Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 8:46
Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
46. Which of you convinceth me of sin? ] Or, convicteth Me of sin (see on Joh 3:20). Many rebuked Christ and laid sin to His charge: none brought sin home to His conscience. There is the majesty of Divinity in the challenge. What mortal man would dare to make it? See on Joh 8:29, and comp. Joh 14:30, and Joh 15:10 ; 1Jn 3:5; 1Pe 1:19 ; 1Pe 2:22. Note the implied connexion between sin generally and falsehood, as between righteousness and truth, Joh 7:18.
And if I say the truth ] Better, If I say truth. No MSS. have the article, and the best MSS. omit the conjunction. ‘If I am free from sin (and none of you can convict Me of sin), I am free from falsehood and speak the truth. Why then do ye on your part refuse to believe Me?’ ‘Ye’ is emphatic.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Which of you convinceth me? – To convince, with us, means to satisfy a mans own mind of the truth of anything; but this is not its meaning here. It rather means to convict. Which of you can prove that I am guilty of sin?
Of sin – The word sin here evidently means error, falsehood, or imposture. It stands opposed to truth. The argument of the Saviour is this: A doctrine might be rejected if it could be proved that he that delivered it was an impostor; but as you cannot prove this of me, you are bound to receive my words.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 46. Which of you convinceth me of sin?] Do you pretend to reject the truths which I announce, because my life does not correspond to the doctrines I have taught? But can any of you prove me guilty of any fault? You have maliciously watched all my steps; have you seen the smallest matter to reprove, in any part of my conduct?
But it is probable that , sin, is put here in opposition to , truth, in the same verse, and then it should be rendered falsehood. The very best Greek writers use the word in the same sense: this, KYPKE proves by quotations from Polybius, Lucian, Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Plutarch, Thucydides, and Hippocrates. RAPHELIUS adds a pertinent quotation from Herodotus, and shows that the purest Latin writers have used the word peccatum, sin, in the sense of error or falsehood. See Clarke on Ge 13:13.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
If any of you can prove that I have spoken to you any thing that is false, and not consonant to the will of my Father, do it; but which of you is able to charge me with any such thing? If there be no such thing, but I have told you what is the very truth, and the will of my Father, as to what you are to believe and do, why do you not believe me? For every reasonable soul is a debtor to truth.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
46. Which of you convinceth me ofsin“Convicteth,” bringeth home a charge of sin.Glorious dilemma! “Convict Me of sin, and reject Me: If not, whystand ye out against My claims?” Of course, they could only besupposed to impeach His life; but in One who had alreadypassed through unparalleled complications, and had continually todeal with friends and foes of every sort and degree, such a challengethrown wide among His bitterest enemies, can amount to nothing shortof a claim to absolute sinlessness.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Which of you convinceth me of sin?…. Of any immorality in life, or of any imposture, corruption, or deceit in doctrine. There were many of them that were forward enough to charge him with both scandalous sins, and false doctrines; but none of them all could prove anything against him, so as to convict him according to law: they called him a wine bibber, and a glutton; gave out they knew he was a sinner; charged him with blasphemy and sedition; sought to bring proof of it, but failed in their attempt:
and if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? since as no sin in life, so no corruption in doctrine, could be proved against him, what he said must be truth; and therefore it was a most unreasonable thing in them, and showed invincible obstinacy, not to believe him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Which of you convicteth me of sin? ( ;). See on John 3:20; John 16:8 (the work of the Holy Spirit) for for charge and proof. The use of as in 1:29 means sin in general, not particular sins. The rhetorical question which receives no answer involves sinlessness (Heb 4:15) without specifically saying so. Bernard suggests that Jesus paused after this pungent question before going on.
Why do ye not believe me? ( ;). This question drives home the irrationality of their hostility to Jesus. It was based on prejudice and predilection.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Convinceth [] . See on 3 20. Rev., convicteth.
Sin [] . Not fault or error, but sin in general, as everywhere in the New Testament.
The truth [] . Without the article, and therefore not the whole truth, but that which is true as to any part of divine revelation.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” (tis eks humon elegchei me peri hamartias) “Who out of you all reproves or convicts me concerning sin?” with any sustaining evidence or any trustworthy testimony at all, Heb 4:15; Heb 7:26.
2) “And if I say the truth,” (ei aletheian lego) “If I say truth,” what is true, correct, or trustworthy, as He certainly had, Joh 8:45; and what He spoke He was by nature, Joh 14:6.
3) “Why do ye not believe me?” (dis ti humeis ou pisteuete moi) “Why do you all not believe me?” Can you answer, or are you willing to confess your willful wickedness in rejecting me? Jer 17:9; Isa 57:20-21; Joh 8:24, Mar 16:16.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
46. Which of you? This question proceeds from perfect confidence; for, knowing that they could not justly bring any reproach against him, he glories over his enemies, as having obtained a victory. And yet he does not say that he is free from their slanders; for, though they had no reason for reproaching, still they did not cease to pour out slanders on Christ; but he means that no crime dwells in him. And such is the import of the Greek word ἐλέγχειν, as the Latins use coarguere, ( to convict,) when a person is held convicted of the fact. Which of you Convicteth me of sin? Yet those who think that Christ here asserts his complete innocence, because he alone surpassed all men, so far as he was the Son of God, are mistaken. For this defense must be restricted to what belongs to the passage, as if he had asserted that nothing could be brought forward to show that he was not a faithful servant of God. In like manner Paul also glories that he is not conscious of any crime (1Co 4:4😉 for that does not extend to the whole life, but is only a defense of his doctrine and apostleship. It is away from the subject, therefore, to speculate, as some do, about the perfection of righteousness which belongs to the Son of God alone; since the only object which he has in view is, to give authority to his ministry, as appears more clearly from what follows; for he again adds immediately afterwards, If I speak truth, why do you not believe me? From which we infer that Christ is rather defending his doctrine than his person.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(46) Which of you convinceth me of sin?He appeals to their knowledge of His sinless life, as in Joh. 8:29. He asserted His own knowledge of entire conformity to His Fathers will. It is an appeal that spotless purity alone could make, and is His own testimony uttered in the dignity of certain knowledge. (Comp. Joh. 14:30.)
If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?We may suppose that the last question was probably followed by a pause, during which any one might have answered the challenge. No one of all who had watched Him in Galilee and Juda dared utter a syllable. Their silence is the seal to His own testimony. But if He is thought of by these as without sin, they cannot think of His words as untrue. They admit, then, that He speaks the truth, and yet they do not believe. On the absolute sinlessness of Christ, comp. 1Jn. 3:5; 2Co. 5:21; 1Pe. 1:19; 1Pe. 1:22.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
46. Convinceth Convicts or proves guilty of sin. This is a lofty appeal to their higher nature. For though men be full of falsehood, as Satan himself, yet, like Satan himself, there is the basis of a noble, a divine nature beneath all. Their very debasement is, that the divine vessel is filled with the infernal evil. To that divine in man, through the dense falsehood with which they are filled, Jesus now makes a divine appeal. Does not the transparent purity of his character, if they will give their own conscience fair play, prove that he is the reverse of Satan, the impersonation of Truth?
If I say the truth As this is undeniable to your inmost conscience.
Why not believe Why not cast the body of falsity from out your souls, and bring your whole nature into harmony with that higher and clearly discerned truth? Thus will ye cease to be sons of the Liar and become sons of God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“Which of you convicts me of sin?”
