1

It Takes One to Know One

(John 8.31-47)

An Exegetical Analysis, by Tracy. R. Rider

November 5, 2008

ORIENTATION AND CONTEXT

Significance of Text
John begins his Gospel with the idea that Christ is the light of the world, and in John 8.12 Jesus
announces this news Himself. In Judaism, light “referred variously to God’s presence, God’s
salvation, the Law, Wisdom, and Logos” (Shirbroun 472). In the Hellenized world, “ the logos
was a widely used term to refer to the way God or the gods revealed themselves and
communicated with humankind” (Blomberg 162). Zuck notes, however, that while “John was
using a term that would be widely recognized in Hellenistic circles…. the average person would
not know its precise significance” (190). Therefore, John uses it successfully to develop a
Christian understanding of the divine Sonship of Christ, who came into the world to reveal
God’s truth, and to offer the gift of salvation. “The revelation of true knowledge remains a key
function of the Johannine Redeemer” (Blomberg 162), and thus becomes an encompassing
theme of John 8. In light of this, the dispute presented in John 8.31-47 between the authority of
Jesus and the authority of the Jews of verse 33, makes glaringly obvious the obstinacy of the
Jews involved.

The significance of the entire passage rests in the final statement of Christ in verse 47:
“Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are
not from God.” The build up to this statement shows that his opponents had a choice, had
received chances to become children of God, and chose instead to harden their hearts. Christ
reveals to them this is equivalent to making a choice for Satan, and they will thus “have no
permanent place” in the kingdom of God.

Historical and Social Setting

The question of authorship of the Gospel of John has been seen as extremely important
seemingly because of its unique presentation of the life of Jesus. Evidence gained from the early
church is viewed anywhere from “ambiguous” (Blomberg 170), to “wrong, legendary or
polemical” (Thompson 369). While Blomberg and Tenny both assert, “the more recent trend is
toward a partial if not complete acceptance of the Johannine origin” (Tenny 8), Thompson
counts himself with several other listed commentators who discount Johannine authorship (369).
However, most seem to agree that, if not written by John himself, it was at least written by one of
Jesus’ disciples. At this point it is most fitting to consider the issue as of yet unresolved, with
Beasley–Murray’s reminder that, whoever the author was, it is evident that in his work, “the
Spirit showed His activity in large measure” (lxxv), thus securing the authority of the gospel
itself.
 2

Due mainly to its “developed theology, [and] presumed dependence on one or more of the
Synoptic Gospels” (Thompson 371), John had commonly been dated in the late second century.
However, with the discovery of Rylands Papyrus 4571, “scholars of all persuasions” place John
between A.D. 85- 100; with some reputable scholars2 arguing for a date closer to A.D. 70 (370-
371).

John includes his purpose in writing the gospel in 20.3: “these are written that you may come to
believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life
in his name.” Beasley-Murray points out the ambiguity in the interpretation of John’s words,
which are now known to be better translated as, “so that you may continue in believing … and
that as those continuing to believe in his name you may hold on to the life” ( lxxxviii). Blomberg
concurs with this translation as well, and suggests the adoption of Witherington’s compromise:
“John is writing to Christians to help them, among other things, be more effective in
evangelizing non-Christian friends and relatives, with a special focus on Jews” (169).

Although a detailed discussion of source criticism is not pertinent to this pericope, it is worth
noting that most scholars today do not believe, as it was once thought, that John used the
synoptic gospels directly as a source the way Luke and Matthew used Mark and Q. This said,
Beasley–Murray points out that, “neither did his Gospel take shape in isolation from them”
(xxxviii). Similarly, while a quest for additional outside sources has generated many
hypothesizes, none have gained popular acceptance, and instead, “it is the conviction of not a
few that we do well to think in terms of traditions available to the Evangelist rather than literary
sources” (xli). This lack of ability to discover with certainty any sources for John has led
scholars to argue against the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel (Blomberg 157). However,
Blomberg presents adequate evidence that warns us against “overestimating the differences”
between the synoptic Gospels and John, and to look instead at evidence such as John’s
knowledge of Jewish midrash, his inclusion of more physical details than any other Gospel, and
that some differences were necessitated by their differing audiences (157-159). When these
points are taken into consideration, the Gospel’s historical credibility increases dramatically.

