Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 8:1 - 8:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE “PERICOPE DE ADULTERA”
(7:53-8:11)
The section (πρκπ) of the Fourth Gospel which contains this incident is contained in many late manuscripts and versions, but it cannot be regarded as Johannine or as part of the Gospel text.
It is not found in any of the early Greek uncials, with the single exception of Codex Bezae (D), being omitted without comment in אΘ L and Δomit it, while leaving a blank space where it might be inserted, thus indicating that their scribes deliberately rejected it as part of the Johannine text. A and C are defective at this point, but neither could have contained the section, as the missing leaves would not have had room for it.
The section is omitted also in important cursives, e.g. 22, 33, 565 (in which minuscule there is a note that the scribe knew of its existence). The Ferrar cursives, i.e. fam. 13, do not give it in Jn., but place the section after Luk_21:38, where it would be, indeed, in better agreement with the context than before Joh_8:12. Cursives 1, 1582, and some American MSS. place the section at the end of the Fourth Gospel. Cursive 225 places it after Joh_7:36.
The Old Syriac vss. (whether in Tatian’s Diatessaron, Syr. sin., or Syr. cur.) betray no knowledge of the passage, nor is it contained in the best MSS. of the Peshitta. In like manner the Coptic vss. omit it, e.g. the fourth century Coptic Q (see p. xvi). Some of the O.L. MSS. are also without it, e.g. a f l* q.
Even more significant is the absence of any comment on the section by Greek commentators for a thousand years after Christ, including Origen, Chrysostom, and Nonnus (in his metrical paraphrase), who deal with the Gospel verse by verse. The earliest Greek writer (Euthymius Zygabenus or Zygadenus) who comments on it lived about 1118, and even he says that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.
Further, the evidence of vocabulary and style is conclusive against the Johannine authorship of the section. The notes which follow demonstrate this sufficiently. Nor in its traditional place does it harmonise with the context. It interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12f.; while 7:53 is not in harmony with what goes before, and has no connexion with 8:12f.
The early Greek evidence in favour of the mediæ view that the section is an authentic part of the Fourth Gospel reduces itself to the witness of Codex Bezae (D), a manuscript with many other Western interpolations. The section is found in the great mass of later uncials and cursives, whatever be the reason of this intrusion into the more ancient text. To be borne in mind, however, is the significant fact that in many of the later MSS. which contain it, the Pericope de adultera is marked with an obelus (e.g. S) or an asterisk (e.g. ΕΛ
The Latin evidence in its favour is considerable. The section appears in several O.L. texts, e.g. b e (sæ v.) and ff2 (sæ vii.), as well as in Jerome’s Vulgate. Jerome says expressly “in multis graecis et latinis codicibus inuenitur de adultera,” etc. (adv. Pelag. ii. 17). Augustine (de conj. adult. ii. 6) accounts for its omission from some texts, by hinting that the words of Jesus which it records might seem too lenient.
The section is found also in some late Syriac and Coptic texts, while omitted in the earlier and better versions.
These facts show that the authorities on the side of the Pericope are almost wholly Western, and do not become numerous in any language until after the acceptance by Jerome of the section as Johannine. Jerome seems to have followed here some Greek MSS. not now extant. This evidence is, however, wholly insufficient to justify the inclusion of the narrative in the Fourth Gospel. The ignoring of it by the early Greek MSS., vss., and commentators is thus left unexplained.
Nevertheless, the story of the adulteress seems to be an authentic fragment of early tradition as to the sayings and actions of Jesus. The story is mentioned (although not referred to the Fourth Gospel) in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24), a passage which goes back to the fourth century or perhaps even to the third. It must have been current as a tradition in the third century at any rate. Eusebius probably refers to it when he says of Papias that “he relates another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (Eus. H.E. iii. 39). Whether Papias got the story from the extra-canonical “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” or from some other source, is not certain. But that the Pericope de adultera is the story which Papias told has been accepted by many critics; and, accordingly, in Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers the passage [Jn.] 7:53-8:11 is printed as one of the surviving fragments of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis.
This is highly probable, but is not certain. All we can assert with confidence is that the passage is very like the Synoptic stories about Jesus; while its tenderness and gravity commend it as faithfully representing what Jesus said and did when a woman who had sinned unchastely was brought before Him.
No reason for the ready acceptance in the West of the story as evangelical, and of its incorporation in the Latin Gospels as early as the fourth century, can be assigned with certainty. It is perhaps significant that in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24), where we find the narrative for the first time, it is cited as a lesson to bishops who are inclined to be too severe to penitents. Now writers like Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian, who discuss at length the problems of discipline for adultery, never mention this case. Like the rest of the Church, East and West, in the second and third centuries, they held that punishment for fornication ought to be very severe, inasmuch as it seemed essential to mark the divergence of Christian ethics from heathen ethics on this point. But by the time we reach the fourth century, ecclesiastical discipline began to be relaxed and to be less austere; and a story which had been formerly thought dangerous because of its apparent leniency would naturally be appealed to by canonists and divines as indicating the tenderness with which our Lord Himself rebuked sins of the flesh. It was but a short step from quoting the story as edifying to treating it as suitable for reading in Church. It would thus get into lectionaries, and in the Greek Menology it is the lection for St. Pelagia’s day. From its insertion in Evangelistaria, it readily crept into Gospel texts, from which Jerome did not feel it practicable to expel it. Perhaps thus, or somewhat thus, its presence in the textus receptus of the Fourth Gospel is to be explained.
