TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers John 8:38–47. His four-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
Here Christ and the Jews are still at issue; he sets himself to convince and convert them, while they still set themselves to contradict and oppose him.
I.He here traces the difference between his sentiments and theirs to a different rise and origin (Joh 8:38):
I speak that which I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have seen with your father. Here are two fathers spoken of, according to the two families into which the sons of men are divided - God and the devil, and without controversy these are contrary the one to the other.
1.Christ's doctrine was from heaven; it was copied out of the counsels of infinite wisdom, and the kind intentions of eternal love.
(1.)I speak that which I have seen. The discoveries Christ has made to us of God and another world are not grounded upon guess and hearsay, but upon ocular inspection; so that he was thoroughly apprized of the nature, and assured of the truth, of all he said. He that is given to be a witness to the people is an eye-witness, and therefore unexceptionable.
(2.)It is what I have seen with my Father. The doctrine of Christ is not a plausible hypothesis, supported by probable arguments, but it is an exact counterpart of the incontestable truths lodged in the eternal mind. It was not only what he had heard from his Father, but what he had seen with him when the counsel of peace was between them both. Moses spoke what he heard from God, but he might not see the face of God; Paul had been in the third heaven, but what he had seen there he could not, he must not, utter; for it was Christ's prerogative to have seen what he spoke, and to speak what he had seen.
2.Their doings were from hell: "You do that which you have seen with your father. You do, by your own works, father yourselves, for it is evident whom you resemble, and therefore easy to find out your origin." As a child that is trained up with his father learns his father's words and fashions, and grows like him by an affected imitation as well as by a natural image, so these Jews, by their malicious opposition to Christ and the gospel, made themselves as like the devil as if they had industriously set him before them for their pattern.
II.He takes off and answers their vain-glorious boasts of relation to Abraham and to God as their fathers, and shows the vanity and falsehood of their pretensions.
1.They pleaded relation to Abraham, and he replies to this plea. They said, Abraham is our father, Joh 8:39. In this they intended,
(1.)To do honour to themselves, and to make themselves look great. They had forgotten the mortification given them by that acknowledgement prescribed them (Deu 26:5), A Syrian ready to perish was my father; and the charge exhibited against their degenerate ancestors (whose steps they trod in, and not those of the first founder of the family), Thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite, Eze 16:3. As it is common for those families that are sinking and going to decay to boast most of their pedigree, so it is common for those churches that are corrupt and depraved to value themselves upon their antiquity and the eminence of their first planters. Fuimus Troes, fuit Ilium - We have been Trojans, and there once was Troy.
(2.)They designed to cast an odium upon Christ as if he reflected upon the patriarch Abraham, in speaking of their father as one they had learned evil from. See how they sought an occasion to quarrel with him. Now Christ overthrows this plea, and exposes the vanity of it by a plain and cogent argument: "Abraham's children will do the works of Abraham, but you do not do Abraham's works, therefore you are not Abraham's children."
[1.]The proposition is plain: "If you were Abraham's children, such children of Abraham as could claim an interest in the covenant made with him and his seed, which would indeed put an honour upon you, then you would do the works of Abraham, for to those only of Abraham's house who kept the way of the Lord, as Abraham did, would God perform what he had spoken," Gen 18:19. Those only are reckoned the seed of Abraham, to whom the promise belongs, who tread in the steps of his faith and obedience, Rom 4:12. Though the Jews had their genealogies, and kept them exact, yet they could not by them make out their relation to Abraham, so as to take the benefit of the old entail (performam doni - according to the form of the gift), unless they walked in the same spirit; good women's relation to Sarah is proved only by this - whose daughters you are as long as you do well, and no longer, Pe1 3:6. Note, Those who would approve themselves Abraham's seed must not only be of Abraham's faith, but do Abraham's works (Jam 2:21, Jam 2:22), - must come at God's call, as he did, - must resign their dearest comforts to him, - must be strangers and sojourners in this world, - must keep up the worship of God in their families, and always walk before God in their uprightness; for these were the works of Abraham.
[2.]The assumption is evident likewise: But you do not do the works of Abraham, for you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth, which I have heard of God; this did not Abraham, Joh 8:40.
First, He shows them what their work was, their present work, which they were now about; they sought to kill him; and three things are intimated as an aggravation of their intention: - 1. They were so unnatural as to seek the life of a man, a man like themselves, bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh, who had done them no harm, nor given them any provocation. You imagine mischief against a man, Psa 62:3. 2. They were so ungrateful as to seek the life of one who had told them the truth, had not only done them no injury, but had done them the greatest kindness that could be; had not only not imposed upon them with a lie, but had instructed them in the most necessary and important truths; was he therefore become their enemy? 3. They were so ungodly as to seek the life of one who told them the truth which he had heard from God, who was a messenger sent from God to them, so that their attempt against him was quasi deicidium - an act of malice against God. This was their work, and they persisted in it.
Secondly, He shows them that this did not become the children of Abraham; for this did not Abraham. 1. "He did nothing like this." He was famous for his humanity, witness his rescue of the captives; and for his piety, witness his obedience to the heavenly vision in many instances, and some tender ones. Abraham believed God; they were obstinate in unbelief: Abraham followed God; they fought against him; so that he would be ignorant of them, and would not acknowledge them, they were so unlike him, Isa 63:16. See Jer 22:15-17. 2. "He would not have done thus if he had lived now, or I had lived then." Hoc Abraham non fecisset - He would not have done this; so some read it. We should thus reason ourselves out of any way of wickedness; would Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob have done so? We cannot expect to be ever with them, if we be never like them.