The setting for this passage is the vicinity of the temple at Jerusalem, during the Feast of
Tabernacles. This feast was one of the three most important festivals, second only to Passover
(LaSor 442).The occasion drew a massive and diverse crowd, presenting Jesus with a unique
audience. We are told in John 7.1 that Jesus was aware that certain Jews in Judea were looking
to kill Him, and that in the crowds at the festival, all were afraid to “speak openly about him for
fear of the Jews” (v. 13). Regardless, Jesus began to teach at the festival by mid-week (v. 14).

A ceremony that commemorated God’s provision of water in the desert and looked forward to
the “water of salvation” was performed each day of the festival except for the last day. Each
night, “four huge lamps were lit to accompany joyful singing and dancing. On the last night, the
main candelabrum was deliberately left unlit as a reminder that Israel had not yet experienced
full salvation” (Blomberg 296-297). Significantly, it was on this last day in the absence of the

1
“An Egyptian codex fragment containing John 18.31-33, 37, 38 and dated by scholars to the early second century”
(Thompson 370).
2
J. A. T. Robinson, cited by Thompson; from The Priority of John. London: SCM, 1989.
 3

abovementioned rituals, that Jesus proclaimed Himself first the giver of living water (8.37-38),
and later that evening, the light of the world (8.12).

Literary Context
Here one must first note that 7.53-8.11 is believed by most scholars not to be included in what
John had originally written (Blomberg 297; Tenny 89; Beasley-Murray100). It is commonly
held that “the account of Jesus in the Feast of Tabernacles [is] to be followed without a break”
(Beasley-Murray100).

It is important to recognize at least somewhat, the structure in which John 8.31-47 is presented
in order to understand the effect of the numerous themes under which it must be interpreted. The
Gospel of John is generally seen to be divided into two halves. The first half, John 1-11, presents
the signs and miracles of Jesus; while the second half, John 12-21, presents the passion story
(Blomberg 159-161). The first half is again broken into two units, the latter half of which, John
5.1-10.21, presents Jesus as “the fulfillment of the Jewish festivals” (160). This clearly implies a
similarity of function in John’s Gospel between the signs and the festivals, both of which are
meant to reveal Jesus’ identity to the Israelites. John 8.31-47 is further treated as a subunit of
the larger narrative John 7.1-9.41 which takes place over the Festival of Tabernacles, during
which Jesus testifies that He is the both the living water and the light of the world. In itself,
however, the pericope contains a complete narrative contrasting the identity of the children of
God, who receive and respond to the truth from God, versus the children of the devil, who
receive and obey lies from the devil. To try to understand this smaller passage without
acknowledging its envelopment within the larger context would be to destroy the authority of
revelation that Christ claims, weakening His argument with his opponents considerably.

F.F. Bruce summarizes much historical and contemporary deliberation as to why the Jews have
“special mention” in John’s Gospel: “John regards the unbelief of the Jews as one of the
prominent tragedies of the earliest Christian years” (F.F. Bruce, intro notes). Beasley-Murray
also notes that, “Since the objectors in the last three passages are termed “the Jews,” i.e.,
Jewish opponents of Jesus, it is reasonable to assume that they are the protesters also in vv 33
and 41” (Beasley-Murray 133). Without negating or diminishing this truth, Hunn dismisses the
unnecessary extrapolation that describing the Jews primarily as opponents is either a theme or a
literary construct in John’s Gospel. By noting that John also mentions the Jews of divided
opinion (7.12; 10.19), as well as Jews coming to faith in Jesus (8.30-31; 11.45; 12.11), she
shows that John does not intend to emphasize the group of Jews who wanted to kill Jesus (5.16-
18; 7.1; 10.31; 11.8), as a particular representation of Jews in general (394).

