rwp - John:8:12-30

rwp@John:8:12 @{Again therefore} (\palin oun\). This language fits in better with strkjv@7:52| than with strkjv@8:11|. Just suppose Jesus is in the temple on the following day. {Unto them} (\autois\). The Pharisees and crowds in the temple after the feast was past. {I am the light of the world} (\eg eimi to phs tou kosmou\). Jesus had called his followers "the light of the world" (Matthew:5:14|), but that was light reflected from him. Already Jesus (the Logos) had been called the true light of men (1:9; strkjv@3:19|). The Psalmist calls God his Light (27:1|). Songs:Isaiah:60:19|. At the feast of tabernacles in the Court of the Women where Jesus was on this day (8:20|) there were brilliant candelabra and there was the memory of the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. But with all this background this supreme and exclusive claim of Jesus (repeated in strkjv@9:5|) to being the light of the whole world (of Gentiles as well as of Jews) startled the Pharisees and challenged their opposition. {Shall have the light of life} (\hexei to phs ts zs\). The light which springs from and issues in life (Westcott). Cf. strkjv@6:33,51| about Jesus being the Bread of Life. In this sublime claim we come to a decisive place. It will not do to praise Jesus and deny his deity. Only as the Son of God can we justify and accept this language which otherwise is mere conceit and froth.

rwp@John:8:13 @{Of thyself} (\peri seautou\). This technical objection was according to the rules of evidence among the rabbis. "No man can give witness for himself" (_Mishnah, Ketub_. 11. 9). Hence, they say, "not true" (\ouk althes\), not pertinent. "They were still in the region of pedantic rules and external tests." In strkjv@John:5:31| Jesus acknowledged this technical need of further witness outside of his own claims (John:19-30|) and proceeded to give it (John:32-47|) in the testimony of the Baptist, of the Father, of his works, of the Scriptures, and of Moses in particular.

rwp@John:8:14 @{Even if} (\kan\). That is \kai ean\, a condition of the third class with the present active subjunctive \martur\. Jesus means that his own witness concerning himself is true (\althes\) even if it contravenes their technical rules of evidence. He can and does tell the truth all by himself concerning himself. {For I know whence I came and whither I go} (\hoti oida pothen lthon kai pou hupag\). In this terse sentence with two indirect questions Jesus alludes to his pre-existence with the Father before his Incarnation as in strkjv@17:5| and to the return to the Father after the death and resurrection as in strkjv@13:3; strkjv@14:2f|. He again puts both ideas together in one crisp clause in strkjv@16:28| for the apostles who profess to understand him then. But here these Pharisees are blind to the words of Jesus. "But ye know not whence I come nor whither I go" (\humeis de ouk oidate pothen erchomai pou hupag\). He had spoken of his heavenly destiny (7:33|). Jesus alone knew his personal consciousness of his coming from, fellowship with, and return to the Father. Stier (_Words of the Lord Jesus_) argues that one might as well say to the sun, if claiming to be the sun, that it was night, because it bore witness of itself. The answer is the shining of the sun.

rwp@John:8:15 @{After the flesh} (\kata tn sarka\). According to the standards of the flesh (2Corinthians:5:16|). The Baptist had said: "There stands one among you whom ye know not" (John:1:26|). The Light of the World had come, but they loved darkness rather than light (3:19|), because the god of this age had blinded their thoughts so that they could not see the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God (2Corinthians:4:4|).

rwp@John:8:16 @{Yea and if I judge} (\kai ean krin de eg\). "And even if I pass judgment." Condition of third class again. {True} (althin). See strkjv@1:9| for \althinos\, genuine, soundly based (cf. \dikaia\ in strkjv@5:30|), "satisfying our perfect conception" (Westcott), not merely true (\althes\) in the particular facts (verse 14|). {For I am not alone} (\hoti monos ouk eimi\). Jesus now takes up the technical criticism in verse 13| after justifying his right to speak concerning himself. {But I and the Father that sent me} (\all eg kai ho pempsas me patr\). See strkjv@16:32| for a like statement about the Father being with Christ. It is not certain that \patr\ is genuine here (omitted by Aleph D, but in B L W), but the Father is clearly meant as in strkjv@7:18,33|. Jesus gives the Father as the second witness.

rwp@John:8:17 @{Yea and in your law} (\kai en ti nomi de ti humeteri\). Same use of \kai--de\ as in verse 16|. They claimed possession of the law (7:49|) and so Jesus takes this turn in answer to the charge of single witness in verse 13|. He will use similar language (your law) in strkjv@10:34| in an _argumentum ad hominem_ as here in controversy with the Jews. In strkjv@15:24| to the apostles Jesus even says "in their law" in speaking of the hostile Jews plotting his death. He does not mean in either case to separate himself wholly from the Jews and the law, though in Matthew 5 he does show the superiority of his teaching to that of the law. For the Mosaic regulation about two witnesses see strkjv@Deuteronomy:17:6; strkjv@19:15|. This combined witness of two is not true just because they agree, unless true in fact separately. But if they disagree, the testimony falls to the ground. In this case the Father confirms the witness of the Son as Jesus had already shown (5:37|).

