no appetite for the Bread of life. In chapter 7 the leaders of the nation send officers to arrest Christ. And now in chapter 8 Israel is contemplated as Jehovah’ s unfaithful wife— "adulterous."  

"Jesus went unto the mount of Olives" (John 8:1). This points a contrast from the closing verse of the previous chapter. There we read, Every man went unto his own house. Here we are told, "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives." We believe that this contrast conveys a double thought, in harmony with the peculiar character of this fourth Gospel. All through John two things concerning Christ are made prominent: His essential glory and His voluntary humiliation. Here, the Holy Spirit presents Him to us as the eternal Son of God, but also as the Son come down from heaven, made flesh. Thus we are given to behold, on the one hand, His uniqueness, His peerless excellency; and on the other, the depths of shame into which He descended. Frequently these are placed almost side by side. Thus in chapter 4, we read of Him, "wearied with his journey" (verse 6); and then in the verses that follow, His Divine glories shine forth. Other examples will recur to the reader. So here in the passage before us. "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives" (following John 7:53) suggests the elevation of Christ. But no doubt it also tells of the humiliation of the Savior. The foxes had holes, and the birds of the air had nests, but the Son of man had not where to lay His head (Matthew 8:20): therefore, when "every man went unto his own house," "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives," for He "owned" no "house" down here. He who was rich for our sakes became poor.  

"And early in the morning he came again into the temple" (John 8:2). There is nothing superfluous in Scripture. Each one of these scenes has been drawn by the Heavenly Artist, so we may be fully assured that every line, no matter how small, has a meaning and value. If we keep steadily before us the subject of this picture we shall be the better able to appreciate its varied tints. The theme of our chapter is the outshining of the Light of life. How appropriate then is this opening word: the early "morning" is the hour which introduces the daylight!  

"And early in the morning he came again into the temple." This word also conveys an important practical lesson for us, inasmuch as Christ here leaves an example that we should follow His steps. In the first sermon of our Lord’ s recorded in the New Testament we find that He said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" (Matthew 6:33), and He ever practiced what he preached. The lesson which our Redeemer here exemplified is, that we need to begin the day by seeking the face and blessing of God! The Divine promise is, "They that seek me early shall find me" (Prov. 8:17). How different would be our lives if we really began each day with God! Thus only can we obtain that fresh supply of grace which will give the needed strength for the duties and conflicts of the hours that follow.  

"And all the people came unto him" (John 8:2). This is another instance where the word "all" must be understood in a modified sense. Again and again is it used relatively rather than absolutely. For example, in John 3:26 we read of the disciples of John coming to their master in complaint that Christ was attracting so many to Himself: "all come to him," they said. Again, in John 6:45 the Lord Jesus declared, "They shall be all taught of God." So here, "all the people came unto him." These and many other passages which might be cited should prevent us from falling into the errors of Universalism. For example, "I, if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all unto me" (John 12:32), does not mean all without exception. It is a very patent fact that everybody is not "drawn" to Christ. The "all" in John 12:32 is all without distinction. So here "all the people came unto him" (John 8:2) signifies all that were in the temple, that is, all kinds and conditions of men, men of varied age and social standing, men from the different tribes.  

"And he sat down, and taught them" (John 8:2). Jesus stood; Jesus walked; Jesus sat. Each of these expressions in John’ s Gospel conveys a distinctive moral truth. Jesus "stood" directs attention to the dignity and blessedness of His person, and it is very solemn to note that in no single instance (where this expression occurs) was the glory of His person recognized: cf. John 1:26; 7:37 and what follows; John 20:14, 19, 26; 21:4. Jesus "walked" refers to the public manifestation of Himself: see our notes on John 7:1. Jesus "sat" points to His condescending lowliness, meekness and grace: see John 4:6; 6:3; 12:15.  

"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him" (John 8:3-6). Following the miscarriage of their plans on the previous day— through the failure of the officers to arrest Christ (John 7:45)— the enemies of Christ hit upon a new scheme: they sought to impale Him on the horns of a dilemma. The roar of the "lion" had failed; now we are to behold the wiles of the "serpent."  

The awful malignity of the Lord’ s enemies is evident on the surface. They brought this adulterous woman to Christ not because they were shocked at her conduct, still less because they were grieved that God’ s holy law had been broken. Their object was to use this woman to exploit her sin and further their own evil designs. With coldblooded indelicacy they acted, employing the guilt of their captive to accomplish their evil intentions against Christ. Their motive cannot be misinterpreted. They were anxious to discredit our Lord before the people. They did not wait until they could interrogate Him in private, but, interrupting as He was teaching the people, they rudely challenged Him to solve what must have seemed to them an unsolvable enigma.  

The problem by which they sought to defy Infinite Wisdom was this: A woman had been taken in the act of adultery, and the law required that she should be stoned. Of this there is no room for doubt, see Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22. [1] "What sayest thou?" they asked. An insidious question, indeed. Had He said, "Let her go," they could then accuse Him as being an enemy against the law of God, and His own word "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew verse 17) had been falsified. But if He answered, "Stone her," they would have ridiculed the fact that He was the "friend of publicans and sinners." No doubt they were satisfied that they had Him completely cornered. On the one hand, if He ignored the charge they brought against this guilty woman, they could accuse Him of compromising with sin; on the other hand, if He passed sentence on her, what became of His own word, "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved" (John 3:17)? Here, then, was the dilemma: if Christ palliated the wickedness of this woman, where was His respect for the holiness of God and the righteousness of His law; but if He condemned her, what became of His claim that He had come here to "seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10)? And yet of what avail was their satanic subtlety in the presence of God manifest in flesh!  

Ere passing on it may be well to notice how this incident furnishes an illustration of the fact that wicked men can quote the Scriptures when they imagine that it will further their evil designs: "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned." But what cared they for the law? They were seeking to turn the point of the Spirit’ s "sword" against the One they hated; soon they were to feel its sharp edge of themselves. Let us not be deceived then and conclude that every one who quotes Scripture to us must, necessarily, be a God-fearing man. Those who quote the Scriptures to condemn others are frequently the guiltiest of all. Those who are so solicitous to point to the mote in another’ s eye, generally have a beam in their own.  

But there is far more here than meets the eye at first glance, or second too. The whole incident supplies a most striking portrayal of what is developed at length in the epistle to the Romans. It is not difficult to discern here (skulking behind the scenes) the hideous features of the great Enemy of God and His people. The hatred of these scribes and Pharisees was fanned by the inveterate enmity of the Serpent against the woman’ s "Seed." The subject is profoundly mysterious, but Scripture supplies more than one plain hint that Satan is permitted to challenge the very character of God— the book of Job, the third of Zechariah, and Revelation 12:10 are proofs of that. No doubt one reason why the Lord God suffers this is for the instruction of the unfallen angels— cf. Ephesians 3:10.  

The problem presented to Christ by His enemies was no mere local one. So far as human reason can perceive it was the profoundest moral problem which ever could or can confront God Himself. That problem was how justice and mercy could be harmonized. The law of righteousness imperatively demands the punishment of its transgressor. To set aside that demand would be to introduce a reign of anarchy. Moreover, God is holy as well as righteous; and holiness burns against evil, and cannot allow that which is defiled to enter His presence. What, then, is to become of the poor sinner? A transgressor of the law he certainly is; and equally manifest is his moral pollution. His only hope lies in mercy; his salvation is possible only by grace. But how can mercy be exercised when the sword of justice bars her way? How can grace flow forth except by slighting holiness? Ah, human wisdom could never have found an answer to such questions. It is evident that these scribes and Pharisees thought of none. And we are fully assured that at the beginning Satan himself could see no solution to this mighty problem. But blessed be His name, God has "found a way" whereby His banished ones may be restored (2 Sam. 14:13, 14). What this is we shall see hinted at in the remainder of our passage.  

Let us observe how each of the essential elements in this problem of all problems is presented in the passage before us. We may summarize them thus: First, we have there the person of that blessed One who had come to seek and to save that which was lost. Second, we have a sinner, a guilty sinner, one who could by no means clear herself. Third, the law was against her: the law she had broken, and the declared penalty of it was death. Fourth, the guilty sinner was brought before the Savior Himself, and was indicted by His enemies. Such, then, was the problem now presented to Christ. Would grace stand helpless before law? If not, wherein lay the solution? Let us attend carefully to what follows.  

"But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground" (John 8:6). This was the first thing that He here did. That there was a symbolical significance to His action goes without saying, and what this is we are not left to guess. Scripture is its own interpreter. This was not the first time that the Lord had written "with his finger." In Exodus 31:18 we read, "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." When, then, our Lord wrote on the ground (from the ground must the "tables of stone" have been taken), it was as though He had said, You remind Me of the law! Why, it was My finger which wrote that law! Thus did He show these Pharisees that He had come here, not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. His writing on the ground, then, was (symbolically) a ratification of God’ s righteous law. But so blind were His would-be accusers they discerned not the significance of His act.  

"So when they continued asking him" (John 8:7). It is evident that our Lord’ s enemies mistook His silence for embarrassment. They no more grasped the force of His action of writing on the ground, than did Belshazzar understand the writing of that same Hand on the walls of his palace. Emboldened by His silence, and satisfied that they had Him cornered, they continued to press their question upon Him. O the persistency of evil-doers! How often they put to shame our lack of perseverance and importunity.  

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7). This, too, has a far deeper meaning than what appears on the surface. God’ s Law was a holy and a righteous one, and here we find the Lawgiver Himself turning its white light upon these men who really had so little respect for it. Christ was here intimating that they, His would-be accusers, were no fit subjects to demand the enforcement of the law’ s sentence. None but a holy hand should administer the perfect law. In principle, we may see here the great Adversary and Accuser reprimanded. Satan may stand before the angel of the Lord to resist "the high priest" (Zech. 3:1), but, morally, he is the last one who should insist on the maintenance of righteousness. And how strikingly this reprimanding of the Pharisees by Christ adumbrated what we read of in Zechariah 3:2 ("The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan") scarcely needs to be pointed out.  

"And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground" (John 8:8). Profoundly significant was this, and unspeakably blessed. The symbolic meaning of it is plainly hinted at in the word "again": the Lord wrote on the ground a second time. And of what did that speak? Once more the Old Testament Scriptures supply the answer. The first "tables of stone" were dashed to the ground by Moses, and broken. A second set was therefore written by God. And what became of the second "tables of stone"? They were laid up in the ark (Ex. 40:20), and were covered by the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat! Here, then, Christ was giving more than a hint of how He would save those who were, by the law, condemned to death. It was not that the law would be set aside: far from it. As His first stooping down and with His finger writing on the ground intimated, the law would be "established." But as He stooped down and wrote the second time, He signified that the shed blood of an innocent substitute should come between the law and those it condemned!  

"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last" (John 8:9). Thus was "the strong man bound" (Matthew 12:29). Christ’ s enemies had thought to ensnare Him by the law of Moses; instead, they had its searching light turned upon themselves. Grace had not defied, but had upheld the law! One sentence from the lips of Holiness incarnate and they were all silenced, all convicted, and all departed. At another time, a self-righteous Pharisee might boast of his lastings, his tithes and his prayers; but when God turns the light on a man’ s heart, his moral and spiritual depravity become apparent even to himself, and shame shuts his lips. So it was here. Not a word had Christ uttered against the law; in nowise had He condoned the woman’ s sin. Unable to find any ground for accusation against Him, completely baffled in their evil designs, convicted by their consciences, they slunk away: "beginning at the eldest," because he had the most sin to hide and the most reputation to preserve. And in the conduct of these men we have a clear intimation of how the wicked will act in the last great Day. Now, they may proclaim their self-righteousness, and talk about the injustice of eternal punishment. But then, when the light of God flashes upon them, and their guilt and ruin are fully exposed, they shall, like these Pharisees, be speechless.  

"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out." There is a solemn warning here for sinners who may be exercised in mind over their condition. Here were men who were "convicted by their own conscience," yet instead of this causing them to cast themselves at the feet of Christ, it resulted in them leaving Christ! Nothing short of the Holy Spirit’ s quickening will ever bring a soul into saving contact with the Lord Jesus.  

"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst" (John 8:9). This is exceedingly striking. These scribes and Pharisees had challenged Christ from the law. He met them on their own ground, and vanquished them by the law. "When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee" (John 8:10, 11). The law required two witnesses before its sentence could be executed (Deut. 19:15), yet, those witnesses must assist in the carrying out of the sentence (Deut. 17:7). But here not a single witness was left to testify against this woman who had merely been indicted. Thus the law was powerless to touch her. What, then, remained? Why, the way was now clear for Christ to act in "grace and truth."  

"Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:11). No doubt the question occurs to many of our readers, Was this woman saved at the time she left Christ? Personally, we believe that she was. We believe so because she did not leave Christ when she had opportunity to do so; because she addressed Him as "Lord" (contrast "Master" of the Pharisees in verse 4); and because Christ said to her, "Neither do I condemn thee." But, as another has said, "In looking at these incidents of Scripture, we need not ask if the objects of the grace act in the intelligence of the story. It is enough for us that here was a sinner exposed in the presence of Him who came to meet sin and put it away. Whoever takes the place of this woman meets the word that clears of condemnation, just as the publicans and sinners with whom Christ eats in Luke 15, set forth this, that if one takes the place of the sinner and the outcast, he is at once received. So with the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver. There is no intelligence of their condition, yet they set forth that which, if one take, it is representative. To make it clear, one might ask, ‘ Are you as sinful as this woman, as badly lost as that sheep or piece of silver?’ " (Malachi Taylor)  

"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." How striking and how blessed is this sequel to what has been before us! When Christ wrote on the ground the second time (not before), the "accusers" of the guilty departed! And then, after the last accuser had disappeared, the Lord said, "Neither do I condemn thee." How perfect the picture And to complete it, Christ added, "Go, and sin no more," which is still His word to those who have been saved by grace. And the ground, the righteous ground, on which He pronounced this verdict "Neither do I condemn thee," was, that in a short time He was going to be "condemned" in her stead. Finally, note the order of these two words of Christ to this woman who owned Him as "Lord" (1 Cor. 12:3). It was not, "Go and sin no more, and I will not condemn thee," for that would have been a death-knell rather than good news in her ears. Instead, the Savior said, "Neither do I condemn thee." And to every one who takes the place this woman was brought into, the word is, "There is therefore now no condemnation" (Rom. 8:1). "And sin no more" placed her, as we are placed, under the constraint of His love.  

This incident then contains far more than that which was of local and ephemeral significance. It, in fact, raises the basic question of, How can mercy and justice be harmonized? How can grace flow forth except by slighting holiness? In the scene here presented to our view we are shown, not by a closely reasoned out statement of doctrine, but in symbolic action, that this problem is not insoluable to Divine wisdom. Here was a concrete case of a guilty sinner leaving the presence of Christ un-condemned. And it was neither because the law had been slighted nor sin palliated. The requirements of the law were strictly complied with, and her sin was openly condemned— "sin no more." Yet, she herself, was not condemned. She was dealt with according to "grace and truth." Mercy flowed out to her, yet not at the expense of justice. Such, in brief, is a summary, of this marvelous narrative; a narrative which, verily, no man ever invented and no uninspired pen ever recorded.  

This blessed incident not only anticipated the epistle to the Romans, but it also outlines, by vivid symbols, the Gospel of the grace of God. The Gospel not only announces a Savior for sinners, but it also explains how God can save them consistently with the requirements of His character. As Romans 1:17 tells us, in the Gospel is "the righteousness of God revealed." And this is precisely what is set forth here in John 8.  

The entire incident is a most striking amplification and exemplification of John 1:17: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." The grace of God never conflicts with His law, but, on the contrary, upholds its authority, "As sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 5:21). But as to how grace might reign "through righteousness" was a problem which God alone could solve, and Christ’ s solution of it here marks Him as none other than "God manifest in flesh." With what blessed propriety, then, is this incident placed in the fourth Gospel, the special design of which is to display the Divine glory of the Lord Jesus!  

Perhaps a separate word needs to be said on verse 7, in connection with which some have experienced a difficulty; and that is, Do these words of Christ enunciate a principle which we are justified in using? If so, under what circumstances? It is essential to bear in mind that Christ was not here speaking as Judge, but as One in the place of the Servant. The principle involved has been well stated thus, "We have no right to say to an official who in condemning culprits or in prosecuting them is simply discharging a public duty, ‘ See that your own hands be clean, and your own heart pure before you condemn another’ ; but we have a perfect right to silence a private individual who is officiously and not officially exposing another’ s guilt, by bidding him remember that he has a beam in his own eye which he must first be rid of" (Dr. Dods).  

The "scribes and Pharisees" who brought the guilty adulteress to Christ must be viewed as representatives of their nation (as Nicodemus in John 3 and the impotent man in John 5). What, then, was the spiritual condition of Israel at that time? It was precisely that of this guilty woman: an "evil and adulterous generation" (Matthew 12:37) Christ termed them. But they were blinded by self-righteousness: they discerned not their awful condition, and knew not that they, equally with the Gentiles, were under the curse that had descended upon all from our father, Adam. Moreover; they were under a deeper guilt than the Gentiles— they stood convicted of the additional crime of having broken their covenant with the Lord. They were, in fact, the unfaithful, the adulterous wife of Jehovah (see Ezekiel 16; Hosea 2, etc.). What, then, did Jehovah’ s law call for in such a case? The answer to this question is furnished in Numbers 5, which sets forth "the law of jealousy," and describes the Divinely-ordered procedure for establishing the guilt of an unfaithful wife.  

We cannot here quote the whole of Numbers 5, but would ask the reader to turn to and read verses 11-31 of that chapter. We quote now verses 17, 24, 27:— "And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water... And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter... And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people!"  

What light these verses cast upon our Lord’ s dealings with the Pharisees (representatives of Israel) here in John 8. "Water" is the well-known emblem of the Word (Eph. 5:26, etc.). This water is here termed "holy." It was to be in an earthen vessel (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:7). This water was to be mixed with "the dust which is in the floor of the tabernacle."— Thus the water becomes "bitter water," and the woman was made to drink it. The result would be (in case she was guilty) that her guilt would be outwardly evidenced in the swelling of her belly (symbol of pride) and the rotting of her thigh— her strength turned to corruption. Now put these separate items together, and is it not precisely what we find here in John 8? The Son of God is there incarnate, "made flesh," an "earthen vessel." The "holy water" is seen in His holy words— "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." In stooping down and writing on the floor of the temple, He mingled "the dust" with it. As He did this it became "bitter" to the proud Pharisees. In the conviction of their consciences we see how "bitter," and in going out, one by one, abashed, we see the withering of their strength! And thus was the guilt of Jehovah’ s unfaithful wife made fully manifest!  

The following questions bear upon the next chapter:—   

1. What is meant by "the world" in verse 12? Do not jump to conclusions.  

2. What kind of light does "the world" enjoy? verse 12  

3. What is "the light of life"? verse 12.  

4. To what "witness of the Father" was Christ referring? verse 18.  

5. What does "die in your sins" (verse 21) prove concerning the Atonement?  

6. What is the meaning of verse 31?  

7. What does the truth make free from? verse 32.  

ENDNOTES:   

[1] Where the form of death was not specified, it was by stoning.  

  

MHCC: Joh 8:1-11

Christ neither found fault with the law, nor excused the prisoner's guilt; nor did he countenance the pretended zeal of the Pharisees. Those are self-condemned who judge others, and yet do the same thing. All who are any way called to blame the faults of others, are especially concerned to look to themselves, and keep themselves pure. In this matter Christ attended to the great work about which he came into the world, that was, to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save. He aimed to bring, not only the accused to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors also, by showing them their sins; they thought to insnare him, he sought to convince and convert them. He declined to meddle with the magistrate's office. Many crimes merit far more severe punishment than they meet with; but we should not leave our own work, to take that upon ourselves to which we are not called. When Christ sent her away, it was with this caution, Go, and sin no more. Those who help to save the life of a criminal, should help to save the soul with the same caution. Those are truly happy, whom Christ does not condemn. Christ's favour to us in the forgiveness of past sins should prevail with us, Go then, and sin no more.

Matthew Henry: Joh 8:1-11

Though Christ was basely abused in the foregoing chapter, both by the rulers and by the people, yet here we have him still at Jerusalem, still in the temple. How often would he have gathered them! Observe,

I. His retirement in the evening out of the town (Joh 8:1): He went unto the mount of olives; whether to some friend's house, or to some booth pitched there, now at the feast of tabernacles, is not certain; whether he rested there, or, as some think, continued all night in prayer to God, we are not told. But he went out of Jerusalem, perhaps because he had no friend there that had either kindness or courage enough to give him a night's lodging; while his persecutors had houses of their own to go to (Joh 7:53), he could not so much as borrow a place to lay his head on, but what he must go a mile or two out of town for. He retired (as some think) because he would not expose himself to the peril of a popular tumult in the night. It is prudent to go out of the way of danger whenever we can do it without going out of the way of duty. In the day-time, when he had work to do in the temple, he willingly exposed himself, and was under special protection, Isa 49:2. But in the night, when he had not work to do, he withdrew into the country, and sheltered himself there.

II. His return in the morning to the temple, and to his work there, Joh 8:2. Observe,

1. What a diligent preacher Christ was: Early in the morning he came again, and taught. Though he had been teaching the day before, he taught again today. Christ was a constant preacher, in season and out of season. Three things were taken notice of here concerning Christ's preaching. (1.) The time: Early in the morning. Though he lodged out of town, and perhaps had spent much of the night in secret prayer, yet he came early. When a day's work is to be done for God and souls it is good to begin betimes, and take the day before us. (2.) The place: In the temple; not so much because it was a consecrated place (for then he would have chosen it at other times) as because it was now a place of concourse; and he would hereby countenance solemn assemblies for religious worship, and encourage people to come up to the temple, for he had not yet left it desolate. (3.) His posture: He sat down, and taught, as one having authority, and as one that intended to abide by it for some time.

2. How diligently his preaching was attended upon: All the people came unto him; and perhaps many of them were the country-people, who were this day to return home from the feast, and were desirous to hear one sermon more from the mouth of Christ before they returned. They came to him, though he came early. They that seek him early shall find him. Though the rulers were displeased at those that came to hear him, yet they would come; and he taught them, though they were angry at him too. Though there were few or none among them that were persons of any figure, yet Christ bade them welcome, and taught them.

III. His dealing with those that brought to him the woman taken in adultery, tempting him. The scribes and Pharisees would not only not hear Christ patiently themselves, but they disturbed him when the people were attending on him. Observe here,

1. The case proposed to him by the scribes and Pharisees, who herein contrived to pick a quarrel with him, and bring him into a snare, Joh 8:3-6.

(1.) They set the prisoner to the bar (Joh 8:3): they brought him a woman taken in adultery, perhaps now lately taken, during the time of the feast of tabernacles, when, it may be, their dwelling in booths, and their feasting and joy, might, by wicked minds, which corrupt the best things, be made occasions of sin. Those that were taken in adultery were by the Jewish law to be put to death, which the Roman powers allowed them the execution of, and therefore she was brought before the ecclesiastical court. Observe, She was taken in her adultery. Though adultery is a work of darkness, which the criminals commonly take all the care they can to conceal, yet sometimes it is strangely brought to light. Those that promise themselves secrecy in sin deceive themselves. The scribes and Pharisees bring her to Christ, and set her in the midst of the assembly, as if they would leave her wholly to the judgment of Christ, he having sat down, as a judge upon the bench.

(2.) They prefer an indictment against her: Master, this woman was taken in adultery, Joh 8:4. Here they call him Master whom but the day before they had called a deceiver, in hopes with their flatteries to have ensnared him, as those, Luk 20:20. But, though men may be imposed upon with compliments, he that searches the heart cannot.

[1.] The crime for which the prisoner stands indicted is no less than adultery, which even in the patriarchal age, before the law of Moses, was looked upon as an iniquity to be punished by the judges, Job 31:9-11; Gen 38:24. The Pharisees, by their vigorous prosecution of this offender, seemed to have a great zeal against the sin, when it appeared afterwards that they themselves were not free from it; nay, they were within full of all uncleanness, Mat 23:27, Mat 23:28. Note, It is common for those that are indulgent to their own sin to be severe against the sins of others.

[2.] The proof of the crime was from the notorious evidence of the fact, an incontestable proof; she was taken in the act, so that there was no room left to plead not guilty. Had she not been taken in this act, she might have gone on to another, till her heart had been perfectly hardened; but sometimes it proves a mercy to sinners to have their sin brought to light, that they may do no more presumptuously. Better our sin should shame us than damn us, and be set in order before us for our conviction than for our condemnation.

(3.) They produce the statute in this case made and provided, and upon which she was indicted, Joh 8:5. Moses in the law commanded that such should be stoned. Moses commanded that they should be put to death (Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22), but not that they should be stoned, unless the adulteress was espoused, not married, or was a priest's daughter, Deu 22:21. Note, Adultery is an exceedingly sinful sin, for it is the rebellion of a vile lust, not only against the command, but against the covenant, of our God. It is the violation of a divine institution in innocency, by the indulgence of one of the basest lusts of man in his degeneracy.

(4.) They pray his judgment in the case: " But what sayest thou, who pretendest to be a teacher come from God to repeal old laws and enact new ones? What hast thou to say in this case?"If they had asked this question in sincerity, with a humble desire to know his mind, it had been very commendable. Those that are entrusted with the administration of justice should look up to Christ for direction; but this they said tempting him, that they might have to accuse him, Joh 8:6. [1.] If he should confirm the sentence of the law, and let it take its course, they would censure him as inconsistent with himself (he having received publicans and harlots) and with the character of the Messiah, who should be meek, and have salvation, and proclaim a year of release; and perhaps they would accuse him to the Roman governor, for countenancing the Jews in the exercise of a judicial power. But, [2.] If he should acquit her, and give his opinion that the sentence should not be executed (as they expected he would), they would represent him, First, As an enemy to the law of Moses, and as one that usurped an authority to correct and control it, and would confirm that prejudice against him which his enemies were so industrious to propagate, that he came to destroy the law and the prophets. Secondly, As a friend to sinners, and, consequently, a favourer of sin; if he should seem to connive at such wickedness, and let it go unpunished, they would represent him as countenancing it, and being a patron of offences, if he was a protector of offenders, than which no reflection could be more invidious upon one that professed the strictness, purity, and business of a prophet.

2. The method he took to resolve this case, and so to break this snare.

(1.) He seemed to slight it, and turned a deaf ear to it: He stooped down, and wrote on the ground. It is impossible to tell, and therefore needless to ask, what he wrote; but this is the only mention made in the gospels of Christ's writing. Eusebius indeed speaks of his writing to Abgarus, king of Edessa. Some think they have a liberty of conjecture as to what he wrote here. Grotius says, It was some grave weighty saying, and that it was usual for wise men, when they were very thoughtful concerning any thing, to do so. Jerome and Ambrose suppose he wrote, Let the names of these wicked men be written in the dust. Others this, The earth accuses the earth, but the judgment is mine. Christ by this teaches us to be slow to speak when difficult cases are proposed to us, not quickly to shoot our bolt; and when provocations are given us, or we are bantered, to pause and consider before we reply; think twice before we speak once: The heart of the wise studies to answer. Our translation from some Greek copies, which add, mē prospoioumenos (though most copies have it not), give this account of the reason of his writing on the ground, as though he heard them not. He did as it were look another way, to show that he was not willing to take notice of their address, saying, in effect, Who made me a judge or a divider? It is safe in many cases to be deaf to that which it is not safe to answer, Psa 38:13. Christ would not have his ministers to be entangled in secular affairs. Let them rather employ themselves in any lawful studies, and fill up their time in writing on the ground (which nobody will heed), than busy themselves in that which does not belong to them. But, when Christ seemed as though he heard them not, he made it appear that he not only heard their words, but knew their thoughts.

(2.) When they importunately, or rather impertinently, pressed him for an answer, he turned the conviction of the prisoner upon the prosecutors, Joh 8:7.

[1.] They continued asking him, and his seeming not to take notice of them made them the more vehement; for now they thought sure enough that they had run him aground, and that he could not avoid the imputation of contradicting either the law of Moses, if he should acquit the prisoner, or his own doctrine of mercy and pardon, if he should condemn her; and therefore they pushed on their appeal to him with vigour; whereas they should have construed his disregard of them as a check to their design, and an intimation to them to desist, as they tendered their own reputation.

[2.] At last he put them all to shame and silence with one word: He lifted up himself, awaking as one out of sleep (Psa 78:65), and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

First, Here Christ avoided the snare which they had laid for him, and effectually saved his own reputation. He neither reflected upon the law nor excused the prisoner's guilt, nor did he on the other hand encourage the prosecution or countenance their heat; see the good effect of consideration. When we cannot make our point by steering a direct course, it is good to fetch a compass.

Secondly, In the net which they spread is their own foot taken. They came with design to accuse him, but they were forced to accuse themselves. Christ owns it was fit the prisoner should be prosecuted, but appeals to their consciences whether they were fit to be the prosecutors.

a. He here refers to that rule which the law of Moses prescribed in the execution of criminals, that the hand of the witnesses must be first upon them (Deu 17:7), as in the stoning of Stephen, Act 7:58. The scribes and Pharisees were the witnesses against this woman. Now Christ puts it to them whether, according to their own law, they would dare to be the executioners. Durst they take away that life with their hands which they were now taking away with their tongues? would not their own consciences fly in their faces if they did?

b. He builds upon an uncontested maxim in morality, that it is very absurd for men to be zealous in punishing the offences of others, while they are every whit as guilty themselves, and they are not better than self-condemned who judge others, and yet themselves do the same thing: "If there be any of you who is without sin, without sin of this nature, that has not some time or other been guilty of fornication or adultery, let him cast the first stone at her."Not that magistrates, who are conscious of guilt themselves, should therefore connive at others' guilt. But therefore, ( a. ) Whenever we find fault with others, we ought to reflect upon ourselves, and to be more severe against sin in ourselves than in others. ( b. ) We ought to be favourable, though not to the sins, yet to the persons, of those that offend, and to restore them with a spirit of meekness, considering ourselves and our own corrupt nature. Aut sumus, aut fuimus, vel possumus esse quod hic est - We either are, or have been, or may be, what he is. Let this restrain us from throwing stones at our brethren, and proclaiming their faults. Let him that is without sin begin such discourse as this, and then those that are truly humbled for their own sins will blush at it, and be glad to let it drop. ( c. ) Those that are any way obliged to animadvert upon the faults of others are concerned to look well to themselves, and keep themselves pure (Mat 7:5), Qui alterum incusat probri, ipsum se intueri oportet . The snuffers of the tabernacle were of pure gold.

c. Perhaps he refers to the trial of the suspected wife by the jealous husband with the waters of jealousy. The man was to bring her to the priest (Num 5:15), as the scribes and Pharisees brought this woman to Christ. Now it was a received opinion among the Jews, and confirmed by experience, that if the husband who brought his wife to that trial had himself been at any time guilty of adultery, Aquae non explorant ejus uxorem - The bitter water had no effect upon the wife. "Come then,"saith Christ, "according to your own tradition will I judge you; if you are without sin, stand to the charge, and let the adulteress be executed; but if not, though she be guilty, while you that present her are equally so, according to your own rule she shall be free."

d. In this he attended to the great work which he came into the world about, and that was to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save. He aimed to bring, not only the prisoner to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors too, by showing them their sins. They sought to ensnare him; he sought to convince and convert them. Thus the blood-thirsty hate the upright, but the just seek his soul.

[3.] Having given them this startling word, he left them to consider of it, and again stooped down, and wrote on the ground, Joh 8:8. As when they made their address he seemed to slight their question, so now that he had given them an answer he slighted their resentment of it, not caring what they said to it; nay, they needed not to make any reply; the matter was lodged in their own breasts, let them make the best of it there. Or, he would not seem to wait for an answer, lest they should on a sudden justify themselves, and then think themselves bound in honour to persist in it; but gives them time to pause, and to commune with their own hearts. God saith, I hearkened and heard, Jer 8:6. Some Greek copies here read, He wrote on the ground, enos hekastou autōn tas hamartias - the sins of every one of them; this he could do, for he sets our iniquities before him; and this he will do, for he will set them in order before us too; he seals up our transgressions, Job 14:17. But he does not write men's sins in the sand; no, they are written as with a pen of iron and the point of a diamond (Jer 17:1), never to be forgotten till they are forgiven.

[4.] The scribes and Pharisees were so strangely thunderstruck with the words of Christ that they let fall their persecution of Christ, whom they durst no further tempt, and their prosecution of the woman, whom they durst no longer accuse (Joh 8:9): They went out one by one.

First, Perhaps his writing on the ground frightened them, as the hand-writing on the wall frightened Belshazzar. They concluded he was writing bitter things against them, writing their doom. Happy they who have no reason to be afraid of Christ's writing!

Secondly, What he said frightened them by sending them to their own consciences; he had shown them to themselves, and they were afraid if they should stay till he lifted up himself again his next word would show them to the world, and shame them before men, and therefore they thought it best to withdraw. They went out one by one, that they might go out softly, and not by a noisy flight disturb Christ; they went away by stealth, as people being ashamed steal away when they flee in battle, 2Sa 19:3. The order of their departure is taken notice of, beginning at the eldest, either because they were most guilty, or first aware of the danger they were in of being put to the blush; and if the eldest quit the field, and retreat ingloriously, no marvel if the younger follow them. Now see here, 1. The force of the word of Christ for the conviction of sinners: They who heard it were convicted by their own consciences. Conscience is God's deputy in the soul, and one word from him will set it on work, Heb 4:12. Those that had been old in adulteries, and long fixed in a proud opinion of themselves, were here, even the oldest of them, startled by the word of Christ; even scribes and Pharisees, who were most conceited of themselves, are by the power of Christ's word made to retire with shame. 2. The folly of sinners under these convictions, which appears in these scribes and Pharisees. (1.) It is folly for those that are under convictions to make it their principal care to avoid shame, as Judah (Gen 38:23), lest we be shamed. Our care should be more to save our souls than to save our credit. Saul evidenced his hypocrisy when he said, I have sinned, yet now honour me, I pray thee. There is no way to get the honour and comfort of penitents, but by taking the shame of penitents. (2.) It is folly for those that are under convictions to contrive how to shift off their convictions, and to get rid of them. The scribes and Pharisees had the wound opened, and now they should have been desirous to have it searched, and then it might have been healed, but this was the thing they dreaded and declined. (3.) It is folly for those that are under convictions to get away from Jesus Christ, as these here did, for he is the only one that can heal the wounds of conscience, and speak peace to us. Those that are convicted by their consciences will be condemned by their Judge, if they be not justified by their Redeemer; and will they then go from him? To whom will they go?

[5.] When the self-conceited prosecutors quitted the field, and fled for the same, the self-condemned prisoner stood her ground, with a resolution to abide by the judgment of our Lord Jesus: Jesus was left alone from the company of the scribes and Pharisees, free from their molestations, and the woman standing in the midst of the assembly that were attending on Christ's preaching, where they set her, Joh 8:3. She did not seek to make her escape, though she had opportunity for it; but her prosecutors had appealed unto Jesus, and to him she would go, on him she would wait for her doom. Note, Those whose cause is brought before our Lord Jesus will never have occasion to remove it into any other court, for he is the refuge of penitents. The law which accuses us, and calls for judgment against us, is by the gospel of Christ made to withdraw; its demands are answered, and its clamours silenced, by the blood of Jesus. Our cause is lodged in the gospel court; we are left with Jesus alone, it is with him only that we have now to deal, for to him all judgment is committed; let us therefore secure our interest in him, and we are made for ever. Let his gospel rule us, and it will infallibly save us.

[6.] Here is the conclusion of the trial, and the issue it was brought to: Jesus lifted up himself, and he saw none but the woman, Joh 8:10, Joh 8:11. Though Christ may seem to take no notice of what is said and done, but leave it to the contending sons of men to deal it out among themselves, yet, when the hour of his judgment is come, he will no longer keep silence. When David had appealed to God, he prayed, Lift up thyself, Psa 7:6, and Psa 94:2. The woman, it is likely, stood trembling at the bar, as one doubtful of the issue. Christ was without sin, and might cast the first stone; but though none more severe than he against sin, for he is infinitely just and holy, none more compassionate than he to sinners, for he is infinitely gracious and merciful, and this poor malefactor finds him so, now that she stands upon her deliverance. Here is the method of courts of judicature observed.

First, The prosecutors are called: Where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? Not but that Christ knew where they were; but he asked, that he might shame them, who declined his judgment, and encourage her who resolved to abide by it. St. Paul's challenge is like this, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? Where are those their accusers? The accuser of the brethren shall be fairly cast out, and all indictments legally and regularly quashed.

Secondly, They do not appear when the question is asked: Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. She speaks respectfully to Christ, calls him Lord, but is silent concerning her prosecutors, says nothing in answer to that question which concerned them, Where are those thine accusers? She does not triumph in their retreat nor insult over them as witnesses against themselves, not against her. If we hope to be forgiven by our Judge, we must forgive our accusers; and if their accusations, how invidious soever, were the happy occasion of awakening our consciences, we may easily forgive them this wrong. But she answered the question which concerned herself, Has no man condemned thee? True penitents find it enough to give an account of themselves to God, and will not undertake to give an account of other people.

Thirdly, The prisoner is therefore discharged: Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more. Consider this,

( a. ) As her discharge from the temporal punishment: "If they do not condemn thee to be stoned to death, neither do I. "Not that Christ came to disarm the magistrate of his sword of justice, nor that it is his will that capital punishments should not be inflicted on malefactors; so far from this, the administration of public justice is established by the gospel, and made subservient to Christ's kingdom: By me kings reign. But Christ would not condemn this woman, ( a. ) Because it was none of his business; he was no judge nor divider, and therefore would not intermeddle in secular affairs. His kingdom was not of this world. Tractent fabrilia fabri - Let every one act in his own province. ( b. ) Because she was prosecuted by those that were more guilty than she and could not for shame insist upon their demand of justice against her. The law appointed the hands of the witnesses to be first upon the criminal, and afterwards the hands of all the people, so that if they fly off, and do not condemn her, the prosecution drops. The justice of God, in inflicting temporal judgments, sometimes takes notice of a comparative righteousness, and spares those who are otherwise obnoxious when the punishing of them would gratify those that are worse than they, Deu 32:26, Deu 32:27. But, when Christ dismissed her, it was with this caution, Go, and sin no more. Impunity emboldens malefactors, and therefore those who are guilty, and yet have found means to escape the edge of the law, need to double their watch, lest Satan get advantage; for the fairer the escape was, the fairer the warning was to go and sin no more. Those who help to save the life of a criminal should, as Christ here, help to save the soul with this caution.

( b. ) As her discharge from the eternal punishment. For Christ to say, I do not condemn thee is, in effect, to say, I do forgive thee; and the Son of man had power on earth to forgive sins, and could upon good grounds give this absolution; for as he knew the hardness and impenitent hearts of the prosecutors, and therefore said that which would confound them, so he knew the tenderness and sincere repentance of the prisoner, and therefore said that which would comfort her, as he did to that woman who was a sinner, such a sinner as this, who was likewise looked upon with disdain by a Pharisee (Luk 7:48, Luk 7:50): Thy sins are forgiven thee, go in peace. So here, Neither do I condemn thee. Note, ( a. ) Those are truly happy whom Christ doth not condemn, for his discharge is a sufficient answer to all other challenges; they are all coram non judice - before an unauthorized judge. ( b. ) Christ will not condemn those who, though they have sinned, will go and sin no more, Psa 85:8; Isa 55:7. he will not take the advantage he has against us for our former rebellions, if we will but lay down our arms and return to our allegiance. ( c. ) Christ's favour to us in the remission of the sins that are past should be a prevailing argument with us to go and sin no more, Rom 6:1, Rom 6:2. Will not Christ condemn thee? Go then and sin no more.

Barclay: Joh 8:1-11

[This incident is not included in all the ancient manuscripts

and appears only in a footnote in the Revised Standard

Version; see: NOTE ON THE STORY OF THE WOMAN TAKEN

IN ADULTERY]

The scribes and Pharisees were out to get some charge on which they could discredit Jesus; and here they thought they had impaled him inescapably on the horns of a dilemma. When a difficult legal question arose, the natural and routine thing was to take it to a Rabbi for a decision. So the scribes and Pharisees approached Jesus as a Rabbi with a woman taken in adultery.

In the eyes of the Jewish law adultery was a serious crime. The Rabbis said: "Every Jew must die before he will commit idolatry, murder or adultery." Adultery was, in fact one of the three gravest sins and it was punishable by, death, although there were certain differences in respect of the way in which the death penalty was to be carried out. Lev 20:10lays it down: "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death." There the method of death is not specified. Deu 22:13-24lays down the penalty in the case of a girl who is already betrothed. In a case like that she and the man who seduced her are to be brought outside the city gates, "and you shall stone them to death with stones." The Mishnah, that is, the Jewish codified law, states that the penalty for adultery is strangulation, and even the method of strangulation is laid down. "The man is to be enclosed in dung up to his knees, and a soft towel set within a rough towel is to be placed around his neck (in order that no mark may be made, for the punishment is God's punishment). Then one man draws in one direction and another in the other direction, until he be dead." The Mishnah reiterates that death by stoning is the penalty for a girl who is betrothed and who then commits adultery. From the purely legal point of view the scribes and Pharisees were perfectly correct. This woman was liable to death by stoning.