The text of the Pericope which is given here is that adopted by Hort. The various readings are more numerous than in any other part of the N.T., and a large number of explanatory glosses were added to the text in ancient times. Hort’s analysis of these can hardly be improved. We have to do here only with the later uncials, and these are cited by the customary letters (EGH, etc.) as explained by Gregory or Scrivener. We cite the cursive 1071 because of its remarkable agreement with D in this section. (See K. Lake, Texts from Mount Athos, p. 1481.)
7:53. ἐοεθσν So D, etc., with O.L. and vg.; the rec. has ἐοεθ with minor uncials and fam. 13.
πρύσα ες…occurs only at 7:35 in Jn., who prefers πρ πό (cf. 14:28, 16:28, 20:17); the constr. is common in the Synoptists.
8:1. τ ὄο τνἐαῶ is, again, a Synoptic term, not occurring again in Jn. When Jn. introduces a place-name for the first time he is apt to add a word of explanation (4:5, 11:1), but nothing of the kind is here.
Mention of the Mount of Olives would fall in with the story referring to the week before the Passion, when Jesus lodged at Bethany; cf. Mar_11:11, Mar_11:19, Mar_11:13:3.
2. ὄθο is Lucan (Luk_24:1; cf. Act_5:21); Jn. does not use it, but has πω instead (18:28, 20:1, 21:4).
The frequent use of δ in this section to the exclusion of Jn.’s favourite ον(see on 1:22) marks the style as non-Johannine.
πργντ. D 1071 have πργντι The verb occurs in Jn. only once (3:22). ἦθνis read by fam. 13.
λό is found in Jn. only twice (11:50, 18:14); he prefers ὄλς which some MSS. give here.
The clause κὶπςὁλὸ …ἐίακνατύ is omitted by fam. 13; while D om. κὶκθσςἐίακνατύ.
For κθσς as describing the attitude of Jesus when teaching, see on 6:3 (cf. Mar_13:3). Jn. generally specifies the nature of Jesus’ teaching in the Temple (cf. 7:28, 8:20), but at 7:14 he writes simply ἐίακνas here.
3. For ἄοσνδ, fam. 13 gives κὶποήεκνατ.
ο γαμτῖ. There is no mention of scribes in Jn. “Scribes and Pharisees” is a frequent Synoptic phrase for the opponents of Jesus, whom Jn. prefers to describe briefly as “the Jews” (see on 1:19).
The woman was not brought before Jesus for formal trial, but in order to get His expression of opinion on a point of the Mosaic law, which might afterwards be used against Him (see v. 6), of which other examples are given by the Snyoptists (cf. Mar_12:13, Mar_12:18).
Some minor uncials ins. πὸ ατνbefore γνῖα but om. D 1071 and fam. 13.
ἐὶμιεᾳis supported by the uncials MSUΓ and fam. 13; ἐ μιεᾳis read by EGHKΠ and is smoothed down in D 1071 to ἐὶἁατᾳ
κτιημνν κτλμάεν “to overtake,” occurs in Joh_1:5, Joh_12:35. Milligan gives from a fourth- or fifth-century papyrus an exact parallel to the present passage, where it is used of detection in sin, viz.: γνῖακτλμθῖα ὑὸτῦἠιηέο μτ μίο.
σήατςατνἐ μσ (ἐ τ μσ, fam. 13). Cf. Act_4:7 for the phrase descriptive of “setting” people in the midst of bystanders for the purpose of examining them.
4. After ατ, D adds ἐπιάοτςατν and EGHK 1071 πιάοτςonly. The phrase with ἐπιάενis Lucan; cf. Luk_10:25.
For δδσαε see on 1:38.
For κτίητι(D 1071), MSΛand fam. 13 have ελπα, while EGHKΓ give κτιήθ.
ἐʼατφρ, “in the act.” The phrase does not occur again in the Greek Bible, but is thoroughly classical. Cf. Philo, de spec. leg. iii. 10, μιεα δ τςμνατφρυ …ἀέηε ὁνμς Milligan illustrates from a second-century papyrus τὺ λμθνα ἐʼατφρ κκύγυ.
μιεενdoes not occur in Jn., but several times in the Synoptists.
5. ἐ δ τ νμ κλ In an ordinary case of adultery (e.g. Lev_20:10) the penalty was death for both parties, but the manner of execution is not specified, the Talmud prescribing death by strangulation. But in the exceptional and specially heinous case of a betrothed woman’s unchastity, death was to be by stoning (Deu_22:21). It was an unusual case like this that was put before Jesus.
