John 15:22

(22) If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin.—In this and the following verses (Joh_15:22-25) our Lord shows the sinfulness of the world’s hatred, because it was in the face of His revelation to them by both word (Joh_15:22) and work (Joh_15:24). Apart from this revelation, their sin would have belonged to the times of ignorance, which God overlooked (Act_17:30-31). It would have been the negative evil of men who know not. It was now the positive evil of men who, knowing the truth, wilfully reject it.

But now they have no cloke for their sin.—Better, as in the margin, they have no excuse for their sin. The Greek phrase occurs only here in the New Testament. The word “cloke” as used with sin is familiar to us from the exhortation in the Book of Common Prayer. The idea is rather to cover up, to hide as with a garment, so that they may not be seen; whereas here the idea is of excuse for manifest sin.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_15:22

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin

Human responsibility

The peculiar sin of the Jews, the sin which aggravated above everything their former iniquities, was their rejection of Christ.

He had been very plainly described in the prophets, and they who waited for Him rejoiced to see Him. But because Jesus had not the outward garnishing of a prince, they shut their eyes against Him, and were not content till they had crucified Him. Now, the sin of the Jews is every day repeated by the Gentiles. As often as ye hear the Word preached and reject it, so often do you in effect once more pierce the hand and the side.

I. IN THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL, THERE IS TO MANS CONSCIENCE THE COMING OF OUR LORD. He that despiseth us despiseth not us, but Him that sent us. As for what I may say, as a man, it is but little that I should say it; but if I speak as the Lords ambassador, take heed that ye slight not the message. Have we not all of us grossly sinned against God, in the neglect that we have often put upon the means of grace? How often have you stayed away from the house of God, when God Himself was speaking there? And when ye have come up, how often ye have heard as though ye heard not. In all this you have despised God, and woe unto you, except ye repent, for tis a fearful thing to have despised the voice of Him that speaketh from heaven.

II. THE REJECTION OF THE GOSPEL AGGRAVATES MENS SIN. Now, understand, we do not increase our condemnation by going to the house of God; we are far more likely to increase it by stopping away; for in stopping away there is a double rejection of Christ; you reject Him even with the outward mind, as well as with the inward spirit. Your sin is not aggravated merely by the hearing of the gospel, but by the wilful and wicked rejection of it when it is heard. Because the man who does this

1. Gets a new sin. Bring me a wild savage who has never listened to the Word. That man may have every sin in the catalogue of guilt except one; but that one I am sure he has not. He has not the sin of rejecting the gospel when it is preached to him. But you, when you hear the gospel, if you have rejected it, you have added a fresh iniquity to all others. He that believeth not is condemned already, etc. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, etc. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! etc. To reject Christ destroys a man hopelessly. The murderer, the thief, the drunkard, may yet enter the kingdom of heaven, if, repenting of his sins, he will lay hold on the cross of Christ; but with these sins, a man is inevitably lost, if he believeth not on Christ. Consider what an awful sin this is. There is murder in this; for if the man on the scaffold rejects a pardon, does he not murder himself? There is pride in this; for you reject Christ, because your proud hearts have turned you aside. There is high treason in this; for you reject a king.

2. He aggravates all the rest. You cannot sin so cheap as other people, you, who have had the gospel. He who sins ignorantly hath some little excuse; but he who sins against light and knowledge sins presumptuously; and under the law there was no atonement for this.

III. THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL TAKES AWAY ALL EXCUSE FROM THOSE WHO HEAR IT AND REJECT IT. Now have they no cloke for their sin. A cloak is a very poor covering for sin, when there is an all-seeing eye to look through it. In the great day of the tempest of Gods wrath a cloak will be a very poor shelter; but still man is always fond of a cloak. And so it is with you; you will gather, if you can, an excuse for your sin, and when conscience pricks you, you seek to heal the wound with an excuse. And even in the day of judgment, although a cloak will be a sorry covering, yet it will be better than nothing at all. But now ye have no cloke for your sin. The traveller is left in the rain without his covering, exposed to the tempest without that garment which once did shelter him. Notice how the preaching of the gospel takes away all cloaks for sin.

1. One man might get up and say, I did not know I was doing wrong when I committed such and such an iniquity. Now, that you cannot say. God has by His law told you solemnly what is wrong. If the Mahommedan commits lust, I doubt not his conscience doth prick him, but his sacred books give him liberty. But you profess to believe your Bibles, and therefore when you sin, you do wilfully violate a well-known law.

2. Again you might say, When I sinned, I did not know how great would be the punishment. Of this also, by the gospel, you are left without excuse; for did not Jesus Christ tell you, that those who will not have Him shall be cast into outer darkness?

3. But some of you may say, Ah, I heard the gospel, and I knew that I was doing wrong, but I did not know what I must do to be saved. Is there one among you who can urge such an excuse as this? Believe and live is preached every day in your hearing.

4. I can hear another say, I heard the gospel preached, but I never had a good example set me. Some of you may say that, and it would be partially true; but there are others of you, concerning whom this would be a lying excuse. Ah! man; you have been very fond of speaking of the inconsistencies of Christians. But there was one Christian whom you knew, and whose character you were compelled to admire. It was your mother. That has always been the one difficulty with you up to this day. You could have rejected the gospel very easily, but your mothers example stood before you, and you could not overcome that.

5. But others of you can say that you had no such mother; your first school was the street, and the first example you ever had was that of a swearing father. Recollect, there is one perfect example--Christ.

6. One more excuse is this: I had many advantages, but they were never sent home to my conscience so that I felt them. Now, there are very few of you here who can say that. No, you have not always been unmoved by the gospel; you have grown old now, and it takes a deal to stir you, but it was not always so.

IV. I have now as it were to PRONOUNCE THE SENTENCE OF CONDEMNATION. For those who live and die rejecting Christ there is a most fearful doom. They shall perish with an utter destruction. There are degrees of punishment; but the highest degree is given to the man who rejects Christ. The liar and the whoremonger, and drunkards shall have their portion--whom do you suppose with?--with unbelievers; as if hell was made first of all for unbelievers. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Cloaks for sin: or excuses removed

No excuse for sin? That is a strange statement. Excuses have been one of the specialties of each sinners stock-in-trade from Eden. These cloaks for sin are always on hand. And yet Christ declares of those who wickedly and presumptuously reject the offered pardon and guidance, that they have no good excuse, no cloak for their sin. But you say, I I have a valid excuse for not being a Christian

I. THE HYPOCRISIES AND WRONG-DOINGS OF CHURCH MEMBERS.

1. I admit that some rogues are hiding their wolfish hearts under the deceptive wool of churchly professions. As Jacob, by putting hair upon himself and thus professing to be Esau, secured a blessing from blind Isaac, so some bad men have secured credit and confidence by stealing the livery of heaven to serve the devil in. One Sunday morning a dressmaker told her little niece to put on her things and take a bundle of dress goods under her shawl to the house of one of her patrons, remarking, Nobody will see it. The child replied, But, Aunty, is it not Sunday under my shawl? There are some professors to whom church membership is only a shawl to cover up sin. Such an empty profession affords no cloak for sin.

2. You say then, I believe in a man living up to what he professes! I answer, I believe in a mans daring to profess what he believes. The outward and inward life should fit both ways. Do not think your strange eagerness to point out stains on Christian garments arises from pure love of truth and righteousness. Look down into your heart and ask, Why do I so readily hear and so quickly believe and so promptly circulate, without investigation, reports against professing Christians (Act_8:58)? Besides, Christians never profess perfection in conduct, but only in love, with sincere though imperfect efforts toward goodness.

