Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 8:35
And the servant abideth not in the house forever: [but] the Son abideth ever.
35. And the servant, &c.] The transition is somewhat abrupt, the mention of ‘bond-servant’ suggesting a fresh thought. Now the bond-servant (not the bond-servant of sin, but any slave) abideth not in the house for ever: the son (not the Son of God, but any son) abideth for ever. “The thought is throughout profound and instructive; and to a Jew, always ready to picture to himself the theocracy or the kingdom of heaven under the form of a household, it would be easily intelligible.” S. p. 157.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The servant abideth not … – The servant does not, of course, remain forever, or until his death. with his master. If he is disobedient and wicked, the master sells him or turns him away. He is not the heir, and may at any time be expelled from the house of his master. But a son is the heir. He cannot be in this manner cast off or sold. He is privileged with the right of remaining in the family. This takes place in common life. So said the Saviour to the Jews: You, if you are disobedient and rebellious, may at any time be rejected from being the people of God, and be deprived of your special privileges as a nation. You are in the condition of servants, and unless you are made free by the gospel, and become entitled to the privilege of the sons of God, you will be cast off like an unfaithful slave. Compare Heb 3:5-6.
Abideth not – Remains not, or has not the legal right to remain. He may at any time be rejected or sold.
In the house – In the family of his master.
For ever – During the whole time of his life.
The Son – The heir. He remains, and cannot be sold or cast off.
Ever – Continually. Till the day of his death. This is the privilege of a son, to inherit and dispose of the property.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 35. And the servant abideth not in the house] Or, rather, Now the slave abided not in the family. As if Jesus had said: And now that I am speaking of a slave, I will add one thing more, viz. a slave has no right to any part of the inheritance in the family to which he belongs; but the son, the legitimate son, has a right. He can make any servant of the family free, though no slave can. He can divide or bestow the inheritance as he pleases. Our Lord seems here to refer to the sending away of Ishmael, mentioned, Ge 21:10-14. Only those who are genuine children can inherit the estate. If sons, then heirs: heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ: Ga 4:21-31; Ro 8:17; and see Bishop Pearce’s Paraphrase.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The servant of sin abideth not in the church (which is the house of God) for ever. Look as it is with slaves, and servants; they are no fixed members of families; they may be turned out, they may be sold over to others; they abide in families according as in them they behave themselves: so you, who, as you are Abrahams seed, as you boast and glory, are now servants in the church of God; yet if you continue to be servants of sin, you shall not for ever abide in Gods house; if you be not cast out of the church militant, you shall certainly be cast out of the church triumphant; that is, you shall never come there.
But the Son; some think he speaks of himself who was the eternal Son of God, he
abideth ever; but I rather think he speaks of him that is a son by adoption, Joh 1:12; Rom 8:15,16. So as this text showeth us the remarkable difference betwixt a nominal professor, and one who is a true believer: the one is but as a servant in Gods house, to whom belongeth no inheritance; though while he is in the family, he enjoys some common privileges which a mere stranger hath no right to: the other is a son, and hath a right to the inheritance, and so shall never be cast out of the family, but abideth in it for ever.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
35. And the servant abideth not inthe house for ever, but the Son abideth everthat is, “Andif your connection with the family of God be that of BOND-SERVANTS,ye have no natural tie to the house; your tie is essentiallyuncertain and precarious. But the SON’Srelationship to the FATHERis a natural and essential one; it is an indefeasible tie; Hisabode in it is perpetual and of right: That is Myrelationship, My tie: If, then, ye would have your connection withGod’s family made real, rightful, permanent, ye must by theSon be manumitted and adopted as sons and daughters ofthe Lord Almighty.” In this sublime statement there is no doubta subordinate allusion to Ge21:10, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son,for the son of this bond-woman shall not be heir with my son,with Isaac.” (Compare Ga4:22-30).