Chapter 8
There is a note in the ESV saying that Jn 7:53 - 8:11 is not even in the earliest manuscripts. But they do include it. They put vs 53 in chapter 8 though. These verses are the story of the adulteress caught in the act. She was brought before Jesus while he was teaching in the temple, not just out in the streets someplace as it is usually depicted.
2021 - There's a pretty long note in ESV, the above covers only a part of it. In "later" manuscripts, this story shows up, but in several different places. It seems from the note that it only shows up in one place in each manuscript, and most of those places are in John. It can also show up after Luke 21:38. However, it is not there in my Bible now. Vs 38 of Luke 21 is the last verse of that chapter. A great place to put something in that you think belongs if you are a scribe. Matthew and Mark don't mention it at all in any manuscripts, in other words. They would have been the two oldest gospels. The story is suspect because it seems "unattached" anywhere specific, but jumps around. It shows up after Jn 21:25 in some manuscripts - which makes it the very last thing John wrote in his gospel. If you wanted to add it later, that is where you would put it. So it could have been added on later. I have not seen that manuscript to see if it is written in another hand...guess all of it would be though, since we don't have John's own handwriting. A scribe might have done it anyway. The point is that building sound doctrine on something like this is very sketchy. We should read and study it, but we should not decide that Jesus always lets sinners go, even when they are rightly accused. Building doctrine on this discounts the rest of what he says.
2026 - The writing in the dirt
The truth may be somewhere in between. It may be that something akin to what John says really did happen. Something kind of like it - so truth underlies the story. Because it was such a dramatic confrontation, maybe the story got retold and enhanced over the years and took on extra significance because of the direct and dramatic confrontation - Jesus facing down the religious elite in person. So some thought it really helped, and put it in, even though the original writer did not. There is still some truth to it, about accusing others from a position of guilt yourself, about compassion, about repentance and changed lives. But I think we can plainly see that John did not write it.
2022 - This verse:
5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" [Jhn 8:5 ESV]. Look at just how evil this is. It seems to me that they had probably not stoned anyone in Jerusalem for a very long time. They had "outgrown" such barbaric consequences, and considered themselves enlightened for doing away with what was specifically written in the law. Now, they tempt Jesus to "reinstate" the law, and they were probably willing to kill this woman and then afterward make it all Jesus' fault and portray him as a cave man for recommending and participating in such a thing. And if Jesus says to let her go...well then he is a false teacher because he does not honor Moses. This is quite a dilemma, and Jesus' handling of it is profound. So. Even though this story is not in the oldest manuscripts, it is hard for me to believe that it was entirely fabricated by men - both in the posing of the question and in Jesus' handling of it. Maybe it was well known, but not included because it confused so many people in its implications. That would mean it was inserted later, but is nevertheless a true account of something that Jesus did. Maybe we should think of this passage as "needing" to be in here, but not until later. This is, after all, another example of it never being wrong to do what is right. This woman was thrown at Jesus' feet not so that judgment could be pronounced, but so the judge himself could be convicted. On how many levels would it have been wrong to stone her, but not the man caught with her? But...on what basis was she freed? Perhaps that the purpose of stoning people was to discourage sin in others. To stone this woman would not even have begun to accomplish that purpose. It would be a wasted death. That is why Jesus asked for the one without sin to cast the first stone. In Moses time, the people who threw the stones were in fact more innocent than the one stoned, and while the procedure was barbaric, its purpose was to cleanse the people of sin, and to discourage further sin. This was clearly NOT the noble purpose of the stone throwers in this scene. This is why they walked away, convicted that the whole exercise was as wrong as the sin of the woman. Or...it is hard to make sense of this because it was inserted by men after the fact.
Jesus begins teaching again after the incident. This verse:
12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." [Jhn 8:12 ESV]
Jesus does not claim to be salt, he claims to be light. These words of his draw a contrast between him with the Mosaic Law. His is a new covenant, different from the old in all it's aspects. No more ritual, no priests, no daily sacrifices. Each man in a direct relationship to God because of the Spirit within him to interpret for him, and each man addressing the Living God as a son and heir, not as one too impure and unholy to enter the Holy of Holies. Read an MSB note here, and it says this was likely spoken during a "lighting ceremony" that was part of the feast of booths. This was done in the court of women and included torches, music, and dancing. So after the claim to be water at that ceremony, Jesus now uses the lighting ceremony to declare himself the very light they are seeking.
