Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 8:35 - 8:36
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_8:35-36. But what prospect is there before the slave of sin? Exclusion from the kingdom of the Messiah! This threat Jesus clothes in the general principle of civil life, that a slave has no permanent place in the house; he must allow himself to be sold, exchanged, or cast out. Comp. Gen_21:10; Gal_4:30. The application intended to be made of this general principle is this: “The servant of sin does not remain eternally in the theocracy, but is cast out of the midst of the people of God at the establishment of the kingdom of Messiah.” There is nothing to indicate that ὁ δοῦλος is intended to refer to Ishmael as a type of the bastard sons of Abraham, and ὁ υἱός to Isaac as a type of Christ (Ebrard); such a view rather is out of accord with this general expression in its present tense form, which simply marks an universally existing legal relation between the different positions of the slave and the Son of the house.
εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ] for ever, an expression to be understood in harmony with the relation which has been figuratively represented. After αἰῶνα a full stop should be inserted, with Lachmann and Kling, because ἐὰν οὗν , etc., is a consequence deduced simply from ὁ υἱὸς μ . εἰς τ . αἰ ., not from what precedes, and because ὁ υἱὸς , etc., begins a new section in the logical progress of the discourse. The course of thought, namely, is this: (1) Whoever commits sin is the bondsman of sin, and is excluded from the Messianic people of God. (2) Quite different from the lot of the bondsman, who must quit the house, is that of the Son (of the Master of the house); hence it is this latter who procures for you actual freedom.
ὁ υἱὸς μένει εἰς τ . αἰῶνα ] namely, ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ,—also a general proposition or principle, but with an intentional application of the general expression ὁ υἱός to Christ, who, as the Son of God, retains for ever His position and power in the house of God, i.e. in the theocracy;[22] comp. Heb_3:5-6. From this μένει εἰς τ . αἰῶνα it follows ( οὖν ) that if He frees from the state of a bondsman, a real and not merely an apparent freedom commences, seeing that, on account of the perpetual continuance of His domestic rights in the theocracy, the emancipation effected by Him must have a real and finally valid result. This would not necessarily be the case if He remained merely for a time in the house; for as both His right and ἐξουσία would then lack certainty and permanence, so the freedom He procured would also lack the guarantee of reality. This line of argumentation presupposes, moreover, that the Father does not Himself directly actin the theocracy; He has entrusted to the Son the power and control.
The reference of ὁ δοῦλος to Moses (Euth. Zigabenus, after Chrysostom) is foreign and opposed to the text, see Joh_8:34. Grotius, however, aptly remarks: “tribuitur hic filio quod modo veritati, quia eam profert filius.”
ὄντως ] in reality; every other freedom is mere appearance (comp. Joh_8:33), not corresponding to its true nature; no other is ἡ παντελὴς καὶ ἀπὸ πασῶν ἀρχῶν ἐλευθερία (Plat. Legg. iii. p. 698 A), which alone is that gained through Christ, 1Co_3:22; Rom_8:35-36; 2Co_6:4-5.
[22] If the man who is morally free be supposed to be the object of the intended application of ὁ υἱός —the man, namely, who “holds not merely an historical relation to God, but one that is essential, because ethically conditioned” (Luthardt, comp. De Wette)—we should have to take the second ὁ υἱός in the sensu eminenti (of Christ). The text, however, especially as ver. 36 is connected with ver. 35 by οἶν , offers no ground for this distinction. Hence, also, it is wrong to apply ὁ υἱός in ver. 35 to those who are liberated by Christ along with Christ (Hengstenberg). These first come under consideration in ver. 36.