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the servant abideth not in the house for ever,…. The servant of God, and of Christ, does, but not the servant of sin: there may be servants of sin in the house or church of God here below; and such were these Jews Christ is speaking to; but such shall not abide there for ever: some that get into this house are quickly discerned, as Simon Magus was, and are soon removed; and others that may stay longer, are sometimes suffered to fall into some foul sin, or into some gross error and heresy, for which they are cast out of the house or church of God, according to the rules of God’s word; others make parties, draw disciples after them, and separate themselves, and go out of their own accord, to serve their own purposes: and others, when persecution and tribulation arise because of the word, they are offended and gone; this is the fan with which Christ sometimes winnows his floor, and removes the chaff; and those that continue longest, even to the end of their days, or of the world, or the second coming of Christ, as the foolish virgins, will then be discerned and separated; for the ungodly shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous; they shall not enter into the house above, into the house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, which is Christ’s Father’s house: none but sons are brought to glory; these are the only heirs of salvation; others will be bid to depart, as workers of iniquity, as the servants of sin; even such who have made a profession of religion, and have been, and have had a standing in the house of God below. The allusion is to the case of servants in common; and, in a literal sense, it is true both of good and bad servants: good servants do not always continue in their master’s house; even an Hebrew servant, that loved his master, and would not go out free at the end of his servitude; and who, after having his ear bored, is said to serve him for ever, Ex 21:6; yet that “for ever” was but until the year of jubilee, whether near or remote, as the Jewish commentators d in general explain it; nay, if his master died before that time, he went out free: he was not obliged to serve his son or heirs; and so say the Misnic doctors e:
“one that is bored is obtained by boring, and he possesses himself (or becomes free) by the year of jubilee, and by the death of his master.”
And to this agrees what Maimonides f says;
“he that has served six years, and will not go out, lo, this is bored, and he serves until the year of jubilee, or until his master dies; and although he leaves a son, he that is bored does not serve the son; which may be learned from the letter of the words, “he shall serve him”, not his son, “for ever”, until the jubilee: from whence it appears, that he that is bored does not possess himself (or is free) but by the jubilee, and by the death of his master.”
And one of their writers g observes, that the word rendered, “shall serve him”, is by Gematry, and not his son. And among the Romans, good servants were oftentimes made free, and bad ones were turned out, and put into a work house, to grind corn in mills, a sort of bridewell; and such evil servants may more especially be respected, since Christ is speaking of servants of sin:
but the Son abideth ever: the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God the Lord Jesus Christ will always continue as a Son in his own house, as the Lord and proprietor of it; and as an high priest over it, having an unchangeable priesthood; and as he that takes care of it, provides for it, and manages all the affairs thereof, the family in heaven and in earth being named of him. And as he, so all the adopted sons of God shall continue, being pillars in this house, that shall never go out: such are no more servants, nor foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God; and being sons, are heirs and shall never be cast out, as the bondwoman and her son have been: but these being the children of the free, shall for ever enjoy the inheritance they are adopted to; once sons, always so; the relation ever continues; they will ever remain in the family, and being entitled to the heavenly estate, shall ever possess it.
d Jarchi, Aben Ezra, & ben Gersom in Exod. xxi. 6. e Misn. Kiddushin, c. 1. sect. 1. f Hilchot Abadim, c. 3. sect. 6, 7. g Baal Hatturim in Exod. xxi. 6.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The bondservant ( ) …
the son ( ). There is a change in the metaphor by this contrast between the positions of the son and the slave in the house. The slave has no footing or tenure and may be cast out at any moment while the son is the heir and has a permanent place. Cf. Ishmael and Isaac (Ge 21:10) and Paul’s use of it in Ga 4:30. We do not know that there is any reference here to Hagar and Ishmael. See also Heb 3:5 (Nu 12:7) for a like contrast between Moses as servant () in God’s house and Christ as Son () over God’s house.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Abideth not in the house forever. A slave has no permanent place in the house. He may be sold, exchanged, or cast out. Compare Gen 21:10; Gal 4:30. House. See Heb 3:6; Joh 14:2. The elder son in the parable of the prodigal (Luk 14:29), denies his sonship by the words, “These many years do I serve thee [] .”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And the servant abideth not in the house forever: (ho de doulos ou menei en te oikia eis ton aiona) “But the slave does not remain in the house into the age,” into the heaven of heaven age. As Ishmael was cast out with the bondwoman, out of Abraham’s house, so was the law and its yoke of bondage cast out, with the coming of Christ, to which it pointed, and led those who would follow, Gal 3:19-25; Gal 4:30; Rom 9:6-12.