II. But another says, I have a real excuse--A GOOD MORAL LIFE IS A CHRISTIAN LIFE. I gave my old overcoat the other day to a poor man, and I give away to the poor more than anybody knows. Let it be remembered that Dorcas was saved because she was a disciple. She did not hold up the garments she had made for the poor to cover up the sin of disobeying and rejecting Christ--indeed, she did not exhibit her charity at all; but those to whom she gave them praised her and not her own lips. This effort to cloak our sins is only a repetition of Naamans effort to hide and heal his leprosy by giving away changes of raiment instead of obeying God in His command.

III. Some of you are wrapping yourself in another cloak, which you think is fireproof asbestos--GOD IS TOO MERCIFUL TO PUNISH ME. I dont believe as you do about future punishment. But the laws of the world assert that there must be punishment or atonement for sin, as well as the Old and New Testaments. But questions about endless punishment cannot fairly be made excuses for anyone refusing to accept personal salvation, as the only condition of conversion in the matter of belief is, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. I dont believe is no cloak for sin when God challenges you to test religion. Come and see.

IV. Another wrap is, I AM TRYING TO BE A CHRISTIAN IN A QUIET WAY. I dont believe in talking about it. As well might our soldiers have said in the late war, We are trying to be loyal, but we dont think that the order to wear blue uniforms and carry the stars and stripes and organize into regiments is essential.

V. Another wraps a cloak of mingled humility and pride over his sin as he says, IM NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO BE A CHRISTIAN. Im very conscientious and I couldnt be a Christian without being a perfect one. Hear that sick man saying, Im not well enough yet to send for the Great Physician.

VI. Or do you say, I TRIED THIS THING ONCE AND FAILED? As well say, I tried to wear an overcoat but I didnt have it made carefully and it came to pieces in a little while, and so Ill never try to wear another, however cold the winds may blow. Throw away that shivering cloak of past failures as an excuse for sin and have another robe made more thoroughly than your first--the robe of Christs righteousness.

VII. Another cloak is, I FEAR I SHOULD FAIL AND NOT LIVE UP TO MY PROFESSION. I have very unfavourable surroundings and a peculiar temperament. Exchange that miserable cloak for the sword of Divine help and defence and the whole armour of God (Eph_6:11). As to unfavourable surroundings, there were saints in Caesars household, and also in the households of Ahab, Pharaoh, and other famous foes of God. Abraham reared his altar in the very midst of idolaters.

VIII. Or do you frankly say, I COULDNT BE A CHRISTIAN AND CONTINUE IN MY BUSINESS, and I cant give that up, for a man must live? Mark you, when every man gives an account of himself to God, church records will never appear in evidence. What is wrong is wrong, whether a mans name is on the church book or not, and it is simply ridiculous to suppose you have a cloak for sin that will wash, because you can say, My name is not on the church book (Jam_5:2).

IX. Or do you wave that cloak for sin aloft?--I WANT TO HAVE FUN AND FREEDOM A LITTLE LONGER. Only use not liberty as a cloak of maliciousness (1Pe_2:16). Joseph, when tempted by the wife of Potiphar, left the outer robs she had seized upon in her hand and fled, saying, How can! do this great wickedness and sin against God?

X. Or do you offer the excuse, CANT AFFORD TO BE A CHRISTIAN? The church of Elijah and John the Baptist, with their rough camels hair coats, and of the widow who gave the two mites, is surely a place for the poorest. Think less of pews and pennies and appearance and more of the penitence and the inward adorning of the hearts.

XI. Or do you say by way of excuse, IM TOO BUSY TO THINK OF RELIGIOUS MATTERS? The care of the body is about all I can attend to just now. That was Dives mistake. He was so busy in robing himself and family in purple and fine linen that he left his soul in rags and at last brought himself to hells robe of fire.

XII. OTHER EXCUSES

1. Too old. He is able to save unto the uttermost.

2. Too young? As Samuel wore the ephod of a priest at three years of age, so in early life any child may wear the robe of righteousness.

3. Dont feel enough? When you have feeling the tempter will suggest the opposite excuse, You feel too much excitement. Between these two halves of his shears he is striving to cut in twain your offered robe of righteousness.

Conclusion:

1. What comedies are these excuses! To be frank and honest, most are mere quibbling, dilatory motions, talking against time. Such shallow excuses for absence from a business engagement would not be accepted--not even offered, and instead of providing a cloak for our sin, weave another scarlet robe of mockery for the Crucified (Mat_27:28). When Joseph was called before Pharaoh, he changed his raiment Gen_41:14). We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Are you willing to appear there with no change of raiment, wrapped in these ragged excuses? Thank God that a change of raiment, a wedding garment is provided--a real cloak for sin (Isa_61:10). With this robe of Christs righteousness offered to us a real cloak to cover sin, shall we not, like the returning prodigal, throw away our ragged excuses and accede to that plan of Gods infinite love, bring forth the best robe and put it on him. As Peter threw off his outer robe when he plunged into the sea, that he might the quicker swim to Christ who stood upon the shore; as Lazarus was loosed from the grave clothes, so let us, lay aside every weight and the cloaks of excuse for sin that keep us back from God and Heaven, and let us first hasten to Christ, and run with patience the race that is set before us. As Lord Raleigh gallantly threw his beautiful robe upon the muddy ground for Queen Elizabeth to walk upon, so let us throw all our excusing cloaks of at the feet of Jesus and take instead Christs cloaks of zeal (Isa_59:17). (W. F. Crafts.)

The pleas of gospel impenitents examined and refuted

Gospel impenitents who finally reject Christ have no cloak for their sin

I. FROM ANY PLEAS OR PRENTENCES THEY CAN MAKE RELATING TO GOD THEIR MAKER. They cannot plead

1. That they are not invited to believe in Christ for salvation. The gospel invitation runs in indefinite terms, Whosoever will, let him come.

2. That they are not elected. It is not the undiscovered decree, but the revealed precept, that is our rule, according to which we are to conduct ourselves, and by which we shall finally be judged (Deu_29:29)

3. That God uses any compulsion, or exerts any positive influence, to keep them in unbelief and harden them in sin (Jam_1:13).

4. That there is any deficiency of suitable means on Gods part, or that He does not afford them necessary external helps for their believing in Christ Isa_5:4). He has given men the Bible, the Church, pastors and teachers, sabbaths, etc.

5. That there is a want of internal assistances, and a defect of necessary influences from God to make the means effectual. The fact is

(1) Sinners do not realise what God tells them of the necessity of His grace, and of their own impotency, but are apt vainly to magnify their own abilities, and to think every man of himself more highly than he ought to think.

(2) Sinners do not pray to God for His Spirit as they ought, although they confess their own impotency.

(3) Sinners under the gospel, whether they pray for the Spirit or not, do actually experience those assistances of common grace, which are a full vindication of God, and leave them without all excuse. The Spirit of God is often at work in their consciences. He convinces them of sin, admonishes them of duty, and stirs up their affections, desires, fears, and hopes. But here is the misery and folly of sinners: they do always resist and vex the Holy Ghost.

II. FROM ANY PLEAS THEY CAN MAKE REFERRING TO SATAN, AND AN EVIL WORLD, THEIR SPIRITUAL ADVERSARIES. They suffer no violence from external causes, nor will any impediments they met with in the way of duty, afford them a plea sufficient to justify their not repenting and receiving Christ. What or who should compel the sinner to refuse Christ? They may persuade and entice, but they cannot force. They may indeed use a violence upon the body, and hinder that from external duties; but they cannot reach the soul, to hinder repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Jam_4:7). It is the fault and folly of sinners, they do not resist the devil. And then, if Satan has gained a power over any, which seems almost irresistible (2Ti_2:26), they have brought this upon themselves (Psa_81:11-12).

