None of John 8 is in the three-year Lectionary used for public worship. This is lamentable: this chapter include two of Jesus’s most famous sayings, still used today in conversation — even by secularists.
More importantly, John 8 illustrates unbelief, the seeds of belief and the promises our Lord gives to those who are sanctified in the fullness of faith. These are lessons all of us need to be reminded of and pass on to our children as well as adults who wish to know more about the Christian faith.
John 8′s exclusion from the Lectionary qualifies it for my ongoing series, Forbidden Bible Verses, also essential for our understanding of Scripture.
Today’s reading is taken from the King James Version with commentary by Matthew Henry.
31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
37I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
———————————————————————-
In last week’s post we read John 8:29-30:
29And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
30As he spake these words, many believed on him.
If you haven’t yet read this post, it would be helpful to do so before proceeding with this one. Last week’s entry explains much about unbelief and what makes it the most serious sin of all.
Continuing with this week’s verses, we are still in the Court of the Women at the temple in Jerusalem. This is where the temple treasury is located. The Pharisees have already challenged Jesus about the adulteress and accused Him of lying about Himself. He then tells them they know neither Him nor God the Father, whom they claim to love and honour.
So, today we continue the narrative about those in the crowd overhearing this discourse. A number of them are beginning to realise just who Jesus is — their anticipated Lord and Saviour. However, because their faith is just coming to them, it is an underdeveloped, imperfect one. They have some way to go before they can fully absorb and appreciate what they are hearing.
In verse 31, Jesus says to these new believers that if they continue to believe in Him, then they are truly His followers, His students — His disciples. But, notice the word ‘continue’. This isn’t a matter of answering an altar call, making a brief profession through prayer, forgetting about it sometime later and still thinking that one is saved. No — Jesus calls these Jews and us to continue in the walk of faith, towards sanctification, towards bearing the fruits of faith which St James refers to in his Epistle as ‘works’ — spontaneous acts. Works without faith are nothing. Faith without works is dead faith. In either case, there can be no salvation. Hence, Jesus’s call to continue in His word.
The words of the Bible should fit a Christian as would a second skin. We should study and examine it so that we feel completely comfortable with it. The Bible has the answers we need to become adopted sons of God and share eternal life with Him.
Jesus expresses this natural outcome is verse 32 with those immortal words:
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Christians, those sincere believers, will know the eternal truth. That truth will bring them to eternal life — a complete freedom from sin. This is what ‘free’ refers to in this sentence. It is unrelated to social justice or freedom from earthly oppresive situations. It is a liberation not only from the 613 Mosaic laws of the Jewish faith but also from the bondage of sin.
Matthew Henry explains (emphases mine):
Justification makes us free from the guilt of sin, by which we were bound over to the judgment of God, and bound under amazing fears; sanctification makes us free from the bondage of corruption, by which we were restrained from that service which is perfect freedom, and constrained to that which is perfect slavery. Gospel truth frees us from the yoke of the ceremonial law, and the more grievous burdens of the traditions of the elders. It makes us free from our spiritual enemies, free in the service of God, free to the privileges of sons, and free of the Jerusalem which is from above, which is free. Secondly, The knowing, entertaining, and believing, of this truth does actually make us free, free from prejudices, mistakes, and false notions, than which nothing more enslaves and entangles the soul, free from the dominion of lust and passion; and restores the soul to the government of itself, by reducing it into obedience to its Creator. The mind, by admitting the truth of Christ in the light and power, is vastly enlarged, and has scope and compass given it, is greatly elevated and raised above things of sense, and never acts with so true a liberty as when it acts under a divine command, 2 Co. 3:17. The enemies of Christianity pretend to free thinking, whereas really those are the freest reasonings that are guided by faith, and those are men of free thought whose thoughts are captivated and brought into obedience to Christ.
Jesus has been gracious in acknowledging His new disciples. One of us might well have passed them by, but He came to save and ignored no one who came to faith. However, as we have seen throughout our study of John’s Gospel, from Nicodemus to this group which gathered after the Feast of Tabernacles, someone always objects to His words.