These severe laws were rarely put in force, but nevertheless the dilemma was neatly framed. If He said that the guilty woman should be stoned, He would have been subject to the Roman law for inciting to murder; and although the Roman authorities were lax on occasion about such acts of violence (as in the case of Stephen, Act_7:58), there would have been a good pretext for handing Him over to them to deal with. If, however, He inclined to more merciful treatment, as was probably expected of Him, He would have been declared by His critics to be a blasphemous person who did not accept the enactments of the sacred law. Cf. Mar_12:14 for the dilemma about the tribute money; and Mar_10:2 for the question about divorce, which, however puzzling, would not involve difficulty with the Roman authorities.
Augustine, however, puts the dilemma in a simpler way: “Si ut iuberet occidi perderet mansuetudinis famam; si autem iuberet dimitti incurreret, tanquam reprehensor legis, calumniam” (Enarr. in Psa_1. §8). This may be right, but it does not recall the attempts to entrap Jesus recorded by the Synoptists.
For the first clause D has Μυῆ δ ἐ τ νμ ἐέεσν For λθζι (cf. 10:31), which is read by DMSU 1071 and fam. 13, the rec. has λθβλῖθι(the verb used Deu_22:21) with EGHKΠ
After λγι ins. πρ ατςMSUΛfam. 13 c ff.2
6. From τῦοδ to κτγ ατῦis om. by DM, the clause appearing in the rec. supported by SUL fam. 13 (in the form κτγρα κτ ατῦ Such laying of traps for Jesus is often mentioned in the Synoptists, e.g. Mar_8:11, Luk_11:16.
κτ is seldom used by Jn., but cf. κτγρα κτ followed by a genitive, at 18:29.
κτ κψςis read here, but κτκψςat v. 8, “having stooped down.” κτκπενoccurs again in the Greek Bible only at 4 Kings 9:32, in the sense of “peeping out”; see, for πρκπεν on 20:5. For κτκπεν “to stoop,” Milligan cites Aristeas ix. I.
κτγαε. So DEGHMS, but KUΓ fam. 13 have ἔρφν κτγάενdoes not occur again in N.T., but appears several times in LXX, often meaning “to register,” a sense also found in papyri. It indicates a record or register of something blameworthy in Job_13:26, Job_13:1 Esdr. 2:16, Ecclus. 48:10; and this meaning is accepted in some ancient comments, both here and at v. 8.
In a short recension of the story found in an Armenian MS. of the Gospels of A.D. 989, we have: “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.”1 And again, after εςτνγνin v. 8, U and some cursives add ἕο ἐάτυατντςἁατα, as if Jesus was writing down the names and sins of the several accusers. Jerome has the same tradition: “Jesus inclinans digito scribebat in terra, eorum, uidelicet qui accusabant et omnium peccata mortalium, secundum quod scriptum est in propheta Relinquentes autem te in terra scribentur” (adv. Pelagium ii. 17, citing Jer_17:13).
There is, however, no evidence that Jesus was writing anything by way of record. That He was able to write may be assumed, although in no other place in the N.T. is He said to have written anything. But it is probable that on this occasion He was only scribbling with His finger on the ground, a mechanical action which would suggest only an unwillingness to speak on the subject brought before Him, and preoccupation with His own thoughts.2
If, however, the meaning of register for κτγαε is to be pressed, the emphasis must be placed on εςτνγν “He began to register the accusation in the dust,” as if He would have no permanent record.
After γνthe rec. adds, with EGHK, the gloss μ ποπιύεο, “affecting that it was not so,” sc. “as though He heard them not.” This is a classical use of ποπιῖθιwith a neg. (cf. Thucyd. iii. 47); the verb occurs again in the N.T. only at Luk_24:28 (cf. 1Sa_21:13, ποεοήαο “feigned himself,” sc. to be mad).
7. ἐέεο ἐωῶτς “they went on asking,” as at Act_12:16 ἐέεε κοω. ἐιέενdoes not occur in Jn.
D om. ατν ἐωῶτςthen being used absolutely or intransitively, as in the (unusual) instance of Joh_17:9.
ἀέυε κί So D 1071. The rec., with EGHK, has ἀαύα (cf. v. 10), while fam. 13 give ἀαλψς In the N.T. ἀαύτι is found again only Luk_13:11, Luk_13:21:28, “to lift oneself up”; ἀαλπι is in all the Gospels.
επνατῖ. So DSUΓ1071 fam. 13. M om. ατῖ. EGHK have πὸ ατύ, the rec. reading.
ὁἀαάττςκλ “Let him that is faultless,” etc. This is the true Synoptic note. ἀαάττςdoes not indicate only innocence of overt sins of the flesh, but freedom from sinful desire cherished and indulged in. Cf. Mat_5:28. ἀαάττςdoes not occur again in N.T., but is found Deu_29:19, Deu_29:2 Macc. 8:14, 12:42.
For πῶο (D 1071), EGH give πῶο.