2021 - Jesus previously told them to eat his body and drink his blood. Now he tells them he is light. He's moved on to a completely different analogy. Since he is light, those who walk in/with him will not be in darkness. Since Jesus said "I am the light", he is "bearing witness of himself". No
one else has said he is the light, so he is just making it up. No one else testifies to it. But we know this wasn't true even then. That phrase maybe, but there were countless witnesses to his works.
2022 - Here again is that phrase "I am..." in English. Looking at the Greek, the transliteration is ego eimi, the same phrase elsewhere translated I AM HE. None of the available BLB translations makes it anything but I am the light. The JSB doesn't render it I AM HE either. So. How do you tell whether it just means I am, as if I was the one saying it, or it means I AM HE, as in "I AM GOD", as it is sometimes rendered? All I can figure out is that it must have to do with either the position in the sentence, or the "lack" of a predicate. I is the subject, AM is the verb, and there needs to be a predicate. In vs 12, the predicate is supplied by Jesus. The predicate is "the light". So how does it look in vs 58: 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." [Jhn 8:58 ESV]. There is no predicate supplied. This is a compound sentence I think....We might distill it down to "I say I AM". Subject is the first I, verb is say, predicate is a sentence within a sentence. This second sentence has as the subject, "I", AM is the verb...and there is no supplied predicate. And the ESV does not supply one, since it is a literal translation. BUT, in this case, the literal translation, at least into English, has no way of making the distinction that could be made in the Greek. Well...no. Those who interpret in combination with translation add words to show that leaving off the predicate makes this Jesus pointing back at himself as God, which you might only really recognize if you spoke Hebrew and knew what it said in Exodus. Have to remember that we really don't know what language Jesus used when he said this, but our Bible is getting it from the Greek, and translating it into English.
I think the KEY to understanding the phrase is the lack of a speaker supplied predicate.
And once again, I am running out of time on John 8. An hour and twenty minutes on 12 verses. I have gotten further before. I am going to read on through it...try again next year.
The Pharisees say that Jesus is not to be believed, because only he testifies as to who he is, and two witnesses are required. Jesus' answer is extensive. First he tells them that his own testimony is true, because of who he is. He is Messiah, from heaven, sent by God. All that he says must therefore be true. He says that the Father agrees with him, so this is two witnesses. They ask where his father is, perhaps sarcastically, knowing that Joseph is dead and cannot bear witness. So Jesus tells them they don't know his father. Has to be a reference to God as his father - and the hard hearted Pharisees don't know God - rather than to Joseph as his father. Also indirectly testifies to the virgin birth - if Joseph was not his father, then who was? That is what he is posing to them.
2022 - This verse:
15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. [Jhn 8:15 ESV]. Is Jesus referring back to the scene with the woman? The mob had walked away. The woman had walked away. So in vs 12, when Jesus begins talking, is it to those bystanders who witnessed what just happened but were not participants? Does vs 12 really follow from what happened in 11?
I think it is better to see vs 12 as beginning a whole new scene, unrelated to what happened with the adulterous woman. I think so because we have the Pharisees back, and feeling their oats, and accusing him again. These would almost certainly be a different group of Pharisees, as the others were all shamed and walked away. What if you take out the "suspect" verses? Does 8:12 have better continuity with 7:52? That would make it follow the speculation that followed Jesus saying he is living water. Then we saw the officers sent to arrest Jesus coming back empty handed. Then [the adulterous woman], and then "I am the light of the world...". After Jesus says he is the living water, John explains what he meant by that. Then there is all the speculation and division among the people about whether Jesus is "the Prophet", or ought to be arrested. And if we leave out the woman, next would be Jesus saying "I am the light", and John introduces this scene with "Again...". And note that in vs 20, John again inserts an explanation of what is going on and why it is going as it is.
So I think this year, I am going to just say that the scene with the woman "did not actually happen right here on this day between these two statements of Jesus". John's use of "again" rather than "right after that" means he is not trying to be strictly chronological but relating events of this trip to Jerusalem, though not necessarily in order. So...moving on.