[3.]The conclusion follows of course (Joh 8:41): "Whatever your boasts and pretensions be, you are not Abraham's children, but father yourselves upon another family (Joh 8:41); there is a father whose deeds you do, whose spirit you are of, and whom you resemble." He does not yet say plainly that he means the devil, till they by their continued cavils forced him so to explain himself, which teaches us to treat even bad men with civility and respect, and not to be forward to say that of them, or to them, which, though true, sounds harsh. He tried whether they would suffer their own consciences to infer from what he said that they were the devil's children; and it is better to hear it from them now that we are called to repent, that is, to change our father and change our family, by changing our spirit and way, than to hear it from Christ in the great day.
2.So far were they from owning their unworthiness of relation to Abraham that they pleaded relation to God himself as their Father: "We are not born of fornication, we are not bastards, but legitimate sons; we have one Father, even God."
(1.)Some understand this literally. They were not the sons of the bondwoman, as the Ishmaelites were; nor begotten in incest, as the Moabites and Ammonites were (Deu 23:3); nor were they a spurious brood in Abraham's family, but Hebrews of the Hebrews; and, being born in lawful wedlock, they might call God Father, who instituted that honourable estate in innocency; for a legitimate seed, not tainted with divorces nor the plurality of wives, is called a seed of God, Mal 2:15.
(2.)Others take it figuratively. They begin to be aware now that Christ spoke of a spiritual not a carnal father, of the father of their religion; and so,
[1.]They deny themselves to be a generation of idolaters: "We are not born of fornication, are not the children of idolatrous parents, nor have been bred up in idolatrous worships." Idolatry is often spoken of as spiritual whoredom, and idolaters as children of whoredoms, Hos 2:4; Isa 57:3. Now, if they meant that they were not the posterity of idolaters, the allegation was false, for no nation was more addicted to idolatry than the Jews before the captivity; if they meant no more than that they themselves were not idolaters, what then? A man may be free from idolatry, and yet perish in another iniquity, and be shut out of Abraham's covenant. If thou commit no idolatry (apply it to this spiritual fornication), yet if thou kill thou art become a transgressor of the covenant. A rebellious prodigal son will be disinherited, though he be not born of fornication.
[2.]They boast themselves to be true worshippers of the true God. We have not many fathers, as the heathens had, gods many and lords many, and yet were without God, as filius populi - a son of the people, has many fathers and yet none certain; no, the Lord our God is one Lord and one Father, and therefore it is well with us. Note, Those flatter themselves, and put a damning cheat upon their own souls, who imagine that their professing the true religion and worshipping the true God will save them, though they worship not God in spirit and in truth, nor are true to their profession. Now our Saviour gives a full answer to this fallacious plea (Joh 8:42, Joh 8:43), and proves, by two arguments, that they had no right to call God Father.
First, They did not love Christ: If God were your Father, you would love me. He had disproved their relation to Abraham by their going about to kill him (Joh 8:40), but here he disproves their relation to God by their not loving and owning him. A man may pass for a child of Abraham if he do not appear an enemy to Christ by gross sin; but he cannot approve himself a child of God unless he be a faithful friend and follower of Christ. Note, All that have God for their Father have a true love to Jesus Christ, and esteem of his person, a grateful sense of his love, a sincere affection to his cause and kingdom, a complacency in the salvation wrought out by him and in the method and terms of it, and a care to keep his commandments, which is the surest evidence of our love to him. We are here in a state of probation, upon our trial how we will conduct ourselves towards our Maker, and accordingly it will be with us in the state of retribution. God has taken various methods to prove us, and this was one: he sent his Son into the world, with sufficient proofs of his sonship and mission, concluding that all that called him Father would kiss his Son, and bid him welcome who was the first-born among many brethren; see Jo1 5:1. By this our adoption will be proved or disproved - Did we love Christ, or no? If any man do not, he is so far from being a child of God that he is anathema, accursed, Co1 16:22. Now our Saviour proves that if they were God's children they would love him; for, saith he, I proceeded forth and came from God. They will love him; for, 1. He was the Son of God: I proceeded forth from God. Exēlthon this means his divine exeleusis, or origin from the Father, by the communication of the divine essence, and also the union of the divine logos to his human nature; so Dr. Whitby. Now this could not but recommend him to the affections of all that were born of God. Christ is called the beloved, because, being the beloved of the Father, he is certainly the beloved of all the saints, Eph 1:6. 2. He was sent of God, came from him as an ambassador to the world of mankind. He did not come of himself, as the false prophets, who had not either their mission or their message from God, Jer 23:21. Observe the emphasis he lays upon this: I came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. He had both his credentials and his instructions from God; he came to gather together in one the children of God (Joh 11:51), to bring many sons to glory, Heb 2:10. And would not all God's children embrace with both arms a messenger sent from their Father on such errands? But these Jews made it appear that they were nothing akin to God, by their want of affection to Jesus Christ.
