Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 8:41 - 8:41
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_8:41. You do what your father is in the habit of doing,—result of Joh_8:39-40, though still without specifying who this father is. “Paulatim procedit castigatio” (Grotius).
As the Jews are not to look upon Abraham as their father, they imagine that some other human father must be meant. In this case, however, they would be bastards, born of fornication (the fornication of Sarah with another man); and they would have two fathers, an actual one (from whom they descend ἐκ πορνείας ) and a putative one (Abraham). But inasmuch as their descent is not an adulterous one,[25] and notwithstanding that Abraham is not to be regarded as their father, there remains in opposition to the assertion of Jesus, so they think, only God as the one Father; to Him, therefore, they assign this position: “We be not born of fornication,” as thou seemest to assume, in that thou refusest to allow that Abraham is our father; one father only (not two, as is the case with such as are born of adultery) have we, and that God, if our descent from Abraham is not to be taken into consideration. For God was not merely the creator (Mal_2:10) and theocratic Father of the people (Isa_63:16; Isa_64:8); but His Fatherhood was further and specially grounded in the power of His promise made at the conception of Isaac (Rom_4:19; Gal_4:23). The supposition that they implicitly drew a contrast between themselves and Ishmael (Euth. Zigabenus, who thinks that there is an allusion to the birth of Jesus, Ruperti, Wetstein, Tittmann) is erroneous, inasmuch as Ishmael was not born ἐκ πορνείας . We must reject also the common explanation of the passage as a denial of the charge of idolatry (Hos_1:2; Hos_2:4; Eze_20:30; Isa_57:3); “our filial relationship to God has not been polluted by idolatry” (De Wette; comp. Grotius, Lampe, Kuinoel, Lücke, Tholuck, Lange, Hengstenberg, Baeumlein, and several others). It is quite opposed to the context, however, for the starting-point is not the idea of a superhuman Father, nor are the Jews reproached at all with idolatry; but the charge is brought against them, that Abraham is not their father; hence also the supposition of an antithesis to a combined Jewish and heathen descent (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Godet), such as was the case with the Samaritans (Paulus), is inadmissible. Ewald also takes the same simple and correct view;[26] comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. Bengel, however, aptly characterizes the entire objection raised by the Jews as a “novus importunitatis Judaicae paroxysmus.”
ἡμεῖς ] spoken with the emphasis of pride.
[25] Ἐκ πορνείας implies one mother, but several fathers. Who is the one mother, follows from the denial of the paternity of Abraham, consequently Sarah, the ancestress of the theocratic people. Hence the inadmissibility of Luthardt’s explanation based on the idea, “Israel is Jehovah’s spouse;” according to which the thought of the Jews would have been: they were not sprung from a marriage covenant of Israel with another, so that Jehovah would thus be merely nominally their father, in reality, however, another; and they would thus have several fathers. Moreover, a marriage covenant between Israel and another would be a contradiction, this other must needs also be conceived as a true God, consequently as a strange God, a notion which Luthardt justly rejects. It is surprising how B. Crusius could adduce Deu_23:2 for the purpose of representing the Jews as affirming their theocratic equality of birth.
[26] Although characterized by Ebrard as absurd. He regards ἐκ πορνείας οὐ γεγ . as merely a “caricatured form” of the accusation that they are not Abraham’s children, and in this way, of course, gets rid of the need of explaining the words. He then takes ἕνα πατέρα ἔχομεν in the sense of we and thou have one common Father, which is incompatible with the word ἡμεῖς , which also belongs to ἔχομεν , and is, besides, altogether opposed to the context; for the entire dialogue is constituted by the antithesis of we and thou, I and ye. Ebrard’s view is an unfortunate evasion of a desperate kind.