III. IT REMAINS, THEREFORE, THAT SIINNERS TAKE ALL THE BLAME OF THEIR SIN AND RUIN TO THEMSELVES (Jam_1:14; Joh_3:19). Gospel impenitents

1. Neglect to use, or trifle in using, those means which are in their own power, and which they might probably hope God would bless, in order to their salvation (Joh_6:27; Luk_13:24; Php_2:12).

2. Resist the methods of grace, which the blessed God uses with them, and quench the Holy Spirit striving in them (Isa_63:10; Act_7:51).

3. Do actually commit those sins, which, as they have a natural tendency to hinder their conversion, so they provoke God to withhold His special grace from them (Zec_7:11-12; Eze_24:13).

4. Do all this in a free and voluntary manner, and upon motives which, at the time, appear to them founded in reason.

Conclusion: Have gospel impenitents no cloak for their sin?

1. Hence we may learn the justice of God in the eternal condemnation of such in a future state.

2. Hence the awfulness of our standing under the gospel, and the miserable delusion of such as trust to mere privileges and externals in religion.

3. Hence the folly of delay in the grand affair of conversion.

4. If gospel impenitents are inexusable, who perish in their own iniquity; how much more such sinners as are voluntarily instrumental to the sin and ruin of others!

5. What abundant reason have they to admire the grace of God toward them, who after a course of great sin, under gospel light, have been converted! (T. Foxcroft.)

They hated Me without a cause

Hatred without cause

It is usually understood that the quotation is Psa_35:19. No being was ever more lovely than the Saviour; it would seem almost impossible not to have affection for Him. And yet, loveable as He was, from His first moment to the cross, save the temporary lull while He was a child, it seemed as if all men sought to destroy Him. In different ways that hatred displayed itself, in overt deeds, in words of slander, or in looks of contempt. At other times that hatred dwelt in their thoughts, and they thought within themselves, This man blasphemeth. All grades of men hated Him. Most men have to meet with some opposition; but then it is frequently a class opposition. The demagogue must expect to be despised by the rich, and he who labours for the aristocracy of course meets with the contempt of the many. But here was a man who walked among the people, who loved them, who spoke to the rich and poor as though they were on one level in His blessed sight; and yet all classes conspired to hate Him.

I. LET US JUSTIFY WHAT THE SAVIOUR SAID.

1. In Christs person there was an absence of almost everything which excites hatred between man and man.

(1) There was no great rank in Christ to excite envy. Let a man be ever so good, if he be at all lifted above his fellow creatures the many often speak against him. Now, Christ had none of the outward circumstances of rank. Instead of being lifted above men, He did, in some sense, seem to be below them, for foxes had holes, etc.

(2) Many persons envy those who exercise rule or government over them. If authorities were changed every month, in some countries there would be revolutions as much under one as under another. But this did not operate in Christs case: He did not assume sway over the multitude. In fact, instead of binding laws upon them which were severe, He loosened the rigidity of their system.

(3) Some men make others dislike them because they are proud. Somehow or other the human mind cannot bear pride; we always kick against it. But there was nothing of that in our Saviour. How humble He was! He would wash His disciples feet.

(4) There are others that you cannot help disliking, because they are so snappish, and waspish, and angry. But you cannot find that Christ spake one angry word, save those words of holy wrath against Pharasaic pride. Such a loving, kind, gentle spirit, one would have thought would have gone through the world as easy as possible.

(5) Another set you can scarcely help disliking--selfish people. But whatever Christ did, He did for others. He saved others; Himself He did not save. Self-sacrifice was the life of Christ; but He did it with such an ease that it seemed no sacrifice.

(6) Another sort of people there are that I do not like, viz. the hypocritical. But there never was a more unvarnished man than Christ. Among all the slanders men brought against Christ they never disputed His sincerity.

2. Was there anything in Christs errand which could make people hate Him? He came

(1) To explain mysteries, to tell them what was meant by the sacrificial lamb. Should they have hated one who made dark things light.

(2) To reclaim the wanderer; and is there anything in that that should make men hate Christ?

(3) To heal the diseases of the body. Shall I hate the physician who goes about gratuitously healing all manner of diseases? Surely, He might well say, For which of the works do ye stone Me.

(4) To die, that sinners might not die? Ought I to hate the substitute who takes my sins and griefs upon Him, and carries my sorrows?

3. Was there anything in Christs doctrine that that should have made us hate Him?

(1) Take His preceptive doctrines. Did He not teach us to do to others as we would they should do to us?

(2) Was it the ethical part of His doctrines that men bated? He taught that rich and poor must stand on one level; He taught that His gospel was to be gloriously expansive. This, perhaps, was one principal reason of their hating Him; but surely there was no justifiable cause for their indignation in this.

II. MANS SIN, THAT HE SHOULD HAVE HATED THE SAVIOUR WITHOUT A CAUSE.

1. I will not tell you of mans adulteries, murders, wars, cruelties, and rebellions; if I want to tell you mans sin, I must tell you that man is a deicide--that he put to death his God, and slew his Saviour; and when I have told you that I have given you the essence of all sin. In every other case, when man has hated goodness, there have always been some extenuating circumstances. We never do see goodness in this world without alloy. But because the Saviour had no inconsistencies or infirmities, men were stripped of all their excuses for hating Him, and it came out that man naturally hates goodness, because he is so evil that he cannot but detest it.

2. And now let me appeal to every sinner, and ask him whether he ever had any cause for hating Christ. But someone says, I do not hate Him; if He were to come to my house I would love Him very much. But Christ lives next door to you, in the person of poor Betty there. Why dont you like Betty? She is one of Christs members, and Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these ye have done it unto Me. Dont you know a very holy man you cannot bear because he told you of your faults once? Ah! sir, if you loved Christ you would love His members. I must suppose you to be hostile to Christ, unless you love Him; for I know there are only two opinions of Him. You must either hate Him or love Him. Indifference with regard to Christ is a clear impossibility. A man might as well say, I am indifferent towards honesty.

3. And now, Christian men, I must preach at you. Sure ye have great reason to love Christ now, for ye once hated Him without a cause. Did ye ever treat a friend ill, and did not know it.

III. LESSONS:

1. If your Master was hated without a cause, do not you expect to get off very easily in this world.

2. Take care, if the world does hate you, that it hates you without a cause. (C. H.Spurgeon.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 15:22-23. If I had not come and spoken unto them — Thus plainly; they had not had sin — Their guilt would not have been so great. “If I had not appeared in person among them, according to their own prophecies, and proved my mission by arguments which put it beyond all reasonable possibility of doubt, they would not have been so much to blame for rejecting the gospel.” But now they have no cloak for their sin — But now that all the things foretold by Moses and the prophets are fulfilled in me; that my gospel is every way worthy of God; and that my mission from God is sufficiently proved by my miracles; they have no plea whatever to excuse their unbelief. He that hateth me, hateth my Father also — As if he had said, This clearness of evidence, wherewith my mission is attended, makes the crime of rejecting me equal to, if not the same with, the crime of rejecting God. Their hatred to me implies also hatred to my Father. “How much,” says Dr. Doddridge, “is it to be wished, that those who make light of Christ, while they pretend a great veneration for the Father, would seriously attend to this weighty admonition, lest haply they be found even to fight against God! Act 5:39.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15:22-24 But now they have no excuse: Jesus’ ministry provided both words (15:22) and works (15:24) as evidence that pointed to God. Once people have heard and seen him, they are accountable.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 15:22. Ἁμαρτίαν) this sin, viz. the sin of unbelief, conjoined with hatred of Me.—οὐκ, not) Now they have sin, whilst they have no excuse (πρόφασιν) for it. It would have been better for them, if they had not ‘seen’ at all (Joh 15:24).