The entire passage seems to present a dualism between the physical realm and the spiritual
realm. While the passage uses physical description, Jesus is addressing the spiritual
implications of that reality, much as though he is speaking in a parable. By including several
dichotomies within this passage - freedom vs. slavery, God’s children vs. the devil’s children,
truth vs. lies, belief vs. unbelief- the author is creating a tension that makes the reader
understand that a line has been drawn and a choice must be made.
 4

PRESENTATION OF TEXT

Scripture Passage
John 8.31 Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word,
you are truly my disciples; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
33They answered him, “We are descendents of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone.
What do you mean by saying, ‘You will be made free’?” 34Jesus answered them, “Very truly I
tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35The slave does not have a permanent
place in the household; the son has a place there forever. 36So if the Son makes you free, you
will be free indeed. 37I know that you are descendents of Abraham; yet you look for an
opportunity to kill me, because there is no place in you for my word. 38I declare what I have
seen in the Father’s presence; as for you, you should do what you have heard from the Father.”
39They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s
children, you would be doing what Abraham did, 40but now you are trying to kill me, a man who
has told you the truth that I heard from the God. This is not what Abraham did. 41You are
indeed doing what your father does.” They said to him, “We are not illegitimate children; we
have one father, God himself.” 42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love
me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me. 43Why
do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word. 44You are from
your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the
beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he
speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45But because I tell the
truth, you do not believe me. 46Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you
not believe me? 47Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear
them is that you are not from God.” (NRSV)

Text Critical Notes

In verse 38, some manuscripts contain ‘seen with’ versus ‘heard from.’ NASB, NIV, REB, GNB,
NRSV, NAB opt for the latter; and because this concept is reiterated by Jesus in verse 40, it
appears most acceptable. ‘ητε’ of verse 39 is actually present tense in Greek, and ASVn, NIVn,
NASV, and others translate it as such. However, NIV, KJV, ASV, NRSV, and RSV translate it as
‘were’ (T. Bruce). The present tense makes Jesus speak a command instead of cite evidence that
demonstrates to the Jews that their own actions prove them not to be Abraham’s children, and
therefore does not fit the context as clearly.

There is much discrepancy over the interpretation of the passage with respect to the identity of
the Jews mentioned in verse 33. Opinion is mixed as to whether the Jews mentioned were true
believers, once believed but fell away, or were a different group altogether, with the majority of
support shown for the idea that the Jews mentioned had once placed a weak and tentative faith
in Jesus’ sayings, but then fell away, and now dispute Jesus. Hunn, however, presents
compelling arguments3 that support that the Jews in verse 33 must be interpreted as the

3
Hunn argues that πιστεύω εἰς “is a distinctive construction that John uses to indicate personal trust” (390). She cites
Swetnam as showing that “John routinely uses this phrase to introduce a contrast between true faith and unbelief. If
the phrase in 8.30 is an exception to this, it is the only one” (391). She points out that v. 37 and v. 43 make it
implicit that the Jews mentioned never were believers (394); and she concludes with the fact that, “Former believers
have no part in this Gospel” elsewhere (393).
 5

unbelieving opponents of Jesus that have been in the divided crowd all along (397). This paper
takes that stance throughout the exposition.

Outline of Passage
I. True Disciples of Jesus (vv. 31-36)
A. Continue in God’s Word
B. Receive Freedom From Sin
II. True Children of Abraham (vv. 37-41a )
A. Accept God’s Word
B. Act in Faith
III. True Children of God (vv. 41b – 47)
A. Love the Son
B. Accept His Word
C. Act in faith

TRUE DISCIPLES OF JESUS

The Jews of verse 30 have received Jesus’ word, and consequently placed their faith in Him.
Jesus instructs them to continue in His word (v. 31) so they will know the truth and be set free by
it (v. 32). Contrary to immediate and historical evidence proving otherwise, the intermingled
unbelieving Jews (see text critical notes) refute Jesus’ charge of slavery. While many
commentators4 address the apparent absurdity of the response, Vincent clarifies the retort by
reminding us that, through Abraham, the Jews claimed “not only freedom, but dominion over
the nations” (Vincent 8.33). Furthermore, he notes that, “it is to be remembered that the
Romans, from motives of policy, had left them the semblance of political independence” (Vincent
8.33). Thus, it is not so strange that they claim to have never been slaves to anyone. Regardless,
Jesus was speaking of spiritual bondage, a point His opponents overlook. John demonstrates
that true disciples of Jesus are those who continue in His word, and because of this, become set
free from sin.