What an amazing challenge. Jesus blatantly throws Himself open to His enemies. He knew that His recent life had been subjected to constant investigation and examination (that was the duty of the religious leaders), and yet He was unafraid to lay down the gauntlet. This demonstrated His supreme confidence that He was without sin. A belief in such a state is sometimes possible to a hardened sinner unaware of his own failings, but the first thing a man does when he comes to know God is admit his sinfulness. Once he sees himself in God’s eyes he repents deeply. This is the first test of the genuineness of religious experience. When Isaiah saw himself in God’s eyes he declared woe on himself because of his unclean lips (Isa 6:5). When Job saw God he hated himself and repented deeply (Job 42:6). Yet Jesus, with all His knowledge of, and fellowship with, God, and having ‘seen’ God, had no such consciousness of sin. This was remarkable evidence of His uniqueness.
Furthermore not one of His enemies could point a finger at anything in His life, apart from His disagreement with them on theological matters, that even hinted at sin. And He knew that that would be so. All good men are deeply aware of their own faults, yet here was One Who not only claimed to be without fault, but also challenged others to disprove His claim. And He did it without a hint of spiritual pride. In this too Jesus was unique.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
‘If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God, hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is because you are not of God’.
So then He asked them why, if He was speaking the truth, they would not hear Him and believe Him. And His solution was that it was because they were ‘not of God’. For His life substantiated His teaching, and if they could not fault the one they should have accepted the other. But their response to His teaching brought out the truth about their own lives, for what He taught was the truth, and yet they rejected it. Whatever their claims might be, therefore, they were not of God, for any man who studied the teachings of Jesus, and then turned away from them, was demonstrating thereby his own sinfulness. And that was because if his heart had been right he would have had to respond.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 8:46-47. Which of you convinceth me of sin? Can convict me of sin? Heylin. The only reason for refusing assent to a person is, either because he is not deserving of credit, or because what he asserts is improbable. Our Lord shews that they could not object to him for either of these reasons, particularly the first; they could not convince him of sin; they could not shew that his conduct and life were reproachable; they could notprove that his doctrine was false; they could not say, that he reproved them unjustly for their actions; and as therefore they could not but acknowledge that his doctrine and life were such as became a divine messenger from God, he might well ask them what was the reason why they did not believe on him?a question, indeed, to which he gives a full reply in Joh 8:47. See also Joh 8:41.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 8:46 . Groundlessness of this unbelief. , , , , , ; Euth. Zigabenus. , fault , is not to be taken in the intellectual sense, as untruth, error (Origen, Cyril, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Kypke, Tittmann, Kuinoel, Klee, and others), but, as it is employed without exception in the N. T., namely as equivalent to sin . Jesus boldly urges against His opponents His unassailable moral purity and how lofty a position of superiority does He thus assume above the saints of the Old Testament! the fact that against Him can be brought (Soph. O. C . 971), as a guarantee that He speaks the truth; justly too, for according to Joh 8:44 must be regarded as the opposite of , whereas a lie falls under the category of (comp. , Joh 7:18 ). The conclusion is from the genus to the species; hence also it is inadmissible to take in the special sense of “ fraus ” (“qua divinam veritatem in mendacium converterim,” Ch. F. Fritzsche in Fritzsch. Opusc . p. 99), “ wicked deception ” (B. Crusius), “ sin of word ” (Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 33 f.), “ false doctrine ” (Melancthon, Calvin), and so forth. Even in classical usage , in and by itself, would denote neither error nor deception , but only acquire this specific meaning through an addition more precisely determining its force. [34] Considered in itself it denotes fault, perversity , the opposite of (Plat. Legg . i. p. 627 D, ii. p. 668 C). Comp. , Thuc. i. 32. 4; , Plat. Legg . i. p. 627 D; , Thuc. ii. 65. 7. Remark further, in connection with this important passage: (1) The argument is based, not upon the position that “ the sinless one is the purest and surest organ of the knowledge and communication of the truth ” (Lcke); or that “ the knowledge of the truth is grounded in the purity of the will ” (De Wette, comp. Ullmann); for this would presuppose in the consciousness in which the words are spoken, to wit, in the consciousness of Jesus, a knowledge of the truth obtained mediately , or, at all events, acquired first in His human state; whereas, on the contrary, especially according to John’s view, the knowledge of the truth possessed by Jesus was an intuitive one, one possessed by Him in His pre-human state, and preserved and continued during His human state by means of the constant intercourse between Himself and God. The reasoning proceeds rather in this way: Am I really without sin , and none of you is able to convict me of the contrary, then am I also without ; but am I without , then do I speak the truth , and you, on your part ( ), have no reason for not believing me. This reasoning, however, is abbreviated, in that Jesus passes at once from the denial of the possibility of charging Him with , to the positive, special contrary which follows therefrom, leaving out the middle link, that consequently no can be attributed to Him, and then continues: . (Lachmann and Tischendorf correctly without ). Further , (2) the proof of the sinlessness of Jesus furnished by this passage is purely subjective , so far as it rests on the decided expression of His own moral consciousness in the presence of His enemies; but, at the same time, it is as such all the more striking in that the confirmation of His own testimony (comp. Joh 14:30 ) is added to the testimony of others , and to the necessity of His sinlessness for the work of redemption and for the function of judge. This self-witness of Jesus, on the one hand, bears on itself the seal of immediate truth (otherwise, namely, Jesus would have been chargeable with a of self-righteousness or self-deception, which is inconceivable in Him); whilst, on the other hand, it is saved from the weakness attaching to other self-witnessings, both by the whole evangelical history, and by the fact of the work of reconciliation. (3) The sinlessness itself, to which Jesus here lays claim, is in so far relative , as it is not absolutely divine, but both is and must be divine-human , and was based on the human development of the Son of God. [35] He was actually tempted , and might have sinned; this abstract possibility, however, never became a reality. On the contrary, at every moment of His life it was raised into a practical impossibility. [36] Thus He learned obedience (Heb 5:8 ). Hence the sinlessness of Jesus, being the result of a normal development which, at every stage of His earthly existence, was in perfect conformity with the God-united ground of His inner life (comp. Luk 2:40 ; Luk 2:52 ), must always be regarded as conditioned, so far as the human manifestation of Jesus is concerned, by the entrance of the Logos into the relation of growth; whilst the unconditioned correlate thereto, namely, perfection , and accordingly absolute moral goodness goodness which is absolutely complete and above temptation at the very outset belongs alone, nay, belongs necessarily to God. In this way the apparent contradiction between this passage and Mar 10:18 may be resolved. For the rest, the notion of sin as a necessary transitional point in human development is shown to be groundless by the historic fact of the sinlessness of Jesus. See Ernesti, Ursprung der Snde , I. p. 187 ff.
[34] Polyb. 16. 20, 6, is, without reason, adduced by Tholuck against this view. In the passage referred to, are faults, goings wrong in general. The sentence is a general maxim.
[35] Comp. Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 212. At the same time, the sinless development of Jesus is not to be subsumed under the conception of sanctification . See also Dorner’s Sinless Perfection of Jesus , and the striking remarks of Keim, Geschichtl. Chr. p. 109 ff., Exo 3 , also p. 189 f.
[36] Any moral stain in Christ would have been a negation of His consciousness of being the Redeemer and Judge.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 1656
UNBELIEF TRACED TO ITS SOURCE
Joh 8:46. If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
ONE would reasonably suppose, that if Almighty God were to become a man, and to labour for the instruction of his creatures in a way of daily and familiar intercourse, and were to confirm his testimony by miracles without number, it would be impossible for men to withstand the influence of his word. But the experiment has been made; and men have shewn a degree of perverseness, of which one could scarcely have conceived them capable. Sometimes they would endeavour to justify their opposition, by accusing our Lord Jesus of violating the law of Moses. But they were invariably put to shame; the falsehood and malignity of their charges being exposed by him with unanswerable force and demonstration. It was to opponents of this description that he addressed the words before us: Which of you convinceth me of sin? And, if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
From these words, I will take occasion to mark,
I.