The dilemma into which they sought to put Jesus was this: If he said that the woman ought to be stoned to death, two things followed. First, he would lose the name he had gained for love and for mercy and never again would be called the friend of sinners. Second, he would come into collision with the Roman law, for the Jews had no power to pass or carry out the death sentence on anyone. If he said that the woman should be pardoned, it could immediately be said that he was teaching men to break the law of Moses, and that he was condoning and even encouraging people to commit adultery. That was the trap in which the scribes and Pharisees sought to entrap Jesus. But he turned their attack in such a way that it recoiled against themselves.

At first Jesus stooped down and wrote with his finger on the ground. Why did he do that? There may be four possible reasons.

(i) He may quite simply have wished to gain time and not be rushed into a decision. In that brief moment he may have been both thinking the thing out and taking it to God.

(ii) Certain manuscripts add, "As though he did not hear them." Jesus may well have deliberately forced the scribes and Pharisees to repeat their charges, so that, in repeating them, they might possibly realize the sadistic cruelty which lay behind them.

(iii) Seeley in Ecce Homo makes an interesting suggestion. "Jesus was seized with an intolerable sense of shame. He could not meet the eye of the crowd, or of the accusers, and perhaps at that moment least of all of the woman.... In his burning embarrassment and confusion he stooped down so as to hide his face, and began writing with his fingers upon the ground." It may well be that the leering, lustful look on the faces of the scribes and Pharisees, the bleak cruelty in their eyes, the prurient curiosity of the crowd, the shame of the woman, all combined to twist the very heart of Jesus in agony and pity, so that he hid his eyes.

(iv) By far the most interesting suggestion emerges from certain of the later manuscripts. The Armenian translates the passage this way: "He himself, bowing his head, was writing with his finger on the earth to declare their sins; and they were seeing their several sins on the stones." The suggestion is that Jesus was writing in the dust the sins of the very men who were accusing the woman. There may be something in that. The normal Greek word for to write is graphein (1125); but here the word used is katagraphein, which can mean to write down a record against someone. (One of the meanings of kata (2596) is against). So in Job 13:26Job says: "Thou writest (katagraphein) bitter things against me." It may be that Jesus was confronting those self-confident sadists with the record of their own sins.

However that may be, the scribes and Pharisees continued to insist on an answer--and they got it. Jesus said in effect: "All right! Stone her! But let the man that is without sin be the first to cast a stone." It may well be that the word for without sin (anamartetos, 361) means not only without sin, but even without a sinful desire. Jesus was saying: "Yes, you may stone her--but only if you never wanted to do the same thing yourselves." There was a silence--and then slowly the accusers drifted away.

So Jesus and the woman were left alone. As Augustine put it: "There remained a great misery (miseria) and a great pity (misericordia)." Jesus said to the woman: "Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. Jesus said: "I am not for the moment going to pass judgment on you either. Go, and make a new start, and don't sin any more."

Barclay: Joh 8:1-11

This passage shows us two things about the attitude of the scribes and the Pharisees.

(i) It shows us their conception of authority. The scribes and the Pharisees were the legal experts of the day; to them problems were taken for decision. It is clear that to them authority was characteristically critical, censorious and condemnatory. That authority should be based on sympathy, that its aim should be to reclaim the criminal and the sinner, never entered their heads. They conceived of their function as giving them the right to stand over others like grim invigilators, to watch for every mistake and every deviation from the law, and to descend on them with savage and unforgiving punishment; they never dreamed that it might lay upon them the obligation to cure the wrongdoer.

There are still those who regard a position of authority as giving them the right to condemn and the duty to punish. They think that such authority as they have has given them the right to be moral watch-dogs trained to tear the sinner to pieces; but all true authority is founded on sympathy. When George Whitefield saw the criminal on the way to the gallows, he uttered the famous sentence: "There, but for the grace of God, go I."

The first duty of authority is to try to understand the force of the temptations which drove the sinner to sin and the seductiveness of the circumstances in which sin became so attractive. No man can pass judgment on another unless he at least tries to understand what the other has come through. The second duty of authority is to seek to reclaim the wrongdoer. Any authority which is solely concerned with punishment is wrong; any authority, which, in its exercise, drives a wrongdoer either to despair or to resentment, is a failure. The function of authority is not to banish the sinner from all decent society, still less to wipe him out; it is to make him into a good man. The man set in authority must be like a wise physician; his one desire must be to heal.

(ii) This incident shows vividly and cruelly the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees to people. They were not looking on this woman as a person at all; they were looking on her only as a thing, an instrument whereby they could formulate a charge against Jesus. They were using her, as a man might use a tool, for their own purposes. To them she had no name, no personality, no feelings; she was simply a pawn in the game whereby they sought to destroy Jesus.

It is always wrong to regard people as things; it is always unchristian to regard people as cases. It was said of Beatrice Webb, afterwards Lady Passfield, the famous economist, that "she saw men as specimens walking." Dr. Paul Tournier in A Doctor's Casebook talks of what he calls "the personalism of the Bible." He points out how fond the Bible is of names. God says to Moses: "I know you by name" (Exo 33:17). God said to Cyrus; "It is I, the God of Israel, who call you by your name" (Isa 45:3). There are whole pages of names in the Bible. Dr. Tournier insists that this is proof that the Bible thinks of people first and foremost, not as fractions of the mass, or abstractions, or ideas, or cases, but as persons. "The proper name," Dr. Tournier writes, "is the symbol of the person. If I forget my patients' names, if I say to myself, 'Ah! There's that gall-bladder type or that consumptive that I saw the other day,' I am interesting myself more in their gall-bladders or in their lungs than in themselves as persons." He insists that a patient must be always a person, and never a case.

It is extremely unlikely that the scribes and the Pharisees even knew this woman's name. To them she was nothing but a case of shameless adultery that could now be used as an instrument to suit their purposes. The minute people become things the spirit of Christianity is dead.

God uses his authority to love men into goodness; to God no person ever becomes a thing. We must use such authority as we have always to understand and always at least to try to mend the person who has made the mistake; and we will never even begin to do that unless we remember that every man and woman is a person, not a thing.

Barclay: Joh 8:1-11

Further, this incident tells us a great deal about Jesus and his attitude to the sinner.

(i) It was a first principle of Jesus that only the man who himself is without fault has the right to express judgment on the fault of others. "Judge not," said Jesus, "that you be not judged" (Mat 7:1). He said that the man who attempted to judge his brother was like a man with a plank in his own eye trying to take a speck of dust out of someone else's eye (Mat 7:3-5). One of the commonest faults in life is that so many of us demand standards from others that we never even try to meet ourselves; and so many of us condemn faults in others which are glaringly obvious in our own lives. The qualification for judging is not knowledge--we all possess that; it is achievement in goodness--none of us is perfect there. The very facts of the human situation mean that only God has the right to judge, for the simple reason that no man is good enough to judge any other.

(ii) It was also a first principle with Jesus that our first emotion towards anyone who has made a mistake should be pity. It has been said that the duty of the doctor is "sometimes to heal, often to afford relief and always to bring consolation." When a person suffering from some ailment is brought to a doctor, he does not regard him with loathing even if he is suffering from a loathsome disease. In fact the physical revulsion which is sometimes inevitable is swallowed up by the great desire to help and to heal. When we are confronted with someone who has made a mistake, our first feeling ought to be, not, "I'll have nothing more to do with someone who could act like that," but, "What can I do to help? What can I do to undo the consequences of this mistake?" Quite simply, we must always extend to others the same compassionate pity we would wish to be extended to ourselves if we were involved in a like situation.

(iii) It is very important that we should understand just how Jesus did treat this woman. It is easy to draw the wrong lesson altogether and to gain the impression that Jesus forgave lightly and easily, as if the sin did not matter. What he said was: "I am not going to condemn you just now; go, and sin no more." In effect what he was doing was not to abandon judgment and say, "Don't worry; it's quite all right." What he did was, as it were, to defer sentence. He said, "I am not going to pass a final judgment now; go and prove that you can do better. You have sinned; go and sin no more and I'll help you all the time. At the end of the day we will see how you have lived." Jesus' attitude to the sinner involved a number of things.

(a) It involved the second chance. It is as if Jesus said to the woman: "I know you have made a mess of things; but life is not finished yet; I am giving you another chance, the chance to redeem yourself." Someone has written the lines:

"How I wish that there was some wonderful place

Called the Land of Beginning Again,

Where all our mistakes and all out heartaches

And all our poor selfish grief

Could be dropped like a shabby old coat at the door,

And never put on again."

In Jesus there is the gospel of the second chance. He was always intensely interested, not only in what a person had been, but also in what a person could be. He did not say that what they had done did not matter; broken laws and broken hearts always matter; but he was sure that every man has a future as well as a past.

(b) It involved pity. The basic difference between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees was that they wished to condemn; he wished to forgive. If we read between the lines of this story it is quite clear that they wished to stone this woman to death and were going to take pleasure in doing so. They knew the thrill of exercising the power to condemn; Jesus knew the thrill of exercising the power to forgive. Jesus regarded the sinner with pity born of love; the scribes and Pharisees regarded him with disgust born of self-righteousness.

© It involved challenge. Jesus confronted this woman with the challenge of the sinless life. He did not say: "It's all right; don't worry; just go on as you are doing." He said: "It's all wrong; go out and fight; change your life from top to bottom; go, and sin no more." Here was no easy forgiveness; here was a challenge which pointed a sinner to heights of goodness of which she had never dreamed. Jesus confronts the bad life with the challenge of the good.

(d) It involved belief in human nature. When we come to think of it, it is a staggering thing that Jesus should say to a woman of loose morals: "Go, and sin no more." The amazing, heart-uplifting thing about him was his belief in men and women. When he was confronted with someone who had gone wrong, he did not say: "You are a wretched and a hopeless creature." He said: "Go, and sin no more." He believed that with his help the sinner has it in him to become the saint. His method was not to blast men with the knowledge--which they already possessed--that they were miserable sinners, but to inspire them with the unglimpsed discovery that they were potential saints.

(e) It involved warning, clearly unspoken but implied. Here we are face to face with the eternal choice. Jesus confronted the woman with a choice that day--either to go back to her old ways or to reach out to the new way with him. This story is unfinished, for every life is unfinished until it stands before God.

[As we noted at the beginning, this story does not appear in all the ancient manuscripts. See the Note on the Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery (Joh 8:2-11).]

Constable: Joh 1:19--13:1

II. Jesus' public ministry 1:19--12:50

The first part of the body of John's Gospel records Jesus' public ministry to the multitudes in Palestine who were primarily Jewish. Some writers have called this section of the Gospel "the book of signs" because it features seven miracles that signify various things about Jesus.

"Signs are miraculous works performed or mentioned to illustrate spiritual principles."⁶⁹

Often John recorded a lengthy discourse that followed the miracle, in which Jesus explained its significance to the crowds. This section also contains two extended conversations that Jesus had with two individuals (chs. 3 and 4).

"The opening of the narrative proper might well be understood as the account of the happenings of one momentous week. John does not stress the point, but he does give notes of time that seem to indicate this. The first day is taken up with a deputation from Jerusalem that interrogates the Baptist. The next day' we have John's public pointing out of Jesus (vv. 29-34). Day 3 tells of two disciples of the Baptist who followed Jesus (vv. 35-40). It seems probable that verse 41 takes us to day 4 . . . It tells of Andrew's bringing of Peter to Jesus. Day 5 is the day when Philip and Nathanael come to him (vv. 43-51). The marriage in Cana is two days after the previous incident (i.e., the sixth and seventh days, 2:1-11). If we are correct in thus seeing the happenings of one momentous week set forth at the beginning of this Gospel, we must go on to ask what significance is attached to this beginning. The parallel with the days of creation in Genesis 1 suggests itself, and is reinforced by the In the beginning' that opens both chapters. Just as the opening words of this chapter recall Genesis 1, so it is with the framework. Jesus is to engage in a new creation. The framework unobtrusively suggests creative activity."⁷⁰

Constable: Joh 7:10--11:1

H. Jesus' third visit to Jerusalem 7:10-10:42

This section of the text describes Jesus' teaching in Jerusalem during the feast of Tabernacles and the feast of Dedication. John evidently included it in His narrative because it contains important revelations of Jesus' identity and explains the mounting opposition to Jesus that culminated in His crucifixion.

Constable: Joh 7:53--8:12

4. The woman caught in adultery 7:53-8:11

The textual authenticity of this pericope is highly questionable. Most ancient Greek manuscripts dating before the sixth century do not contain it. However, over 900 ancient manuscripts do contain it including the important early so-called Western text (uncial D).²⁹² None of the church fathers or early commentators refer to it in their comments on this Gospel. Instead they pass from 7:52 right on to 8:12. Several later manuscripts identify it as special by using an asterisk or obelus at its beginning and ending.²⁹³ Some old copies have it after 7:36 or 7:44 or 21:25 or Luke 21:38. Its expressions and constructions are more similar to Luke's writings than they are to John's.²⁹⁴

The event described here probably occurred (cf. 21:25). Perhaps it was a piece of oral tradition that later scribes inserted here to illustrate the sinfulness of the Jewish leaders (cf. 7:24; 8:15, 46). Was it inspired by the Holy Spirit? I would say yes. The test of inspiration is the judgment of the church throughout history that this is a revealed portion of Scripture that is authoritative for the whole church. This has been the judgment of most branches of the church even though the origin of this story is obscure.

"It may be accepted as historical truth; but based on the information we now have, it was probably not a part of the original text."²⁹⁵

How should the modern Christian use this story? Some expositors do not preach or teach the passage publicly because they think it may be uninspired. However many fine Christians disagree and accept it as equally authoritative as the rest of Scripture.²⁹⁶ I include it when teaching or preaching through John's Gospel.

7:53 This verse suggests that the story that follows was originally the continuation of another narrative. "Everyone" apparently refers to people at a gathering in Jerusalem. This could refer to the Sanhedrin and the officers mentioned in 7:45-52. However it could also refer to other people on a different occasion.

8:1 The introductory "But" (Gr. de) is only mild and contrasts Jesus' action with that of most people in the temple courtyard. Some scholars have noted that Jesus spent His nights somewhere on the Mount of Olives during His final Passover celebration (Luke 21:37), but there is no evidence that He did so at other times.²⁹⁷ However silence is never a strong argument. Jesus may have stayed there on His other visits to Jerusalem without the evangelists noting it.

8:2 This verse also sounds similar to the Synoptic Gospels' accounts of Jesus' activities during His final few days before His crucifixion (cf. Luke 21:37-38). Yet we know that Jesus taught in the temple courtyard at other times as well (5:19-47; 7:14-52).

8:3-4 This is the only place in John's Gospel where the writer mentioned the scribes and Pharisees together, though their association in the Synoptics is common. This is one reason many scholars doubt that John wrote this passage. Jesus' critics brought a woman whom they claimed to have caught in the act of committing adultery and placed her in the center of the group that Jesus was teaching. They addressed Him respectfully though hypocritically as "teacher." We can only speculate on what had happened to her partner in sin. Perhaps he had escaped, or perhaps the authorities had released him since their main interest seems to have been in the woman. The Mosaic Law required that both parties involved in adultery suffer stoning (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Jesus did not challenge the scribes and Pharisees' charge or try to prove it unjust.

8:5-6a Jesus' critics were correct in their interpretation of the Mosaic Law (cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24). However the Jews of Jesus' day apparently did not enforce this law often, especially in urban areas.²⁹⁸ The writer said the authorities wanted to trap Jesus into saying something that they could use against Him (cf. Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26). They appear to have wanted Jesus' execution more than the woman's.

If Jesus advocated not executing the woman, the lawyers and Pharisees could charge Him with teaching the people to violate the law. If He recommended executing her, He would contradict His own reputation for being gracious and forgiving (cf. Luke 5:20; 7:47). Moreover He would alienate Himself from the Jews. That decision might have gotten Him in trouble with the Roman authorities too (cf. 18:31).

8:6b There have been several suggestions about what Jesus may have written in the dust, all of which are guesses. Perhaps He wrote the words of Jeremiah 17:13b: "Those who turn away on earth will be written down, because they have forsaken the fountain of living water, even the Lord." Perhaps He wrote Exodus 23:1b: "Do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness."²⁹⁹ Perhaps he wrote the sins of the woman's accusers. Jesus may have written the same words that He proceeded to speak giving a visual as well as an audible decision. Incidentally this is the only record of Jesus writing that we have in the Bible.

If the account of this incident is complete, the writer must have felt that what Jesus wrote was secondary to His act of writing since he did not identify what He wrote. Perhaps Jesus was reminding the scribes and Pharisees that God had originally written the Ten Commandments with His finger (Exod. 31:18). Jesus' act reminds the reader of this and so suggests that Jesus is God. As God gave the Old Covenant by writing with His finger, so God (Jesus) was giving the New Covenant by writing with His finger. Perhaps Jesus also wrote on the ground to delay answering His critics. This would have had the double effect of heightening their anticipation of His reply and giving them time to repent. The mention of this act here anticipates His doing the same thing again later (v. 8).

8:7 When Jesus finally answered His critics, He cited passages in the Mosaic Law. Jesus lived under this Law and respected it. These verses required that in cases of stoning at least two witnesses of the sin who had not participated in it should be the first to throw the stones (Lev. 24:14; Deut. 13:9; 17:7). Jesus did not mean that the accusers needed to be sinless. The law did not require that but that they be innocent of the particular sin of the accused. Jesus meant that they needed to be free from the sin of adultery or at least free of complicity in prearranging this woman's adultery. They had asked Him to pass judgment, and now He was exercising His rightful function as the judge of humankind. Instead of passing judgment on the woman He was passing judgment on her judges.

Jesus' reply put the dilemma back on His accusers' shoulders. If they proceeded to stone the woman, they were claiming that they had not sinned. If they did not stone her, they would be admitting that they had sinned. Jesus now took the place of the woman's defense attorney as well as her judge (cf. 1 John 2:1).

8:8 This is another enigmatic reference. It had the result of freeing Jesus' critics from His convicting gaze. Perhaps the writer mentioned it to show that it was God who would produce conviction through Jesus' authoritative words rather than through His physical eye-contact (cf. Matt. 7:28-29; John 7:46). By writing on the ground again Jesus graciously gave the scribes and Pharisees another opportunity to rethink their decision and to repent.

8:9 The scribes and Pharisees' actions confessed their guilt. Evidently the older ones among them had the most tender consciences. They had plotted to kill the woman, but her crime only involved committing adultery. Adultery is no insignificant sin, but next to murder it has less severe consequences. Time and accumulated wisdom frequently increase one's sense of personal guilt unless a person hardens his or her heart completely. Probably we should understand the text as implying that all the critics departed, which would have left Jesus, the woman, and perhaps other onlookers. This left the woman and Jesus with no accusers.

The action of the woman's accusers was remarkable. Jesus' words brought deep conviction to inveterate opponents remarkably soon. Moreover they ended up making a public declaration of their own guilt and dropping their charge against the woman even though she was evidently guilty of adultery.

8:10-11 Jesus' addressed the woman respectfully (cf. 2:4; 4:21; 19:26; 20:13). He asked if no one who was condemning her remained. He did not ask her if she was guilty. Evidently she was. As the judge in her case, He showed more interest in her prosecutors than in her guilt. Without prosecutors Jesus dismissed the case. This was His prerogative as her judge. He only issued her a warning. She would have to stand before Him again in the future, but this was not the time that He wanted to pass judgment on her (cf. 3:17). He gave her mercy and time to change her ways (cf. 1:14). Thus He was not "easy on sin." The ultimate reason He could exempt her from condemnation is that He would take her condemnation on Himself and die in her place (cf. Rom. 8:1).

"Law and grace do not compete with each other; they complement each other. Nobody was ever saved by keeping the Law, but nobody was ever saved by grace who was not first indicted by the Law. There must be conviction before there can be conversion."³⁰⁰

This incident is further proof that Jesus was more righteous and much wiser than the Jewish religious leaders who sought to kill Him. It is also another demonstration of His patience and grace with sinners.

"Reviewing the case, Jesus brought forth the judgment, Stone her.' Unfortunately for the Pharisees, He had required, as the Law had stated, that the witnesses be qualified.

"The Pharisees who were accusing the woman, not for the good of Israel but to trap Jesus, were struck. They knew they were malicious. Thus they had to step down or else incur the punishment required of malicious witnesses--the very stoning they desired for the accused!

"Jesus pronounced the final decree. Since He was the only witness left, and the Mosaic Law required two, she was free. But the Prophet instructed her to avoid all guilt under the Law, since Deuteronomy 18:15 said the people were to listen to the Prophet. John 7:53-8:11 shows in numerous ways that Jesus is indeed the Prophet of whom Moses wrote."³⁰¹

Jesus' role as the judge of human beings is quite clear in this incident, but His role as the coming Prophet may need clarification. Moses, the prophet through whom God gave the Old Covenant, had announced that God's will for His people was that they stone adulterers and adulteresses. Jesus, the prophet through whom God gave the New Covenant, now announced a change. God's people were no longer to stone these sinners but to show them mercy and leave the judging to God.

What if Jesus' enemies had brought a murderer before Him? Would Jesus have said the same thing? I think not. God had made His will concerning the punishment of murderers clear in Genesis 9:5b-6, the Noahic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant continued the same policy as does the New Covenant. The way God has told society to deal with adultery has changed. That is why we do not execute adulterers in the church age. But the way He has told us to deal with murderers has not changed; we are still to put them to death.

College: Joh 8:1-59

JOHN 8

Textual Parenthesis: The Woman Taken in Adultery (7:53-8:11)

⁵³ Then each went to his own home.

¹ But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. ² At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. ³ The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group ⁴ and said to Jesus, " Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. ⁵ In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" ⁶ They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. ⁷ When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, " If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." ⁸ Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

⁹ At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. ¹⁰ Jesus straightened up and asked her, " Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

¹¹" No one, sir," she said.

" Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. " Go now and leave your life of sin."

Because it is unlikely that this section was part of the original text of the fourth Gospel, many commentaries have chosen to leave John 7:53-8:11 out of their discussion or to treat it in an appendix. Several reasons may be given which lead to the conclusion that this was a later addition to the text:

1. Many of the oldest and best manuscripts of John do not have this text and proceed seamlessly from 7:52 to 8:12.

2. Among those manuscripts that do have 7:53-8:11, some have it at different locations, including after 7:36, after 7:44, after 21:25, or even after Luke 21:38.

3. Thematically it seems out of place in John. There is no other place in John where the topic of adultery or sexual sin comes up. In general " sin" in John is not so much behavioral but much more the general attitude of unbelief (cf. John 16:8-9).

4. The vocabulary of this passage is very unlike the rest of the book. About 9% of the words do not occur elsewhere in John. This is quite a high percentage for John, where the vocabulary tends to be repetitious and limited. Of the 15 non-Johannine words, four are not found elsewhere in the New Testament.

5. Stylistically, leaving out this section does no damage to the flow of the text. If we read from the end of 7:52 and go immediately to 8:12, it merely seems that Jesus is continuing his public discussions during the Feast of Tabernacles. A more subjective side to this is that the style seems somewhat unlike John, and more like that of the Synoptic Gospel authors.

For these and other reasons, most scholars agree that the story of the woman caught in adultery was not part of the Fourth Gospel as it came from the hand of the author.

But having said that, what do we do with this section? While probably not from John, it appears to be a somewhat free-floating piece of Jesus material that was preserved by the early church. Although there is no way to prove this, we might say this text seems to be authentic Jesus material . All of the arguments for this conclusion will be subjective, but they boil down to this point : it seems exactly like the sort of thing Jesus would do. Therefore, although the source of this section is uncertain and this uncertainty should be acknowledged, it contains a unique picture of the ministry of Jesus that deserves commenting upon.

7:53-8:2. The scene changes to a new day. Apparently Jesus has spent the night on the Mount of Olives, a large hill directly east of Jerusalem proper. It has been noted that this sequence is suggestive of Passion Week in the Synoptic Gospels, where Jesus was in Jerusalem during the day, but retired each night to Bethany (on the other side of the Mount of Olives). Perhaps this period at the end of Jesus' ministry is a more likely original setting for the incident.

8:3-6. Jesus is immediately confronted with a situation that thrusts upon him the position of a judge. The teachers of the law (Scribes) are not mentioned elsewhere in John, but are often the allies of the Pharisees in the Synoptic Gospels. The Scribes were a class of Jews with professional knowledge in the Law, and were frequently called upon to make legal judgments in the community. They smugly challenge Jesus to perform in an area where they are the acknowledged experts.

The accusers claim the woman was caught in the act . The expression in the act (ejp= aujtofwvrw/, ep' autophôrô) is found only here in the New Testament, but is relatively frequent in classical Greek. It literally means " in self-detection," but here means " during the undeniable act." This act was adultery . The author uses both the noun for adultery in verse 3 and the verb in verse 4. Someone had observed and apprehended this woman during the physical act of sexual infidelity. This rather embarrassing admission leaves us with several questions. Who caught her? Her husband? And where is the man involved, the other guilty party? We have no definite answers to these questions, but the editorial comment, They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him , leaves us with the impression that the entire thing was a set-up, a matter of voyeuristic spies bursting out of closets at the indelicate illegal instant.

The accusers are not seeking to debate the woman's guilt or innocence (no one questions her guilt). They are attempting to thrust Jesus into the role of the sentencing judge. They remind him of the ancient and powerful legal code, that Moses commanded us to stone such women . Presumably the reference is to Leviticus 20:10, which decreed death for both the man and the woman judged to be guilty of adultery. This text, however, did not prescribe the method of execution. Their demand for stoning betrays their blood lust, for stoning was little more than mob lynching during this period of Roman occupation. The Roman overlords did not permit the Jews the legal authority for execution (John 18:31). Stoning was community justice at its worst, with too many executioners for the Romans to take effective action against the perpetrators.

The reader is left with a great deal of anticipation. What will Jesus do? Will he engage these legal scholars in an argument based on technicalities that might save the woman (such as a demand that her sex partner also be produced)? Will he break new legal ground that lessens this terrible penalty for adultery? Jesus does neither. Without a word he squats down and begins to write on the ground.

8:7-8. We are really given no hint as to what Jesus writes. Suggestions have included the Ten Commandments, or perhaps words that are clues to secret sins of the accusers. Telling us is not important to the writer, however. What are important are the spoken words of Jesus, " If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her ." The word for without sin (ajnamavrthto", anamartçtos ) is found only here in the New Testament, but simply means " non-sinful." Christians know that all men and women are sinners (see Romans 3:23). Ironically, the only legitimate candidate for hurling a rock at this woman is the speaker, Jesus himself, the sinless Lamb of God (John 1:29, cf. Heb 4:15).

8:9-11. Why do they leave? The text says that the words of Jesus cause the accusers to depart, in traditional order beginning with the oldest. The KJV includes the phrase, " being convicted by their own conscience," implying that these were men who could still feel some shame for their actions. Whether or not this is the case, none of them rises to the moral challenge issued by Jesus. None of them makes a claim to sinlessness by launching the first death rock. They withdraw in silent procession, admitting no guilt and discarding their human pawn, the terrified woman, like roadside litter.

The new cast of characters includes only two: Jesus and the woman. The Scribes and Pharisees are gone. Apparently the crowd has gone. There seem to be no disciples around Jesus. Jesus asks, " Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" The prosecution has abandoned its case, in effect moving for dismissal by their walkout. But one possible threat remains for her: the Rabbi Jesus. Indeed, Jesus now assumes the role of judge that has been thrust upon him. But he " rules from the bench," " neither do I condemn you." This judicial sense is developed even more as he commands her to Go , as if to say " you are free to go."

Does this mean that Jesus the Judge is winking at a serious sin, marital infidelity? Not at all. To " not be condemned" does not mean there is no guilt. In this case, it means the woman is indeed guilty, but has been forgiven. Jesus reminds the woman of this fact by his final words: leave your life of sin , perhaps more accurately translated, " sin no longer," or even, " quit sinning." Jesus has not rescued her so that she could be more careful and not get caught the next time she engaged in illicit sex. He is asking for her to demonstrate a heart of repentance, for repentance and forgiveness always go hand in hand in the Bible (see Mark 1:4; Luke 17:3-4; Acts 2:38; 8:22).

4. The Light of Tabernacles and Jesus' Great Confrontation with the Jews (8:12-59)

Jesus' Discourse at the Temple Treasury: Jesus the Light of the World and the Authority of His Testimony to Himself (8:12-20)

¹² When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, " I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

¹³ The Pharisees challenged him, " Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid."

¹⁴ Jesus answered, " Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. ¹⁵ You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. ¹⁶ But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. ¹⁷ In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. ¹⁸ I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."

¹⁹ Then they asked him, " Where is your father?"

" You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. " If you knew me, you would know my Father also." ²⁰ He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.

8:12. If we leave out the adulterous woman passage (7:53-8:11) and proceed from 7:52 immediately to 8:12, we are left with a scene change, but apparently we are still in the context of the Feast of Tabernacles. This is important, because the temple celebration of Tabernacles in Jesus' day also included a ceremony in which four huge candlestick-torches were lit in the Court of the Women. The light of these candles was said to be so brilliant as to be seen all over the city of Jerusalem. This indicates that this scene probably takes place after dark on the final day of the Feast. Therefore, Jesus has tied his claims to two of the great symbols of Tabernacles, the Water Ceremony (7:37-38), and this Light Ceremony (v. 12).

Jesus' statement here is the second of the great " I am" passages in John, " I am the light of the world." This claim should not be unexpected for the reader of John, for Jesus as the Word of God has already been identified as a true and living light (1:4,5,7,8,9). John has already used light as a metaphor for the opposite of sin and evil (3:19-21). Light signifies the revelation of God, in particular the revealing of human sinfulness (which is appropriately seen as the sort of activities that are more comfortably done in darkness than light). Jesus promises that those who follow him will never walk in darkness , meaning that his believers will be freed from lives of sin. And this is a light not dependent upon having enough oil to burn, or fresh batteries, or a paid up electric bill. It is the light of life. Just as Jesus is the " Living Water" and the " Living Bread," he is the " Living Light," the eternal, unquenchable source of God's revelation.

8:13. The public opponents are now the Pharisees . They failed in their attempt to have Jesus arrested (7:32) and have apparently come to Jesus for a public confrontation. They change their approach and attack the very credibility of his message and claim because he appears to have no supporting witnesses (see Deuteronomy 19:15).

8:14-18. Jesus responds by taking the discourse to a higher plane, to the spiritual level. His testimony is valid (ajlhqhv", alçthçs = " true" ) because it has an " other-worldly" collaborating witness. This heavenly source for Jesus' mission is not developed at this point, but is used to point to the other, hidden witness to Jesus' claims, the Father . This variously understood " fathers" of Jesus and of his opponents will be a central element in the discussion that follows.

Jesus' statement, " I pass judgment on no one" may be the reason the story of the adulterous woman was inserted at this point in the text. The statement itself, however, is seemingly at odds with Jesus' role as judge elsewhere in John (e.g., 3:19, 5:22, 9:39). The verb for pass judgment is krivnw (krinô). Sometimes this apparent contradiction is explained as being caused by a dual meaning for krinô, either a legal, judicial sense or a casual sense of personal preference. But such explanations are not necessary, for this text itself explains what Jesus means. He accuses the Pharisees of judging by human standards (literally, " according to the flesh" ). Jesus' statement is intended to be elliptical, assuming this same phrase. He is saying I pass judgment on no one [by human standards]. This is in keeping with his next statement, if I do judge my decisions are right [not humanly fallible and imperfect] because I am not alone. I stand with the Father who sent me [his judgments are divine and therefore perfect].

Human judgments are always imperfect because of our finite knowledge and inability to reliably tell the difference between the truth and the lie. We are often fooled by the appearance of a situation. Such is the mistake of the Pharisees here. They judge Jesus upon his appearance and upon the basis of their prejudices. To them he is an unschooled Galilean peasant making extravagant claims. Their limited and biased human decision is to reject his claims. God, however, is never limited to this perspective. God always knows all the facts. God can instantly determine what is true and what is a lie (Rev 16:7). When Jesus claims to stand with the Father in the matter of judgment, he is claiming perfect judgment.

8:19-20. The identity of Jesus' Father will be a central point in the discussion that follows. John has already told us that Jesus' claim that God was his Father is considered blasphemy by his opponents (5:18). Jesus' answer here contains a central truth of the Gospel, that truly knowing Jesus is equivalent to knowing God .

The author identifies the location of this dialog as the place where the offerings were put (NRSV: " treasury" ). Although this location cannot be pinpointed with certainty, it is likely a meeting area within the temple's Court of the Women. This spot would have given the temple police an excellent opportunity to arrest Jesus (7:32). John gives a theological reason for their failure to do so, because his time [and therefore God's time] had not yet come.

Jesus' Attack on the Jews Who Disbelieved and the Origin of His Testimony and the Problem of Who He Is (8:21-30)

²¹ Once more Jesus said to them, " I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come."

²² This made the Jews ask, " Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"

²³ But he continued, " You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. ²⁴ I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, ^a you will indeed die in your sins."

²⁵" Who are you?" they asked.

" Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied. ²⁶" I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."

²⁷ They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. ²⁸ So Jesus said, " When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. ²⁹ The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him." ³⁰ Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him.

^a 24 Or I am he ; also in verse 28

8:21-24. The dialog resumes although the time and place are indefinite. Presumably we are still in the temple precincts during the Feast of Tabernacles. Jesus begins by speaking of going away . This future " going away" (uJpavgw, hypagô) has already been mentioned (7:33) and will continue to be an important theme in John (cf. 13:33). Jesus teaches that his time with the Jews is brief, and that he will go back to where he came from, to God (13:3). They are prevented from following him because of their sin . " Sin" is singular here (v. 21), because Jesus is speaking of the primary sin that disqualifies them, the sin of unbelief (v. 24).

The contrast between Jesus and his antagonists is laid out very clearly in verse 23. Jesus is from above (God/heaven). Those challenging him are from below = the world ( kosmos ). To follow Jesus is to believe in him and to overcome the deadly sin of unbelief. To remain in the world is to die in one's sins .

The " I am" focus of the text now begins to emerge even more clearly. What the NIV renders as believe that I am the one I claim to be in Greek is simply " believe that I am" (ejgwv eijmi, egô eimi). Here Jesus is not saying " I am _____." There is no predicate nominative, no noun complement for the verb. It is simply " I am." The full implications of this demand for faith will be unpacked in conjunction with verse 58.

8:25-29. In response to the " I am" claim of verse 24, they specifically ask Jesus, " Who are you?" While this might seem like an honest query, it is more likely an attempt to trick Jesus into saying something incriminating. Yet the question has a deeper significance for the reader of John. The " Who are you?" question was asked first of John the Baptist (1:19). Significantly, the Baptist responded, " I am not the Christ." John's answer, " I am not . . ." (ejgwv oujk eijmiv, egô ouk eimi) is the opposite of Jesus' claim in this section, " I am" (egô eimi). At the end of the book (21:12), after the resurrection, the question " Who are you?" occurs a last time, but this time it need not be asked because the disciples know who Jesus is; he is the Lord.

Jesus' answer here is that he has been hiding nothing. He is the one speaking a word of judgment concerning them. Yet this judgment comes from his " sender" (God), and Jesus' job is to tell the world . John editorially alerts the reader that there is a level of misunderstanding at this point. The hearers do not understand that the one who sent Jesus is his [heavenly] Father . Jesus is aware of this misunderstanding, and responds to it with a prophetic word: When you have lifted up the Son of Man [i.e., after his crucifixion], then you will know who I am [literally, " that I am" ]. The question of his identity will be answered unequivocally by the resurrection. The resurrection will be an unmistakable confirmation of the " I am-ness" of Jesus.

8:30. John tells us that many put their faith in him (NRSV: " many believed in him" ). This is not the faith of serious, contemplative reflection, but rather an instantaneous, fickle faith of the hour. John often uses this expression to measure crowd reaction (see 4:39; 7:31; 10:42; 11:45; 12:42). Yet the rejection of Jesus that follows in 8:31-59 by this same group indicates that this is in no way " saving faith." It is not a deeply held, God-blessed commitment to follow Jesus no matter what the cost (cf. v. 12). Perhaps we would be more accurate if we translated many put their faith in him as he was very popular with many. This popularity is a lose-lose situation for Jesus. He loses because popularity is the wrong kind of " faith," not the true faith of discipleship. He also loses because this popularity is dangerous for him. It is directly tied to the jealousy and fear of the religious leaders and their attempts to arrest him. Jesus confronts this shallow acceptance head on in the next section.

Truth, Sin, Freedom, and the Children of Abraham (8:31-59)

³¹ To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, " If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. ³² Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

³³ They answered him, " We are Abraham's descendants ^a and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"

³⁴ Jesus replied, " I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. ³⁵ Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. ³⁶ So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. ³⁷ I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. ³⁸ I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father. ^b"

³⁹" Abraham is our father," they answered.

" If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, " then you would ^c do the things Abraham did. ⁴⁰ As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. ⁴¹ You are doing the things your own father does."

" We are not illegitimate children," they protested. " The only Father we have is God himself."

⁴² Jesus said to them, " If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. ⁴³ Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. ⁴⁴ You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. ⁴⁵ Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! ⁴⁶ Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? ⁴⁷ He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

⁴⁸ The Jews answered him, " Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"

⁴⁹" I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, " but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. ⁵⁰ I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. ⁵¹ I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

⁵² At this the Jews exclaimed, " Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. ⁵³ Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

⁵⁴ Jesus replied, " If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. ⁵⁵ Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. ⁵⁶ Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

⁵⁷" You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, " and you have seen Abraham!"

⁵⁸" I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, " before Abraham was born, I am!" ⁵⁹ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

^a 33 Greek seed ; John also in verse 37 ^b 38 Or presence. Therefore do what you have heard from the Father. ^c 39 Some early manuscripts " If you are Abraham's children," said Jesus, " then

8:31-32. Jesus now turns to the " believers" among the Jews, the ones with whom he is currently popular (according to our analysis above, v. 30). To these, Jesus now issues a new challenge, a call to discipleship. If they desire to truly be his disciples , they must hold to [his] teaching . The translation of the NIV ( hold to my teaching ) is particularly obscuring here, for the actual reading is more like the NRSV's " continue in my word." To be a disciple of Jesus, you must continue/remain/live in his word. This is more than studying Jesus' teachings or memorization of Scripture. Remember, John has presented Jesus as the Living Word of God (1:1,14). To " live in his word" means that we have a living relationship with Jesus.

In verse 32 we have some of the most famous words in the Gospel of John, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free . These words have often been used in political settings to speak of national or personal freedom. Jesus, however, is not speaking of political truth or of political freedom. His call is to God's truth and to God's freedom.

What does it mean to know the truth ? There is a close parallel here between " you will know that I am" (gnwvsesqe o{ti ejgwv eijmi, gnôsesthe hoti egô eimi) in verse 28 and the you will know the truth (gnwvsesqe thÉn ajlhvqeian, gnôsesthe tçn alçtheian) in verse 32. This truth is neither abstract nor propositional. It is personal. Jesus is the Truth (1:14; 14:3). Knowing him (v. 28) = believing in him (v. 24) = knowing the truth (v. 32). It is more than knowing some important facts about Jesus. It is knowing Jesus in an intimate, personal way. Such " knowing the Truth" is a primary characteristic of the Christian.

Jesus promises that such a relationship will set you free . The verb here for will set free is ejleuqerovw (eleutheroô). The word implies freedom from slavery, not political freedom. In this case, Jesus is speaking of spiritual slavery, the slavery of sin.

8:33. The listening Jews understand exactly that Jesus means freedom from slavery, although they again miss the spiritual dimension of his message. They retort that they have never been slaves of anyone . What selective memories! The history of Israel as a nation began with its rescue by God from the slavery of Egypt (see Exod 20:2; Deut 5:6; 6:12; 8:14; 13:5; Josh 24:17; Jer 34:3; Micah 6:4)! Doubtlessly the answer of the Jews is a proud assertion of national freedom, an illusion held despite the collar and chain of the Roman overlords. Yes, we are forced to pay taxes to Rome, and Roman legions occupy our country, but we are not their slaves!

8:34-38. Jesus does not engage in a political argument. He brings them back to the spiritual reality. Much more than freedom from Rome, they need freedom from sin (cf. Rom 6:16-18). Jesus as the Son offers this freedom. But he offers them more than the status of being freed slaves. They may be sons with a permanent place in the household of God. Jesus says that their sin is characterized by their refusal to have room for my word . This is the reverse of Jesus' description of his disciples as those who " remain in my word" (v. 31). It is this stubborn refusal that keeps them enslaved by sin, and this enslavement may be seen in their readiness to kill Jesus. While such a charge is surprising to the reader, who has been told that this is a group of believers (v. 31), this perception of Jesus will be borne out in this passage (v. 59). Jesus goes further by revealing an underlying cause of this, that his Father is not their father .

8:39-41. The Jewish believers initially respond to this topic of parentage by reasserting Abraham is our father . Several things are implied in this claim. First, there was the immense pride of the Jews in the antiquity of their known ancestry. They were able to trace their genealogy back 2,000 years to a man who had a unique relationship with God. Second, Jesus' charge that they suffer enslavement is answered by this claim. Abraham is their true father, therefore they are his true sons. We are not illegitimate children , they say. We are from the legitimate line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the bastard line of Ishmael. Third, there is a personal challenge to Jesus in the assertion that Abraham is our father . Presumably, as a Jew, Abraham is the " father" of Jesus. If Jesus is now talking about having a different " father" (v. 38), his very Jewishness is being called into question.

