Skip to main content

The Children of Father Abraham (John 8:39-47)

This section is an argument about Abraham, and who has been faithful to the message that Abraham received. In one sense, everyone in this audience was literally a descendant of Abraham. On the other hand, after St. John says that Jesus came to his own, but his own did not receive him (1:11) he adds, "But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (1:12-13) Jesus invites and challenges the audience to be like Abraham, by believing in him. It goes without saying that trying to kill Jesus isn't compatible with receiving Jesus.

You can almost hear the tension, when Jesus suggests that Abraham is not their father. They pick up on it, too, because they protest that they were born out of wedlock. Then they say that their true Father is God. Jesus disputes this, because he says that if God were their Father, they would receive him, because Jesus came from the Father, and was sent by Him. Everything Jesus says here is quite mysterious and spiritual, but they don't hear it, because Jesus says they don't want to hear it.

Then Jesus says that they are children of the devil, which is not necessarily the way to win friends, and influence people. Then again, we should remember that Jesus knows exactly when he is wasting his words. Much of what he says here, as recorded by St. John, is for us, not for the original audience. Jesus reminds us that Satan is a liar, and the father of lies. When he lies, he speaks his first language. Jesus says that those who are born of God will listen to him. Jesus concludes that this audience will not listen, because they are not born of God. He also challenges them to prove that he has committed a sin, and they can't do it. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...