ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστι.”
νι,
Λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ “Ingots, “Ei τέκνα τοῦ ᾽Αβραὰμ ἦτε,ι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ᾽Αβραὰμ ἐποιεῖτε ἄν.
49. νῦν δὲ
ζητεῖτέ µε ἀποκτεῖναι, ἄνθρωπον ὃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα,
i 1. 40.
ἣν ἤκουσα ᾿ παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ: τοῦτο ᾽Αβραὰμ οὐκ ἐποίησεν. ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν.”
41. Εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ, ““Hyets
ἐκ πορνείας ob γεγεννήµεθα”' ἕνα πατέρα ἔχομεν, τὸν Θεόν.”
42. Εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς, “Ei ὅ Θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν, ἠγαπᾶτε
j Num. xvi, ἂν ἐμέ' ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον καὶ Few: οὐδὲ γὰρ ) ἀπ᾿ 2
kiv. 42. Mt. ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλήλυθα, GAN’ ἐκεῖνός µε ἀπέστειλε.
XXVi. 73. τὴν ἐμὴν οὐ γινώσκετε;
1 Instead of ητε. .
. εποιειτε αν W.H. read εστε .
43. Stati τὴν Ελαλιὰν
ὅτι οὗ δύνασθε ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμόν.
. ποιειτε. εστε is found
in NBDL; εποιειτε without av in N*BDEFG, with αν in ScCKL. Certainly the intrinsically probable reading is that of T.R., especially when the νυν δε of ver.
40 is considered.
2 T.R. in CA, but ουκ εγεννηθηµεν in BD, adopted by Tr.W.H.R.
in Kypke; and cf. 2 Thess. iii. 1, ἵνα 6 λόγος τρέχῃ. “' ΜΥ word meets with obstacles and is not allowed its full influence in you.”’—Ver, 38. ‘‘ And yet the word of Christ justly claimed accept- ance, for it was derived from immediate knowledge of God,’ Westcott.—éya 6 [or ἃ ἐγὼ, as recent editors read]... ποιεῖτε. ‘‘ What I have seen with my Father I speak ; and what ye have seen with your father ye do.” He makes the statement almost as if it were a necessary principle that sons should adopt their fathers’ thoughts. The οὖν might be rendered ‘“‘and 5ο: it was because Jesus uttered what He had learned by direct intercourse with His Father that the Jews sought to slay Him. See vv. 16-19. The ἑώρακα (cp. iii. 31, 32) might seem to indicate the knowledge He had in His pre-existent state, but the next clause forbids this. — ποιεῖτε, if it is to balance λαλω, must be indicative.—Ver. 39. To this ambiguous but ominous utterance the Jews reply: ‘O πατὴρ ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστι, thereby meaning to clear themselves of the suspicion of having learned anything evil from their father. To which Jesus retorts: Εἰ τέκνα . . . ἐποιεῖτε ἄν. “If ye were Abraham’s children ye would do the works of Abraham’’; according to the law of ver. 38. If their origin could be wholly traced to Abraham, then their conduct would resemble his.—viv δὲ . .. ἐποίησεν. ‘‘ But now—as the fact really is—you seek to kill me; and this has not only the guilt of an ordinary murder, but your hostility is roused against me because I have spoken to you the truth
I heard from God. It is murder based upon hostility to God. This is very different from the conduct of Abraham.” ---ἄνθρωπον seems to be used simply as we might use “‘ person ”—a person who: certainly, as Lampe says, it is used ‘‘ sine praejudicio deitatis”. Bengel thinks it anticipates ἀνθρωπόκτονος in ver. 44, and Westcott says it ‘stands in contrast with of God . . . and at the same time suggests the idea of human sympathy, which He might claim from them (a man), aS opposed to the murderous spirit of the power of evil”.—Ver. 41. vpeis . .. ὑμῶν. You do not the works of Abraham: you do the works of your father. And yet (ver. 37) He had acknowledged them to be the children of Abraham. The only possible conclusion was that besides Abraham some other father had been concerned in producing them. This idea they repudiate with indignation: “‘Hpeis . .. Θεόν. “ We were not born of fornication: we have one father, God’’; not “' Abraham,’’ as might have been expected, but ‘‘ God” : i.¢., they claim to be the children of the promise, within the Theocracy, children of God’s house (ver. 35).—Ver. 42. But this claim Jesus explodes by the same argument: Ei 6 θεὸς . . . ἀπέστειλε. Were God your Father you would love me, for I am from ἀοἀ.--ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ expresses ‘the proceeding forth from that essential pre-human fellowship with God, which was His as the Son of God, and which took place through the incarnation,” Meyer. The meaning of the expression is fixed by that with which it is contrasted in xiii. 3, xvi. 28. ἥκω is