βλτ λθν So D and fam. 13. Other uncials read τνλθν to bring out the point that the casting of the first stone was the duty of the witnesses who certified to the crime (Deu_17:7). But the allusion is the same, even if τνis omitted. The question of Jesus asks, in fact, who is to be the executioner in this case? (cf. Augustine, Sermo xiii. §4).
8. κὶπλνκλ Jesus again indicates His unwillingness to discuss the matter with the Pharisees. He begins to scribble on the dust for the second time.
τ δκύῳis ins. here after κτκψςby D 28, 74, 1071 ff2; but om. fam. 13.
As at v. 6, fam. 13 support ἔρφνfor κτγαε (so D 28, 31).
9. The rec., following EGHKS, after ἀοσνε interpolates the explanatory gloss κὶὑὸτςσνιήεςἐεχμνι om. DMUΓ fam. 13, 1071 and the Lat. vss.
For the whole clause ο δ ἀ …κθ ες D gives only ἕατςδ τνἸυαω ἐήχτ, while fam. 13 have only ἐῆθνεςκθ ες
After πεβτρνthe rec. adds, with SUΛfam. 13, ἕςτνἐχτν while D 1071 add ὥτ πνα ἐεθῖ, but both additions are om. in EGHKMΓ etc. Westcott-Hort suggest that πνε ἀεώηα (cf. M 264) originally followed πεβτρνas an independent clause.
The glosses are unnecessary, although doubtless right in the explanations they offer. The elder men (πεβτρι a word not occurring in Jn.; cf. 3Jn_1:1) were naturally the first to leave, having taken the lead in trying to ensnare Jesus, and having been silenced by His suggestion that they must have felt the power of the temptation which had overcome the woman. If the scene is to be placed in the week following the Triumphal Entry, their acquiescence in the moral authority which Jesus exercised is more readily intelligible. They dared not press the moral issue before the admiring and awestruck people.
For εςκθ ες cf. Mar_14:19; it is not a Johannine phrase.
κὶκτλίθ μνς μνςis om. by fam. 13. Perhaps some disciples were present, and nothing is said of their going away, but the words may mean that Jesus and the woman were left quite alone (as the rec. text indicates), the onlookers feeling the painfulness of the scene. Augustine says: “Remansit magna miseria et magna misericordia” (Enarr. in Psa_1. §8). Yet the woman remained ἐ μσ, which suggests the presence of a little group; and, furthermore, the words that Jesus said to her were overheard and were preserved.
κτλίθ. The verb κτλίενis not used by Jn.
10. For ἀαύα (cf. v. 7), fam. 13 with Λhas ἀαλψς
After ὁἸς the rec., with EGHK, adds the gloss κὶμδν θαάεο πὴ τςγνιό, but om. DMS and fam. 13. πή is never used by Jn.
D 1071 have επντ γνιί but MSUΓfam. 13 have επν Γνί The rec., with cursive support, has επνατ, Ἡγν, the nom. with the article being used for the vocative, a Hebraic use that occurs Mar_14:36, Mat_11:26, Luk_10:21, but not in Jn. (see on 17:21).
πῦεσν The rec. adds ἐενιο κτγρίσυ and fam. 13 has the gloss, omitting ἐενι but om. DMΓ 1071.
οδί σ κτκιε; The compound κτκίενis not Johannine.
In this verse, Jesus is represented as waiting for a little before He spoke. “Has no one proceeded to condemn you?” is His question at last.
11. Οδί, κρε “No one, sir.” That is all the woman says from beginning to end. Indeed, she has no excuse for her conduct.
Οδ ἐώσ κτκίω The verbal similarity of these words to ἐὼο κίωof 8:15 (where see note) may have suggested the position which the interpolated section occupies in the rec. text, viz. at the beginning of c. 8. But κτκίενconveys condemnation in a degree which the simple verb κίενdoes not connote. Jesus does not say here that He does not pass judgment, even in His own mind, upon the woman’s conduct, but that He does not condemn her judicially or undertake the duty of a judge who had to administer or interpret the Mosaic law (cf. Luk_12:14). Still less does His reply convey forgiveness; the woman who was forgiven in Luk_7:48 was a penitent, but there is no hint of penitence in this case.
Probably, the apparent leniency of the words οδ ἐώσ κτκίω(which could readily be misunderstood) led to their omission in the tenth-century Armenian MS. quoted above on v. 6, and also in a Syriac paraphrase given by Dionysius Barsalibi.1 The Armenian codex ends, “Go in peace, and present the offering for sins, as in their law is written,” while the Syriac paraphrase has only, “Go thou also now and do this sin no more.”
The warning μκτ ἁάτν is found also at 5:14, where (as here) the person addressed has not confessed any sin. The woman had still time to repent.
ἀὸτῦννis om. by fam. 13, but ins. DMSUΓ1071. The phrase is Lucan (Luk_1:48, Luk_5:10, Luk_12:52, Luk_22:69) but not Johannine.
