Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 8:42

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.

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.’

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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 Fathers 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.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

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.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

42, 43. If God were your Father, yewould love me“If ye had anything of His moral image, aschildren have their father’s likeness, ye would love Me, for I amimmediately 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 itconveys.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Jesus said unto them, if God were your Father,…. By adoption; and this was discovered by the grace of regeneration; or in other words, if they had been born of God,

ye would love me; for in regeneration love to Christ is always implanted: it is a fruit of the Spirit, which always comes along with the superabounding grace of God in conversion; whoever are begotten again, according to abundant mercy, love an unseen Jesus; and where there is no love to Christ, there can be no regeneration: such persons are not born again; nor is God their Father, at least manifestatively:

for I proceeded forth; and came from God; the former of these phrases is observed by many learned men to be used by the Septuagint, of a proper natural birth, as in Ge 15:4; and here designs the eternal generation of Christ, as the Son of God, being the only begotten of the Father, and the Son of the Father in truth and love; and the other is to be understood of his mission from him, as Mediator:

neither came I of myself; or did not take the office to himself, without being called unto it, and invested with it, by his Father:

but he sent me; not by force, or against the will of Christ, or by change of place, but by assumption of nature; he sent him at the time agreed upon, in human nature, to obtain eternal redemption for his people: and upon both these accounts Christ is to be loved by all regenerate persons, or who have God for their Father; both on account of his being the Son of God, of the same nature and essence with him, see 1Jo 5:1; and on account of his mission into this world, as Mediator, since he was sent, and came to be the Saviour of lost sinners.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Ye would love me ( ). Conclusion of second-class condition with distinct implication that their failure to love Jesus is proof that God is not their Father (protasis).

For I came forth from God ( ). Second aorist active indicative of , definite historical event (the Incarnation). See 4:30 for . In John 13:3; John 16:30 Jesus is said to have come from () God. The distinction is not to be pressed. Note the definite consciousness of pre-existence with God as in 17:5.

And am come ( ). Present active indicative with perfect sense in the verb stem (state of completion) before rise of the tense and here retained. “I am here,” Jesus means.

Of myself (‘ ). His coming was not self-initiated nor independent of the Father. “But he (, emphatic demonstrative pronoun) sent me” and here I am.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

I proceeded forth – from God [ ] . 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 [] . As much as to say, and here I am.

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

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Jesus said unto them,” (eipen autois ho lesous) “Jesus said to them,” in reply to their reputation-besmirching insinuation against Him, that He was born from a fornication affair, Joh 8:41.

2) “If God were your Father,” (ei ho theos pater humon en) “If God were your Father,” as you claim, which He is not, in a spiritual way, Joh 5:43.

3) “Ye would love me: (egapate an eme) “You all would have loved me,” the Son of God, His beloved Son, Mal 1:6; 1Jn 5:1, if you were His children, instead of children of the Devil, according to your deeds, Joh 8:44; 1Jn 3:10.

4) “For I proceeded forth and came from God; (ego gar ek tou theou ekselthon kai heko) “For I came forth from and of God, and have come,” to comfort you, Joh 1:14; Joh 3:16.

5) “Neither came I of myself,” (oude gar ap’ hemautou eleutha) “Because I have not at all come out of or from myself,” Joh 13:3; Joh 16:28.

6) “But he sent me.” (all’ ekeinos me apesteilen) “But that one sent or commissioned me,” the one true God, the Father, verified by Paul, Gal 4:4-5.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(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. Gods 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 Lords 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.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

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.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father you would love me, for I have come forth and am come from God, and I did not come of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear my word.’

Jesus now denied what they claimed. He pointed out that their very attitude was clear proof that they were not true children of God, for if they had been they would have loved Him, the One Who came from God at the express will of God. Indeed the reason that they did not understand this was because they did not want to, and it was simply because His preaching was too uncomfortable. It demanded far reaching changes and an acceptance that the system on which they had built their lives might not be as satisfactory as they thought. So the reason why they did not understand Him was simply because their ears were too heavy to hear. ‘Cannot hear my word’ means ‘cannot because their prejudice prevents them from hearing it’.

Note His emphasis on the fact that He had not come on His own accord. Later many Pharisees  would  back some who came on their own accord (first in the final days of Jerusalem and then in the days of Bar Cochba) and it would mean disaster for the Jewish people.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

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.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Joh 8:42. I proceeded forth and came from God; “I originally proceeded from God the Father as his only-begotten Son, partaker of the same nature with him, and am come into the world immediately from him: I did not come merely of myself, like a false prophet, but by commission from him, who sent me, as the Messiah, to make known the way of salvation, and to do his will upon earth.” We must observe the difference between what Christ here says of himself, and what is ever said of any other: believers are said to be of God, Joh 8:47 and 1Jn 4:4 and to be born and begotten of God, 1Jn 5:1 and the prophets were said to be sent of God, as John the Baptist also was, Joh 1:6. But it is peculiar to Christ, that he proceeded forth, and came from God, which intimates his divine original, as well as mission; that he is of the Father as a Son of his own essence, proceeding from him; as well as that he came from the Father, as a divine messenger: for the form of expression, , here rendered I proceeded forth from God, is often used by the LXX to signify a proper birth, when applied to man; as in Gen 15:4 it is said, he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels, shall be thine heir: also Gen 35:11. Kings shall come out of thy loins. And it is said of Christ with respect to his human birth, Isa 11:1 there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesus. The phraseology is the same in all these places, with that which is here rendered proceeding forth.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 8:42 f. God is not your Father, else would ye love me, because ye would be of like descent with me; , Nonnus. This 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.

] spoken with a feeling of divine assurance.

] 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 .

) Result of the : and am here , it belongs, along with the rest, also to . .

, etc.] Confirmation of . , 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, ; on the contrary, not even ( ) 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 ( , 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 as equivalent to (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 ( , etc.), because, namely, the words 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 , see Joh 8:47 . , 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 , that whilst this last mentioned term denotes the doctrinal substance expressed by the , the doctrine , the substance of that which is delivered, [28]

denotes the utterance itself , by which expression is given to the doctrine. Comp. Joh 12:48 : ; Phi 1:14 ; Heb 12:7 .

