154 7:53―8:11―Some of those rejecting this passage are influenced by the feeling that there is no clear connection with what comes before or follows it. As to this, see the Exposition. Difficulty over the connection has, however, not weighed so much as judgment formed on the diplomatic evidence. The expositor shows that the impeachment on that side of the case is not so formidable as is usually supposed. Eusebius says that he found the passage, not merely in the Gospel of the Hebrews, but in Papias, from whom Lightfoot supposes it was derived. It is markedly in harmony with 1:17, and was not likely to be inserted by a later hand. Whilst the early Reformers (Calvin, Beza, etc.) discredited it, Augustine before them, as Bengel afterwards, upheld it. The agreement of textual critics of such different schools as Tregelles and Scrivener, of course, is unfavourable to its being read in John; whilst some, acknowledging it as “Scripture,” would place it at the end of Luke 21, as in the Ferrar group of manuscripts (but in these only); so Blass, the latest editor. Lightfoot’s judgment was that “it is an interpolation where it stands” (“Biblical Essays,” p. 69). He regarded it as a marginal note to verse 15. We may, however, be morally certain that the Evangelist, if he did not actually put the incident in writing, told the story in his oral ministry. “Advanced” critics go with others in commendation of its spirit and teaching, Jülicher describing it as “the noblest of Agrapha” (p. 393). Its Divine wisdom is attested on all sides. See, further, notes 157, 159.
155 Verse 3.―Here only in this Gospel are the scribes spoken of. Instead of being against the genuineness, the word tells the other way; for, as some one has said, “it is in exact keeping with any attempt―the only one described in this Gospel―to entrap Him subtly, in which the expertness of such men was needed.”
156 Verse 5.―The Old Testament texts are Lev. 22:10, Deut. 22:22. Observe that “Moses in the law” is solely Johannine (1:45), not being found in the Synoptic Gospels. What about the absence in these Jews of concern as to the treatment to be dealt out to the adulterer? Cf. Seeley, “Ecce Homo,” pp. 117-120.
156a Verse 7.―See Deut. 13:6-11.
157 Verse 11.― “Neither do I condemn,” or, command execution of the law. Had early Christians discerned that these words have regard to the distinction between the Church and the world in its sentences, they could not have hesitated, as they did, to admit the passage into lectionaries. There is no “Go in peace,” or “Thy sins are forgiven thee” here: the woman is governmentally respited (cf. the case of chapter 5.). The Lord gave effect to the law which required two witnesses (Deut. 17:2-7, 19:15). Cf. verse 17 of this chapter, which bears singularly on the authenticity of the passage, but seems to have been uniformly neglected by those who have questioned it.
158 Reference should here be made to “Lectures on the Gospel,” p. 462 f.
159 Verse 12.―The “again” marks resumption of the interrupted discourse (verse 2). To whom could “them” refer but the angry Pharisees? If a passage like this (cf. 12:32) were editorial, might we not say that the interpolator was a prophet? Moreover, would not this verse be awkward if 7:53 to 8:11 were omitted?
159a Verse 12 ff.― “The light,” referring probably to the sun, beaming out as He spoke (Bishop Andrewes and others), rather than to the golden lamp (Stier, etc.), or to the pillar of cloud and fire (Cyril, etc.).
160 “True.” Here ἀληθής but in 19:35 ἀληθινός: both words occur together there. Schmiedel, as others before him, pits verse 13 against verse 31, in which they have been anticipated by these very Jews here The answer to the critical, as to the Pharisaic, objection turns on His Godhead, shown by what follows. Westcott puts it: “The I in the earlier passage marked the separate individuality; here it marks the fullness of the whole Person.”
160a “Ye know not.” This, again, has been set against 7:28: “Ye know.” But there He says, “whence I am”; here, “whence I come.” The objection is a mere quibble; the Lord was speaking previously of His earthly origin.
Burkitt (p. 227) characterizes His attitude towards the Jews here as “mystifying, repellent,” from not weighing the moral bearing of the words. See the Exposition.
161 Verse 17.―See Deut. 17:6, 19:15. For “law of the Jews” (“your law”), cf. 10:34, 15:25 of the Gospel. It is a case of argument um ad hominem. So Stevens (p. 35), whilst his countryman Bacon follows captious German criticism. Cf. note 157 above.
161a Verse 18.―As to testimony to the two natures of the Lord, see Exposition (p. 178 f.), Mark. 12: 35-37, where, as Lord of David, we get His Deity, as in Son of David His humanity (q. Rom. 1:3).
162 Verse 19.—May not 7:28 have been slightly ironical, as Ryle suggests? See above as to the irony, also ascribed to the Evangelist by Salmon.
163 Verse 20.―Cf. Luke 22:53. The Lord taught in the outer courts only, being, according to the flesh, of the tribe of Judah, not Levi (Heb. 7:14).