Jesus again brings the discussion back to the spiritual level. It is not good enough to be a physical descendant of Abraham if they are not spiritual descendants of Abraham. Abraham was obedient to the word and call of God, but when they hear Jesus speak God's word, they are determined to kill him. This is because on the spiritual level they are obeying a different father than the Father Abraham obeyed (and whom Jesus obeys).

Now they begin to understand that Jesus is speaking of spiritual matters. " We are not illegitimate children," literally, " We are not born of fornication" (KJV). As with Abraham, The only [spiritual] Father we have is God himself .

8:42-45. Now Jesus' cryptic comments about the two fathers are clearly explained in very strong terms. Jesus can claim God as Father both because of origin ( I came from God ) and because of message (he is telling the truth) . Their response to him indicates that they have a different father. They contemplate murder and reject the truth, showing that their spiritual father is the devil , not God.

The devil is given a lengthy description here. He is (1) a murderer , (2) one without regard for truth, (3) one devoid of truth, (4) a practicing liar , (5) and the father of lies . Jesus says that lying is the devil's native language , what moderns might call a " pathological liar." The last phrase, because he is a liar and the father of lies means literally " because he is a liar and the father of it" (cf. KJV). The " it" may refer to the word " liar," thus " the father of the liar," or, in context, " the father of liars." This fits better with the context of Jesus calling the devil the " father" of his hearers at the beginning of verse 44. When the Jews reject Jesus' message of truth they are accepting the devil as their moral and spiritual father, not God.

The word translated devil is diavbolo" ( diabolos ), from which we get our word " diabolic." It means literally " slanderer," or " one who tells lies about other people." Elsewhere in John it is used to refer to Judas, the false disciple (6:70; 13:2). It is a particularly fitting word for this section about lying and liars. The devil is also called a murderer from the beginning . The text does not explain exactly to what this is referring. Most commentators assume " the beginning" is a reference to the Garden of Eden, and that Satan is a " murderer" by causing Adam and Eve to lose access to the Garden's tree of life (Gen 3:24), thus " killing" them (see Rom 5:12).

8:46. Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? The verb translated " prove guilty" (ejlevgcw, elenchô) has a legal sense here, " Can any of you make a charge of sin against me stick?" This is an important question both in the narrative and to the readers of the Gospel of John. Jesus must be the sinless, perfect Lamb of God to serve as a suitable sacrifice for the sins of the world (cf. Heb 4:15, 1 John 2:2). Jesus is only guilty of telling the truth , a truth they have rejected because of unbelief.

8:47. This verse gives a theological reason for the entire controversy. The opponents of Jesus have not believed him because they do not belong to God (literally they " are not from God." ). This is 180° from Jesus who came " from God" (v. 42). It is an additional way of saying that they have another father, not God.

8:48. Rather than try to convict Jesus of sin, the Jews answer with insults. The argument is now ad hominem , directly against Jesus on the personal level. How remarkably things have changed! Remember, these Jews were identified earlier as " believers" (v. 32), meaning (at least) those who had a favorable, popular opinion of Jesus. Now they have been deeply insulted by Jesus' charge that they are children of the devil. They respond by calling him a Samaritan , a bigoted, racially based slur in this context. The animosity between the Jews and their cousins, the Samaritans, would make this insult somewhat like calling a conservative American a " communist" during the height of the Cold War. They also accuse Jesus of being demon-possessed (literally, " you have a demon" ). This is not a new charge (see 7:20). In effect they are saying, " Yes, there are two fathers here, but it is you who have the devil as your father." The implication is that Jesus is talking nonsense, craziness that can only be explained by the presence of the demonic.

8:49-51. Jesus immediately denies the charge of demon-possession. Again, Jesus claims that he is being persecuted merely for doing the will of God. But then he raises the stakes of the argument dramatically. He has already promised that the one who keeps his word will be free from sin (vv. 31-32). Now he adds the further implication that the one who keeps his word will escape death , the terrible future that the devil brought upon humankind (see comments on v. 44). The language at this point is actually much stronger than the NIV rendering, literally " he will certainly not see death, forever!" This is the equivalent of " eternal life" frequently mentioned in John (cf. 5:24).

8:52-53. The ad hominem attack is renewed, but now the Jewish opponents give some argumentation for their charge that Jesus is suffering from demonic madness. Their point is that even a child would know that the greatest and most faithful of the Jewish ancestors were people who died normal deaths. Jesus' declaration that his message offers victory over death is seen as a claim to superiority over these faithful ancestors. Therefore they scold him with an angry and patronizing question, " Just who do you think you are?"

8:54-56. Jesus answers by returning to the theme of " knowing God." To know Jesus is to know God (cf. v. 19), because Jesus truly knows God. Jesus cannot deny this knowing relationship with God, for to do so would make him a liar and transfer his spiritual parentage to the devil.

The calmness of Jesus in the midst of this heated exchange is very striking. He only states facts and consequences. There is no self-serving, passionate oratory. Any " glory" he receives comes from God himself. In this, Jesus presents himself as the Ultimate Disciple of God, " I know him and keep his word ." Likewise, we, the readers, are being taught that we may know God by knowing Jesus (v. 19), and therefore we may keep God's word by keeping Jesus' word (v. 31). To be disciples of God we must simply be disciples of Christ.

Jesus finishes his answer by returning to Abraham. Yes, Abraham died, but with his eyes of faith Abraham anticipated the ministry of Jesus the Messiah. We have no exact biblical basis for Jesus statement, " Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day ." It may be an allusion to Abraham's typologically prophetic words to his son Isaac, " God himself will provide the lamb . . ." (Gen 22:8), for certainly Abraham must have rejoiced when the God-provided ram was discovered and the death of his son was averted. But there is more here than Jesus' mastery of Scripture. His words imply a relationship with Abraham as if he personally witnessed the patriarch's gladness when God gave Abraham foresight of the future Messiah.

In a larger sense, however, Jesus is giving us an important truth. The Old Testament (Abraham and the prophets) should be understood as anticipatory to Jesus himself. The Old Testament looks forward to the coming of God's Messiah with gladness and joy (cf. 1 Pet 1:10-12).

8:57. The Jewish opponents immediately pick up on the implication that Jesus has personal, intimate knowledge of Abraham. How could he be a friend of Abraham's? Abraham died nearly 2,000 years earlier and Jesus is not even fifty years old . The arithmetic just does not compute! Seemingly, they have caught Jesus in an obvious contradiction that would prove he is deluded and crazy.

8:58. At this point Jesus makes one of the most sensational statements in all of the recorded Gospels, and one of the most staggering statements in John, " before Abraham was born, I am ." Unfortunately the NIV's unnecessary overtranslation here mars the beauty of the actual text, " before Abraham was, I am" (KJV, many others). This is the climax of the " I am" statements in John. Here the " I am" has two very important implications.

First, the " I am" (ejgwÉ eijmiv, egô eimi ) is an intentional play upon the divine name of God found in the Old Testament. At the burning bush, when Moses asked God what his name was, the answer was " I am who I am" (Exod 3:14). In Hebrew, this name is hwhy ( YHWH ), which is sometimes transliterated as " Jehovah." It is based upon the Hebrew verb for " being," and so God's personal name revealed to Moses is literally " the I am." Here, as in verses 24 and 28, there is no complement for the verb. The statement is not " I am (something)." It is just " I am ." Jesus has already said that one must " believe that I am" (v. 24) and " know that I am" (v. 28). To make these demands is to claim the name of God for personal use. In some ways Jesus is saying, " I am the ' I am .' I am God."

Second, this claim has other enormous theological implications. By saying " before Abraham was, I am," Jesus is asserting his transcendence over time and history. He does not say " I was there with Abraham." In effect, he says " I am there with Abraham, and even before." Time does not limit God, and it does not limit Jesus. As John has said, " In the beginning was the Word" (1:1; cf. Rev 22:13).

We must be careful here. For us these theological truths can be dangerously overstated as in the simplistic bumper-sticker theology that says, " Jesus is Jehovah." Although we may not completely understand all the distinctions, Jesus does not remove everything that separates the Father from the Son. In fact if there is no difference between the Father and the Son, much of what Jesus has said in this chapter is nonsense: God is not his Father; he is his own " father." The Father did not send him; he sent himself. He does not know the Father; he knows himself. This results in a loss of the humanity of Jesus, a loss that orthodox Christianity has never tolerated. At the end of the day we must affirm both the full humanity and the full divinity of Christ, and that is precisely one of the major agendas of the Gospel of John.

8:59. Time for talking is now over as far as the Jews are concerned. They understand exactly what is at stake in Jesus' claim to be " I am." He has gone far beyond being an irritation to them. He is now a dangerous blasphemer, a threat that cannot be ignored. Mob violence mentality takes control, and preparations for a stoning/ lynching begin. But this is not the time, place, or method for Jesus' death, so the text says he hid himself and he gets away safely (implying a miraculous escape).

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Joh 8:1-11

LXXIX.
THE STORY OF THE ADULTERESS.
(Jerusalem.)
^dJOHN VII. 53-VIII. 11.

   [This section is wanting in nearly all older manuscripts, but Jerome (A. D. 346-420) says that in his time it was contained in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts," and these must have been as good or better than the best manuscripts we now possess. But whether we regard it as part of John's narrative or not, scholars very generally accept it as a genuine piece of history.]  ^d53 And they went every man unto his own house [confused by the question of Nicodemus, the assembly broke up and each man went home]:  1 but Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. [Probably crossing the mountain to the house of Lazarus and sisters.]  2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down [as an authoritative teacher did -- Mat 5:1], and taught them.  3 And the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst,  4 they say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act. [The woman had probably been brought to the rulers for trial, and they had seen in her case what appeared to be a promising means of entrapping Jesus. In the presence of the woman and the form of their accusation we see their coarse brutality. The case could have been presented to Jesus without the presence of the woman, and without a detailed accusation.]  5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such [It was a case under Deu 22:22. Stoning was the legal method of capital punishment]: what then sayest thou of her?  6 And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. [They were placing Jesus in a dilemma. They reasoned that he [451] could not set aside the law of Moses and clear the woman without so losing the confidence and favor of the people as to frustrate his claim to be Messiah. They thought he would therefore be compelled to condemn the woman. But if he ordered her to be put to death, he would be assuming authority which belonged only to the Roman rulers, and could therefore be accused and condemned as a usurper.] But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. [His act was intended to make them vehement, and to give his answer greater effect. What he wrote is unimportant and immaterial, and hence was not told.]  7 But when they continued asking him [they insisted on an answer, hoping that he would so explain away the seventh commandment as to encourage them in breaking the sixth], he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [Under the law (Deu 17:7), the witnesses were to cast the first stone. Jesus maintained and vindicated the law, but imposed a condition which they had overlooked. The one who executed the law must be free from the same crime, lest by stoning the woman he condemn himself as worthy of a like death. There is no doubt that the words of Jesus impressed upon them the truth that freedom from the outward act did not imply inward purity or sinlessness -- Mat 5:27, Mat 5:28.]  8 And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. [Thus giving them the opportunity to retire without the embarrassment of being watched.]  9 And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last [the oldest was first to be convicted of his conscience, because his experience of life's sinfulness was necessarily the fullest]: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst. [I. e., in the midst of the court, where the crowd had been.]  10 And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee? [This question is asked to pave the way for the dismissal of the woman.]  11 And she said, No man, Lord. ["Lord" is ambiguous; it [452] may mean "Master" or simply "sir."] And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more. [The woman did not ask forgiveness, so no words of pardon are spoken. Compare this case with Luk 12:14. Jesus did not come as an earthly judge; neither did he come to condemn, but to save. The narrative shows how Jesus could deal with malice and impurity in a manner so full of delicacy and dignity as to demonstrate the divine wisdom which dwelt within him.]

[FFG 451-453]

Lapide: Joh 8:1-37

1-59

CHAPTER 8

Ver. 1.— But Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. On the last day of the Feast Jesus had taught in the temple, and confuted the Pharisees, while they, after their wont, returned home to a sumptuous banquet. But no one showed hospitality to Jesus for fear of the rulers and Pharisees. He went therefore probably to Gethsemane, to continue there all night in prayer (see Joh 18:1-2, and Mat 26:36). Food was either secretly sent Him by Martha from Bethany, or bought by the disciples at Jerusalem. He selected this spot as His nightly refuge, or rather His place of prayer, six months before His death, and used to retire there to pray by night (see Mat 26:36). The Mount of Olives was a type of Christ's sorrow, when He there prayed for the pardon of sinners: as the feast of tabernacles signified that He and His people are but strangers and pilgrims here, on their way to their heavenly country, travelling from the wealthy and splendid city Jerusalem, to the mountain of heavenly refreshment.

Ver. 2.— And early in the morning, &c. He gave the night to prayer, the day to teaching, setting an example to apostolic men, as S. Paul, S. Francis Xavier, and others.

Vers. 3, 4, 5.— But the Scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery, &c. Now Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned. This story is not found in the Greek Fathers, but as it is found in the Vulgate and thus approved by the Council of Trent, Cornelius à Lapide regards it as canonical.

Here note that the Mosaic law ordered adulteresses to be killed. But the rulers ordered them to be stoned, according to the Rabbinical tradition. For the Law ordered a betrothed woman should be stoned, if she had committed adultery, and thence the Scribes extended this punishment to an adulterous wife. But the punishment of stoning (Lev 20:10) is to be extended to all the cases mentioned in that chapter. (See also Eze 16:38-40.) And this is clear from the History of Susanna, where, by the law of requital, her false accusers were stoned. This was also the punishment of adulteresses in many heathen nations. (See notes on Gen 38:24, and Num. v. ad fin. )

Ver. 6.— This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him, as being opposed to the law, if He said that she was not to be stoned, but as cruel and harsh if He said otherwise. But they rather supposed He would not order her to be stoned, "in order to keep up His appearance of gentleness, and not to lose the favour of the people." So Rupertus, Bede, and S. Augustine, who says, "They saw that He was very gentle; they said therefore among themselves, If He rules that she be let go, He will not observe that righteousness which the Law enjoins. But not to lose His (character for) gentleness, by which He has already won the love of the people, He will say that she ought to be released. And we shall hence find occasion to accuse Him. But the Lord in His answer both observed justice, and did not forego His gentleness." They thought to accuse Him of violating the law by her acquittal, and would say to Him, says S. Augustine, "Thou art an enemy of the law, thou judgest contrary to Moses, or rather against Him who gave the law. Thou art guilty of death, and must be stoned together with her."

But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground. To turn away His face, not so much from the adulteress as from her accusers, as if to say, "Why do ye bring her before Me, who am not a civil judge, but the physician and Saviour of sinners?" So S. Augustine. Some Greek MSS. add μὴ πζοσποιούμενος, not attending to them and their accusations. Though Toletus and others translate, "not pretending, but really writing on the ground." Either meaning is suitable.

(2.) Christ refers to Jer 17:1. "The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond," and as S. Augustine, S. Jerome and others say more fittingly on verse 13, "They that depart from thee, shall be written in the earth." Jeremiah has here painted you, 0 Scribes, to the life. Ye accuse this adulteress, but ye have committed greater sins than hers; ye deserve punishment rather than she doth; ye deserve to be stoned more than she does, even to be cast into hell. For your sins of rebellion, unbelief, obstinacy, and persecution against Me are indelible, written as it were with a pen of iron, and the point of a diamond, because ye have forsaken the Lord and turned your back upon Him, therefore has He in His turn turned His back upon you." (See Jer 18:17.) Ye have neglected heavenly, and followed after worldly goods, and therefore ye will speedily pass away with them, just as that which is written in the earth soon comes to nothing by a breath of wind, and by the foot passing over it. Ye have departed from God, and therefore ye will not be written in Heaven, but on the earth, yea in its very centre, in hell itself. ( See S Augustine Lib. iv . de. Consen. Evang., cap. 10.) And S. Ambrose (Ep. lxxvi. ad Studitem ) says, "He wrote on the ground, for sinners are written on the earth, the just in heaven." Symbolically, S. Augustine (as above) gives two other reasons. (1.) To show that He worked miracles on earth, for, though God, He humbled Himself to become man, for miracles are signs which are wrought on earth. (2.) To point out that the time had now come for His law to be written on the fruitful earth, not on barren stones. (3.) He adds here ( Tract. xxxiii.) a third reason, that it was to signify that it was He who had written the old law on tables of stone, but that the new law was to be written on the productive earth. But what did Christ write? He could not in the paved court of the temple cut out the shape of the letters, but merely delineate them with His finger. But He seems to have marked out something to put them to shame, or to expose their sin. For He added, in explanation of what He had done, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." S. Jerome even says that He wrote the mortal sins of the Scribes and of all men ( Lib. ii. Contra Pelag.), S. Ambrose ( Ep. lvi.) that He wrote Jer. xxii. 29; and ( Epist. lxxix.) that He wrote among other words, Thou seest the mote in thy brother's eye, but seest not the beam in thine own. Others think that He wrote " Mene, Mene " (Dan 5:25). But nothing certain can be stated.

Ver. 7.— When therefore they continued asking Him. Because they did not see clearly what He had written, or pretended they did not. They therefore urge Him to reply explicitly to their captious question, believing that He could not escape from the horns of a dilemma by going against the law if He acquitted the woman or against His own compassion, were He to condemn her.

He lifted up Himself and said, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. Ye Scribes and Pharisees have committed greater sins than this woman, as your conscience testifies; do not therefore so rigidly and importunately urge her condemnation, but rather have pity for her, as sinners for a sinner, as guilty for a guilty one, as criminals for a criminal. For otherwise, if ye condemn her, ye ought to condemn yourselves; if ye wish to stone her, ye yourselves ought to be stoned, nay more, to be burned. Observe Christ's prudence. He maintains the law in conceding that an adulteress was guilty of death, but adds that the Scribes should not so pertinaciously urge her death, but rather have compassion on her, since outwardly professing sanctity, but inwardly conscious of greater sins, they should wish indulgence to be shown to themselves both by God and man. So S. Augustine. "Ye have heard, Let the law be fulfilled, let the adulteress be stoned. But in punishing her must the law be fulfilled by those who deserve punishment?" And again, "Jesus said not, Let her not be stoned; lest He should seem to speak against the law. But be it far from Him to say, Let her be stoned; for He came not to destroy that which He had formed, but to save that which had perished. What then answered He? 'He who is without sin of you,' &c 0 answer of wisdom! How did He make them look unto themselves! They brought charges against others, they did not carefully search out themselves within." "What more divine," says S. Ambrose, "than that saying, that He should punish sin who is Himself devoid of it? For how couldest thou endure one who punishes another's sin, and defends his own? For does he not condemn himself the more, who condemns in another what he himself commits?"

But thou wilt say Christ here seems to do away with the use of tribunals of justice, and their strictness. But I answer, Christ launched not this sentence against judges, but only against the Scribes, who as private persons contended that Christ should take on Himself to judge the adulteress, and condemn her according to law. This He refused to do, and having been sent to save, and not to condemn sinners, He retorted it upon themselves, as follows; "If ye are not judges, and yet are so desirous of punishing this adultery, take it upon yourselves, stone the adulteress, if ye are so pure and holy as not to have committed adultery, or any other sin;" for if the Scribes had condemned her to be stoned, Jesus would not have freed her from the punishment she justly deserved. Moreover, it is the judge's duty to condemn a criminal, when convicted, though conscious that he is himself guilty of the same or a similar offence. And yet, if guilty himself it is unseemly in him to condemn another for a like offence.

Christ then in these words quietly advises judges to lead innocent lives themselves. As a moral rule, Christ teaches us that we ought to judge ourselves before we judge others. S. Gregory ( Moral. Lib. 13 . cap. iv.) gives the reason. "For he who judges not himself in the first place, knows not how to pass right judgment on another. For his own conscience supplies no rule to go by. These Scribes then are summoned first to look within, and find out their own faults, before reproving others." On which head there are well known proverbs. "First prune thy own vineyards," &c.

Ver 8.— And again stooping down He wrote on the ground. Both to inspire them with shame, and also to give the Scribes time to withdraw creditably. So S. Jerome ( Lib. ii contra Pelag.), and Bede, who adds, "He saw that they were staggered, and would be more likely to retire at once than to put any more questions."

Ver. 9.— But on hearing this they went out one by one. Some Greek copies add, "Convicted by their own conscience," as being adulterers, or even worse. For what Jesus said was true, and ought to strike home to them. And hence S. Augustine says ( Epist. liv.), "Methinks that even the husband himself who had been wronged, would on hearing these words have shrunk back from his desire for punishment."

Went out. "By their very withdrawal," says S. Augustine, "confessing that they were guilty of like offences. For they were smitten with a keen sense of justice on looking within, and finding themselves guilty." They feared also lest Christ should proceed still further to expose their crimes.

Beginning at the eldest. As being more inveterate sinners, like the false accusers of Susanna, or because they first felt the force of His words. As says S. Ambrose, "They first felt the strength of His answer, which they could not reply to, and being quicker of apprehension, they were the first to go away."

And He was left alone, &c. "Two were left," says S. Augustine, "misery and commiseration;" deep calling upon deep, the depth of her misery on the depth of His compassion. But she fled not, as having experienced His grace, and hoping for more.

Ver. 10.— When Jesus had lifted up Himself, &c. Lifting up on her His eyes of gentleness, as He had repulsed His adversaries with the words of righteousness, as saith S. Augustine. He spoke to her, (1.) to show that He had driven away her accusers, and that she could acknowledge what Jesus had, in His mercy, done for her, and ask pardon from Him of her sin. (2.) That He might the more readily absolve her, because her accusers had withdrawn their charge, and had fled away, as doubting the justice of their cause.

Ver. 11 . — She said, No man, Lord, &c. I who am alone free from all sin, and appointed by God to judge the world, might most justly condemn thee. But I do not, because I came not to judge, but to save the world. Thus S. Ambrose; "See how He moderated His answer, so that the Jews could not accuse him for acquitting her; but rather throw it back on themselves, if they chose to complain. For she is dismissed, not absolved; inasmuch as no one accused her, she was not acquitted as innocent. Why then should they complain who had already withdrawn from prosecuting the charge and from enforcing the punishment? Moreover Christ by these words absolved the woman not only in open court before the people, but in the court of heaven, before God, as is plain from what He subjoins. Go, as being certain that I have forgiven thy adultery. As He said to the Magdalene, "Go in peace" ( Luke 7:50). But Christ says not that openly, but secretly; lest the Pharisees should have something to carp at. Christ therefore inspired in her secret sorrow for her sins and an act of contrition, and then pardoned her sins, condoning her sin and its punishment together. "He condemns not," says S. Ambrose, "as being our Redemption, but reproves her as our life, and cleanses her as our fountain." And Euthymius, "Such an exposure and shame before so many adversaries was a sufficient punishment, more especially when He knew that she was heartily penitent." So Jansen and others.

And sin no more. Returning as a dog to its vomit. For thou wilt thus in thy ingratitude sin more grievously, and wilt defile thy soul; and though I do not condemn thee, yet will I certainly condemn thee in the day of judgment. Hear S. Augustine. "What means, I will not condemn thee? Dost Thou, 0 Lord, favour sin? Assuredly not; for listen to what follows, Go and sin no more. The Lord therefore condemned the sin, but not the person. For else He would have said, Go and live as thou wilt, being sure of my forgiveness." To which Bede adds, "Since He is pitiful and tender He forgives the past; but as just, and loving justice, He forbids her sin any more."

Ver. 12.— Then said Jesus again unto them, I am the Light of the world. The Gloss connects these words with what had immediately preceded, in this way:—"He adds what His Divinity could effect, in order that no one should doubt His power of forgiving sin." Marvel not that I set free the adulteress from the darkness of sin, for I am the uncreated Light of the world, i.e., God. And He adds below (ver. 15), " Judge no one ;" I neither sentence nor acquit the woman in a human court, but in the court of heaven. But others refer back His words to verse 2, where His discourse had been broken off by the Scribes. Having put them to shame, He resumes His teaching. So S. Chrysostom and others.  S. Chrysostom adds, "The Jews objected to Christ that He was a Galilean; He shows that He was not merely one of the Prophets, but the Lord of heaven and earth."

I am the Light of the world; and hence the Manicheans thought that He was the sun. And S. Augustine, being a Platonist, at one time had his doubts about it ( see Euchir. lviii.) But commenting on this passage he mentions and confutes their folly. "Christ the Lord was not the sun which was made, He was its Maker, ' For all things were made by Him,' &c. He therefore is the Light, which made this light of ours. Let us love It, let us long to understand It, let us thirst for It, that so at length we may attain to the Light Itself, and so live therein that we may never die. For He is the Light, of whom the Psalmist foretold, 'Thou shalt save both man and beast, so multifold is Thy mercy.'" And further on, "By this Light was the light of the sun made, and the Light which made the sun (beneath which He made us also) was made beneath the sun for our sakes. He, I say who made the sun. Despise not the veil ( nubem ) of His flesh. The sun is covered by a cloud, not to obscure, but to temper its rays. Speaking then through the veil of His flesh, the Light which never fails, the Light of knowledge, the Light of wisdom says to men, I am the Light of the world. " But how Christ as God is the boundless and uncreated Light and as man the created "light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," I have shown at length on chap. i. 4, and also on Is. xlv. 1, that Christ is the Sun of His Kingdom.

Of this world. And not, like the Prophets, merely the light of Israel and Judah. He tacitly here foretells the conversion of the Gentiles. So S. Cyril, who adds that He here alludes to the pillar of the cloud in the wilderness. For Christ as a brilliant light shines before us in the darkness and sin of the world, and guides us to heaven. He that followeth Me, by believing in Me as the Christ, and obeying My commands, walketh not in darkness, in which the wise men of this world walked, but liveth without error and sin, in the light of true faith and virtue.

But shall have the light of life. "Now by faith, hereafter by sight," says S. Augustine, who adds "These words agree with those of the Psalmist, 'In Thy Light shall we see light, for with Thee is the fount of life.'" In things of the body the light is one thing, the fountain another. But with God the Light and the Fount are one and the same. It shines for thee, that thou mayest see; It flows for thee, that thou mayest drink. If thou followest this sun which thou seest, it leaves thee when it sets; but if thou fallest not away from God, He will never set to thee.

The light of life, therefore, according to Augustine and Bede, the light of glory, giving blessing to the faithful and saints which they themselves will obtain from Him in heaven. Others understand by it the light of faith, leading us to glory and very blessedness. For faith is a torch, guiding the faithful through the darkness of the world, showing them the true way of life, by which they can without stumbling attain to eternal blessedness. So S. Cyril, "He will attain to that revelation of the mysteries in Me, which will bring him to eternal life." But (3) the light of life can be explained as the quickening life, for faith, conjoined with the grace of God and charity, is the Divine and supernatural light, which quickens the soul, breathing into it the life of grace here, and the life of glory hereafter.

Hence learn that the doctrine and life of Christ must be imitated by every man who wishes to be truly enlightened, and to be purged from all blindness of mind.  S. Thomas à Kempis lays this down as an axiom in his golden book ( De imitatione Christi ), which contains as many axioms as sentences, which I study daily with much delight and profit. I know many who are striving after perfection, and who strive to conform their several actions to some one action, doctrine, or saying of Christ, ever looking at it as their ideal, and endeavouring to set it forth in all their actions. This is a pious and profitable means of attaining perfect holiness. For Christ was specially given as a mirror of sanctity. For what is more holy than the Saint of saints? What brighter than the Sun, and Light Itself? what wiser than Wisdom Itself?

Ver. 13.— The Pharisees therefore, &c. That is, is not worthy of credit. For no one is accepted as a witness in his own case, but must produce other witnesses (see above, v. 31).

These were not the same Pharisees as those who had accused the adulteress, but others, who wished to avenge the disgrace of their fellows, and in their malevolence against Christ, brought this charge against Him, to put Him to shame. "Being nurtured in ignorance," says S. Cyril, "and not knowing Him to be Emmanuel, they suspected Him of aiming at His own glory, and attack Him, as though one of ourselves."

Ver. 14.— Jesus answered, &c. Not only true in itself, but such as ought to be accepted and believed. This testimony of the Light is true, whether it show or hide Itself, says S. Augustine. The light itself needs no other witness. It shows itself clearly by its own light to be bright and shining. And thus is Christ the Light of the world, showing Itself to the world by Its miraculous works. Christ needed not any other witness, and yet He brings forward the highest and most indisputable witness, even God the Father.

For I know whence I came, and whither I go. And therefore My testimony is true, as being confirmed by the testimony of God the Father, says the Gloss. This I know, but ye do not because ye will not know, though ye ought to know it both from My miracles and My words. But I know that I was sent from heaven, as the Messenger of the Father, being the Son of God, and Very God, from Very God. And when My ministry is over I shall return to Him again. So S. Augustine and Leontius. But He speaks obscurely, lest He should seem to boast, and for fear of kindling the more the anger of the Jews against Him. He might else have spoken more plainly. I am the Son of God, and therefore My testimony is true and legitimate, for the testimony of God, Who is the chief and irrefragable truth, is indisputable. "He wished the Father to be understood," says S. Augustine, "from Whom He departed not, when coming to us, as He left not us when He returned to heaven. But as the Sun shines on those that see and those that are blind, though the one sees and the other does not, so the wisdom of God is everywhere present, even to unbelievers, though they have not the eyes to behold Him," distinguishing thus His friends and enemies.

Ver. 15.— Ye judge after the flesh. (1.) Ye judge of Me, not according to truth and equity, but from the carnal hatred ye have against Me; as living according to the flesh is to live ill, so judging according to the flesh is to judge unjustly. (2.) From My Body, which ye see, ye count Me a mere man; because I am in the flesh ye count Me mere flesh, judging wrongly. And thus ye rule that Truth can lie. For I am the Truth (S. Cyril).

(3.) Ye judge by your senses alone, by that which ye see of Me; that I am a mean, poor, abject man, not the Messiah, not God who hides Himself in My flesh; and therefore ye condemn Me as a proud blasphemer for asserting Myself to be the Son of God. And this ye would not do, if ye judged of Me by reason and the spirit of truth. For this would declare to you that I am what I assert, Messiah, the Son of God. "They saw the man," says S. Augustine, "but did not believe Him to be God." And the Gloss, "they thought Him to be a man, who was not to be believed when praising Himself." "Moreover," says S. Cyril, "He acts like a physician who heeds not the insults of his patients who are mad, but applies to them the fitting remedies; fighting against disease, but not against the patient, whom he wishes to restore to health of body and mind."

I judge no man, not as ye do, by outward appearance, but according to reason and the spirit. (4.) S. Chrysostom says, "Because the Jews might make this objection to Christ, 'If we judge wrongly of Thee, why dost not thou convince us?' Christ replies, I judge no one. It is not My business. Were I now to judge you, I should assuredly condemn you. But this is not the time for doing so." (5.) To judge in this place, means to perform a kind of judicial act, and hence it means to testify, or bear witness, for witnesses force as it were the judge to give sentence in accordance with their testimony. And hence a witness is a kind of judge (see Is. lv. 4). For the whole question between Christ and the Jews was with reference to His testimony, whether it could be lawfully accepted. And He maintains that it can be, as He was not alone, but the Father was with him (see S. Ambrose, Lib. v. Epist. 20). And this is plain from what Christ says, Joh 8:17-18, "I am He that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me." But He uses the word "judge" because He seemed just before to have judged the adulteress, which the Pharisees resented. But He meant thereby that He had not judicially acquitted her, though He might have done so, as the Son of God. For I am not a mere man, as ye suppose, nor am I alone, for God the Father is with Me. And in this sense "I judge" is understood in its own proper sense, "I pass not a judicial sentence."

Ver. 16 . — And yet if I judge (i.e., bear witness of Myself) My judgment (i.e., witness) is true, i.e., fit to be taken in court, for I am not alone, &c. S. Chrysostom explains, "If I judge, I should justly condemn you, because I should not judge by Myself, but I and the Father together." But the true meaning is that given in Joh 8:15.

I and the Father that sent Me. "For I took the form of a servant, but lost not the form of God," says S. Augustine; "Thy Incarnation was Thy mission." And the Interlinear Gloss, "Though I am a man, yet I left not the Father; though sent in the flesh, yet I and the Father are ever One by Our Godhead; the judgment of both and the will of both are alike One." As He says elsewhere, "I do nothing of Myself," for I have never proceeded to any punishment, which was not in the mind of the Father. "For whatever thoughts the nature of the Father entertains, the same are completed in Me also, for I shine forth from His bosom, and am the true offspring of His substance," says S. Cyril.

Ver. 17.— It is also written in your Law (Deu 27:6, Deu 19:5), that the testimony of two men is true : that is to be admitted by the judge, who can base on it a legal sentence, though the testimony may as a matter of fact be false. But a judge must go by the evidence; and so his sentences may be legally right, but in reality wrong. If then the testimony of two men be true, how much more must the sentence of two Divine Persons, the Father and the Son, be accepted as most true, most equitable, and most just? Christ applies this to His own case. For that the Father is with Him, and witnesses to Him, and that He is the Son of the Father, He had more than sufficiently proved, and therefore assumes it. "It is," says Augustine, "a grand and most mysterious question when God says in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established;' for Susanna was accused by two false witnesses, and all the people witnessed falsely against Christ. But in this way is the Trinity represented as in mystery; for therein is the ever-enduring firmness of truth. If thou wishest to have a good cause, have three witnesses, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Ver. 18.— I am one that bear witness of Myself, &c. But thou wilt say, no one's testimony is accepted in his own case, and therefore Christ's testimony to Himself ought not to be accepted. But the answer is, that Christ as God witnesses to Himself as man. But God and man are two beings, and in Christ God was different from man: in nature, I mean, not in person. And from this very passage the Fathers gather against both Nestorians and Eutycheans, that in Christ there was one Person, the Divine, but two natures, the Divine and the human. So Cyril, Chrysostom, and S. Ambrose ( de Fide v. 2). Besides this, God the Father and God the Son bore witness that Jesus was the Christ by the miracles which they wrought both through Him and for Him (Joh 5:31-32). And especially when the Father spake in thunder out of heaven, This is My beloved Son. So Bede.

Ver. 19. — Then said they unto Him, Where is Thy Father? They said this, in order to elicit from Him a clear statement that God was His Father, in order to accuse Him of blasphemy, as they did, Joh 5:18, Joh 19:7. So Chrysostom and others.

But Cyril and Leontius less probably think that the Pharisees spoke contemptuously and sarcastically, as if He were the Son of some unknown father.  S. Augustine and Bede think that they referred to Joseph, as being His father in the flesh. But the first is the best meaning.

Jesus answered, &c. Christ did not wish to answer clearly and directly, "My Father is in heaven," because He knew that the question was put in order to ensnare Him. He therefore, though answering their question directly, yet spoke so guardedly that the Pharisees could not bring any charge against Him. As if He said, Ye think that I am a man, and that I have only an earthly father. But ye are wrong, for ye know not that I am God as well as man. And therefore ye understand not that I have no other Father than God in heaven, though I have proved this by so many miracles.

But how does this agree with what Christ said (Joh 7:28), Ye both know Me, and know whence I am? I answer, Christ then spoke of Himself as man, but here He speaks of Himself as God. Origen adds that then Christ spoke to the people of Jerusalem who knew Him, but here to the Pharisees who knew Him not, and were moreover His enemies. The word "if" is here equivalent to assuredly. See Leontius. As Christ says to Philip (xiv. 9), He that seeth Me seeth My Father also.

S. Augustine explains it somewhat differently; "Ye ask, who is My Father, because ye know Me not, for ye think not that I am God eternal in heaven."

(2.) Cyril speaks more profoundly and to the point. "The names of Father and Son imply each other," Christ therefore is the gate (as it were) leading to the Father. "Let us learn then," he adds, "what He is by nature, and then we shall rightly understand as in an express image the Antitype Itself." For the Father is manifested in the Son, as in a mirror, in the proper nature of His offspring. (See Wisdom vii. 26 and Heb. i 3.)

Origen considers that "know" means to "love." If ye loved Me ye would surely love My Father. For evil livers practically know not God, as is said of Eli's sons.

Ver. 20.— These words, &c. . . . in the temple ( i.e., the Court of the Temple). Rupertus thinks that the reason why no man laid hands on Him was because the treasury was a remote spot, frequented only by the Priests who wished to take money out, and the lay people who wished to pay it in. But it was in fact a public and much-frequented place, being a large portico close to the court of the temple, and in it were preserved all the treasures of the temple. Christ then spake all these things openly and boldly in a place where He could easily have been taken. But He by His Divine power restrained their hands and their resolve, because the destined hour had not yet come. Adrichoniuus ( Descript. Hieros. 103) describes the treasury as a chest wherein all requisites were kept for the sacrifices, the support of the poor, repair of the temple, &c. When Heliodorus attempted to plunder it, he was said to have been scourged by angels, and Pilate was prevented by a popular tumult from applying its contents to bringing water into the city. It was afterwards plundered by the Romans. Here also the poor woman cast in her two mites. It was from this chest that the whole porch where it stood was called the treasury.

The other reason why Christ spoke thus in the treasury was of a more hidden kind. Because it was the dark hiding-place of the Pharisees, where they wrought all those evil devices which Christ recounts, Matt. 5. and 23. In this very spot He condemns their dark deeds by saying, "I am the Light of the world," the true Light of wisdom and holiness, who teach men to despise earthly riches, as mean and perishing, and to aim at heavenly riches, as being great and eternal. Follow not the Pharisees who are blindly intent on these earthly riches, for Vespasian will speedily carry them all away; but rather follow Me, the Light of the world, for I preach to you poverty of spirit as the way to gain boundless riches in heaven. And on the other hand, "Woe to you rich," &c. (Luk 6:24). This then was the cause of the intense hatred they felt against Christ, which led them to persecute Him even to death on the cross. It was out of this treasury that they sacrilegiously took the thirty pieces of silver which they gave to Judas to betray Jesus. And therefore in the very same spot He willed that He would by that means be lifted up on the cross, and draw all men unto Him.

Origen gives a mystical reason. "Christ," he says, "spake these things in the treasury, because the treasury, or rather the treasures, are His divine discourses, impressed with the image of the great King. Coins (he says) are divine words. Let every one then contribute to the treasury, i.e., for the edification of the Church, whatever he is able for the honour of God, and the common benefit." And Bede, "Christ speaks in the treasury, because He spake to the Jews in parables which were covered and kept close. But the treasury then began (as it were) to be opened, when He explained them to His disciples, and unlocked the heavenly mysteries therein conceived."

For His hour was not yet come. "Not the fated, but the opportune and self-chosen hour," says the Interlinear Gloss. "Some," says S. Augustine, "on hearing this, believe that Christ was subject to fate. But how can He be under fate, by whom the heaven and the stars were made, when Thy will, if Thou thinkest aught, transcends even the stars? The hour therefore had not come, not 'the hour in which He should he forced to die, but in which He deigned to be slain.'"

Ver. 21 . — Jesus therefore said to them again. (1.) Some think that "therefore" only indicates the beginning of a new discourse. (2.) Origen thinks it indicates that what follows was spoken by Christ at the same time and place. (3.) Maldonatus refers it to verse 19, Ye neither know Me nor My Father. The time therefore will come for you to know Me as God, but ye will not find Me, for ye will die in your sins. (4.) Rupertus and Toletus refer it more appositely, to the words immediately preceding. Because He saw that the Pharisees understood, and were angered at His words, He adds, I go My way, &c.

He had said the same before (Joh 7:33), first to the officers, and then to the Pharisees. I go My way, that is out of this life to My Father by My cross and death. "Death was to Christ," says S. Augustine, "a going forth, for He abode not in the world, but passed through it to heaven and immortal life."

And ye shall seek Me, i.e., ye shall seek another Messiah, and will not find him, says Toletus, for there is none other but Me. More simply. Ye shall seek Me, to crucify Me again (see vii 34). So Origen and S. Augustine, who says, "Ye shall seek Me, not from desire but from hatred." For after He had withdrawn from sight, they who hated and they who loved Him alike sought Him, the one to persecute, and the other from desire to hear Him. For He adds, And ye shall die in your sins. Your obstinate sins of unbelief and hatred. Ye will therefore seek Me in vain, for I shall ascend to heaven, ye will be thrust down to hell. Euthymius explains "in your sin," in consequence of your sin, for which ye will be slain by the Romans. But the first explanation is the plainest and most forcible. For Christ frequently alarms the Pharisees with the terrors of the last judgment.

Whither I go ye cannot come. Ye cannot, because ye will not, says Origen, for every sin is a voluntary and free act.

S. Augustine thinks that these words were spoken to the disciples, "Whither I go ye cannot go now," not depriving them of hope, but predicting its postponement. But the words which follow were evidently addressed to the Pharisees.

Ver. 22.— Then said the Jews, &c. The officers made a wiser inquiry (Joh 7:35), Will He go to the dispersion of the Gentiles? But the Pharisees, blinded by their hatred, thought He had no way of escape but by killing Himself. Wherever He may go, we will follow Him up. If He goes to the Gentiles, we will drag Him back. He must therefore mean that He will kill Himself, so as to escape our hands. A presumptuous and foolish thought, suggested, however, by their malice. He might have withdrawn Himself from them in various ways, as He had already done. But He meant that He would go up to heaven, whither the Pharisees could not come. But His words, says S. Augustine, referred not to His going to death, but to where He was going afterwards.