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

[28] Comp. Weizscker in d. Jahrb. fr deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 196 f. But in the gospel it is always the verbum vocale , and it should not be confounded with the 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 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 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1655
LOVE TO CHRIST A TEST OF OUR RELATION TO GOD

Joh 8:42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me.

IF experience did not convince us, we could scarcely believe that presumption should be so rooted in the heart of man as we find it is. That it should exist, not only without any grounds, but in opposition to the strongest possible evidence, and be held fast with a pertinacity which nothing can shake, is truly surprising. Yet so it is: men believe that God is their Father, though not one feature of his image is found upon them, and their resemblance to Satan is complete. The Jews accounted themselves children of God merely because of their carnal descent from Abraham, his friend: and when our Lord endeavoured to shew them, from their works, that they could have no spiritual relation either to Abraham or to God, they could not so much as understand his words; so strange and incomprehensible did his distinctions appear. But, as he had just before shewn them that their works disproved their relation to Abraham, so now he appeals to their works as undeniable evidences that they were not children of God; If God were your Father, ye would love me.
In discoursing on these words, we shall,

I.

Consider the test here proposed

Our Lord is proving that his obstinate opponents neither were, nor could be, children of God: and he gives them a test whereby they may try themselves. Now this test was the most easy, and most certain, that could be imagined: for if they were children of God,

1.

They would have in themselves a disposition to love

[God is love; and all his children bear his image, especially in this particular. However vile they may have been in their unregenerate state, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another, by regeneration their evil dispositions are mortified, and a spirit of humility and love becomes the governing principle of their souls. This change is universal: it is the leading feature by which every child of God is known. The want of it, whatever else we may possess, infallibly proves us children of the wicked one. Though we should know all the mysteries of our holy religion, and have a faith that can remove mountains, and give all our goods to feed the poor, and even give our bodies to be burnt for Christ, if we had not the principle of love in our hearts, we should be only as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.]

2.

They would find in Christ whatever was suited to conciliate their regard

[This our Lord particularly specifies. He had proceeded and come forth from God, in a way in which no creature ever had [Note: The terms here used, being never used in reference to any other person, are supposed to denote his eternal generation. But though there is ground for the remark, we would not lay much stress upon it.]. He was the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts: he had not come of his own mind, like the false prophets, but was sent from God; as his credentials abundantly testified. Nor was he doing his own will, but the will of Him that sent him: nor did he seek his own glory, but the glory of Him that sent him. Seeing then that he was the Fathers Messenger to them; that he was come not only to reveal the way of salvation to them, but to obtain salvation for them, by bearing their sins in his own body on the tree; seeing that in the prosecution of this work he had displayed such unerring wisdom, such indefatigable diligence, such invincible patience, such almighty power, and such unbounded love; could they do otherwise than love him, if they were children of God? Could they be blind to so much excellence, and insensible of so much kindness, if God were their Father? Impossible. It could not be that God should leave his own children so much under the power of the devil, as to reject the mercy he had prepared for them, and destroy the Messenger whom he had sent to redeem them.]

That we may see more clearly the suitableness of this test, we will,

II.

Compare it with other tests which men devise for themselves

Every man has some ground on which he builds his hopes, and some test whereby he tries his title to heaven. This test varies according to the attainments which each person has made, or thinks he has made, in religion; every one fixing his own standard, and so drawing the line as to include himself within the number of Gods elect. They are children of God, because,

1.

They have committed no gross sin

[Be it so: they have kept within the bounds which the world prescribes for our moral and religious conduct: but is this sufficient to prove them children of God? Yea, rather, does not the complacency which they feel in consequence of this partial obedience prove them indisputably to be children of the devil? What is, in fact, the language of their hearts? Is it not this? It is needless to love and serve God: to obey his law is quite superfluous: all that we need to do, is, to abstain from gross sin: if we do that, we need not alarm ourselves about the displeasure of God: we are in no danger of perishing: we need not trouble ourselves about a Saviour: we have all the righteousness that God requires, and may look forward with confidence to our final acceptance with him. Yes, this, I say, is the language of their hearts: and I leave you to judge how far such a state of mind can be an evidence of their being children of God. In truth, all the gross sins that they could possibly commit would not more clearly prove them children of the devil, than this impiety: the weight and number of their sins indeed might be increased; but, as a test, nothing can be more decisive of their state, than such vain confidence as this.]

2.

They approve of the doctrines of the Gospel

[It matters little what doctrines we embrace, unless they operate to the renovation of our souls. Our Lord intimates that many will express a considerable degree of zeal in his cause, preaching his Gospel, and casting out devils in his name, who yet will be rejected by him at last, because they did not experience any sanctifying efficacy from his Gospel; their saying, Lord, Lord, will not avail them any thing, because they did not the will of his heavenly Father. Indeed a knowledge of the Gospel tends rather to aggravate the guilt of those who do not practically embrace it; because they sin against greater light, and against the convictions of their own conscience. The Jews were filled with zeal for the law of Moses, and were ready to put our Lord to death for supposed violations of it: but were they therefore children of God? No: though they pretended such high respect for the law, they did not themselves keep the law, as our Lord told them; and that very law would condemn them in the last day. It is plain therefore that an assent to any system of divine truth can never be an adequate test of our relation to God.]

3.

They have experienced a change both in their views and conduct

[This comes to nearly the same point as the two preceding: for the circumstance of our having formerly been more erroneous in our views, or more vicious in our conduct, can never make us right, if we stop short of that change which God requires. It is true that a reformation of our life seems to manifest the operation of divine grace, and in that view to sanction a confidence that we are children of God: but Herod still continued a child of the devil, notwithstanding, in compliance with Johns admonitions, he did many things. The stony-ground hearers are represented as experiencing a great and joyful change; and the thorny-ground hearers even bring forth fruit, and continue to do so to their dying hour; yet neither the one nor the other are acknowledged by God as his children, because they bring not forth fruit unto perfection.]

4.