The prevalence of unbelief
Men believed not even our Lord himself
[He spoke to more advantage than any other person ever did: he spoke with more wisdom: his very enemies were constrained to say, Never man spake like this man [Note: Joh 7:46.]. He spoke with more authority: in this respect he differed widely from the Scribes and Pharisees [Note: Mat 7:29.], yea, and from Prophets and Apostles too: Verily, verily, I say unto you, was with him a common mode of uttering his instructions. He spoke with more grace, so that his adversaries themselves wondered at the gracious words that proceeded from his lips [Note: Luk 4:22.]. He confirmed his word with more miracles: for he alone, in the short space of three years, wrought more miracles than ever were wrought, either before or since, from the foundation of the world to the present moment. Moreover, in confirmation of all that he said, he appealed to Moses, whom the Jews themselves professed to venerate, and of whose inspiration they had no doubt. Yet the people would not believe him: though they could not controvert one word that he uttered, yet would they not receive his declarations. The tidings which he brought to them were such as one might have supposed they should receive with all readiness of mind: yet would they not believe him. He declared himself sent from God to be their deliverer from sin and Satan: and he assured them, that if they would believe in him, he would make them free indeed [Note: ver. 36.]; free from the guilt of all their sins; free from the condemnation due to them; free also from the power and dominion of sin; and free to serve their God in newness of heart and life. But still it was all in vain: for they would not believe his testimony in any respect.]
Nor are his servants believed at this day
[Every faithful servant of Christ bears the same testimony that Christ himself did; and his one object is, to commend Christ to men as the Redeemer of the world. We declare, that men are in a state of bondage; that no man can deliver himself; that Christ is sent of God to be the Saviour of the world; and that all who believe in him shall be justified from all things. We cannot work miracles in confirmation of this doctrine: but we can appeal to the miracles by which it was confirmed in the days of Christ and his Apostles. And not only to the Scriptures do we refer, in proof of our declarations, but to the authorized standard of truth contained in the Articles and Homilies of the Established Church. We bring also the very prayers which every member of the Established Church uses from time to time; and we do not hesitate to say, that every doctrine not contained in those formularies is undeserving of any serious regard. Yet will not men believe us, any more than they believed our blessed Lord. They will cry out against us, as introducing new doctrines, though they are so fully maintained by our own Church, and by all the Apostles and Prophets from the foundation of the world. Let a minister preach any self-righteous doctrines subversive of the Gospel, and he will be credited by all: but where the Gospel comes, a division immediately ensues; and, if some receive the word, vast multitudes will be found to reject it.]
To account for this unbelief, I will point out,
II.
The source from whence it flows
Men can give no satisfactory reason for it: for they have in their own minds somewhat of a conviction, that what they oppose is true. Hence our Lord said, and we also may adopt his words, If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? The true reason of mens unbelief is, that they have within them an evil heart, from whence it proceeds [Note: Heb 3:12.]. In answer to our Lords question, then, I will tell you why you do not believe.
1.
You will not inquire into what you hear
[Men hear us, as they heard our blessed Lord: but they will not examine whether what they hear agrees with the voice of inspiration, or whether it corresponds with their own experience. We tell them of their guilt: we declare to them their danger: we make known to them the way of salvation: but whether they assent to what they hear, or dissent from it, they alike are sunk in unbelief; because they will not take the pains necessary for investigating the subject, or ascertaining the agreement of our statements with the truth of God. In this the inhabitants of Thessalonica shewed themselves peculiarly defective, whilst the Berans prosecuted a wiser and better plan: The Berans were more noble than those at Thessalonica, in that they searched the Scriptures daily, to see if these things were so: and therefore many of them, it is said, believed [Note: Act 17:11-12.]. If men will leave truth unexplored, it is no wonder if they doubt its excellence, or deny its very existence.]
2.
You are averse to the truth, as far as it comes before you
[Our Lords hearers believed him not, because he told them the truth [Note: ver. 45.]. And so it is now. If we declare to you your undone state, you do not like to hear of it. If we affirm the impossibility of saving yourselves by any thing that you can (In, and the indispensable necessity of looking for salvation through Christ alone, you are offended, and represent us as depreciating good works, and encouraging licentiousness. If we call you to renounce the world, and to give up yourselves to the service of your God, you are displeased, because we would tear you from your idols, and call you to a life which you do not affect. Our Lord tells us, that the world hated him, because he testified of it that its works were evil [Note: Joh 7:7.]. And this constitutes the peculiar guilt of unbelief; as our Lord has said: This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world; and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil, hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved: but he that doeth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God [Note: Joh 3:19-21.]. We have a striking example of this in the chief priests and elders, who demanded by what authority our Lord drove the buyers and sellers from the temple. He, instead of giving them a direct answer, put a question to them concerning John, desiring them to say, whether his baptism was from heaven, or of men. They saw, that if they acknowledged it to be from heaven, he would ask, Why then did ye not believe him? and, not choosing to confess the truth, declined answering his question at all [Note: Mat 21:23-27.]. Thus the same dishonesty prevails amongst us: and, even when convinced in our minds respecting the truth of a statement, we refuse to admit its truth, because it militates against our principles or habits.]
3.
You are determined to hold fast your lusts, which are condemned by it
[Men love the world, and will hear of nothing that requires them to renounce it. They desire to stand high in the estimation of men, and will not conform to sentiments or habits which will endanger the loss of it. They are often persuaded in their minds that what they hear is true and good; but then they consider how far their adoption of it will interfere with their worldly interests. Among the chief rulers, we are told, many believed on Christ: but, because of the Pharisees, they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God [Note: Joh 12:42.]. And hence our Lord said to his hearers, How can ye believe, who receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only [Note: Joh 5:44.]? This is at the root of unbelief, in all instances where much instruction has been given; Men hate to be reformed; and therefore cast Gods word behind them [Note: Psa 50:17.].]
Address
1.
Those who persuade themselves that they already believe
[If an assent to the truths of Christianity were real faith, there would be no further room for that complaint which, all the Prophets and Apostles made, Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed [Note: Isa 53:1.]? But it is not faith; or, at least, it is only the faith of devils [Note: Jam 2:19.]. Saving faith would bring you to a cordial reception of the Lord Jesus Christ in his proper character, as the Redeemer of men, and the Saviour of the world. The Jews denied that they were in bondage [Note: ver. 33.]; and so do the generality of men amongst ourselves: and hence they disregarded the offer of a Deliverer, as we also do. But this proved them to be in unbelief: and it proves the same respecting us. I pray you, brethren, deceive not yourselves with the idea that you are believers, whilst your faith is inoperative and unproductive. If your faith do not bring you to Jesus as your only hope; if it do not bring you to him to be made free indeedfree from sin, as well as free from guilt; I declare unto you, that you are yet in unbelief, you are yet in your sins [Note: ver. 24.]. Whilst you imagine that an unproductive assent to the Gospel is saving faith, you deceive your own souls. You may call us Antinomians, for exalting the exclusive efficacy of faith to save the soul: but you are the Antinomians, who maintain your faith to be saving whilst it produces no sanctifying effects upon you.]
2.