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_15:22-24. Sinfulness, not of this non-acquaintance with God (Ebrard, Ewald, Godet), but, as Joh_15:23-25 show, of this hatred of the name of Jesus, in respect of which they are inexcusable, since He has come and spoken to them (Joh_15:22-23), and done before their eyes His Messianic works (miracles), Joh_15:24.

ἁμαρτ. οὐκ εἶχον] For their hatred of my name would then be excusable, because, without my appearance and discourses, the true knowledge of Him who sent meand the non-acquaintance with whom is in truth the ground of their hatred (Joh_15:21)would have remained inaccessible to them. My appearance and discourses ought to have opened their eyes, and brought them to the knowledge of Him who sent me; but since this has not taken place, their hatred against me, which flows from their non-acquaintance with Him who sent me, is inexcusable; it is the hatred of hardened blindness before Gods revelation of Himself in my advent and discourses.

The moment of the protasis lies in ἧλθον and ἐλαλ. αὐτοῖς together (not merely in the latter); ἦλθον is the Messianic ἔρχεσθαι, correlative to the preceding τ. πέμψαντά με. The ἁμαρτία, however, referable to the μισεῖν,[168] must not be referred merely to unbelief, which does not correspond to the context in Joh_15:19; Joh_15:21; Joh_15:23-25 (in answer to Bengel, Luthardt, Lange, Hengstenberg, and several others). The words ἁμαρτ. οὐκ ἔχειν, Joh_9:41, were spoken of unbelief.

The non-occurrence of ἄν with ΕἾΧΟΝ is as in Joh_8:39.

ΝῦΝ ΔΈ] But thus, since I have appeared and have spoken to them.

πρόφασιν οὐκ ἔχουσι, κ.τ.λ.] In that supposed case they would have no sin, so far, namely, as their hatred would be only an excusable peccatum ignorantiae; but as the matter stands, they have no pretext in respect of their sin (to which they are subject through their hatred); they can allege nothing by way of escape. πρόφασιν ἔχειν, to have evasions, exculpations, only here in N. T., very frequently in the classics; Dem. 526. 15; Plat. Pol. v. p. 469 C; Xen. Cyr. iii. 1. 27. Antithesis: ἀφελεῖν πρόφασιν, Dem. 26. 2, 635. 24. Euth. Zigabenus well remarks: ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡΕῖ ΤΟῪς ἸΟΥΔΑΊΟΥς ἉΠΆΣΗς ΣΥΓΓΝΏΜΗς ἘΘΕΛΟΚΑΚΟῦΝΤΑς.

Joh_15:23. And how exceedingly great is this sin! Comp. v. 23.

Joh_15:24, parallel to Joh_15:22, as there from the discourses, which the unbelieving have heard, so here similarly from that which they have seen, revealing their guilt.

οὐδεὶς ἄλλος] that is, according to their nature and appearance, divine works, Joh_5:36, Joh_9:3-4, Joh_10:37, Joh_14:10, et al.

νῦν δὲ καὶ ἑωράκασι κ.τ.λ.] But thus (νῦν δέ, as in Joh_15:22), they have actually seen (as Joh_6:36), and yet hated both me and my Father. Not merely μεμισ., but also already ἙΩΡΆΚ., is connected with ΚΑῚ ἘΜῈ, Κ.Τ.Λ.; in the works they have seen Christ (Joh_10:25) and the Father (Joh_14:10); for both have revealed themselves in them, which, indeed, the unbelieving have seen only as an external sensuous occurrence, not with the inward understanding, giving significance to the outward σημεῖα; not with the eye of spiritual knowledge and inward being, Joh_6:26.

[168] Hence, too, on the question as to the salvation of the heathen, to whom Christ has not been preached, nothing is to be gathered from the present passage; and one may now, with Augustine, decide in favour of mitiores poenas for them, or, in confirmation of their condemnation, propose, with Melanchthon, to extend the words of Christ to the protevangelium in paradise, and bring in at the same time the natural moral law, Romans 2.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 15:22 . “If I had not come and spoken to them,” as the revealer of the Father, “they would not have sin,” they would still be ignorant of the Father, but would not have incurred the guilt which attaches to ignorance maintained in the presence of light. ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν is Johannine, see Joh 15:24 , Joh 19:11 ; 1Jn 1:8 . νῦν δὲ πρόφασιν οὐκ ἔχουσι περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν . “But now,” as I have come, “they have no excuse for,” etc., πρόφασιν , cf. Psa 140:4 : “Incline not my heart προφασίζεσθαι προφάσεις ἐν ἁμαρτίαις ”.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As who would say, If I had not come, these men would not have stuck to have said still before God’s judgment seat, that they are religious, and void of sin: but seeing I came to them, and they clean refuse me, they can have no cloak for their wickedness.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

(See on Joh 9:39-41).

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin--comparatively none; all other sins being light compared with the rejection of the Son of God.

now they have no cloak for their sin--rather, "pretext."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 22. But now they have no cloke for their sin.] They are without excuse. See the margin, and See Clarke on Joh 9:41. Christ had done such works as demonstrated him to be the Messiah - yet they rejected him: here lay their sin; and this sin, and the punishment to which it exposed them, still remain; for they still continue to reject the Lord that bought them.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. If I had not come. He had said that the Jews regarded the Gospel with hatred, because they did not know God. Lest any one should think that this tended to alleviate their guilt, he adds, that it is through malice that they are blind, just as if one were to shut his eyes, that he might not be compelled to see the light. For otherwise it might have been brought as an objection against Christ. “If they do not know thy Father, how comes it that thou dost not cure their ignorance? Why didst thou not at least make trial whether they were altogether incapable of being taught, or not?” He replies, that he has performed the duty of a good and faithful Teacher, but without success, because their malice would not suffer them to acquire soundness of mind. In the person of those men he intended to strike terror into all who reject the truth of God, when it is offered to them, or intentionally fight against it, when it is known. And though a dreadful vengeance awaits them, still Christ, in this passage, looks chiefly to his own disciples, to animate them by the confident and well-grounded expectation of victory, lest, at any time, they should yield to the malice of wicked men; for when we learn that such will be the issue, we may already triumph, as if we were in the midst of the battle.

They would not have sin. It may be thought that Christ intended by these words to say, that there is no other sin but unbelief; and there are some who think so. Augustine speaks more soberly, but he approaches to that opinion; for, since faith forgives and blots out all sins, he says, that the only sin that damns a man is unbelief. This is true, for unbelief not only hinders men from being delivered from the condemnation of death, but is the source and cause of all evils. But the whole of that reasoning is inapplicable to the present passage; for the word sin is not taken in a general sense, but as related to the subject which is now under consideration; as if Christ had said, that their ignorance is utterly inexcusable, because in his person they maliciously rejected God; just as if we were to pronounce a person to be innocent, just, and pure, when we wished merely to acquit him of a single crime of which he had been accused. Christ’s acquittal of them, therefore, is confined to one kind of sin, because it takes away from the Jews every pretense of ignorance in this sin, of despising and hating the Gospel.