But view, in opposition to all these tests, the one which our Lord proposed to the Jews

[That is perfect and complete; and will decide the point beyond all possibility of mistake. Let it only be clearly ascertained that we love Christ, and our relation to God will be unquestionable: for though it may be said, that the love of Christ is not of itself a performance of all our duty; yet it must be said, on the other hand, that it is a principle which will yield universal obedience: nor is it possible to have a true love to Christ in our hearts without loving, and longing to fulfil, the whole will of God. Whilst therefore the tests which men adopt for themselves are universally defective and fallacious, this is perfectly adequate to the end proposed: for no man can be a child of God who cannot abide that test; nor can any man be a child of Satan, if the love of Christ be found in his heart.]
Let us then proceed to,

III.

Try ourselves by it

The inquiry is simple: Do we love,

1.

His person?

To them that believe, he is precious; fairer than ten thousand, and altogether lovely. Is he so to us? Have we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father? Have we seen him to be the brightness of his Fathers glory, and the express image of his person? Have we seen concentered in him all divine and human excellence, so as to be constrained to say, Who is like unto Thee? And do we account all things but dung for the excellency of the knowledge of him? If we love him aright, our love to him must infinitely exceed all creature-attachment: life itself must have lost its value, in comparison of his will and his glory. To say, My beloved is mine, and I am his, must be the summit of our ambition, more in our estimation than ten thousand worlds. Inquire then whether this be indeed the habit of your minds? The splendour of the sun eclipses the feebler radiance of the stars: and in like manner will the glory of the Sun of Righteousness, if it be indeed beheld by us, cause all sublunary glory to vanish from before our eyes.]

2.

His ways?

[He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me, saith our Lord himself. We know how strongly even creature-affection will operate to make us consult the wishes, and perform the will, of the object beloved: and the love of Christ will assuredly operate in the same manner: it will constrain us to live, not to ourselves, but unto Him who died for us and rose again. His commandments, whatever self-denial they may require, will never appear grievous; but we shall account his service to be perfect freedom. In proportion as God enlarges our hearts, it will be our delight to run the way of his commandments. How is it then with us in this respect? Are we panting after higher degrees of holiness, and labouring with augmented diligence to do whatsoever will be pleasing in his sight? Are we forgetting what is behind, and reaching forward to that which is before, accounting nothing attained whilst any thing remains to be attained, and longing to stand perfect and complete in all the will of God? This, this is the fruit of love: and if we say that we love Christ whilst we are strangers to this frame, we are liars, and the truth is not in us [Note: 1Jn 2:4.].]

3.

His salvation?

[It cannot fail but that, if we love Christ, we must love that glorious plan of salvation which he has revealed to us, and glory above all things in the cross of Christ: there will appear a suitableness in it, a perfect correspondence with all our wants and necessities. The atonement which Christ has offered for us will be regarded with wonder and admiration, as the most mysterious fruit of divine wisdom, and the most stupendous effort of divine love. The opening made by it for the harmonious exercise and united display of all the divine perfections will fill the soul with rapture, and constrain it to vie with all the hosts of heaven in singing, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing: therefore blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.]

4.

His glory?

[We shall not be indifferent to this, if we love him in truth: we shall wish that his name may be known, his salvation enjoyed, and his glory be exalted, throughout all the earth. As those who preceded his advent longed for his appearance upon earth, so shall we long for his fuller manifestation to the world, that heaven itself may be brought down to earth, and all the kingdoms of the world be his undivided empire. It will grieve us to see that any of the human race are ignorant of him, and that he is dishonoured by so many of those who enjoy the light of his Gospel: and we shall be praying from our inmost souls, Thy kingdom come; thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. If we can do any thing for the conversion of Jews or Gentiles, we shall gladly exert ourselves to the utmost; if by any means we may be the honoured instruments of extending his dominion, even though it should be only over the soul of one single individual.
What now does conscience say to these things? Have we indeed the love of Christ in us; and does it extend thus to every thing relating to him, his person, his ways, his salvation, his glory?]

Address
1.

To those who can stand this test

[Happy indeed are ye, who, when Christ puts the question to you, Lovest thou me? can answer, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Ye assuredly are children of God; and, if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ Yet remember, that your evidence of this relation exists only in proportion as the love of Christ reigns in your souls. If any sin whatever have dominion over you, your evidence is destroyed, or rather, it is evident you are not the Lords. This is so strongly asserted by God himself, that we would wish you never for one moment to lose sight of it, lest your presumption be like that of the Jews, and issue, like theirs, in everlasting ruin [Note: 1Jn 3:6-10.].]

2.

To those who are condemned by it

[These, alas! are the great majority of the Christian world. If the love of self, or the love of the world, had been the test of our relation to God, then would he have had many children amongst us, whose evidence would be clear, and their claim indisputable. But we must stand or fall by another test, even by that proposed by our Lord himself [Note: Compare 1Co 16:22.]. See then what ye have to do. You have not to fulfil the whole law in order to become children of God; (that were indeed a hopeless case:) but to get the love of Christ in your hearts. And can you feel any backwardness to that? Methinks, the difficulty should be to refrain from loving him. Only think who he is; and what he has done and suffered for you: think what excellencies unite in him, and how great will be the comfort of loving him: think how willing he is to reconcile you to God, and to bring you into the family of heaven. Only believe in him, love him, and give yourselves to him; and all shall yet be well with you, both in time and eternity.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

Jesus Christ’s Claim for Himself

Joh 8:42

Shall I startle you if I say, notwithstanding the multitude of books written upon the life of Christ, there is yet not only room but necessity for a volume to be written on that unexhausted theme? We have had outward lives of Christ enough, perhaps more than enough: lives that tell us about places and dates and occurrences: books of beautiful colouring, high description of locality and scenery, and the like. All the circumstantial occurrences of the life of the Son of God have been given us with tedious and painful minuteness and repetition by bookmakers of various degrees. What then is this other book we want? A complement, a completion, and an explanation of all other books, viz., “The Inner Life of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Not a life of circumstances, but a life of thoughts, purposes, feelings, aspirations, desires; the inward, spiritual, metaphysical, eternal lite of Christ. Can it ever be written? It will be often attempted it will never be done, for no limited book can exhaust an illimitable subject.