Jesus Declares Himself the Light of the World (8:12-20.)
8:12. πλνονατῖ ἐάηε ὁἸσῦ.1 The introductory πλνdoes not fix the context of the discourse which follows, for it is merely resumptive or indicative of the beginning of a new section, as at v. 21 (see on 1:35). Verses 12-20 have points of contact with c. 7 (cf. 7:28 and 8:14), and it is possible (although not certain; see on 7:45) that they should be taken in continuation of the sayings 7:28-38. If vv. 12-20 follow directly on 7:52, as we take them, we must suppose the words of 8:12 to be addressed to the Pharisees, who proceed (8:13) to find fault with them. This, indeed, is implied in ατῖ. Nevertheless, the proclamation “I am the Light of the World” recalls such sayings as 7:37, 38, which were addressed to all and sundry.
ἐάηε λγν λγνintroducing the words spoken; see on 3:11, and cf. Mat_14:27.
ἐώεμ τ φςτῦκσο. This is one of the great “I am’s” of the Fourth Gospel, for which see Introd., p. cxviii.
Just as the word of Jesus about the Living Water (7:37, 38) may have been suggested by the water ceremonial at the Feast of Tabernacles, so it has been thought that the claim “I am the Light of the World” may also have a reference to the festal ceremonies. On the first night of the feast, there was a ceremony of lighting the four golden candlesticks in the Court of the Women (see v. 20), and there is some evidence for the continuance of the ceremony on other nights. This may have provided the occasion for the words of Jesus about light and darkness. But Philo’s account of the Feast of Tabernacles would furnish an equally plausible explanation. He says that this feast is held at the autumnal equinox, in order that the world (κσο) may be full, not only by day but also by night, of the all-beautiful light (τῦπγάο φτς as at that season there is no twilight (de septen. 24). We have in this passage a close parallel to τ φςτῦκσο, but no stress ought to be laid upon such verbal coincidences. The passage of Philo shows, however, that the Feast of Tabernacles suggested the idea of light to some minds.2
The Hebrews had thought of God as giving them light, and as being their light. “The Lord is my Light” was the confession of a Psalmist (Psa_27:1); “the Lord shall be thy everlasting Light” was the promise of a prophet (Isa_60:19). The later Rabbis applied the thought to the Messiah: “Light is the Name of Messiah,” they said.1 The vision of Deutero-Isaiah was larger, for he proclaimed that the Servant of Yahweh would be a Light to the Gentiles (Isa_42:6, 49:6; cf. Luk_2:32). But the saying ἐώεμ τ φςτῦκσο goes far beyond this, for the κσο (see on 1:9) includes all created life.2 There is no Hebraic parallel to be found for such a thought,3 the expression of which here is thoroughly Johannine in form. See Introd., p. cxviii.
In the Prologue, the Word of God is spoken of as the Light. John the Baptist was not the Light, but he came to bear witness of the Light (1:8), which was τ φςτ ἀηιό, lighting every man (1:9). In the Person of Jesus, the Light came into the world (3:19), as Jesus Himself said, ἐὼφςεςτνκσο ἐήυα(12:46). And so here (8:12) and at 9:5, the majestic phrase ἐώεμ τ φςτῦκσο is put into the mouth of Jesus.
In the Sermon on the Mount, according to Mat_5:14, Jesus said to His hearers ὑεςἐτ τ φςτῦκσο. This is apparently to say more than Paul said to his converts when he called them φσῆε ἐ κσῳ(Php_2:15); and it is not certain that Mt.’s Greek rendering of our Lord’s words is accurate here.4 But if it is precise, the application of the words τ φςτῦκσο to faithful citizens of the kingdom of heaven must be wholly different from its application when Christ used it of Himself and said, “I am the Light of the World.” This is to make an exclusive claim, such as could be made by no other speaker, although others might claim to share in the assurance of Christ that His people are, as contrasted with non-Christians, the world’s light. Cf. 7:38 and the note thereupon.
ὁἀοοθνμιο μ πρπτσ ἐ τ σοί. To “follow” Jesus is to walk in the light. It is the first act of discipleship (1:37), and the last precept in the Gospel enjoins it as the essential thing (21:22). See 12:26. Jesus Himself is “the Way” (14:6).
The Hebrew verb הלך “to walk” is often used in the O.T. figuratively of conduct in general (e.g. 2Ki_20:3), and is sometimes, when used in this sense, rendered in the LXX by πρπτι (e.g. Pro_8:20, Ecc_11:9). This use of πρπτι is found only once in the Synoptists (Mar_7:5; cf. Act_21:21), but occurs over 30 times in Paul, and frequently in Jn. (see 12:35, 1Jn_1:6, 1Jn_1:7, 1Jn_1:2:6, 11; cf. 2Jn_1:6, 3Jn_1:3, 3Jn_1:4). It is, in fact, a Hebraism.