Ver. 23.— And (therefore) He said unto them, &c. Ye cleave to your sins and will go to the lowest depth, while I shall return to heaven, and therefore ye will seek Me and will not find Me. For I am like the soaring eagle, dwelling in the loftiest mountains of eternity, while ye are as worms and insects creeping on the earth. So Rupertus and S. Augustine, who says, "Ye are from beneath; ye savour of the earth; serpent-like, ye eat the earth. But what is meant by eating the earth? Ye feed on things of earth, ye delight in things of earth, are greedy for things of earth, ye lift not up your hearts above."

S. Chrysostom and others, and S. Augustine and Bede among the Latins, think that the Pharisees misunderstood the words of Christ by reason of their earthly minds. Morally:—Ye are from beneath, as descended from Adam, and deriving from him your earthly desires, and inflamed by evil passions, thus hankering only after worldly things. But I am from above, because as God I am begotten of the Father, and as man am incarnate of the Holy Spirit. And therefore My feelings, My love, My desires are all heavenly. And to these ye cannot attain, unless ye are born again; and thus from earthly become heavenly and spiritual, as I said to Nicodemus.

Physically:—Christ here teaches us that our birth-place, training, &c., impart to each one their qualities. And just as fishes could not live out of water, nor birds excepting in the air, so the Pharisees, born in Canaan or Judæa, could not but be earthly both in body and mind, as Ezekiel said (Ezekiel 16:3), "Thy birth was of the land of Canaan, and thy mother a Hittite." But Christ, as born and dwelling in heaven, was heavenly

Metaphysically:—Ye are of your father the devil, because as he killed Adam by the forbidden fruit, so do ye wish to kill Me. But I am from above, as being the Son of the Most High God. Hear S. Augustine ( Tract xxxvii.): " He was from above. But how was He from above? From the air? By no means. For there the birds do fly. From the heaven we see? By no means. For there the sun, the moon, and stars go their rounds. From the angels? Do not imagine it, for they too were made by Him, by Whom all things were made. How then was He from above? From the Father Himself. For there is nothing above Him, who begat the Word equal to Himself, co-eternal with Himself, His only Begotten before time, by Whom He would create the times. Understand, therefore, this word 'from above,' as transcending in Thy conception everything that was made, the whole creation, every body, every created spirit, everything that is in any way subject to change." Ye are of this world, I am not of this world : ye are of this earth, or more closely to the point, ye are worldly. Ye aim at worldly favours, wealth, and honours. Ye live as do worldlings. Ye possess the very qualities of the world, says Toletus. Listen to S. Augustine ( Tract. xxxviii.): "Let no one say, I am not of the world; whosoever thou be, 0 man, thou art of the world. But He who made the world hath come to thee, and hath freed thee from the world. But if the world delight thee, thou wishest for ever to be unclean; but if this world no longer delight thee, thou art clean. But if through some infirmity the world still delights thee, let Him who cleanseth dwell in thee, and thou shalt be clean; but if thou art clean thou wilt not abide in the world, nor hear that which the Jews heard said, 'Ye shall die in your sins.'"

Ver. 24.— I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins. The sin of unbelief, and all your other sins, for there is no forgiveness of sin, save through faith in Christ, whom ye reject.

For if ye believe not that I am the Saviour of the world, as I constantly affirm and prove also by so many miracles. So Lyra. But S. Augustine, Bede, and Toletus more ingeniously: "Because I am that I am ; i.e., God." But Rupertus thus subtilly: "Because I am from above." Ye shall die in your sins, because there is no one but Myself, whom ye despise, who can pardon and take away sin.

Ver. 25.— They said therefore to Him, Who art Thou? Because they did not understand, or pretended they did not, they appositely ask , Who art Thou?

Jesus said to them, the Beginning (Vulg.), I who am speaking to you. S. Augustine, Bede, Rupertus, and S. Ambrose ( De Fide, iii. 4), consider the word, the Beginning, to be in the nominative case, explaining it, I am the Beginning, the First and the Last, or the Beginning of all things, for all things were made by the Word of God. In the Greek the word is not α̉ζχὴ, but, α̉ζχὴν, in the beginning.

S. Augustine and S. Ambrose explain it (2.) by supplying the word "credite" which is not in the text. We must therefore consider it to be a Greek form of expression, α̉ζχὴν for κα̉τ α̉ζχὴν, in the beginning. I am from the beginning, i.e. from eternity ( before Abraham, as He said Himself, verse 58), Very God of Very God. And therefore I am the beginning of time, and age, and of all things. And yet I am speaking to you; that is, it is I who announce this to you, for I assumed flesh, and was made man in order to announce it, and save those who believe in it. I am from the beginning, which very thing I solemnly declare to you. Or rather, since I am the Word, which the Father spake from all eternity, I having been made man to announce to you the same truth. For the Son is the Word by whom the Father speaks, and the Son is also the Word which speaks to us. The word "beginning," therefore, is more appropriate to the Son than to the Holy Spirit, for the Son is together with the Father the source ( principium ) of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is not the source of any other Divine Person, but only of creatures; and further, because He is the beginning ( principium ) proceeding from the beginning, that is to say, from the Father. And accordingly this word signifies His origin, as being begotten of the Father. This is clear from what is said below, verse 27. The Vulgate does not translate it literally from the beginning, but the beginning, signifying thereby the Eternal Word, which was from the beginning, and begotten of the Father, to be with the Father, the beginning both of the Holy Spirit and of all creatures.

From the beginning signifies two things; first from all eternity, and next as begotten of God the Father. It is the same thing to say I am from the beginning, or I am the beginning. (See John i. 1; Rev. i. 8, iii. 14; and also Col. i. 18.) And this is what SS. Augustine, Ambrose, and others above mentioned consider it to mean. So says the Gloss, "The Father is the Beginning, but not from the beginning: the Son is the Beginning, from the Beginning, that is, from the Father, who worketh all things by the Son, for He is the Right Hand, Strength, Wisdom, and Word of the Father." But the Greek α̉ζχὴ means also the Chief Rule ( principatus ), meaning that to Christ belongs the dominion and rule over all things. (See Psa 110:3, Vulg., and Pro 8:22, sec. lxx. See also S. Augustine, contra Max. cap. xviii., and S. Thomas, part 1, Quest. xxxvi., art. 4, who show that the Father and Son are not two, but the one principle of the Holy Spirit.)

Morally: learn that Christ, as God and man, must be regarded as the beginning and the end of all our doings; after the example of S. Paul and the other Apostles both in the beginning and end of their Epistles. S. Gregory Nazianzen begins his acrostics in this way, and Paulinus, "In Thee my only hopes of life depend, Thou my beginning, Thou my goal and end." As all numbers start from unity, and all lines run from the centre to the circumference, so should all the actions of a Christian begin and end in Christ (see Col 3:1-17).

Nonnus and others explain, I am the same as I said to you at first; that is, that I am the Messiah, the Light and the Salvation of the world, but ye believe Me not. But this is a strange interpretation.

Some others refer to what comes afterwards, Because ye do not believe Me, I have more to say to you,, And to judge of you. But this is a mere evading of the question. As if Christ said, Ye are unworthy of an answer, but yet deserve My condemnation.

Ver. 26.— I have many things, &c. I have many things to say against you, and to accuse you of. And in the day of judgment I will do so. As S. Cyril says, "I will accuse you not of one thing but of many, and of nothing falsely. For I can condemn you as unbelieving, as arrogant, as insulting, as opposers of God, as impudent, as ungrateful, as malignant, as lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as courting the praise of men, and not seeking the glory of God."

But He that sent Me, &c. I will omit many points and will merely say this, in refutation of your unbelief, that the Father who hath sent Me is true, and whatever therefore I say is true, and worthy of belief by all. "I am true" (says S. Augustine) "in judgment, because I am the Son of Truth, and the Truth Itself." But others explain differently, (1.) Toletus: "I have many things to say against you. But I will not do so now, for the Father sent Me into the world, not to judge but to save it, and therefore, in obedience to Him, I say only those things which concern its salvation." (2.) Maldonatus, as though it were, " Because " He that hath sent Me is true, not " but " He that sent Me, &c. (3.) Rupertus refers it to what He had said before, that He was the Beginning, "These are not My own words, but what the Father bade Me say of Myself." (4.) Ye do not believe in Me as the Messiah, but this is what the Father wishes Me to proclaim. (5.) Ye do not believe Me now, but My Father is true. He will fulfil His own word that I shall be your judge, and reward you according to your deeds. But the first meaning is the best. Which I have heard of Him, both as God and as man. The Interlinear Gloss says, "To hear from Him, is the same as though being from Him." "The co-equal Son gives glory to the Father, why then dost thou set thyself against Him, being only His servant?" So S. Augustine.

Ver. 27.— They knew not, &c. For Jesus spake covertly and obscurely, for fear of exciting the hatred of the Pharisees. But some of the more acute of them began to suspect the true meaning of His words, though they did not clearly understand them, and could not refute Him. None of them fully knew it. And God so ordered it, that the Passion of Christ, and the consequent redemption of the world, might not be hindered. (See 1 Cor. ii. 8.) "I withhold the knowledge of Myself," says S. Augustine, "that My Passion may be effected" by your hands.

Ver. 28.— Then said Jesus, &c. When ye have lifted Me up on the Cross. He calls it His exaltation, for though it seemed to be His greatest degradation and disgrace, yet it was made to be, by God's Providence, His greatest exaltation and glory, that all nations should adore Christ crucified, and hope for pardon from Him. For this Christ won for Himself by His great humility (see Phi 2:8 seq.). And thus does God deal with every follower of Christ who humbles himself for Christ's sake, as He says, "Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled," &c.

Then shall you know that I am Messiah, the Son of God, whom I declare Myself to be, and not a mere man, as ye now think Me. For many of the Jews, when they saw in the Cross, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, such patience, charity, zeal, and such great prodigies and miracles, were moved with compunction to believe in Him. Christ had obtained all this by His Cross, and obtained it from His Father (see Act 2:41). As S. Augustine says, "He saw that many would believe after His Passion. And this He says that no one who is conscious of guilt should despair, when even His own murder was condoned." See S. Cyril, and others.

I do nothing of Myself, &c. Christ frequently inculcates the same truth, both in order to speak humbly of Himself, and to gain authority for His doctrine from God the Father. "But the Father," says S. Augustine, "did not so teach the Son, as though He were ignorant when He begat Him; but His teaching Him, was His begetting Him full of knowledge." For with the Son His being is His knowledge. And therefore the Father by begetting gave Him both existence and knowledge.

Ver. 29.— And He that sent Me is with Me. He adds this (says S. Chrysostom) lest He should be accounted inferior to the Father who taught Him. The one relates to the Incarnation ( dispensationem ), the other to the Godhead. "The Father," says S. Augustine, "sent the Son, but did not leave Him." Moreover, the Father is ever with the Son, not only by the inseparable essence of Deity, which continues ever in number the same, but also by the special providence and guidance vouchsafed to the manhood which He assumed, the Godhead guiding and directing it in every work, to make all His work perfect and divine.

Ver. 30.— As He spake these wards many, &c.; i.e., many of the simple-minded, candid and teachable people, but few or none of the proud Pharisees. And they believed, not only as convinced by the force of His arguments, but charmed by the grace and power of His words. "Never man spake like this man."

Ver. 31.— Then said Jesus, &c. He wished to confirm them in the faith they had accepted. If ye are so faithful and constant as to follow Me through persecutions and crosses, even to heaven itself, ye will be worthy not only of the name and title of My disciples, but also of their deserts and reward.

Ver. 32.— And ye shall know the truth, &c. The Greek Fathers understand by the Truth, Christ Himself; meaning ye shall know Me to be the Truth, shadowed forth by the figures of the old Law, from which I will set you free, that ye may serve God not with bodily ceremonies, but in the Spirit and truth of faith, hope, and charity (Joh 4:23).

(2.) Hence, in accordance with the mind of Christ, If ye abide in My doctrine, ye shall taste by experience how sweet it is, and it will free you from the yoke of sin (see below, verse 34). For faith in Me will lead you to penitence, contrition, and charity, which does away with all sin. "If the Truth pleaseth thee not, let liberty please thee." He clearly restored liberty, and took away iniquity.

Analogically: My doctrine will deliver you from the corruption of this place of mortality, change, and exile, because it will bring you to the liberty of a blessed immortality, and the glory of the children of God. Thus S. Augustine on this passage: "What doth He promise to those who believe? Ye shall know the truth. But did they not know it, when the Lord spake? for if they knew it not, how did they believe? They believed, not because they knew, but that they might know; for what is faith but believing that we see not? But the truth is, to see that which thou hast believed." There is a fourfold bondage which Christ did away with, and a fourfold liberty which He bestowed. (1.) The bondage of the Law which Christ did away with by the liberty of the Gospel, (2.) Bondage under sin, which He took away by the liberty of righteousness. (3.) Bondage under the dominion of concupiscence, which He took away by the liberty of the Spirit, and the dominion of charity and grace. (4.) Bondage under death and mortality, which He will take away by the liberty and glory of the resurrection. It does not refer to the liberty of the will, as though sinners were so entirely the slaves of sin as not to have any free-will, and that Christ gives it them back when He justifies them. For a sinner sins by free will, and a penitent repents and is justified only by his free-will, aided by the grace of God.

Calvin foolishly denies free-will both to sinners and to the righteous. "Let us who are conscious of our own bondage glory only in Christ our deliverer." For he thinks that we are not intrinsically free, just as we are not intrinsically just by inherent righteousness, but only by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Each of which opinions is not only an impious, but also a foolish heresy.

Ver. 33.— They answered Him, &c. Christ in what He had said indirectly charged the Jews with ignorance and bondage. But as glorying in their descent from Abraham, they felt wounded; and putting aside the charge of ignorance, they proudly deny the charge of bondage, and say that they had no need of the liberty of Christ. We are slaves neither by birth, nor by condition. "And in like manner," says S. Chrysostom, "men when charged with impurity and wickedness put it aside, but when their family and work are impugned, they start up, as if they were mad." But the Jews did not understand Christ, for He spake not of civil, but of spiritual bondage, and that He would set them free from the bondage of sin by the liberty of grace. But did the Jews say truly that they were never in bondage to any man? S. Chrysostom and others say that they spoke too boastfully, but that they veiled their falsehood, because though often conquered they had never been sold as slaver.

(2.) Cajetan, Toletus, Jansen, and others reply to the charge by saying that though the Jews had formerly been in bondage, yet that the present generation of Jews had never been so, for they were merely the subjects, not the slaves, of the Romans. And this seems to be the most satisfactory meaning; for to say that their fathers had never been in bondage would have been a falsehood at which the sun itself would have blushed, and Christ would have at once confuted it. All they meant to say was that their race was a free and noble one, and that their subjection to the Romans was not slavery.

Ver. 34.— Veri1y, verily, &c. Most assured, i.e., the saying is, and specially commended to their notice. But our Lord speaks to them modestly and becomingly, using only general terms and the third person. He might have said, Ye commit many sins, and are therefore the servants of sin, and from this bondage no one but Myself can deliver you. "A miserable bondage," exclaims S. Augustine in loc., and adds the reason. "A man slave, when worn out by his master's cruel treatment, can at length escape and be at rest. But whither can the servant of sin flee? He carries with him himself, whithersoever he flies. A wicked conscience cannot fly from itself; it has no place to go to, it follows itself. It cannot withdraw from itself; for the sin which causes it is within." (2.) S. Peter (2Pe 2:19) gives a further reason. "Of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." (3.) He who committeth sin is the servant of the devil, who instigates to sin, and he is a cruel tyrant, who drives on sinners, as though they were his slaves, ever drawing them on from one sin to another, and in the end to hell. (4.) Every sin leaves behind it a desire and inclination to repeat the sin, and this concupiscence remains, even after the sin has been given up, for our punishment and temptation. Whence the Apostle says that he was sold under sin, that he did what he would not (as feeling against his will the motives of concupiscence), and that he cannot do the things he would. (5.) Because the sinner is bound by the chains of the sin he has committed, so that he cannot free himself, unless Christ sets him free by His grace, according to the saying (Prov. v. 22), "His own iniquities take the wicked himself, and he is bound with the cords of his sins." In these passages, to sin, which is inanimate, is ascribed the character of a master, or tyrant, to signify (1.) the tyrannical power of sin and concupiscence, and (2.) because by sin is understood the devil, who holds sway in the realm of sin, and holds stern dominion over sinners.

St. Ambrose, on the words of Psalm cxix. 94, "I am thine, 0 save me," says strikingly, "the worldling, cannot say to Him, I am Thine, for he has many masters. Lust comes, and says, Thou art mine, for thou desirest the things of the body. Avarice comes, and says, Thou art mine, for the silver and gold thou hast is the price of thy bondage. Luxury comes and says, Thou art mine, for one day's feasting is the price of thy life. Ambition comes, and says, Thou art clearly mine, for knowest thou not that I have set thee over others that thou mightest serve me? knowest thou not that I have conferred power on thee, in order to subject thee to mine own power? All the vices come, and say severally, Thou art mine. What a vile bond-slave is he whom so many compete for? And moreover the sinner who cannot say to God, I am Thine, hears from the devil, Thou art mine." For as S. Ambrose adds, "Satan came and entered into him, and began to say, he (Judas) is not thine, 0 Jesus, but mine. He thinks those things that are mine, he ponders my thoughts in his heart; he feasts with Thee, and feeds with me; he receives bread from Thee, and money from me; he drinks with me, and sells me Thy Blood; he is Thy Apostle, but my hireling."

Ver. 35.— The servant abideth not, &c. He who is the servant of sin, like you Jews, has not the right of remaining in his Master's house (that is the Church of God) for ever: for after death he will be cast into the outer darkness of hell, as ye too will be cast out. But the Son abideth for ever in His Father's house, that is, I ever abide with My Father in heaven. But if through Me and My grace ye have been delivered from the bondage of sin, ye will abide for ever with Me, as adopted children, in the house of God, that is in the Church militant by grace, and in the Church triumphant, for ever happy and glorious in heaven. So S. Augustine, Bede, and others.

Ver. 36.— If therefore the Son, &c. I alone can make you free, not Abraham or Moses, though most beloved servants of God. So S. Chrysostom and others.

Ver. 37.— I know, &c. By nature ye are Abraham's children, but in your deeds ye are degenerate. Your descent from Abraham will not therefore profit you. It will increase your damnation, for he will say at the last day, I acknowledge you not as my children, for ye have crucified Christ, my son and your brother.

Because My word, &c. Because ye will not take it in. Origen and S. Chrysostom think that these words were said to those who had before feebly believed in Christ, but who, on hearing themselves called "servants," were incensed against Him and wished to kill Him. But it is more probable that they were addressed to unbelievers who had before that plotted His death.

Ver. 38.— I speak, &c. Ye not only speak, but do that which ye have learnt from your father, the devil, especially in seeking to kill Me, implying that Abraham was not their father. See this more clearly declared verse 44.

Ver. 39.— They answered, &

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Joh 8:3

JOHN 8:3-11 (cf. Rom. 13:4 )—Did Jesus repudiate capital punishment in this text?

PROBLEM: Passages like Romans 13:4 present a good case for capital punishment, for the passage says, “for it [the government] does not bear a sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” ( NASB ). In John 8 a woman is caught in an adulterous situation, which was cause for stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus did not seek her death, but rather forgave her sin. Did Jesus thereby reject capital punishment?

SOLUTION: First, the authority in Romans 13 is the Roman government and the authorities in John 8 are Jewish ones. The point is that the Jews had to act under Roman law. For instance, if they were really going to stone a woman, why did they seek the help of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus? For in John 18:31 the Jews respond to Pilate saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” But in the case of the adulterous woman, they were ready to stone her.

Second, they did not act in accordance with the Law itself. The Law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people ( Deut. 22:22- 24 ). Since this woman was caught in the very act (v. 4 ), why wasn’t the man brought out with the woman to be stoned? The scribes and Pharisees who were supposed to be law abiding citizens failed in a key aspect of their own law.

Third, the motives of these scribes and Pharisees were wrong. They used this opportunity to try to trap Jesus so that they might have a reason for accusing Him (v. 6 ). The crime of adultery did not seem important to them. Rather, it seemed more important to find cause for accusation against Jesus.

This passage, then, is not a good text for anyone who wants to propose that Jesus opposed capital punishment. In fact, other places of Scripture seem to support the very idea (see Gen. 9:6 and Matt. 26:52 ).   

Critics Ask: Joh 8:4

JOHN 8:3-11 (cf. Rom. 13:4 )—Did Jesus repudiate capital punishment in this text?

PROBLEM: Passages like Romans 13:4 present a good case for capital punishment, for the passage says, “for it [the government] does not bear a sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” ( NASB ). In John 8 a woman is caught in an adulterous situation, which was cause for stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus did not seek her death, but rather forgave her sin. Did Jesus thereby reject capital punishment?

SOLUTION: First, the authority in Romans 13 is the Roman government and the authorities in John 8 are Jewish ones. The point is that the Jews had to act under Roman law. For instance, if they were really going to stone a woman, why did they seek the help of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus? For in John 18:31 the Jews respond to Pilate saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” But in the case of the adulterous woman, they were ready to stone her.

Second, they did not act in accordance with the Law itself. The Law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people ( Deut. 22:22- 24 ). Since this woman was caught in the very act (v. 4 ), why wasn’t the man brought out with the woman to be stoned? The scribes and Pharisees who were supposed to be law abiding citizens failed in a key aspect of their own law.

Third, the motives of these scribes and Pharisees were wrong. They used this opportunity to try to trap Jesus so that they might have a reason for accusing Him (v. 6 ). The crime of adultery did not seem important to them. Rather, it seemed more important to find cause for accusation against Jesus.

This passage, then, is not a good text for anyone who wants to propose that Jesus opposed capital punishment. In fact, other places of Scripture seem to support the very idea (see Gen. 9:6 and Matt. 26:52 ).   

Critics Ask: Joh 8:5

JOHN 8:3-11 (cf. Rom. 13:4 )—Did Jesus repudiate capital punishment in this text?

PROBLEM: Passages like Romans 13:4 present a good case for capital punishment, for the passage says, “for it [the government] does not bear a sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” ( NASB ). In John 8 a woman is caught in an adulterous situation, which was cause for stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus did not seek her death, but rather forgave her sin. Did Jesus thereby reject capital punishment?

SOLUTION: First, the authority in Romans 13 is the Roman government and the authorities in John 8 are Jewish ones. The point is that the Jews had to act under Roman law. For instance, if they were really going to stone a woman, why did they seek the help of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus? For in John 18:31 the Jews respond to Pilate saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” But in the case of the adulterous woman, they were ready to stone her.

Second, they did not act in accordance with the Law itself. The Law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people ( Deut. 22:22- 24 ). Since this woman was caught in the very act (v. 4 ), why wasn’t the man brought out with the woman to be stoned? The scribes and Pharisees who were supposed to be law abiding citizens failed in a key aspect of their own law.

Third, the motives of these scribes and Pharisees were wrong. They used this opportunity to try to trap Jesus so that they might have a reason for accusing Him (v. 6 ). The crime of adultery did not seem important to them. Rather, it seemed more important to find cause for accusation against Jesus.

This passage, then, is not a good text for anyone who wants to propose that Jesus opposed capital punishment. In fact, other places of Scripture seem to support the very idea (see Gen. 9:6 and Matt. 26:52 ).   

Critics Ask: Joh 8:6

JOHN 8:3-11 (cf. Rom. 13:4 )—Did Jesus repudiate capital punishment in this text?

PROBLEM: Passages like Romans 13:4 present a good case for capital punishment, for the passage says, “for it [the government] does not bear a sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” ( NASB ). In John 8 a woman is caught in an adulterous situation, which was cause for stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus did not seek her death, but rather forgave her sin. Did Jesus thereby reject capital punishment?

SOLUTION: First, the authority in Romans 13 is the Roman government and the authorities in John 8 are Jewish ones. The point is that the Jews had to act under Roman law. For instance, if they were really going to stone a woman, why did they seek the help of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus? For in John 18:31 the Jews respond to Pilate saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” But in the case of the adulterous woman, they were ready to stone her.

Second, they did not act in accordance with the Law itself. The Law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people ( Deut. 22:22- 24 ). Since this woman was caught in the very act (v. 4 ), why wasn’t the man brought out with the woman to be stoned? The scribes and Pharisees who were supposed to be law abiding citizens failed in a key aspect of their own law.

Third, the motives of these scribes and Pharisees were wrong. They used this opportunity to try to trap Jesus so that they might have a reason for accusing Him (v. 6 ). The crime of adultery did not seem important to them. Rather, it seemed more important to find cause for accusation against Jesus.

This passage, then, is not a good text for anyone who wants to propose that Jesus opposed capital punishment. In fact, other places of Scripture seem to support the very idea (see Gen. 9:6 and Matt. 26:52 ).   

Critics Ask: Joh 8:7

JOHN 8:3-11 (cf. Rom. 13:4 )—Did Jesus repudiate capital punishment in this text?

PROBLEM: Passages like Romans 13:4 present a good case for capital punishment, for the passage says, “for it [the government] does not bear a sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” ( NASB ). In John 8 a woman is caught in an adulterous situation, which was cause for stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus did not seek her death, but rather forgave her sin. Did Jesus thereby reject capital punishment?

SOLUTION: First, the authority in Romans 13 is the Roman government and the authorities in John 8 are Jewish ones. The point is that the Jews had to act under Roman law. For instance, if they were really going to stone a woman, why did they seek the help of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus? For in John 18:31 the Jews respond to Pilate saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” But in the case of the adulterous woman, they were ready to stone her.

Second, they did not act in accordance with the Law itself. The Law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people ( Deut. 22:22- 24 ). Since this woman was caught in the very act (v. 4 ), why wasn’t the man brought out with the woman to be stoned? The scribes and Pharisees who were supposed to be law abiding citizens failed in a key aspect of their own law.

Third, the motives of these scribes and Pharisees were wrong. They used this opportunity to try to trap Jesus so that they might have a reason for accusing Him (v. 6 ). The crime of adultery did not seem important to them. Rather, it seemed more important to find cause for accusation against Jesus.

This passage, then, is not a good text for anyone who wants to propose that Jesus opposed capital punishment. In fact, other places of Scripture seem to support the very idea (see Gen. 9:6 and Matt. 26:52 ).   

Critics Ask: Joh 8:8

JOHN 8:3-11 (cf. Rom. 13:4 )—Did Jesus repudiate capital punishment in this text?

PROBLEM: Passages like Romans 13:4 present a good case for capital punishment, for the passage says, “for it [the government] does not bear a sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” ( NASB ). In John 8 a woman is caught in an adulterous situation, which was cause for stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus did not seek her death, but rather forgave her sin. Did Jesus thereby reject capital punishment?

SOLUTION: First, the authority in Romans 13 is the Roman government and the authorities in John 8 are Jewish ones. The point is that the Jews had to act under Roman law. For instance, if they were really going to stone a woman, why did they seek the help of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus? For in John 18:31 the Jews respond to Pilate saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” But in the case of the adulterous woman, they were ready to stone her.

Second, they did not act in accordance with the Law itself. The Law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people ( Deut. 22:22- 24 ). Since this woman was caught in the very act (v. 4 ), why wasn’t the man brought out with the woman to be stoned? The scribes and Pharisees who were supposed to be law abiding citizens failed in a key aspect of their own law.

Third, the motives of these scribes and Pharisees were wrong. They used this opportunity to try to trap Jesus so that they might have a reason for accusing Him (v. 6 ). The crime of adultery did not seem important to them. Rather, it seemed more important to find cause for accusation against Jesus.

This passage, then, is not a good text for anyone who wants to propose that Jesus opposed capital punishment. In fact, other places of Scripture seem to support the very idea (see Gen. 9:6 and Matt. 26:52 ).   

Critics Ask: Joh 8:9

JOHN 8:3-11 (cf. Rom. 13:4 )—Did Jesus repudiate capital punishment in this text?

PROBLEM: Passages like Romans 13:4 present a good case for capital punishment, for the passage says, “for it [the government] does not bear a sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” ( NASB ). In John 8 a woman is caught in an adulterous situation, which was cause for stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus did not seek her death, but rather forgave her sin. Did Jesus thereby reject capital punishment?

SOLUTION: First, the authority in Romans 13 is the Roman government and the authorities in John 8 are Jewish ones. The point is that the Jews had to act under Roman law. For instance, if they were really going to stone a woman, why did they seek the help of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus? For in John 18:31 the Jews respond to Pilate saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” But in the case of the adulterous woman, they were ready to stone her.

Second, they did not act in accordance with the Law itself. The Law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people ( Deut. 22:22- 24 ). Since this woman was caught in the very act (v. 4 ), why wasn’t the man brought out with the woman to be stoned? The scribes and Pharisees who were supposed to be law abiding citizens failed in a key aspect of their own law.

Third, the motives of these scribes and Pharisees were wrong. They used this opportunity to try to trap Jesus so that they might have a reason for accusing Him (v. 6 ). The crime of adultery did not seem important to them. Rather, it seemed more important to find cause for accusation against Jesus.

This passage, then, is not a good text for anyone who wants to propose that Jesus opposed capital punishment. In fact, other places of Scripture seem to support the very idea (see Gen. 9:6 and Matt. 26:52 ).   

Critics Ask: Joh 8:10

JOHN 8:3-11 (cf. Rom. 13:4 )—Did Jesus repudiate capital punishment in this text?

PROBLEM: Passages like Romans 13:4 present a good case for capital punishment, for the passage says, “for it [the government] does not bear a sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” ( NASB ). In John 8 a woman is caught in an adulterous situation, which was cause for stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus did not seek her death, but rather forgave her sin. Did Jesus thereby reject capital punishment?

SOLUTION: First, the authority in Romans 13 is the Roman government and the authorities in John 8 are Jewish ones. The point is that the Jews had to act under Roman law. For instance, if they were really going to stone a woman, why did they seek the help of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus? For in John 18:31 the Jews respond to Pilate saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” But in the case of the adulterous woman, they were ready to stone her.

Second, they did not act in accordance with the Law itself. The Law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people ( Deut. 22:22- 24 ). Since this woman was caught in the very act (v. 4 ), why wasn’t the man brought out with the woman to be stoned? The scribes and Pharisees who were supposed to be law abiding citizens failed in a key aspect of their own law.

Third, the motives of these scribes and Pharisees were wrong. They used this opportunity to try to trap Jesus so that they might have a reason for accusing Him (v. 6 ). The crime of adultery did not seem important to them. Rather, it seemed more important to find cause for accusation against Jesus.

This passage, then, is not a good text for anyone who wants to propose that Jesus opposed capital punishment. In fact, other places of Scripture seem to support the very idea (see Gen. 9:6 and Matt. 26:52 ).   

Critics Ask: Joh 8:11

JOHN 7:53-8:11 —Why do some scholars question whether this story should be in the Bible?

PROBLEM: This story of the woman taken in adultery is found in the KJV , the ASV , the NASB , and the NIV . However, the NEB places it at the end of the Gospel under the caption “An incident in the temple.” And since 1971 the RSV places it in special print set off from the rest of the text, as does the NRSV . The standard Greek NT (Nestle- Aland Text, United Bible Societies) places brackets around it, indicating that it is not part of the text of John. Why do many scholars believe this story is not part of the original manuscript of the Gospel of John?

SOLUTION: There are several reasons why many scholars question whether this passage belongs here in John’s Gospel. (1) The passage does not appear in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. (2) It is not found in the best manuscripts of the earliest translations of the Bible into Old Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and Old Latin. (3) No Greek writer commented on this passage for the first 11 centuries of Christianity. (4) It is not cited by most of the great early church fathers, including Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Cyril, and others. (5) Its style does not fit that of the rest of the Gospel of John. (6) It interrupts the flow of thought in John. John reads better if one goes right from John 7:52 to 8:12 . (7) The story has been found in several different places in Bible manuscripts—after John 7:36 ; after John 21:24 ; after John 7:44 ; and after Luke 21:38 . (8) Many manuscripts that include it in John 7:53-8:11 have marked it with an obelus, indicating they believe it is doubtful.

In spite of this, many Bible scholars believe this story is authentic. It certainly contains no doctrinal error and fits with the character of Jesus and His teaching, but there is no certainty that it was in the original text of John.   

JOHN 8:3-11 (cf. Rom. 13:4 )—Did Jesus repudiate capital punishment in this text?

PROBLEM: Passages like Romans 13:4 present a good case for capital punishment, for the passage says, “for it [the government] does not bear a sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” ( NASB ). In John 8 a woman is caught in an adulterous situation, which was cause for stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus did not seek her death, but rather forgave her sin. Did Jesus thereby reject capital punishment?

SOLUTION: First, the authority in Romans 13 is the Roman government and the authorities in John 8 are Jewish ones. The point is that the Jews had to act under Roman law. For instance, if they were really going to stone a woman, why did they seek the help of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus? For in John 18:31 the Jews respond to Pilate saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” But in the case of the adulterous woman, they were ready to stone her.

Second, they did not act in accordance with the Law itself. The Law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people ( Deut. 22:22- 24 ). Since this woman was caught in the very act (v. 4 ), why wasn’t the man brought out with the woman to be stoned? The scribes and Pharisees who were supposed to be law abiding citizens failed in a key aspect of their own law.

Third, the motives of these scribes and Pharisees were wrong. They used this opportunity to try to trap Jesus so that they might have a reason for accusing Him (v. 6 ). The crime of adultery did not seem important to them. Rather, it seemed more important to find cause for accusation against Jesus.

This passage, then, is not a good text for anyone who wants to propose that Jesus opposed capital punishment. In fact, other places of Scripture seem to support the very idea (see Gen. 9:6 and Matt. 26:52 ).   

Evidence: Joh 8:4

USING THE LAW IN EVANGELISM

The wrath of the Law brought this woman to the feet of the Savior. That’s the function of the Law: to condemn. Some may say that we shouldn’t condemn anyone, when all the Law does is reveal to the sinner that he is " condemned already" ( Joh 3:18 ). The Law shows him his danger and therefore his desperate need for the Savior. See Joh 4:18 footnote.

Evidence: Joh 8:6

It is likely that Jesus wrote the Ten Commandments in the ground. They had been talking about the Law, and each of the men were convicted by their conscience ( Joh 8:9 ), which is the effect of the Law ( Rom 2:15 ). The Law was written in stone (uncompromising), this was written in sand (removable)—besides, what else does God write with His finger? See Exo 31:18 .

Evidence: Joh 8:9

QUESTIONS & OBJECTIONS

" You are trying to make me feel guilty by quoting the Ten Commandments."

Ask the person which one of the Ten Commandments makes him

feel guilty. Simply state, " The Bible says, ‘You shall not steal.’ If

you feel guilty when you hear that, why do you think that is?

Could it be because you are guilty?" God gave us our conscience

so we would know when we break His Law; the guilt we feel

when we do something wrong tells us that we need to repent.

See also Rom 2:15 footnote.

Evidence: Joh 8:10

What a fearful thing it is when we face God’s Law. The very stones call for our blood. The Law cries out for justice; it has no mercy. It demands, " The soul that sins shall die!" But the Judge who rules can, at His own discretion, administer the spirit of the Law, and its spirit says that mercy rejoices over judgment—God is rich in mercy to all who call upon Him.

The letter kills, but the Spirit brings life. God is not willing that the wrath of the Law fall upon guilty sinners, because He would rather acquit the criminal from the courtroom...and He can do so because of Calvary.

A. N. Martin said, " The moment God’s Law ceases to be the most powerful factor in influencing the moral sensitivity of any individual or nation, there will be indifference to Divine wrath, and when indifference comes in it always brings in its train indifference to salvation."

Evidence: Joh 8:11

QUESTIONS & OBJECTIONS

" Jesus didn’t condemn the woman caught in the act of adultery, but condemned those who judged her. Therefore you shouldn’t judge others."

The Christian is not " judging others" but simply telling the world of God’s judgment —that God (not the Christian) has judged all the world as being guilty before Him ( Rom 3:19 ; Rom 3:23 ). Jesus was able to offer that woman forgiveness for her sin, because He was on His way to die on the cross for her. She acknowledged Him as " Lord," but He still told her, " Go, and sin no more." If she didn’t repent, she would perish.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: John (Book Introduction)

THE Fourth Gospel

By Way of Introduction

Greatest of Books

The test of time has given the palm to the Fourth Gospel over all the books of the world. If Luke’s Gospel is the most beautiful, John’s Gospel is supreme in its height and depth and reach of thought. The picture of Christ here given is the one that has captured the mind and heart of mankind. It is not possible for a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God to be indifferent to modern critical views concerning the authorship and historical value of this Holy of Holies of the New Testament. Here we find The Heart of Christ (E. H. Sears), especially in chapters John 14-17. If Jesus did not do or say these things, it is small consolation to be told that the book at least has symbolic and artistic value for the believer. The language of the Fourth Gospel has the clarity of a spring, but we are not able to sound the bottom of the depths. Lucidity and profundity challenge and charm us as we linger over it.

The Beloved Disciple

The book claims to be written by " the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Joh_21:20) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: " This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (Joh_21:24). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with Joh_20:31, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in Joh_21:24 is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in The Beloved Disciple (1922).

A Personal Witness

It is manifest all through the book that the writer is the witness who is making the contribution of his personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. In Joh_1:14 he plainly says that " the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" ( etheasametha tēn doxan autou ). He here associates others with him in this witness to the glory of the Word, but in Joh_21:25 he employs the singular " I suppose" ( oimai ) in sharp distinction from the plural " we know" ( oidamen ) just before. The writer is present in nearly all the scenes described. The word witness ( marturě , marturia ) so common in this Gospel (Joh_1:7, Joh_1:8, Joh_1:19; Joh_3:11, Joh_3:26, Joh_3:33; Joh_5:31; Joh_12:17; Joh_21:24, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of Christ (Luk_1:1-4). In the Gospel of Matthew we possess either the whole work of a personal follower and apostle or at least the Logia of Matthew according to Papias preserved in it. In Mark’s Gospel we have as the basis the preaching of Simon Peter as preserved by his interpreter John Mark. John’s Gospel claims to be the personal witness of " the disciple whom Jesus loved" and as such deserves and has received exceptional esteem. One may note all through the book evidences of an eyewitness in the vivid details.

With a Home in Jerusalem

It is not only that the writer was a Jew who knew accurately places and events in Palestine, once denied though now universally admitted. The Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus " to his own home" ( eis ta idia , Joh_19:27) from the Cross when Jesus commended his mother to his care. But this Beloved Disciple had access to the palace of the high priest (Joh_18:15.). Delff ( Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt , 1890) argues that this fact shows that the Beloved Disciple was not one of the twelve apostles, one of a priestly family of wealth in Jerusalem. He does seem to have had special information concerning what took place in the Sanhedrin (Joh_7:45-52; Joh_11:47-53; Joh_12:10.). But at once we are confronted with the difficulty of supposing one outside of the circle of the twelve on even more intimate terms with Jesus than the twelve themselves and who was even present at the last passover meal and reclined on the bosom of Jesus (Joh_13:23). Nor is this all, for he was one of the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (Joh_21:1.) when Peter speaks to Jesus about the " Beloved Disciple" (Joh_21:20).

Only One John of Ephesus

It is true that an ambiguous statement of Papias (circa a.d. 120) is contained in Eusebius where the phrase " the Elder John " ( ho presbuteros Iōannēs ) occurs. The most natural way to understand Papias is that he is referring to the Apostle John by this phrase as he describes the teachings of the apostles by " the words of the elders" just before. This interpretation of the allusion of Papias has been rendered almost certain by the work of Dom John Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (1911). Not before Eusebius is the error found of two Johns in Ephesus, one the apostle, the other the so-called Presbyter. " Papias is no witness for the admission of two Johns of Asia Minor. Irenaeus, too, in any case, knows of but one John of Asia Minor. And this John was an eye-witness of our Lord’s Life" (Bousset, Die Offenbarumg des Joh. , p. 38, translation of Nolloth, The Fourth Evangelist , p. 63, note). Let this be admitted and much becomes clear.

No Early Martyrdom for the Apostle John

In 1862 a fragment of the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus, a Byzantine monk of the ninth century, was published. It is the Codex Coislinianus , Paris, 305, which differs from the other manuscripts of this author in saying that John according to Papias was slain by the Jews ( hupo Ioudaiōn anēirethē ) while the other manuscripts say that John rested in peace ( en eirēnēi anepausato ). The passage also quotes Eusebius to the effect that John received Asia as his sphere of work and lived and died in Ephesus. This same George the Sinner misquotes Origen about the death of John for Origen really says that the Roman king condemned him to the Isle of Patmos, not to death. Another fragment of Philip of Side, apparently used by Georgius, makes the same erroneous reference to Papias. It is therefore a worthless legend growing out of the martyrdom promised James and John by Jesus (Mar_10:39; Mat_20:23) and realized by James first of all (Act_12:1.). John drank the cup in the exile to Patmos. The correction to Peter in Joh_21:20-23 would have no meaning if the Apostle John had already been put to death.

