John 8:42

Joh 8:42. Ἠγαπᾶτε, ye would love) ye would not persecute Me with such deadly hatred as ye do.—ἐξῆλθον, I came forth) Hereby is intimated the “terminus a quo” [the source from which].—ἥκω, I am come) Hereby is intimated the “terminus ad quem” [the destination to which].

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

Joh_8:42 f. God is not your Father, else would ye love me, because ye would be of like descent with me; ἑνὸς γεγαῶτα τοκῆος ἀῤῥαγέος φιλίης ἀλύτῳ ξυνώσατε θεσμῷ, Nonnus. This ἀγαπᾶτε ἂν ἐμὲ would be the ethical test (Luthardt) of the like paternity; the fact of its non-existence, although it might have existed, is evidence to the contrary.

ἐγώ] spoken with a feeling of divine assurance.

ἐξῆλθον] the proceeding forth from that essential pre-human fellowship with God, which was His as the Son of God, and which took place through the incarnation (Joh_13:3, Joh_16:27-28; Joh_16:30, Joh_17:8). The idea of a mere sending would not be in harmony with the context, the proper subject of which is the Fatherhood of God; comp. Joh_6:62, Joh_17:5.

καὶ ἥκω) Result of the ἐξῆλθον: and am here, it belongs, along with the rest, also to ἐκ τ. θεοῦ.

οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ, etc.] Confirmation of ἐκ τ. θεοῦ, etc.; for not even of my own self-determination, etc. If Jesus, namely, had not manifested Himself as proceeding from God, He might have come either from a third person, or, at all events, ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ; on the contrary, not even (οὐδέ) was this latter the case.

Joh_8:43. After having shown them that they were the children neither of Abraham nor of God, before positively declaring whose children they actually are, He discloses to them the ground of their not understanding His discourse; for everything that they had advanced from Joh_8:33 onwards had been in fact such a non-understanding. The form of expression here used, namely, question and answer (ὅτι, because; comp. Rom_9:32; 2Co_11:11), is an outflow of the growing excitement; Dissen, ad Dem, de Cor. p. 186, 347. De Wette (comp. Luther, Beza, Calvin) takes ὅτι as equivalent to εἰς ἐκεῖνο ὅτι (see on Joh_2:18): I say this with reference to the circumstance that. Illogical, as the clauses must then have stood in the reverse order (διατί οιὐ δύνασθε … ὅτι τὴν λαλιάν, etc.), because, namely, the words οὐ γινώσκετε denote the relation which is clear from what has preceded.

In the question and in the answer, that on which the emphasis rests is thrown to the end. His discourse was unintelligible to them, because its substance, to wit, His word, was inaccessible to their apprehension, because they had no ears for it. For the cause of this ethical οὐ δύνασθε, see Joh_8:47. λαλιά, which in classical Greek denoted talk, chatter (see on Joh_4:42), signifies in later writers (e.g. Polyb. 32. 9, 4; Joseph. Bell. ii. 8. 5), and in the LXX. and Apocrypha, also Discourse, Sermo,[27] without any contemptuous meaning. Comp. Mat_26:73. So also here; indeed, so different is it from ὁ λόγος, that whilst this last mentioned term denotes the doctrinal substance expressed by the ΛΑΛΙΆ,the doctrine, the substance of that which is delivered,[28]

λαλιά denotes the utterance itself, by which expression is given to the doctrine. Comp. Joh_12:48 : ὁ λόγος ὃν ἐλάλησα; Php_1:14; Heb_12:7.

[27] On λάλιος in bonam partem, see Jacobs, ad Anthol. vi. p. 99, vii. p. 140.

[28] Comp. Weizsäcker in d. Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 196 f. But in the gospel it is always the verbum vocale, and it should not be confounded with the λόγος of the prologue, which is the verbum substantiale; hence, also, it furnishes no evidence of a deviation from the doctrine of the Logos. The consciousness Jesus possessed of speaking, keeping, doing, etc., the λόγος of God, rested on His consciousness of His being that which is denoted by the Logos of the prologue. Now this consciousness is not the abstract divine, but that of the divine-human Ego, corresponding to the ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.