Those who think that they have no occasion for faith
[It has been said, that his faith cannot be wrong, whose life is in the right. But no mans life can be right, till he is united unto Christ by faith. He wants that principle which alone can sanctify the soul. But, let our sanctification be ever so perfect, will any man presume to put that in the place of Christs atoning sacrifice? Will any man rely on his own merits, rather than on Christs obedience unto death? Ah! fatal error! Not even Paul himself could be saved by the works of the law; and therefore he desired to be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness, but the righteousness which is of God by faith in him [Note: Php 3:9.]. And in this way must every one of you be saved. You must renounce all dependence on yourselves, and look to the Lord Jesus Christ as your only hope. If you will not believe this, go and try the experiment: go and try by your own righteousness to satisfy the justice of Almighty God; and by your own arm to vanquish all your spiritual enemies. But both the one and the other of these things are impossible to mortal man: and therefore go with all humility to the Son of God; and know, that if the Son make you free, you shall be free indeed.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
Ver. 46. Which of you convinceth me of sin ] q.d. Have you anything against my life, that ye thus stiffly refuse to receive my doctrine? Do not (as every minister should do) vivere concionibus, concionari moribus, live sermons, as well as preach them? Paul knew nothing by himself, 1Co 4:4 . And Chrysostom saith that the souls and lives of ministers should be purer than the sunbeams.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
46. ] here is strictly sin : not ‘ error in argument ,’ or ‘ falsehood .’ These two latter meanings are found in classical Greek, but never in the N.T. or LXX. And besides, they would introduce in this most solemn part of our Lord’s discourse, a vapid tautology. The question is an appeal to His sinlessness of life , as evident to them all, as a pledge for His truthfulness of word: which word asserted, be it remembered, that He was sent from God . And when we recollect that He who here challenges men to convict him of sin, never could have upheld outward spotlessness merely (see Mat 23:26-28 ), the words amount to a declaration of His absolute sinlessness, in thought, word, and deed. Or, the connexion may be as stated by Euthym [135] : , , , ;
[135] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
. ] And if it be thence (from the impossibility of convicting me of sin) evident, that I speak the truth , why do ye not believe Me? (not . , but simply , give credence to Me .)
Joh 8:47 gives the answer to the , and concludes the discourse with the final disproof of their assertion, Joh 8:41 , with, as it were, a ‘quod erat demonstrandum.’ This verse is cited 1Jn 4:6 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 8:46 . ; Alford, who represents a number of interpreters, says: “The question is an appeal to His sinlessness of life , as evident to them all, as a pledge for His truthfulness of word”. Calvin is better: “Haec defensio ad circumstantiam loci restringi debet, ac si quicquam sibi posse obiici negaret, quominus fidus esset Dei minister”. Similarly Bengel. ; “If I speak truth, why do you not believe me?” It follows from their inability to convict Him of sin, that He speaks what is true: if so, why do they not believe Him?
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
convinceth = convicteth. Compare Joh 8:9; Joh 3:20; Joh 16:8 (“reprove”).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
46.] here is strictly sin: not error in argument, or falsehood. These two latter meanings are found in classical Greek, but never in the N.T. or LXX. And besides, they would introduce in this most solemn part of our Lords discourse, a vapid tautology. The question is an appeal to His sinlessness of life, as evident to them all,-as a pledge for His truthfulness of word: which word asserted, be it remembered, that He was sent from God. And when we recollect that He who here challenges men to convict him of sin, never could have upheld outward spotlessness merely (see Mat 23:26-28), the words amount to a declaration of His absolute sinlessness, in thought, word, and deed. Or, the connexion may be as stated by Euthym[135]: , , , ;
[135] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
. ] And if it be thence (from the impossibility of convicting me of sin) evident, that I speak the truth, why do ye not believe Me? (not . , but simply , give credence to Me.)
Joh 8:47 gives the answer to the , and concludes the discourse with the final disproof of their assertion, Joh 8:41,-with, as it were, a quod erat demonstrandum. This verse is cited 1Jn 4:6.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 8:46. , convicts) Jesus appeals to the conscience of all.- , of sin) that is, that I am in error, and that I am away from the truth. What person dares to maintain this?-, why) To this why, the word therefore in Joh 8:47 answers. Comp. the why, Joh 8:43, Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because, etc.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 8:46
Joh 8:46
Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?-His works were the ground of his claim to be the Son of God, and he challenges them to convict him of any falsehood or wrong. And if they cannot convict him, why do they not believe me?
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
sins
Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
The Sinlessness of Christ
Which of you convicteth me of sin?Joh 8:46.
It has some times been inferred from the context of these words that the word sin really means here intellectual rather than moral failure: Which of you convicteth me of error? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? The second question is thus made to repeat its meaning into the translation of the first. But the word translated sin means moral failure throughout the New Testament; and our Lord is arguing from the genus to the species, from the absence of moral evil in Him generally to the absence of a specific form of moral evil, namely, falsehood. He is maintaining that as they cannot detect in Him any kind of sin, they ought not by their disbelief to credit Him practically with falsehood, or, at least, indifference to truth, and His own means of attaining and proclaiming it. It has also been thought that our Lord here only challenges the detective power of His Jewish opponents, and that He does not literally imply His sinlessness. But the challenge would hardly have been offered unless the Speaker had been conscious of something more than guiltlessness of public acts which might be pointed to as in some sense sinful. Sin, like holiness, is not merely a series of facts which may be measured and dated: it is a particular condition of the will, it is a moral atmosphere. It is more than the act and word; it is the attitude of the soul towards God and man. Sin dishonours God and lives for self rather than for others. Christ alone could say, I honour my Father, I seek not my own glory. The perfect life was based on a perfect motive.
Our Lord claims, then, to be sinless in a very different sense from that in which a man might defy an opponent to prove against him a specific form of wrongdoing in a court of law. We are here in the atmosphere not of law but of morality; and morality is a question not of external facts merely, but of internal motives.
The question, Could the Jews convict Christ of sin? is but a part of the greater question, Was Christ sinless? We shall consider
I.The Proof of Christs Sinlessness.
II.The Value of Christs Sinlessness for us.
I
The Proof of Christs Sinlessness
1. External evidence.All that we know about our Lord goes to show that He was sinless. This impression was produced most strongly on those who were brought into the closest contact with Him.
(1) The Apostolic writings clearly emphasize this remarkable feature of Christs careerthat it was without sin. Who did no sin, is St. Peters phrase about Christ. Him who knew no sin, is the kindred expression of St. Paul. In him is no sin, writes St. John in his First Epistle. Without sin, is the similar description of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
The important fact is that the New Testament writers were not unconscious of the extraordinary character of this sinlessness with which they credited Christ, or of the marked exception which it formed to the generally normal aspect of His life. It would not be true to say that the Synoptic portraiture of Christ is in the main supernatural. The Son of man, as described by His biographers, is genuinely human, and moves easily among His contemporaries. There are supernatural elements in the records, no doubt, but they do not obliterate the historical figure of the Saviour, or destroy the generally normal aspect of His earthly course. Mystery there is in abundance, but the true manhood stands out always to view. It would be difficult to construct a juster summary of the Synoptic account of our Lord than that which is contained in the text: We have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Whatever else might be said of Him, this at least must be said, that He was truly man. Only one invariable human trait is absent from the portrait they drawthere is no sin in Christ.
The marks of passion, of weakness, of pride, of the love of popularity, and the consequent lack of moral courage, of a thousand infirmities of the flesh, some of which we notice in all other men, are certainly not obvious, or anywhere forced upon our recognition, in the life and conversation which is mirrored in the four Gospels. On the contrary, Jesus was not only followed and loved, but, by those who knew Him best, He was worshipped before He died.1 [Note: N. Smyth, Old Faiths in New Light, 94.]