Belief, or the action of the true disciple who continues in God’s word, is set in direct contrast
with unbelief, or the action of the unbeliever who rebels against what Jesus reveals. Vincent
asserts the accent of verse 31 is on “ye,” thus stressing the identification of the Jews in this
comment. Grammatically however, the arrangement of the sentence (if/then), which is not lost in
translation, demonstrates that the verification for ‘if’ rests on the action of continuing, and it is
that action which awards the disciples with the qualifier, ‘truly.’ Beasley-Murray notes that
“mείνητε signifies a settled determination to live in the word of Christ and by it, and so entails a
perpetual listening to it, reflection on it, holding fast to it, carrying out its bidding” (Beasley-
Murray 133). This indicates a life that offers itself up to be transformed by the word of Jesus.
Vincent does, however, bring attention to the specificity of the language in Jesus’ phrase, “in my
word” (v. 31), as referring “particularly” to Jesus (Vincent 8.31). Jesus is saying, continue in
4
See Tenny, Beasley-Murray
 6

my word, the word I have received from ‘the one who sent me’ (7.16-18; 8. 26). Thus, John
implies a distinction between Jesus’ teaching, and what they would have heard from other
teachers of the law. This distinction is naturally carried over to the understanding of the truth of
which Jesus refers to (v. 32), and leads to Green’s definition of truth as, “truth ‘as it is in Jesus”
(Green 8.32).

In contrast to this, the unbeliever rebels against Jesus’ word. Notice that the Jews here did not
even care to understand the spiritual implications of Jesus’ comment. They are not interested in
hearing more about the truth of which Jesus speaks. His true, spiritual message does not even
register a response. Instead, His opponents are insulted at Jesus’ reference to them as slaves. In
an effort to dispute this label of slavery, the Jewish opponents claimed ancestry through
Abraham to prove their freedom and their religious standing. The contrast between the physical
and the spiritual is amplified here. Just as the Jews did not receive Jesus’ message, so Jesus
does not dignify their argument with an answer that addresses political or religious matters, but
instead continues to speak to the spiritual issue at hand- unbelief. Jesus seems to agree that they
may live in the household, but demonstrates that does not make them sons, for slaves do as
much. Considering that descendents of Abraham are the subject and context of this
conversation, it is likely that Jesus here implies a connection to Abraham’s natural born
children. Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was born of a slave and was the
product of unbelief. Isaac was the fulfillment of God’s promise and chosen by Him. He was the
product of belief. Thus, to compare the unbelieving Jews to slaves (Ishmael), versus sons (Isaac),
Jesus further implicates them with the sin of unbelief.

The reward of belief, which is freedom from slavery to sin and the inheritance of eternal life, is
directly contrasted with the result of unbelief, which is slavery to sin and disinheritance.
Freedom is the reward of continuing in Jesus’ word. The use of the future tense in ‘then you will
know’, and ‘will be,’ further emphasizes the transformational nature of Jesus’ word. The
promise is true freedom, as in owing nothing nor any allegiance, to the previous enslaver; free
to enter a new lifestyle with no connection to the old. The language Jesus uses to describe
sonship creates a distinction between the son of the household and the Son who sets you free.
Bruce notes that, “John reserves the noun hyios in relation to God for Christ alone” (F. Bruce
8.36), indicating here that we are to interpret Jesus as the Son of God, who thus shares an
intimate relationship to God. Tenny explains this relationship by observing that, “while a son is
rightfully a partaker of family privileges, the Son can confer them. The hope for real freedom
does not lie in the ancestry of Abraham but in the action of Christ” (95). Jesus was making the
point that what matters is not, “physical genealogy but spiritual kinship” (Walvoord 8.35). Jesus
and truth are equated as one through the connection made between the truth setting one free,
and the Son setting one free. Thus, the invitation to discipleship and sonship does not require
any lineage to Abraham. What it does require is an acceptance of the identity of Jesus, and a
decision to abide in His word.

In contrast, spiritual slavery is the result of the opponents’ continued refusal to accept Jesus’
word. Tenny notes that, “The participial construction ‘everyone who sins’ is in the present
tense, which implies a continual habit of sinning rather than an occasional lapse” (95). Harris
elaborates further that, “the particular sin of the Jewish authorities, repeatedly emphasized in
the Fourth Gospel, is the sin of unbelief. The present tense in this instance looks at the
 7

continuing refusal on the part of the Jewish leaders to acknowledge who Jesus is, in spite of
mounting evidence” (Harris 8.34). The Jews who opposed Jesus had just come from the Feast of
Tabernacles, a commemoration for the years spent wandering the desert after the Exodus.
Ironically, unbelief was sin that had initiated the desert exile. Like Ishmael the slave child who
received no permanent place in the household, the unbeliever risks being cast out into the desert
of unbelief.