Until we study this inner life of Christ deeply, all the outward life of Christ will be a plague to our intellect and a mortification to our heart: we shall always be coming upon things we cannot understand and cannot explain; not only so, we shall be coming upon things that seem to confront the understanding and to defy the intelligence of men. But if we get into sympathy with the inward spiritual life of Christ, then we shall do what Christ did move out upon these outward and visible things and see them in their right relations and colours and proportions. The inward always explains the outward; why should it not be so in this greatest case of all? Come to the outward only, and you will have controversy, difficulty, discrepancy, intellectual annoyance, moral surprise, and perhaps spiritual disappointment. But begin at the other end get to know the man’s soul, get into sympathy with his purpose, see somewhat of the scope and the outlook of his mental nature, and then you will take up the miracles as a very little thing.

Let me now give you, roughly, some hints of the kind of thing that is wanted. Suppose we saw one of the miracles of Christ. So far control your mind as actually to realize that you are present at what was called, in the days of Christ, the raising of the dead. Let us make this as realistic as we can: the dead man is here, the living Christ is here, the mourning friends are here and presently the dead man rises and begins to speak to us, and we have seen what is called the miracle of resurrection. But now, is it trick or miracle you have seen? Is it an illusion or a fact? How am I to determine this question? I cannot determine it in itself. Why? Because my eyes have been so often deceived. I have seen what I could have declared to have been the most positive and absolute facts, and yet when the explanation has been given I have been obliged to confess that I was deceived and befooled by my own vision. If it has been so in a hundred cases, why not so in this? At all events, there is that suggestion which may be pressed upon me until it becomes a temptation, and the temptation may be urged upon me so vehemently and persistently as almost to shake and destroy my faith. I can declare that I saw a man get up but the conjurer comes to me and says, “I will show you something equally deceiving.” I go, and I see his avowed trick: it does baffle me and surprise me exceedingly, and if he then shall follow up that conquest, and shall say, “It was just the same with what you thought the raising of the dead,” he will leave me intellectually in a state of self-torment. I shall still think I saw the event, but he will continue to perplex my vision by a thousand tricks, and show me how impossible it is for any man to trust his eyesight.

Then what am I to do? Leave the outward altogether. Watch the man who performed the miracle listen to him: if his thoughts are deep and pure, if his mental triumphs are equal to his physical miracles, then admire and trust and love him. Take this same conjurer just referred to. When he is on the stage, and, so to speak, in character, he seems to be working miracles: they are miracles to me. Therefore, indeed, I go to see them, and have no other reason than to be baffled and surprised and confounded, and to have my keenest watchfulness returned to me without the prize which it coveted. His tricks outrun my vision my eye cannot follow his supple hand. How then? When he comes off the stage and begins to talk on general subjects I begin to feel my equality with him rising and asserting itself. On the stage I could not touch him watching his hand I could not follow its manipulations at all. But when he comes away from his official character and his professional region, and begins to speak upon subjects with which I am familiar, I sound the depths of his mind, and get the exact measure of his character, and then he becomes clever, artful, surprising, delightful but only a wizard, only a conjurer: wonderful with his wand in his fingers, nothing without it.

So when I go to Christ as a mere stranger, I see him raising the dead, opening the eyes of the blind, and I say, “We have seen these things attempted before, and very wonderful successes have followed the wand of the wizard and the word of the enchanter. This man may be but cleverest of the host, prince of princes, Beelzebub of the Beelzebubs. I will, therefore, not go further into this case; I have no time to examine this man’s credentials, I must be about another and a higher order of business;” but when he begins to talk I am arrested as by unexpected music. I say to him, “Speak on.” His words are equal to his works. He is the same off the platform as on it. Not only do I say, “I never saw it on this fashion before;” but I also say, “I never heard it on this fashion before.” I lister to his thoughts, to his purposes, to his desires, and I find that he is as inimitable in his thinking as he is in his working and acting. What then? I am bound to account for this consistency. All other men have been manifest exemplifications of self-inequality. We know clever men who arc fools, strong men who are weak, eloquent men who stammer, men who are great in this direction, small in some other, self-contradictions, self-anomalies; and this want of self-consistency and self-coherence is at once a proof of their being merely men. But if I find a Man in whom this fact of inequality does not exist, who is as great in thinking as in working, who says that if I could follow him still higher I should find him greater in thinking than it is possible for any mere man to be in acting; then I have to account for that consistency which I have met nowhere else, and to listen to this Man’s explanation of it: “I proceeded forth and came from God;” “I am from above;” that explanation alone will cover all the ground which he boldly and permanently occupies.

It will be infinitely interesting to study the inner life of Christ; to make ourselves, so far as possible, as familiar with his thoughts as we are with his works. And if we do this, we shall come to set the same value upon his miracles that he himself did. What value did he set upon his miracles for their own sake? None. When did he ever say, “Behold this mighty triumph of my power, ye sons of men?” Never. When did he sound a trumpet and convoke a mighty host to see the loosing of a dumb tongue, and the opening of a blind eye? Never. When did he ever make anything of his miracles other than something merely elementary and introductory, and of the nature of example and symbol? Never. How was this? Because he was so much greater within than he was without. If he had performed the miracles with his fingers only, he might have been proud of them; but when they fell out of the infinity of his thinking, they were mere drops trembling on the bucket: they were as nothing before him. We might as well follow some poor breathing of ours and say, “Behold, how wonderful was that sighing in the wind!” It is nothing to us, because of the greater life. And these miracles are puzzles, enigmas, confounding surprises to people who will come to Christ, along the line which begins in the outward, in the visible, in the circumstantial. If ever they can get hold of his heart, and speak to him face to face for five minutes, they will feel the heaving of his great sympathetic bosom; they will see the miracles as he saw them, then they will appear to be very little things, momentary spasms, examples to guide children through the grammar of a higher law, mere exemplifications, symbols, types of the infinite and the inexpressible.

It is very remarkable that this Man once said, “Greater works than these shall ye do;” but I will ask you to find a passage in which he ever said, “Greater thoughts than these shall ye think.” I cannot find such a passage. You must not forget that in your argument about Christ’s divinity, when he piled up his miracles, raising the dead, opening the eyes of the blind, feeding the hungry miraculously, unloosing dumb tongues and unstopping deaf ears; when he aggregated them all into one sublime spectacle, he said, “Greater works than these shall ye do;” but never did he say, “Greater thoughts than these shall ye think, greater words than these shall ye speak, greater purposes than these shall ye conceive.” There he touched the unsearchable riches of his own nature, as in the miracles he pointed to circumstances and to events which would receive larger unfoldment as the ages went on.