But there is still another question that arises: “Was not unbelief sufficient to condemn men before the coming of Christ?” There are fanatics who reason inconclusively from this passage, that all who died before the coming of Christ died without faith, and remained in a state of doubt and suspense till Christ manifested himself to them; as if there were not many passages of Scripture which testify that their conscience alone was sufficient to condemn them. Death, says Paul, reigned in the world even to Moses, (Romans 5:14.) And again he declares, that

they who have sinned without law shall perish without law, (Romans 2:12.)

What, then, does Christ mean? There is undoubtedly an admission made in these words, by which he means that the Jews have nothing more to offer in extenuation of their guilt, since they knowingly and willfully rejected the life which was offered to them. Thus the excuse which he makes for them does not free them from all blame, but only extenuates the heinousness of their crime, according to that saying, The servant, who knoweth the will of his master, and despiseth it, shall be severely punished? For it was not the intention of Christ here to promise pardon to any, but to hold his enemies convicted, who had obstinately rejected the grace of God, that it might be fully evident that they were unworthy of all pardon and mercy.

If I had not come and SPOKEN TO THEM. It ought to be observed, that he does not speak of his coming, as viewed by itself, but as connected with his doctrine, for they would not have been held guilty of so great a crime on account of his bodily presence alone, but the contempt of the doctrine made them utterly inexcusable.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

22. If I had not come and spoken unto them] He had spoken as man had never spoken before (Joh_7:46), and His words sufficed to tell unprejudiced minds Who He was. Their hatred was a sin against light; if there had been no light, there would have been no sin. ‘To have sin’ is a phrase peculiar to S. John (Joh_15:24, Joh_9:41, Joh_19:11; 1Jn_1:8).

no cloke] Better (with the margin), no excuse: not only have they sin, but they have sin without excuse. The same word is rendered ‘cloke,’ 1Th_2:5. But the notion is not that of hiding, but of excusing what cannot be hid: ‘colour’ (Act_27:30) is a better rendering than ‘cloke.’ Comp. Psa_140:4.

for their sin] Literally, concerning their sin: comp. Joh_16:8.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But this cometh to pass,.... This hatred against Christ, and which is pointed at his people for his sake, and reaches to the Father also on his account, is suffered to be, and therefore should be patiently borne:

that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law: either in Psa 35:19, or rather in Psa 69:4; which is a psalm of Christ, as appears by citations out of it in the New Testament, or references to it; see Joh 2:17. The whole Scripture is sometimes called the law, as here; for not the law of Moses is meant, or the five books of Moses, but the writings of the Old Testament; which the Jews had in their hands, to them being committed the oracles of God; and sometimes are so called, when the book of Psalms is particularly referred to as now; see Joh 10:34; the words cited are,

they hated me without a cause; without any reason for it, Christ having given them no provocation, or just cause of offence, anger, or hatred. This sin of hating without a cause, is represented by the Jews as a very heinous one, and as the reason of the destruction of the second temple; under which they observe, that men studied in the law, and in the commandments, and in doing of good; and therefore ask why it was destroyed? the answer is, because there was under it, , "hatred without a cause": to teach us, that hatred without a cause is equal to the three (capital) transgressions, idolatry, adultery, and murder, for which they say the first temple was destroyed (w). This is a tacit acknowledgment that the sin here mentioned was a reigning one, or that it much abounded in the time of Christ.

(w) T. Bab, Yoma, fol. 9. 2. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 38. 3.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

Ver. 22. If I had not come, &c.] Here our Saviour shows that their ignorance was affected, as theirs is with us. Qui ut liberius peccent, libenter ignorant, they shut the windows lest the light should come in. (Bernard.) Sic fit, ubi homines maiorem vitae partem in tenebris agunt, ut novissime solem quasi supervacuum fastidiant. (Seneca, Epist.) This is the ignorance to which mercy is denied, Isa 27:11.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And spoken unto them - Declared unto them the will of God, and made known his requirements. Jesus had not less certainly shown by his own arguments that he was the Messiah than by his miracles. By both these kinds of proof their guilt was to be measured. See Joh 15:26. No small part of the gospel of John consists of arguments used by the Saviour to convince the Jews that he came from God. He here says if he had not used these arguments, and proved to them his divine mission, they had not had sin.

Had not had sin - This is evidently to be understood of the particular sin of persecuting and rejecting him. Of this he was speaking; and though, if he had not come, they would have been guilty of many other sins, yet of this, their great crowning sin, they would not have been guilty. We may understand this, then, as teaching:

1. That they would not have been guilty of this kind of sin. They would not have been chargeable with rejecting the signal grace of God if Jesus had not come and made an offer of mercy to them.

2. They would not have been guilty of the same degree of sin. The rejection of the Messiah was the crowning act of rebellion which brought down the vengeance of God, and led on their special national calamities. By way of eminence, therefore, this might be called the sin - the special sin of their age and nation. Compare Mat 23:34-39; Mat 27:25. And this shows us, what is so often taught in the Scriptures, that our guilt will be in proportion to the light that we possess and the mercies that we reject, Mat 11:20-24; Luk 12:47-48. If it was such a crime to reject the Saviour then, it is a crime now; and if the rejection of the Son of God brought such calamities on the Jewish nation, the same rejection will involve the sinner now in woe, and vengeance, and despair.

No cloak - No covering, no excuse. The proof has been so clear that they cannot plead ignorance; it has been so often presented that they cannot allege that they had no opportunity of knowing it. It is still so with all sinners.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

They would not have sin, or would not be guilty of sin: that is, they might be excused, as to their not believing me to be their Messias: but after so many instructions, which I have given them, and so many, and such miracles done in their sight, which also were foretold of their Messias, they can have no excuse for their obstinate sin of unbelief. They have hated both me, and my Father: that is, by hating me, the true Son, who have one and the same nature with my Father, they have also hated him, though they pretend to honour him as God. See on this chapter St. Augustine (tract. 81.) and St. John Chrysostom (hom. lxxvi.) in the Latin edition, hom. lxxvii. in Joan. in the Greek.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

They had not had this particular sin, of not knowing him that sent me; or they had not had such degrees of sin as they now have; or they had had more to say in excuse, or for a cover for their sin. Ignorance of the will of God will not excuse sinners wholly, but it will excuse them in part. And this last seemeth to be the sense of the words by the latter part of the verse, because it is opposed to a having no cloak nor excuse for their sin. If Christ had not come in his incarnation, in his preaching the gospel, &c, they could not have been guilty of that hatred and malice which they showed against him, which was their greatest guilt; and they would have had this to say, Lord, we knew not what Christ was, as Mat 25:44; but now, saith our Saviour, they have no cloak, no colour, no pretence; I am come, I have revealed my Father’s mind and will to them, yet they will not receive me; no, though I have done those works before them which no man ever did, nor could do but by a Divine power.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. If—There is a supposable case in which they would be without condemnation. If they had no means or power to know, if I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had responsible sin. Their action might have been wrong, but with no means or power to do right instead of wrong, it is not responsible wrong; it could not have incurred just condemnation or penalty. The impossibility in the intellect to know the truth is a cloak, an excuse, for not knowing the truth. The incapacity in the will to do right, arising from a necessary controlling motive force, is a cloak or an excuse for not doing right, and for doing wrong. If that wrong doing be properly called a sin, it is not a responsible sin.

And this is a universal law of a just divine administration. Where there is from the beginning no power for right there can be no guilt for wrong. Were the posterity of Adam born into existence without the means to know the truth, without the volitional power to will the right, or without any personal fault or forfeiture by their own free act, they could not have been held responsible or justly punishable. If Christ had not come, if no sufficient light had been shed, and no sufficient power imparted, there could have been no responsible sin, guilt, or penalty. Hence it was not until a Saviour was promised that Adam was spared and he begat a son. The future Saviour was the previous condition of the continuance of the race. Without that future Saviour there is no proof but that the fulness of the penalty of death would have been suffered in the person of guilty Adam alone, no posterity of his succeeding.