Secondly, They did not understand him. It was a sign they did not belong to God's family that they did not understand the language and dialect of the family: You do not understand my speech (Joh 8:43), tēn lalian tēn emēn. Christ's speech was divine and heavenly, but intelligible enough to those that were acquainted with the voice of Christ in the Old Testament. Those that had made the word of the Creator familiar to them needed no other key to the dialect of the Redeemer; and yet these Jews make strange of the doctrine of Christ, and find knots in it, and I know not what stumbling stones. Could a Galilean be known by his speech? An Ephraimite by his sibboleth? And would any have the confidence to call God Father to whom the Son of God was a barbarian, even when he spoke the will of God in the words of the Spirit of God? Note, Those who are not acquainted with the divine speech have reason to fear that they are strangers to the divine nature. Christ spoke the words of God (Joh 3:34) in the dialect of the kingdom of God; and yet they, who pretended to belong to the kingdom, understood not the idioms and properties of it, but like strangers, and rude ones too, ridiculed it. And the reason why they did not understand Christ's speech made the matter much worse: Even because you cannot hear my word, that is, "You cannot persuade yourselves to hear it attentively, impartially, and without prejudice, as it should be heard." The meaning of this cannot is an obstinate will not; as the Jews could not hear Stephen (Act 7:57) nor Paul, Act 23:22. Note, The rooted antipathy of men's corrupt hearts to the doctrine of Christ is the true reason of their ignorance of it, and of their errors and mistakes about it. They do not like it nor love it, and therefore they will not understand it; like Peter, who pretended he knew not what the damsel said (Mat 26:70), when in truth he knew not what to say to it. You cannot hear my words, for you have stopped your ears (Psa 58:4, Psa 58:5), and God, in a way of righteous judgment, has made your ears heavy, Isa 6:10.
III.Having thus disproved their relation both to Abraham and to God, he comes next to tell them plainly whose children they were:
You are of your father the devil, Joh 8:44. If they were not God's children, they were the devil's, for God and Satan divide the world of mankind; the devil is therefore said to work in the children of disobedience, Eph 2:2. All wicked people are the devil's children, children of Belial (Co2 6:15), the serpent's seed (Gen 3:15), children of the wicked one, Mat 13:38. They partake of his nature, bear his image, obey his commands, and follow his example. Idolaters said to a stock, Thou art our father, Jer 2:27.
This is a high charge, and sounds very harsh and horrid, that any of the children of men, especially the church's children, should be called children of the devil, and therefore our Saviour fully proves it.
1.By a general argument: The lusts of your father you will do, thelete poiein. (1.) "You do the devil's lusts, the lusts which he would have you to fulfil; you gratify and please him, and comply with his temptation, and are led captive by him at his will: nay, you do those lusts which the devil himself fulfils." Fleshly lusts and worldly lusts the devil tempts men to; but, being a spirit, he cannot fulfil them himself. The peculiar lusts of the devil are spiritual wickedness; the lusts of the intellectual powers, and their corrupt reasonings; pride and envy, and wrath and malice; enmity to that which is good, and enticing others to that which is evil; these are lusts which the devil fulfils, and those who are under the dominion of these lusts resemble the devil, as the child does the parent. The more there is of contemplation, and contrivance, and secret complacency, in sin, the more it resembles the lusts of the devil. (2.) You will do the devil's lusts. The more there is of the will in these lusts, the more there is of the devil in them. When sin is committed of choice and not by surprise, with pleasure and not with reluctancy, when it is persisted in with a daring presumption and a desperate resolution, like theirs that said, We have loved strangers and after them we will go, then the sinner will do the devil's lusts. "The lusts of your father you delight to do;" so Dr. Hammond; they are rolled under the tongue as a sweet morsel.
2.By two particular instances, wherein they manifestly resembled the devil - murder and lying. The devil is an enemy to life, because God is the God of life and life is the happiness of man; and an enemy to truth, because God is the God of truth and truth is the bond of human society.
(1.)He was a murderer from the beginning, not from his own beginning, for he was created an angel of light, and had a first estate which was pure and good, but from the beginning of his apostasy, which was soon after the creation of man. He was anthrōpoktonos - homicida, a man-slayer.
[1.]He was a hater of man, and so in affection an disposition a murderer of him. He has his name, Satan, from sitnah - hatred. He maligned God's image upon man, envied his happiness, and earnestly desired his ruin, was an avowed enemy to the whole race.
[2.]He was man's tempter to that sin which brought death into the world, and so he was effectually the murderer of all mankind, which in Adam had but one neck. He was a murderer of souls, deceived them into sin, and by it slew them (Rom 7:11), poisoned man with the forbidden fruit, and, to aggravate the matter, made him his own murderer. Thus he was not only at the beginning, but from the beginning, which intimates that thus he has been ever since; as he began, so he continues, the murderer of men by his temptations. The great tempter is the great destroyer. The Jews called the devil the angel of death.
[3.]He was the first wheel in the first murder that ever was committed by Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother, Jo1 3:12. If the devil had not been very strong in Cain, he could not have done such an unnatural thing as to kill his own brother. Cain killing his brother by the instigation of the devil, the devil is called the murderer, which does not speak Cain's personal guilt the less, but the devil's the more, whose torments, we have reason to think, will be the greater, when the time comes, for all that wickedness into which he has drawn men. See what reason we have to stand upon our guard against the wiles of the devil, and never to hearken to him (for he is a murderer, and certainly aims to do us mischief, even when he speaks fair), and to wonder that he who is the murderer of the children of men should yet be, by their own consent, so much their master. Now herein these Jews were followers of him, and were murderers, like him; murderers of souls, which they led blindfold into the ditch, and made the children of hell; sworn enemies of Christ, and now ready to be his betrayers and murderers, for the same reason that Cain killed Abel. These Jews were that seed of the serpent that were to bruise the heel of the seed of the woman; Now you seek to kill me.