And so it is in verse 33. Bible scholars differ in interpretation of ‘they’ at the beginning of the sentence. Some think this comes from the new converts. Others, like Matthew Henry, lean towards an interpretation that the objection comes from the Pharisees. In any event — and incredibly — they say that as Abraham’s sons they were never slaves. Yet, we all know what happened to God’s Chosen in the Old Testament, stories which surely everyone assembled with Jesus would have known. Yet, they denied their ancestors’ slavery in Egypt, the many subsequent conflicts with other tribes — and now their subjugation to the Romans.
Henry writes:
It is the common fault and folly of those that have pious parentage and education to trust to their privilege and boast of it, as if it would atone for the want of real holiness. They were Abraham’s seed, but what would this avail them, when we find one in hell that could call Abraham father? Saving benefits are not, like common privileges, conveyed by entail to us and our issue, nor can a title to heaven be made by descent, nor may we claim as heirs at law, by making out our pedigree; our title is purely by purchase, not our own but our Redeemer’s for us, under certain provisos and limitations, which if we do not observe it will not avail us to be Abraham’s seed.
Inside the Pharisees and whoever else might be objecting to Jesus’s words here must be a real fear that He has come with something new. They might not recognise a New Covenant but this is what He is saying. He has come to fulfil, therefore abolish, the ritual (Mosaic) law — and purchase our freedom through His once and complete sacrifice on the Cross. Their legalism has not been working; they have become spiritually lazy, observing the Law as if by rote, a tick-in-the-box exercise. They appear here as arrogant hypocrites. Not many of the people Jesus meets follow Him during His lifetime.
Yet, if the Pharisees and their ilk really had understood or reflected upon what it meant to be ‘Abraham’s seed’, they would have known God and, therefore, recognised Jesus as His Son.
Jesus continues his conversation with them (verse 34), using words which are meant to give them pause for thought: ‘Verily, verily’. This means ‘Truly, truly’ — effectively, ‘Listen carefully and believe what I tell you’. Whoever enjoys living in sin — pride, arrogance, greed, lust, pleasure — will live his life in thrall to spiritual darkness. He is saying that we can choose sin as a slavemaster or we can choose Him as a brother.
A slave has no claim to an inheritance. He can be sold on by the head of the household or a son who inherits the household. A slave is at the beck and call of his master and his household for as long as he lives. This is what living in sin is like: it’s precarious, it’s dreary, it’s hopeless. It’s full of fleeting pleasures, hollow victories, empty baubles and false friends.
Jesus makes this clear in verse 35. We may ask what He means by the servant not abiding in the house forever. It means being thrown out or sold on. The English Standard Version of the Bible has a concordance reference here. Jesus is actually recalling Sarah’s request to Abraham to expel Hagar and her son (by Abraham) Ishmael from their household in Genesis 21:10:
So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.”
You can read more about Sarah and Hagar in item 4 of ‘Understanding biblical background — selected examples’.
Note in the second part of verse 35, Jesus states that the son stays in his household forever. A son stays in his household because it is is familial right to do so. Furthermore, as his father’s heir, he inherits the full rights and privileges his father had.
It is only logical to wonder why people objected so to Jesus’s promise of freedom from sin. But would it have been any different today? Matthew Henry writes of his own era, the 17th century:
Carnal hearts are sensible of no other grievances than those that molest the body and injure their secular affairs. Talk to them of encroachments upon their civil liberty and property,-tell them of waste committed upon their lands, or damage done to their houses,-and they understand you very well, and can give you a sensible answer; the thing touches them and affects them. But discourse to them of the bondage of sin, a captivity to Satan, and a liberty by Christ,-tell them of wrong done to their precious souls, and the hazard of their eternal welfare,-and you bring certain strange things to their ears; they say of it (as those did, Eze. 20:49), Doth he not speak parables? This was much like the blunder Nicodemus made about being born again.
A number of people will say the same today. ‘Well, Churchmouse, this Bible study is all well and good, but it won’t help me fight the council, become a freeman, regain my civil liberties, get a change of government.’ It is strange how temporal concerns assume primary importance over what happens to our souls when we die. As painful and irritating as many of our earthly frustrations are — and they are very real — why is it that so many place a secondary importance on the afterlife, where surely any God-given judgment there will make today’s concerns look like a walk in the park? Be warned!
In verse 36, Jesus again extends an invitation to freedom from sin and its travail. If He promises to make us free, we shall be free — it’s a guarantee. It’s better than being a freeman where property is concerned in England. It tops a referendum on whether to belong to the European Union! It beats a 2012 election with a change of government in the US and in France!