164 Verse 24.― “I Am”: Deut. 32:39-41; Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 41:4, 48:10.
164a The American Revisers discredited the British marginal rendering, “How is it that I speak to you at all?” which was derived from Cyril and Chrysostom, and is approved by Zahn. Cf. Blass, “Grammar,” § 50:5 (E.T., p. 176), who would render “(Do you reproach Me) that I speak to you at all?” Those taking it as “altogether” include Winer, Grimm, Stier, H. Holtzmann, Alford, Godet, Plummer, and Reynolds.
165 Verse 20.―This controverts Swedenborg’s doctrine that there is only one “Person” in the Godhead; that the body taken was the Son; and that the Father, in His resistance to evil, put it off altogether! (Cf. note 130.)
165a Verses 30-32.— “Believed on Him... believed Him.” See note 17.
166 Verse 37.― “Maketh no way.” So Westcott, who compares Wisd. 7:23; and Weiss, referring to 2 Mace. 13:26; as Zahn also to 3:40, 15:37 there.
167 Verse 40.― “A man” ―ἄνθρωπος. Gnosticism denied (α) the Deity of Jesus, (β) the humanity of the Christ. It was the predicted parent of the apostasy spoken of in 1 Tim. 4:1-3.
167a Verse 41.―Cf. Mal. 2:10.
168 Verse 43.―Cf. Prov. 8:9. What Alexander Carson, fifty years ago, remarked is true still; if men “are erroneous in their doctrines, they must be erroneous in their philology” (“On Interpretation,” p. 91).
169 Verse 44.― “Standeth” (ἒ), as the American revisers. The British committee adopted the imperfect of στήκω―i.e., ἔστηκεν (אBpm, DL, etc.); and so Blass. Horton criticizes the first part of the verse in the light of verse 30. But the Lord is speaking to the Jews referred to in verse 33. Cf. verses 40 and 15. Polycarp, in his “Letter to the Philippians,” echoed the words “of the devil.”
170 Verse 46.―It is on the Lord’s conscious sinlessness that Weiss would base His Messianic consciousness (“Life of Christ,” i. 290).
Professor Du Bose has revived the execrable doctrine of Edward Irving. Note the following terrible statements taken from the American writer: “There was that in His flesh which actively He had to put to death” (“Soteriology,” p. 320); “His lifelong death to sin created and constituted His sinlessness” (“The Gospel in the Gospels,” p. 159); “He had as much to hunger and thirst after righteousness which was not His own as we have” (ibid., p. 164); “Jesus Himself, in His humanity, needed the salvation which all humanity needs” (“The Gospel according to St. Paul,” p. 127); “There was that in Him which He needed to limy, to mortify, to crucify” (ibid., p. 173); “As man, our Lord was subject with us all to sin and death” (p. 228). To found such execrable language on anything from Paul or Peter (e.g., Rom. 8:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 4:1) is, as one of them has written, to wrest the Scriptures to your own destruction. Cf. 5:23 of this Gospel. What a mercy that the Saviour (pace Schmiedel) has spoken of forgiveness extended to those blaspheming the “Son of man” (Matt. 12:32).
With verse 47 cf. 1 John 4:6.
171 Verse 48 f.―Schmiedel (col. 2,541) “Had Jesus really possessed that exalted consciousness of His pre-existence and Divine dignity which is attributed to Him in the fourth Gospel, the declaration that blasphemy against Him was incapable of forgiveness (Matt. 12:31 f.; Luke 12:10) could never have been attributed to Him.” But it is to His character of Son of man that the Synoptic words as to forgiveness attach and it is precisely in the earlier Gospels that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is said not to admit of forgiveness, attributing Christ’s works to Beelzebub, as here His words to a demon. There is not a particle of such difference in the accounts: the Synoptists record nothing that detracts from the words “ye dishonor Me” given by John.
As to the Jews’ insinuation, see Schofield, “Christian Sanity,” p. 14. Cf. 7:20 of this Gospel.
172 Verse 57. ― “Fifty years old.” What is one to think of Loisy, who follows Irenæus, saying that, “according to the Evangelist, the Christ was about fifty years old when He died” (p. 13)? as to which Schmiedel sensibly remarks that Irenæus was not trustworthy in respect of traditions of that kind. The “fifty” might be explained from Num. 4:3, 39, 8:34, but probably means, what is generally supposed, that the blessed Saviour was prematurely old. Cf. Zahn, ad loc.
173 Verse 58.― “I am.” See note 164, and cf. Ps. 90:2, 102:27. The Unitarian explanation is that “Jesus only meant that He existed as Messiah in God’s counsels before Abraham.” There would, however, be nothing peculiar in that, as true also of Adam and the Jews themselves, whom He was addressing. They understood His words very differently. The “wrangling, little in the style of Jesus,” which is said to characterize this chapter (Horton, p. 164; cf. Burkitt) is, of course, primarily an utterance of German oracles.