The Author the Apostle John

Loisy ( Le Quatr. Evangile , p. 132) says that if one takes literally what is given in the body of the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple he is bound to be one of the twelve. Loisy does not take it " literally." But why not? Are we to assume that the author of this greatest of books is playing a part or using a deliberate artifice to deceive? It may be asked why John does not use his own name instead of a nom de plume . Reference can be made to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, no one of which gives the author’s name. One can see a reason for the turn here given since the book consists so largely of personal experiences of the author with Christ. He thus avoids the too frequent use of the personal pronoun and preserves the element of witness which marks the whole book. One by one the other twelve apostles disappear if we test their claims for the authorship. In the list of seven in chapter John 21 it is easy to drop the names of Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael. There are left two unnamed disciples and the sons of Zebedee (here alone mentioned, not even named, in the book). John in this Gospel always means the Baptist. Why does the author so uniformly slight the sons of Zebedee if not one of them himself? In the Acts Luke does not mention his own name nor that of Titus his brother, though so many other friends of Paul are named. If the Beloved Disciple is John the Apostle, the silence about James and himself is easily understood. James is ruled out because of his early death (Act_12:1). The evidence in the Gospel points directly to the Apostle John as the author.

Early and Clear Witness to the Apostle John

Ignatius ( ad Philad . vii. 1) about a.d. 110 says of the Spirit that " he knows whence he comes and whither he is going," a clear allusion to Joh_3:8. Polycarp ( ad Phil . S 7) quotes 1Jo_4:2, 1Jo_4:3. Eusebius states that Papias quoted First John. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. V, 20) as saying that he used as a boy to hear Polycarp tell " of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord." Irenaeus accepted all our Four Gospels. Tatian made his Diatessaron out of the Four Gospels alone. Theophilus of Antioch ( ad Autol . ii. 22) calls John the author of the Fourth Gospel. This was about a.d. 180. The Muratorian Canon near the close of the second century names John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Till after the time of Origen no opposition to the Johannine authorship appears outside of Marcion and the Alogi. No other New Testament book has stronger external evidence.

The Use of the Synoptic Gospels

As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two passovers not given by the other Gospels (Joh_2:23; Joh_6:4) and another (Joh_5:1) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our Lord’s public ministry (" the year of obscurity," Stalker) without which we should know little of this beginning (John 1:19-4:45). The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue (John 1:1-18) relates the Incarnation to God’s eternal purpose as in Col_1:14-20 and Heb_1:1-3 and employs the language of the intellectuals of the time ( Logos - Word) to interpret Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.

A Different Style of Teaching

So different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon’s Memorabilia and of Plato’s Dialogues . There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters John 7-11. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Mat_11:25-30; Luk_10:21-24). The use of " the Father" and " the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.

The Same Style in the Discourses

It is further objected that there is no difference in style between the discourses of Jesus in John’s Gospel and his own narrative style. There is an element of truth in this criticism. There are passages where it is not easy to tell where discourse ends and narrative begins. See, for instance, Joh_3:16-21. Does the discourse of Jesus end with Joh_3:15, Joh_3:16, or Joh_3:21? So in Joh_12:44-50. Does John give here a resumé of Christ’s teaching or a separate discourse? It is true also that John preserves in a vivid way the conversational style of Christ as in chapters 4, 6, 7, 8, 9. In the Synoptic Gospels this element is not so striking, but we do not have to say that John has done as Shakespeare did with his characters. Each Gospel to a certain extent has the colouring of the author in reporting the words of Jesus. An element of this is inevitable unless men are mere automata, phonographs, or radios. But each Gospel preserves an accurate and vivid picture of Christ. We need all four pictures including that of John’s Gospel for the whole view of Christ.

Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel

It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his Diatessaron , the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter John 11 which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke’s account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in Matt 23, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter John 21 with that in Luke 5, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter John 12 the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in Luke 7, making John’s Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter John 1 is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel (1910).

Like the Johannine Epistles

Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as " the Elder" ( ho presbuteros ), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical " Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself " the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Pe_5:1) he calls himself " your fellow-elder" ( ho sunpresbuteros ). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in 1Jo_1:1-4 and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the aeon Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in 1Jo_2:22. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

But Different from the Apocalypse

It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Rev_1:4, Rev_1:9; Rev_22:8), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a " Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton ( Prolegomena , p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: " If its date was 95 a.d., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. So one ventures to call attention to the statement in Act_4:13 where Peter and John are described as agrammatoi kai idiōtai (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John’s friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan’s Greek Papyri , for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton’s dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

The Unity of the Gospel

This has been attacked in various ways in spite of the identity of style throughout. There are clearly three parts in the Gospel: the Prologue, John 1:1-18, the Body of the Book, John 1:19-20:31, the Epilogue, John 21. But there is no evidence that the Prologue was added by another hand, even though the use of Logos (Word) for Christ does not occur thereafter. This high conception of Christ dominates the whole book. Some argue that the Epilogue was added by some one else than John, but here again there is no proof and no real reason for the supposition. It is possible, as already stated, that John stopped at Joh_20:31 and then added John 21 before sending the book forth after his friends added Joh_21:24 as their endorsement of the volume. Some scholars claim that they detect various displacements in the arrangement of the material, but such subjective criticism is never convincing. There are undoubtedly long gaps in the narrative as between chapters 5 and 6, but John is not giving a continuous narrative, but only a supplementary account assuming knowledge of the Synoptics. It is held that editorial comments by redactors can be detected here and there. Perhaps, and perhaps not. The unity of this great book stands even if that be true.

Original Language of the Book

The late Dr. C. F. Burney of Oxford wrote a volume called, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922) in which he tried to prove that the Fourth Gospel is really the first in time and was originally written in Aramaic. The theory excited some interest, but did not convince either Aramaic or Greek scholars to an appreciable extent. Some of the examples cited are plausible and some quite fanciful. This theory cannot be appealed to in any serious interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. The author was beyond doubt a Jew, but he wrote in the Koiné Greek of his time that is comparatively free from crude Semiticisms, perhaps due in part to the help of the friends in Ephesus.

The Purpose of the Book

He tells us himself in Joh_20:30. He has made a selection of the many signs wrought by Jesus for an obvious purpose: " But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." This is the high and noble purpose plainly stated by the author. The book is thus confessedly apologetic and this fact ruins it with the critics who demand a dull and dry chronicle of events without plan or purpose in a book of history. Such a book would not be read and would be of little value if written. Each of the Synoptics is written with a purpose and every history or biography worth reading is written with a purpose. It is one thing to have a purpose in writing, but quite another to suppress or distort facts in order to create the impression that one wishes. This John did not do. He has given us his deliberate, mature, tested view of Jesus Christ as shown to him while alive and as proven since his resurrection. He writes to win others to like faith in Christ.

John’s Portrait of Christ

No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: " And the Word was God" (Joh_1:1) and in the correct text of Joh_1:18, " God only begotten" ( theos monogenēs ). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: " This is the Son of God" (Joh_1:34). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (Joh_5:18) and the claim of Christ himself (Joh_5:20-23; Joh_6:48; Joh_8:12, Joh_8:58; Joh_11:25; Joh_14:9; Joh_17:5) with the full and frank conviction of the author in Joh_20:31. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term theos applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my The Christ of the Logia (1924). The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ’s crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George Matheson, sees this clearly ( Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah , 1900; St. John’s Portrait of Christ , 1910).

JFB: John (Book Introduction)

THE author of the Fourth Gospel was the younger of the two sons of Zebedee, a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, who resided at Bethsaida, where were born Peter and Andrew his brother, and Philip also. His mother's name was Salome, who, though not without her imperfections (Mat 20:20-28), was one of those dear and honored women who accompanied the Lord on one of His preaching circuits through Galilee, ministering to His bodily wants; who followed Him to the cross, and bought sweet spices to anoint Him after His burial, but, on bringing them to the grave, on the morning of the First Day of the week, found their loving services gloriously superseded by His resurrection ere they arrived. His father, Zebedee, appears to have been in good circumstances, owning a vessel of his own and having hired servants (Mar 1:20). Our Evangelist, whose occupation was that of a fisherman with his father, was beyond doubt a disciple of the Baptist, and one of the two who had the first interview with Jesus. He was called while engaged at his secular occupation (Mat 4:21-22), and again on a memorable occasion (Luk 5:1-11), and finally chosen as one of the Twelve Apostles (Mat 10:2). He was the youngest of the Twelve--the "Benjamin," as DA COSTA calls him--and he and James his brother were named in the native tongue by Him who knew the heart, "Boanerges," which the Evangelist Mark (Mar 3:17) explains to mean "Sons of thunder"; no doubt from their natural vehemence of character. They and Peter constituted that select triumvirate of whom see on Luk 9:28. But the highest honor bestowed on this disciple was his being admitted to the bosom place with his Lord at the table, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Joh 13:23; Joh 20:2; Joh 21:7, Joh 20:24), and to have committed to him by the dying Redeemer the care of His mother (Joh 19:26-27). There can be no reasonable doubt that this distinction was due to a sympathy with His own spirit and mind on the part of John which the all-penetrating Eye of their common Master beheld in none of the rest; and although this was probably never seen either in his life or in his ministry by his fellow apostles, it is brought out wonderfully in his writings, which, in Christ-like spirituality, heavenliness, and love, surpass, we may freely say, all the other inspired writings.

After the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, we find him in constant but silent company with Peter, the great spokesman and actor in the infant Church until the accession of Paul. While his love to the Lord Jesus drew him spontaneously to the side of His eminent servant, and his chastened vehemence made him ready to stand courageously by him, and suffer with him, in all that his testimony to Jesus might cost him, his modest humility, as the youngest of all the apostles, made him an admiring listener and faithful supporter of his brother apostle rather than a speaker or separate actor. Ecclesiastical history is uniform in testifying that John went to Asia Minor; but it is next to certain that this could not have been till after the death both of Peter and Paul; that he resided at Ephesus, whence, as from a center, he superintended the churches of that region, paying them occasional visits; and that he long survived the other apostles. Whether the mother of Jesus died before this, or went with John to Ephesus, where she died and was buried, is not agreed. One or two anecdotes of his later days have been handed down by tradition, one at least bearing marks of reasonable probability. But it is not necessary to give them here. In the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) he was banished to "the isle that is called Patmos" (a small rocky and then almost uninhabited island in the Ægean Sea), "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:9). IRENÆUS and EUSEBIUS say that this took place about the end of Domitian's reign. That he was thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil, and miraculously delivered, is one of those legends which, though reported by TERTULLIAN and JEROME, is entitled to no credit. His return from exile took place during the brief but tolerant reign of Nerva; he died at Ephesus in the reign of Trajan [EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, 3.23], at an age above ninety, according to some; according to others, one hundred; and even one hundred twenty, according to others still. The intermediate number is generally regarded as probably the nearest to the truth.

As to the date of this Gospel, the arguments for its having been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem (though relied on by some superior critics) are of the slenderest nature; such as the expression in Joh 5:2, "there is at Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool," &c.; there being no allusion to Peter's martyrdom as having occurred according to the prediction in Joh 21:18 --a thing too well known to require mention. That it was composed long after the destruction of Jerusalem, and after the decease of all the other apostles, is next to certain, though the precise time cannot be determined. Probably it was before his banishment, however; and if we date it between the years 90 and 94, we shall probably be close to the truth.

As to the readers for whom it was more immediately designed, that they were Gentiles we might naturally presume from the lateness of the date; but the multitude of explanations of things familiar to every Jew puts this beyond all question.

No doubt was ever thrown upon the genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel till about the close of the eighteenth century; nor were these embodied in any formal attack upon it till BRETSCHNEIDER, in 1820, issued his famous treatise [Probabilia], the conclusions of which he afterwards was candid enough to admit had been satisfactorily disproved. To advert to these would be as painful as unnecessary; consisting as they mostly do of assertions regarding the Discourses of our Lord recorded in this Gospel which are revolting to every spiritual mind. The Tubingen school did their best, on their peculiar mode of reasoning, to galvanize into fresh life this theory of the post-Joannean date of the Fourth Gospel; and some Unitarian critics still cling to it. But to use the striking language of VAN OOSTERZEE regarding similar speculations on the Third Gospel, "Behold, the feet of them that shall carry it out dead are already at the door" (Act 5:9). Is there one mind of the least elevation of spiritual discernment that does not see in this Gospel marks of historical truth and a surpassing glory such as none of the other Gospels possess, brightly as they too attest their own verity; and who will not be ready to say that if not historically true, and true just as it stands, it never could have been by mortal man composed or conceived?

Of the peculiarities of this Gospel, we note here only two. The one is its reflective character. While the others are purely narrative, the Fourth Evangelist, "pauses, as it were, at every turn," as DA COSTA says [Four Witnesses, p. 234], "at one time to give a reason, at another to fix the attention, to deduce consequences, or make applications, or to give utterance to the language of praise." See Joh 2:20-21, Joh 2:23-25; Joh 4:1-2; Joh 7:37-39; Joh 11:12-13, Joh 11:49-52; Joh 21:18-19, Joh 21:22-23. The other peculiarity of this Gospel is its supplementary character. By this, in the present instance, we mean something more than the studiousness with which he omits many most important particulars in our Lord's history, for no conceivable reason but that they were already familiar as household words to all his readers, through the three preceding Gospels, and his substituting in place of these an immense quantity of the richest matter not found in the other Gospels. We refer here more particularly to the nature of the additions which distinguish this Gospel; particularly the notices of the different Passovers which occurred during our Lord's public ministry, and the record of His teaching at Jerusalem, without which it is not too much to say that we could have had but a most imperfect conception either of the duration of His ministry or of the plan of it. But another feature of these additions is quite as noticeable and not less important. "We find," to use again the words of DA COSTA [Four Witnesses, pp. 238, 239], slightly abridged, "only six of our Lord's miracles recorded in this Gospel, but these are all of the most remarkable kind, and surpass the rest in depth, specialty of application, and fulness of meaning. Of these six we find only one in the other three Gospels--the multiplication of the loaves. That miracle chiefly, it would seem, on account of the important instructions of which it furnished the occasion (John 6:1-71), is here recorded anew. The five other tokens of divine power are distinguished from among the many recorded in the three other Gospels by their furnishing a still higher display of power and command over the ordinary laws and course of nature. Thus we find recorded here the first of all the miracles that Jesus wrought--the changing of water into wine (Joh 2:1-11), the cure of the nobleman's son at a distance (Joh 4:43-54); of the numerous cures of the lame and the paralytic by the word of Jesus, only one--of the man impotent for thirty and eight years (Joh 5:1-9); of the many cures of the blind, one only--of the man born blind (Joh 9:1-12); the restoration of Lazarus, not from a deathbed, like Jairus' daughter, nor from a bier, like the widow of Nain's son, but from the grave, and after lying there four days, and there sinking into corruption (John 11:1-44); and lastly, after His resurrection, the miraculous draught of fishes on the Sea of Tiberias (Joh 21:5-11). But these are all recorded chiefly to give occasion for the record of those astonishing discourses and conversations, alike with friends and with foes, with His disciples and with the multitude which they drew forth."

Other illustrations of the peculiarities of this Gospel will occur, and other points connected with it be adverted to, in the course of the Commentary.

JFB: John (Outline)

• THE WORD MADE FLESH. (Joh 1:1-14)
• A SAYING OF THE BAPTIST CONFIRMATORY OF THIS. (Joh 1:15)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. (Joh 1:16-18)
• THE BAPTIST'S TESTIMONY TO CHRIST. (John 1:19-36)
• FIRST GATHERING OF DISCIPLES--JOHN ANDREW, SIMON, PHILIP, NATHANAEL. (Joh 1:37-51)
• FIRST MIRACLE, WATER MADE WINE--BRIEF VISIT TO CAPERNAUM. (Joh 2:1-12)
• CHRIST'S FIRST PASSOVER--FIRST CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE. (Joh 2:13-25)
• NIGHT INTERVIEW OF NICODEMUS WITH JESUS. (John 3:1-21)
• JESUS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE BAPTIST--HIS NOBLE TESTIMONY TO HIS MASTER. (John 3:22-36)
• CHRIST AND THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA--THE SAMARITANS OF SYCHAR. (John 4:1-42)
• SECOND GALILEAN MIRACLE--HEALING OF THE COURTIER'S SON. (Joh 4:43-54)
• THE IMPOTENT MAN HEALED--DISCOURSE OCCASIONED BY THE PERSECUTION ARISING THEREUPON. (John 5:1-47)
• FIVE THOUSAND MIRACULOUSLY FED. (Joh 6:1-13)
• JESUS WALKS ON THE SEA. (Joh 6:14-21)
• JESUS FOLLOWED BY THE MULTITUDES TO CAPERNAUM, DISCOURSES TO THEM IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF THE BREAD OF LIFE--EFFECT OF THIS ON TWO CLASSES OF THE DISCIPLES. (John 6:22-71) These verses are a little involved, from the Evangelist's desire to mention every circumstance, however minute, that might call up the scene as vividly to the reader as it stood before his own view.
• CHRIST AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. (John 7:1-53)
• THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY. (Joh 8:1-11)
• FURTHER DISCOURSES OF JESUS--ATTEMPT TO STONE HIM. (John 8:12-59)
• THE OPENING OF THE EYES OF ONE BORN BLIND, AND WHAT FOLLOWED ON IT. (John 9:1-41)
• THE GOOD SHEPHERD. (John 10:1-21)
• DISCOURSE AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION--FROM THE FURY OF HIS ENEMIES JESUS ESCAPES BEYOND JORDAN, WHERE MANY BELIEVE ON HIM. (John 10:22-42)
• LAZARUS RAISED FROM THE DEAD--THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS. (John 11:1-46)
• THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY. (Joh 12:1-11)
• CHRIST'S TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. (Joh 12:12-19)
• SOME GREEKS DESIRE TO SEE JESUS--THE DISCOURSE AND SCENE THEREUPON. (John 12:20-36)
• AT THE LAST SUPPER JESUS WASHES THE DISCIPLES' FEET--THE DISCOURSE ARISING THEREUPON. (John 13:1-20)
• THE TRAITOR INDICATED--HE LEAVES THE SUPPER ROOM. (Joh 13:21-30)
• DISCOURSE AFTER THE TRAITOR'S DEPARTURE--PETER'S SELF-CONFIDENCE--HIS FALL PREDICTED. (Joh 13:31-38)
• DISCOURSE AT THE TABLE, AFTER SUPPER. (John 14:1-31)
• DISCOURSE AT THE SUPPER TABLE CONTINUED. (John 15:1-27) The spiritual oneness of Christ and His people, and His relation to them as the Source of all their spiritual life and fruitfulness, are here beautifully set forth by a figure familiar to Jewish ears (Isa 5:1, &c.).
• DISCOURSE AT THE SUPPER TABLE CONCLUDED. (John 16:1-33)
• THE INTERCESSORY PRAYER. (John 17:1-26)
• BETRAYAL AND APPREHENSION OF JESUS. (Joh 18:1-13)
• JESUS BEFORE PILATE. (Joh 18:28-40)
• JESUS BEFORE PILATE--SCOURGED--TREATED WITH OTHER SEVERITIES AND INSULTS--DELIVERED UP, AND LED AWAY TO BE CRUCIFIED. (John 19:1-16)
• CRUCIFIXION AND DEATH OF THE LORD JESUS. (Joh 19:17-30)
• BURIAL OF CHRIST. (Joh 19:31-42)
• MARY'S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE, AND RETURN TO IT WITH PETER AND JOHN--HER RISEN LORD APPEARS TO HER. (John 20:1-18)
• JESUS APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES. (Joh 20:19-23)
• JESUS AGAIN APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES. (Joh 20:24-29)
• FIRST CLOSE OF THIS GOSPEL. (Joh 20:30-31)
• SUPPLEMENTARY PARTICULARS. (John 21:1-23)
• FINAL CLOSE OF THIS GOSPEL. (Joh 21:24-25)
• JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS--FALL OF PETER. (Joh 18:13-27)

TSK: John (Book Introduction)

John, who, according to the unanimous testimony of the ancient fathers and ecclesiastical writers, was the author of this Gospel, was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of Bethsaida, by Salome his wife (compare Mat 10:2, with Mat 27:55, Mat 27:56 and Mar 15:40), and brother of James the elder, whom " Herod killed with the sword," (Act 12:2). Theophylact says that Salome was the daughter of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by a former wife; and that consequently she was our Lord’s sister, and John was his nephew. He followed the occupation of his father till his call to the apostleship (Mat 4:21, Mat 4:22, Mar 1:19, Mar 1:20, Luk 5:1-10), which is supposed to have been when he was about twenty five years of age; after which he was a constant eye-witness of our Lord’s labours, journeyings, discourses, miracles, passion, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. After the ascension of our Lord he returned with the other apostles to Jerusalem, and with the rest partook of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, by which he was eminently qualified for the office of an Evangelist and Apostle. After the death of Mary, the mother of Christ, which is supposed to have taken place about fifteen years after the crucifixion, and probably after the council held in Jerusalem about ad 49 or 50 (Acts 15), at which he was present, he is said by ecclesiastical writers to have proceeded to Asia Minor, where he formed and presided over seven churches in as many cities, but chiefly resided at Ephesus. Thence he was banished by the emperor Domitian, in the fifteenth year of his reign, ad 95, to the isle of Patmos in the Agean sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse (Rev 1:9). On the accession of Nerva the following year, he was recalled from exile and returned to Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel and Epistles, and died in the hundredth year of his age, about ad 100, and in the third year of the emperor Trajan. It is generally believed that St. John was the youngest of the twelve apostles, and that he survived all the rest. Jerome, in his comment on Gal VI., says that he continued preaching when so enfeebled with age as to be obliged to be carried into the assembly; and that, not being able to deliver any long discourse, his custom was to say in every meeting, My dear children, love one another. The general current of ancient writers declares that the apostle wrote his Gospel at an advanced period of life, with which the internal evidence perfectly agrees; and we may safely refer it, with Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Mill, Lev. Clerc, and others, to the year 97. The design of St. John in writing his Gospel is said by some to have been to supply those important events which the other Evangelists had omitted, and to refute the notions of the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans, or according to others, to refute the heresy of the Gnostics and Sabians. But, though many parts of his Gospel may be successfully quoted against the strange doctrines held by those sects, yet the apostle had evidently a more general end in view than the confutation of their heresies. His own words sufficiently inform us of his motive and design in writing this Gospel: " These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name" (Joh 20:31). Learned men are not wholly agreed concerning the language in which this Gospel was originally written. Salmasius, Grotius, and other writers, have imagined that St. John wrote it in his own native tongue, the Aramean or Syriac, and that it was afterwards translated into Greek. This opinion is not supported by any strong arguments, and is contradicted by the unanimous voice of antiquity, which affirms that he wrote it in Greek, which is the general and most probable opinion. The style of this Gospel indicates a great want of those advantages which result from a learned education; but this defect is amply compensated by the unexampled simplicity with which he expresses the sublimest truths. One thing very remarkable is an attempt to impress important truths more strongly on the minds of his readers, by employing in the expression of them both an affirmative proposition and a negative. It is manifestly not without design that he commonly passes over those passages of our Lord’s history and teaching which had been treated at large by other Evangelists, or if he touches them at all, he touches them but slightly, whilst he records many miracles which had been overlooked by the rest, and expatiates on the sublime doctrines of the pre-existence, the divinity, and the incarnation of the Word, the great ends of His mission, and the blessings of His purchase.

TSK: John 8 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Joh 8:1, Christ delivers the woman taken in adultery; Joh 8:12, He declares himself the light of the world, and justifies his doctrine; Joh 8:31, promises freedom to those who believe; Joh 8:33, answers the Jews that boasted of Abraham; Joh 8:48, answers their reviling, by shewing his authority and dignity; Joh 8:59, and conveys himself from their cruelty.

Poole: John 8 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 8

MHCC: John (Book Introduction)

The apostle and evangelist, John, seems to have been the youngest of the twelve. He was especially favoured with our Lord's regard and confidence, so as to be spoken of as the disciple whom Jesus loved. He was very sincerely attached to his Master. He exercised his ministry at Jerusalem with much success, and outlived the destruction of that city, agreeably to Christ's prediction, Joh 21:22. History relates that after the death of Christ's mother, John resided chiefly at Ephesus. Towards the close of Domitian's reign he was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote his Revelation. On the accession of Nerva, he was set at liberty, and returned to Ephesus, where it is thought he wrote his Gospel and Epistles, about A. D. 97, and died soon after. The design of this Gospel appears to be to convey to the Christian world, just notions of the real nature, office, and character of that Divine Teacher, who came to instruct and to redeem mankind. For this purpose, John was directed to select for his narrative, those passages of our Saviour's life, which most clearly displayed his Divine power and authority; and those of his discourses, in which he spake most plainly of his own nature, and of the power of his death, as an atonement for the sins of the world. By omitting, or only briefly mentioning, the events recorded by the other evangelists, John gave testimony that their narratives are true, and left room for the doctrinal statements already mentioned, and for particulars omitted in the other Gospels, many of which are exceedingly important.

MHCC: John 8 (Chapter Introduction)

(Joh 8:1-11) The Pharisees and the adulteress.

(v. 12-59) Christ's discourse with the Pharisees.

Matthew Henry: John (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. John

It is not material to enquire when and where this gospel was written; we are sure that it was given by inspiration of God to John, the brother of James, one of the twelve apostles, distinguished by the honourable character of that disciple whom Jesus loved, one of the first three of the worthies of the Son of David, whom he took to be the witnesses of his retirements, particularly of his transfiguration and his agony. The ancients tell us that John lived longest of all the twelve apostles, and was the only one of them that died a natural death, all the rest suffering martyrdom; and some of them say that he wrote this gospel at Ephesus, at the request of the ministers of the several churches of Asia, in opposition to the heresy of Corinthus and the Ebionites, who held that our Lord was a mere man. It seems most probable that he wrote it before his banishment into the isle of Patmos, for there he wrote his Apocalypse, the close of which seems designed for the closing up of the canon of scripture; and, if so, this gospel was not written after. I cannot therefore give credit to those later fathers, who say that he wrote it in his banishment, or after his return from it, many years after the destruction of Jerusalem; when he was ninety years old, saith one of them; when he was a hundred, saith another of them. However, it is clear that he wrote last of the four evangelists, and, comparing his gospel with theirs, we may observe, 1. That he relates what they had omitted; he brings up the rear, and his gospel is as the rearward or gathering host; it gleans up what they has passed by. Thus there was a later collection of Solomon's wise sayings (Pro 25:1), and yet far short of what he delivered, 1Ki 4:32. 2. That he gives us more of the mystery of that of which the other evangelists gave us only the history. It was necessary that the matters of fact should be first settled, which was done in their declarations of those things which Jesus began both to do and teach, Luk 1:1; Act 1:1. But, this being done out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, John goes on to perfection (Heb 6:1), not laying again the foundation, but building upon it, leading us more within the veil. Some of the ancients observe that the other evangelists wrote more of the ta sōmatika - the bodily things of Christ; but John writes of the ta pneumatika - the spiritual things of the gospel, the life and soul of it; therefore some have called this gospel the key of the evangelists. Here is it that a door is opened in heaven, and the first voice we hear is, Come up hither, come up higher. Some of the ancients, that supposed the four living creatures in John's vision to represent the for evangelists, make John himself to be the flying eagle, so high does he soar, and so clearly does he see into divine and heavenly things.

Matthew Henry: John 8 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we have, I. Christ's evading the snare which the Jews laid for him, in bringing to him a woman taken in adultery (Joh 8:1-11). II. Divers discourses or conferences of his with the Jews that cavilled at him, and sought occasion against him, and made every thing he said a matter of controversy. 1. Concerning his being the light of the world (Joh 8:12-20). 2. Concerning the ruin of the unbelieving Jews (Joh 8:21-30). 3. Concerning liberty and bondage (Joh 8:31-37). 4. Concerning his Father and their father (Joh 8:38-47). 5. Here is his discourse in answer to their blasphemous reproaches (Joh 8:48-50). 6. Concerning the immortality of believers (Joh 8:51-59). And in all this he endured the contradiction of sinners against himself.

Barclay: John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT JOHN

The Gospel Of The EagleEye

For many Christian people the Gospel according to St. John is the most precious book in the New Testament. It is the book on which above all they feed their minds and nourish their hearts, and in which they rest their souls. Very often on stained glass windows and the like the gospel writers are represented in symbol by the figures of the four beasts whom the writer of the Revelation saw around the throne (Rev_4:7 ). The emblems are variously distributed among the gospel writers, but a common allocation is that the man stands for Mark, which is the plainest, the most straightforward and the most human of the gospels; the lion stands for Matthew, for he specially saw Jesus as the Messiah and the Lion of the tribe of Judah; the ox stands for Luke, because it is the animal of service and sacrifice, and Luke saw Jesus as the great servant of men and the universal sacrifice for all mankind; the eagle stands for John, because it alone of all living creatures can look straight into the sun and not be dazzled, and John has the most penetrating gaze of all the New Testament writers into the eternal mysteries and the eternal truths and the very mind of God. Many people find themselves closer to God and to Jesus Christ in John than in any other book in the world.

The Gospel That Is Different

But we have only to read the Fourth Gospel in the most cursory way to see that it is quite different from the other three. It omits so many things that they include. The Fourth Gospel has no account of the Birth of Jesus, of his baptism, of his temptations; it tells us nothing of the Last Supper, nothing of Gethsemane, and nothing of the Ascension. It has no word of the healing of any people possessed by devils and evil spirits. And, perhaps most surprising of all, it has none of the parable stories Jesus told which are so priceless a part of the other three gospels. In these other three gospels Jesus speaks either in these wonderful stories or in short, epigrammatic, vivid sentences which stick in the memory. But in the Fourth Gospel the speeches of Jesus are often a whole chapter long; and are often involved, argumentative pronouncements quite unlike the pithy, unforgettable sayings of the other three.

Even more surprising, the account in the Fourth Gospel of the facts of the life and ministry of Jesus is often different from that in the other three.

(i) John has a different account of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. In the other three gospels it is quite definitely stated that Jesus did not emerge as a preacher until after John the Baptist had been imprisoned. "Now after John was arrested Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God" (Mar_1:14 ; Luk_3:18 , Luk_3:20 ; Mat_4:12 ). But in John there is a quite considerable period during which the ministry of Jesus over-lapped with the activity of John the Baptist (Joh_3:22-30 ; Joh_4:1-2 ).

(ii) John has a different account of the scene of Jesusinistry. In the other three gospels the main scene of the ministry is Galilee and Jesus does not reach Jerusalem until the last week of his life. In John the main scene of the ministry is Jerusalem and Judaea, with only occasional withdrawals to Galilee (Joh_2:1-13 ; Joh_4:35 through Joh_5:1 ; Joh_6:1 through Joh_7:14 ). In John, Jesus is in Jerusalem for a Passover which occurred at the same time as the cleansing of the Temple, as John tells the story (Joh_2:13 ); he is in Jerusalem at the time of an unnamed feast (Joh_5:1 ); he is there for the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh_7:2 , Joh_7:10 ); he is there at the Feast of Dedication in the winter-time (Joh_10:22 ). In fact according to the Fourth Gospel Jesus never left Jerusalem after that feast; after Jn 10 he is in Jerusalem all the time, which would mean a stay of months, from the winter-time of the Feast of the Dedication to the spring-time of the Passover at which he was crucified.

In point of fact in this particular matter John is surely right. The other gospels show us Jesus mourning over Jerusalem as the last week came on. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Mat_23:37 ; Luk_13:34 ). It is clear that Jesus could not have said that unless he had paid repeated visits to Jerusalem and made repeated appeals to it. It was impossible for him to say that on a first visit. In this John is unquestionably right.

It was in fact this difference of scene which provided Eusebius with one of the earliest explanations of the difference between the Fourth Gospel and the other three. He said that in his day (about A.D. 300) many people who were scholars held the following view. Matthew at first preached to the Hebrew people. The day came when he had to leave them and to go to other nations. Before he went he set down his story of the life of Jesus in Hebrew, "and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence." After Mark and Luke had published their gospels, John was still preaching the story of Jesus orally. "Finally he proceeded to write for the following reason. The three gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his hands too, they say that he fully accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.... They therefore say that John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of the deeds done before the imprisonment of John the Baptist.... John therefore records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.... The Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life." (Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 5: 24.)

So then according to Eusebius there is no contradiction at all between the Fourth Gospel and the other three; the difference is due to the fact that the Fourth Gospel is describing a ministry in Jerusalem, at least in its earlier chapters, which preceded the ministry in Galilee, and which took place while John the Baptist was still at liberty. It may well be that this explanation of Eusebius is at least in part correct.

(iii) John has a different account of the duration of Jesusinistry. The other three gospels, on the face of it, imply that it lasted only one year. Within the ministry there is only one Passover Feast. In John there are three Passovers, one at the Cleansing of the Temple (Joh_2:13 ); one near the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Joh_6:4 ); and the final Passover at which Jesus went to the Cross. According to John the ministry of Jesus would take a minimum of two years, and probably a period nearer three years, to cover its events. Again John is unquestionably right. If we read the other three gospels closely and carefully we can see that he is right. When the disciples plucked the ears of corn (Mar_2:23 ) it must have been spring-time. When the five thousand were fed, they sat down on the green grass (Mar_6:39 ); therefore it was spring-time again, and there must have been a year between the two events. There follows the tour through Tyre and Sidon, and the Transfiguration. At the Transfiguration Peter wished to build three booths and to stay there. It is most natural to think that it was the time of the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths and that that is why Peter made the suggestion (Mar_9:5 ). That would make the date early in October. There follows the space between that and the last Passover in April. Therefore, behind the narrative of the other three gospels lies the fact that Jesusinistry actually did last for at least three years, as John represents it.

(iv) It sometimes even happens that John differs in matters of fact from the other three. There are two outstanding examples. First, John puts the Cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesusinistry (Joh_2:13-22 ), the others put it at the end (Mar_11:15-17 ; Mat_21:12-13 ; Luk_19:45-46 ). Second, when we come to study the narratives in detail, we will see that John dates the crucifixion of Jesus on the day before the Passover, while the other gospels date it on the day of the Passover.

We can never shut our eyes to the obvious differences between John and the other gospels.

JohnSpecial Knowledge

One thing is certain--if John differs from the other three gospels, it is not because of ignorance and lack of information. The plain fact is that, if he omits much that they tell us, he also tells us much that they do not mention. John alone tells of the marriage feast at Cana of Galilee (Joh_2:1-11 ); of the coming of Nicodemus to Jesus (Joh_3:1-15 ); of the woman of Samaria Jn 4 ; of the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11 ); of the way in which Jesus washed his discipleseet (Joh_13:1-17 ); of Jesusonderful teaching about the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, which is scattered through Jn 14 Jn 15 Jn 16 and Jn 17 . It is only in John that some of the disciples really come alive. It is in John alone that Thomas speaks (Joh_11:16 ; Joh_14:5 ; Joh_20:24-29 ); that Andrew becomes a real personality (Joh_1:40-41 ; Joh_6:8-9 ; Joh_12:22 ); that we get a glimpse of the character of Philip (Joh_6:5-7 ; Joh_14:8-9 ); that we hear the carping protest of Judas at the anointing at Bethany (Joh_12:4-5 ). And the strange thing is that these little extra touches are intensely revealing. Johnpictures of Thomas and Andrew and Philip are like little cameos or vignettes in which the character of each man is etched in a way we cannot forget.

Further, again and again John has little extra details which read like the memories of one who was there. The loaves which the lad brought to Jesus were barley loaves (Joh_6:9 ); when Jesus came to the disciples as they crossed the lake in the storm they had rowed between three and four miles (Joh_6:19 ); there were six stone waterpots at Cana of Galilee (Joh_2:6 ); it is only John who tells of the four soldiers gambling for the seamless robe as Jesus died (Joh_19:23 ); he knows the exact weight of the myrrh and aloes which were used to anoint the dead body of Jesus (Joh_19:39 ); he remembers how the perfume of the ointment filled the house at the anointing at Bethany (Joh_12:3 ). Many of these things are such apparently unimportant details that they are inexplicable unless they are the memories of a man who was there.

However much John may differ from the other three gospels, that difference is not to be explained by ignorance but rather by the fact that he had more knowledge or better sources or a more vivid memory than the others.

Further evidence of the specialised information of the writer of the Fourth Gospel is his detailed knowledge of Palestine and of Jerusalem. He knows how long it took to build the Temple (Joh_2:20 ); that the Jews and the Samaritans had a permanent quarrel (Joh_4:9 ); the low Jewish view of women (Joh_4:9 ); the way in which the Jews regard the Sabbath (Joh_5:10 ; Joh_7:21-23 ; Joh_9:14 ). His knowledge of the geography of Palestine is intimate. He knows of two Bethanys, one of which is beyond Jordan (Joh_1:28 ; Joh_12:1 ); he knows that Bethsaida was the home of some of the disciples (Joh_1:44 ; Joh_12:21 ); that Cana is in Galilee (Joh_2:1 ; Joh_4:46 ; Joh_21:2 ); that Sychar is near Shechem (Joh_4:5 ). He has what one might call a street by street knowledge of Jerusalem. He knows the sheep-gate and the pool near it (Joh_5:2 ); the pool of Siloam (Joh_9:7 ); SolomonPorch (Joh_10:23 ); the brook Kidron (Joh_18:1 ); the pavement which is called Gabbatha (Joh_19:13 ); Golgotha, which is like a skull (Joh_19:17 ). It must be remembered that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 and that John did not write until A.D. 100 or thereby; and yet from his memory he knows Jerusalem like the back of his hand.

The Circumstances In Which John Wrote

We have seen that there are very real differences between the Fourth and the other three gospels; and we have seen that, whatever the reason, it was not lack of knowledge on Johnpart. We must now go on to ask, What was the aim with which John wrote? If we can discover this we will discover why he selected and treated his facts as he did.

The Fourth Gospel was written in Ephesus about the year A.D. 100. By that time two special features had emerged in the situation of the Christian church. First, Christianity had gone out into the Gentile world. By that time the Christian church was no longer predominantly Jewish; it was in fact overwhelmingly gentile. The vast majority of its members now came, not from a Jewish, but an Hellenistic background. That being so, Christianity had to be restated. It was not that the truth of Christianity had changed; but the terms and the categories in which it found expression had to be changed.

Take but one instance. A Greek might take up the Gospel according to St. Matthew. No sooner had he opened it than he was confronted with a long genealogy. Genealogies were familiar enough to the Jew but quite unintelligible to the Greek. He would read on. He would be confronted with a Jesus who was the Son of David, a king of whom the Greeks had never heard, and the symbol of a racial and nationalist ambition which was nothing to the Greek. He would be faced with the picture of Jesus as Messiah, a term of which the Greek had never heard. Must the Greek who wished to become a Christian be compelled to reorganize his whole thinking into Jewish categories? Must he learn a good deal about Jewish history and Jewish apocalyptic literature (which told about the coming of the Messiah) before he could become a Christian? As E. J. Goodspeed phrased it: "Was there no way in which he might be introduced directly to the values of Christian salvation without being for ever routed, we might even say, detoured, through Judaism?" The Greek was one of the worldgreat thinkers. Had he to abandon all his own great intellectual heritage in order to think entirely in Jewish terms and categories of thought?

John faced that problem fairly and squarely. And he found one of the greatest solutions which ever entered the mind of man. Later on, in the commentary, we shall deal much more fully with Johngreat solution. At the moment we touch on it briefly. The Greeks had two great conceptions.

(a) They had the conception of the Logos. In Greek logos (G3056) means two things--it means word and it means reason. The Jew was entirely familiar with the all-powerful word of God. "God said, Let there be light; and there was light" (Gen_1:3 ). The Greek was entirely familiar with the thought of reason. He looked at this world; he saw a magnificent and dependable order. Night and day came with unfailing regularity; the year kept its seasons in unvarying course; the stars and the planets moved in their unaltering path; nature had her unvarying laws. What produced this order? The Greek answered unhesitatingly, The Logos (G3056), the mind of God, is responsible for the majestic order of the world. He went on, What is it that gives man power to think, to reason and to know? Again he answered unhesitatingly, The Logos (G3056), the mind of God, dwelling within a man makes him a thinking rational being.

John seized on this. It was in this way that he thought of Jesus. He said to the Greeks, "All your lives you have been fascinated by this great, guiding, controlling mind of God. The mind of God has come to earth in the man Jesus. Look at him and you see what the mind and thought of God are like." John had discovered a new category in which the Greek might think of Jesus, a category in which Jesus was presented as nothing less than God acting in the form of a man.

(b) They had the conception of two worlds. The Greek always conceived of two worlds. The one was the world in which we live. It was a wonderful world in its way but a world of shadows and copies and unrealities. The other was the real world, in which the great realities, of which our earthly things are only poor, pale copies, stand for ever. To the Greek the unseen world was the real one; the seen world was only shadowy unreality.

Plato systematized this way of thinking in his doctrine of forms or ideas. He held that in the unseen world there was the perfect pattern of everything, and the things of this world were shadowy copies of these eternal patterns. To put it simply, Plato held that somewhere there was a perfect pattern of a table of which all earthly tables are inadequate copies; somewhere there was the perfect pattern of the good and the beautiful of which all earthly goodness and earthly beauty are imperfect copies. And the great reality, the supreme idea, the pattern of all patterns and the form of all forms was God. The great problem was how to get into this world of reality, how to get out of our shadows into the eternal truths.