As to those who even today cling to Mosaic Law — Christian (yes!) and Jew — Henry cites St John Chrysostom:
Think not to be made free from sin by the rites and ceremonies of the law of Moses, for Moses was but a servant, and had not that perpetual authority in the church which the Son had; but, if the Son make you free, it is well.
Jesus concludes His discourse by saying that the Jews assembled with Him might well be sons of Abraham but, nonetheless, where they should be honouring Him as the Messiah, instead, they plot to kill Him (verse 37). As He has said many times before in this Gospel — see my post of September 24, 2010 for a précis of the themes therein — if they truly thought about what it meant to be a son of Abraham, they would worship and obey God with all their might. They would also understand that God would send His Son as Redeemer. But, Jesus tells them that all the Mosaic Law and all the legalism has not brought them to an understanding of God’s Word.
Henry unpacks this last verse for us:
Our Saviour here tells them, It is because my word hath no place in you, ou choµrei en hymin, Non capit in vobis, so the Vulgate. “My word does not take with you, you have no inclination to it, no relish of it, other things are more taking, more pleasing.” Or, “It does not take hold of you, it has no power over you, makes no impression upon you.” Some of the critics read it, My word does not penetrate into you; it descended as the rain, but it came upon them as the rain upon the rock, which it runs off, and did not soak into their hearts, as the rain upon the ploughed ground. The Syriac reads it, “Because you do not acquiesce in my word; you are not persuaded of the truth of it, nor pleased with the goodness of it.” Our translation is very significant: It has no place in you. They sought to kill him, and so effectually to silence him, not because he had done they any harm, but because they could not bear the convincing, commanding power of his word. Note, [1.] The words of Christ ought to have a place in us, the innermost and uppermost place,-a dwelling place, as a man at home, and not as a stranger or sojourner,-a working place; it must have room to operate, to work sin out of us, and to work grace in us; it must have a ruling place, its place must be upon the throne, it must dwell in us richly. [2.] There are many that make a profession of religion in whom the word of Christ has no place; they will not allow it a place, for they do not like it; Satan does all he can to displace it; and other things possess the place it should have in us. [3.] Where the word of God has no place no good is to be expected, for room is left there for all wickedness. If the unclean spirit find the heart empty of Christ’s word, he enters in, and dwells there.
Next week: John 8:38-47
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 8, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Robert Hickok
So when 1 John is preached (provided it is not also a forbidden section), reference to the Gospel of John is a patchy sort of mess? Rather silly way of preaching.
What is it, the lectio continuum that says preach through the whole rather than skip around or cut corners? Our church does it that way. We run straight through a whole book without skipping anything.
No wonder people have incomplete theologies. Can’t even get a straight preacher.
October 8, 2011 at 11:32 pm
churchmouse
Yes, you’re right — it is not unusual to find five or six skipped. If you look at the Essential Bible Verses page (a compendium of the Forbidden Verses series) and scroll down to John, it is pretty amazing how much content we don’t get in mainline and Catholic churches. And many of the omitted verses deal with difficult questions. As Not Another Episcopal Church Blog noted, they never omit the easy-to-follow verses:
http://lowly.blogspot.com/search/label/Missing%20verses
You’re also right in saying that people have ‘incomplete theologies’. The Lectionary is a big factor. Yet, John tackles all these issues — from the ‘why should we believe’, the imperfect belief (today’s reading) to the sin of unbelief. And these issues pop up in conversation about church all the time, at least they do in mine — whether with nominal Christians or atheists (of whom I know many, sadly).
You mention preaching on the readings. It’s increasingly rare to get a decent sermon out of most mainline and Catholic churches. Our vicar turns everything into a socio-political statement. Yet, I know of a Catholic church locally which had a priest who did preach the word of God faithfully every Sunday (despite using the Lectionary); no one liked him, largely for that reason. He unintentionally made his parishoners uncomfortable, because he made them think about the state of their souls. He’s since been reassigned.
October 9, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Robert Hickok
That right there is sad. Probably an example of a Catholic who is a true believer (RUN, priest, RUN!). This is why the established Church has so much trouble – it cannot realign its existence, even at the local assembly level because the whole has set expectations and will not budge.
The local, “independent” church is where it’s at. Even in our Presbytery, the congregation has the ability to limit or bring charges against unorthodox conditions. And a pastor can bring about changes that this Catholic priest could not hope to.