Thus, true disciples of Jesus will continue in His word and consequently will be free from
slavery to sin. False disciples are those who do not accept Jesus’ word, and therefore continue
to be enslaved by sin. One discovers a parallel contrast presented here: belief abides in the
truth, while unbelief abides in sin. Furthermore, those who abide in the truth of God’s word will
also abide in God’s kingdom; with it understood that those who do not will be disinherited.

TRUE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM

Again dismissing Jesus’ claim to have the truth from God, the Jews insist on their identification
as children of Abraham, (v. 39). “They regarded their relationship to God as secure because of
their lineal descent from the man with whom God had confirmed his covenant” (Tenny 96).
Jesus then indicates a disparity between the descendents of Abraham ((σπέρμα, v. 37), and the
children of Abraham (τέκνα, v. 39) (Beasley-Murray 134). Both groups are further identified by
their opposing actions. The descendents become representative of unbelievers who remain in
bondage to sin and are ‘naturally inclined’ to do the opposite of what Abraham did. The
children become representative of the believers, who demonstrate their faith as Abraham did his.
True children of Abraham receive and respond in kind to God’s word.

For the Jewish people, Abraham so fully represented the “paradigm of faith” (LaSor 49), that
Millard can state confidently, “The question of Abraham’s existence was unimportant… for
legends about him could not preserve a true picture of the vital element, his faith” (36). Wiersbe
summarizes that, “Abraham was saved by faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:1–5; Gal. 3:6–14) and lived
by faith (Heb. 11:8–19), and his obedience was the evidence of his faith (James 2:14–26).
Abraham obeyed when he did not know where (Heb. 11:8–10), how (vv. 11–12), when (vv. 13–
16), or why (vv. 17–19)” (2). Wiersbe, F. Bruce, and Walvoord all suggest a reflection between
the episode in which Abraham believed the messengers of God (Gen 18.1-15), and the true
children of Abraham who believed the truth from Jesus as the One sent from God. Paddison
notes that, “Jesus is, in the persistent refrain of John, the one who has been ‘sent’ (the phrase
‘he who sent me’ is found some thirty times in John) and he has been sent with a specific
vocation, ‘I declare to the world what I have heard from him’ (Jn 8:26)” (150). Just as Abraham
was able to recognize the messengers and receive their message with faith, so Jesus’ disciples
are able to recognize Him as coming from God, and to receive His message with faith.

In contrast to this are the descendents of Abraham who reject Jesus’ word, and in doing so,
necessarily reject His identity. In fact, Jesus states of His opponents, “there is no place in you
for my word” (v. 37). Tenny explains that the proper understanding for the word having ‘no
place’ in them indicates that they are “impervious to revelation” (96). Jesus claims firsthand
experience through His contrast between “what I have seen in the Father’s presence” with
 8

“what you have heard” (v. 38). Perhaps the Jewish leaders are threatened by the disparity
between Jesus’ real authority and the Jew’s assumed authority. Receiving Jesus and believing
on Him would mean they were conceding their authority to His. Consequently, they still do not
receive Him.

Just as Jesus can be identified with His heavenly Father by His works, so it is likewise assumed
that all children can be identified with their fathers, through the actions the children display.
Thus, the true children of Abraham can be discovered by their doing what Abraham did. This is
what the disciples who believed on Jesus have done. Conversely, doing the opposite would
suggest a different parentage. Jesus makes it clear to His opponents that they are not acting as
Abraham did (v. 40). While Jesus comes to them offering freedom and truth, the Jews on the
other hand, respond by threatening death. Jesus tells them that they are “indeed” following their
father (v. 41), but indicating that father is in no way Abraham. Thus, the fact that His opponents
neither believe nor respond to Jesus’ word demonstrates that they are not spiritual descendents
of Abraham.