The contrast between the Two Ways, of Darkness and of Light, is not peculiar to Jn. (cf. Barnabas, §18), but it is a favourite topic in his Gospel (see, for “walking” in light or in darkness, 11:9, 12:35, 1Jn_1:6, 1Jn_1:7). Job (29:3) speaks of the days when God watched over him: “and by His light I walked through darkness” (cf. Mic_7:8). This is part of the thought in “he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life”; but it is less explicit. The Light of God is the Light of Life (τ φςτςζῆ).
The Odes of Solomon several times express the idea of the believer walking in the Light of Christ, e.g. “He set over [His way] the footprints of His light, and I walked therein” (7:17; cf. 29:7, 32:1).
The phrase τ φςτςζῆ may mean the Light which imparts life or illuminates life; or it may mean the Light which issues from Life. We have seen that in 6:35 the primary meaning of “I am the Bread of Life” is understood by the evangelist to be “the Bread which gives life” (6:33), but the deeper meaning of “the Living Bread” is not excluded (6:51). So here we must allow for a double suggestiveness in the phrase τ φςτςζῆ. When we apply such concepts as ζή φς to God or to Christ, we cannot treat them as if we knew them to be fundamentally distinct. They are qualities or aspects of Absolute Being, and it is beyond our powers to define them adequately or explain their mutual relation. In the Fourth Gospel, Christ is the Light: He is also the Life (11:25, 14:6). Perhaps Light is Life, in its essence; perhaps Life, truly understood, is Light. See on 1:4, and Introd., p. cxl.
13. επνονατ ο φρσῖι For the “Pharisees,” see on 7:32, and cf. 1:24. Their objection was that the testimony of Jesus to His own claims was not admissible, according to the rules of evidence which governed the controversies of the Rabbis (see on 5:31). Self-witness was always suspect, and might be disregarded as being untrue.
14. The answer of Jesus κνἐὼμρυῶπρ ἐατῦ ἀηή ἐτνἥμρυί μυis in formal contradiction with His former admission ἐνἐὼμρυῶπρ ἐατῦ ἡμρυί μυοκἔτνἀηή (5:31, where see note); but there is no real contradiction, for here he takes higher ground, so to speak, than on that occasion, and claims that the Divine origin and dignity of which He is conscious justify Him in bearing witness to Himself. This is the very badge of Deity (see v. 18), although it is true that no individual man could claim it (as He had said, 5:31). He alone could be called ὁἀή, ὁμρυ ὁπσὸ κὶἀηιό (Rev_3:14).
ὅιοδ πθνἦθν “because I know (with complete knowledge) whence I came,” sc. at the Incarnation (cf. 1:1, 13:3, 16:28).
κὶπῦὑάω “and whither I go”; see on 7:33 for ὑάενused of “going to the Father.”
The words which follow, ὑες…ὑάω do not appear to have been present in the texts known to Origen, but the omission is readily explicable by homoioteleuton, ὑάω…ὑάω
ὑεςδ (אom. δ) οκοδτ πθνἔχμι That is, they did not know of His heavenly origin, although (like the Jewish interlocutors of 7:28) they may have known that He was of the family at Nazareth.
ἢπῦὑάω See on 7:33.
BDNT support ἤ the rec., with אΘ has κί
15. The Pharisees had complained that the self-witness of Jesus was unsupported and therefore untrustworthy (v. 13). In v. 14 Jesus has answered that their objection, however sound if applied to a mere man, fails in His case: they do not know His origin or His home. He now adds that their judgment is superficial because of this ignorance of His true being.
ὑεςκτ τνσρακίεε “you judge superficially”; cf. for κτ τνσρα 1Co_1:26, 2Co_5:16. The Pharisees had done just what He had previously warned them not to do, when He said μ κίεεκτ ὄι (7:24).
ἐὼο κίωοδν. The ultimate purpose of His coming into the world was to save it, not to judge it (3:17); and if an individual man would not obey His word, Jesus did not judge him then: the spoken word would judge him at the Last Day (12:48). At that Great Assize, the Son of Man will be the Judge (see on 3:17, 5:22, and Introd., p. clviii). But the saying ἐὼο κίωοδν refers to the action of Jesus during His public mission on earth, and not to the future judgment of the world. There is a sense in which He did judge, or discriminate between one man and another, during His earthly ministry (see vv. 16, 26); but ἐὼο κίωοδν expresses not only that this was not the purpose of His mission (see 3:17), but that it was not His habit. It was a charge made against Him that He did not discriminate sufficiently, that He consorted with publicans and sinners (Mar_2:16, Luk_15:2), that He did not repel the sinful woman at the Pharisee’s house (Luk_7:39). Even in the case of the adulteress whose guilt was proved, when judgment must have been condemnation, He said οδ ἐώσ κτκίω[8:11]. His example was consonant to His own precept μ κίεε(Mat_7:1).