Renans Jesus is a charming Galilean with a certain sympathy for beautiful scenery and an affectionate tenderness for the peasants who follow him; but he is provoked to violence, impatience, base trickery, as soon as he finds his mission as a reformer unsuccessful. The Frenchman, bred amidst pious frauds, calls him the most delightful and wonderful of men, who practises innocent artifices, resorts to thaumaturgy unwillingly, but when he does resort to it is guilty of wilful imposture beside the grave of his friend. We in England should say he was a horrible liar and audacious blasphemer. We should pronounce the Jews right in the judgment which they passed upon him. To me the book is detestable, morally as well as theologically. It has brought to my mind, as I have said in my paper on it, that wonderful dream of Richters in which Jesus tells the universe, Children, you have no Father.2 [Note: F. D. Maurice, Life, ii. 464.]
(2) Christs sinlessness is apparent in the attitude of His enemies towards Him. When Pilate repeatedly asked the priests, who were clamouring for His blood, Why, what evil hath he done? all the answer they could give (sufficient, no doubt, for their purpose) was, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. The impression of Christs sinlessness is observable too in Pilate himself, who yielded to the wishes of Christs enemies, while he admitted the innocence of their Victim; in the restless anxiety of the wife of Pilate, haunted in her dreams by the thought that the blood of that just person might be visited on her husband; in the lower sense of the pregnant declaration made by the centurion at the crossTruly this was the Son of God; above all, in the remorse of Judas. Judas, who had known Christ as Peter had known Him for three years of intimate companionship; Judas, who would gladly, had it been possible, have justified his treachery to himself by any flaw that he could dwell on in his Masters character, was forced to confess that the blood which he had betrayed was innocent. In the hatred of the Sanhedrists, as described particularly in St. Johns Gospel, the purity and force of Christs character is not less discernible. It is the high prerogative of goodness, as of truth, in their loftier forms, that they can never be approached in a spirit of neutrality or indifference; they must perforce create a decided repulsion when they do not decidedly attract. The Pharisees would have treated an opposing teacher, in whom any moral flaw was really discernible, with contemptuous indifference: the sinless Jesus of Nazareth provoked their irreconcilable, implacable hostility.
Even the Pharisees betray the impression of a quite original and wonderful elevation. For though they regarded Him as a sinner and despiser of the law, from the viewpoint of their inherited moral and religious axioms, yet they could not stop short at this and view Him as an ordinary sinful man, or teacher of error. Rather He appeared to them, in the very estrangement in which they had placed themselves towards Him, so much one possessed of power (Mat 7:29; Joh 7:46), so wonderfully firm, strong, and great of His kind, that they were obliged to attribute to Him a superhuman power of evil, after they had resolved not to concede to Him a superhuman power of good.1 [Note: Dorner, in British and Foreign Evangelical Review, xi. 586.]
(3) How does the matter stand to-day, as from our modern standpoint we examine the facts? The most exacting criticism of the documents has not disallowed the Apostolic belief. The New Testament, read in the light of honest criticism, justifies, so far as documents can justify, the Apostolic doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ. In bringing a human career lived out in the first century to be judged by the moral standard accepted in the twentieth we are applying a test the most severe imaginable. If we were judging a man in order to appraise his merits, this test were the unjustest in the world; but in the case of the Son of Man, it is not so much unjust as inevitable. He, whom we Christians worship as the Incarnate Creator, must be able to command the homage not of one age only, but of all ages. Let the moral standard of mankind be raised as high as you will, it must never rise above the standard of Christ; His standard must always be the goal towards which the moral effort of the race is moving, and never a single advance in goodness must be unable to find its interpretation and justification in the complete goodness of the Son of Man. Applying, therefore, necessarily our educated twentieth-century consciences to the historic Jesus, is He stripped of His attribute of sinlessness? Rationalists of the baser sort accumulate what they describe as immoral, or contradictory, or unreasonable teachings from the Gospels, but if we have the patience to examine their procedure we shall find that it violates every accepted canon of sound criticism and cautious interpretation. Fairly examined, honestly interpreted, the teaching of Christ commands the deliberate approval of the general conscience of our age. Not even now would it be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete than to endeavour so to live that Christ would approve our life.1 [Note: J. S. Mill, Three Essays on Religion, 255.]
What impression does He make on us? His portrait is before us in the Gospels and other New Testament writings; we can still follow His steps, hear Him speak, look into His eye, watch the development of His character, observe His behaviour under the most diverse and trying conditions, and test Him by all the standards we apply to our fellow-men. What is the result? He stands faultless and unique among men, severed from them by the whole diameter of perfection. We see Him grow through a beautiful infancy and childhood into maturity, and then live a life and display a character in which we can find no flaw. He is pure truth and trust, honesty and honour, righteousness and reverence, goodness and mercy and love, sympathy and service and sacrifice. No excess or defect, fault of omission or commission, evil disposition or temper, selfishness or sinister motive ever mars the splendid beauty of His perfection. He fulfils all human relations, passes through all experiences, is seen in joy and in sorrow, under the whips and stings of malice and in the agony of crucifixion, and yet He never loses His poise and balance or gives way to any ill-temper, but is always pure sweetness and light. It is true that He shows indignation, but only such as is the expression of righteous wrath. As we watch this Man, there is nothing we would add to Him or subtract from Him, no criticism we would pass upon Him, no finishing touch we could give to Him, but we are lost in admiration of Him as the one perfect and most beautiful personality in all the world.1 [Note: J. H. Snowden, The Basal Beliefs of Christianity, 80.]
2. Christ Himself claims to he sinless.By what standard was He judging Himself? What was His conception of sin? How was it with His spiritual organs? Were they quick and sensitive, or were they sluggish and benumbed? What was the state of His moral consciousness? Before we can determine His claim to sinlessness these questions must be answered.
(1) Until this Man of Nazareth arose, sin had never been tracked to its roots. The analysis had often been attempted, but it had never proved conclusive and ultimate. Christs analysis was an unveiling of its genesis. He probed behind ritual; He probed behind posture; He probed behind feeling; He probed behind thought, and His lance touched the innermost quick at the will. He pushed everything else aside as effects; He discovered the cause in the will. This was His uniqueness as a teacher. Make the tree good, and the fruits will be good, and He addresses Himself to the regeneration of the roots. This Man, with the claim to sinlessness, unveiled the nature of sin and revealed its contents to the light as they had never been seen before.
(2) Christs spiritual senses were far more finely perceptive than even the delicate organ of sight. Let us recognize how unspeakably refined His soul must have been to be capable of registering such exquisite distinctions. If a poor woman came near to Him in a spirit of faith, His soul thrilled with the presence, and He said, Who touched me? If doubt and suspicion drew near unto Him, His soul was chilled with the presence, and he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. So refined and delicate was His spirit that He perceived evil thoughts that lay unexpressed in the hearts of those about Him. He perceived the thought of their heart; He knew what was in man. His soul instinctively registered the presence of good and evil, just as a fine barometer registers the passing of a genial breeze or a chilling draught.
In one constituted like Jesus, to be without the sense of sin was to be sinless, to be conscious of no disobedience was to have always obeyed.1 [Note: A. M. Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, 61.]
An artist goes into a building and is troubled by it exceedingly; a thousand laymen are there, and are quite comfortable. The artists eye instantly detects the false proportion, the line that is out of course, and his eye will turn to it; he may put very severe repressive restraints upon himself; he may make many a vow to be blind to the defect; but the trouble will come again and again upon him, because on that side of his life he is highly cultured, so much so as to be almost perfect. And by so much as any man is himself perfect, does he instantly detect what is defective and imperfect in other people.2 [Note: J. Parker.]
II
The Value of Christs Sinlessness for Us
1. Christ is our Ideal.The sinless Christ satisfies a deep want of the soul of manthe want of an ideal.
No artist can attempt a painting, a statue, a building, without some ideal in view; and an ideal is not more necessary in art than in conduct. Each nation has its ideals; so has each city, each family, each profession, each school of thought; and how powerfully these energetic phantoms of the past control and modify the present is obvious to all who observe and think. There is no truer test of a mans character than the ideals which excite his genuine enthusiasm; there is no surer measure of what he will become than a real knowledge of what he heartily admires.3 [Note: H. P. Liddon.]