TRUE CHILDREN OF GOD

“Although the Jewish authorities have not yet caught on to what Jesus is saying about their true
father, they realize he is saying it was someone other than God” ( Harris 8.41). By abandoning
their position of status based on their relationship to Abraham, these Jews acknowledge by
default that Jesus’ accusation regarding their behavior was correct. Instead of disputing Jesus
on this point, they insist that they are not illegitimate children (Hμεις εκ πορνειας, v. 41), and
they present their standing through connection to God instead. Beasley-Murray notes, “Their
language echoes that of Hosea, who had likened Israel’s idolatry to spiritual harlotry and
described the individual Israelites as “children of fornication” (τέκνα πορνείας)” (8.39-40). This
demonstrates that the Jews do at least understand Jesus’ comments connecting professed faith
with appropriate action. Jesus denies their relationship to God as well on the basis of their
inappropriate behavior. He makes known to them that true children of God are those who love
the Son, accept His word, and respond accordingly.

The language that Jesus uses to describe His coming from the Father (v. 42), “emphasizes the
idea of essential, community of being: "I came forth out of" [implies] personal fellowship with
God” (Vincent 8.42). The Shaliach – the one sent out from Yahweh on a mission to reveal
himself to and redeem his people …conforms to one of the clusters of concepts at times
associated with the Jewish Messiah” (Blomberg 405). Here the Jewish authorities would at least
have connected Jesus’ language to this concept. Furthermore, Jesus has also revealed His
identity through His miracles. “In John miracles are mighty works that authenticate the person
and mission of Jesus and demonstrate the miracle-working presence of God in his words and
deeds” (Ladd 309). Whether the Jews believed Him to be the Son of God at this point or not is
insignificant. As Beasley-Murray concludes, “there is no excuse for them to not recognize Him
as sent from God” (135). The correct response to Jesus as such would be like that of Abraham-
to welcome the messenger and respond in faith. The Jews hatred of Jesus and attempts to kill
Him belie their claim that God is their father. In fact, Vincent notes that the intimate connection
that Jesus has with His Father (v. 42), is implied between the Jewish opponents and their father-
 9

the devil (Vincent 8.42). Just as it is Jesus’ nature to personify the Father, so it is their nature to
personify the devil.

The Jews may have grasped that Jesus is speaking on the spiritual plane, but they have yet to
understand Him. Jesus credits their inability to understand His speech (lalian), to the fact that
they cannot accept His word (logos). “The former word refers to the form, the latter to the
substance of discourse” (Vincent 8.43).Tenny points out that “the word ‘unable’ (ou dynasthe)
[translated ‘cannot’ in NRSV] speaks of an inherent inability” (Tenny). Continuing the contrast
between spiritual and physical, the Jews, though intellectually capable, are spiritually unable to
receive His message. Jesus elaborates that this is because they are children of the devil, and
consequently can only understand the language of lies and murder (v. 44). Satan, the father of
lies, is identified by Jesus as a murderer. Here it is reasonable to interpret a double meaning of
the word murderer. Satan brought both physical death and spiritual death into the world, as is
testified to by the Jews total inability to comprehend spiritually. Walvoord implies that Jesus’
question ‘Can any of you prove Me guilty of sin?’ should have been another wake-up call to His
opponents. Silently admitting that He was without sin, Walvoord insists, “they should have
recognized His divine origin” (8.46), bowed to His majesty, and received His word. They did
not.

Unlike the true disciples of Jesus and the true children of Abraham, the Jewish opponents
refused Christ’s word, and therefore were bound to their sin of unbelief. They are thus incapable
of responding with a love they simply do not have. Jesus’ next charge is not only that the Jews
are children of the devil, but that they have made a personal choice to follow Satan (v. 44).
Throughout the Gospel of John, the theme of making a personal commitment to Jesus as the
saving Son of God is central, and is so stated by John himself (20.31). As mentioned above, the
Jewish opponents have been given more than enough evidence to convince them that Jesus is the
Son of God that He says, and demonstrates, that He is.