This saying of Christ ἐὼο κίωοδν is found only in Jn., but its genuineness becomes the more apparent the more closely it is examined. It is a paradox, for it is seemingly contradicted in the next verse, but it is one of those terse, pregnant paradoxes of which the Synoptists have preserved many examples.1
16. For ἀηιή(BDLTW 33) the rec. has ἀηή (אΓΘ For ἀηιό, see on 1:9.
ἐνκίωδ κλ “but if I judge, my judgment is sound,” i.e. not merely true, but soundly based and complete. Cf. ἡκίι ἡἐὴδκί ἐτν(5:30, where see note).
The judgment of Christ is not that of a single individual, for μνςοκεμ, ἀλ ἐὼκὶὁπμα μ. Cf. vv. 26, 29, for the same thought, and again 16:32 οκεμ μνς ὅιὁπτρμτ ἐο ἐτν The consciousness of this perpetual association with the Father is explicitly claimed by the Christ of Jn.; but it is implied, too, in the bitterness of the cry “Why hast Thou forsaken me,” which is recorded only by Mk. and Mt. Herein was the anguish of the Cross, as they picture it.
The general principle to which the Pharisees appealed, sc. that judgment, like testimony, must not depend on one individual, is well illustrated in a Jewish saying (Pirke Aboth, iv. 12, quoted by Westcott), “Judge not alone, for none may judge alone save One.”
For the conception of Jesus as “sent” by the Father, see on 3:17, 4:34. After ὁπμα μ אΘ add πτρ but πτρis omitted by א and it probably comes from v. 18.
17. γγατι Jn. generally has γγαμννἐτνwhere the Synoptists would have γγατι(see on 2:17). But γγαμννἐτνhere is attested by אonly; all other authorities give γγατι which must therefore be regarded as the true reading. Abbott (Diat. 2588a) suggests that γγατιὅιis used here to introduce a quotation not given exactly.
ἐ τ νμ κλ This is a free reference to the maxim of evidence in Deu_19:15 (cf. Num_35:30, Deu_17:6; and see 2Co_13:1, 1Ti_5:19). For another reference by Jesus to this legal maxim, cf. Mat_18:16.
The phrase “your law” challenges scrutiny. Jesus accepted the “law,” i.e. the Old Testament scriptures, very explicitly (see Introd., pp. cxlvii, clv); and it is unlike the way in which He was accustomed to speak of it, that he should say “your law, ” thus dissociating Himself, as it were, from any recognition of its authority. He is represented in 10:34 as again using this expression, and in 15:25 as speaking to His disciples of Scripture as “their law,” i.e. the law of the Jews. It is true that in 8:17 and 10:34 the phrase appears in controversy with the Jews, and it might be thought that it supplied an argumentum ad hominem. Those who disputed with Jesus were shown to be in the wrong, on their own principles. But in the equally argumentative passage 7:19, 23, He speaks of “the law” and “the law of Moses”; and no such explanation can be given of the phrase “their law” in 15:25, which would definitely dissociate Him from the people of Israel, by suggesting that their Scriptures were not His Scriptures. In every place where ὁνμςis mentioned by Him in the Synoptists, whether it refers to the law which He came “not to destroy, but to fulfil,” or in a wider sense to the O.T. books, He always says “the Law” (cf. Mat_5:17, Mat_5:18, Mat_5:7:12, Mat_5:11:13, Mat_5:12:5, Mat_5:22:40, Mat_5:23:23, Luk_2:22, Luk_2:24, Luk_2:27, Luk_2:39, Luk_2:10:26, Luk_2:16:16; the word νμςdoes not occur in Mk.).
It is difficult to think that in these Johannine texts (8:17, 10:34, 15:25) the words of Jesus have been exactly reproduced.1
18. The use of ἐώεμ in solemn affirmation has been discussed in Introd., p. cxviii; and the present passage provides an instructive example of this usage.
ἐώεμ ὁμρυῶ πρ ἐατῦ This is the style of Deity. As the Pharisees had urged, a man’s witness about himself is not trustworthy (v. 13); but Jesus replies to this by expressing Himself in terms which suggest His Divinity. This, however, is not said explicitly; and the point of His answer which the Pharisees understand is that He says that there is a second Witness, sc. His Father who sent Him (cf. 5:32). There is a prophetic passage, Isa_43:10, which has close verbal relations with this and v. 28: γνσέμιμρυε, κὶἐὼμρυ, λγικρο ὁθό, κὶὁπῖ μυὃ ἐεεάη, ἵαγῶεκὶπσεστ, κὶσντ ὅιἐώεμ. The thought in Isa_43:10, however, is of witness being borne to Yahweh (1) by the people, (2) by His Servant, and, according to the LXX interpolation, (3) by Himself.
For the witness of the Father to the Son, see on 5:37.
19. πῦἐτνὁπτρσυ This is the rejoinder of the Jewish objectors. They understand that by ὁπτρ(v. 16) Jesus means God the Father, and they do not ask “Who is He?” But they say “Where is He?” This second Witness, of whom Jesus had spoken, is not visible, and therefore (according to the Rabbinical doctrine of evidence) no appeal can be made to Him.
The answer of Jesus is, in effect, that their ignorance is invincible. God cannot, of course, be perceived by the senses. He is appealing to the witness of One whom no man can see.