Jesus is saving those that God has chosen. Jesus isn't deciding who to save. The Pharisees judge people by how closely they conform to the Law of Moses, which is a physical, earthly, fleshly, performance based law, or at least that is what the Pharisees have made of it. Jesus is saying that he isn't doing what he is doing based on the earthly physically observable facts. What Jesus does is done for spiritual reasons. He does not judge, he just does as he knows God wants him to do. God is true, so doing precisely as God wants is also true, and the doer is true.
Jesus moves on, and we find these words:
21 So he said to them again, "I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." [Jhn 8:21 ESV]
This is the second or third time he's said this. I think maybe it means they will keep looking for Messiah after Jesus is gone back to his Father, but they will never find him. This is about the continued blindness of the Jews. MSB does not mention this. It says that Jesus statement that they will die in their sins is ominous.
2022 - Vss 23, 24
23 He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." [Jhn 8:23-24 ESV]
Uses I AM three times. The predicate is supplied the first two times - I am from above. I am not of this world. But the third time, there is no predicate supplied. In this usage also there is a sentence within a sentence. The whole phrase beginning "I am..." is a predicate "sentence". And no predicate is supplied. "Unless you believe that I AM..." Here, even the ESV yields to make this important distinction in what Jesus says. Here is another way to see it: Unless you believe that I AM GOD, you will die in your sins". This is what he was really saying to the Pharisees.
Vs 25;
25 So they said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. [Jhn 8:25 ESV].
They know what they think he said, but they cannot believe anyone would say that. Perhaps just a figure of speech. So in vs 25, they want him to clarify just exactly who he is claiming to be that they should believe in him. This is confirmed by John's explanation to us in vs 27. Then in vs 28, Jesus once again used the predicateless phrase, "I am...", and ESV again translates it so that we understand the significance of it, "I AM HE".
(I am wearing out. There is soooo much here.)
I just read straight through vss 25-59 in 2019.
And in 2022, I read straight through from 31-59.
All below from 2020, on these previously rushed verses -
This verse:
38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father." [Jhn 8:38 ESV] Jesus has been talking since vs 13 about who he is. The Pharisees had challenged him by saying they knew who he was and where he was from. He's a Galilean - even from Nazareth. And Joseph...or someone...was his father. They are saying that since they know these things about him, he cannot be the Messiah. He has not retaliated at any point that he was born in Bethlehem. He has not told them that he is descended from David on both sides of his family - nor have they inquired after his lineage. So these two items that might have established some facts in Jesus' favor just don't come up at all. Perhaps because there was no one else but Jesus and Mary who know first hand where he was born. They went to Egypt for a while and returned to Nazareth - so no one in Judea or Galilee really knew where he was born, except those shepherds, and the wise men a couple of years later.
Instead of these things, Jesus keeps telling them that they do not know his Father. Jesus insists on keeping things on a spiritual plain, not physical. In vs 14, he lays out his case: First, his testimony about himself is to be considered true because he himself knows where he is from, and they do not know where he is from. Maybe Jesus means that they lack any basis on which to call him a liar? They also have no witness that will testify that Jesus was born and raised in Nazareth. They have no contradictory testimony, so what Jesus says about himself should stand.
Second, he talks about judgement. I don't get this part. They judge according to the flesh, Jesus judges no one. But if he did, his judgement would be true - because it is the judgement of two. The judgement of he and the Father. He summarizes by saying he testifies of himself and his Father testifies. I do not follow the "logic" of the argument here that starts with judgement. There is an MSB note for vss 14-18, saying three reasons are given. They are listed. They don't make sense to me there either...that is, I don't see how you get from the words in the text to the three reasons the MSB lists as coming from what Jesus says here. I do not follow.
This verse:
34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. [Jhn 8:34 ESV] Another example of Jesus speaking spiritually here. He tells them they will be free if they follow him. You might think he was going to lead a rebellion. But the people respond that they don't need to be freed, they have never been enslaved. So they are talking only of their own generation. Jesus' answer is that he is speaking about slavery to sin - spiritual slavery and bondage - and not about the flesh.