But now—Inasmuch as I have come and have spoken the truth, affording them the means of knowing, willing, and doing.

They have no cloak—No covering, no justification, no palliation; but a full exposure to the utmost penalty for their excuseless sin. They knew their duty and they did it not.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If I had not come, as the incarnate Word of God, if I had not fulfilled the promises and come forth from God into the world to reveal the Father, and spoken to them, made known to them the thought and Spirit of God, made it possible for them to know the essence of the only true God, they had had no sin; they would not have resisted the highest love, their alienation in this respect would not have been a violation of the most solemn and gracious demands of the Father. The greatest sin is the refusal of the most complete revelation, and by the side of this all other sin becomes comparatively trivial. Our Lord could not have spoken of the hatred of himself or his disciples (so Lucke and Meyer) as this sin, because it would have been obviously impossible to hate a non-existent revelation or revealer. It is the deeper fall which is consequent upon a deliberate rejection of the highest love. Formerly, they would have been in the condition of those whose sins of ignorance God overlooks, (Act_17:30) and to whose amarthmata in the past God has exercised paresiv , in anticipation of the coming grace. But now (Luke in numerous places uses this expression to form a strong contrast) they have no excuse or pretext for their sin, or concerning their sin. They can plead no justification. The word profasiv is an legomenon , and is not "cloak or covering," but palliation or excuse" for manifest sin. So long as men have seen no deeper into the nature of God than they can go with the aid of mere phenomena or ratiocination on the details of creation, their fears and even their hatreds formulated into grim legend, or uncouth idols, or repellent hypothesis, are a natural outcome of a nature so corrupt; but they ought to have found in Christ a deeper revelation, a summons to service and adoring love. In rejecting the idea of God which I have set before them they have no excuse. St. Paul (Rom_1:20) declares that those who have defamed the great characteristic of God which may be learned from nature are without excuse. Certainly our Lord does not say this here.

Vers. 22-25. Unbelief inexcusable.

It is significant and affecting to find that in the last deliberate discourse which our Lord Jesus addressed to his disciples, he not only administered comfort to his friends, but uttered words of sad rebuke to his enemies. He knew full well that the attitude which was taken towards him by the Jewish leaders was typical of the regard and treatment of multitudes besides; and his reproaches have a scope far beyond their immediate application.

I THE MANIFESTATION OF UNBELIEF. This is to be seen in the open rejection and persecution of the Lord Jesus.

II THE CAUSE OF UNBELIEF. This is not intellectual difficulty, but moral repugnance. The Jewish enemies of Jesus hated his holy character, his denunciations of their worldliness and hypocrisy, his lofty and spiritual standard of teaching, his claims to supreme authority.

III THE GUILT OF UNBELIEF. This is especially to be recognized in what unbelief of Christ involves. Hatred of the Father, God, and consequent hatred of his holy Law and his benevolent purposes, such is the charge which Jesus brings against his foes. In rejecting Christ, they were showing themselves to be out of sympathy with the mind and will of him who is eternal righteousness and goodness. This was their sin and condemnation.

IV THE INEXCUSABLENESS OF UNBELIEF. As powerfully set forth by Jesus Christ in this passage, this is to be observed in three respects.

1. Christ s words, his incomparable teaching, were a witness to his authority, and should have been received with reverence, gratitude, and faith. It should have been an all-sufficient witness to him who spake as never man spake. The truths he revealed, the laws he imposed, the promises he gave, were all such as would have commanded the respect of those morally prepared to appreciate the utterances of One who came from heaven.

2. Christ"s marvelous works were well fitted to second the impression produced by his words. They, indeed, appealed to an inferior faculty of human nature, but they were necessary in order to the completeness and justice of the impression to be made upon the minds of our Lord"s contemporaries. His enemies did not deny the reality of our Lord"s miracles, but they misinterpreted them, attributing them, by an absurd ingenuity, to an infernal source.

3. The hatred, enmity, and unbelief of the Jews were inexcusable because they were "without a cause." By this we must understand, not that there was no motive in the minds of his foes, but that there was no justification for their conclusions or for their conduct. T.

Vers. 22-25. The sin of neglecting the Savior.

With regard to the Jewish nation, this is referred to by our Lord

I AS A SIN OF THE GREATEST ENORMITY. There are degrees in sin as in virtue. The sin of rejecting the Savior is the greatest. It stands alone in the black category. "If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not," etc. What does this mean? Whether that they would not have that particular sin? or that, in comparison with this, ethers are small, and almost fade into nothingness? Its enormity will appear if we consider:

1. It is the greatest insult to the greatest and best Being. Who is disbelieved and rejected? The eternal Son and the eternal Father the supreme Being whom they professed to acknowledge and worship. For the rejection of the Son involves the rejection of the Father. He that hateth me," etc. No one can so insult and grieve the Father as by insulting his Son; and the greatest insult to the Son is the rejection of his Person, Word, and redemptive grace. Thus the Divine truth and honor are impugned. "He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not," etc.

2. It is the greatest insult to the supreme Being while in the nearest contiguity to them. The Father was in the Son; and the Son was in the flesh, in their very nature; therefore God was in their nature, speaking and acting among them. He was never so near before. They never had such a vision of him. He was face to face with them. He could not come physically nearer, neither could they have a clearer physical vision of him. So clear it was that our Lord could with propriety say, "They have seen me and my Father." In him the Father was seen, and yet they rejected him. Thus the insult was most direct and daring. They insulted him to his very face.

3. It is the greatest insult to the supreme Being, under circumstances which were calculated in the highest degree reproduce different effects.

The circumstances we have already indicated, and they are quite unique. Even in the wonderful history of the Jewish nation, and in the history of the nations of the world, they were such as they alone enjoyed, and involved such Divine light and evidence as were calculated in the highest degree to produce the readiest faith in and the warmest reception of the Son of God. It was the natural conclusion of the Divine Father: "They will honor my Son." Although they have maltreated my prophets, yet they will honor my Son. In his life and actions they saw the Father, yet rejected him, and sinned against the greatest light.

1. It is the greatest insult against the supreme Being in the very attempt of conferring upon them the greatest benefit. And this involved the exercise of the greatest condescension and love. The object in view and the love manifested are set forth in the familiar but matchless words," God so loved the world, that he gave," etc. Can imagination conceive of a greater sin and insult than the rejection of the manifestation of such Divine love, whose object is to save from the most inevitable and terrible ruin, and the bestowment of the greatest and most undeserving gift? Sin against the truth, justice. and holiness of the supreme Being, separately considered, is nothing to the sin against Divine and self-sacrificing love. Jesus was the incarnation of Divine love, manifested to bless and to save; but while in the very act of salvation he was most insultingly rejected.

2. It is the greatest insult to the supreme Being, assuming the most malignant form. "And hated both me and my Father." While this indicates the cause of their rejection, the enmity of the carnal mind against God, it also reveals its extreme malignity. It is not merely negative and defensive, but most malignantly aggressive and decided. And hatred is the most virulent form of rejection, the most daring form of unbelief, the most insulting resistance to the supreme Being, and the most fatal defiance to Divine love, which in this case resulted in the cruel crucifixion of the Son of God.