(2.)He was a liar. A lie is opposed to truth (Jo1 2:21), and accordingly the devil is here described to be,
[1.]An enemy to truth, and therefore to Christ. First, He is a deserter, from the truth; he abode not in the truth, did not continue in the purity and rectitude of his nature wherein he was created, but left his first state; when he degenerated from goodness, he departed from truth, for his apostasy was founded in a lie. The angels were the hosts of the Lord; those that fell were not true to their commander and sovereign, they were not to be trusted, being charged with folly and defection, Job 4:18. By the truth here we may understand the revealed will of God concerning the salvation of man by Jesus Christ, the truth which Christ was now preaching, and which the Jews opposed; herein they did like their father the devil, who, seeing the honour put upon the human nature in the first Adam, and foreseeing the much greater honour intended in the second Adam, would not be reconciled to that counsel of God, nor stand in the truth concerning it, but, from a spirit of pride and envy, set himself to resist it, and to thwart the designs of it; and so did these Jews here, as his children and agents. Secondly, He is destitute of the truth: There is no truth in him. His interest in the world is supported by lies and falsehoods, and there is no truth, nothing you can confide in, in him, nor in any thing he says or does. The notions he propagates concerning good and evil are false and erroneous, his proofs are lying wonders, his temptations are all cheats; he has great knowledge of the truth, but having no affection to it, but on the contrary being a sworn enemy to it, he is said to have no truth in him.
[2.]He is a friend and patron of lying: When he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own. Three things are here said of the devil with reference to the sin of lying: - First, That he is a liar; his oracles were lying oracles, his prophets lying prophets, and the images in which he was worshipped teachers of lies. He tempted our first parents with a downright lie. All his temptations are carried on by lies, calling evil good and good evil, and promising impunity in sin; he knows them to be lies, and suggests them with an intention to deceive, and so to destroy. When he now contradicted the gospel, in the scribes and Pharisees, it was by lies; and when afterwards he corrupted it, in the man of sin, it was by strong delusions, and a great complicated lie. Secondly, That when he speaks a lie he speaks of his own, ek tōn idiōn. It is the proper idiom of his language; of his own, not of God; his Creator never put it into him. When men speak a lie they borrow it from the devil, Satan fills their hearts to lie (Act 5:3); but when the devil speaks a lie the model of it is of his own framing, the motives to it are from himself, which bespeaks the desperate depth of wickedness into which those apostate spirits are sunk; as in their first defection they had no tempter, so their sinfulness is still their own. Thirdly, That he is the father of it, autou. 1. He is the father of every lie; not only of the lies which he himself suggests, but of those which others speak; he is the author and founder of all lies. When men speak lies, they speak from him, and as his mouth; they come originally from him, and bear his image. 2. He is the father of every liar; so it may be understood. God made men with a disposition to truth. It is congruous to reason and natural light, to the order of our faculties and the laws of society, that we should speak truth; but the devil, the author of sin, the spirit that works in the children of disobedience, has so corrupted the nature of man that the wicked are said to be estranged from the womb, speaking lies (Psa 58:3); he has taught them with their tongues to use deceit, Rom 3:13. He is the father of liars, who begat them, who trained them up in the way of lying, whom they resemble and obey, and with whom all liars shall have their portion for ever.
IV.Christ, having thus proved all murderers and all liars to be the devil's children, leaves it to the consciences of his hearers to say, Thou art the man. But he comes in the following verses to assist them in the application of it to themselves; he does not call them liars, but shows them that they were no friends to truth, and therein resembled him who abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Two things he charges upon them: -
1.That they would not believe the word of truth (Joh 8:45), hoti tēn alētheian legō, ou pisteuete moi.
(1.)Two ways it may be taken; - [1.] "Though I tell you the truth, yet you will not believe me (hoti), that I do so." Though he gave abundant proof of his commission from God, and his affection to the children of men, yet they would not believe that he told them the truth. Now was truth fallen in the street, Isa 59:14, Isa 59:15. The greatest truths with some gained not the least credit; for they rebelled against the light, Job 24:13. Or, [2.] Because I tell you the truth (so we read it) therefore you believe me not. They would not receive him, nor entertain him as a prophet, because he told them some unpleasing truths which they did not care to hear, told them the truth concerning themselves and their own case, showed them their faces in a glass that would not flatter them; therefore they would not believe a word he said. Miserable is the case of those to whom the light of divine truth is become a torment.
(2.)Now, to show them the unreasonableness of their infidelity, he condescends to put the matter to this fair issue, Joh 8:46. He and they being contrary, either he was in an error or they were. Now take it either way.