Just as the true disciples of Jesus made a choice to receive His word and continue to be
transformed by it, so true children of God would do the same. Instead, His opponents have
chosen the opposite. Jesus aligns Himself with God, love, truth and the life gained by receiving
His word. In contrast, the Jews who oppose Him have aligned themselves with the devil,
unwarranted hate, lies, and murder. The dramatic tension created between the sheer number of
opposites presented by Jesus in this short response builds to His revealing proclamation against
the unbelieving Jews: “Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not
hear them is that you are not from God” (v. 47). We have been brought full circle to the
beginning of the pericope, when Jesus addresses those who have placed their faith in Him with
the expectation to remain in His word. When Jesus speaks of those from God hearing the words
of God, He implies the same abiding in His word that He expected of His new disciples. Such an
abiding allows the transformational truth of God’s word to birth true children of God.

SUMMATION

Throughout the spiritual and the physical dualism of this pericope, John presents a contrast
between those who belong to Jesus/God, and those who belong to the devil. Those who belong to
Jesus are those who have accepted Him not only as one who has authority to preach God’s
 10

word, but also as one who has received this truth directly from God. Those who believe in Jesus
receive His word as truth and continue to be transformed by His teachings. The
transformational power of Jesus’ word releases the believer, the true disciple, from his bondage
to a sinful lifestyle and welcomes him into eternal life in the Father’s household. In direct
contrast, the child of the devil is unable to recognize Jesus, and therefore unable to receive the
deliverance and blessing offered by Him. A child of the devil is associated with the murder, lies,
and hatred of their spiritual father, Satan, and bound in slavery to sin. By their own choice, they
have been blinded by the sin of unbelief, hardening their hearts against the things of God.

John also presents several comparisons of Jesus in this passage. Jesus’ authority is directly
compared to that of the Jewish leaders and teachers of the law who refuse to believe in Him.
Jesus notes that He has been given His teaching directly from God and obeys it. On the other
hand, His oponents have only heard the teaching of God, and this they do not even obey. Thus,
without discrediting the law given through Moses, Jesus presents Himself as one with greater
authority than His opponents. Jesus is also aligned with Abraham through their parallel actions
of obedience. Yet, without discrediting Abraham in any way, Jesus is also presented as greater
than Abraham, based on His unique relationship to God- He comes from the Father, was sent by
the Father, and embodies the truth.

By presenting these teachings at the last and greatest day of the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus is
able to draw on the associations the Jewish people have made to the significance of that festival.
Rekney notes that all biblical feasts look toward a future fulfillment of God’s promise to His
people, and that “the prophet Zechariah foresaw a day when people of all nations would
perpetually celebrate the Feast of Tabernacle, signifying God’s dwelling with them… (Zech
14:16-19)” (279). Many psalms were read each night of the festival, some likely recounting the
Israelites’ tabernacle experience. It is not implausible to assume that they would have heard
these very words from Psalm 95 read on one of those evenings:

O that today you would listen to his voice!

8    Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah,
    as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,
9when your ancestors tested me,
   and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work. (7b-9)

The tragic irony of the unbelief of the Jewish opponents narrated against the backdrop of the
unbelieving Israelites sentenced to wander the desert, establishes a foreboding foreshadowing
echoed in Jesus’ pleading question to His opponents, “why don’t you hear my words?”

APPLICATION

The stark contrast developed between belief in Jesus’ word as truth, love, freedom, and life on
the one side, and belief in the devil’s lies, hate, slavery, and death on the other, climaxes in the
absolute contrast between God and Satan. Jesus’ teaching here is intended to focus the
individual on the need to make a choice, and such a choice places one squarely with God or with
Satan. To help the individual clarify this decision, Jesus instructs that while one may not want to
directly confess a loyalty to Satan, one’s actions will reveal the choice that has been made. His
 11

teaching, however, does not end in despair. Jesus Himself states that, it is the one who continues
in sin, who is bound to slavery under Satan’s rule. The one who hears His word and continues in
it, however, will receive freedom and eternal life. Thus, Jesus holds out the fact of choice as a
very real and certain hope. Harris notes that an encompassing theme throughout John’s Gospel
is the personal responsibility one has in deciding his destiny:

From John’s perspective, a person does not go to hell because he/she is a sinner. The
death of Christ has changed all of that (1 John 2:2). All sin is atoned for except the one
(unforgiveable) sin of unbelief. A person goes to hell because he/she does not possess the
life of heaven—eternal life. And this person does not possess it because he/she has
rejected it as God’s free gift. To reject Jesus is to reject this gift of eternal life, which is
(in other words) to commit the (unforgiveable) sin of unbelief” (Harris).