3. The greatest insult to the supreme Being, which resulted in the most fatal consequences. By their malignant rejection they made the greatest general blessing the greatest personal curse, turned the greatest boon into the greatest bane; so that it would be infinitely better for them if the Son of God had not come to them at all their sin would be less, and their fate less disastrous. They attempted to stem and poison the river of life in its flow to fallen humanity, and succeeded as far as they were concerned. They set an unparalleled example of unbelief and moral obduracy to all succeeding ages, the result of which was social and spiritual ruin.

II AS A SIN OF THE GREATEST ENORMITY WITH THE LEAST EXCUSE. What excuses are supposable in this case?

1. If he had not come to them at all. This would be a complete excuse. But he came, appeared to them, and dwelt among them.

2. If he had no right to come. They would have a perfect right to reject an intruder and an impostor, who had no right to their faith and acceptance. But Jesus was not such. He had an absolute right to come. He came in accordance with the Divine will, as well known to him, and well known to them as revealed in their Scriptures. He came in the way and at the very time and for the purpose indicated. And his coming was absolutely right and essential in order to fulfill the Divine plan and satisfy human need.

3. Want of adequate knowledge of him. This would be a valid excuse. But this they could not plead. He not only sent the Baptist to herald his immediate coming, but came himself in person, and spoke to them, taught daily in their streets and synagogues, availed himself of every opportunity to address them in the most homely and clear language as to his Divine origin and mission as the Son of God and their Messiah. And he taught "as One having authority;" and it was the testimony of all his unprejudiced hearers, "Never man spake like this Man.

4. Want of adequate proofs of his claims. Although his teaching was full, clear, and Divine, yet, without the further evidence of miracles, there would be a legitimate excuse. Jesus allows this. "If I had not done," etc. They demanded a sign. This demand was most fully and readily granted:

(1) In such works of power and mercy as no other man had ever before performed. They professed to believe Moses and the prophets on the evidence of miracles; but their miracles were very few in number, and inferior in quality as compared with those performed by him whom they rejected.

(2) In such works of power and mercy as were in perfect keeping with his claims and character as their Messiah and Savior. There was a perfect correspondence between his teaching and his works. He suited the word to the deed, and the deed to the word. His testimony was complete.

(3) In such works of power and mercy as clearly revealed him and the Father revealed him as the Son of God, and God as his Father. His works were so Divine that even they themselves could not deny their supernatural character; but, rather than admitting their natural conclusion, attributed them to a demon. So transparently Divine were his works, that in their light, not only he as the Divine Son could be seen, but also his Divine Father; still they malignantly rejected both.

1. Want of natural ability to comprehend the evidences of his claims. The deaf have a sufficient excuse for not hearing, and the blind for not seeing. The want of common intelligence and natural ability would be an excuse for intellectual and moral unbelief. But they could not plead this, neither did they. And when our Lord hinted at their moral blindness they were greatly insulted, and asked with contempt, "Are we also blind?" Our Lord tacitly accepts their explanation, but pointed them to the inevitable consequence, "Your sin remaineth." They were entirely responsible, and claimed it. It was not because they could not, but because they would not.

2. Any really objectionable qualities in his character or conduct. They would be justified in rejecting a cruel tyrant, a vile impostor, or a vicious teacher; but they had none of these excuses in the least degree. Not only they had no reason to hate him, but the strongest reasons possible to love and welcome him with delight. His character was divinely transparent, and his life absolutely pure. His discourses were pregnant with life and light, and his words and actions full of grace and truth. His conduct towards all was invariably respectful and tenderly kind, and even to his most inveterate foes he was most patient, indulgent, and forgiving. There was no cause for hatred in him. It must have been entirely in them; and his experience was that of the psalmist, recorded in their Scripture, "They hated me without a cause." They could not find an excuse for their sin, neither could Jesus find one. In spite of his terrible indictment against them, he seems to be in search of an excuse for them. "If I had not come," etc.; "but now," etc. As far as they were concerned, he almost wished he had not come and spoken to them. He who prayed on the cross, "Father, forgive," etc., was ever ready to find the least legitimate excuse for sinners, and even for his most inveterate foes; but in this case could find none. There was none, and there is none.

LESSONS.

1. The gospel, with regard to the rejecters of Christ, reveals a terribly corrupt state of the heart. The gospel does not cause sin, but reveals it, and in relation to the disobedient occasions the greatest guilt. It would be better for them not to have enjoyed its light.

2. With regard to its rejecters, it reveals a terrible Tower of the corrupt will to resist the Divinest evidence and refer the most loving overtures of Heaven, as well as its own highest good.

3. Although it would be far better for the disobedient if Christ had not come and spoken to them, yet those who sigh for and are ready to receive him are not deprived of him on this account. Shall not the sun rise because many evil-doers prefer darkness, and may avail themselves of but little of its light? And shall Jesus keep away because many will disobey, and even hate him? No; let him come and save.

4. The worlds awful responsibility under the gospel. The responsibility of increasing light and grace. Our destiny hangs upon our receiving or not receiving Christ. Beware of rejecting him. Beware of the excuseless sin.

5. Our great Advocate can find an excuse for every sin but this. For this there is no defense; for he is rejected for whose sake God alone can forgive. There is in him no cause of hatred or rejection; but there is in him an infinitely extending pardon to the vilest penitent. Some of his murderers availed themselves of this. And it is ever available and infallible: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord," etc. B.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They had not had sin - Not in this respect.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

sin

Sin. (See Scofield "Rom 3:23").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The hatred of the world and the testimony of the Spirit:

v. 22. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.

v. 23. He that hateth Me hateth My Father also.

v. 24. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin; but now have they both seen and hated both Me and My Father.

v. 25. But this cometh to pass that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their Law, They hated Me without a cause.

v. 26. But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me.

v. 27. And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning.

The position of the unbelieving Jews at the time of Jesus was much like that of Paul, Rom 7:7. If Jesus had not come and revealed Himself to the world as the Messiah, if He had not taught and preached as He did, then their great sin, unbelief, would not have been committed. After the revelation of Christ, after the open preaching of the Gospel before the world, there is no longer any excuse for unbelief. It is here laid bare as the sin of sins, for Christ earned and offered full atonement for all sins, and in rejecting Him they also rejected His atonement, whereby their sins were returned to them with their full damnation. And in hating Jesus they also hated the Father, thus loading upon themselves a still greater measure of guilt. That is the climax of enmity toward God, that the world despises and rejects the love of God, the grace of God in Christ, that the children of unbelief hate that God who offers them mercy and peace. The situation is perfectly plain. Jesus had not only preached of the Father time and again, but He had revealed Him also through His works, through His miracles. They had rejected this revelation in their unbelief. Seeing the Father in the person of the Son, they had hated Christ and therefore also the Father, with whom He is One. There is no excuse for the world, but there is some measure of comfort for the disciples in the fact that the world’s hatred has been prophesied, Psa 69:4. Without a just cause, from a mere spirit of contrariness, the world hated Christ, and today hates the Christians. Their rejection of Him, of His Word, and of His followers, is inexcusable.