John declares that that is what Jesus enables us to do. He is reality come to earth. The Greek word for real in this sense is alethinos (G228); it is very closely connected with the word alethes (G227), which means true, and aletheia (G225), which means "the truth." The King James and Revised Standard Versions translate alethinos (G228) true; they would be far better to translate it "real." Jesus is the real light (Joh_1:9 ); Jesus is the real bread (Joh_6:32 ); Jesus is the real vine (Joh_15:1 ); to Jesus belongs the real judgment (Joh_8:16 ). Jesus alone has reality in our world of shadows and imperfections.

Something follows from that. Every action that Jesus did was, therefore, not only an act in time but a window which allows us to see into reality. That is what John means when he talks of Jesusiracles as signs (semeia - G4592). The wonderful works of Jesus were not simply wonderful; they were windows opening onto the reality which is God. This explains why John tells the miracle stories in a quite different way from the other three gospel writers. There are two differences.

(a) In the Fourth Gospel we miss the note of compassion which is in the miracle stories of the others. In the others Jesus is moved with compassion for the leper (Mar_1:41 ); his sympathy goes out to Jairus (Mar_5:22 ); he is sorry for the father of the epileptic boy (Mar_9:14 ); when he raises to life the son of the widow of Nain, Luke says with an infinite tenderness, "He gave him to his mother" (Luk_7:15 ). But in John the miracles are not so much deeds of compassion as deeds which demonstrate the glory of Christ. After the miracle at Cana of Galilee, John comments: "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory" (Joh_2:11 ). The raising of Lazarus happens "for the glory of God" (Joh_11:4 ). The blind manblindness existed to allow a demonstration of the glory of the works of God (Joh_9:3 ). To John it was not that there was no love and compassion in the miracles; but in every one of them he saw the glory of the reality of God breaking into time and into human affairs.

(b) Often the miracles of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are accompanied by a long discourse. The feeding of the five thousand is followed by the long discourse on the bread of life (Jn 6 ); the healing of the blind man springs from the saying that Jesus is the light of the world (Jn 9 ); the raising of Lazarus leads up to the saying that Jesus is the resurrection and the life (Jn 11 ). To John the miracles were not simply single events in time; they were insights into what God is always doing and what Jesus always is; they were windows into the reality of God. Jesus did not merely once feed five thousand people; that was an illustration that he is for ever the real bread of life. Jesus did not merely once open the eyes of a blind man; he is for ever the light of the world. Jesus did not merely once raise Lazarus from the dead; he is for ever and for all men the resurrection and the life. To John a miracle was never an isolated act; it was always a window into the reality of what Jesus always was and always is and always did and always does.

It was with this in mind that that great scholar Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 230) arrived at one of the most famous and true of all verdicts about the origin and aim of the Fourth Gospel. It was his view that the gospels containing the genealogies had been written first--that is, Luke and Matthew; that then Mark at the request of many who had heard Peter preach composed his gospel, which embodied the preaching material of Peter; and that then "last of all, John, perceiving that what had reference to the bodily things of Jesusinistry had been sufficiently related, and encouraged by his friends, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote a spiritual gospel" (quoted in Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 6 : 14). What Clement meant was that John was not so much interested in the mere facts as in the meaning of the facts, that it was not facts he was after but truth. John did not see the events of Jesusife simply as events in time; he saw them as windows looking into eternity, and he pressed towards the spiritual meaning of the events and the words of Jesusife in a way that the other three gospels did not attempt.

That is still one of the truest verdicts on the Fourth Gospel ever reached. John did write, not an historical, but a spiritual gospel.

So then, first of all, John presented Jesus as the mind of God in a person come to earth, and as the one person who possesses reality instead of shadows and able to lead men out of the shadows into the real world of which Plato and the great Greeks had dreamed. The Christianity which had once been clothed in Jewish categories had taken to itself the greatness of the thought of the Greeks.

The Rise Of The Heresies

The second of the great facts confronting the church when the Fourth Gospel was written was the rise of heresy. It was now seventy years since Jesus had been crucified. By this time the church was an organisation and an institution. Theologies and creeds were being thought out and stated; and inevitably the thoughts of some people went down mistaken ways and heresies resulted. A heresy is seldom a complete untruth; it usually results when one facet of the truth is unduly emphasised. We can see at least two of the heresies which the writer of the Fourth Gospel sought to combat.

(a) There were certain Christians, especially Jewish Christians, who gave too high a place to John the Baptist. There was something about him which had an inevitable appeal to the Jews. He walked in the prophetic succession and talked with the prophetic voice. We know that in later times there was an accepted sect of John the Baptist within the orthodox Jewish faith. In Act_19:1-7 we come upon a little group of twelve men on the fringe of the Christian church who had never gotten beyond the baptism of John.

Over and over again the Fourth Gospel quietly, but definitely, relegates John to his proper place. Over and over again John himself denies that he has ever claimed or possessed the highest place, and without qualification yields that place to Jesus. We have already seen that in the other gospels the ministry of Jesus did not begin until John the Baptist had been put into prison, but that in the Fourth Gospel their ministries overlap. The writer of the Fourth Gospel may well have used that arrangement to show John and Jesus in actual meeting and to show that John used these meetings to admit, and to urge others to admit, the supremacy of Jesus. It is carefully pointed out that John is not that light (Joh_1:8 ). He is shown as quite definitely disclaiming all Messianic aspirations (Joh_1:20 ; Joh_3:28 ; Joh_4:1 ; Joh_10:41 ). It is not even permissible to think of him as the highest witness (Joh_5:36 ). There is no criticism at all of John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel; but there is a rebuke to those who would give him a place which ought to belong to Jesus and to Jesus alone.

(b) A certain type of heresy which was very widely spread in the days when the Fourth Gospel was written is called by the general name of Gnosticism. Without some understanding of it much of Johngreatness and much of his aim will be missed. The basic doctrine of Gnosticism was that matter is essentially evil and spirit is essentially good. The Gnostics went on to argue that on that basis God himself cannot touch matter and therefore did not create the world. What he did was to put out a series of emanations. Each of these emanations was further from him, until at last there was one so distant from him that it could touch matter. That emanation was the creator of the world.

By itself that idea is bad enough, but it was made worse by an addition. The Gnostics held that each emanation knew less and less about God, until there was a stage when the emanations were not only ignorant of God but actually hostile to him. So they finally came to the conclusion that the creator god was not only different from the real God, but was also quite ignorant of and actively hostile to him. Cerinthus, one of the leaders of the Gnostics, said that "the world was created, not by God, but by a certain power far separate from him, and far distant from that Power who is over the universe, and ignorant of the God who is over all."

The Gnostics believed that God had nothing to do with the creating of the world. That is why John begins his gospel with the ringing statement: "All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that was made" (Joh_1:3 ). That is why John insists that "God so loved the world" (Joh_3:16 ). In face of the Gnostics who so mistakenly spiritualized God into a being who could not possibly have anything to do with the world, John presented the Christian doctrine of the God who made the world and whose presence fills the world that he has made.

The beliefs of the Gnostics impinged on their ideas of Jesus.

(a) Some of the Gnostics held that Jesus was one of the emanations which had proceeded from God. They held that he was not in any real sense divine; that he was only a kind of demigod who was more or less distant from the real God; that he was simply one of a chain of lesser beings between God and the world.

(b) Some of the Gnostics held that Jesus had no real body. A body is matter and God could not touch matter; therefore Jesus was a kind of phantom without real flesh and blood. They held, for instance, that when he stepped on the ground he left no footprint, for his body had neither weight nor substance. They could never have said: "The Word became flesh" (Joh_1:14 ). Augustine tells how he had read much in the work of the philosophers of his day; he had found much that was very like what was in the New Testament, but, he said: "e Word was made flesh and dwelt among us did not read there." That is why John in his First Letter insists that Jesus came in the flesh, and declares that any one who denies that fact is moved by the spirit of antichrist (1Jo_4:3 ). This particular heresy is known as Docetism. Docetism comes from the Greek word dokein (G1380) which means to seem ; and the heresy is so called because it held that Jesus only seemed to be a man.

(c) Some Gnostics held a variation of that heresy. They held that Jesus was a man into whom the Spirit of God came at his baptism; that Spirit remained with him throughout his life until the end; but since the Spirit of God could never suffer and die, it left him before he was crucified. They gave Jesusry on the Cross as : "My power, my power, why hast thou forsaken me?" And in their books they told of people talking on the Mount of Olives to a form which looked exactly like Jesus while the man Jesus died on the Cross.

So then the Gnostic heresies issued in one of two beliefs. They believed either that Jesus was not really divine but simply one of a series of emanations from God, or that he was not in any sense human but a kind of phantom in the shape of a man. The Gnostic beliefs at one and the same time destroyed the real godhead and the real manhood of Jesus.

The Humanity Of Jesus

The fact that John is out to correct both these Gnostic tendencies explains a curious paradoxical double emphasis in his gospel. On the one hand, there is no gospel which so uncompromisingly stresses the real humanity of Jesus. Jesus was angry with those who bought and sold in the Temple courts (Joh_2:15 ); he was physically tired as he sat by the well which was near Sychar in Samaria (Joh_4:6 ); his disciples offered him food in the way in which they would offer it to any hungry man (Joh_4:31 ); he had sympathy with those who were hungry and with those who were afraid (Joh_6:5 , Joh_6:20 ); he knew grief and he wept tears as any mourner might do (Joh_11:33 , Joh_11:35 , Joh_11:38 ); in the agony of the Cross the cry of his parched lips was: "I thirst" (Joh_19:28 ). The Fourth Gospel shows us a Jesus who was no shadowy, docetic figure; it shows us one who knew the weariness of an exhausted body and the wounds of a distressed mind and heart. It is the truly human Jesus whom the Fourth Gospel sets before us.

The Deity Of Jesus

On the other hand, there is no gospel which sets before us such a view of the deity of Jesus.

(a) John stresses the preexistence of Jesus. "Before Abraham was," said Jesus, "I am" (Joh_8:58 ). He talks of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was made (Joh_17:5 ). Again and again he speaks of his coming down from heaven (Joh_6:33-38 ). John saw in Jesus one who had always been, even before the world began.

(b) The Fourth Gospel stresses more than any of the others the omniscience of Jesus. It is Johnview that apparently miraculously Jesus knew the past record of the woman of Samaria (Joh_4:16-17 ); apparently without anyone telling him he knew how long the man beside the healing pool had been ill (Joh_5:6 ); before he asked it, he knew the answer to the question he put to Philip (Joh_6:6 ); he knew that Judas would betray him (Joh_6:61-64 ); he knew of the death of Lazarus before anyone told him of it (Joh_11:14 ). John saw in Jesus one who had a special and miraculous knowledge independent of anything which any man might tell him. He needed to ask no questions because he knew all the answers.

(c) The Fourth Gospel stresses the fact, as John saw it, that Jesus always acted entirely on his own initiative and uninfluenced by anyone else. It was not his motherrequest which moved him to the miracle at Cana of Galilee; it was his own personal decision (Joh_2:4 ); the urging of his brothers had nothing to do with the visit which he paid to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh_7:10 ); no man took his life from him--no man could; he laid it down purely voluntarily (Joh_10:18 ; Joh_19:11 ). As John saw it, Jesus had a divine independence from all human influence. He was self-determined.

To meet the Gnostics and their strange beliefs John presents us with a Jesus who was undeniably human and who yet was undeniably divine.

The Author Of The Fourth Gospel

We have seen that the aim of the writer of the Fourth Gospel was to present the Christian faith in such a way that it would commend itself to the Greek world to which Christianity had gone out, and also to combat the heresies and mistaken ideas which had arisen within the church. We go on to ask, Who is that writer? Tradition answers unanimously that the author was John the apostle. We shall see that beyond doubt the authority of John lies behind the gospel, although it may well be that its actual form and penmanship did not come from his hand. Let us, then, collect what we know about him.

He was the younger son of Zebedee, who possessed a fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee and was well enough off to be able to employ hired servants to help him with his work (Mar_1:19-20 ). His mother was Salome, and it seems likely that she was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mat_27:56 ; Mar_16:1 ). With his brother James he obeyed the call of Jesus (Mar_1:20 ). It would seem that James and John were in partnership with Peter in the fishing trade (Luk_5:7-10 ). He was one of the inner circle of the disciples, for the lists of the disciples always begin with the names of Peter, James and John, and there were certain great occasions when Jesus took these three specially with him (Mar_3:17 ; Mar_5:37 ; Mar_9:2 ; Mar_14:33 ).

In character he was clearly a turbulent and ambitious man. Jesus gave to him and to his brother the name Boanerges, which the gospel writers take to mean Sons of Thunder. John and his brother James were completely exclusive and intolerant (Mar_9:38 ; Luk_9:49 ). So violent was their temper that they were prepared to blast a Samaritan village out of existence because it would not give them hospitality when they were on their journey to Jerusalem (Luk_9:54 ). Either they or their mother Salome had the ambition that when Jesus came into his kingdom, they might be his principal ministers of state (Mar_10:35 ; Mat_20:20 ). In the other three gospels John appears as a leader of the apostolic band, one of the inner circle, and yet a turbulent ambitious and intolerant character.

In the Book of Acts John always appears as the companion of Peter, and he himself never speaks at all. His name is still one of the three names at the head of the apostolic list (Acts 1:13). He is with Peter when the lame man is healed at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Act_3:1 ). With Peter he is brought before the Sanhedrin and faces the Jewish leaders with a courage and a boldness that astonished them (Act_4:1-13 ). With Peter he goes from Jerusalem to Samaria to survey the work done by Philip (Act_8:14 ).

In Paulletters he appears only once. In Galatians 2:9 he is named as one of the pillars of the church along with Peter and James, and with them is depicted as giving his approval to the work of Paul.

John was a strange mixture. He was one of the leaders of the Twelve; he was one of the inner circle of Jesuslosest friends; at the same time he was a man of temper and ambition and intolerance, and yet of courage.

We may follow John into the stories told of him in the early church. Eusebius tells us that he was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian (Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 3 : 23). In the same passage Eusebius tells a characteristic story about John, a story which he received from Clement of Alexandria. John became a kind of bishop of Asia Minor and was visiting one of his churches near Ephesus. In the congregation he saw a tall and exceptionally fine-looking young man. He turned to the elder in charge of the congregation and said to him: "I commit that young man into your charge and into your care, and I call this congregation to witness that I do so." The elder took the young man into his own house and cared for him and instructed him, and the day came when he was baptized and received into the church. But very soon afterwards he fell in with evil friends and embarked on such a career of crime that he ended up by becoming the leader of a band of murdering and pillaging brigands. Some time afterwards John returned to the congregation. He said to the elder: "Restore to me the trust which I and the Lord committed to you and to the church of which you are in charge." At first the elder did not understand of what John was speaking. "I mean," said John, "that I am asking you for the soul of the young man whom I entrusted to you." "Alas!" said the elder, "he is dead." "Dead?" said John. "He is dead to God," said the elder. "He fell from grace; he was forced to flee from the city for his crimes and now he is a brigand in the mountains." Straightway John went to the mountains. Deliberately he allowed himself to be captured by the robber band. They brought him before the young man who was now the chief of the band and, in his shame, the young man tried to run away from him. John, though an old man, pursued him. "My son," he cried, "are you running away from your father? I am feeble and far advanced in age; have pity on me, my son; fear not; there is yet hope of salvation for you. I will stand for you before the Lord Christ. If need be I will gladly die for you as he died for me. Stop, stay, believe! It is Christ who has sent me to you." The appeal broke the heart of the young man. He stopped, threw away his weapons, and wept. Together he and John came down the mountainside and he was brought back into the church and into the Christian way. There we see the love and the courage of John still in operation.

Eusebius (3 : 28) tells another story of John which he got from the works of Irenaeus. We have seen that one of the leaders of the Gnostic heresy was a man called Cerinthus. "The apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, when he learned that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from his place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. He advised those who were with him to do the same. t us flee,e said, st the bath fall, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."here we have another glimpse of the temper of John. Boanerges was not quite dead.

Cassian tells another famous story about John. One day he was found playing with a tame partridge. A narrower and more rigid brother rebuked him for thus wasting his time, and John answered: "The bow that is always bent will soon cease to shoot straight."

It is Jerome who tells the story of the last words of John. When he was dying, his disciples asked him if he had any last message to leave them. "Little children," he said, "love one another." Again and again he repeated it; and they asked him if that was all he had to say. "It is enough," he said, "for it is the Lordcommand."

Such then is our information about John; and he emerges a figure of fiery temper, of wide ambition, of undoubted courage, and, in the end, of gentle love.

The Beloved Disciple

If we have been following our references closely we will have noticed one thing. All our information about John comes from the first three gospels. It is the astonishing fact that the Fourth Gospel never mentions the apostle John from beginning to end. But it does mention two other people.

First, it speaks of the disciple whom Jesus loved. There are four mentions of him. He was leaning on Jesusreast at the Last Supper (Joh_13:23-25 ); it is into his care that Jesus committed Mary as he died upon his Cross (Joh_19:25-27 ); it was Peter and he whom Mary Magdalene met on her return from the empty tomb on the first Easter morning (Joh_20:2 ); he was present at the last resurrection appearance of Jesus by the lake-side (Joh_21:20 ).

Second, the Fourth Gospel has a kind of character whom we might call the witness. As the Fourth Gospel tells of the spear thrust into the side of Jesus and the issue of the water and the blood, there comes the comment: "He who saw it has borne witness--his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth--that you also may believe" (Joh_19:35 ). At the end of the gospel comes the statement that it was the beloved disciple who testified of these things "and we know that his testimony is true" (Joh_21:24 ).

Here we are faced with rather a strange thing. In the Fourth Gospel John is never mentioned, but the beloved disciple is and in addition there is a witness of some kind to the whole story. It has never really been doubted in tradition that the beloved disciple is John. A few have tried to identify him with Lazarus, for Jesus is said to have loved Lazarus (Joh_11:3 , Joh_11:5 ), or with the Rich Young Ruler, of whom it is said that Jesus, looking on him, loved him (Mar_10:21 ). But although the gospel never says so in so many words, tradition has always identified the beloved disciple with John, and there is no real need to doubt the identification.

But a very real point arises--suppose John himself actually did the writing of the gospel, would he really be likely to speak of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved? Would he really be likely to pick himself out like this, and, as it were, to say: "I was his favourite; he loved me best of all"? It is surely very unlikely that John would confer such a title on himself. If it was conferred by others, it is a lovely title; if it was conferred by himself, it comes perilously near to an almost incredible self-conceit.

Is there any way then that the gospel can be Johnown eye-witness story, and yet at the same time have been actually written down by someone else?

The Production Of The Church

In our search for the truth we begin by noting one of the outstanding and unique features of the Fourth Gospel. The most remarkable thing about it is the long speeches of Jesus. Often they are whole chapters long, and are entirely unlike the way in which Jesus is portrayed as speaking in the other three gospels. The Fourth Gospel, as we have seen, was written about the year A.D. 100, that is, about seventy years after the crucifixion. Is it possible after these seventy years to look on these speeches as word for word reports of what Jesus said? Or can we explain them in some way that is perhaps even greater than that? We must begin by holding in our minds the fact of the speeches and the question which they inevitably raise.

And we have something to add to that. It so happens that in the writings of the early church we have a whole series of accounts of the way in which the Fourth Gospel came to be written. The earliest is that of Irenaeus who was bishop of Lyons about A.D. 177; and Irenaeus was himself a pupil of Polycarp, who in turn had actually been a pupil of John. There is therefore a direct link between Irenaeus and John. Irenaeus writes:

"John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leant upon his breast,

himself also published the gospel in Ephesus, when he was living

in Asia."

The suggestive thing there is that Irenaeus does not merely say that John wrote the gospel; he says that John published (exedoke) it in Ephesus. The word that Irenaeus uses makes it sound, not like the private publication of some personal memoir, but like the public issue of some almost official document.

The next account is that of Clement who was head of the great school of Alexandria about A.D. 230. He writes:

"Last of all, John perceiving that the bodily facts had been made

plain in the gospel, being urged by his friends, composed a

spiritual gospel."

The important thing here is the phrase being urged by his friends. It begins to become clear that the Fourth Gospel is far more than one manpersonal production and that there is a group, a community, a church behind it. On the same lines, a tenth-century manuscript called the Codex Toletanus, which prefaces the New Testament books with short descriptions, prefaces the Fourth Gospel thus:

The apostle John, whom the Lord Jesus loved most, last of all

wrote this gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against

Cerinthus and other heretics."

Again we have the idea that behind the Fourth Gospel there is the authority of a group and of a church.

We now turn to a very important document, known as the Muratorian Canon. It is so called after a scholar Muratori who discovered it. It is the first list of New Testament books which the church ever issued and was compiled in Rome about A.D. 170. Not only does it list the New Testament books, it also gives short accounts of the origin and nature and contents of each of them. Its account of the way in which the Fourth Gospel came to be written is extremely important and illuminating.

"At the request of his fellow-disciples and of his bishops, John,

one of the disciples, said: úst with me for three days from

this time and whatsoever shall be revealed to each of us, whether

it be favourable to my writing or not, let us relate it to one

another.n the same night it was revealed to Andrew that John

should relate all things, aided by the revision of all."

We cannot accept all that statement, because it is not possible that Andrew, the apostle, was in Ephesus in A.D. 100; but the point is that it is stated as clearly as possible that, while the authority and the mind and the memory behind the Fourth Gospel are that of John, it is clearly and definitely the product, not of one man, but of a group and a community.

Now we can see something of what happened. About the year A.D. 100 there was a group of men in Ephesus whose leader was John. They revered him as a saint and they loved him as a father. He must have been almost a hundred years old. Before he died, they thought most wisely that it would be a great thing if the aged apostle set down his memories of the years when he had been with Jesus. But in the end they did far more than that. We can think of them sitting down and reliving the old days. One would say: "Do you remember how Jesus said ... ?" And John would say: "Yes, and now we know that he meant..."

In other words this group was not only writing down what Jesus said; that would have been a mere feat of memory. They were writing down what Jesus meant; that was the guidance of the Holy Spirit. John had thought about every word that Jesus had said; and he had thought under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was so real to him. W. M. Macgregor has a sermon entitled: "What Jesus becomes to a man who has known him long." That is a perfect description of the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel. A. H. N. Green Armytage puts the thing perfectly in his book John who saw. Mark, he says, suits the missionary with his clear-cut account of the facts of Jesusife; Matthew suits the teacher with his systematic account of the teaching of Jesus; Luke suits the parish minister or priest with his wide sympathy and his picture of Jesus as the friend of all; but John is the gospel of the contemplative.

He goes on to speak of the apparent contrast between Mark and John. "The two gospels are in a sense the same gospel. Only, where Mark saw things plainly, bluntly, literally, John saw them subtly, profoundly, spiritually. We might say that John lit Markpages by the lantern of a lifetimemeditation." Wordsworth defined poetry as "Emotion recollected in tranquillity ". That is a perfect description of the Fourth Gospel. That is why John is unquestionably the greatest of all the gospels. Its aim is, not to give us what Jesus said like a newspaper report, but to give us what Jesus meant. In it the Risen Christ still speaks. John is not so much The Gospel according to St. John; it is rather The Gospel according to the Holy Spirit. It was not John of Ephesus who wrote the Fourth Gospel; it was the Holy Spirit who wrote it through John.

The Penman Of The Gospel

We have one question still to ask. We can be quite sure that the mind and the memory behind the Fourth Gospel is that of John the apostle; but we have also seen that behind it is a witness who was the writer, in the sense that he was the actual penman. Can we find out who he was? We know from what the early church writers tell us that there were actually two Johns in Ephesus at the same time. There was John the apostle, but there was another John, who was known as John the elder.

Papias, who loved to collect all that he could find about the history of the New Testament and the story of Jesus, gives us some very interesting information. He was Bishop of Hierapolis, which is quite near Ephesus, and his dates are from about A.D. 70 to about A.D. 145. That is to say, he was actually a contemporary of John. He writes how he tried to find out "what Andrew said or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord; and what things Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say." In Ephesus there was the apostle John, and the elder John; and the elder John was so well-loved a figure that he was actually known as The Elder. He clearly had a unique place in the church. Both Eusebius and Dionysius the Great tell us that even to their own days in Ephesus there were two famous tombs, the one of John the apostle, and the other of John the elder.

Now let us turn to the two little letters, Second John and Third John. The letters come from the same hand as the gospel, and how do they begin? The second letter begins: "The elder unto the elect lady and her children" (2Jo_1:1 ). The third letter begins: "The elder unto the beloved Gaius" (3Jo_1:1 ). Here we have our solution. The actual penman of the letters was John the elder; the mind and memory behind them was the aged John the apostle, the master whom John the elder always described as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

The Precious Gospel

The more we know about the Fourth Gospel the more precious it becomes. For seventy years John had thought of Jesus. Day by day the Holy Spirit had opened out to him the meaning of what Jesus said. So when John was near the century of life and his days were numbered, he and his friends sat down to remember. John the elder held the pen to write for his master, John the apostle; and the last of the apostles set down, not only what he had heard Jesus say, but also what he now knew Jesus had meant. He remembered how Jesus had said: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (Joh_16:12-13 ). There were many things which seventy years ago he had not understood; there were many things which in these seventy years the Spirit of Truth had revealed to him. These things John set down even as the eternal glory was dawning upon him. When we read this gospel let us remember that we are reading the gospel which of all the gospels is most the work of the Holy Spirit, speaking to us of the things which Jesus meant, speaking through the mind and memory of John the apostle and by the pen of John the elder. Behind this gospel is the whole church at Ephesus, the whole company of the saints, the last of the apostles, the Holy Spirit, the Risen Christ himself.

FURTHER READING

John

C. Kingsley Barrett, The Gospel According to Saint John (G)

J. H. Bernahrd, St. John (ICC; G)

E. C. Hoskyns (ed. F. M. Davey), The Fourth Gospel (E)

R. H. Lightfoot, St. JohnGospel: A Commentary (E)

G. H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John (MC; E)

J. N. Saunders (ed. B. A. Mastin), The Gospel According to Saint John (ACB; E)

R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to Saint John (TC; E)

B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to Saint John (E)

The SpeakerCommentary (MmC; G)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

E: English Text G: Greek Text

Barclay: John 8 (Chapter Introduction)

The Light Men Failed To Recognize (Joh_8:12-20)

The Light Men Failed To Recognize (Joh_8:12-20 Continued)

The Light Men Failed To Recognize (Joh_8:12-20 Continued)

The Fatal Incomprehension (Joh_8:21-30)

The Fatal Incomprehension (Joh_8:21-30 Continued)

The Tragic Incomprehension (Joh_8:21-30 Continued)

The True Discipleship (Joh_8:31-32)

Freedom And Slavery (Joh_8:33-36)

Real Sonship (Joh_8:37-41)

Children Of The Devil (Joh_8:41-45)

The Great Indictment And The Shining Faith (Joh_8:46-50)

The Life And The Glory (Joh_8:51-55)

The Tremendous Claim (Joh_8:56-59)

Constable: John (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

The writer of this Gospel did not identify himself as such in the text. This is true of all the Gospel evangelists. Nevertheless there is evidence within this Gospel as well as in the writings of the church fathers that the writer was the Apostle John.

The internal evidence from the Gospel itself is as follows. In 21:24 the writer of "these things" (i.e., the whole Gospel) was the same person as the disciple whom Jesus loved (21:7). That disciple was one of the seven disciples mentioned in 21:2. He was also the disciple who sat beside Jesus in the upper room when He instituted the Lord's Supper and to whom Peter motioned (13:23-24). This means that he was one of the Twelve since only they were present in the upper room (Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14). The disciple whom Jesus loved was also one of the inner circle of three disciples, namely Peter, James, and John (Mark 5:37-38; 9:2-3; 14:33; John 20:2-10). James died in the early history of the church, probably in the early 40s (Acts 12:2). There is good evidence that whoever wrote this Gospel did so after then. The writer was also not Peter (21:20-24). This evidence points to John as the disciple whom Jesus loved who was also the writer of this Gospel. The writer claimed to have seen Jesus' glory (1:14; cf. 1:1-4), which John did at the Transfiguration. There are several Johns in the New Testament. This one was one of Zebedee's sons who was a fisherman before Jesus called him to leave his nets and follow Him.

"To a certain extent each of the Gospels reflects the personality of its author, but in none of them is there a more distinctive individuality manifested than in John."¹

The external evidence also points to the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel. Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons (c. 130-200 A.D.), wrote that he had heard Polycarp (c. 69-155 A.D.), a disciple of John. It was apparently from Polycarp that Irenaeus learned that, "John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, had himself published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia."² Other later church fathers supported this tradition including Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, and Tatian.³ Eusebius (fourth century) also specifically mentioned that Matthew and John among the apostles wrote the Gospels that bear their names.⁴

Some scholars have rejected this seemingly clear evidence and have refused to accept Johannine authorship. This criticism comes from those who hold a lower view of Scripture generally. Answering their objections lies outside the purpose of these notes.⁵

Place of Writing

Eusebius wrote that John ministered to the church in Ephesus, which Paul had founded (Acts 19:1-20), for many years.⁶ The Isle of Patmos where John spent some time in exile is close to Ephesus (cf. Rev. 1:9-11). As previously noted, Eusebius wrote that John composed his Gospel when he was at Ephesus.⁷ During the first century, that city was one of the largest centers of Christian activity in the Gentile world.⁸

Date

A few scholars believe John could have written this book as early as 45 A.D., the date when Saul of Tarsus' persecutions drove many Christians out of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 8:1-4).⁹ There are two main problems with such an early date. First, John seems to have assumed that the Synoptic Gospels were available to the Christian public. There is some doubt about this since it assumes an assumption, but most scholars believe, on the basis of content, that John selected his material to supplement material in the Synoptics. This would put the fourth Gospel later than the Synoptics. Second, according to early church tradition the Apostle John lived long into the first century. This would make a later date possible even though it does not prove a later date. Some students of the book believe that John 21:18-22 implies that Peter would die before John did, and Peter died about 67 A.D. In general, most authorities reject a date this early for these and other reasons.

Some conservatives date the Gospel slightly before 70 A.D. because John described Palestine and Jerusalem as they were before the Roman destruction (cf. 5:2).¹⁰ This may be a weak argument since John frequently used the Greek present tense to describe things in the past.¹¹ Some who hold this date note the absence of any reference to Jerusalem's destruction in John. However there could have been many reasons John chose not to mention the destruction of Jerusalem if he wrote after that event. A date of writing before the destruction of Jerusalem is also a minority opinion among scholars.

Many conservative scholars believe that John wrote his Gospel between 85 and 95 A.D.¹² Early church tradition was that John wrote it when he was an older man. Moreover even the early Christians regarded this as the fourth Gospel and believed that John wrote it after the Synoptics. It is not clear if John had access to the Synoptic Gospels. He did not quote from any of them. However, his choice of material for his own Gospel suggests that he probably read them and chose to include other material from Jesus' ministry in his account to supplement them.¹³

The latest possible date would be about 100 A.D. Some liberal scholars date this Gospel in the second century. The Egerton papyrus that dates from early in the second century contains unmistakable allusions to John's Gospel.¹⁴ This seems to rule out a second century date.

It seems impossible to identify the date of writing very exactly, as evidenced by the difference of opinion that exists between excellent conservative scholars. A date sometime between 65 and 95 A.D. is probable.

Characteristic features and purpose

John's presentation of Jesus in his Gospel has been a problem to many modern students of the New Testament. Some regard it as the greatest problem in current New Testament studies.¹⁵ Compared to the Synoptics that present Jesus as a historical figure, John stressed the deity of Jesus. Obviously the Synoptics present Jesus as divine also, but the emphasis in the fourth Gospel is more strongly on Jesus' full deity. This emphasis runs from the beginning, with the Word becoming flesh (1:1, 14), to the end, were Thomas confessed Jesus as his Lord and God (20:28). John's purpose statement (20:30-31) explains why he stressed Jesus' deity. It was so his readers would believe that He is the Christ, the Son of God, and thereby have eternal life.

The key word in the book is the verb "believe" (Gr. pisteuo), which appears 98 times. The noun form of the word (Gr. pistis, "faith") does not occur at all. This phenomenon shows that John wanted to stress the importance of active vital trust in Jesus. Other key words are witness, love, abide, the Counselor (i.e., the Holy Spirit), light, life, darkness, Word, glorify, true, and real.¹⁶ These words identify important themes in the Gospel.

John's unique purpose accounted for his selection of material, as was true of every biblical writer. He omitted Jesus' genealogy, birth, baptism, temptation, exorcizing demons, parables, transfiguration, institution of the Lord's Supper, agony in Gethsemane, and ascension. He focused on Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, the Jewish feasts, Jesus' private conversations with individuals, and His preparation of His disciples (chs. 13-17). John selected seven signs or miracles that demonstrate that Jesus was the divine Messiah (chs. 2-12). He also recorded the discourses that Jesus gave following these signs that explained their significance. Moreover he stressed Jesus' claims that occur in the unique "I am" statements (6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5).

About 93% of the material in John's Gospel does not appear in the Synoptics.¹⁷ This fact indicates the uniqueness of this Gospel compared with the other three and explains why they bear the title "Synoptic" and John does not. All four Gospels are quite similar, though each of them has its own distinctive features. John, on the other hand, is considerably different from the others. Specifically it stresses Jesus' deity stronger than the others do. It is, I believe, impossible to determine for certain whether or not John used or even knew of the Synoptic Gospels.¹⁸ I suspect that he did.

Another difference between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel is the writers' view of eschatology. They all share the same basic view, namely that the Jews' rejection of their Messiah resulted in the postponement of the messianic kingdom. However the Synoptic writers stressed the future aspects of eschatology more than John who put more emphasis on the present or realized aspects of eschatology. This is not to say that John presented the kingdom as having begun during Jesus' first advent. He did not. He did stress, however, the aspects of kingdom life that Christians currently enjoy as benefits of the new covenant, which Jesus ratified by His death. These include especially the Holy Spirit's ministries of indwelling and illuminating the believer. Such a shift in emphasis is understandable if John wrote later than the other Gospel evangelists. By then it was clear that God had postponed the messianic kingdom, and believers' interest was more on life in the church than it was on life in the messianic kingdom (cf. chs. 13-17).

"It is . . . quite possible that one of John's aims was to combat false teaching of a docetic type. The Docetists held that the Christ never became incarnate; everything was seeming.'¹⁹ That the docetic heresy did not appear in the first century seems clear, but certain elements that later were to be embodied in this heresy seem to have been quite early."²⁰

"We have suggested that the Fourth Gospel was addressed to two groups within the Johannine community, each of which represented an extreme interpretation of the nature of Jesus: one which did not accept him as God, and the other which did not accept him as man (see the introduction, xxiii; also Smalley, John, 145-48). The perfectly balanced christology of the Fourth Gospel was intended, we believe, to provide a resolution of this theological crisis: to remind the ex-Jewish members of the group, with their strong emphasis on the humanity of Jesus, that the Christ was divine; and to insist, for the benefit of the ex-pagan members (with their docetic outlook), that Jesus was truly human."²¹

The context of Jesus' ministry accounts for the strong Jewish flavor that marks all four Gospels. Yet John's Gospel is more theological and cosmopolitan than the others.

"It has . . . a wider appeal to growing Christian experience and to an enlarging Gentile constituency than the others.

"The Synoptics present him for a generation in process of being evangelized; John presents him as the Lord of the maturing and questioning believer."²²

As a piece of literature, John's Gospel has a symphonic structure.

"A symphony is a musical composition having several movements related in subject, but varying in form and execution. It usually begins with a dominant theme, into which variations are introduced at intervals. The variations seem to be developed independently, but as the music is played, they modulate into each other until finally all are brought to a climax. The apparent disunity is really part of a design which is not evident at first, but which appears in the progress of the composition."²³

Tasker described the fourth Gospel as "the simplest and yet the most profound of the Christian Gospels."²⁴

Original recipients

The preceding quotation implies that John wrote primarily for Christians. This implication may seem to be contrary to John's stated purpose (20:30-31). Probably John wrote both to convince unbelievers that Jesus was the Son of God and to give Christians who faced persecution confidence in their Savior. The word "believe" in 20:31 may be in the present tense implying that Christian readers should continue believing. It could be in the aorist tense suggesting that pagan readers should believe initially. An evangelistic purpose does not exclude an edification purpose. Indeed all 66 books of the Bible have edifying value for God's people (2 Tim. 3:16-17). John's purpose for unbelievers is that they might obtain eternal life, and his purpose for believers is that we might experience abundant eternal life (10:10).

John explained Jewish customs, translated Jewish names, and located Palestinian sites. These facts suggest that he was writing for Gentile readers outside Palestine. Furthermore the prologue seems addressed to readers who thought in Greek categories. John's inclusion of the Greeks who showed interest in seeing Jesus (12:20-22) may also suggest that he wrote with them in view. Because of John's general purposes it seems best to conclude that the original readers were primarily Gentile Christians and Gentile unbelievers.²⁵

"By the use of personal reminiscences interpreted in the light of a long life of devotion to Christ and by numerous episodes that generally had not been used in the Gospel tradition, whether written or oral, John created a new and different approach to understanding Jesus' person. John's readers were primarily second-generation Christians he was familiar with and to whom he seemed patriarchal."²⁶

The writer did not indicate the geographical location of the original recipients of his Gospel. This was undoubtedly intentional since the message of John has universal appeal. Perhaps its first readers lived in the Roman province of Asia the capital of which was Ephesus.

Summary of Gospel Introductions
Gospel	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John
Date	40-70probably 40s	63-70probably 60s	57-59probably 50s	65-95probably 90s
Origin	Palestine	Rome	Caesarea	Ephesus
Audience	Jews	Romans	Greeks	Gentiles
Emphasis	King	Servant	Man	God

Message²⁷

In one sense the Gospel of John is more profound than the Synoptics. It is the most difficult Gospel for most expositors to preach and to teach for reasons that will become evident as we study it. In another sense, however, the fourth Gospel is the easiest Gospel to understand. Leon Morris wrote that it is a pool in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim.²⁸ It is both simple and profound. It clarifies some things that the Synoptics leave as mysteries.

What are these mysteries? Matthew presents Jesus as the King, but it does not articulate the reason for Jesus' great authority. John does. Mark presents Jesus as the Servant, but it does not account for His depth of consecration to God. John does. Luke presents Jesus as the perfect Man, but it does not explain His uniqueness from the rest of humankind. John does.

The Gospel of John reveals answers to the mysteries about Jesus that the Synoptics leave hidden. It is therefore an apocalypse, an unveiling similar to the Book of Revelation in this respect. The Book of Revelation is the climax of biblical Christology. The Gospel of John plays that part among the Gospels. It is a revelation of the person of Jesus Christ more than any of the others. John told us that it would be this in his prologue (1:1-18).

The statement of the message of this Gospel occurs in 1:18: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." John claimed that Jesus was the explanation of God the Father. This Gospel presents Jesus as the One who manifested God to humankind. This book then stresses the revelation of the truth about God.

Mankind has constantly sought to represent God in some way. We want to know what God is like. Ideas about God that do not come from the revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ are idolatrous. They create a false view of God. Typically human beings without divine revelation have imagined God as being an immense version of themselves, a projection of human personality into cosmic proportions. God's revelation of Himself, however, involved the limitation of Himself to humanity, the exact opposite approach. This is what God did in the Incarnation. God's revelations are often the exact opposite of what one would expect.

John presented Jesus as the Son of God. He wanted his readers to view Jesus and to see God. In the tears of Jesus, we should see what causes God sorrow. In the compassion of Jesus, we should see how God cares for His own. In the anger of Jesus, we should see what God hates.

What do we learn about God from Jesus in John? The prologue gives us the essential answer, and the body of the book explains this answer with various illustrations from Jesus' ministry. The prologue tells us that Jesus has manifested the glory of God by revealing two things about Him: His grace and His truth (1:14). All that Jesus revealed about God that this Gospel narrates is contractible into these two words. Notice first the revelation of grace in this Gospel.

The Gospel of John presents God as a gracious person. Behind His gracious dealings lies a heart of love. There are probably hundreds of evidences of God's love resulting in gracious action in this book. Let us note just the evidence of these qualities in the seven signs that John chose to record.

The miracle of changing water into wine (ch. 2) shows God's concern for marital joy. The healing of the official's son (ch. 4) shows God's desire that people experience family unity. The healing of the paralytic (ch. 5) shows God's grace in providing physical restoration. The feeding of the 5000 (ch. 6) shows God's love in providing material needs. The miracle of Jesus walking on the water (ch. 6) shows God's desire that people enjoy supernatural peace. The healing of the man born blind (ch. 9) illustrates God's desire that we have true understanding. The raising of Lazarus (ch. 11) shows God's grace in providing new life. All these miracles are revelations of God's love manifesting itself in gracious behavior toward us in our various needs. These are only the most obvious manifestations of God's grace in this book.

This Gospel also reveals that God is a God of truth. Another one of God's attributes that we see revealed in this Gospel lies behind the truth that we see revealed in this Gospel. That attribute is His holiness. The figure that John used to describe God's holiness is light. Light is a common figure for God's holiness in the Old Testament too. The principle of God's holiness governs the passion of His love.