[1.]If he were in an error, why did they not convince him? The falsehood of pretended prophets was discovered either by the ill tendency of their doctrines (Deu 13:2), or by the ill tenour of their conversation: You shall know them by their fruits; but (saith Christ) which of you, you of the sanhedrim, that take upon you to judge of prophets, which of you convinceth me of sin? They accused him of some of the worst of crimes - gluttony, drunkenness, blasphemy, sabbath-breaking, confederacy with Satan, and what not. But their accusations were malicious groundless calumnies, and such as every one that knew him knew to be utterly false. When they had done their utmost by trick and artifice, subornation and perjury, to prove some crime upon him, the very judge that condemned him owned he found no fault in him. The sin he here challenges them to convict him of is, First, An inconsistent doctrine. They had heard his testimony; could they show any thing in it absurd or unworthy to be believed, any contradiction either of himself or of the scriptures, or any corruption of truth or manners insinuated by his doctrine? Joh 18:20. Or, Secondly, An incongruous conversation: "Which of you can justly charge me with any thing, in word or deed, unbecoming a prophet?" See the wonderful condescension of our Lord Jesus, that he demanded not credit any further than the allowed motives of credibility supported his demands. See Jer 2:5, Jer 2:31; Mic 6:3. Ministers may hence learn, 1. To walk so circumspectly as that it may not be in the power of their most strict observers to convince them of sin, that the ministry be not blamed. The only way not to be convicted of sin is not to sin. 2. To be willing to admit a scrutiny; though we are confident in many things that we are in the right, yet we should be willing to have it tried whether we be not in the wrong. See Job 6:24.
[2.]If they were in an error, why were they not convinced by him? "If I say the truth, why do you not believe me? If you cannot convince me of error, you must own that I say the truth, and why do you not then give me credit? Why will you not deal with me upon trust?" Note, If men would but enquire into the reason of their infidelity, and examine why they do not believe that which they cannot gainsay, they would find themselves reduced to such absurdities as they could not but be ashamed of; for it will be found that the reason why we believe not in Jesus Christ is because we are not willing to part with our sins, and deny ourselves, and serve God faithfully; that we are not of the Christian religion, because we would not indeed be of any, and unbelief of our Redeemer resolves itself into a downright rebellion against our Creator.
2.Another thing charged upon them is that they would not hear the words of God (Joh 8:47), which further shows how groundless their claim of relation to God was. Here is,
(1.)A doctrine laid down: He that is of God heareth God's words; that is,
[1.]He is willing and ready to hear them, is sincerely desirous to know what the mind of God is, and cheerfully embraces whatever he knows to be so. God's words have such an authority over, and such an agreeableness with all that are born of God, that they meet them, as the child Samuel did, with, Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth. Let the word of the Lord come.
[2.]He apprehends and discerns them, he so hears them as to perceive the voice of God in them, which the natural man does not, Co1 2:14. He that is of God is soon aware of the discoveries he makes of himself of the nearness of his name (Psa 75:1), as they of the family know the master's tread, and the master's knock, and open to him immediately (Luk 12:36), as the sheep know the voice of their shepherd from that of a stranger, Joh 10:4, Joh 10:5; Sol 2:8.
(2.)The application of this doctrine, for the conviction of these unbelieving Jews: You therefore hear them not; that is, "You heed not, you understand not, you believe not, the words of God, nor care to hear them, because you are not of God. Your being thus deaf and dead to the words of God is a plain evidence that you are not of God." It is in his word that God manifests himself and is present among us; we are therefore reckoned to be well or ill affected to his word; see Co2 4:4; Jo1 4:6. Or, their not being of God was the reason why they did not profitably hear the words of God, which Christ spoke; they did not understand and believe him, not because the things themselves were obscure or wanted evidence, but because the hearers were not of God, were not born again. If the word of the kingdom do not bring forth fruit, the blame is to be laid upon the soil, not upon the seed, as appears by the parable of the sower, Mat 13:3.
Historical interpretation
Nine Centuries of Reception
15 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
The Savior said that God was his Father and acknowledged no man as his father. Hence it is likely because of the statement “We have not been born of fornication,” that, to give offense, they in turn add, “We have one father, God.” It is as if they were saying, “We are the ones who have one Father, God, rather than you, who claim to have been born of a virgin, though you were born of fornication. You boast that you have been born of a virgin by saying that you have God alone as your one Father. We who acknowledge God as our Father do not deny that we also have a human father.”
Ye do the works of your father.
In so far as we commit sins, we have not as yet put off the generation of the devil, even if we are thought to believe in Jesus. Consequently Jesus says to those Jews who have believed, “You do the works of your father,” “father” meaning the devil because of the statement “You are of your father the devil.” Now, if everyone “who commits sin is of the devil,” everyone who is not of the devil does not commit sin. In addition, if “the reason the Son of God appeared was that he might destroy the works of the devil,” to the extent that he has not yet destroyed the works of the devil in us, because we have not presented ourselves to him who destroys the works of the devil, we have not as yet put aside being children of the devil, since it is our fruits that show whose sons we are.
I ask whether those Jews who are said to have believed in him do not respond rather vindictively, because they were reproved as not being children of Abraham, by hinting in a veiled manner that the Savior was born of fornication. They assume this as probable because they do not accept his famous and widely discussed birth from the Virgin.