Now let us look at this inner life of Christ, from two or three points. I watch this Man day by day, and I am struck with wonder at his amazing power, and the question arises, What is the impelling sense of his duty? Why does he do these things? And he answers, frankly, “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” Never did prophet give that explanation before. His working from his Father’s point of view, in the light of his Father’s will; it is the paternal element that is moving him. He has given me that as his key; I will put it into every lock of his life to see whether he has entrusted me with the proper key or not. I defy the world to find him wrong as to the use of this key. Put it where you like, the lock answers it; and is no credit to be given to a Speaker who, at twelve years of age, took the key from off his girdle, put it into the hands of inquirers, and told them to go round the whole circle of his life with that key in their hands? He was but a boy when he gave up that key he was but twelve years old approaching manhood by Jewish reckoning, but merely a child in years. Can he keep up the high strain? Listen: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” “I and my Father are one.” Can he sustain that high key when he is in trouble? Listen: “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” Can he go higher still? Listen: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” O ye who know the modes of music, tell me, is this harmony?- The key-note is, “Father;” away the Anthem rolls, high as heaven, deep as hell, tortuous as the paths of the forked lightning, and yet with infinite precision it returns to its initial note. Give Christ credit for this. He was but a Galilean peasant; give him what honour is due for preserving his rhythmic consistency through a course, not rugged only, but most tragical and unparalleled.

Arguing from that point, another question suggests itself. If this Man is about his Father’s business, what is his supreme feeling? What answer would you expect to an inquiry like that, after the self-explanation which Jesus Christ has given? Is his supreme feeling a concern for the dignity of the law? Is he jealous with an infinite jealousy for the righteousness of God? Does he come forth from his hiding-place saying, “I am jealous for the holiness of my God; I must vindicate the righteousness of the Unseen and Eternal One?” No. What is the dominant feeling of this Man Christ Jesus? It is named again and again in the New Testament. No change ever occurs in the term, and I will ask you to say how far it corresponds with the first declaration, “Jesus was moved with compassion.” Ye musicians, tell me if that be consonant and harmonious? “Wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers business? Jesus was moved with compassion.” It was always so; the word “compassion” occurs in no solitary instance alone, though its occurrence in one instance would still have been argument enough. But from beginning to end of his life he is moved with compassion. “Jesus, here are some thousands of people that have been with thee three days and have nothing to eat.” Does he wait for us to say that? No. “But Jesus was moved with compassion when he remembered” that the multitudes were in that condition. Coming out once, and looking upon the crowds, “He was moved with compassion, for they were as sheep not having a shepherd.” When he was walking after a funeral to the grave, “Jesus wept.” And when people came to him they seemed to know this sympathetically, for they said, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy upon us, have compassion on us, thou Son of God.” He speaks like a Son, and is thus faithful to a Father’s message.

What explanation does he give of his own miracles? Once he gave us an explanation, as it were, incidentally and unconsciously, but we caught the word, and it saved us from unbelief and explained all mysteries. How was that long-ailing woman cured? “Virtue hath gone out of me.” He did not say, “I have performed this with my fingers; this is an act of manipulation which no other man ever learned to do; it was by swiftness and suppleness and dexterity, and by a mysterious flashing of the fingers over certain parts of the affected body.” No, but he perceived that virtue had gone out of him. No trickster, but a mighty sympathiser, no manipulator, but infinite in the exercise and processes of his redeeming power. Whatever he did took something out of him. Behold the difference between the artificial and the real. What did our redemption cost? The healing of one poor sufferer took “virtue” out of him. What did the redemption of the world take out of him when he said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The last pulse gone. Is he self-consistent still? Still!

And to what are all his triumphs eventually referred? To his Soul. Not to his intellectual ability not to his skill of finger not to his physical endurance, but to his Soul an undefinable term, the symbol of an infinite quantity. “He shall sec of the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied.” You know the meaning of the word in some degree. One man paints with paint another paints with his soul. One is a clever mechanic another an inborn and indestructible genius. One man speaks with his teeth and tongue and palate another speaks with his soul: they use the same words, but not the same, as Hermon was not the same with the dew off; as the bush was not the same before the fire came into it. You say one man sings artificially, mechanically, correctly every tone is right; the proper balance, the proper measure, the proper quantity: artificially the exercise is beyond criticism, but still the people sit unmoved. Another man takes up the same words and the same notes, and the people arc stirred like Lebanon by a wind, like Bashan when the storm roars. How is it? The one man is artificial, the other is real the one man has learned his lesson, the other man had the lesson awakened in him it was there before, and an angel passed by and said, “It is morning: awake and sing.” This Christ, this dear Son of God, shall see of the travail of his soul, of the outgoing of his blood he sows the earth with the red seed of his blood and he shall see the harvest and be satisfied. He was often wearied with his journeying: when was he wearied with his miracles? His bones were tired: when was his mind enfeebled? The instruments of articulation might be exhausted, but when did the word ever come with less than the old emphasis the fiat that made the sun?

Let us now ask What did this man claim for himself? It will assist us in our study if we hear from his own lips a distinct statement of what he does claim on his own account. Reading in the book of Exodus about the great God, I find that he gave his name as “I AM,” that he amplified that name into, “I AM THAT I AM.” We could make nothing of that name; it was too remote for us; our genius had never been in such high regions, never scaled altitudes so perilous. We could therefore but wonder. The name sounded grandly; it had in it all the boom of an infinite mystery, and we were content with it, because the condescensions which that same God made to this human life of ours were so mighty yet so pitiful, so wondrous in their sweep and yet so compassionate in their lingerings that we had begun to think, though the name was mysterious, the grace was familiar enough. A marvellous word was that spoken to Moses “I AM;” it seemed as if it were going to be a revelation, but suddenly it returned upon itself, came back to its centre, and finished with “THAT I AM!” As if the sun were just about to come from behind a great cloud, and suddenly, after one dazzling gleam, hide itself behind a cloud denser still. The fulness of the time had not yet come. God’s “hour” was not yet. He had said, “I AM,” but what he was he did not further say. By-and-by more will be said. It will be interesting, therefore, to inquire whether Jesus Christ connects himself with that mysterious name, “I AM THAT I AM.” If I can trace his talking, his thinking, his preaching, so as to find one point in connection between himself and that great name, then a new and large argument will take its inception, and a new and subtle evidence will be put in that this Man was more than man as mysterious as the Name, perhaps as gracious. Let us see.