But over against all this hatred and enmity of the world stands the comforting promise of Christ concerning the Holy Spirit and His testimony. The Comforter, the Helper, the Guide, whom He has promised them, will surely come. Christ will send Him from the Father, for such is His power as the exalted Son of God. He is the Spirit of Truth; the teaching of the eternal Gospel and the revealing of its glory and beauties to the hearts of the believers is His principal work. He is sent by the Son, but proceeds also from the Father. There is the most wonderful intimacy between the various persons of the Godhead. To testify of Jesus the Savior: that is the office of the Spirit; for that reason He bears the name Spirit of Truth. "I shall give you, says Christ, the Spirit that will make you sure and certain of the truth, that ye no longer dare doubt with regard to this or that concerning your salvation, but may be sure of the matter and be judges, and even judge all other doctrine. " Note how strongly the Trinity of the Godhead is here brought out: Jesus, the speaker, as one person, will send the Comforter from the Father, a person distinct from Himself; and this Comforter, in turn, is distinguished from the Father and from the Son. With the aid of this Comforter and Helper the disciples would be able to witness, to testify concerning the redemption of mankind through the work of Christ. And their testimony should have all the greater weight and value because they had been with the Lord from the beginning; they could speak of what they had seen and heard. With such a wonderful witness from on high to support and strengthen them, there was no reason why the disciples should not perform their work with all energy and power, even as this attitude should characterize their work today. "There is therefore no other manner or way to comfort, strengthen, and instruct the consciences, and to protect and defend one’s self, than by this preaching and testimony of the Holy Ghost. That is the Word of God, preached in the world through the Holy Ghost, known also to the children, which also the portals of hell shall not overthrow."

Summary.Jesus tells His disciples the Parable of the Vine and the Branches with its application, explains and urges the commandment of brotherly love, and speaks of the hatred of the world against the disciples of Christ.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

These words are not to be understood absolutely, but comparatively; as if Christ had said, "Had not I come amongst them in my incarnation, and preached personally to them the doctrine of salvation, and confirmed that doctrine by miraculous operations, they might have pleaded ignorance in some measure, and they had not had sin; that is, they had not had the sin of unbelief and gospel-contempt of sin to answer for as now they have; but would have had more to say in excuse, or for a cover for their sin, than now they can: But now they have no cloak for their sin: that is, they are totally inexcusable, and have not the least colour or pretence for their obstinate unbelief."

Learn hence, 1. That sins of ignorance are, as it were, no sins compared with sins committed against light and knowledge.

2. That sins committed against gospel light are of an heinous nature, and aggravated guilt, as being committed against the very remedy.

3. That the gospel, where it is plainly preached, doth take away all pretence and excuse from sinners. Now they have no cloak for their sins.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22. If I had not come … they had not had sin. Certain conclusions follow: (1) The degree of our sin is measured by our opportunities; (2) increased opportunities bring a consciousness of sin; light in the room enables us to see the dirt; (3) the sin of sins is the rejection of Christ. Since he came there is no cloak, no covering, no excuse. Those who refuse Christ die in their sins, because they will not part from them.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

22 and 24. εἴχοσαν for εἶχον (more usual form).

The general subject still continues from Joh 13:31—CHRIST’S LOVE IN KEEPING HIS OWN. This is still further set forth in this chapter in three main aspects: 1. Their union with Him, illustrated by the allegory of the Vine (1–11); 2. Their union with one another in Him (12–17); 3. The hatred of the world to both Him and them (18–25).

22. εἰ μὴ … ἐλάλησα. He had spoken as man had never spoken before (Joh 7:16), in words sufficient to tell unprejudiced minds Who He was. Their hatred was a sin against light: without the light there would have been no sin. Ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν is peculiar to S. John (Joh 15:24, Joh 9:41, Joh 19:11; 1Jn 1:8): they would not have sin (Joh 19:11; Rom 7:7). Πρόφασιν is excuse rather than ‘cloke.’ The notion is not of hiding, but of excusing what cannot be hid: ‘colour’ (Act 27:30) is better than ‘cloke’ (1Th 2:5).

νῦν δέ here and in Joh 15:24 introduces a sharp contrast: the two verses exhibit the parallelism so frequent in S. John. For περὶ τῆς ἁμ. comp. Joh 8:46, Joh 16:8.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22.] The sinfulness of this hate. See ch. 9:41 and note.

ἐλάλησα, discoursed, generally: not, acquainted them with their sin. The sin spoken of is, not the generally sinful state of the world,—nor the sin of unbelief in Christ, which they of course could not have committed, had He never come: but the sin of hatred to Him and His, which might have been excused otherwise, but now that He had come and discoursed with them, had no excuse, since He had plainly shewn them the proofs of his mission from the Father.

Euthym. says well, ἀποστερεῖ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους πάσης συγγνώμης ἐθελοκακοῦντας.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22. That the Jews did not “know” God as revealed in Christ would be the cause of their hatred of Christ and of Christians (v. 21); and this ignorance is now shown to be inexcusable, (a) because the words of Jesus should have found an echo in their minds (v. 22), and (b) because His works should have convinced them of His Divine mission (v. 24).

The constr. εἰ μὴ … ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἴχοσαν· νῦν δὲ … is identical in vv. 22, 24; and it is noteworthy that ἄν is omitted, which perhaps makes the sentence more emphatic, “If I had not … assuredly they would have no sin.” In both verses εἴχοσαν (אBLN) is to be preferred to the rec. εἶχον.

εἰ μὴ ἦλθον. This is the Messianic ἔρχεσθαι. He who was to come had come.

καὶ ἐλάλησα αὐτοῖς, “and discoursed to them”; see on 3:11 for λαλεῖν. Cf. 12:48.

ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἴχοσαν. For ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν, cf. 9:41, 19:11, 1Jn 1:8. But their failure to accept Jesus, when they had heard Him speak, was a moral failure, and therefore blameworthy. See on the parallel passage 9:41. Involuntary ignorance, on the other hand, is excusable; cf. Act 17:30.

νῦν δέ, “but now, as things are.”

πρόφασιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν κτλ. πρόφασις does not occur again in Jn.; cf. Psa 141:4 (LXX).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Had sin [αμαρτιαν ειχον] . See on 9 41; 1Jo 1:8.

Cloke [προφασιν] . From pro, before, in front of, and fhmi, to say or affirm. Hence something which is placed in front of the true cause of a thing, a pretext. Compare 1Th 2:5; Act 27:30. Pretext carries the same idea, Latin, proetextum, something woven in front, with a view to concealment or deception. Rev., excuse. Wyc, excusation. The A. V. follows Tyndale : nothing to cloke their sin withal. Latimer (" Sermons ") : "By such cloaked charity, when thou dost offend before Christ but once, thou hast offended twice herein." The word appears in the low Latin cloca, a bell (compare the French cloche, and English clock), and the name was given to a horseman's cloak because of its resemblance to a bell. The word palliate is from the Latin pallium, a cloak.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ver. 22. This blindness which has prevailed in their entire history (see the discourse of Stephen, Acts 7) might have still been forgiven them, if, at this decisive moment, they had finally yielded. But the rejection of this supreme divine manifestation characterizes their state as an invincible antipathy, as the hatred of God, a sentiment which constitutes the unpardonable sin. Some (Bengel, Luthardt, Lange, Hengstenberg, Keil) think that the sin which would not have been imputed to them is their very unbelief with reference to Jesus. But this sin, if Jesus had not come, would not have been even possible (Weiss). It would be necessary, therefore, to understand the first words in this sense: “If I had not come in such or such a way, for example, with the holiness which I have displayed, and had not borne witness for myself in so convincing a manner.” But Jesus simply says: If I had not come —that is, as Messiah. The meaning, therefore, is this: “The former sin of Israel, its long resistance to God, would have been forgiven it, if it had not now crowned all by the rejection of Jesus as He came as Saviour, and bore testimony to Himself as such.” This last sin destroys all the excuses which Israel could have alleged for its conduct in general; it proves incontestably that this people is animated by an ill-will towards God; that it does not sin through ignorance. The idea is not altogether the same as in Joh 9:41.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.