2) “But the Son abideth ever.” (ho huios menei eis ton aiona) “The Son (however) as an heir, remains into the age,” the heavenly age, as the person of truth to accept and follow as Savior and Lord, Joh 14:6; Act 4:12; Glory is to be given Him in and through the church, forever and ever, Eph 3:21.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
35. Now the slave remaineth not in the house always. He adds a comparison, taken from the laws and from political law, to the effect that a slave, though he may have power for a time, yet is not the heir of the house; from which he infers that there is no perfect and durable freedom, but what is obtained through the Son In this manner he accuses the Jews of vanity, because they hold but a mask instead of the reality; for, as to their being Abraham ’ s offspring, they were nothing but a mask. They held a place in the Church of God, but such a place as Ishmael, a slave, rising up against his freeborn brother, usurped for a short time, (Gal 4:29.) The conclusion is, that all who boast of being Abraham ’ s children have nothing but an empty and deceitful pretense.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(35) And the servant abideth not.Better, Now the bondman abideth not . . ., as in the last verse.
The Son abideth ever.Better, for ever, as in the earlier clause. The Greek words are precisely the same. This contrast between the position of the slave, who is a chattel that may be bought or bartered or sold, and has no affinity with the members of the house, and no permanent right in it; and the son, in whose veins is the masters blood, and who is heir of all things, is obvious and general; but here, again, the present meaning is special. They claim to be the seed of Abraham. Did they remember the history of Isaac and Ishmael? The son of the freewoman abideth in the house; the son of the bondmaid is cast out. Here, once again, too, we have the pupil of Gamaliel taking up and expanding this thought, showing that it was within the range of current exposition. Read carefully Gal. 4:19-31, remembering that the Epistle belongs to the middle of the half-century which separates the utterance of these words by Christ from their record by St. John.
The Greek word for abideth is the word which is rendered continue in Joh. 8:31, and the Authorised version further obscures the connection by placing a paragraph division between these verses. If we read again Joh. 8:31-32, noting the close connection between abiding, truth, and freedom; and the next verses, Joh. 8:35-36, noting the connection between abiding, the Son, and freedom, we shall have, it is believed, a simpler clue to the meaning than any of the usual explanations.
Our version misleads by the use of the capital. The word Son in this verse, should be read son. The clause is the expression of a legal maxim holding good for all servants and for all sons, but here specially applied to the sonship in Abrahams household. It is not before the next verse that there is the transference of thought to the Son in the household of the Divine Father. In this verse the thought is that if they were really the children of Abraham they would be of Abrahams spiritual nature, abiding in his home, and inheriting the promises made to him. They had not continued in the spiritual freedom of sons, but had departed from the house and had become, spiritually, bondmen.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
35. Servant abideth not The slave’s place in the household is not natural, but forced and transferable. He may be emancipated, sold, or induced to escape. The son is natural permanent heir. The sinner is in God’s house, but unnaturally. In fact he is slave not to the father of the house in which he is, but to another outdoor master.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the slave does not remain in the house for ever, the son remains for ever. So if the Son makes you free, you will indeed be free’.
Jesus now contrasts those who are slaves to sin to those who become sons of God’s household through the power and authority of the true Son. Those who are slaves have no permanent benefits. One day they will lose out. They have nothing permanent. (The Pharisees thought that they had a permanent place in God’s household but they were wrong). But those who become sons because of their response to the Son become free from such slavery. They are made free by the Son. And their position in God’s household is therefore permanent.
There are three ways in which we can interpret this sentence in depth. The first is to interpret it in detail. Thus it can be seen as saying that sin makes men slaves to their master Sin, as they serve in his household, while the Son makes men free sons in His household. The slave in ‘the household of sin’, with sin as his master, can only be a loser. Any seeming benefits are temporary. Let those who enjoy sin recognise that it will let them down in the end. The sinner may think that he gets the best bargain but he only receives what is temporary, for as a slave he has no rights and no standing, and will one day be thrown out and will lose everything.