I cannot read the life of Christ without constantly coming upon the expression, “I AM.” Reading it, I say, I have met these words before, and wonder where. My memory bethinks itself, and I hasten back into the grey old pages of the ancient time, and find that the Lord revealed himself unto Moses as “I AM THAT I AM.” I want to know, therefore, if this great ladder, the top of which is in heaven, can by any means find a place upon the earth; can it come down that I may touch it? Yes. Jesus adds to the “I AM” little words, simple earthly words, nursery terms, school ideas brings down the “I AM” so that we may touch its lower meaning, and hear its earthly messages. It will, then, be most interesting to see how this is done, and to listen to this modified music of the Eternal.

What does Jesus say after the words “I am?” He says everything that human fancy ever conceived concerning strength, and beauty, and sympathy, and tenderness, and redemption. He absorbs the whole. He leaves nothing for you and me except as secondary owners, except as those who derive their status and their lustre from himself. Thus, “I am… the Vine.” What a stoop! Could any but God have taken up that figure? Think it out. You have heard it until you have become familiar with it forget your familiarity, think yourself back to the original line, and then consider that One has appeared in the human race, who says without reservation or qualification of any kind or degree, “I am the Vine.” Thus is the mysterious simplified; thus is the abstract turned into the concrete and the inner into the visible, the simple, and the approachable. Will he ever say “I am” again? Many a time. Let us hear him. “I am the Light.” Ah, we know what the light is; it is here, and there, and everywhere takes up no room, yet fills all space; warms the planets, yet does not crush a twig. The “I am” fell upon us like a mighty thundering. “I am the Light” came to us like a child’s lesson in our mother’s nursery. Thus doth he incarnate or embody or personify himself thus doth the ladder rest in the mean dust, whilst its head is lifted up above the pavilions of the stars.

Will he say “I am” any more? Often. How? Listen: “I am the Door.” Dare any but himself have taken upon him so mean a figure? “Ah,” said he, “it is not a mean figure if you interpret it aright. A door is more than deal. A door is more than an arrangement swinging upon hinges. A door is Welcome, Hospitality, Approach, Home, Warmth, Honour, Son-ship I am the Door.” Still more: “I am the Bread, I am the Water, I am the Good Shepherd, I am the Way, I am the Truth, I am the Life.” When I see how this Man absorbs all beauteous figures, all high and tender emblems, I begin to think that there is nothing left for us by which to distinguish ourselves figuratively and typically. If we take any of these words, they must be taken as with his signature upon them, having a first lien and a prior claim; we are but intermediary and temporary, and altogether subordinate in our stewardship and right of status. How any man could be a man only, and yet take up these figures, it is impossible for me to believe. It is easier for me to say, “My Lord and my God,” than to say, “Equal with me; better only in the accidents of the case.”

Seeing that Christ claims so much for himself, it will be equally interesting, and will be the complement of the same subject, to start a second inquiry, namely, What does he claim from men? He claims everything. Sometimes in mean mood of soul I have wondered at his divine voracity. For once, a woman came to him who had only one box of spikenard, and he took it all. I was amazed half distressed. I never saw such impoverishment made before. He did not say, “Give me part of it,” but took it every whit, and the woman had no more left of that precious nard. Could you have done that? Would your humanity have allowed you to do it? Surely, you would have said, “Part of it, just a little; you are so kind as to offer me a donation out of your one box of spikenard, let me take a little myself I must not have it all.” But this Man, what said he? He said, “Let her do it I will have it all, substance and fragrance too.” And another woman she might have touched his heart as she came along, for she was poor and poorly clothed, and had on a widow’s weeds I expected that he would have said, “Poor woman, we cannot take anything from you.” No; she came along, took out her two mites, which make one farthing, put them in, and he took them both! Is he man? Is that humanity? Strange man; marvellous exceeding above all other men; not only did he take them, but he said, “She hath done more than anybody else who came up to the treasury: she hath cast in all her living.”

Is he doing the selfsame thing in our own day? Verily he is! Look at this family, father and mother, with a boy and a girl as their sweet children. How many things has that boy been, in his father’s hopeful dreams! A lawyer and a judge; then a clergyman and a bishop; then a merchant, a politician, a statesman, and a prime minister! But one day the mother says that she feels “something is going to happen;” a vague expression, but full of deep and sad meaning to her own soul. She tells her husband that “something is going to happen,” and he smiles at the shapeless and nameless fear. And what does happen? A proposal that the boy should become a missionary! What! the only son? Yes! “It cannot be,” says the stunned father; “no, no, it must not be.” For many an hour there is silence; ay, for days next to nothing is said, but many a wistful look is exchanged. At length the mother says, “I have been thinking and praying about this, and I remember that good Mr. Wesley used to open the Bible to see what answer God sent him to his prayers, and I have got my answer today. After prayer I opened the Bible, and my eyes could see no other words but these: ‘Even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight.’ He must go.” The father is silent. A great weight of grief burdens his heart. He, too, goes to pray goes a hale man under fifty comes back in an hour an old man, crushed, blanched, withered, and grey, “but more than conqueror,” and he, too, says the child the one son, the heir, the firstborn must go. And Christ takes him! Humanity would have spared him when so many large families could have furnished a missionary, but God takes him; the God that took the spikenard and the mites.