Just as there are two ways for indicating the road to a traveller, even thus there are two ways for moral guidance in the case of a man who is seeking the truth. One way consists in indicating to the man the objects which he will come across, and then he is guided by these objects. The other way consists in giving the man the direction by the compass, which he is carrying with him, and on which he observes the one immutable direction, and, consequently, every deflection from it. The first way of moral guidance is the way of external definitions, of rules: man is given definite tokens of acts which he must perform and which not. Observe the Sabbath, be circumcised, do not steal, drink no intoxicating drink, kill no living being, give the tithe to the poor, make your ablutions, and pray five times a day, and so forth,such are the injunctions of external religious teachings,of the Brahmanical, Buddhistic, Mohammedan, Hebrew, and the ecclesiastic, falsely called Christian. The other way is to indicate to man unattainable perfection, the striving after which man is cognizant of; man has pointed out to him the ideal, in relation to which he is at any time able to see the degree of his divergence from it. Love God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself.Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Such is the teaching of Christ.1 [Note: Tolstoy, Epilogue to the Kreutzer Sonata (Complete Works, xviii. 426).]
Whateer thoust won, remaineth still much more;
Heaven hath abundance yet for thee in store;
Still glows the grand Ideal on before!
Which all thy best achievements doth degrade,
Thy boasted virtues dwarfs, and makes to fade,
Yea pass into complete eclipse and shade.
Evn he who such high eminence had gained
Yet counted not that aught was yet attained,
But onward to the goal with ardour strained,
Reckoning his reach but as the starting-place,
Whence to pursue the spirits boundless race;
Of lifes grand edifice but laid the base.
Een saints on high with heavenly honours crowned
Their crowns of glory cast upon the ground,
Not otherwise loyal and faultless found.
Great is the goal, the guerdon fore thee set,
No self-complacence must thy progress let,
Press boldly on, the things behind forget;
Part with thy past, let go!2 [Note: William Hall.]
(1) Humble penitence grows in the life of a saint. How is it, then, that with our Lord the very reverse is the case? How is it that He is absolutely unconscious of any shortcoming or sin? Why is there not a vestige of personal penitence in any word of Christs? Why is He absolutely satisfied as He contemplates Himself? How is it that the possibility of sinning, or failing to do Gods will, never enters His mind? A good person is full of regrets, always discontented because be knows he is still far off from his ideal. Why does our Lord never express any such regret? How is He so sublimely conscious that His ideal is reached, or rather that He has never been for one moment separated from its realization? There is practically no answer to these questions but thisHe is Himself the ideal that man is reaching after.
Scripture is a succession of saintly biographies all upon one type, the penitential. By a sudden transition there springs up one solitary instance of a completely opposite type, which vanishes, and never reappears. But the solitary and insulated unpenitential type makes also a solitary assumption of worth, and the assumption is part of the portrait.1 [Note: J. B. Mozley, in Contemporary Review, vii. 495.]
If you want to find those who have the keenest sense of sin, you will not find them among the reprobates or among the newly repentant, but among the experienced and maturing saints. It is at the beginning of the Christian life, when the great heights of holiness are still to climb, that the sense of sin and of unworthiness is most imperfectly developed. It is growth in grace that deepens the consciousness of the blackness of personal sin and that makes confession of sin the painful wail of the soul. And so it is among the holy ones that you hear the most heart-sick expressions of sin. Here is John, the mystic of the twelve, fitted by his refinement of spirit to lean on the Masters breast, and catch the soft whispers of the deeper things; and yet, from this man, there come the words, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Here is Paul, of masculine mind and of childlike heart, abounding in labours, persistent in sacrifice; and yet in old age, when the veil was almost transparent, he writes to his beloved Timothy, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Here is John Bunyan, whose intimacy with the ways of the Almighty passed far beyond the human ken; brave, lowly, saintly, and yet his writings abound in agonizing confession of personal unworthiness and sin. And here is one of the saints of our own time, the holy Andrew Bonar, whose long life was like an unbroken beam of the Eternal light; and yet to the very week of his death his diary abounds in expressions of unworthiness and the pained confession of personal sin. These are the common characteristics of the lowly saints.2 [Note: J. H. Jowett, in The Examiner, March 26, 1903, p. 300.]
(2) The sinlessness of Jesus deepens the conviction of our own sinfulness. We no longer judge ourselves by law, or convict ourselves at the bar of conscience; His life is our law, and He is our conscience, and from Him comes our fullest and most convincing condemnation. But we feel sin as men could not feel it before Christ came. Fear has deepened into pathos, and penitence into the tenderest contrition, because although He was the sinless One, yet He was the suffering OneFor our sins and for our salvation. Sinless, Christ has filled mens hearts with a profounder sense of sin than even the saintliest men of old ever knew or felt. To the best of men life has become one long season of Lenta season of penitence because the vision of His life and the vision of His Cross are ever with us. Which of you convicteth me of sin? has become not only His defence but our condemnation.
For myself, it is only since His Divine image rose before my soul that I have properly learned what is the true state of man. Previously, I always measured myself with the little, and so appeared in my own eyes to be great. Now I measure myself with Him, and have become very little indeed.1 [Note: A. Tholuck, Hours of Christian Devotion, 31.]
Sin began in man with the dawn of the ideal. It was with the infancy of the race as with the individual infant; which, born a mere bundle of sensations and appetites, arrives gradually at moralhood, where it can sin, and does. A perception of sin, we say, is an element of moral progress. There are no shadows where there is no light.2 [Note: J. Brierley, Life and the Ideal, 40.]
Drop, drop, slow tears,
And bathe those beauteous feet,
Which brought from heaven
The news and Prince of peace:
Cease not, wet eyes,
His mercies to entreat;
To cry for vengeance
Sin doth never cease:
In your deep floods
Drown all my faults and fears;
Nor let his eye
See sin, but through my tears.3 [Note: P. Fletcher.]
2. Christ is our Example.A difficulty arises here in connection with the sinlessness of our Lord which has troubled some people. How, they say, can He be our example if He could not sin? We are sinners. He is sinless. Is it of any avail to say to us, Be like Jesus Christ? We cannot be like Him, just because He is without sin and we are not. Now, it is quite true that on the face of it to imitate Christ as we are is an impossibility. And, in fact, He never did preach Himself simply as an example apart from other claims that He made. He did not merely live a human life of perfect goodness and then say, Be like me. We must take what He said about following Him in connection with all the rest of His claim and His work. He did realize the ideal human life, but He also offered a propitiatory sacrifice for sin, and promised to give us of His Spirit whereby we can be made partakers of His holy human Nature. His first appeal to us is to believe on Him, that is, to entrust our lives to Him as God and Man. It is Come unto me first, and then Learn of me. It is only the man who has first handed over his life into the keeping of Christ, who has accepted His atoning work, who seeks His Spirit, who can really, with any likelihood of success, imitate the example of Jesus. It is only to the believer, pardoned by the sacrifice of Christ, filled with the transforming power of the life of Christ, that Christ is an example of conduct.
It is a false supposition that the ideal of infinite perfection cannot be a guidance for life, and that, looking at it, it is necessary to dismiss it with a motion of the hand, saying that it is useless to me because I can never attain it, or to degrade the ideal to the level on which my weakness wants to stand. To reflect in this manner is the same as though a navigator should say: Since I cannot go in the direction indicated by the compass, I shall throw away the compass or cease looking at it, that is, I will abandon the ideal or will fasten the needle of the compass to the place which at a given moment will correspond to the direction of my vessel, that is, I will degrade the ideal in accordance with my weakness.