In contrast the one who receives sonship receives a permanent position. So the one who through breaking with sin by faith in Christ receives a place in ‘the household of God’ and has permanent existence in that household. Thus if the Son makes men free, by bringing them into sonship, and removing them from the household of sin into the household of God, then their place in the household of God is eternal, not passing or fading away, and they are free indeed from the control of sin.
Alternately, the intention may have been to indicate the simple contrast of a temporary position in a household with a position of permanence, contrasting Isaac, the primary son, with Ishmael, the son of the slave girl, who was cast out. The idea then is that sin offers only what is temporary, while Jesus offers sonship, which is permanent, and gives total freedom (‘the house’ not having any interpretative significance). Compare for this Paul’s argument in Gal 4:21-30.
Alternately ‘the son’ might refer to Jesus in both cases, in which case the meaning is that sin only gives you what is temporary while the Son invites you to forsake sin and share His permanence, thus receiving freedom from sin which is true freedom. In the end the overall meaning is the same.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 8:35. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: “As a slave cannot be so assured of his master’s favour, as to depend upon it that he shall never be turned out of the family, since he is always his master’s property, and in his power, to sell or keep him as he shall think fit; so my Father can, when he pleases, turn you, who are habitual sinners, out of his family, and deprive you of the outward economy of religion in which you glory; because through sin you have made yourselves bondmen to his justice; whereas, if you will become God’s faithful persevering children, you shall remain in his family for ever.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 8:35-36 . But what prospect is there before the slave of sin? Exclusion from the kingdom of the Messiah! This threat Jesus clothes in the general principle of civil life, that a slave has no permanent place in the house; he must allow himself to be sold, exchanged, or cast out. Comp. Gen 21:10 ; Gal 4:30 . The application intended to be made of this general principle is this: “The servant of sin does not remain eternally in the theocracy, but is cast out of the midst of the people of God at the establishment of the kingdom of Messiah.” There is nothing to indicate that is intended to refer to Ishmael as a type of the bastard sons of Abraham, and to Isaac as a type of Christ (Ebrard); such a view rather is out of accord with this general expression in its present tense form, which simply marks an universally existing legal relation between the different positions of the slave and the Son of the house.
] for ever , an expression to be understood in harmony with the relation which has been figuratively represented . After a full stop should be inserted, with Lachmann and Kling, because , etc., is a consequence deduced simply from . . ., not from what precedes, and because , etc., begins a new section in the logical progress of the discourse. The course of thought, namely, is this: (1) Whoever commits sin is the bondsman of sin, and is excluded from the Messianic people of God. (2) Quite different from the lot of the bondsman, who must quit the house, is that of the Son (of the Master of the house); hence it is this latter who procures for you actual freedom.
. ] namely, , also a general proposition or principle, but with an intentional application of the general expression to Christ , who, as the Son of God , retains for ever His position and power in the house of God, i.e . in the theocracy; [22] comp. Heb 3:5-6 . From this . it follows ( ) that if He frees from the state of a bondsman, a real and not merely an apparent freedom commences, seeing that, on account of the perpetual continuance of His domestic rights in the theocracy, the emancipation effected by Him must have a real and finally valid result. This would not necessarily be the case if He remained merely for a time in the house; for as both His right and would then lack certainty and permanence, so the freedom He procured would also lack the guarantee of reality. This line of argumentation presupposes, moreover, that the Father does not Himself directly actin the theocracy; He has entrusted to the Son the power and control.
The reference of to Moses (Euth. Zigabenus, after Chrysostom) is foreign and opposed to the text, see Joh 8:34 . Grotius, however, aptly remarks: “tribuitur hic filio quod modo veritati , quia eam profert filius.”