It will be curious and interesting now to start a third inquiry to this effect: How did the people who were round about, and who were not malignantly disposed, who constituted the better class of His contemporaries, regard Christ? Here is one typical man a man of letters and of local renown, careful and exact in speech, somewhat timid in disposition, yet marked by that peculiar timidity which is capable of assuming the most startling boldness. He climbs his way up to Christ, opens the door in the dark, goes up to him, and says in an undertone, lest the enemy should hear “Rabbi, thou art a teacher come from God.” Evidence of that kind must not go for nothing. Send men of another type of mind to him men of the world, shrewd, keen men. Here are several of them returning from an interview with the Son of God. I hail them in English terms, and say, “Gentlemen, what say you?” “Never man spake like this Man.” Add that to the evidence of Nicodemus. Here are women coming back from having seen the Lord; tears are in their eyes. What will they say? Never yet did woman speak one word against the Son of God! Mothers, did you see anything to blame? “Nothing.” Women of pure soul sensitive as keenest life what saw ye? “The Holiness of God.” Pass him on to a judge cold, dispassionate, observant, not easily hoodwinked. What sayest thou, Roman judge? “I find no fault in him.” What is that coming to the man now, while he is talking? A message. What saith the message? It is a message from the judge’s wife. “Have thou nothing to do with this just person, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream concerning him.” Let him go nail his right hand, nail his left hand, nail his feet, lift high the dreadful tree, crush it into the rock, shake every nerve and fibre of his poor body, let him writhe in his last agony, and will anybody speak about him then? Yes. The centurion beholding this, accustomed to the sight of blood, knowing how men deport themselves in judgment halls and in prisons and in the supreme crisis of existence, said “Truly this Man was the Son of God.” Observe what he claimed for himself what he claimed from others. Put these testimonies of observers one after the other, accumulate them into a complete appeal, and then say whether it be not easier to the imagination and the heart and the judgment to say, “My Lord and my God,” than to use meaner terms.

Another question arises: From such a Man what teaching may be expected? Given, a man distinguished by such attributes and elements as I have endeavoured simply to indicate, to find out what kind or manner of teaching and public ministry we may expect from him. I shall first expect extemporaneousness. He cannot want time to make his sermons, or he is not the man he claims to be. He is not an essayist. He will not be a literary speaker; there will be a peculiarity, a uniqueness, a personality about him not to be found otherwhere. Does he retire to his study, that he may write out elaborate sentences full of nothing but ink? Will he come before me as a literary artist, with well-poised sentences, beautiful periods, sounding climaxes, leaving the impression that he has wasted the midnight oil, and taken infinite pains to please those who went to hear him? There is nothing literary about the style of Christ; it is simple, graphic talk, much broken to our minds, occasionally incoherent, rapid in transitions, utterly wanting in all elaboration, and the balance prized by men who have nothing else to do than to live by their folly. I shall further expect instantaneousness of reply by Christ Jesus if He be God. God cannot want time to think what he will say. Does this Man ever ask for time; does he ever adjourn the interview? He answers immediately, and he answers finally. He never asks for time to bethink himself, to refer to the authorities, to consult and connote the precedents. He docs not say, “You have posed me by an unexpected question; I must retire and give this inquiry my profoundest consideration.” Never; and he was but a carpenter. He had just thrown the apron from his waist; he was but a peasant. Rabbinical culture he had none, high connection disdained the mention of his name, and yet there was an instantaneousness about him to which I can find no parallel but in the “Let there be light, and there was light.” Give every man credit for his ability; give this Man, carpenter and peasant of Galilee, credit for having extorted from his enemies the acknowledgment, “Never man spake like this Man.”

What do I find in this Man’s teaching? High allegory, types of things unseen, incarnations of the spiritual, embodiments of the invisible, parables beautiful as pictures, wide as philosophies, lasting as essential truth. Strange man marvellous productions of a barren soil. Why, he himself was an incarnation. What was his ministry? An incarnation too. What had he to do with the men who heard him, and all succeeding generations? He had to embody, to physicalise and bodily typify the kingdom of God: hence he said, “It is like a grain of mustard seed; like a net cast into the sea; like treasure hid in a field; like leaven hid in three measures of meal.” “It is like unto” when he said that, what did he do? He repeated his own birth. He renewed his own incarnation, he was born again in every parable that escaped his lips. To embody the bodiless, to typify in allegory and figure the infinite and the inexpressible, was the all-culminating miracle of this peasant of Galilee. Then I ask myself, “Is it consistent with all I have heard about him?” And I am compelled to say it is exquisitely in consonance with all we have yet seen of His character and studied of His speech. A Man like this coming up from unbeginning time must be extemporaneous in his speech, instantaneous in his reply, and allegorical and typical and symbolical in his method of presenting truth, for he knows the essential, and alone can give it beauty and expression, and movement and colour. Give him the credit due to his power!

Jesus Christ’s is the kind of teaching that survives all the changes of time. It is seminal teaching; it is not like a full-blown garden, it is like treasures of living seeds and roots, and therefore it abides for ever. Where are the grand and stately and polished sermons of the great doctors of the Church? Do you know? I do not. But they were grand, were they not? Why didn’t you keep them then? But they were stately, majestic, complete, cathedral-like, strong in base, exquisite in pinnacle, almost fluttering in the delicacy of their architecture; indeed, why didn’t you take better care of them? Where are they? Gone into a stately past majestic shadows of a majestic oblivion. What lives? Suggestiveness, what is called incoherence, want of finish, want of polish; the great mighty oak, the everlasting Bashan; not the cabinet-makers’ pretty and expensive fabrication.

Now I will come to the final point, and it shall be of the utmost severity in its relation to this argument. The question I put is this: Did this Man Christ Jesus live up to his own principles? I can imagine persons of a certain kind of mind suggesting that the speeches and parables, and conversations generally of Jesus Christ, conveyed very high theories, very sublime philosophies of things, but were too romantic to be embodied in actual behaviour. The question I press upon you is this, so far as the evidence in the Book goes, Did this Man Christ Jesus embody his own doctrine? What said he? “Bless them that persecute you.” Did he do it? Let one of his disciples answer. “When he was reviled, he. reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not.” What said he? “Pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you.” Did he do it? One of his historians says that in his last agony he prayed, when he had no hand to stretch out upward to his God, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Is this to go for nothing? Are we at liberty to dismiss this witness and say he does not know of that which he testifies, or that which he affirms? Be careful, for if you cannot confer a character you have no right to take one away.