October 9, 2011 at 7:38 pm
churchmouse
Catholics can rationalise pretty much anything. (‘This is a sin? Oh well, at least I’m not [fill in the blank].’) It takes a long time to get out of that dangerous mindset. (I know — I was one.)
I am always amazed — and reassured — to find cases of constructive church discipline (i.e. against the unorthodox), which are few and far between in most denoms. You would not see it in mainline churches unless it were against a believer (e.g. Episcopal Church, some Lutheran synods). How sad is that?
By the way, 1 Cor. 5:1-5 is not in the Lectionary.
October 9, 2011 at 8:35 pm
jameshigham
33/34 seem quite straightforward to me. Why would that whole passage be forbidden? Was it only over faith v works or the other things too? Interesting on faith versus works – it can’t possibly be one or the other, as far as I can see. Surely it must be both.
October 9, 2011 at 9:35 pm
churchmouse
Hello, James — These aren’t really ‘forbidden’ (a bit of irony there), just purposely excluded from public worship. There are many verses which do not appear in the Lectionary: most of them deal with warnings or statements about weak faith, no faith, denial of one’s own sin, sexual sins, other deadly sins, condemnation to hell, the existence of hell, belief in Christ being the only way to salvation, etc. By contrast, what is in the Lectionary are mainly the feel-good verses designed to lull the lukewarm believer and the occasional visitor into a false sense of security.
You’re spot on — anyone who understands the Word will not have a problem understanding these ‘hard sayings’, but it seems that our compilers of the Lectionary (see my Christianity / Apologetics page for that topic) wish to ensure that everyone feels comfortable in our pews at all times.
Just out of interest, as you are on my side of the pond, when was the last time you heard an unqualified biblically-based sermon? (I don’t mean thumping, hellfire-and-brimstone, just one which was true to Scripture.) It’s been a couple of years ago since I’ve heard one and, even then, the Anglican priest had problems with the imagery in the passage from Revelation read that day: ‘I personally do not like these images and I don’t think they are helpful to one’s faith’. Uhh, those images are taken from Jewish Messianic literature. This is just one example of what our clergy lack in their seminary courses. Sadly, it’s then up to the layman to investigate for himself.
On faith v works, it is faith, but it is expected (see James’s Epistle) that a lively (living) faith produces spontaneous acts of holiness, although this sanctification — as it is often called — takes a lifetime, if then. It is acknowledged that we all still sin, but our sins should be less serious as the years pass provided that we pray for — and work with — God’s grace and the Holy Spirit to help us to emulate Christ’s example.
By contrast, following a ticklist of things to do and not do will not gain us eternal life: ‘… all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags …’ Is. 64:6. ‘Filthy rags’ means used menstrual rags, by the way. I don’t mean to offend anyone reading this, but the disgusting imagery reminds us that, as my late grandmother-in-law (a lifelong Londoner) used to say, ‘We’re no better than we ought to be.’
In closing, I have found it useful revisiting the 39 Articles of Religion (page 3) on this point (emphases mine).
http://www.cofec.org/The%2039%20Articles%20of%20Religion.pdf
October 9, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Robert Hickok
What an irritating way for “the church” to avoid the subject. I’m increasingly convinced that this lectionary program of which you speak is intentionally avoiding the particularly convicting parts of Scripture – to the point of neglecting absolutes. All for the purpose of not offending others either from the pulpit or from common theology itself.
Sad. Humanistic unity is not the same as that unity which Paul declares throughout his ecclesiastic epistles. He tells the church not only what is bad and wrong but what they are supposed to do.
What part of “whole counsel of God” do we not get? Sheesh.
October 9, 2011 at 9:44 pm
churchmouse
I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, many Christians are unaware of the instruction to ‘whole counsel of God’. It’s how we interpret Scripture that counts, so the mo and pomo thinking goes. Machen writes quite a lot on this type of thinking, esp. in Christianity and Liberalism. It gave me pause for thought when he described how well-developed it was even during his day (early 20th c.), and, as you know, he went through a series of difficult panel discussions with ‘liberal’ Princeton theologians, who finally drove him out to found the OPC and WTS in Philadelphia. So, there is a case in point of a good ordained man being forced out of his own denomination. They told him he was hostile, uncharitable, brusque, etc. — it was a real witch-hunt on their part towards him.