And then it closes out with this verse:
38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father." [Jhn 8:38 ESV] This seems to be the perspective that should be key to the whole passage. Jesus is a first hand witness to God and what God wants. These people he's talking to have learned, not from seeing God, but from the teaching of their fathers. And that teaching is from man, because things have deteriorated so far since the time of Moses. Jesus is the better teacher - and the better witness - because what he learned was first hand from God. At least I think that is what the conclusion means. Still, it does not unlock the logic about witnesses and judges for me. That argument has to be spiritually based, and if you try to logic it out like Aristotle, you're going to get lost. I think there is also a lot of Jewish tradition in there that I am not getting.
Maybe the two testimonies are Jesus, who does the works, and God who endorses Jesus by granting the power to do the works to him. Jesus says he is who he claims to be, and the fact that he does these miracles that could only come from God, means that God himself says that's who Jesus is. And if God is witness for him, then how could his own witness to what God is witnessing be false? Jesus and God are witness to the same thing. To call Jesus witness false is to call God's false. Is that what is being said here?
[[[[
I just couldn't go on without figuring something out. When that last sentence of the second paragraph above popped out, and it hit me that there might be something "Jewish" that I was missing, I got another source to help me. I ended up going backwards quite a ways, but oh so much came into focus finally!
Went and got the Jewish Study Bible. This Bible puts some emphasis on certain...well, here is vs 23 as the JSB puts it:
23 He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." [Jhn 8:23-24 ESV] So somehow, in the way this was phrased, Jesus says that he is Adonai. This is a little plainer. Jesus point is that he is God, not that he is Messiah. He distinctly separates himself from them.
(((I did some more study on that "I AM" phrase. The key seems to be when it is translated I "AM HE". It is the second part that is distinctive. So both times in vs 23, where it says "I am", this key construction of the phrase was not used, even though it is the same two words from Strongs. It just means I am. But in 24, that specific construction of Strongs 1473 and 1510 into a phrase is translated "I am he" in the ESV. It puts no special emphasis on it to help you decipher that something shocking has just been implied. We just don't see it in ESV. In the JSB, the phrase is rendered in all caps with an extra, like this: I AM [who I say I am]. This is what God answered when Moses asked what His name was! I AM that I AM!!!!! Without seeing this, so much is lost in the passage!!! I clicked on the (PHRASE) of these two words as used in vs 24 in my Blue Letter Bible on line. A new window opens up showing everywhere that phrasing is used in the Bible, original language notwithstanding. It is used in 19 places in the Bible. Many of them are from the OT, and leave absolutely no doubt that this signifies "The Name of God" when it is used this way. It does not just mean "I am". So look for "AM HE" in the ESV translation.))
Apparently this statement - this separation, this claim of being Adonai - shocks them. And perhaps, in order to trap him in this, they ask "Now who did you just say you are????" Because if he says God, they have him on blasphemy. So Jesus' answer is, "Just what I have been telling you along!" He doesn't answer them directly, but reiterates that he's told them before anyway. They know what he is claiming, but are looking for a smoking gun.
Next, in vs 26, Jesus tells them that he's not here to judge. He could judge them. He knows enough about them and what they do and how they operate that he could most certainly pass judgement on them. And he'd be right, as compared to the judgements they are trying to make on him, which are all completely wrong anyway. That is probably the same thing he meant back in 15 when he brought up judgement. Their whole purpose in talking to him is to "bring him to judgement" before the Pharisees. They want to judge him, and find him unworthy, and condemn him. He could, but won't do that to them, because he was not sent - this time - to judge. This time, he was sent ONLY to do the will of his father, and to carry that out. That will is to save those who should be saved, and for him to die a perfect sacrifice for sin on the cross. That is the ONLY reason Christ is there, at that time, in that place, and he is restricting himself to what God has sent him to do, and foregoing for now the power that will be his.
I think that is finally getting to what all this is about!
In this verse, he says it again, per JSB:
28 So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. [Jhn 8:28 ESV] Here is that phrase again. "...you will know that I AM HE..." Again, in the JSB, it is translated I AM [who I say I am]. Absolutely no doubt here. ]]]]]
Continuing on from 34...Jesus is still trying to tell them that they are missing the point. They are still locked in on their heritage and their rules while he tries to tell them it is the heart for doing the Father's will that really matters. It is understanding what God meant, rather than getting down in the weeds of every jot and tittle, which only obscures the bigger picture. So when he says they hear their fathers, he means the traditions of the Rabbi's and Scribes, and honed and perfected for THEIR own uses, with complete loss of the Godly meanings of it.