(vi. de Trin. c. 30) It was not that the Son of God condemned the assumption of so religious a name; that is, condemned them for professing to be the sons of God, and calling God their Father; but that He blamed the rash presumption of the Jews in claiming God for their Father, when they did not love the Son. For I proceeded forth, and came from God. To proceed forth, is not the same with to come. When our Lord says that those who called God their Father, ought to love Him, because He came forth from God, He means that His being born of God was the reason why He should be loved: the proceeding forth, having reference to His incorporeal birth. Their claim to be the sons of God, was to be made good by their loving Christ, Who was begotten from God. For a true worshipper of God the Father must love the Son, as being from Godf. And he only can love the Father, who believes that the Son is from Him.
(lib. v. ibid.) In what follows, He teaches that His origin is not in Himself; Neither came I of Myself, but He sent Me.
"Ye seek to kill Me because I have told you the truth, which I have heard of My Father." To show that these things are not opposed to the Father, He again betaketh Himself to Him. They say unto Him, "We be not born of fornication, we have one Father, even God."
(Hom. liv. 2) This truth, that is, that He was equal to the Father: for it was this that moved the Jews to kill Him. To show, however, that this doctrine is not opposed to the Father, He adds, Which I have heard from God.
(Hom. liv. 2) Our Lord says this with a view to put down their vain boasting of their descent; and persuade them to vest their hopes of salvation no longer on the natural relationship, but on the adoption. For this it was which prevented them from coming to Christ; viz. their thinking that their relationship to Abraham was sufficient for their salvation.
"They said unto Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye had Abraham to your father, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill Me." He here repeatedly handleth their murderous intention, and maketh mention of Abraham. And this He doth desiring to draw off their attention from this relationship, and to take away their excessive boasting, and also to persuade them no longer to rest their hopes of salvation in Abraham, nor in the relationship which is according to nature, but in that which is according to the will. For what hindered their coming to Christ was this, their deeming that relationship to be sufficient for them to salvation. But what is the "truth" of which He speaketh? That He is equal with the Father. For it was on this account that the Jews sought to slay Him.
(Tr. xlii. 7.) The Jews had begun to understand that our Lord was not speaking of sonship according to the flesh, but of manner of life. Scripture often speaks of spiritual fornication, with many gods, and of the soul being prostituted, as it were, by paying worship to false gods. This explains what follows: Then said they to Him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
"Then said they to Him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." Abraham has now lost his importance. For they were repulsed as they ought to have been by the truth-speaking mouth; because such was Abraham, whose deeds they failed to imitate, and yet gloried in his lineage. And they altered their reply, saying, I believe, with themselves, As often as we name Abraham, he goes on to say to us, Why do ye not imitate him in whose lineage ye glory? Such a man, so holy, just, and guileless, we cannot imitate. Let us call God our Father, and see what he will say to us.
(Tr. xlii. 6) He does not say as yet who is their father.
They said therefore to Him, We have not been born of fornication, we have one Father, God.
Already now have I said that the all-daring Jews were easily sick with bitter and unholy conceptions of our Saviour Christ. For they thought that the holy Virgin had been corrupted, I mean the Lord's Mother, and that she was taken with child, not of the Holy Ghost or of operation from above but of one of those on the earth. For being wholly disbelieving and without understanding, they either made no account of the prophetic writings, albeit openly hearing, Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, or looking only to the flesh and following the order of events usual with us, and not thinking of the Nature which works beyond speech, to which nought is hard to perform, every thing that seems good to Him easy; they deem that no otherwise could a woman conceive in her womb, save by coming together with her husband and cohabitation. Sick of such a suspicion, the wretched ones dared to accuse the Birth through the Spirit of the Divine and wondrous Offspring. But when putting them forth from kindred with Abraham He allots them to another father, very angry are they, and unrestrainedly foaming up their inherent anger, they reviling say, WE have not been born of fornication, we have one Father, God. For they say darkly somewhat of this sort, Two fathers hast Thou, neither wert Thou born of honourable marriage, WE One, God.
But let a man see and consider clearly how great their disease of madness in this too. For they who by reason of the naughtiness and depravity that was in them are by the Righteous Judge put not even among the children of Abraham, advance to such a measure of madness, as to call even God their Father, perhaps because of what is said in the books of Moses, Israel is My son, My first-born, not admitting into their mind what is said through the voice of Isaiah, Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord.
And one may reasonably enquire what it was that induced the Jews at present to say no longer, Our father is Abraham, or, We have one father Abraham, but to go straight up to One God. To me they seem to have had some thought of this kind. For when they, smiting with their railing the Lord, as though His mother had been dishonoured before marriage, were ascribing to Him two fathers, needs did they seek to take the title of one as an ally of their own ill-will. For whereby they affirm that they have One Father God, by the same they indirectly reproach the Lord of having two, setting the One over against two. For they imagined that if they said, We have one father Abraham, they would be altogether denying the rest, I mean Isaac and Jacob, and the twelve who were from him, which if they should do, they would seem to be arming themselves against themselves and to fight with their own choice and boast, estranging Israel from the nobility of the fathers, and thereby to go along with the Lord's own saying. Escaping then the damage that thence seemed to accrue to them, they no |643 longer say, We have one father Abraham, but rather ascribe to themselves One Father God, spell-subdued by only the most unsure pleasures of railing, that they might fall into yet greater blame, craftsmen of all impiety, yet daring to take as their father the Enemy of all impiety.
YE do the deeds of your father.