The ideal of perfection which Christ has given us is not a dream or a subject for rhetorical sermons, but a most necessary, most accessible guide of moral life for man, just as the compass is a necessary and accessible implement guiding the navigator; all that is necessary is to believe in the one as in the other. In whatever situation a man may be, the teaching about the ideal, given by Christ, is sufficient in order to obtain the safest indication of those acts which one may and which one may not perform. But it is necessary completely to believe in this teaching, this one teaching, and to stop believing in any other, just as it is necessary for the navigator to believe in the compass, and to stop looking at and being guided by what he sees on both sides. One must know how to be guided by the Christian teaching, how to be guided by the compass, and for this it is most important to understand ones position, and to be able not to be afraid precisely to indicate ones own deflection from the one, ideal direction. No matter on what round man may stand, there is always a possibility of his approaching this ideal, and no position of his can be such that he should be able to say that he has attained it and no longer can strive after a greater approximation.1 [Note: Tolstoy, Epilogue to the Kreutzer Sonata (Works, xviii. 431).]
3. Christ is the Reconciler between God and man.Christs sinlessness affects the value of His sacrifice. The sinbearer, as all the types of the Mosaic law prefigured, must be himself sinlessa lamb without blemish and without spot. The eternal, immutable, inevitable law of God claims an entire fulfilment. Who is to fulfil it? One has said, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. Did He do it, or did He not? He twice says of Himself that He did do it; and at the supreme moments of His life. Once in His High Priests prayer, after the Paschal supperI have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. Once, just before He diedIt is finished.
Let us conceive (if we may without irreverence) that some one single sin, untruthfulness, or vanity, or cruelty, could be really charged on Him, and what becomes of the atoning character of His Death? How is it conceivable that He should even have willed to die for a guilty world? For while, if we look at it on one side, His death appears to have been determined by circumstances, on the other, it was as certainly the result of His own liberty of action. No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. At once Priest and Sacrifice, Christ is represented in the Epistle to the Hebrews as offering himself without spot to God. It was the crowning act of a life which was throughout sacrificial; but had He been conscious of any inward stain, how could He have desired to offer Himself in sacrifice to free a world from sin? Had there been in Him any personal evil to purge away, His Death might have been endured on account of His own guilt: it is His absolute Sinlessness that makes it certain that He died for others.2 [Note: H. P. Liddon, Passiontide Sermons, 14.]
The Sinlessness of Christ
Literature
Adderley (J. G.), in Sermons far the People, New Ser., iii. 126.
Barry (A.), Sermons at Westminster Abbey, 165.
Deshon (G.), Sermons for the Ecclesiastical Year, 160.
Hadden (R. H.), Sermons and Memoir, 68.
Henson (H. H.), The Value of the Bible, 146.
Kuegele (F.), Country Sermons, New Ser., iv. 233.
Lid don (H. P.), Passiontide Sermons, 1.
Scott (M.), The Harmony of the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels, 92.
Spurgeon (C. H.), Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, ix. (1865) No. 492.
Tholuck (A.), Hours of Christian Devotion, 30.
Thorold (A. W.), Questions of Faith and Duty, 122.
Tomlins (W. H.), in Sermons on the Gospels: Advent to Trinity, 190.
Trench (R. C.), Sermons for the Most Part in Ireland, 87
Wood (W. S.), Problems in the New Testament, 31.
Christian World Pulpit, lxxvii. 305 (Campbell).
Churchmans Pulpit; Fifth Sunday in Lent: vi. 206 (Hodges).
Clergymans Magazine, 3rd Ser., i. 178 (Reaney).
Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible
convinceth: Joh 8:7, Joh 14:30, Joh 15:10, Joh 16:8, 2Co 5:21, Heb 4:15, Heb 7:26, 1Pe 2:22
why: Mat 21:25, Mar 11:31
Reciprocal: 1Sa 26:18 – what have I Pro 8:7 – my mouth Joh 5:38 – ye have Joh 5:40 – ye will not Joh 9:24 – we know Joh 16:7 – I tell Act 7:37 – him 2Th 2:13 – belief Jam 2:9 – are 1Jo 3:5 – in Rev 22:15 – whosoever
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST
Jesus said, which of you convinceth Me of sin?
Joh 8:46
It is well for us that we should once more assure ourselves of the supernatural claim of Christ. And the words of the text bring home to us part of the stupendous peculiarity of this claim. Which of you convinceth Me of sin? He claims to be sinless. Humble penitence grows in the life of a saint. How is it, then, that with our Lord the very reverse is the case? How is it that He is absolutely unconscious of any shortcoming or sin? There is practically no answer to these questions but the answer implied in the Catholic creeds. He is Himself the ideal that man is reaching after. He is Himself the image of God which man has defaced by sin. He is Himself one with the Father, Whose will is that which man rebels against when he sins. There is no penitence because there is no sin. Christ, as the Article says, in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh and in His spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, Who, by the sacrifice of Himself once made, should take away the sins of the world, and sin, as John saith, was not in Him (Art. xv).
Whether it is the forgiveness of sins that we seek, or the possibility of following our Lords example in a new life, to each and every case it is the Divine Saviour that we need.
Let us consecrate our thoughts on the Divinity of the Lord, Who offers up Himself in Sacrifice.
I. There is a tendency to minimise the importance of this doctrine of the Godhead of Christ.We shall best combat this tendency not so much by argument as by the evidence of the power of Christ in us. If we could show men that what Christ has done for us, and in us, is something that could only have been done by God, we shall have done more than a hundred books of Christian apologetics could ever do. We must not, then, be content to rely on the cogency of intellectual arguments. We must ourselves feel the force of them in ourselves, in our personal experience.
Let us examine our lives in the light of what Christ has done for all human beings, and what He offers to all who believe on Him.
(a) Let us examine ourselves in the matter of sin. It is the sin of the world which the Lamb of God is ready to take away. What about my sin? Have I finally broken with that bad habit that has so long been marring my life, and making it so unlike the sinless life of Christ? Can I dare look around and say, Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if my neighbours could not convince me of sin, could God the Holy Ghost do so? How blessed, indeed, to be able humbly to believe that God was even pleased with us, to be able to trust that there really was nothing between us and acceptance by the Heavenly Father. And if there is still the darkness of sin in me, if there is still something that is holding me back, why not cast it away once for all?
(b) Again, even if I can humbly trust that I am forgiven, is there not some weakness that still needs the strength of Christ to overcome it in me. Is there not some temptation that still assails me, even though I know my will is against sin? Do we not all need the power of Jesus to transform and renew and quicken us? Well, then, this, too, is inherent in the sacrifice of Calvary. Christ died for us, but He is also ready to be in us. By His spirit and by His Sacraments He dwells in us; He breaks down the old evil nature in us, and fills us with the invigorating influence of His own perfection.
II. How glorious for us to be able to take our stand by the side of Jesus as He faces His enemies, and trusting in Him to be able to associate ourselves with His calm assertion of innocence, Which of you convinceth Me of sin? By His grace we can do this if we will. We, too, can confront the world. They may deny the Lord Who bought them. They may insult His Name. They may scoff at His Church, His Bible, His Sacraments. But if by our simple lives of innocence, trusting in Him and the power of His Cross and Passion, we go on our way, we shall in the end come out victorious. Let us, then, follow the Lamb, whithersoever He goeth.
Rev. the Hon. J. Adderley.