In a sense, then, we are masters of our fate. Jesus does not, against one’s will, condemn one to
hell, or commend another to heaven. Each of us is offered a choice, the repercussions of which
extend beyond our earthly life and into eternity. We shall choose our parent after all.

Jesus’ teaching has implications beyond the initial choice for salvation, which applies to the one
who confesses belief in Him. True disciples of Jesus, true children of God, reveal themselves
through their actions- most specifically mentioned is belief, and love. Especially love for the
family- God, Jesus, and other believers. Who Jesus is, is not to be understood separately from
what He does. Jesus makes it clear that He is His Father’s Son. His obedience is an expression
of His love for God; it is not an external force coercing Him into action. In order to help grasp
the freedom in Jesus’ obedience, Paddison cites Von Balthasarian’s artist analogy, which states
that an artist is “possessed” by an idea and wholly enters into it, and it wholly enters into him.
He becomes the means of expression and fulfillment of that idea by his own volition, his own
longing. Paddison illuminates that “Jesus, when he is obedient to the Father, is acting in deepest
correspondence with who he is, and so it is when he is obedient that he is most free” (157). In
the same way then for a believer- one’s identity is inextricably linked to one’s actions. Freedom
from obedience to sin is freedom for obedience to God. The old proverb, actions speak louder
than words, is taught by Jesus Himself. But we are not left alone in trying to reconcile the two,
for there is a transformational quality in the words of Jesus. Thus, by abiding in His word, every
true child of Abraham, true disciple of Jesus, true child of God becomes transformed into the
likeness of Christ, so that action and confession meld together as they are in Jesus, to birth what
Paddison has called a “mission-saturated” believer (153).
 12

WORKS CITED

Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Word Biblical Commentary 36. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 1999.

Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. Nashville: Broadman
&
Holman, 1997.

Bruce, F.F. “John.” New International Bible Commentary. 17 Nov. 2008.

<http://www.biblecentre.net/ >. Path: Commentaries> NT Studies.

Bruce, Terry. A Student’s Guide to New Testament Textual Variants. 17Nov. 2008.
<http://www.biblecentre.net/ >. Path: NT Studies> Textual Studies.

Green, J P Sr. Textual & Translation Notes on the Gospels. 17 Nov. 2008.
<http://www.biblecentre.net/ >. Path: NT studies> Textual Studies.

Harris, Hall. The Gospel of John Introduction and Commentary. 27 Nov. 2008.
<http://www.biblecentre.net/ >. Path: Commentaries> NT Studies.

Hunn, Debbie. "Who Are ‘They’ in John 8:33?” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 66.3(2004).
ProQuest. 17 Nov. 2008. <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb>.

Ladd, Eldon G. A Theology of the New Testament. Ed. Donald A. Hagner. Rev. ed. Grand
Rapids:Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.

LaSor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic Wm. Bush. Survey of the Old
Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Millard, R. A. “Abraham.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. David Noel Freedman. 6 vols.
New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Paddison, Angus. “Engaging Scripture: Incarnation and the Gospel of John.” Scottish Journal
of
Theology. 60.2 (2007): 144–160 . ProQuest. 17 Nov. 2008.
<http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb>.

Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery.
Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1998.

Shirbroun, G. F. “Light.” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Ed. Joel B. Green and Scot
McKnight. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Stein, Robert H. The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings. Rev. ed. Louisville:
Westminster Press, 1995.
 13

Tenney, Merrill C. “John.” John and Acts. Expositor’s Bible Commentary 9. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1981.

Thompson, M. M. “Gospel of John.” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Ed. Joel B. Green and
Scot McKnight. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Vincent, Marvin. Word Studies in the New Testament. 17 Nov. 2008.

<http://www.biblecentre.net/ >. Path: NT studies> Textual Studies.

Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the
Scriptures. Wheaton, IL : Victor Books, 1983-c1985. 17 Nov. 2008.
<http://www.biblecentre.net/ >. Path: Commentaries.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Obedient. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1996.

Zuck, Roy B.: A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. electronic ed. Chicago : Moody Press,
1994; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996, S. 190