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 8:42 . But this claim Jesus explodes by the same argument: Εἰ ὁ θεὸς … ἀπέστειλε . Were God your Father you would love me, for I am from God. ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ expresses “the proceeding forth from that essential pre-human fellowship with God, which was His as the Son of God, and which took place through the incarnation,” Meyer. The meaning of the expression is fixed by that with which it is contrasted in Joh 13:3 , Joh 16:28 . ἥκω is added, as ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον in Joh 16:28 , almost in the sense in which it is used in the Dramatists, announcing the arrival of one of the “personae” on the stage, “I am come from such and such a place and here I am”. The coming itself was the result of God’s action rather than of His own: οὐδὲ … ἀπέστειλε . This is His constant argument, that as He came forth from God and was sent by Him, they must have welcomed Him had they been God’s children. Their misunderstanding had a moral root. διατί … ἐμόν . They did not recognise His speech as Divine, because they were unable to receive the message He brought. “In λαλεῖν (= loqui) the fact of uttering human language is the prominent notion; in λέγειν (= dicere) it is the words uttered, and that these are correlative to reasonable thoughts within the breast of the utterer” (Trench, Synonyms , 271). All His individual expressions and the very language He used were misunderstood, because there was in them a moral incapacity to receive the truth He delivered.

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

If God were your Father, ye would love me--"If ye had anything of His moral image, as children have their father's likeness, ye would love Me, for I am immediately of Him and directly from Him." But "My speech" (meaning His peculiar style of expressing Himself on these subjects) is unintelligible to you because ye cannot take in the truth which it conveys.

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 42. If God were your Father, ye would love me] I came from God, and it would be absurd to suppose that you would persecute me if you were under the influence of God. The children of the same father should not murder each other.

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

42. If God were your Father, you would love me. Christ’s argument is this: “Whoever is a child of God will acknowledge his first-born Son; but you hate me, and therefore you have no reason to boast, that you are God’s children.” We ought carefully to observe this passage, that there is no piety and no fear of God where Christ is rejected. Hypocritical religion, indeed, presumptuously shelters itself under the name of God; but how can they agree with the Father who disagree with his only Son? What kind of knowledge of God is that in which his lively image is rejected? And this is what Christ means, when he testifies that he came from the Father.

For I proceeded and came from God. He means that all that he has is divine; and therefore it is most inconsistent that the true worshippers of God should fly from his truth and righteousness. “I did not come,” says he, “of myself. You cannot show that anything about me is contrary to God. In short, you will find nothing that is either earthly or human in my doctrine, or in the whole of my ministry.” For he does not speak of his essence, but of his office.

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.

(42) If God were your Father, ye would love me.—This follows because they would then be in a relationship of spiritual affinity to Him. God’s children would bear the spiritual image of their Father, and would love Him who came from God, but they were seeking to kill Him (Joh_8:40).

I proceeded forth and came from God.—Better, am come, am here. His presence with them was the result of His proceeding from God. As the Son of God He had eternal fellowship with the Father. The Incarnation was not the mission of one whose existence was separate from that of God, but it was the mission of the Son who proceeded from the Father. (Comp. Joh_16:27 et seq.)

Neither came I of myself, but he sent me.—Literally, for not even of Myself am I come, but He sent Me; as opposed to the thought that His origin was distinct from the Father. His coming was not His own act, but was a mission from God to the world.

But if He is sent from God, if He is present with them from God, if He proceeded from the Father, it must be that all who are true children of God would recognise and love Him.

It is important to note here that in our Lord’s own words there is an assertion of the oneness of nature and of will with that of the Father, and yet the distinction of person is maintained. He is come from God, but He proceeded from the divine essence. He proceeded forth, and yet He was sent.

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

42. Moral proof that God is not their father; if they were God’s children they would love His Son. Comp. Joh_15:23, and ‘every one that loveth Him that begat loveth Him also that is begotten of Him’ (1Jn_5:1). For the construction comp. Joh_8:19, Joh_5:46, Joh_9:41, Joh_15:19, Joh_13:36 : in all these cases we have imperfects, not aorists. Contrast Joh_4:10, Joh_11:21; Joh_11:32, Joh_14:28.