Having shown that the Jews are utterly of other manner than their ancestor, and far removed from his piety, He with good reason strips them of their empty fleshly boast. And saying openly that they ought not any longer to be enrolled among his children, He allots them to another father like unto them, and affixed similitude of deeds as a sort of bond of kindred, teaching that the good ought to be joined to the good, and deciding that it is meet that they who live ill should have as fathers those who have been condemned for the like. For like as they who have chosen to live excellently, and are therefore even now called saints, may without hazard call God their Father, so to the wicked is the wicked one rightly ascribed as father, seeing that they form the image of his wickedness and perversity in their characters. For not altogether is he who begot of himself conceived of as father by the Divine Scripture, but he too who has any conformed to his own character, of whom he is said to be therefore father. Thus does the Divine Paul too write to certain, for in Christ Jesus through the Gospel did I beget you. As then (as we said) some are conformed both to God and to the holy fathers through likeness in manners and holiness; so to the devil too and to those like in conduct to him are some rendered like-minded, suffering this through their own depravity. Therefore to the saints the saints are fathers, but to the wicked the wicked who betake themselves to them, most befittingly. And the one, who in holiness take the impression (so to say) of the Divine Form on their own souls, and have the confidence that befits own sons, will with reason say Our Father which art in heaven: the bad again will be ascribed to their own father, begotten as it were through likeness unto him unto equal depravity with him. To the Jews therefore Christ allots and names another father than the holy Abraham, and who, He does not as yet clearly say.
The unbelieving Jews were clearly sick with bitter and unholy conceptions of our Savior Christ. They thought that the Holy Virgin had been corrupted—I mean the Lord’s mother—and that she gave birth to a child conceived not of the Holy Spirit or of operation from above but rather conceived by one of those on the earth. They were either so entirely without faith and without understanding that they did not take into account the prophetic writings, even though they clearly heard, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” Or, looking only to the flesh and following the common order of events, they did not even consider how divine nature works beyond speech—a nature for which nothing is impossible. They also did not consider that for God all that is good is possible. Rather, they believed that there is no way that a woman could conceive other than by coming together with her husband. Sick with such suspicion, the wretched ones dared to question the birth of the wondrous offspring that had been enabled by the Holy Spirit.
As if their motive against Him was a desire to avenge God's honour.
Continue studying John 8:41 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
John 8:41 captures a pivotal and highly charged exchange between Jesus and Jewish leaders, revealing a profound spiritual chasm. Jesus asserts that their actions betray their true spiritual lineage, implying they are not children of God but rather of another "father." The Jewish leaders, misunderstanding or deliberately deflecting, respond with a defensive claim of legitimate physical and religious heritage, vehemently denying any illicit origin and affirming their direct descent from God, thereby missing the spiritual thrust of Jesus' indictment.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is deeply embedded within a protracted and escalating debate in John 8. Jesus has been confronting the Jewish leaders about their unbelief and their inability to comprehend His divine origin and mission. He has just declared that if they were truly Abraham's children, they would do the works of Abraham (John 8:39), directly challenging their assumed spiritual identity based on physical descent. The statement "Ye do the deeds of your father" is a direct follow-up to this challenge, pushing them to confront the spiritual implications of their rejection of Him. Their indignant response in John 8:41 sets the stage for Jesus' even more pointed revelation in John 8:44, where He explicitly identifies their spiritual father as the devil.
Historical & Cultural Context
In ancient Jewish society, lineage and paternity were paramount. Being a "child of Abraham" was a source of immense pride and a foundational element of their national and religious identity, signifying their covenant relationship with God. The accusation of being "born of fornication" (or illegitimacy) would have been a grave insult, implying a lack of legitimate heritage, impurity, or even idolatry (spiritual fornication). The leaders' defensive retort underscores their deep-seated belief that their physical descent from Abraham and their monotheistic worship of Yahweh inherently guaranteed their status as God's children. They viewed themselves as the legitimate heirs of the covenant, distinct from Gentiles or those with questionable lineage, and thus Jesus' spiritual accusation struck at the very core of their self-understanding.
Key Themes
The central theme highlighted in this passage is the stark contrast between spiritual lineage and physical descent. Jesus consistently emphasizes that true sonship to God is demonstrated by obedience and faith, not merely by biological heritage or religious affiliation. This verse also brings to the forefront the theme of misunderstanding and rejection, as the Jewish leaders repeatedly fail or refuse to grasp the spiritual nature of Jesus' claims, interpreting them through a purely carnal or literal lens. Furthermore, the dialogue foreshadows the theme of true fatherhood, setting up Jesus' later declaration that those who reject Him are, in fact, children of the devil, not God (John 8:44). This highlights the critical importance of one's spiritual allegiance, which is revealed through one's actions and reception of truth.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This verb signifies to "make or do" in a very wide application, encompassing actions, performance, and execution. In this context, Jesus uses it to refer to the active, observable behaviors and choices of the Jewish leaders, which He asserts are consistent with the "deeds" of their true spiritual father. It implies a pattern of conduct, not just isolated acts.
Derived from a root meaning "to work," érgon refers to toil, an effort, an occupation, or, by implication, an act. Here, it denotes the specific actions, works, or practices that characterize the spiritual "father" Jesus alludes to. These "deeds" are not merely neutral behaviors but rather manifestations of an underlying spiritual nature and allegiance.