οτ ἐὲοδτ οτ τνπτρ μυ There is no inconsistency with 7:28 κμ οδτ, for there Jesus speaks only of the Jews’ knowledge of Him as man, and of the family at Nazareth; here He speaks of their ignorance of His true Personality, which is Divine (cf. v. 14). Being ignorant of this, and therefore of His relation to the Father, they betray ignorance also of the Father Himself. Cf. οκἐνκτ ατν(v. 55), and οκἔνσντνπτρ οδ ἐέ(16:3). See Mat_11:27, Luk_10:22.
ε ἐὲᾔετ, κὶτνπτρ μυἄ ᾔετ. This principle is repeated 14:7, ε ἐνκιέμ, κὶτνπτρ μυἄ ᾔετ (cf. 12:45 and 14:9), and it is deep rooted in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus came to reveal the Father, not only by His words but by His life.
Note that ε ἐὲᾔετ of this verse is replaced by ε ἐνκιέμ at 14:7, showing what precarious ground we are on when an attempt is made to distinguish οδ from γγώκ (see on 1:26).
20. τῦατ ῥμτ. Emphatic, and therefore placed at the beginning of the sentence.
ἐάηε ἐ τ γζφλκῳ The γζφλκο was the name for the treasure-chamber of the Temple (cf. Mar_12:41, Luk_21:1, and 2 Macc. 3:6, 4:42). It abutted on the Court of the Women, and against its walls were placed chests, trumpet-like in form, as receptacles for the offerings of the worshippers. It is not probable that Jesus was teaching within a treasure-chamber, and so it seems that ἐ should be taken as denoting proximity only, “near the treasury” (cf. ἐ δξᾷτῦθο, Rom_8:34). Hence ἐ τ γζφλκῳδδσω ἐ τ ἱρ means “teaching in the Temple precincts (see on 2:14) near the treasury chamber,” i.e. in the colonnade between it and the open court (cf. Mar_12:41). The hall where the Sanhedrim met was hard by, and probably within earshot of the place where Jesus was teaching.
κὶοδὶ ἐίσνατνκλ “and yet” (κίbeing used for κίο, as often in Jn.; see on 1:10) “no man took Him, because His hour was not yet come.” This is almost verbally repeated from 7:30, where see note. For οπ ἐηύε ἡὤαατῦ see also on 2:4.
Jesus Develops His Lofty Claims: Some of the Jews Who Hear Believe (vv. 21-30)
21. The occasion of the discourse which follows is not mentioned. It may be a continuation of what precedes (see on v. 26), and if so ονmay be causative, having reference to the fact that Jesus had not been arrested (v. 20; cf. 7:33). But perhaps ονis used as a mere conjunction (see on 1:22), and πλνonly marks (as in v. 12) the beginning of a new discourse. It is not possible to assign every discourse in Jn. to its original occasion; and one of the many rearrangements of the Gospel (that of F. W. Lewis) would place 8:21-59 after 7:52. Ver. 21 reproduces, though not verbally, the warning of 7:33, 34, and its last clause is addressed in identical terms to the disciples at 13:33 (where see note). But πλνis not to be taken as an allusion to the repetition of 7:34; as has been said, it may only mark the opening of a new discourse or paragraph (v. 12, 10:7; and see on 1:35).
επνονπλνατῖ. NΓΘadd ὁἸσῦ (from 7:33), but om. א
ἐὼὑάω For this verb and its usage in Jn., see on 7:33. “I go away,” sc. to God.
κὶζτστ μ. As in 7:34, this is the search of despair; they will seek Jesus as their Messiah, when it is too late. κὶοκερστ μ is added by a few manuscripts from 7:34, where it is part of the text; but it is implied in any case.
κὶἐ τ ἁατᾳὑῶ ἀοαεσε “and ye shall die in your sin,” an O.T. phrase (cf. Eze_3:18, Eze_18:18, and especially Pro_24:9 ἀονσε δ ἄρνἐ ἁατας of which LXX rendering the phrase in the text may be a reminiscence). It is repeated v. 24, where see note. Those who too late seek Jesus as the Messiah, shall die in a state of sin, unredeemed by Him.
ὅο ἐὼὑάωὑεςο δνσεἐθῖ, “whither I go ye cannot come”: this is repeated verbally at 13:33, where it is addressed to the disciples. Cf. 7:34, where the same thing (in substance) was said to the Jews, and see the note there.
22. ἔεο ονο Ἰυαο, sc. the Jewish objectors.
μτ ἀοτνῖἑυό κλ “Is He going to kill Himself, that He says, ‘Whither I am going you cannot come’?” This is a quite different rejoinder from that of 7:35, made in reply to the same warning, the occasion and the interlocutors both being different. It has often been suggested that the rejoinder carries a scornful allusion to the belief that the depths of hell were reserved for suicides (cf. Josephus, B.J. III. viii. 5, ᾅη σοιτρς but this is not certain. In any case, th