I call you to this living Christ; I will try to go nearer to him than ever I have been before; I will call for him to come nearer to me, and I will press still nearer. He knows me, he speaks to me, there is a masonry between us for which you have no word or symbol: a grip of the hand he only can give, a symbol that hath morning in it, and hope and immortality, secret messages, transmissions in cipher which he makes the devil himself bring. Can I give him up? Can I sell him for thirty pieces of silver? Can I exchange him for some other master? Oh, then the sun would bring no morning with it, mid day would be but a great black cloud, and the summer a mocking promise without an answer. To whom, then, could I tell my sin; to whom could I pray my prayers; to whom could I empty my heart in darkness and in close and absolute solitude, after I have looked all round the horizon to see even if an angel be there to watch the secret interview? Nay, I must serve him still, preach him still, and if he say to me, “Wilt thou go away?” I will answer in words I cannot amend, “To whom can I go? Thou only hast the words of Eternal Life!”

Prayer

O that this day we might see the Lord and have our whole mind filled with his light and joy! Lord, dost thou ask us what we would have at thine hands? Our answer is, Lord, that we might receive our sight! When men cry unto the Lord in their trouble, thou dost deliver them out of their distresses; in this hope we come now before the Lord, and even whilst we speak our hearts feel the burden rising. Sweet is the day of the Lord, quiet and tender in its sacred peacefulness, opening into the very heavens and showing us the New Jerusalem as the city in which we shall no more be threatened by fear and humbled by weariness. For every blessing we offer thee our praise. Thou didst lead us through the solitary way, and thou hast spared us from the shadow of death. Our souls are thine, our bodies are thy habitation. Thou are mindful of us with great care, and thy banner over us is love. O that we knew how to praise thee aright, that our hearts might not suffer pain because of the weariness of our worship. Thy judgments are very terrible, but thy mercies are greater still. Our life is full of the mercy of the Lord, and our days are made bright by his goodness. Lord, let not our feet stray from the path of thy will. Lord, comfort us, encourage our souls in the day of fear, and let our weakness hide itself in thy great power. We lay down our own wisdom as ignorance, and run away from our towers as from defences that will crush the life that built them. We come to Jesus. We stand beside the Saviour. We know the power of his blood. Lord, help us. Lord, send upon us the blessing of thine infinite pardon. Lord, show us the light of thy face. We daily see how great a gift is life; we know it not, we have not seen the divine secret, we feel the pulse beat, but we see not the power by which it is moved. We are our own mysteries. Life itself is a religion. Life is a continual prayer. How weak we are, yet how strong! We cannot just now bear the full daylight, yet we shall pass the sun on our upward way to the glory to come, and his great lustre shall be as a spark vanishing in the ever-enlarging vastness of thy universe. When we think thus of thy kingdom our light affliction is but for a moment. Thy kingdom, Lord, how great, how bright, how strong! May we one and all have a place in that everlasting house. Thy mercy is greater than our prayer, and therefore do we hope even where we cannot reason. Send the gospel to our lost ones, and bring our wanderers home. Visit our sick chambers and whisper to our sick ones the messages of consolation, so that their very weakness may itself become a privilege, and their loneliness become the sanctuary within which thou wilt meet them. We put our own life into thy keeping. We lay aside our own poor help as a temptation, and we accept thy strength as our perfect ability. O thou God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when shall we be wholly swallowed up in thy great love! When will the devil leave us, and none but holy angels be at hand! How long the tempter tarries! He wears out our strength; he lures our fancy; he vexes our prayers; he tortures our very communion with thyself. Jesus of the wilderness, Jesus of Calvary, help us or the enemy will prevail. He is so strong, so swift, so wise; yet we can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth us, therefore do we pray Jesus, save us, or we perish! Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

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.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

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 the Son of God, and who am come by the mission, and bearing the character, of God.’

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

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 8:42 . But this claim Jesus explodes by the same argument: . Were God your Father you would love me, for I am from God. 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 . is added, as 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: . 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. . They did not recognise His speech as Divine, because they were unable to receive the message He brought. “In (= loqui) the fact of uttering human language is the prominent notion; in (= 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.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

love. Greek agapao. App-136.

came = am here.

neither = not even. Greek. oude.

came I = am I come.

sent. Greek. apostello. App-174.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

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 the Son of God, and who am come by the mission, and bearing the character, of God.

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

Fuente: The Greek Testament

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

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 8:42

Joh 8:42

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me.-Jesus kept the spiritual relation before them. If God were your Father you would not oppose me.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

If: Joh 5:23, Joh 15:23, Joh 15:24, Mal 1:6, 1Co 16:22, 1Jo 5:1, 1Jo 5:2

for: Joh 1:14, Joh 16:27, Joh 16:28, Joh 17:8, Joh 17:25, Rev 22:1

neither: Joh 5:43, Joh 7:28, Joh 7:29, Joh 12:49, Joh 14:10, Joh 17:8, Joh 17:25, Gal 4:4, 1Jo 4:9, 1Jo 4:10, 1Jo 4:14

Reciprocal: Gen 6:2 – the sons Son 8:1 – find thee Mat 25:42 – General Mar 7:6 – honoureth Luk 2:35 – that Joh 3:13 – but Joh 5:30 – can Joh 5:42 – that Joh 6:33 – cometh Joh 8:14 – for Joh 10:36 – sent Joh 11:42 – that thou Joh 13:3 – and that Joh 14:15 – General Joh 14:24 – and Joh 15:26 – which Joh 16:9 – General Joh 21:15 – lovest 1Pe 1:8 – ye love

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2

Jesus made the same kind of reply to this claim that he did when they boasted of being children of Abraham (verse 39). Their conduct toward Jesus indicated they were not of God, for he was the Father of Christ whom they did not love.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Joh 8:42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for from God I came forth, and am here, for also I have not come of myself, but he sent me. Again Jesus applies the same principle to test their claim. Were they true children of God, then they would love whomsoever God loves. But this they do not, for they love not Him who came forth from God and whom God sent. The words in which Jesus speaks of His relation to God are remarkable. Alike in His Incarnation, in His whole manifestation to the world, and in His mission, He sustains the same relation to the Father: all is from and of the Father. This intimate relation implies the love on which the argument is made to rest.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

However, Jesus was not even willing to grant them that they were God’s children in the spiritual sense. How could they respond to Him as they did and still claim to be behaving as God? If they were God’s true children, they would love Jesus rather than try to kill Him. They would acknowledge that God had sent Him.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)