] in reality; every other freedom is mere appearance (comp. Joh 8:33 ), not corresponding to its true nature; no other is (Plat. Legg . iii. p. 698 A), which alone is that gained through Christ, 1Co 3:22 ; Rom 8:35-36 ; 2Co 6:4-5 .
[22] If the man who is morally free be supposed to be the object of the intended application of the man, namely, who “holds not merely an historical relation to God, but one that is essential, because ethically conditioned” (Luthardt, comp. De Wette) we should have to take the second in the sensu eminenti (of Christ ). The text, however, especially as ver. 36 is connected with ver. 35 by , offers no ground for this distinction. Hence, also, it is wrong to apply in ver. 35 to those who are liberated by Christ along with Christ (Hengstenberg). These first come under consideration in ver. 36.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
Ver. 35. But the Son abideth ever ] This is a part of that spiritual birthright, Joh 1:12 . God hath charged Christ to see to the safekeeping of the body and soul of every true believer, Joh 6:39-40 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
35. ] I believe, with Stier and Bengel, the reference to be to Hagar and Ishmael, and Isaac: the bond and the free . They had spoken of themselves as the seed of Abraham . The Lord shews them that there may be, of that seed, two kinds ; the son , properly so called, and the slave . The latter does not abide in the house for ever: it is not his right nor his position ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son.’ ‘But the son abideth ever.’ For the application, see on following verses.
and are in this verse generic merely.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
abideth. See note on Joh 1:32.
for ever. See App-151. a, He may be sold or manumitted.
the Son. Greek huios. App-108. Never used of believers in this Gospel. This word is reserved for Christ only. See note 2, p. 1511.
ever = for ever, as above.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
35.] I believe, with Stier and Bengel, the reference to be to Hagar and Ishmael, and Isaac: the bond and the free. They had spoken of themselves as the seed of Abraham. The Lord shews them that there may be, of that seed, two kinds; the son, properly so called, and the slave. The latter does not abide in the house for ever: it is not his right nor his position-Cast out the bondwoman and her son. But the son abideth ever. For the application, see on following verses.
and are in this verse generic merely.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 8:35. ) slave, in social standing: slave-like, of illiberal [base] disposition, and so committing sin.- ) in the house of the Father.- ) The Son, the only-begotten. Comp. ver. following, If the Son shall make you free, etc. The article here has a greater force, than in the antithetic words, .-, abideth) in the house. The allusion is, inasmuch as the question is concerning Abraham, to Gen 21:10, Sarah said to Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son-Hagar and Ishmael-for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son-Isaac; Gen 25:5, Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac: comp. Gal 4:22, etc., He who was of the bondwoman, was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise, which things are an allegory, etc.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 8:35
Joh 8:35
And the bondservant abideth not in the house for ever: the son abideth for ever.-A slave is not personally connected with the family. The son is the heir and permanent member of the family.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
the servant: Gen 21:10, Eze 46:17, Mat 21:41-43, Gal 4:30, Gal 4:31
but: Joh 14:19, Joh 14:20, Rom 8:15-17, Rom 8:29, Rom 8:30, Gal 4:4-7, Col 3:3, Heb 3:5, Heb 3:6, 1Pe 1:2-5
Reciprocal: Gen 21:14 – sent Deu 15:3 – General Deu 15:12 – General Deu 34:5 – So Moses Eze 46:16 – If the prince
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
Passing from the moral and spiritual phase of the subject, to the social and political for the purpose of illustration, Jesus shows these self-righteous Jews that they are detsined to be thrust out unless they change.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 8:35. And the slave abideth not in the house for ever: the son abideth for ever. The Jews believed that they were free, the sons of God; and that, as such, they were permanent possessors of His house, and thus permanent recipients of His favour and love, inheritors of eternal life. Not so. In all this they deceive themselves. They are not Gods sons, but slaves of sin. As such they have no more real hold of the house of God, with its present and eternal privileges, than a slave has of the privileges of the house in which he is a slave. A son only can claim a place in the house and the possession of what belongs to the house, as a right permanent, uninterrupted, as long as he is a son. In all this, no doubt, there lies a reference to their own his-tory. As the son of the bondwoman Hagar in the house of Abraham, so were they in the house of God: as Ishmael (though Abrahams seed) was driven forth, having no place beside the son who was free, so must they who claimed to be Abrahams seed be cast out, if they are slaves of sin.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 35, 36. The slave does not abide in the house for ever; the son abides for ever. 36. If therefore the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
If in Joh 8:34 the words , of sin, are read, it is necessary to admit a change of meaning in the idea of slavery between Joh 8:34 and Joh 8:35. In Joh 8:34, the master is sin; in Joh 8:35-36, the master is God, the owner of the house. This modification in the notion of moral slavery is undoubtedly to be explained by a thought which is also that of some passages in the Epistles of St. Paul: that the slave of sin, when he is a member of the theocracy, of the house of God, is made thereby a slave with respect to God Himself. In this moral condition, indeed, his position is servile; he renders to the master of the house only a forced obedience, because his will is governed by another master, sin. It cannot be denied, however, that the connection would be much more simple, if the words of sin were omitted in Joh 8:34. He who commits sin is not a child, but a slave (with respect to God), Joh 8:34. Now, in such a moral state, the man possesses no permanent abode in the house of God (Joh 8:35). Separated spiritually from the Father of the family, he is not a real member of the family.