rwp@John:8:18 @{The Father} (\ho patr\). Clearly genuine here. Songs:these are the two witnesses that Jesus presents to the Pharisees in defence of his claim to be the Light of the World (verse 12|).

rwp@John:8:19 @{Where is thy Father?} (\pou estin ho patr sou;\). "The testimony of an unseen and unheard witness would not satisfy them" (Vincent). Bernard understands the Pharisees to see that Jesus claims God the Father as his second witness and so ask "where," not "who" he is. Augustine has it: _Patrem Christi carnaliter acceperunt_, Christ's human father, as if the Pharisees were "misled perhaps by the Lord's use of \anthrpon\ (verse 17|)" (Dods). Cyril even took it to be a coarse allusion to the birth of Jesus as a bastard according to the Talmud. Perhaps the Pharisees used the question with _double entendre_, even with all three ideas dancing in their hostile minds. {Ye would know my Father also} (\kai ton patera mou an ideite\). Conclusion of second-class condition determined as unfulfilled with \an\ and second perfect active of \oida\ used as imperfect in both condition and conclusion. See this same point made to Philip in strkjv@14:9|. In strkjv@14:7| Jesus will use \ginsk\ in the condition and \oida\ in the conclusion. The ignorance of the Pharisees about Jesus proves it and is due to their ignorance of the Father. See this point more fully stated in strkjv@5:36-38| when Jesus had his previous controversy in Jerusalem. In strkjv@7:28| Jesus said that they knew his home in Nazareth, but he denied then that they knew the Father who sent him. Jesus will again on this occasion (8:55|) deny their knowledge of the Father. Later he will deny their knowledge of the Father and of the Son (16:3|). The Pharisees are silenced for the moment.

rwp@John:8:20 @{In the treasury} (\en ti gazophulakii\). See already strkjv@Mark:12:41; strkjv@Luke:21:1| for this word for the treasure-chambers of the temple. "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" (Bernard). The Persian word _gaza_ (treasure) occurs only once in the N.T. (Acts:8:27|) and the compound (\phulak\, guard) only here in John. Jesus hardly taught within a treasure-chamber. It probably means "at the treasury in the temple." This court was probably the most public part of the temple (Vincent). {And} (\kai\)="and yet" as in strkjv@1:10|, etc. {Because his hour was not yet come} (\hoti oup elluthei h hra autou\). {Reason} (\hoti\) given why no one seized (\epiasen\, cf. strkjv@7:30|) him. \Elluthei\ is past perfect active of \erchomai\, "had not yet come." This very use of \hra\ appears in strkjv@2:4| and the very clause in strkjv@7:30| which see.

rwp@John:8:21 @{Again} (\palin\). Probably \palin\ (again) in verse 12| refers to a day after the feast is over since the last day is mentioned in strkjv@7:37|. Songs:then here again we probably move on to another day still beyond that in verse 12|. {And ye shall seek me} (\kai ztsete me\). As in strkjv@7:34|, "the search of despair" (Bernard), seeking for the Messiah when it is too late, the tragedy of Judaism today (1:11|). {And ye shall die in your sin} (\kai en ti hamartii humn apothaneisthe\). Future middle indicative of \apothnsk\ which is the emphatic word here (cf. strkjv@Ezekiel:3:18; strkjv@18:18; strkjv@Proverbs:24:9|). Note singular \hamartii\ (sin) here, but plural \hamartiais\ (sins) when the phrase is repeated in verse 24| (sin in its essence, sin in its acts). {Ye cannot come} (\humeis ou dunasthe elthein\). Precise language of strkjv@7:34| to the Jews and to the apostles in strkjv@13:33|.

rwp@John:8:22 @{Will he kill himself?} (\mti apoktenei heauton;\). Negative answer formally expected, but there is a manifest sneer in the query. "The mockery in these words is alike subtle and bitter" (Vincent). It was a different group of Jews in strkjv@7:31| who cynically suggested that he was going to work among the Greeks in the Dispersion. Here they infer that Jesus refers to the next world. They suggest the depths of Gehenna for him as the abode of suicides (Josephus, _War_ III. viii. 5). Of course the rabbis could not join Jesus there! Edersheim argues against this view.

rwp@John:8:23 @{Ye are from beneath} (\humeis ek tn kat\). This language, peculiar to John, could take up the idea in Josephus that these rabbis came from Gehenna whence they will go as children of the devil (8:44|), but the use of \ek tou kosmou toutou\ ("of this world" in origin) as parallel to what we have here seems to prove that the contrast between \kat\ and \an\ here is between the earthly (sensual) and the heavenly as in strkjv@James:3:15-17|. See also strkjv@Colossians:3:1|. This is the only use of \kat\ in John (except strkjv@8:6|). These proud rabbis had their origin in this world of darkness (1:9|) with all its limitations. {I am from above} (\eg ek tn an eimi\). The contrast is complete in origin and character, already stated in strkjv@3:31|, and calculated to intensify their anger.