Jesus' great works in John reveal God's love and His great words reveal God's truth. Let us select seven of the great "I am" claims of Jesus as illustrations of the various aspects of the truth that Jesus revealed about God. All these claims point to God as the source and to Jesus as the mediator of things having to do with truth.

The bread of life claim (ch. 6) points to God as the source of true sustenance. The light of the world claim (ch. 9) points to God as the source of true illumination. The door claim (ch. 10) points to God as the source of true security. The good shepherd claim (ch. 10) points to God as the source of true care. The resurrection and the life claim (ch. 11) points to God as the source of true life. The way, the truth, and the life claim (ch. 14) points to God as the source of true authority. The vine claim (ch. 15) points to God as the source of true fruitfulness. All of these claims pointed directly to Jesus as the mediator, but they also pointed beyond Him to God the Father. They were revelations of the truth concerning God.

These are all further revelations of the character of God introduced first in Exodus 3 where God began to reveal Himself as "I am." The Law of Moses was an initial revelation about God. The revelation that Jesus Christ brought was a further, fuller, and final revelation of the grace and truth that characterize God (1:17). These revelations find their most comprehensive expression in the fourth Gospel.

What are the implications of the revelation in this Gospel? First, such a revelation calls for worship.

In the Old Testament, God revealed Himself and dwelt among His people through the tabernacle. In the Incarnation, God revealed Himself and dwelt among His people through His Son (1:14). The tabernacle was the place where God revealed Himself and around which His people congregated to worship Him in response. The Son of God is the person through whom God has now given the greatest and fullest revelation of Himself and around whom we now bow in worship.

Second, such a revelation calls for service. Under the old Mosaic economy, worship prepared God's people to serve Him. Their service consisted of carrying out His mission for them in the world. The revelation of God should always result in service as well as worship (cf. Isa. 6:1-8). When we learn who God is as we study this Gospel, our reaction should not only be worship but service. This is true of the church as a whole and of every individual believer in it. Thomas' ascription of worship (20:28) was only preliminary to his fulfilling God's mission for him (20:21-23). Worship should never be an end in itself. Even in heaven we will serve as well as worship God (Rev. 22:3).

As recipients of this revelation of God, our lives too should be notable for grace and truth. These qualities should not only be the themes of our worship. They should also be the trademarks of our service. Truth and holiness should mark our words and motives. Graciousness should stamp our works as we deal with people. If they do not, we have not yet comprehended the revelation of God that Jesus came to bring to His own. Sloppy graciousness jeopardizes truthfulness, and rigid truthfulness endangers graciousness. Jesus illustrated the balance.

This Gospel has a strong appeal to the unsaved as well. John wrote it specifically to bring the light of revelation about Jesus' true identity to those who sit in spiritual darkness (20:30-31). The knowledge of who Jesus really is is the key to the knowledge of who God really is. Therefore our service must not only bear the marks of certain characteristics, namely grace and truth, but it must also communicate a specific content: who Jesus is. People need to consider who Jesus is. There is no better way for them to do this than by reading this Gospel. Remember the stated purpose of this book (20:30-31). Use it as an evangelistic tool.

Constable: John (Outline)

Outline

I. Prologue 1:1-18

A. The preincarnate Word 1:1-5

B. The witness of John the Baptist 1:6-8

C. The appearance of the Light 1:9-13

D. The incarnation of the Word 1:14-18

II. Jesus' public ministry 1:19-12:50

A. The prelude to Jesus' public ministry 1:19-51

1. John the Baptist's veiled testimony to Jesus 1:19-28

2. John the Baptist's open identification of Jesus 1:29-34

3. The response to John the Baptist's witness 1:35-42

4. The witness of Philip and Andrew 1:43-51

B. Jesus' early Galilean ministry 2:1-12

1. The first sign: changing water to wine 2:1-11

2. Jesus' initial stay in Capernaum 2:12

C. Jesus' first visit to Jerusalem 2:13-3:36

1. The first cleansing of the temple 2:13-22

2. Initial response to Jesus in Jerusalem 2:23-25

3. Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus 3:1-21

4. John the Baptist's reaction to Jesus' ministry 3:22-30

5. The explanation of Jesus' preeminence 3:31-36

D. Jesus' ministry in Samaria 4:1-42

1. The interview with the Samaritan woman 4:1-26

2. Jesus' explanation of evangelistic ministry 4:27-38

3. The response to Jesus in Samaria 4:39-42

E. Jesus' resumption of His Galilean ministry 4:43-54

1. Jesus' return to Galilee 4:43-45

2. The second sign: healing the official's son 4:46-54

F. Jesus' second visit to Jerusalem ch. 5

1. The third sign: healing the paralytic 5:1-9

2. The antagonism of the Jewish authorities 5:10-18

3. The Son's equality with the Father 5:19-29

4. The Father's witness to the Son 5:30-47

G. Jesus' later Galilean ministry 6:1-7:9

1. The fourth sign: feeding the 5,000 6:1-15

2. The fifth sign: walking on the water 6:16-21

3. The bread of life discourse 6:22-59

4. The responses to the bread of life discourse 6:60-7:9

H. Jesus' third visit to Jerusalem 7:10-10:42

1. The controversy surrounding Jesus 7:10-13

2. Jesus' ministry at the feast of Tabernacles 7:14-44

3. The unbelief of the Jewish leaders 7:45-52

[4. The woman caught in adultery 7:53-8:11]

5. The light of the world discourse 8:12-59

6. The sixth sign: healing a man born blind ch. 9

7. The good shepherd discourse 10:1-21

8. The confrontation at the feast of Dedication 10:22-42

I. The conclusion of Jesus' public ministry chs. 11-12

1. The seventh sign: raising Lazarus 11:1-44

2. The responses to the raising of Lazarus 11:45-57

3. Mary's anointing of Jesus 12:1-8

4. The official antagonism toward Lazarus 12:9-11

5. Jesus' triumphal entry 12:12-19

6. Jesus' announcement of His death 12:20-36

7. The unbelief of Israel 12:37-50

III. Jesus' private ministry chs. 13-17

A. The Last Supper 13:1-30

1. Jesus' washing of the disciples' feet 13:1-20

2. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 13:21-30

B. The Upper Room Discourse 13:31-16:33

1. The new commandment 13:31-35

2. Peter's profession of loyalty 13:36-38

3. Jesus' comforting revelation in view of His departure 14:1-24

4. The promise of future understanding 14:25-31

5. The importance of abiding in Jesus 15:1-16

6. The warning about opposition from the world 15:17-27

7. The clarification of the future 16:1-24

8. The clarification of Jesus' destination 16:25-33

C. Jesus' high priestly prayer ch. 17

1. Jesus' requests for Himself 17:1-5

2. Jesus' requests for the Eleven 17:6-19

3. Jesus' requests for future believers 17:20-26

IV. Jesus' passion ministry chs. 18-20

A. Jesus' presentation of Himself to His enemies 18:1-11

B. Jesus' religious trial 18:12-27

1. The arrest of Jesus and the identification of the high priests 18:12-14

2. The entrance of two disciples into the high priests' courtyard and Peter's first denial 18:15-18

3. Annas' interrogation of Jesus 18:19-24

4. Peter's second and third denials of Jesus 18:25-27

C. Jesus' civil trial 18:28-19:16

1. The Jews' charge against Jesus 18:28-32

2. The question of Jesus' kingship 18:33-38a

3. The Jews' request for Barabbas 18:38b-40

4. The sentencing of Jesus 19:1-16

D. Jesus' crucifixion 19:17-30

1. Jesus' journey to Golgotha 19:17

2. The men crucified with Jesus 19:18

3. The inscription over Jesus' cross 19:19-22

4. The distribution of Jesus' garments 19:23-24

5. Jesus' provision for His mother 19:25-27

6. The death of Jesus 19:28-30

E. The treatment of Jesus' body 19:31-42

1. The removal of Jesus' body from the cross 19:31-37

2. The burial of Jesus 19:38-42

F. Jesus' resurrection 20:1-29

1. The discovery of Peter and John 20:1-9

2. The discovery of Mary Magdalene 20:10-18

3. The appearance to the Eleven minus Thomas on Easter evening 20:19-23

4. The transformed faith of Thomas 20:24-29

G. The purpose of this Gospel 20:30-31

V. Epilogue ch. 21

A. Jesus' appearance to seven disciples in Galilee 21:1-14

B. Jesus' teachings about motivation for service 21:15-23

C. The writer's postscript 21:24-25

Constable: John

John

Bibliography

Allen, Ronald B. "Affirming Right-of-Way on Ancient Paths." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):3-11.

Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 35 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873.

Arndt, William F. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of John. 2 vols. The Daily Study Bible series. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1955.

Barrett, C. K. Essays on John. London: SPCK, 1982.

_____. The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes onthe Greek Text. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1978.

Bauckham, Richard. "Jesus' Demonstration in the Temple." In Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, pp. 72-89. Edited by Barnabas Lindars. London: SPCK, 1988.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):171-84.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. John. Word Bible Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Bernard, J. C. The Gospel According to St. John. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928.

Blum, Edwin A. "John." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 267-348. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Bowman, John. "Samaritan Studies." Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of Manchester 40:2 (March 1958):298-327.

Bray, Gerald. "The Double Procession of the Holy Spirit in Evangelical Theology Today: Do We Still Need It?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):415-26.

Brindle, Wayne A. "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):138-51.

Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation and Notes. Anchor Bible series. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966-71.

Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: The Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. Translated by T. H. C. Parker. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959-61.

Carson, Donald A. "Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Questions." Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978):411-29.

_____. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1981.

_____. "The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:7-11." Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):547-66.

_____. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.

_____. "Matthew." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-48.

Coggins, R. J. Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Colwell, E. C. "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):12-21.

Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Culpepper, R. Alan. "The Pivot of John's Prologue." New Testament Studies 27 (1981):1-31.

Dahms, John V. "The Subordination of the Son." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):351-64.

Dana, H. E., and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan Co., 1927.

Daube, D. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956.

Derickson, Gary W. "Viticulture and John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):34-52.

_____. "Viticulture's Contribution to the Interpretation of John 15:1-6." Paper presented at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Lisle, Illinois, 19 November 1994.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1906 ed. S.v. "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume:473-84.

Dillow, Joseph C. "Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:585 (January-March 1990):44-53.

_____. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

_____. "Note on John 21, 24." Journal of Theological Studies NS4 (1953):212-13.

Dods, Marcus. The Gospel of St. John. Expositer Bible series. 2 vols. 6th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Ark, 1984.

Duke, Paul D. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.

Duncan, Dan. "Avodah Zarah, Makkoth, and Kerithoth." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):52-54.

Dvorak, James D. "The Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:2 (June 1998):201-13.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. New York: Longmans, Green, 1912.

Emerton, John A. "Some New Testament Notes." Journal of Theological Studies 11NS (1960):329-36.

Enns, Paul. "The Upper Room Discourse: The Consummation of Christ's Instruction." ThD dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Gospel of John. New York: "Our Hope," 1925.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):46-56.

Gianotti, Charles R. "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):38-51.

Godet, F. Commentary on the Gospel of John, with a Critical Introduction. 2 vols. Translated by M. D. Cusin. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1887.

Goodenough, Edwin R. "John: A Primitive Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature 64 (1945): Part 2:145-82.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gundry, Robert H. "In my Father's House are many Monai' (John 14 2)." Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 58 (1967):68-72.

Haas, N. "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar." Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970):38-59.

Haenchen, Ernst. A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Edited by Robert W. Funk and Ulrich Busse. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Harris, Gregory H. "Satan's Work as a Deceiver." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:622 (April-June 1999):190-202.

Harris, W. Hall. "A Theology of John's Writings." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 167-242. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Gospel According to John." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1071-1122. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962

Hart, H. St. J. "The Crown of Thorns in John 19, 2-5." Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1952):66-75.

Hendriksen, W. Exposition of the Gospel According to John. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-54.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, and Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

Hengstenberg, E. W. Commentary on the Gospel of John. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1865-71.

Hiebert, D. Edmond Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Higgins, A. J. B. "The Origins of the Eucharist." New Testament Studies 1 (1954-55):200-9.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Angel at Bethesda--John 5:4." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:541 (January-March 1979):25-39.

_____. "Coming to the Light--John 3:20-21." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):314-22.

_____. "Form-Criticism and the Resurrection Accounts." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):339-48.

_____. "Grace after Grace--John 1:16." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537 (January-March 1978):34-45.

_____. "Rivers of Living Water--John 7:37-39." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-September 1979):239-48.

_____. "Those Who Have Done Good--John 5:28-29." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:542 (April-June 1979):158-66.

_____. "Untrustworthy Believers--John 2:23-25." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):139-52.

_____. "Water and Spirit--John 3:5." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):206-20.

_____. "Water and Wind--John 3:5." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):206-20.

_____. "The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11): The Text." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:544 (October-December 1979):318-32.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Hoskyns, Edwin Clement. The Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. N. Davey. London: Faber and Faber, 1940.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1982 ed. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley; et al. S.v. "Gabbatha," by D. J. Wieand.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 3rd ed. Revised. Translated by Norman Perrin. London: SCM, 1966.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnston, George. The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John. Vol. 12 in the Society for New Testament Studies Monograph series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kysar, Robert. John. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament series. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.

Lacomara, Aelred. "Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:31-16:33)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974):65-84.

Lancaster, Jerry R., and Overstreet, R. Larry. "Jesus' Celebration of Hanukkah in John 10." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):318-33.

Laney, J. Carl. "Abiding Is Believing: The Analogy of the Vine in John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:581 (January-March 1989):55-66.

Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 25 vols. New York: Charles Scribner, 1865-80; reprint ed., 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d. Vol. 9: The Gospel According to John, by J. P. Lange. Translated, revised, enlarged, and edited by Philip Schaff.

Lea, Thomas D. "The Reliability of History in John's Gospel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):387-402.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon. New ed. Revised by H. S. Jones and R. Mackenzie. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940.

Lightfoot, J. B. Biblical Essays. London: Macmillan, 1893.

Lightfoot, R. H. St. John's Gospel: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. New Century Bible series. London: Oliphants, 1972.

MacArthur, John A., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Macdonald, John. The Theology of the Samaritans. London: SCM, 1964.

Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Abingdon Press, 1979.

Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

McCoy, Brad. "Obedience Is Necessary to Receive Eternal Life." Grace Evangelical Society News 9:5 (September-October 1994):1, 3.

McKay, Kenneth L. "Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15-17." Novum Testamentum 27 (1985):319-33.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Mitchell, John G. An Everlasting Love: A Devotional Study of the Gospel of John. Portland, Or.: Multnomah Press, 1982.

Moo, Douglas J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to John. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

_____. The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Murray, John. Redemption--Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

Neirynck, Frans. Evangelica: Gospel Studies--Etudes d'Evangile. Collected Essays. Edited by F. van Segbroeck. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982; reprint ed. Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1987.

Nouwen, Henri J. M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel. 1929. Rev. ed. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 1968.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Patrick, Johnstone G. "The Promise of the Paraclete." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:508 (October-December 1970):333-45.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Pink, Arthur W. Exposition of the Gospel of John. Swengel, Pa.: I. C. Herendeen, 1945; 3 vols. in 1 reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1968.

Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek series. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.

Pryor, John W. "John 4:44 and the Patris of Jesus." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987):254-63.

Pyne, Robert A. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June 1993):203-18.

Reynolds, Edwin E. "The Role of Misunderstanding in the Fourth Gospel." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9:1-2 (1998):150-59.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 3rd ed. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919.

Sanders, J. N. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. Black's New Testament Commentaries series. Edited and compiled by B. A. Mastin. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968.

Saucy, Mark R. "Miracles and Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):281-307.

Sava, A. F. "The Wound in the Side of Christ." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 19 (1957):343-46.

Shepard, J. W. The Christ of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

_____. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978.

Smith, David. "Jesus and the Pharisees in Socio-Anthropological Perspective." Trinity Journal 6NS:2 (Autumn 1985):151-56.

Staley, Jeff. "The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel's Narrative Structure." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48:2 (April 1986):241-63.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. Jesus and His Story. Translated by D. M. Barton. London: SCM Press, 1960.

Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times." Christianity Today 19:19 (June 20, 1975):9-11.

Strachen, R. H. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment. 3rd ed. London: SCM Press, 1941.

Tacitus. The Histories and the Annals. 4 vols. With an English translation by John Jackson. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, and London: William Heinemann, 1962-63.

Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.

Tenney, Merrill C. "The Author's Testimony to Himself." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479 (July-September 1963):214-23.

_____. "The Imagery of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):13-21.

_____. "John." In John--Acts. Vol. 9 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

_____. John: The Gospel of Belief. 1948. Rev. ed. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1954.

_____. "The Old Testament and the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):300-8.

_____. "The Symphonic Structure of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:478 (April-June 1963):117-25.

_____. "Topics from the Gospel of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):37-46; 526 (April-June 1975):145-60; 527 (July-September 1975):229-41; 528 (October-December 1975):343-57.

Thatcher, Tom. "Jesus, Judas, and Peter: Character by Contrast in the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):435-48.

_____. "A New Look at Asides in the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-December 1994):428-39.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittle. S.v. elencho, by F. Büchsel.

_____. S.v., lithos, by Joachim Jeremias.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. "The Plan of the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):313-23.

Torrey, Charles C. "The Date of the Crucifixion According to the Fourth Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature 50:4 (1931):229-41.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Significance of the First Sign in John's Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:533 (January-March 1977):45-51.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament. New Edition. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1915.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

Westcott, B. F. The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorised Version with Introduction and Notes. London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1958.

_____. The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1908.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton: Scripture Press, Victor Books, 1989.

Wilkinson, John. Jerusalem as Jesus knew it: Archaeology as Evidence. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Witmer, John A. "Did Jesus Claim to Be God?" Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):147-56.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. Translated by Joseph Smith. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Jacob's Well," by R. L. Alden.

_____. S.v. "Spikenard," by W. E. Shewell-Cooper.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-2@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-3@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-4@

Haydock: John (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN.

INTRODUCTION

St. John, the evangelist, a native of Bathsaida, in Galilee, was the son of Zebedee and Salome. He was by profession a fisherman. Our Lord gave to John, and to James, his brother, the surname of Boanerges, or, sons of thunder; most probably for their great zeal, and for their soliciting permission to call fire from heaven to destroy the city of the Samaritans, who refused to receive their Master. St. John is supposed to have been called to the apostleship younger than any of the other apostles, not being more than twenty-five or twenty-six years old. The Fathers teach that he never married. Our Lord had for him a particular regard, of which he gave the most marked proofs at the moment of his expiring on the cross, by intrusting to his care his virgin Mother. He is the only one of the apostles that did not leave his divine Master in his passion and death. In the reign of Domitian, he was conveyed to Rome, and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, from which he came out unhurt. He was afterwards banished to the island of Patmos, where he wrote his book of Revelations; and, according to some, his Gospel. Tota antiquitas in eo abunde consentit, quod Domitianus exilii Joannis auctor fuerit. (Lampe. Proleg. lib. i. cap. 4.) --- In his gospel, St. John omits very many leading facts and circumstances mentioned by the other three evangelists, supposing his readers sufficiently instructed in points which his silence approved. It is universally agreed, that St. John had seen and approved of the other three gospels. (St. Hier. [St. Jerome,] de vir. illust. Eusebius, lib. iii, chap. 24.) --- St. Luke, says a learned author, seems to have had more learning than any other of the evangelists, and his language is more varied, copious, and pure. This superiority in style may perhaps be owing to his longer residence in Greece, and greater acquaintance with Gentiles of good education. --- St. Denis, of Alexandria, found in the gospel of St. John, elegance and precision of language, not only in the choice and arrangement of expressions, but also in his mode of reasoning and construction. We find here, says this saint, nothing barbarous and improper, nothing even low and vulgar; insomuch, that God not only seems to have given him light and knowledge, but also the means of well clothing his conceptions. (Dion. Alex. [Denis of Alexandria] apud Euseb. lib. vii, chap. 25.) --- Our critics do not join with St. Denis. They generally conceive St. John, with respect to language, as the least correct of the writers of the New Testament. His style argues a great want of those advantages which result from a learned education: but this defect is amply compensated by the unexampled simplicity with which he expresses the sublimest truths, by the supernatural lights, by the depth of the mysteries, by the superexcellency of the matter, by the solidity of his thoughts, and importance of his instructions. The Holy Ghost, who made choice of him, and filled him with infused wisdom, is much above human philosophy and the art of rhetoric. He possesses, in a most sovereign degree, the talent of carrying light and conviction to the mind, and warmth to the heart. He instructs, convinces, and persuades, without the aid of art or eloquence. --- St. John is properly compared to the eagle, because in his first flight he ascends above all sublunary objects, and does not stop till he meets the throne of the Almighty. He is so sententious, says St. Ambrose, that he gives us as many mysteries as words. (De Sacram. lib. iii, chap. 2) --- From Patmos our saint returned to Ephesus, where he died. (Euseb. lib. iii. hist. eccles.) --- It is said that the original gospel was preserved in the church of Ephesus till the seventh age [century], at least till the fourth; for St. Peter, of Alexandria, cites it. See Chron. Alex. and manuscript fragment. de paschate apud Petav. et Usher. --- Besides the gospel, we have of St. John three epistles and the Book of Revelations; and though other productions have been palmed on the world under the name of our evangelist, the Catholic Church only approves of those above specified. Ancient Fathers have given him the name of the Theologian: a title his gospel, and particularly the first chapter, deserves. Polycratus, bishop of Ephesus, tells us that St. John carried on his forehead a plate of gold, as priest of Jesus Christ, to honour the priesthood of the new law, in imitation of the high priests of the Jews. (Polycr. apud Euseb. liv. v, chap. 24.) --- This gospel was written in Greek, about the end of the first hundred years from Christ's nativity, at the request of the bishops of the Lesser Asia [Asia Minor], against the Cerinthians and the Ebionites, and those heretics, or Antichrists, as St. John calls them, (1 John iv. 3.) who pretended that Jesus was a mere man, who had no being or existence before he was born of Joseph and Mary. The blasphemies of these heretics had divers abettors in the first three ages [centuries], as Carpocrates, Artemon, the two Theodotus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, and some others; on whom, see St. Irenæus, St. Epiphanius, St. Augustine, &c. To these succeeded, in the beginning of the fourth century, Arius, of Alexandria, and the different branches of the blasphemous Arian sect. They allowed that Jesus Christ had a being before he was born of Mary; that he was made and created before all other creatures, and was more perfect than any of them; but still that he was no more than a creature: that he had a beginning, and that there was a time when he was not: that he was not properly God, or the God, not the same God, nor had the same substance and nature, with the eternal Father and Creator of all things. This heresy was condemned by the Church in the first General Council, at Nice, ann. 325. --- After the Arians rose up the Macedonians, who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost; and afterwards the Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. In every age pride and ignorance have produced some heresies; for, as the Apostle says, (1 Corinthians xi. 19.) there must be heresies. Towards the beginning of the sixteenth age [century] Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, &c. set themselves up for reformers, even of that general and Catholic faith which they found every where taught, and believed in all Christian Churches. Luther owns that he was then alone, the only one of his communion, (if so it may be called); yet none of these called in question the mysteries of the Trinity, or of the Incarnation. --- But not many years after, came the blasphemous sect of the Socinians, so called from Lælius and Faustus Socini. These, and their followers, renewed the condemned errors of the Arians. We scarce find any thing new in the systems of these men, who would pass for somebody, like Theodas, Acts v. 36.; or who, like Simon, the magician, and first heretic, would be looked upon as great men, and great wits, by daring to be free-thinkers, and thereby bold blasphemers. --- To do justice to Calvin, he did not think these Socinians fit to live in any Christian society: and therefore he got Michael Servetus burnt alive at Geneva, ann. 1553; and Valentinus Gentilis, one of the same sect, was beheaded at Berne, ann. 1565. I must needs say, it seems an easier matter to excuse the warm sharp zeal of Calvin, and his Swiss brethren, in persecuting to death these Socinians with sword and faggot, than to shew with what justice and equity these men could be put to death, who followed the very same principle, and the only rule of faith; i.e. Scriptures expounded by every man's private reason, or private spirit; which the pretended Reformers, all of them, maintain with as much warmth as ever, to the very day. --- Heretics in all ages have wrested the sense of the Scriptures, to make them seem to favour their errors: and by what we see so frequently happen, it is no hard matter for men who have but a moderate share of wit and sophistry, by their licentious fancies and arbitrary expositions, to turn, change, and pervert Scripture texts, and to transform almost any thing into any thing, says Dr. Hammond, on the second chapter of St. John's Revelation. But I need not fear to say, this never appeared so visibly as in these last two hundred years; the truth of which no one can doubt, who reads the History of the Variations, written by the learned bishop of Meaux. --- These late Reformers seem to make a great part of their religion consist in reading, or having at least the Bible in their mother-tongue. The number of translations into vulgar languages, with many considerable differences, is strangely multiplied. Every one rashly claims a right to expound them according to his private judgment, or his private spirit. And what is the consequence of this; but that as men's judgments and their private interpretations are different, so in a great measure are the articles of their creed and belief? --- The Scriptures, in which are contained the revealed mysteries of divine faith, are, without all doubt, the most excellent of all writings: these divers volumes, written by men inspired from God, contained not the words of men, but the word of God, which can save our souls: (1 Thessalonians ii. 13. and James i. 21.) but then they ought to be read, even by the learned, with the spirit of humility; with a fear of mistaking the true sense, as so many have done; with a due submission to the Catholic Church, which Christ himself commanded us to hear and obey. This we might learn from the Scripture itself. The apostle told the Corinthians, that even in those days there were many who corrupted and adulterated the word of God. (2 Corinthians ii. 17.) St. Peter gives us this admonition: that in the Epistles of St. Paul, are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. --- It was merely to prevent and remedy this abuse of the best of books, that it was judged necessary to forbid the ignorant to read the Scriptures in vulgar languages, without the advice and permission of their pastors and spiritual guides, whom Christ appointed to govern his Church. (Acts xx. 28.) The learned University of Paris, 1525, at that time, and in those circumstances, judged the said prohibition necessary: and whosoever hath had any discourses with persons of different religions and persuasions in our kingdom, especially with Anabaptists, Quakers, and such as pretend to expound the Scriptures, either by their private reason or by the private spirit, will, I am confident, be fully convinced that the just motives of the said prohibition subsist to this very day. Ignorant men and women turn Scripture texts to the errors of their private sects, and wrest them to their own perdition; as the very best of remedies prove pernicious and fatal to those who know not their virtues, nor how to use them, and apply them. --- They might learn from the Acts of the Apostles, (Chap. xv.) that as soon as a doubt and dispute was raised, whether the Gentiles converted by the apostles, were obliged to observe any of the ceremonies of the law of Moses, this first controversy about religion was not decided by the private judgment, or private spirit, even of those apostolical preachers, but by an assembly or council of the apostles and bishops, held at Jerusalem; as appears by the letter of the council sent to the Christians at Antioch. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, &c. to us, whom Christ promised to direct by the Spirit of truth; with whom, he assured us, he would remain to the end of the world. --- The very same method, as it is evident by the annals of Church history, hath been practised to the very time, and will be to the end of the world. It is the rule grounded on the command and promises of Christ, when he founded and established the Christian Church. All disputes about the sense of the Scriptures, and about points of the Christian belief, have been always decided by the successors of St. Peter, and the other apostles; even by general councils, when judged necessary: and they who, like Arius, obstinately refused to submit their private judgment to that of the Catholic Church, were always condemned, excommunicated, and cut off from the communion of the Church of Christ. --- Nor is this rule and this submission to be understood of the ignorant and unlearned only, but also of men accomplished in all kind of learning. The ignorant fall into errors for want of knowledge, and the learned are many times blinded by their pride and self-conceit. The sublime and profound mysteries, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God, the manner of Christ's presence in the holy sacrament, are certainly above the reach of man's weak reason and capacity; much less are they the object of our senses, which are so often deceived. Let every reader of the sacred volumes, who pretends to be a competent judge of the sense, and of the truths revealed in them, reflect on the words which he finds in Isaias: (Chap. lv. 8, 9) For my thoughts are not your thoughts; nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. How then shall any one, by his private reason, pretend to judge, to know, to demonstrate, what is possible or impossible to the incomprehensible power of God? --- A self-conceited Socinian, big with the opinion he has of his own wit and knowledge, will boldly tell us, that to say or believe that three distinct persons are one and the same God, is a manifest contradiction. Must we believe him? Or the Christian Catholic Church, in all ages? That is, against the greatest authority upon earth: whether we consider the Church as the most illustrious society and body of men; or whether we consider the same Church as under the protection of Christ and his divine promises, to teach them all truth to the end of the world. Besides this, experience itself should make the said Socinian distrust his own judgment as to such a pretended contradiction, when he finds that the brightest wits, and most subtle philosophers, after all their study and search of natural causes and effects, for so many hundred years, by the light of their reason could never yet account for the most common and obvious things in nature, such as are the parts of matter, and extension, local motion, and the production of numberless vegetables and animals, which we see happen, but know not how. See the author of a short answer to the late Dr. Clark and Mr. Whiston, concerning the divinity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost. An. 1729. --- The latest writers among the pretended Reformers hesitate not to tell us, that what the Church and its councils have declared, as to Christ's real presence in the holy sacrament, is contradicted by all our senses; as if our senses, which are so often mistaken, were the supreme and only judges of such hidden mysteries. Another tells us, that for Christ to be truly and really present in many places, in ten thousand places at once, is a thing impossible in nature and reason; and his demonstrative proof is, that he knows it to be impossible. With this vain presumption, he runs on to this length of extravagant rashness, and boldly pronounces, that should he find such a proposition in the Bible, nay, though with his eyes he should see a man raise the dead, and declare that proposition true, he could not believe it: and merely because he knows it impossible: which is no more than to say, that it does not seem possible to his weak reason. I do not find that he offers to bring any other proof, but that it is contrary to his senses, and that God cannot assert a contradiction. And why must we take it for a contradiction, only because he tells us, he knows it to be so? It was certainly the safest way for him, to bring no reasons to shew it impossible to the infinite and incomprehensible power of the Almighty: this vain attempt would only have given new occasions to his learned antagonist, the author of the Single Combat, to expose his weakness even more than he has done. --- May not every Unitarian, every Arian, every Socinian, every Latitudinarian, every Free-thinker, tell us the same? And if this be a sufficient plea, none of them can be condemned of heresy or error. Calvin could never silence Servetus, (unless it were by lighting faggots round him) if he did but say, I know that three distinct persons cannot be one and the same God. It is a contradiction, and God cannot assert a contradiction. I know that the Son cannot be the same God with the Father. It is a contradiction, and therefore impossible. So that though I find clear texts in the Scriptures, that three give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one: though Christ, the Son of God, tells us, that he and the Father are one, or one thing; nay, though I should with my own eyes, see men raise the dead to confirm these mysteries, (as many are recorded to have done) and declare them to be revealed divine truths, I cannot believe them, because I know them to be false, to be nonsense, to be contradictions to reason and nature. The like the Free-thinker may tell us, with the Pelagians, as to the existence of original sin, that all men should become liable to eternal death for Adam's sinning; with the Manicheans, that men cannot have free will to do, or abstain from, sinful actions, and yet God know infallibly from eternity what they will do; with the Origenists, that God, who is infinite goodness itself, will not punish sinners eternally, for yielding to what the inclinations of their corrupt nature prompt them. They have the same right to tell all Christendom, that they know these pretended revealed mysteries to be nonsense, impossibilities, and contradictions. And every man's private judgment, when, with an air of confidence, he says, I know it, must pass for infallible; though he will not hear of the Catholic Church being infallible, under the promises of our Saviour, Christ. --- But to conclude this preface, already much longer than I designed, reason itself, as well as the experience we have of our own weak understanding, from the little we know even of natural things, might preserve every sober thinking man from such extravagant presumption, pride and self-conceited rashness, as to pretend to measure God's almighty and incomprehensible power by the narrow and shallow capacity of human understanding, or to know what is possible or impossible for Him that made all things out of nothing. In fine, let not human understanding exalt itself against the knowledge of God, but bring into a rational captivity and submission every thought to the obedience of Christ. Let every one humbly acknowledge with the great St. Augustine, whose learning and capacity, modestly speaking, were not inferior to those of any of those bold and rash pretenders to knowledge, that God can certainly do more than we can understand. Let us reflect with St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xxxvii. p. 597. C.) that if we know not the things under our feet, we must not pretend to fathom the profound mysteries of God. [1] --- And, in the mean time, let us pray for those who are thus tossed to and fro with every wind and blast of different doctrines, (Ephesians iv. 14.) that God, of his infinite mercy, would enlighten their weak and blinded understanding with the light of the one true faith, and bring them to the one fold of his Catholic Church. (Witham)

____________________

[1] Naz. Orat. xxxvii. Greek: Mede ta en posin eidenai dunamenoi ... me theou bathesin embateuein.

====================

Gill: John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO JOHN

The author of this Gospel is John, the son of Zebedee and Salome, the brother of James the greater; he outlived the rest of the disciples, and wrote this Gospel after the other evangelists; and in it many things are recorded, which are not in the other Gospels; as various discourses of Christ, and miracles done by him; several incidents in his life, and circumstances that attended his sufferings and death: the occasion of it is generally thought to be the errors of Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ, asserted he was a mere man, and that he did not exist before his incarnation; and the design of it is to confute them: and it is easy to observe, that he begins his Gospel with the divinity of Christ; asserts him to be God, and proves him to be truly and properly so, by the works of creation, which were wrought by him, as well as shows that he was really man. Clemens ^a calls this Gospel of John, pneumatikon euaggelion "a spiritual Gospel", as indeed it is; consisting of the spiritual discourses of our Lord, on various occasions, both at the beginning, and in the course of his ministry, and especially a little before his sufferings and death: and the same writer observes, that John, the last of the evangelists, considering that in the other Gospels were declared the things relating to the body of Christ, that is, to him, as he was after the flesh; to his genealogy and birth as man; to what was done to him, or by him, in his infancy; to his baptism, temptations, journeys, &c. at the request of his familiar friends, and moved by the Spirit of God, composed this Gospel. Moreover, it is observed by some ^b, that the other three evangelists only record what was done by Christ, in one year after John the Baptist was cast into prison, as appears from Mat 4:12 wherefore John, at the entreaty of his friends, put these things into his Gospel, which were done or said by Christ, before John was cast into prison. He was called very early by Christ, though young; and was with him throughout the whole of his ministry, and was an eye and ear witness of what he here relates, and his testimony is to be received; he was the beloved disciple, he leaned on the bosom of Jesus, and had great intimacy with him; and might be privy to some things, which others were not acquainted with; and though he was a Galilean, and an unlearned man, Act 4:13 yet being endowed with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, he was abundantly qualified to write this book: for what some ancient writers ^c say of him, that he was a priest, and wore a plate, that is, of gold upon his forehead, cannot be true, since he was not of the tribe of Levi; and besides, only the high priest wore that upon his mitre; unless they mean, as seems most likely, that he was a Christian bishop: perhaps the mistake may arise from John the Baptist, who was of the priestly order, and is called by some Jewish writers ^d, John the high priest. When and where this Gospel was written, is not certain; some say in ^e Asia, after he had wrote his Revelation in Patmos; and others say particularly, that it was wrote at Ephesus; the title of it in the Syriac version, signifies much, which runs thus;

"the holy Gospel, the preaching of John, which he spoke and published in Greek at Ephesus.''

And to the same purpose is the title of it in the Persic version;

"the Gospel of John, one of the twelve apostles, which was spoken in the city of Ephesus, in the Greek Roman tongue.''

College: John (Book Introduction)

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

Even the casual reader of the New Testament will notice that the first three accounts of Jesus' life are generally similar in their overall story line, whereas the fourth Gospel (John) is quite different. Scholars refer to Matthew, Mark, and Luke as the Synoptic Gospels (Synoptic = "seen together" or "as parallel") because of their similarities, but John is called, well . . . John (no special name). It is part of the New Testament collection known as the Johannine Writings (John, 1, 2, 3 John, and Revelation).

The differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John are readily apparent to the alert reader. For example the Synoptics all present one major trip of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem, whereas John portrays Jesus as being in Judea and Jerusalem often. Indeed, for John the primary ministry of Jesus seems to be in Judea rather than the Galilean setting of the Synoptics. Another difference is seen in John's lack of true parables in his recorded teachings of Jesus. In the Synoptics, parables are the characteristic form of Jesus' teaching, with the often repeated introduction, "Jesus told them a parable, saying, 'the kingdom of God is like this . . . .'" John is also loaded with characters we do not find in the Synoptics: Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman at the well, and Lazarus, just to name a few. Furthermore, some of our most memorable Gospel phrases are not found in the Synoptics, but only in John: "In the beginning was the Word." "Behold the Lamb of God!" "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son." "I am the way, the truth, and the life." "I am the vine." "What is truth?" "It is finished!" "So send I you." By some estimates about 90% of the material found in John is not found in the Synoptic Gospels.

Christian scholars have noticed these differences from ancient times. Clement of Alexandria, writing approximately AD 185, called John the "spiritual Gospel." By this, Clement did not mean that John was nonhistorical, but that John was more concerned with internal, spiritual matters. In the more recent past overly critical scholars have pronounced the differences between John and the Synoptics to be irreconcilable and concluded that John is, in effect, the first commentary on the Gospels. This assumption (that John is historical fiction) exists in many commentaries of previous generations and is still held by some today. In general, though, current scholarship is much less certain about the nonhistorical character of John. In this commentary we assume that John relates a historically reliable version of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, albeit quite different from that of the Synoptic Gospels. These differences are part of what makes the study of this book so fascinating and will be discussed at the appropriate places through the commentary.

WHO IS THE AUTHOR?

We have been writing as if we knew for sure that John was the author of this Gospel. But this begs the question, how do we know for sure that John wrote it, and if so, which John was this? To answer the first question in complete honesty, we do not know for sure who wrote this book, for it was published anonymously in line with the publishing standards of the ancient world. We do have some very early witnesses to John as the author, however. The so-called "Muratorian Canon" (date disputed, but probably AD 150-200) says, "John, one of the disciples, wrote the fourth book of the Gospel." An early church leader by the name of Irenaeus (AD 185) is also an important witness. Tradition claims that Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp of Smyrna, and that Polycarp was a student of John himself. This means that Irenaeus is only one generation of believers removed from John, which gives added weight to what he writes. Irenaeus states in no uncertain terms that John was the author of the Fourth Gospel (in his book Against Heresies 3.1.1).

Some scholars have suggested, however, that the author of the Fourth Gospel was indeed a man named John, but not John the Apostle. It is true that there were other early Christian leaders named John, and it is possible that one of them is the true author of the Fourth Gospel. This issue may be addressed by determining the identity of the so-called "beloved disciple" within the book of John.

In John 21:20-24 the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is said to be the author of the book. If we work backwards through the book, we encounter the beloved disciple in other places. He is the one who recognizes Jesus after the resurrection during the miraculous catch of fish (21:7). Jesus entrusts the care for his mother, Mary, to this disciple while hanging on the cross (19:26-27). This disciple reclines next to Jesus at the Last Supper (13:23, 25). The beloved disciple is intended to be seen in some places where he is simply called the "other disciple." He is the one who races Peter to the tomb on Easter morning, and arrives first (20:3-5, probably indicating that he was younger than Peter). It is the "other disciple" who gains entrance for Peter and himself into the high priest's courtyard during the interrogation of Jesus (18:15-16). The "other disciple" may also be the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist who, along with Andrew, is pointed to Jesus by the Baptist himself (1:35-40).

The intimacy the beloved disciple has with Jesus points to one of the inner circle of disciples. In the Synoptic Gospels, this "inner circle" is pictured as Peter, James, and John. Peter is clearly not the author of the Fourth Gospel, because he is often portrayed as being with the "beloved disciple." James is an unlikely candidate, because he suffers early martyrdom at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). This leaves only John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James. This case is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Apostle John is named nowhere in the Fourth Gospel (nor is James, the only reference being to the "sons of Zebedee" at 21:2). It is not easy to understand why any other early Christian writer would have omitted the name of such a prominent Apostle. The solution to the mystery is that we are intended to see John himself as the author, and that he does not mention himself except as the "beloved disciple" or the "other disciple." We should also note that this is not an expression of pride (he "loved me best"). It is an expression of deep humility, wonderment, and thankfulness on the part of the author: Jesus loved me, even me?!

WHEN AND WHERE WAS IT WRITTEN?

Many locations have been suggested as the place of composition for the Gospel of John, but the traditional site is the city of Ephesus. The ruins of Ephesus are in southwestern Turkey, near the modern city of Kusadasi. Ephesus was one of the largest and most important cities of the Roman Empire in the first century. Ephesus was the site of the Temple of Artemis (sometimes incorrectly called the Temple of Diana, see Acts 19:28). This temple was recognized as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world according to the Greek geographer, Strabo. This large city (perhaps as many as 500,000 inhabitants) had a very mixed population. There was a strong Christian community in Ephesus, for Paul had a three-year ministry there in the AD 50s. The presence of the Temple of Artemis shows that there was also a strong pagan community, dedicated to the worship of the ancient Greek gods. Overall it was a large, cosmopolitan city, with a well-developed Greek culture. The common language of the city would have been Greek, the language of the New Testament.