2021 - This verse:
38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father." [Jhn 8:38 ESV]
Are we back to witnesses here? Jesus is the better witness because he has seen with the Father. He was with the Father. They have only heard, and that from Moses, passed down. There information is less, because they were not there. Jesus was there.
Again, in vs 39, the appeal back to their ancestry. They just have blinders on about it. Jesus is still talking spiritually, trying to make them "see", instead of "hear".
(2022 - to be first hand witnesses rather than hearsay witnesses. They are all about what is read to them from the scrolls of Moses. Jesus is telling them what he saw firsthand. Moses is long dead, and only the written word remains of him, and this can only be comprehended by interpretation - which comes from men. Jesus is telling them that his words are NOT interpreted but are quoted from the source and explained as the source explained it. Anyone who says Jesus never claimed to be God ought to read and understand this chapter.)
He tells the again that Abraham's children would not be trying to kill him, because Abraham would welcome him. That because Abraham would recognize him in his heart, which these people do not. He gets much more forceful here about their standing before God. If they were God's they would understand. They just would. But they have "chosen" to hear Satan, and they are locked into that. Jesus is telling them that they are essentially excluded from the Kingdom. He is still saying that only those God wants will be in heaven, and that those listening to Jesus who aren't understanding are prevented from understanding. Maybe this too is a key to this section in John. Many of Jesus disciples had already turned back over this concept of having to be chosen, instead of "earning" their way in by following the law.
(2022 - I have revised my thinking on why so many turned back. I believe that was in Chapter 6. They turned back over cannibalism, not election.)
This justification by works is essentially what the Pharisees had turned the Law into. Jesus not only told them that would not work, but that in fact it wasn't really in their power at all to get to heaven, UNLESS God first called them. He is saying that same thing again here. Before, your works don't matter, God's call matters. Now, your heritage doesn't matter, God's call matters. And the very/only reason that you don't have a clue that I'm telling the truth, is because God has not called you. This is what it means. You are not dumb, you are not foreigners, nothing like that. The problem is that you are not chosen, and I (Jesus) am only here to save those that God has selected for His own reasons.
Wow. This could really have ticked some people off. No wonder those turned away in 6. So they counter with "You are a Samaritan!" They knew - or thought they knew - that he had been born up north. So now they disparage him that way. And he says, I honor God, and your calling me a Samaritan dishonors me...and so dishonors God. Because they were wrong. Also, again, they accuse him of being demon possessed for the things he is saying. (I wonder if demons often spouted inaccurate doctrine to confuse people?) Jesus is still talking spiritually also. He tells them about eternal life. Now they are surely convinced he has a demon. Abraham died. Everybody died. Now Jesus says this? Definitely a crazy man. And they say his object in all this is to make himself more than Abraham and the prophets. They think this is about Jesus wanting accolades for his greatness compared to those.
So Jesus answers in like manner. He tells them it is not His own glory he seeks but God's glory for him. Glorifying yourself means nothing, why would anyone try for that? Jesus tells them that Abraham knew Jesus would come and understood it, and was glad. So now, literal as they are, they accuse Jesus of claiming to have known Abraham - as a man. And he counters with a spiritual answer again. This verse:
58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." [Jhn 8:58 ESV] Hmm....does not use the phrase I discussed earlier (2021 - Yes it does. In Greek it is ego eimi. That is the construction. It was obviously clear to the Jews what he meant, because they pick up stones to kill him. They now saw - no beating around the burning bush anymore - that Jesus claimed to be God. Not just Messiah, but also God Himself.
2021 - Always too rushed. John 6-8 are probably a one year study by themselves. But I always count it enough to just read them in their turn. I have time for more...why don't I do more? I have many ambitions to write things from my studies, but I never write them.
2026 - This verse, maybe out of place but I want to get it in: 54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.' [Jhn 8:54 ESV]
This is Jesus' direct, open, in so many words claim that he is the SON of GOD. There is no subtlety here. Jesus tells them who he is.