The meaning is thus perfectly simple. : He will remain in the house only as long as the master shall desire to make use of him (Luthardt); he may be sold at any moment. What a threatening for those to whom Jesus was addressing Himself!In contrast to this term slave, the term sonmust designate the quality of son; not the person of the Son. He who is truly a son through the community of spirit with the Master cannot be at all detached from that of which he has become an organic member. He can no more be separated from the kingdom of God than a child can be sold into slavery. But from Joh 8:36 the term Son is evidently applied to Jesus only. This is because in this house the filial dignity and the individual Son are mingled in one. There is here properly only one son, he who bears in himself the whole gens; all the rest become sons only by the act ofmanumissio, of liberation, on his part (Joh 8:32). Just as the passage Gal 4:21-31 seems to be only a development of Joh 8:35, so Rom 8:2 : The law of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ made me free ( ) from the law of sin and death is the commentary on Joh 8:36. It is to the Son as the representative and heir of the paternal fortune that the right is committed by the Father of freeing the slaves. , really, that is to say, spiritually free in God, and consequently true members of His house and for ever.
Jesus has set aside the haughty assertion of Joh 8:33 : We were never in bondage. He goes back now to the claim which was the point of support for that assertion: We are Abraham’s seed, and He disposes of this also.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
THE SON THE AUTHOR OF TRUE FREEDOM
Joh 8:35-36. The slave does not abide in the house forever. This great and beautiful world is one of Gods houses, in which not a few of His children have been living these six thousand years. All sinners are the slaves of sin and Satan. The slaves never inherit anything, having neither possessions nor rights in the home, their sojourn being transitory, and winding up when they are worn out and can toil no more. Not so with the son. He inherits the estate, transmits it to his children, and in his posterity abides forever. The wicked think they are getting this world, while they are simply traveling through it to their bed in hell. Now, suppose the son of the estate liberates and adopts a slave, do you not see that he will abide forever? So the time is very near when the redeemed of the Lord shall possess this world, with other paradisian orbs, to shine and shout forever, every track of the wicked having been obliterated in the sanctifying fires, followed by the glorious renovation (Revelation 1), making the earth new, and enveloping it in a new firmament, which never reverberated the blasphemy of the wicked.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
These Jews thought of themselves as occupying a privileged and secure position as sons within God’s household because they were Abraham’s descendants. Jesus now informed them that they were not sons but slaves. The implication was that they did not enjoy a secure position but could lose it. This is really what happened because the Jews refused to receive Jesus (cf. Romans 9-11). They lost their privileged position in the world temporarily. Jesus was not speaking in this context about the loss of personal salvation but of the loss of Israel’s national privilege.
The son in Jesus’ explanation stands for Himself (Joh 8:36). The Greek word for "son" here is huios, which John consistently used to describe Jesus. He referred to believers as God’s "children" (Gr. tekna).