we are regenerate, we have the Spirit," while their lives show plainly that they are totally mistaken.
[How sayest thou... made free?'] This question was partly asked in anger and resentment, and partly in curiosity. Angry as the Jews were at the idea of being subject to any one, they yet caught at the expression "be made free." It made them think of the glorious kingdom of Messiah foretold in the Prophets. — ■ " Art Thou going to restore the kingdom to Israel? Art Thou going to set us free from the Romans? "
We should observe here, as elsewhere, the readiness of our Lord's hearers to put a carnal sense on spiritual language. Nic- odemus misunderstanding the new birth, the Samaritan woman and the living waters, the Capernaites and the bread from hea- ven, are all illustrations of what I mean. (See John iii. 4; iv. 11; vi. 34.)
Pearce thinks the Jews here spoke of themselves individually, and not of the Jewish nation. Yet surely, even when they spoke, they were subject to the Romans.
Henry observes : " Carnal hearts are sensible of no other grievances than those that molest the body and injure their sec- ular affairs. Talk to them of encroachments on their civil lib- erty and property, — tell of waste committed on their lands, or damage done -to their houses, and they understand you very well, and can give you a sensible answer : the thing touches and affects them. But discourse to them of the bondage of sin, or captivity to Satan, and a liberty by Christ, — tell them of wrong done to their souls, and you bring strange things to them."
34. — [Jesus answered, etc.] In this verse our Lord shows His hearers what kind of freedom He had meant, by showing the kind of slavery from which He wished them to be delivered. Did they ask in what sense He meant they should be made free? Let them know, first of all, that in their present state of mind, wicked, worldly, and unbelieving, they were in a state of bon- dage. Living in habitual sin they were the "servants of sin." This was a general proposition which they themselves must ad- mit. The man that lived wilfully in habits of sin was acknowl- edged by all to be the slave of sin. Sin ruled over him, and he was its servant. This was an axiom in religion which they could not dispute, for even heathen philosophers admitted it. (See Rom vi. 16—20; 2 Pet. ii. 19.)
" Committeth," we must remember here, does not mean " commits an act of sin," but habitually lives in the commission of sin. It is in this sense that St. John says, " He that commit- teth sin is of the devil," and " He that is born of God doth not commit sin." (1 John iii. 8, 9.)
35. — [And the servant abidethnot, etc.'] This is a difficult, because a very elliptical verse. The leading object in our Lord's mind
john, chap. vnr. 107
seems to be to show the Jews the servile and slavish condition in which they were, so long as they rejected Him, the true Mes- siah, and the free and elevated position which they would oc- cupy if they would believe in Him and become His disciples. — " Atpiesent, living under the bondage of the ceremonial law, and content with it and Pharisaic traditions, you are no better than slaves and servants, liable, like Hagar and Ishmael, to be cast out of God's favour and presence at any moment. — Receiv- ing Me and believing on Me as the Messiah, you would at once be lifted to the position of sons, and would abide forever in God's favour, as adopted children and dear sons and daughters. — You know yourselves that the servant has no certain tenure in the house, and may be cast out at any time; while the Son is heir to the Father, and has a certain tenure in the house for- ever.—Know that I wish you to be raised from the relation of servants to that of sons. Now, under the bondage you are in, you are like slaves. Receiving Me and My Gospel you would become children and free."
Something like this seems the leading idea in our Lord's mind. But it is vain to deny that it is a dark and difficult sentence, and requires much filling up and paraphrasing to complete its meaning. The simplest plan is to take it as a parenthesis. It then becomes a comment on the word " servant," which to a Jew, familiar with the story of Hagar and Ishmael, would be very instructive, and would convey the latent thought that our Lord wished them to be not servauts but sons. I cannot for a mo- ment think that " the Son" in the last clause means the Son of God, or that the whole clause was meant to teach His eternity.
It is certainly possible that a deep mystical sense may lie under the words " servant " and " son " in this verse. " Ser- vant" may mean the Jew, content with the inferior and servile religion of Moses. " Son " may mean the believer in Christ, who receives the adoption and enjoys Gospel liberty. He that is content with Judaism will find his system and religion soon pass away. He that enters into Christ's service will find him- self a son forever. But this is at best only conjectural, and a somewhat questionable interpretation.
One thing, at any rate, is very clear to my mind. The latent thought in our Lord's mind is a reference to the story of Hagar and her son Ishmael being cast out as bond-servants, while Isaac the son and heir abode in the house. He wished to im- press on His hearer's minds, that he desired them, like Isaac, to have the privilege of sons forever, and to be free to all eter- nity. Keeping this thought in view, and regarding the verse as a parenthesis, its difficulties are not insuperable.
Chrysostom says : " ' Abideth not' means ' hath not power to grant favours, as not being master of the house; ' but the Son is master of the house." The Jewish priests were the servants, and Christ was the Son. The priests had no power to set free;