This verb means "to procreate," "to beget," or "to be born." It refers to the act of bringing forth life or being brought into existence. The Jewish leaders use this term to emphasize their physical and legitimate birth, asserting the purity of their lineage. Spiritually, it speaks to the origin of one's spiritual nature and identity.
Verse Breakdown
"Ye do the deeds of your father."
Jesus directly confronts the Jewish leaders, asserting that their actions—their rejection of His truth, their attempts to kill Him, and their general unbelief—are not consistent with the character or "deeds" of God or Abraham. Instead, their conduct reveals a different, unstated "father" whose nature they embody through their actions. This is a spiritual accusation, not a literal one about their physical paternity.
"Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication;"
The Jewish leaders react with indignation and defensiveness, interpreting Jesus' spiritual accusation in a literal, physical sense. "Born of fornication" (Greek: ek porneias) is a strong, pejorative phrase implying illegitimacy or impurity of birth. By denying this, they assert the purity and legitimacy of their physical lineage and, by extension, their status as rightful heirs of the covenant. They may also be subtly hinting at Jesus' own rumored illegitimate birth, though the primary focus is on defending their own honor.
"we have one Father, [even] God."
This is the culmination of their defensive claim. They assert their monotheistic belief and their direct, legitimate relationship with God as their sole Father, contrasting themselves with any perceived "illegitimacy" or "multiple fathers" that Jesus' statement might imply. They believe their physical and religious heritage automatically qualifies them as God's children, failing to grasp that Jesus is challenging the spiritual authenticity of that claim based on their deeds.
Literary Devices
The passage employs several key literary devices. Irony is prominent, as the Jewish leaders, in their attempt to assert their legitimate lineage and claim God as their Father, inadvertently highlight their spiritual blindness and their true allegiance to a different "father" whom Jesus will later identify. Their literal interpretation of "born of fornication" is a form of misunderstanding or misdirection, as they deflect Jesus' spiritual indictment by focusing on physical purity. The phrase "do the deeds" is a form of metonymy, where "deeds" stand for the character or nature of the "father." Jesus' statement is also an example of inference, where He implies a spiritual paternity without explicitly naming it until later in the chapter, forcing His audience to confront the implications of their actions.
Theological and Thematic Connections
This verse underscores a fundamental theological truth: true spiritual identity is not determined by physical lineage or religious association, but by one's spiritual parentage, which is evidenced by one's actions and allegiance. The Jewish leaders' insistence on their physical descent from Abraham and their claim to have God as their Father, while true in a physical and nominal sense, is shown by Jesus to be spiritually hollow because their "deeds" contradict their claim. This highlights the New Testament emphasis on spiritual rebirth and transformation as the basis for true sonship with God, rather than mere biological or cultural heritage. It challenges the notion that outward religious markers or ancestry are sufficient for a right relationship with God.
Reflection and Application
John 8:41 serves as a profound mirror for self-examination, challenging us to look beyond superficial claims of faith or heritage and genuinely assess whose "deeds" our lives reflect. It's easy to declare God as our Father, but Jesus' words demand that we scrutinize whether our actions, attitudes, and responses to truth align with the character of God, or if they betray a different spiritual influence. This verse reminds us that true sonship is not merely a title we claim, but a reality lived out through obedience, love for truth, and a willingness to follow Christ. If our lives are characterized by resistance to God's word, hostility towards those who speak truth, or a preference for darkness over light, then our claim to divine parentage is called into question. We must continually ask ourselves: Are our "deeds" consistent with being a child of God, or are we, like the Jewish leaders, clinging to a heritage without embodying its spiritual essence?
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why did the Jewish leaders respond by saying they were "not born of fornication"?
The Jewish leaders likely interpreted Jesus' statement, "Ye do the deeds of your father," as a direct accusation against their physical legitimacy or purity of lineage. In their culture, "fornication" (Greek: porneia) could refer to illicit sexual activity, but also more broadly to idolatry or spiritual impurity. By denying they were "born of fornication," they were vehemently asserting the purity of their physical descent from Abraham and their legitimate, exclusive worship of the one true God, contrasting themselves with any perceived spiritual or physical illegitimacy that Jesus might be implying about them or, perhaps, even subtly hinting at rumors about Jesus' own birth. They were missing Jesus' spiritual point entirely, deflecting it to a literal, physical insult.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
This exchange in John 8:41 powerfully sets the stage for the New Testament's understanding of true sonship in Christ. The Jewish leaders' insistence on physical lineage and their claim of God as their Father, despite their rejection of Jesus, highlights the inadequacy of mere biological or religious heritage for salvation. Jesus' challenge, "Ye do the deeds of your father," foreshadows the radical truth that spiritual parentage is determined by one's relationship to Him. In Christ, the concept of "fatherhood" is redefined: no longer is it about physical descent from Abraham, but about being "born again" by the Spirit (John 3:3-8). Through faith in Jesus, believers are given the right to become "children of God" (John 1:12), not by human will or physical birth, but by God's divine initiative. Our "deeds" as Christians are meant to reflect the character of our heavenly Father, made possible by the indwelling Holy Spirit who transforms us into the likeness of His Son (Romans 8:14-17). Thus, Jesus' confrontation here ultimately points to Himself as the sole means by which humanity can truly claim God as "one Father" in a spiritually authentic and redemptive sense.