Although it cannot be proven, there is strong tradition that the Apostle John, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, made his way to Ephesus sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. John, at least, was probably in Ephesus during the reign of Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). After a few years, Domitian seems to have actively persecuted the Christian community, and this atmosphere of persecution probably forms the background for the Fourth Gospel, written sometime between AD 85-95. Also, by this time, the Jewish synagogue community had solidified in its opposition to the Christians, and Jews had to make a choice between the two. Jews who chose to believe in Jesus were "thrown out of the synagogue," a circumstance mentioned by John (9:22; 16:2).

This makes John one of the last books of the New Testament to be written, and certainly the last of the Gospels. If we theorize that John was about 20 when Jesus was crucified (AD 30), then he would have been 75-85 years old when this book was written, a very old man in the ancient world. For this and other reasons, it is likely that John had quite a bit of help in writing this book. Some scholars want to speak of the "Johannine community" or the "community of the beloved disciple" as the author, and there is some merit to this (cf. 21:24, "we know his testimony in true"). For our purposes, however, we will assume that the Apostle John, an eyewitness to many of the Gospel events, is the primary author of this book.

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF JOHN?

First, we would say that the style of John's writing is simple, but its thought is profound. John is written in some of the simplest Greek in the New Testament, although this does not mean it is "bad" Greek. It uses many common words, many monosyllabic words, and relatively short sentences. Yet the message of the book is profound. Fred Craddock notes that this is a Gospel in which "a child can wade and an elephant can swim."

A second characteristic of John is that he has laid out the bulk of the book as a series of lengthy accounts of works followed by words. We can characterize these combinations as miraculous signs followed by discourses or sermons of Jesus. John has only seven miracles, five of which are not found in the Synoptic Gospels. The story of each of these miracles is told at some length, and the material of the sermon that follows is primarily material not found in the Synoptics.

A third characteristic of the Fourth Gospel is the emphasis upon the personal ministry of Jesus. John relates several one-on-one situations (e.g., Jesus with Nicodemus, chapter 3), which teach us that Jesus had an active private ministry. It was not all public preaching, although this was important, too. In John we see a Jesus who cares for people and has time for them. This has another side, however. Sometimes it emphasizes the aloneness of Jesus. He often seems to be by himself without the support of the disciples or anyone else, a solitary figure.

Fourthly, John has a highly developed theological interest. He is particularly concerned with the matter of Christology, explaining who Jesus is in relation to God. John lays stress on the divinity of Jesus, often referring to him as the Son or the Son of God. He also stresses the humanity of Jesus: he is thirsty at Sychar and weeps at the tomb of Lazarus. John develops the theme of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, the one God sent to his people.

John also explores the nature of God the Father, particularly through the Father-Son relationship between Jesus and God. John emphasizes that faith for the Christian must be in both the Father and in the Son. And John also has a great deal of discussion about the Holy Spirit. This is found throughout the book, but particularly in the Farewell Discourses of chapters 13-17. Here the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the coming Paraclete or Advocate for the community of believers.

A fifth characteristic might also be called the purpose of John. This purpose is strongly evangelistic, to bring the readers to faith. There is a constant contrast in the Fourth Gospel between believers and unbelievers, between faith and unfaith. Toward the end of the book John lays out his purpose in very straightforward language, "These [things] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (20:31).

HOW WILL THE STUDY OF JOHN

BE APPROACHED?

There are many possible ways to study John, but it is helpful to know what the primary emphasis will be in this commentary. Our main focus will be to listen carefully to what John is saying to us, to understand his intended message. This is not as easy as it may seem at first glance, for John is far removed from twentieth century English speakers. We want to know the general story, to pick up on the nuances, to be sensitive to the theological implications John is drawing out. For the most part we will not be concerned with evaluating the historical nature of John's account. When we bring historical data into the mix, it will be to help the reader understand the background of John's story, not to judge his accuracy. This is a modified narrative approach, an attempt to understand John's story as it is intended to be understood. While some may find this intolerably naïve, it is certainly the first and necessary step to a full appreciation of this marvelous book. If we can get you to listen to John carefully and hear his message, we will have succeeded in what we set out to do.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Note: There are many, many commentaries and other books related to the study of John. Dr. Bryant's favorites were the ones by Rudolf Bultmann, Barnabas Lindars, and Raymond Brown (even though he had sharp disagreements with all of them). Bultmann has a great deal of excellent material, although his theological bent makes him difficult for less advanced students. Lindars is excellent in technical discussion, but spiritually dry. Brown is wordy, but often gives great insights. I think the finest commentary on John is that of D.A. Carson. While Carson may be too conservative for some, he never avoids the hard questions and takes the time necessary to do thorough exegesis. Other outstanding choices for the more advanced student include the commentary of C.K. Barrett and George Beasley-Murray's commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary series. For the less advanced student the commentary by Paul Butler contains a wealth of accessible material, although written for an earlier generation.

Abbot, Ezra, Andrew P. Peabody, and J.B. Lightfoot. The Fourth Gospel: Evidences External and Internal of Its Johannean Authorship . London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1892.

Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel . Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.

Bacon, Benjamin W. The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate: A Series of Essays on Problems Concerning the Origin and Value of the Anonymous Writings Attributed to the Apostle John . New York: Moffatt, 1910.

. The Gospel of the Hellenists . New York: Holt, n.d., c.1933.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of John . The Daily Study Bible Series. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956.

Barrett, C.K. The Gospel according to St. John . Second Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.

. The Gospel of John and Judaism . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Bauer, Walter. Das Johannesevangelium . Tübingen: Mohr, 1925.

Beasley-Murray, George R. John . Word Biblical Commentary 36. Waco: Word, 1987.

Bernard, John H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. 2 volumes. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928.

Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997.

Boice, James M. Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Borchert, Gerald L. John 1-11 . The New American Commentary 25A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996.

Bowman, John. The Fourth Gospel and the Jews: A Study in R. Akiba, Esther, and the Gospel of John . Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975.

Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist, 1979.

. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave . 2 volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

. The Gospel according to John . 2 volumes. The Anchor Bible 29A-B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-70.

Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.

Burney, Charles F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel . Oxford: Clarendon, 1922.

Butler, Paul. The Gospel of John . 2 volumes in 1. Bible Study Textbook Series. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1961.

Carpenter, Joseph E. The Johannine Writings: A Study of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel. London: Constable, 1927.

Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Charlesworth, James H., editor. John and Qumran . London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972.

Colwell, Ernest C., The Greek of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Its Aramaisms in the Light of Hellenistic Greek . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, n.d., c. 1931.

Craddock, Fred B. John . Knox Preaching Guides. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Johannine Circle . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975.

Culpepper, R. Alan. The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

. The Gospel and Letters of John . Interpreting Biblical Texts Series. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998.

Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

Drummond, James. An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. New York: Scribner, 1904.

Eisler, Robert. The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel . London: Methuen, 1938.

Erdman, Charles R. The Gospel of John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1917.

Fortna, Robert T. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Foster, R.C. Studies in the Life of Christ . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. Reprint, Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Gardner-Smith, Percival. St. John and the Synoptic Gospels . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Gnilka, J. Johannesevangelium . Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter, 1983.

Godet, Frederic. Commentary on the Gospel of John . Translated by Timothy Dwight. 2 volumes. New York: Funk & Wagnall, 1886.

Haenchen, Ernst. A Commentary on the Gospel of John . Hermeneia Series. 2 volumes. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. (German ed., 1980.)

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel according to John . 2 volumes. New Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954.

Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question . Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.

Higgins, A.J.B. The Historicity of the Fourth Gospel . London: Lutterworth, 1960.

Hoskyns, Edwyn C. The Fourth Gospel. 2 volumes. London: Faber, 1940. Revised. ed. in one vol., 1947.

Howard, Wilbert F. Christianity According to St. John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946.

. The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation . London: Epworth, 1931.

Howard, Wilbert F., and Arthur J. Gossip. "The Gospel According to St. John." In Interpreter's Bible 7:437-811. Nashville: Abingdon/ Cokesbury, 1952.

Hunter, Archibald M. According to John . The Cambridge Bible Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1968.

. The Gospel According to John . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Jauncey, James H. The Compelling Indwelling [Studies on John 15]. Chicago: Moody, 1972.

Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Old Tappan, NJ: Scribners Reference, 1977.

Jervell, Jacob. Jesus in the Gospel of John . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.

Kysar, Robert. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975.

. John . Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986.

. John's Story of Jesus . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

. John, the Maverick Gospel . Atlanta: John Knox, 1976. Reprinted Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993.

Lee, Edwin Kenneth. The Religious Thought of St. John . London: S.P.C.K., 1950.

Lenski, R.C.H. Interpretation of John's Gospel . Columbus: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936.

Leon-Dufour, Xavier. Dictionary of the New Testament . New York: Harper & Row, 1980.

Lightfoot, Robert H. St. John's Gospel . Edited by C.F. Evans. Oxford: Clarendon, 1956.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John . New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

MacGregor, George H.C. The Gospel of John . The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928.

MacGregor, George H.C., and A.Q. Morton. The Structure of the Fourth Gospel. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1961.

Maier G. Johannes-Evangelium . BKNT 6. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler, 1984.

Marsh, John. The Gospel of St. John . Westminster Pelican Commentaries. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.

Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel . New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

. The Gospel of John in Christian History: Essays for Interpreters . New York: Paulist, 1979.

McGarvey, J.W., and P.Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel or a Harmony of the Four Gospels . Cincinnati: Standard, 1914.

Michaels, J.R. John . San Francisco: Harper, 1984.

Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Montefiore, C.G., and H. Loewe. A Rabbinic Anthology. New York: Schocken Books, 1974.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to St. John . The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

. Reflections on the Gospel of John . 4 volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.

. Studies in the Fourth Gospel . Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1969.

Murray, John O.F. Jesus according to St. John . London: Longmans, 1936.

Nicol, W. Semeia in the Fourth Gospel . Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Nolloth, Charles F. The Fourth Evangelist: His Place in the Development of Religious Thought. London: J. Murray, 1925.

O'Neill, J.C. Who Did Jesus Think He Was? Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World . Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner, 1968.

Pack, Frank. The Gospel according to John . Living Word Commentaries. Austin: Sweet, 1975.

Palmer, Earl F. The Intimate Gospel . Waco: Word, 1978.

Plummer, Alfred. The Gospel according to St. John. Cambridge Greek Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890.

Rainsford, Marcus. Our Lord Prays: Thoughts on John XVII . London: 1873; reprint Chicago: Moody, 1950.

Redlich, Edwin B. An Introduction to the Fourth Gospel . London: Longmans, 1939.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Rigg, William Harrison. The Fourth Gospel and Its Message for Today . London: Lutterworth, 1952.

Robinson, John A.T. The Priority of John . London: SCM Press, 1985.

Sanday, William. The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel . London: Macmillan, 1872.

. The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel . New York: Scribner, 1905.

Sanders, J.N. The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943.

Sanders, J.N., and B.A. Mastin. The Gospel according to St. John . Black's New Testament Commentaries. London: A.& C. Black, 1968.

Schlatter, Adolf. Der Evangelist Johannes . Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St John . 3 volumes. Translated by Cecily Hastings, et al. New York: Crossroad, 1982.

Sidebottom, E.M. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel . London: SPCK, 1961.

Sloyan, Gerard S. John . Interpretation Commentary Series. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988.

Smith, D. Moody. The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965.

. John . Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Smith, D. Moody, C. Clifton Black, and R. Alan Culpepper, eds. Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith . Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996.

Smith, Jonathan R. The Teaching of the Gospel of John . New York: Revell, 1903.

Stevens, George B. The Johannine Theology: A Study of the Doctrinal Contents of the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John . New York: Scribner, 1894.

Strachan, Robert H. The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian? London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1925.

. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment . 3rd Revised Edition. London, S.C.M. Press, 1941.

Tasker, Randolph V.G. The Gospel according to St. John . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. London: Tyndale, 1960.

Temple, William. Readings in St. John's Gospel . 2 volumes. London: Macmillan, 1939-40; one volume edition, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1955.

Tenney, Merrill C. "The Gospel of John." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , 93-203. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

. John: the Gospel of Belief . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1948), 1954.

Turner, George A., and Julius R. Mantey. The Gospel according to John . The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Wead, David. The Literary Devices in John's Gospel . Basel: Komm. Friedrich Reinhardt, 1970.

Weber, Gerard P. and Robert Miller. Breaking Open the Gospel of John . Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1995.

Westcott, Brooke F. The Gospel according to St .John . London: John Murray, 1882.

. The Gospel according to St. John; the Greek Text with Introduction and Notes . 2 volumes. London: John Murray, 1908. Reprinted in 1 volume, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Wiles, Maurice F. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Witherington, Ben, III. John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1995.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

BDB A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver and Briggs

BDF A Greek Grammar of the New Testament by Blass, Debrunner and Funk

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

DNT Dictionary of the New Testament

HTR Harvard Theological Review

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible

JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

KJV King James Version

LSJ Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell, Scott and Jones

NASB New American Standard Bible

LXX Septuagint

NIV New International Version

NLT New Living Translation

NovT Novum Testamentum

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

OT Old Testament

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: John (Outline)

OUTLINE

A good outline is more than half the battle in one's understanding and remembering the contents of any book. There is more than one way to break up and organize the materials in the Gospel according to John. Most students have observed two large divisions in its structure: (1) chapters 1-12 and (2) chapters 13-21. These larger units include a prologue (1:1-18) and an epilogue (chapter 21). Perhaps the easiest way to organize the materials of the book for commentary purposes might be to number the larger units of thought in the book (over fifty such units) and comment successively on these from the beginning of the book to the end. One may endeavor, however, to organize the materials of the Fourth Gospel in some kind of elaborate outline, structured under the two large divisions noted above. We follow this latter procedure below:

I. JESUS MANIFESTS HIMSELF TO THE WORLD - 1:1-12:50

A. The Prologue - 1:1-18

1. The Logos before Time - 1:1-4

a. His Relationship to Deity - 1:1-2

b. His Relationship to the World - 1:3-4

2. The Logos Manifested in History - 1:5-18

a. John the Baptist's Initial Testimony to the Logos - 1:5-13

b. The Logos in Flesh - 1:14-18

B. The Testimony of John the Baptist and of Jesus' First Disciples - 1:19-51

1. The Testimony of John the Baptist - 1:19-34

a. The Testimony of John to the Jewish Leaders - 1:19-28

b. The Testimony of John to the Jewish People - 1:29-34

2. Jesus' Calling and the Testifying of His First Disciples - 1:35-51

a. John the Baptist's Disciples Follow Jesus - 1:35-42

b. Jesus' Calling of Philip and Nathanael - 1:43-51

C. Jesus' First Signs - 2:1-25

1. Jesus Changes Water into Wine - 2:1-12

2. Jesus Cleanses the Temple - 2:13-22

3. Summary of Response to Jesus - 2:23-25

D. Jesus and Nicodemus - 3:1-36

1. The New Birth - 3:1-10

2. The Son of Man - 3:11-21

3. The Further Testimony of John the Baptist - 3:22-30

4. The Son's Testimony - 3:31-36

E. Jesus and the Samaritans - 4:1-42

1. Introduction - 4:1-4

2. Jesus and the Woman of Samaria - 4:5-30

a. The Setting - 4:5-6

b. Jesus' Request for Water - 4:7-9

c. Living Water - 4:10-15

d. The Woman Revealed - 4:16-19

e. Jesus Reveals Himself - 4:20-26

f. Reactions to Jesus - 4:27-30

3. Jesus and the Samaritans - 4:31-42

a. Jesus and the Testifying of His disciples - 4:31-38

b. Firsthand and Secondhand Testimony - 4:39-42

F. Jesus' Healing of the Nobleman's Son, the Second Sign at Cana - 4:43-54

1. Introduction - 4:43-45

2. The Healing of the Nobleman's Son - 4:46-54

G. Jesus and the Major Jewish Festivals - 5:1-12:50

1. A Feast, the Sabbath, and Jesus' Healing at the Pool in Jerusalem - 5:1-47

a. The Healing on the Sabbath - 5:1-9a

b. Violations of the Sabbath and the Healed Man's Defense - 5:9b-15

c. Violations of the Sabbath and Jesus' Defense - 5:16-18

d. Jesus' Discourse on the Sabbath and His Work - 5:19-29

e. Jesus' Defense and the Four Witnesses - 5:30-47

2. The Passover and Jesus' Explanation of the Exodus - 6:1-71

a. The Background - 6:1-4

b. Jesus' Feeding of the Five Thousand - 6:5-13

c. Jesus, Not That Kind of King - 6:14-15

d. Jesus' Walking on the Sea of Galilee - 6:16-21

e. The Crowds' Search for Jesus - 6:22-25

f. Two Discourses on the Bread of Life - 6:26-34, 35-40

g. Conflict Concerning Bread from Heaven and Flesh and Blood - 6:41-59

h. Rejection and Acceptance of Jesus - 6:60-71

3. Jesus at Tabernacles - 7:1-52

a. Introduction: Question If Jesus Would Go to This Feast - 7:1-13

b. Jesus' Discourses Spoken during the Feast - 7:14-36

c. Jesus' Discourses Spoken on the Last Day of the Feast and the Audience's Response to it - 7:37-52

d. Textual Parenthesis: The Woman Taken in Adultery - 7:53-8:11

4. The Light of Tabernacles and Jesus' Great Confrontation with the Jews - 8:12-59

a. Jesus Discourse at the Temple Treasury: Jesus the Light of the World and the Authority of His Testimony to Himself - 8:12-20

b. Jesus' Attack on the Jews Who Disbelieved and the Origin of His Testimony and the Problem of Who He Is - 8:21-30

c. Truth, Sin, Freedom, and the Children of Abraham - 8:31-59

5. Healing of the Man Born Blind - 9:1-41

a. The Setting - 9:1-5

b. The Healing - 9:6-7

c. Interrogations of the Man - 9:8-34

(1) Questions Posed by the Neighbors and Friends - 9:8-12

(2) Preliminary Quizzing by Some Pharisees - 9:13-17

(3) The Man's Parents Questioned by the Jews - 9:18-23

(4) The Man Questioned a Second Time by the Jews, and Excommunicated - 9:24-34

d. Who Sees and Who Is Blind? Jesus' Answer - 9:35-41

6. The Feast of Dedication and the Shepherd Analogy - 10:1-42

a. Jesus, the Sheepgate, and the Shepherd - 10:1-21

(1) Figures from Shepherd Life - 10:1-6

(2) Explaining the Figure - 10:7-18

(a) Jesus is the Sheepgate - 10:7-10

(b) Jesus is the Good (or Model) Shepherd - 10:11-18

(3) Response to Jesus' Explanation: Rejection of Jesus by the Jews - 10:19-21

b. Jesus at the Feast of Dedication - 10:22-39

(1) Jesus the Messiah - 10:22-31

(a) Setting and Questions: "Is Jesus the Messiah?" - 10:22-24

(b) Jesus' Reply - 10:25-30

(c) Reaction: Attempt to Stone Jesus - 10:31

(2) Jesus the Son of God - 10:32-39

(a) The Question: Is Jesus Making Himself Equal with God - 10:32-33

(b) Jesus' Response - 10:34-38

(c) Reaction: Attempt to Arrest Jesus - 10:39

c. Jesus in Retrogression and Progression Simultaneously - 10:40-42

7. Lazarus and the Passover Plot - 11:1-57

a. Lazarus - 11:1-44

(1) Setting - 11:1-6

(2) Jesus' Discussion with the Disciples - 11:7-16

(3) Jesus and Martha: Jesus the Resurrection and the Life - 11:17-27

(4) Jesus and Mary and the Grieved - 11:28-37

(5) Jesus' Raising of Lazarus - 11:38-44

b. The Passover Plot to Kill Jesus - 11:45-53

c. Retreat of Jesus - 11:54-57

8. Preparation for Passover and Death - 12:1-50

a. Mary's Anointing of Jesus - 12:1-11

b. Jesus' Triumphal Entry - 12:12-19

c. Gentiles Prompt Jesus' Announcement of His Hour - 12:20-36

d. The Tragedy of Unbelief, Past and Present - 12:37-43

e. The Call to Faith Still Stands - 12:44-50

II. JESUS' MANIFESTATION OF HIMSELF IN HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION - 13:1-21:25

A. Jesus' Manifestation of Himself to His Disciples in His Farewell Discourses - 13:1-17:26

1. At the Last Supper - 13:1-38

a. Jesus' Washing of His Disciples' Feet - 13:1-17

b. Jesus' Prediction of Judas' Betrayal - 13:18-30

c. Jesus' Prediction of Peter's Denial; The New Commandment (13:34) - 13:31-38

2. Promises of Jesus - 14:1-31

a. Promises of an Abode where Jesus Is Going - 14:1-4

b. Jesus the Way to the Father - 14:5-12

c. Doing Greater Works than Jesus; Asking in Jesus' Name - 14:13-14

d. Jesus' Departure and the Spirit's Coming - 14:15-31

3. More Commands and Promises of Jesus - 15:1-27

a. Jesus, the Vine; the Disciples, the Branches; The New Commandment Given (15:13) - 15:1-17

b. Hatred from the World - 15:18-25

c. The Spirit's Mission Like That of the Disciples: to Bear Witness to Jesus - 15:26-27

4. Still More Promises and Commands - 16:1-33

a. The Works of Disbelief - 16:1-4

b. The Works of the Spirit - 16:5-15

c. Joy Greater than Trouble - 16:16-33

5. Jesus' Prayer - 17:1-26

a. For His Glorification - 17:1-5

b. For His Disciples - 17:6-19

c. For Those Who Will Believe - 17:20-26

(1) For Unity - 17:20-23

(2) For Seeing Jesus' Glory - 17:24-26

B. Jesus' Trial and Crucifixion - 18:1-19:42

1. Jesus' Arrest - 18:1-11

2. Jesus' Trial before Annas - 18:12-14

3. Peter's First Denial of Jesus - 18:15-18

4. Jesus Interrogated before Annas - 18:19-24

5. Peter's Second and Third Denials of Jesus - 18:25-27

6. Jesus' Trial before Pilate - 18:28-19:16

a. Pilate Doubtful of the Prosecution - 18:28-32

b. Pilate Examines Jesus - 18:33-38a

c. Barabbas - 18:38b-40

d. The Flogging of Jesus and Delivering Over of Him to the Jews by Pilate - 19:1-16

7. The Crucifixion of Jesus - 19:17-30

8. Piercing Jesus' Side - 19:31-37

9. Jesus' Burial - 19:38-42

C. The Resurrection of Jesus - 20:1-21:25

1. Peter and John at the Empty Tomb - 20:1-9

2. Jesus' Appearance to Mary - 20:10-18

3. Jesus' Appearance to the Disciples with Thomas Absent - 20:19-23

4. Jesus' Appearance to his Disciples with Thomas Present - 20:24-29

5. The Purpose of this Gospel - 20:30-31

6. Jesus' Appearance to Seven Disciples and the Great Haul of Fish - 21:1-14

7. Jesus' Admonition to Peter about Peter - 21:15-19

8. Jesus' Admonition to Peter about John - 21:20-23

9. Testimony to the Truthfulness of the Contents of the Fourth Gospel - 21:24

10. The Selective Nature of the Contents of the Fourth Gospel - 21:25

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: John (Book Introduction)

NOTICE TO THE READER.

Gospel of John Intro

——o——

AS it has been found impossible to compress the Translation of the Commentary upon S. John's Gospel into one volume, it is now given in two, of which this is the first. The second volume comprises the remainder of the Gospel, and the Commentary of À Lapide upon S. John's Epistles.

It is with great pleasure I present this portion of this great Commentary to the English reader. Admirable as Cornelius à Lapide almost invariably is in his exposition of Holy Scripture, on the Gospel of S. John he seems to me to surpass himself. Beginning from the Incarnation of the Divine Word, nothing can be more masterly, nothing more magnificent, than the way in which he shows that the whole sacramental system of the Catholic Church of Christ is the necessary consequence and complement, as well as the extension of the Incarnation, Divinely planned and ordained for the eternal salvation of the whole human race. Granted the truth of the Incarnation as an objective fact, dealing with realities both in the spiritual and immaterial universe, and also in the material and physical universe, in this world of time and sense, as we call it, I do not see how it is possible to dispute our author's conclusions, taken as a whole.

The translation of Vol. 1. is by myself as far as the end of the 6th chapter. From the 27th verse of 6th chapter to the end, I have translated practically without any abridgment or omission, and also with greater literalness than I sometimes do, on account of the surpassing importance of the doctrine treated of, and the controversies resulting from it. Chapters vii.-x. are by the Rev. James Bliss, Rector of Manningford Bruce. For the last chapter, the 11th, I am indebted to the Rev. S. J. Eales, M.A., D.C.L., lately Principal of S. Boniface's College, Warminster, and now Principal of the Grove College, Addlestone, Surrey.

In Volume II. the Translation of chap. xiii. is by a young scholar, Mr. Macpherson. The remainder of the Gospel is by my most kind friend, Mr. Bliss, and myself.

Of S. John's Epistles, the first three chapters of the First Epistle are by Mr. Bliss, the remaining two chapters, and the Second and Third Epistles, are by myself.

T. W. Mossman.

THE PREFACE

TO

S. JOHN'S GOSPEL

——o——

S. JOHN the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and Salome, wrote this Gospel in Asia in the Greek language, towards the end of his life, after his return from Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse.

His reasons for writing were two. The first was that he might confute the heretics Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied Christ's Divinity, and taught that He was a mere man. The second was to supply the omissions of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Hence S. John records at length what Christ did during the first year of His ministry, which the other three had for the most part passed over.

Listen to S. Jerome in his preface to S. Matthew. "Last was John, the Apostle and Evangelist, whom Jesus loved the best, who lay on the Lord's bosom, and drank of the purest streams of His doctrines. When he was in Asia, at a time when the seeds of the heresies of Cerinthus, Ebion and the rest, who denied that Christ had come in the flesh, those whom in his Epistle he calls Antichrists, and whom the Apostle Paul frequently refutes, he was constrained by well nigh all the bishops who were at that time in Asia, and by the deputies of many other Churches, to write of the deep things of the Divinity of our Saviour, and to 'break through,'^* as it were, to the Word of God by a kind of happy temerity. Whence also we are told in ecclesiastical history that when he was urged by the brethren to write, he agreed to do so, on condition that they should all fast, and pray to God in common. When the fast was ended, being filled with the power of revelation, he burst forth with the preface coming straight from above, In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. "

Others add that S. John's beginning to write was preceded by lightnings and thunderings, as though he had been another Moses, who thus received the Law of God (Exod. xix.)

Baronius shows that S. John wrote his Gospel in the year of Christ 99, or sixty-six years after the Ascension. This was the first year of the reign of Nerva, and the twenty-seventh after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

As then Isaiah surpassed all the rest of the Prophets in sublimity, so did John the other Evangelists. Last in time, he is first in dignity and perfection. Thus in the first chapter of Ezekiel he is compared to an eagle flying above all other birds. Thus his dignity and special excellence, as well as his consequent obscurity, may be considered under three heads.

First, his matter and scope.  S. John alone of set purpose treats of the Divinity of Christ, of the origin, eternity, and generation of the Word, of the spiration of the Holy Spirit, of the unity of the Godhead, and of the Divine relations and attributes. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are concerned with the actions of Christ's humanity. This is why the Fathers derive almost all their arguments against the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians and such like heretics from S. John.

The second is the order of time. We know that the Church, like the dawning of the day, advanced by the succession of time to the perfect day of the knowledge of the mysteries of the faith. Thus the sacred writers of the New Testament, the Apostles and Evangelists, write far more clearly concerning them than do Moses and the Prophets of the Old Testament. John was the last of all, and his Gospel was his last work. He composed it therefore as a sort of crown of all the sacred books.

The third is the author.  S. John alone was counted worthy to win the laurels of all saints. For he is in very deed a theologian, or rather the prince of theologians. The same is an apostle, a prophet and an evangelist. The same is a priest, a bishop, a high priest, a virgin, and a martyr. That S. John always remained a virgin is asserted by all the ancient writers, expressly by Tertullian ( Lib. de monogam .) and S. Jerome ( Lib. 1 contra. Jovin .). To him therefore as a virgin Christ from His cross commended His Virgin Mother. For "blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God," as the Truth Itself declares.

The Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, made known to this His most chaste and beloved friend, who reclined upon His breast, the hidden things and sacraments of the Divinity, which had been kept-secret from the foundation of the world. John hath declared the same to us, as a son of thunder, thundering and lightening the whole world with the Deity of the Word. As with a flaming thunderbolt "he hath given shine to the world;" and with the fire of love he hath inflamed it. Let that speech of Christ, His longest and His last, bear witness, which He made after supper (S. John xiii. &c.), which breathes of nothing but the ardour of Divine love.

See more to the same effect in S. Cyril, S. Augustine, and S. Chrysostom ( Præm. in Joan .). Indeed, S. Chrysostom dares to say that S. John in his Gospel hath taught the angels the secrets of the Incarnate Word, such as before they knew not, and that therefore he is the Doctor of the cherubim and the seraphim. He proves this from the passage of S. Paul in Ephesians iii., "that there might be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places by the Church the multiform wisdom of God." "If," he says, "the principalities and powers, the cherubim and seraphim, have learned these things through the Church, it is very evident that the angels listen to him with the deepest attention. Not slight therefore is the honour which we gain in that the angels are our fellow-disciples in the things that they knew not.

CANONS THROWING LIGHT

upon the

INTERPRETATION OF S. JOHN'S GOSPEL.

——o——

JOHN has a style peculiar to himself, entirely different from that of the other Evangelists and sacred writers. For as an eagle at one time he raises himself above all, at another time he stoops down to the earth, as it were for his prey, that with the rusticity of his style he may capture the simple. At one time he is as wise as the cherubim, at another time he burns as do the seraphim. The reason is because John was most like Christ, and most dear to Him; and he in turn loved Christ supremely. Therefore at His Last Supper he reclined upon His breast. From this source, therefore, he sucked in, as it were, the mind, the wisdom, and the burning love of Christ. Wherefore, when thou readest and hearest John, think that thou readest and hearest Christ. For Christ hath transfused His own spirit and His own love into S. John.

2. Although John by the consent of all wrote his Gospel in Greek for Greeks, yet because he himself was a Hebrew, and from love of this primeval language, which was his native tongue, he abounds above the rest in Hebrew phrases and idioms. Hence to understand him we require a knowledge of two, or indeed of three languages—Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Thus he Hebraizes in his frequent use of and for like as ( sicut ) as Solomon does in Proverbs, where he compares like with like by means of the conjunction and .   And in such instances is a mark of similitude, and has the same meaning as like as ( sicut ). On the other hand, he Grecizes in his use of perchance ( forsitan ) for surely . In John viii. 19 the Greek particle άν expresses affirmation, not uncertainty. So also in viii. 43 ού δύνασθε, ye are not able, is put for ye are not willing. He likewise constantly duplicates the Hebrew Amen , when the other Evangelists only express it once. The reasons for this diversity are examined in chap. iii. 2.

3. John abounds more in the discourses and disputations of Christ with the Jews than in the things that were done by Him. Not that he relates all the discourses and disputations of Christ, but such as were of greater importance. Especially he gives a compendious account of those in which Christ proved that He was God as well as man.

4. In S. John Christ speaks sometimes as God, and sometimes as man. There is need therefore of a careful examination of contexts to distinguish one from the other.

5. When Christ says, as He often does in S. John, that He "does, or says nothing of Himself," or that "not He, but the Father, does, or says this, or that" there must be understood "originally" and "alone." As thus, "neither alone, nor as man perform I these things: nor yet as God am I the first originator of them; but it is God the Father, who together with His Divine essence communicates to Me omniscience and omnipotence, even the power of doing all things."

6. Although the Apostles and other saints wrought miracles, yet Christ in S. John's Gospel often proves that He is the Messiah and God by the miracles which were done by Him. This proof is a true and effectual one; first, because He Himself made direct use of it. For a miracle as the work of God, and the Voice of the prime Verity, is an infallible proof of that which it is brought forward to confirm. Second, because Christ wrought them by His own power and authority, which He could not have done unless He had been God of God. Thus then He did them that they might appear to proceed from Him as from God, the original source of miracles. For the saints do not work miracles by their own authority, but by the invocation of the name of God, or Christ. Let us add that the miracles which were done by Christ were foretold by Isaiah and the other prophets, that they might be indices and marks of the Messiah, as will appear in chap. xi. 4.

7. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record for the most part the acts of the last year, and the last but one of Christ's ministry, that is to say, what He did after the imprisonment of S. John the Baptist. But S. John's Gospel for the most part gives an account of the two preceding years. This consideration will solve many seeming discrepancies between S. John and the other Evangelists. So S. Augustine in his preface.

8. There is frequently in S. John both great force as well as obscurity in the adverbs and conjunctions of causation, influence, connection, and so on, in such a manner that a single particle will often include and point out the entire meaning of a passage. Hence these particles must be most carefully examined and weighed, as I shall show in each place.

9. The particles that , wherefore , on account of which , and the like do not always signify the cause, or the end intended, but often only a consequence or result. This is especially the case if an event has been certainly foreseen, and therefore could not happen otherwise. This is plain from chap. xii. 38, 39, where it said, They believed not on Him , that the saying of Isaias might be fulfilled : and shortly afterwards, Wherefore they could not believe , because Isaias said again , He hath blinded their eyes. For the reason why the Jews would not believe in Christ was not the prediction of Isaiah foretelling that they would not believe ( non credituros ), but the hardness of heart and malice of the Jews, which as a sort of objective cause preceded Isaiah's prophecy. For Isaiah foretold that the Jews were not about to believe, because in truth they themselves through their own malice and obstinacy were not going to do so. So S. Chryostom and others.

10. By the Jews S. John sometimes means the rulers only, sometimes the people only. Thus he represents the Jews at one time as opposing, at another time as favouring Christ. For the people were His friends, the rulers were His adversaries.

11. By a He braism the present tense often signifies not an action issuing in a result, but a force, or power of nature, or the act (in the sense of will or intention, Trans .) of the agent, even in cases where the effect is opposed by the subject, or in some other way. Thus in i. 9 it is said that Christ by His advent gave light to the world. That means, so far as He was concerned. For many, like the Jews, refused to receive this light, as he immediately adds, and continued in the darkness of their unbelief.

12. The particles as if , so as , and the like, because they correspond to the Hebrew caph , do not always signify likeness, but the truth of a fact, or assertion. Thus in i. 14, we have seen His glory , as of the Only Begotten , means, "we have seen the glory of the Only Begotten to be truly such, and so great as became Him who was indeed the Only Begotten Son of God the Father." So S. Chrysostom and others.

13. John, following the Hebrew idiom, sometimes takes words of inceptive action to signify the beginning of something that is done; but sometimes to signify continuation, that a work is in progress; and sometimes, that a work has been perfected and accomplished. Thus we must not be surprised, if sometimes that which increases, or is being perfected, is spoken of as if it were just commencing, and vice versa. An example of inceptive action is to be found in xvi. 6, where Peter, resisting Christ desiring to wash his feet, says, Lord , dost Thou wash my feet ? Dost Thou wash ? that is, "Dost Thou wish, prepare, begin to wash?" There is an example of continued action in ii. 11 , where, after the miracle of the conversion of water into wine, it is added, And His disciples believed in Him : that is, they went on believing, they increased, and were confirmed in faith. For they had already before this believed in Christ, for if they had not believed in Him, they would not have followed Him as His disciples. There is an example of a perfected action in xi 15, where Christ, when about, at the close of His life, to raise up Lazarus, said, I am glad for your sakes , that ye may believe. That is, " that by means of this My last and greatest miracle ye may be altogether made perfect in your belief in Me." Again, in xx. 17, Jesus appearing after His resurrection to Mary Magdalene, who had fallen at His feet, said, Touch Me not . That is, "Do not delay, and waste time in touching My feet, but go quickly, and tell the Apostles, who are very sorrowful because of My death, that I have risen again."

14. John, after the Hebrew idiom, asserts and confirms over again what he had already asserted, by a denial of the contrary. This is especially the case when the subject matter is of importance, and is doubted about by many, so that it requires strong confirmation. Thus in i. 20 , when John the Baptist is asked by the Jews if he were the Christ, he confessed , and denied not , but confessed , I am not the Christ. And in i. 3, All things were made by Him , and without Him was not anything made that was made.

15. John delights in calling Christ the Life , and the Light , for reasons which I will give hereafter. He has several other similar and peculiar expressions. For instance, he often uses the word judgment for condemnation which takes place in judgement. In other places he uses judgment for the secret judgments and decrees of God, because they are just. Sins he calls darkness. The saints he calls sons of light. That which is true and just he calls the truth. In vi. 27, for procure food , or labour for food he has ε̉ζγάεσθα βζω̃σιν. In the 9th chap., when Jesus is asked by the Jews, Who art Thou? He answers, The Beginning, who also am speaking unto you.

16. John relates that Christ said previously certain things, the when and the where of His saying which He had not previously mentioned. For studying brevity, he considered it sufficient to relate them once. Thus in the 11th chap. he says that Martha said to her sister Mary, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. Yet he had not previously related that Christ bade Martha to call Magdalene; for his mentioning that Martha, by Christ's command, called her sister was sufficient to show that Christ had so commanded. In the same chapter Christ saith to Martha, Said I not unto thee, that if thou wouldest believe, thou wouldest see the glory of God? Yet there is no previous account of Christ saying this. Also in vi. 36, Christ says, But I said unto you, that ye also have seen Me and believe not. Yet we nowhere recall that Christ previously so said.

17. The miracles of Christ which John alone records are as follows:- The conversion of water into wine, chap. ii. The first expulsion of the sellers from the Temple, in the same chapter. The healing of the sick child of the nobleman, iv. 47. The healing of the paralytic at the pool in the sheep-market, chap. v. Giving sight to the man born blind, chap. ix. Raising Lazarus from the dead, chap. xi. The falling of Judas and the servants to the earth, when they came to take Jesus, xviii. 6. The flow of blood and water from the side of Christ after He was dead, xix. 34. The multiplication of the fishes, xxi. 6.

COMMENTATORS

Very many persons have written commentaries upon the Gospel of S. John, and among them the principal Greek and Latin Fathers. Among the Greeks, after Origen, who composed thirty-two tomes, or books, upon this Gospel, were S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, who has written a learned and very excellent commentary. He has written a didactic work, and is especially able and skilful in expounding the literal sense.  S. Cyril's commentary on S. John's Gospel consisted originally of twelve books. But of these the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth have perished. Their loss has been supplied, by Clictovæus, a doctor of Paris, whose work has been mistaken by many learned men for the original of S. Cyril.

A second commentator is S. Chrysostom, who seems to have been imbued with the very spirit of S. John himself. He wrote eighty seven homilies on this Gospel.

A third is Theophylact, and a fourth Euthymius. They, as is usual with them, follow S. Chrysostom. Theophylact is the more diffuse of the two.

A fifth commentator is Nonnus Panopolitanus, an Egyptian, and a very eloquent writer, who, as Suidas says, explained the virgin theologian, that is, John the Evangelist, in heroic verses. Although the commentary of Nonnus can properly only be called a paraphrase, nevertheless in many places he points out and illustrates the meaning of the Evangelist in pithy sentences.

Among the Latins the first and chief commentator is S. Augustine, who has written systematically upon the whole Gospel in one hundred and twenty-four tractates.

The second is Venerable Bede, who follows S. Augustine passim, and often word for word.

A third commentary is what is called the Gloss. Where observe that the Gloss is tripartite. The first is the Interlinear Gloss, so called because written between the lines of the sacred text. For that reason it is brief, but pithy, and treats many things in the Gospel learnedly and usefully. The second is the Marginal Gloss, because written on the margin of the text. To this is subjoined the Gloss of Nicolas Lyra. This Nicolas was called Lyra from a village in Normandy. He was a Jew by birth, and was converted to Christianity. He entered the Franciscan Order, and taught scholastic theology, A.D. 1320. He was a learned man, and skilled in Hebrew. He wrote his Gloss upon S. John and the other sacred writers, expounding them literally, and became so celebrated that it has passed into a proverb—

"If Lyra's hand had erst not swept his lyre,

  Our theologians had not danced in choir."

However, we must keep this in mind, that he is too credulous with regard to Jewish fables and puerilities, giving too much heed to writers of his own nation, to the Rabbin, and especially to R. Salomon, who is a great retailer of fables.

In later ages, and especially in our own day, many commentaries have been written upon this Gospel. Pre-eminent among them are Maldonatus, of the Society of Jesus, who is copious, acute, elegant, and learned: Cornelius Jansen, who is exact, solid, and to be depended upon: Frank Toletus, who displays a sound judgment, especially in the application of metaphors and similitudes. Sebastian Barradi has written a good literal commentary, mingling with it moral reflections. He is useful to preachers in affording materials for sermons, and showing how to treat them. Frank Ribera is brief, but as usual excellent and learned. Frank Lucas is entirely literal, but he uses the letter to draw the reader to pious affections.

Among the heretics, Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Musculus, Bullinger, Brentius, Calvin, and Beza have written upon S. John's Gospel. Of all these authors Augustinus Marloratus has made a catena, which I read through and refuted when I was in Belgium.

^* (Cf. Exod. xix. 21, Trans.) Return to the place.