October 9, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Robert Hickok
And that is, of course, not discipline of the church, but maybe only recognizeable as such by retrospect. Machen knew it, as did many who understood and listened to him, but as a whole, I suspect, the polity saw themselves doing the right thing. Praise God for His sovereignty even when we mess it up.
October 9, 2011 at 9:54 pm
churchmouse
Yes, indeed — the papers made Machen out to be some renegade, one guy opposing several who probably knew better. Of course, the average adult reading such a story (it carried on for weeks) in the quiet of his home then thinks, ‘What a troublemaker this man is.’
Yes, praise God for His sovereignty!
October 9, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Robert Hickok
Regarding church discipline, I fear it must be hard to execute such things at a minimum just because of these omissions to the teaching programme of the church. Don’t preach it-can’t enforce it.
I’m assuming you mean by unorthodox: one who does not adhere to the doxy or praxy of their particular church rather than general faithful orthodoxy of the church of Christ. Mainline churches seem only capable of discipline when someone is convicted of Scriptural Truth and tries to act in accordance or (and this increasingly more rare) because of criminal activity in the social sphere.
The mainline church has hamstrung itself by preaching to humanistic music in most cases and by preaching only the Law otherwise. Solo Law = no way to discipline because it’s purely penal and has no hope of correction by itself.
October 9, 2011 at 9:49 pm
churchmouse
Yes, I am referring to doctrinal not criminal cases here. A number of unorthodox churches have expelled faithful communicants (I have some Lutheran cases in mind here). Also, some faithful congregations (including clergy) have officially left their denominations only to be met by lawsuits and condemnation from senior clergy at higher levels (Episcopalian, mostly).
October 9, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Robert Hickok
I have a Lutheran case in mind which has recently hit the US scene. Have you seen this one: Lutheran Teacher Fired Controversy
Though it has to do with law, there’s the remarkable sideline of how the church is dealing with this “minister” who is a “teacher.”
Granted, we’re talking about an ELCA Lutheran situation here, not confessional.
October 9, 2011 at 10:03 pm
churchmouse
Slippery slope!
I’ve read of some more personal exclusions — excommunications — (involving WELS — ergo, confessional) on Ichabod. As it has to do with a particular family, I don’t feel comfortable releasing the link. I don’t know the people, just read their story and correspondence, which they shared with Ichabod’s author, a retired pastor who is now a professor:
http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/
See the left-hand column near the top of the page — ‘Left boot of fellowship’ and ‘kicked out’ — two informative posts.
October 9, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Robert Hickok
I love the movement that has become increasingly audible (at least here in the West of the West) about teaching Law and Gospel properly. It actively opposes the problem discussed in your link:
http://lowly.blogspot.com/search/label/Missing%20verses
We need both the good and bad news. If we exclude one or the other, humanism or worse occurs. The health and wealth movement and dominionist stuff seem to do just that only in the extreme. They seek out those nuggets that tell us we can win (if taken out of context) in our immediate surroundings and then twist that which tells us we can’t win into motivation or obtuse ways to manipulate our circumstances. Argh!
October 9, 2011 at 10:08 pm
churchmouse
He does a great job of sifting through those readings and pointing out the missing half of the truth. Sadly, our whole existence today seems to revolve around revisionism — history, ethics, Christianity. ‘Argh’ is right.
October 9, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Robert Hickok
Revisionism = deconstruction. If we can reframe the question and the answer and in doing so make both irrelevant to each other, we’re scott free. No God, no sin, no heaven. John Lennon is God and we are his meat popsicles.
Nobody is likely to have that exactly in mind, but it’s right.
So the church will have to be more militant, more faithful and more exclusive. Which perpetuates the problem.
In better news, we had a covenant baptism today, two days after one of our long-standing elder brothers was called home to Glory. God is good indeed.
October 9, 2011 at 10:37 pm
churchmouse
I actually knew a small number of people in high school and after university who thought that John Lennon was God. Not literally, but as close as we were going to get. Yes, it was all because of ‘Imagine’.
It is incumbent on all of us to be more militant, more faithful and more exclusive. People will respect that, though. That’s what many are looking for, and I think it could bring more people back to the Church.
What wonderful news on the baptism so soon after the funeral of one of the faithful! God is good, and He will preserve His faithful.