I proceeded forth and came from God] Rather, I came out (see on Joh_16:28) from God and am here from God among you. Surely then God’s true children would recognise and love Me.

neither came I of myself] Rather, For not even of Myself have I come. The ‘for’ must on no account be omitted; it introduces a proof that He is come from God. ‘For (not only have I not come from any other than God) I have not even come of My own self-determination.’

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.

And because I tell you the truth,.... And no lie, the whole truth of the Gospel, and particularly the truth of his divine sonship:

ye believe me not; to such an infatuation and judicial blindness were they give up, to disbelieve him, because he told the truth, and to believe a lie, that they might be damned; which showed them to be the children of the devil, and under his power and influence.

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

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Ver. 42. If God were your Father] So that there is no true piety nor fear of God where Christ is rejected. Frustra utitur, qui Christo non innititur, He enjoys in vain who does not lean on Christ. saith Bernard. If the historian would say, Ut quisque Seiano intimus, ita ad Caesaris amicitiam validus: contra, quibus inoffensus esset, metu et sordibus conflictabantur. (Tacitus.) No man could be inward with the emperor but by the favour of Sejanus; and to be out with him, was to be utterly unhappy. How much more may we say the same of Christ, who is all in all with the Father? If any will be Christless, they must he comfortless.

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.

If God were your Father - If you had the spirit of God, or love to him, or were worthy to be called his children.

Ye would love me - Jesus was “the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of his person,” Heb 1:3. “Everyone that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him,” 1Jo 5:1. From this we see:

1.That all who truly love God, love his Son Jesus Christ.

2.That men that pretend that they love God, and reject his Son, have no evidence that they are the friends of God.

3.That those who reject the Bible cannot be the friends of God. If they loved God, they would love Him who came from him, and who bears his image.

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

This agreeth with what we have 1Jo 5:1, Every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. But here our Saviour rather seemeth to speak of his proceeding forth and coming from God, as sent into the world to fulfil the will of God as to the redemption of man, than of his proceeding from his Father by eternal generation. It is true, that he who loves the father will also love the child, so far forth as he resembles his father, and acts like unto him; and it is as true, that he who loveth him that sends a messenger will also love the messenger, executing the commission of him that sent him.

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

42. Ye would love me—Spiritual worship is shown by conformity of character. True sons of God will love the Son of God, not seek to murder him.

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

But Jesus will not allow them to claim the full privilege of sons of God. Said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would be loving me, not seeking to slay me. Seeing that you do not love me, God is not your Father in the sense in which you are boasting such relation to him. The reason is: For I came forth out (ek) of God. This expression only occurs in one other passage, (Joh_16:28) and there the texts vary between ek apo , and para . It points to the momentous and unique fact of his incarnation, as the projection from the very essence of God involved in the essence of his being. The Father is the eternal Source of Christ"s Divine nature. There are two ether forms of expression used by our Lord. In Joh_13:3 and Joh_16:30 exelyein apo is adopted, which describes rather the act of the incarnated One; and in Joh_16:27 and Joh_17:8 exelyein para , whereby is suggested the procession of Christ into the condition of fellowship with the eternal Father or that of being pron or eiv tolpon . By exelyein ek he implies an even sublimer conception of the prenatal glory, and that, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews puts it, "he was the Effulgence of his glory, and the express Image of his substance." And I am come. I am hero face to face with you. Meyer and others would make both verbs depend on ek tou Yeou : but if we are right in the special meaning of the preposition, the force of it would be lost in the second clause. The exhlyon refers to his eternal procession from the very nature of God, and special indication of it when he took our human nature up into his own; and the hkw refers to his presence and appearance in their midst as a "Man who told them the truth." For neither have I come. The perfect tense here is used in contrast to the present hkw , to show that he has the whole past of his career as a divinely sent Messenger present in his consciousness. And he establishes the fact that he has proceeded from God by the dismission of every other alternative. I have not come from myself, as an act of self-determination; I have not come to do my own will, but the Father"s. I have not come on any self-chosen, self-honouring path, with motives of self-interest; but in strict obedience to the Father"s injunctionhe sent me. You would have loved me, not hated me, you would have trusted me and rejoiced in me, and not sought to kill me, if God were your Father; for you would then have felt all through my career that that One Father, of whom you boast an intimate knowledge, was revealing himself as One near to you, close to you, in the bare fact of my presence among you.

