and self-righteousness, made no such nice distinction. They did not see that national sonship and covenant sonship with- out spiritual sonship, are nothiug worth. Hence they brought on themselves the stern rebuke of the next verse.
42. — [Jesus said... if God. ..your Father.. .love me.'] Our Lord here tells the Jews, that although they might be children of God by covenant and nationality, they were evidently not God's chil- dren by grace and spiritual birth. If God was really their Father, they would show it by loving the Son of God, even Himself.
Let us note carefully the great principle contained in this sentence. Love to Christ is the infallible mark of all true chil- dren of God. Would we know whether we are born again, whether we are children of God? There is one simple way of finding it out. Do we love Christ? If not, it is vain and idle to talk of God as our Father, and ourselves as God's children. No love to Christ, no sonship to God !
The favourite notion of many, that baptism makes us sons and daughters of God, and that all baptized people should be addressed as God's children, is utterly irreconcilable with this sentence. Unless a baptized person loves Christ, he has no right to call God Father, and is not God's child. He has yet to be born again, and brought into God's family. Before the point and edge of these words, the doctrine that spiritual re generation always accompanies baptism cannot stand.
The modern notion about God's universal Fatherhood, which finds such favour with many, is no less irreconcilable with this sentence than baptismal regeneration. That God the Father is full of love, mercy, and compassion to all is no doubt true. But that God is really and truly the spiritual Father of any one who does not love Christ can never be maintained without contradicting our Lord's words in this place.
The sentence is full of condemnation to all who know nothing experimentally of Christ, and neither think, nor feel, nor care anything about Him. Crowds of so-called Christians are in this unhappy state, and are plainly not God's children, whatever they may think. — The sentence is equally full of comfort for all true believers, however weak and feeble. If they feel drawn towards Christ in heart and affection, and can truly say "I do love Him," they have the plainest mark of being God's children, and "if children then heirs." (Rom. viii. 17.)
[For I proceeded forth, etc.] Our Lord here shows the Jews His own divine nature and mission. He had proceeded forth, and come from God — the eternal Son from the eternal Father. He had not come of His own independent will and without commission, but specially sent and appointed by the Father, as His last and dearest Messenger to a lost world. Such was His nature. Such was His position and relation to the Father.— If
JOHN, CHAP. vnr. 117
therefore they really were children of God the Father, they would love Him as the Father's Sod, the Father's Messenger, the Father's promised Messiah. Not loving Him, they gave the plain- est proof that they were not God's children. — A true child of God will love everything belonging to God, and specially he will love God's only begotten and beloved Son. He can see and rind nothing nearer to the Father than the Son, who is the •' bright- ness of His glory and the express image of His person." (Heb. i. 3.) If, therefore, he does not love the Son, it is clear that he is no true child of the Father.
Calvin remarks : " Christ's argument is this : whoever is a child of God will acknowledge His first-born Son; but you hate Me, and therefore you have no reason to boast that you are God's children. We ought carefully to observe in this passage, that there is no piety and no fear of God where Christ is re- jected. Hypocritical religion presumptuously shelters itself un- der the name of God; but how can they agree with the Father, who disagree with His only Son ? "
43. — [ Why do ye not understand? etc.'] In this verse, our Lord seems to me to draw a distinction between "speech" and "word." The expression " word " is deeper than " speech." By " speech," He means " My manner of speaking and expressing Myself." By "word," He means generally " My doctrine. " — The sense is, " How is it that ye do not understand My manner of express- ing Myself to you, when I speak of such things as freedom and of 'your father' ? It is because ye will not receive and attend to My whole message, — the word that I bring to you from My Father." — Lightfoot takes this view.
This explanation seems to me to describe most accurately the state of things between our Lord and His hearers. They were continually misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and stumbling at, the expressions and language that He used in teaching them. Did He speak of " bread" ? They thought He meant literal bread. — Did He speak of " freedom " ? They thought He meaut temporal and political freedom. — Did He speak of " their Father"? They thought He meant Abraham. — How was it that they so misunderstood His language aud dialect? It was simply because their hearts were utterly hardened and closed against the whole " word of salvation" which He came to proclaim. Having no will to listen to and receive His doctrine, they were ready at every step to misconstrue the words and figures under which it was conveyed and placed before them.
Any one who preaches the Gospel now must ofteu observe that precisely the same thing happens in the present day. Hear- ers, who are strongly prejudiced against the Gospel, are con- stantly perverting, wresting, and misinterpreting the language of the preacher. None are so blind as those who will not see, and none so stupid as those who do not want to understand.
The "cannot" here is a moral inability. It is like "no man