rwp@John:8:24 @{For except ye believe} (\ean gar m pisteuste\). Negative condition of third class with \ean m\ and ingressive aorist active subjunctive of \pisteu\, "For unless ye come to believe." {That I am he} (\hoti eg eimi\). Indirect discourse, but with no word in the predicate after the copula \eimi\. Jesus can mean either "that I am from above" (verse 23|), "that I am the one sent from the Father or the Messiah" (7:18,28|), "that I am the Light of the World" (8:12|), "that I am the Deliverer from the bondage of sin" (8:28,31f.,36|), "that I am" without supplying a predicate in the absolute sense as the Jews (Deuteronomy:32:39|) used the language of Jehovah (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:43:10| where the very words occur \hina pisteuste--hoti eg eimi\). The phrase \eg eimi\ occurs three times here (8:24,28,58|) and also in strkjv@13:19|. Jesus seems to claim absolute divine being as in strkjv@8:58|.

rwp@John:8:25 @{Who art thou?} (\Su tis ei;\). Proleptic use of \su\ before \tis\, "Thou, who art thou?" Cf. strkjv@1:19|. He had virtually claimed to be the Messiah and on a par with God as in strkjv@5:15|. They wish to pin him down and to charge him with blasphemy. {Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning} (\tn archn hoti kai lal humin\). A difficult sentence. It is not clear whether it is an affirmation or a question. The Latin and Syriac versions treat it as affirmative. Westcott and Hort follow Meyer and take it as interrogative. The Greek fathers take it as an exclamation. It seems clear that the adverbial accusative \tn archn\ cannot mean "from the beginning" like \ap' archs\ (15:27|) or \ex archs\ (16:4|). The LXX has \tn archn\ for "at the beginning" or "at the first" (Genesis:43:20|). There are examples in Greek, chiefly negative, where \tn archn\ means "at all," "essentially," "primarily." Vincent and Bernard so take it here, "Primarily what I am telling you." Jesus avoids the term Messiah with its political connotations. He stands by his high claims already made.

rwp@John:8:26 @{I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you} (\polla ech peri humn lalein kai krinein\). Instead of further talk about his own claims (already plain enough) Jesus turns to speak and to judge concerning them and their attitude towards him (cf. verse 16|). Whatever they think of Jesus the Father who sent him is true (\alths\). They cannot evade responsibility for the message heard. Songs:Jesus goes on speaking it from the Father.

rwp@John:8:27 @{They perceived not} (\ouk egnsan\). Second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\. "Preoccupied as they were with thoughts of an earthly deliverer" (Westcott) and prejudiced against recognizing Jesus as the one sent from God. {That he spake to them of the Father} (\hoti ton patera autois elegen\). Indirect assertion, but with the present indicative (\legei\) changed to the imperfect (\elegen\) as was sometimes done (2:25|) after a secondary tense.

rwp@John:8:28 @{When ye have lifted up the Son of man} (\hotan hupsste ton huion tou anthrpou\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ (\hote + an\) and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hupso\, to lift up (_Koin_ verb from \hupsos\, height), used several times in John of the Cross of Christ (3:14; strkjv@8:28; strkjv@12:32,34|). It is unnecessary to render the aorist subjunctive as if a future perfect, simply "whenever ye lift up" (actually lift up, ingressive aorist). In strkjv@Acts:2:33| the verb is used of the Ascension. {Shall ye know} (\gnsesthe\). Future (ingressive aoristic) middle of \ginsk\. _Cognoscetis ex re quod nunc ex verbo non creditis_ (Bengel). But the knowledge from the facts like the fall of Jerusalem will come too late and will not bring a change of heart. The Holy Spirit will convict them concerning judgment (16:8|). For {I am} (\eg eimi\) see on verse ¯24|. {As the Father taught me} (\Kaths edidasken me ho patr\). This claim Jesus repeats (see verse 26|) and clearly makes on his arrival at the feast (7:16f.|). This fact marks Jesus off from the rabbis.

rwp@John:8:29 @{Is with me} (\met' emou estin\). The Incarnation brought separation from the Father in one sense, but in essence there is complete harmony and fellowship as he had already said (8:16|) and will expand in strkjv@17:21-26|. {He hath not left me alone} (\ouk aphken me monon\). First aorist active indicative of \aphimi\. "He did not leave me alone." However much the crowds and the disciples misunderstood or left Jesus, the Father always comforted and understood him (Mark:6:46; strkjv@Matthew:14:23; strkjv@John:6:15|). {That are pleasing to him} (\ta aresta auti\). This old verbal adjective, from \aresk\, to please, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Acts:6:2; strkjv@12:3; strkjv@1John:3:32|. The joy of Jesus was in doing the will of the Father who sent him (4:34|).

rwp@John:8:30 @{Many believed on him} (\polloi episteusan eis auton\). Ingressive aorist active indicative, came to believe, nominally at any rate, as in strkjv@2:23|. But the tension was keen and Jesus proceeded to test the faith of these new believers from among the Pharisees.