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

I proceeded forth - As God, and come - As Christ.

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

The true ancestry of the Jews:

v. 42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love Me; for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of Myself, but He sent Me.

v. 43. Why do ye not understand My speech? Even because ye cannot hear My Word.

v. 44. Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it.

v. 45. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe Me not.

v. 46. Which of you convinceth Me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe Me?

v. 47. He that is of God heareth God’s words; ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God.

The Jews had vehemently repudiated the idea of their being idolaters and had just as emphatically insisted that they were children of God, that they belonged to God’s house as children. But Jesus now shows that God cannot be their Father. For if that relationship obtained, then it would follow without fail that they would love Him, since He proceeded forth from eternity from the Father. He did not come on a mission of His own scheming and devising, but God has sent Him. If they were really children of God, they would love Him, for brothers must feel brotherly love toward one another. He that does not love Christ has no part in God. And not only the fact that they refused to welcome Him was an unmistakable argument against their being God’s children, but also the fact that His speech was incomprehensible to them, that they could not understand the commonest things concerning the Father which He told them. The ears of their mind, of their understanding, were closed. Even the substance of His words was foreign to them; His language, His mode of speech, everything was strange and unfamiliar to them. For that reason they also refused to give ear to His preaching. Unbelief has its cause and reason in not wanting to accept Jesus and His doctrine. And having thus shown in two points that the Jews cannot possibly be children of God, Jesus no longer minces words, but tells them that according to their spiritual nature they are children of the devil and exhibit the devil’s characteristics. They have hardened their own hearts, and therefore the judgment of this hardening is upon them. They want to perform, they find their greatest delight in performing, the desires of their father, the devil. Note: The distinction should be observed between servants of the devil and children of the devil. All men, as the result of inherited sin, are servants of sin and of the devil, because they are in the power of the devil and are forced to do his bidding. But children of the devil are such people as deliberately invite the devil to take possession of their heart and mind. They are truly one with the devil, all their thinking and speaking is specifically devilish. He that rejects Christ, the Savior, and consistently refuses to accept His Word, is doubly a child of the devil. Wherein the devil delights, as things that are opposed to the good and gracious will of God, therein they also find their delight. They are not betrayed into this condition, but they have deliberately embraced that which is wrong. And the traits of their spiritual father the Jews now exhibit especially in two ways. The devil is a murderer and a liar from the beginning. His great delight is to destroy man, the image of God, according to body and soul. This idea has actuated him from the beginning; it has found its expression in every murder since the time of Cain. And he has no idea of the truth, he does not adhere to it nor live in it. The domain of lies, of deliberate, malignant, malicious falsehoods, is his special province. He himself is a liar and the father of all liars. Note: There is a splendidly consoling thought in the words of Christ that the devil is a liar. If he then tries to make a Christian believe that his sins cannot be forgiven, the latter has a weapon in this saying of Christ wherewith he can conquer the devil and quiet his doubting heart. Now the Jews par took of the nature of the devil, their spiritual father, in both these. traits. In the first place, they would not believe Christ, although He told them the truth. And in the second place, they had a murderous hatred of Him in their hearts. Not one of them could substantiate a single charge against Him. But if they must confess their failure in this respect, they must thereby concede His infallibility. What He therefore speaks, is the truth. So utterly irrational and bigoted were the Jews that they might have believed Him had He spoken falsehood, for it was their nature to believe falsehood. The Lord plainly tells them that He has believers and always will have believers among such as have a different moral and spiritual descent. A person that is truly born of God, regenerated according to God’s loving counsel, has the manner and nature of "God in himself, he under stands the words of God as spoken by Jesus and accepts them. In open contrast to this the fact that they do not and will not hear God’s words proves that they are not His children, that they have nothing in common with Him. It is a truth which should be repeated in our days in the case of every person that refuses to hear and learn the Word of God according to the will of God.

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

42. If God were your Father, ye would love me. They made this claim (verse 41). Their hatred of the Son was proof that they were not God's children.