Illustration
The sinlessness of our Lord has been supposed to be compromised by the conditions of the development of His life as mansometimes by particular acts and sayings which are recorded of Him. When, for instance, we are told in the Epistle to the Hebrews that our Lord learned obedience by the things that He suffered, this, it is argued, clearly means progress from moral deficiency to moral sufficiency, and as a consequence it implies in Him a time when He was morally imperfect; but, although the growth of our Lords moral nature as man implies that as a truly human nature He was finite, it does not by any means follow that such a growth involved sin as its starting-point. A moral development may be perfect and pure, and yet be a development. A progress from a more or less expanded degree of perfection is not to be confounded with a progress from sin to holiness. In the latter case there is an element of antagonism in the will which is wholly wanting in the former. Christs life is a revelation of the moral life of God, completing Gods previous revelations.
(SECOND OUTLINE)
THE MYSTERY OF EVIL
Evil is a mystery that has burdened humanity all through the ages. It is not a modern problem. And the fact of evil ever present does not solve the mystery.
I. What is evil?The answer is, Evil is essentially lawlessness.
II. What is the source of evil?Evil finds its source, i.e. its possibility, not in necessity, but freedom. Were we obliged to sin, i.e. were there a law compelling us to sin, we could not be called lawless if we obeyed it, hence we could not sin; but sin, or evil, is found in moral freedom or liberty, in the ability we have to break as well as to keep law.
(a) The origin and source of evil is found in personality, in that living, thinking, free being, who, with a choice before him of two courses, chooses one and rejects the other.
(b) There is a secondary source of evil which we may call the evil of entail or heredity, whereby a lawless sire begets an offspring with lawless tendencies. These may never express themselves in actual lawlessness, but that tendency will be there.
(c) Also, apart from the evil of entail, we find sources of evil resident in consequences of former evilthe accumulation in life of past generations of wrong-doing and lawlessness.
III. Still, in consideration of the mystery of evil we rarely distinguish clearly enough between evil and its consequences.As a rule when we think of evil we think mostly of its effects. We see, for instance, a home ruined by dissipation, we are impressed with the consequences of starving wife, naked children, we read or hear of brutal treatment of wife and children, and we shudderat what? Evil? No, but at the consequences of evil.
(a) The pessimists. Some who look at the consequences of sin are led to despair. They take a pessimistic view of life.
(b) The epicureans. Then, again, others are led by consequences of evil into a reckless, self-indulgent epicureanism, who say, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die, who plunge into wrong living, wrong thinking, and wrong doing, who would cast off all responsibility.
Yet pessimism and epicureanism are wrong. They have looked at only the consequences of evil.
IV. We ask, then, what is the cure?What is to bring consolation to the pathetic pessimism? what is to correct the reckless epicureanism of man? what is to end the consequences of evil? The cure of the evil of this world, which so often perplexes and saddens us, is not to aim simply at repressing consequences, this is only to treat symptoms; but the cure is to reach the wills, the hearts, the affections of manthe springs of action which impel man to do what he does, to think what he thinks, to say what he says.
Illustration
Can we do nothing for the evil of this world, the consequences of which are manifest on all sides? Yes. One way, little though it be, is open to each of us. Let each man and each woman, each boy and each girl, save, or attempt to save, some other man or woman, boy or girlthe one next to himand the world would soon be saved. If we only realised this, if only we were willing to do just this littlesave one, inspire just one with the spirit of lawful freedom and choice, and soon the consequences of evil would be materially reduced. This we can all attempt; will we not, brethren? We who have been admitted into the fellowship of Christs religion, who have experienced the goodness of God, who have realised the Divine altruism in our lives.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
6
Convince is from a word that means to convict or prove one to be guilty of sin. The question of Jesus was a challenge which amounted to a denial beforehand. Since they knew they could not convict Jesus of sin, that would mean that all he said was the truth. On that basis, the only correct answer to his last question would be that their unbelief was due to their relation to the devil.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 8:46. Which of you convicteth me of sin? No charge of sin could any one of them bring home to Him, no responsive consciousness of sin could any one awaken in His breast. These words are implicitly an assertion of His perfect sinlessness; and His enemies are silent.
If I say truth, why do ye not believe me? Their knowledge of His sinless life took from them all pretext for their disbelief. We know that His words brought their own evidence to those who loved the truth. The true answer to this question then must be that they loved falsehood. But this answer they would never give. The tone of this verse clearly shows that what has been said of their father the devil related not to necessity of nature, but to deliberate choice (see note on Joh 8:23), for such an appeal was intended, and would be understood, to imply condemnation of those who thus wilfully refused to believe. The same thought is present in the following verse.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Ver. 46. To justify their distrust with respect to His words, it would be necessary that they should at least be able to accuse Him of some fault in His actions; for holiness and truth are sisters. Can they do this? Let them do it. This defiance which Jesus hurls at His adversaries shows that He feels Himself fully cleared, by His defense in chap. 7, of the crime of which He had been accused in chap. 5 We must be careful, indeed, not to take , sin, in the sense of error (Calvin, Melanchthon) or of falsehood (Fritzsche). The thought is the same here as in Joh 7:18 : Jesus affirms that there absolutely does not arise from His moral conduct any ground of suspicion against the truth of His teaching. We must imagine this question as followed by a pause sufficient to give opportunity to whoever should wish to accuse Him to be heard….No one opens his mouth. The admission involved in this silence serves as a premise for the following argument: Well, then, if ( , now if, or simply ), as your silence proves, I teach the truth, why do you not believe?
Here again a pause; He had invited them to judge Him; in the face of His innocence which has just been established, He leaves them a moment now to pass judgment on their conduct towards Him. After this silence, He pronounces the sentence: You are not of God: herein is the true reason of your unbelief towards me. The expression to be of God designates the state of a soul which has placed itself, and which now is, under the influence of divine action. It is the opposite of the affirmed with regard to Satan. This state does not exclude, but implies, the free determination of the man. Otherwise, the tone of reproach which prevails in our verse would be unjust and even absurd. , properly, to hear, takes here, as often the French term does, the sense of intelligent hearing (hence the limiting word in the accusative). Comp. the manner in which the declaration of Jesus respecting the truth which gives freedom (Joh 8:32) had been received. The , for this cause, refers at once to the general principle laid down in the first part of the verse, and the following : It is for this cause…, that is to say, because…
The perfect holiness of Christ is proved in this passage, not by the silence of the Jews, who might very well have ignored the sins of their interlocutor, but by the assurance with which Jesus lays this question before them. Without the immediate consciousness which Christ had of the perfect purity of His life, and on the supposition that He was only a more holy man than other men, a moral sense so delicate as that which such a state would imply, would not have suffered the least stain to pass unnoticed, either in His life, or in His heart; and what hypocrisy would there not have been in this case in addressing to others a question with the aim of causing them to give it a different answer from that which, in His inmost heart, He gave Himself! In other terms: to give a false proof whose want of soundness He hopes that no one will be able to prove.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
8:46 {14} Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
(14) Christ thoroughly executed the office that his Father gave him.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Obviously many of Jesus’ critics thought He was guilty of committing sin (cf. Joh 5:18). Jesus asked if any of them could prove Him guilty (cf. Joh 18:23). This was one of Jesus’ clearest claims to being God. Not one of His critics could prove Him guilty because He was not guilty. No mere mortal could risk making such an offer as Jesus did here.
The Qu’ran does not say that Jesus was sinless, but Muslims believe that He was sinless because the Qu’ran never says He sinned. They believe He was a sinless man, but not God.
"The perfect holiness of Christ is in this passage demonstrated, not by the silence of the Jews, who might have ignored the sins of their questioner, but by the assurance with which His direct consciousness of the purity of His whole life is in this question affirmed." [Note: Godet, 2:350.]
Jesus again claimed that His hearers did not accept His words because they did not belong to God.