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.

love

This is the kind of love that comes from God and is focused on the good of others (including those who are our enemies), even when it does not benefit oneself.

Why do you not understand my words?

Jesus is using this question mainly to rebuke the Jewish leaders for not listening to him. AT: "I will tell you why you do not understand what I say!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

It is because you cannot hear my words

Here "words" is a metonym for the "teachings" of Jesus. AT: "It is because you will not accept my teachings. (See: Metonymy)

You are of your father, the devil

"You belong to your father, Satan"

the father of lies

Here "father" is a metaphor for the one who originates all lies. AT: "he is the one who created all lies in the beginning" (See: Metaphor)

translationWords

love

Satan

true

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

42. Moral proof that God is not their Father; if He were, they would love His Son. Comp. Joh 15:23 and ‘Every one that loveth Him that begat loveth Him also that is begotten of Him’ (1Jn 5:1). Here, as in Joh 8:19, Joh 5:46, Joh 9:41, Joh 15:19, Joh 13:36, we have imperfects, not aorists: contrast Joh 4:10, Joh 11:21; Joh 11:32, Joh 14:28.

ἐκ. τ. θ. ἐξῆλθον κ. ἥκω. I came out from God and am here from God among you. See on Joh 16:28, the only other place where ἐκ τ. Θ. ἐξῆλθον occurs: it includes the Divine Generation of the Son. In the highest and fullest sense He is ‘of God:’ if they were God’s children they would recognise and love Him.

οὐδὲ γάρ. Proof of His Divine origin: for not even of Myself have I come. ‘So far from having come from any other than God, I have not even come of My own self-determination.’

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.

42.] ‘If you were the children of God, the ethical proof (as Lutbardt well calls it) of such descent would be, that you would love Me, who am κατʼ ἐξοχήν the Son of God, and who am come by the mission, and bearing the character, of God.’

ἥκω conveys the result of ἐξῆλθον, as Meyer; who also remarks that mere sending will not exhaust ἐξῆλθον, which must be taken metaphysically, of the proceeding forth of the Eternal Son from the essence of the Father.

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

42. The rec. adds οὖν after εἶπεν, with אDΔ; om. BCLNTWΓΘ.

εἰ ὁ θεός κτλ., “If God were your Father, you would love me.” This is the same argument as that in 1Jn 5:1, 1Jn 5:2, sc. “If you were the children of God, you would love God, and, as whoever loves a father loves his son, therefore you would love Jesus, His Son.” The Jews have turned the argument, so that now spiritual fatherhood is in question, and Jesus shows them what the consequences of this spiritual fatherhood must be.

ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον, sc. “for I, even I who speak to you (ἐγώ being emphatic), came forth from God,” i.e. in the Incarnation. ἐκ θεοῦ is a phrase that has found a place in the Nicene Creed; while as early as 196 b.c. Ptolemy Epiphanes was described as ὑπάρχων θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ καὶ θεᾶς.1

Attempts have been made to distinguish ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. 16:28) and ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. 13:3, 16:30), but they will not bear scrutiny. See on 1:44; and cf. 16:27 and the note there.

For ἐξῆλθον ἐκ, see on 4:30.

καὶ ἥκω (cf. 1Jn 5:20). The present tense is emphatic, “and I am here.”

οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλήλυθα. This is repeated from 7:28, and with the same significance, “I have not come of myself,” i.e. without a Divine mission, “but God sent me.” For this “sending” of Christ by the Father, see on 3:17; and cf. 17:8.

For ἐκεῖνος in Jn., see on 1:8, 19:35.

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

I proceeded forth - from God [εκ του θεου εξηλθον] . Rev., came forth. The phrase occurs only here and in Joh 16:28. Exelqein is found in Joh 13:3; Joh 16:30, and emphasizes the idea of separation; a going from God to whom He was to return (and goeth unto God). Exelqein para (Joh 16:27; Joh 17:8), is going from beside, implying personal fellowship with God. Exelqein ejk, here, emphasizes the idea of essential, community of being :

"I came forth out of."

And am come [ηκω] . As much as to say, and here I am.

Of myself [απ εμαυτου] . Of my own self - determination, independently, but my being is divinely derived. See on 7 17.

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