If we assume that the Jewish authorities who believed (John 8:31) were sincere, their sincerity didn’t rise to the point of being Jesus’ true disciples (John 8:31). Rather, they may have been willing to accept Jesus as their Messiah, but belief in him rose only to the point of what they expected the Messiah would be like. For example, they looked for one who would be a great general who would lead them out from under the Roman yoke and subjection to all other enemies. They also believe this Messiah would never die (John 12:34). What they weren’t looking for in a Messiah was a spiritual leader, or one who would lead them out from under their bondage to sin (John 8:34). They believed they could see already, vis-à-vis they thought they could understand spiritual matters (John 9:40-41), and they were unaware that they were blind in the spirit and couldn’t enter the Kingdom of God in their present condition (John 3:3).
Jesus told the authorities that, although they were, indeed, the descendants of Abraham, they allowed no spiritual context for his teaching. They stubbornly believed they already understood spiritual matters (John 9:40-41) and simply rejected what Jesus taught (John 3:11; 8:37). He testified of what he was able to see with his Father, while they testified of what they knew of their father (John 8:38).
When they claimed that Abraham was their father, Jesus retorted, if they were truly the children of Abraham, they wouldn’t be going about seeking to kill him. All he ever did was tell them the truth, which he received from God. Abraham never sought to slay the innocent. On the contrary, he protected the righteous. If they were truly the children of Abraham, they would act like Abraham (John 8:39-40). Instead, however, they’ve been acting out of their own fleshy desires (John 3:6), doing the same deeds of their father (John 8:41a).
Seeing that Jesus responded according to the spirit, the Jewish authorities did likewise, but they wouldn’t agree with him, concerning their spiritual father. They claimed they were not (as were the nations) the children of fornication, vis-à-vis of idolatry (cp. Amos 5:25-26; Jeremiah 19:13) but were the children of Almighty God (Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1-2).
This is a hotly debated verse among the scholars. The We in “We are not born of fornication…” is strongly emphatic (John 8:41b)[1] Why is that? Are they saying “We…” as opposed to the nations, or could they mean We…” as opposed to you, Jesus? Do they have some knowledge of Jesus’ birth but have interpreted it after an obscene manner? The problem with this latter interpretation is: we are told it doesn’t appear in literature before the second century AD.[2] However, must we have an original manuscript in hand before it can be true? Even if Jesus’ birth wasn’t common knowledge, might the Jewish authorities have heard the accounts of the shepherds (cp. Luke 2:15-18) and interpreted them according to their own understanding? Moreover, if the Jewish authorities didn’t know about some of the surrounding facts concerning Jesus’ birth (no matter how that may have been interpreted by them), what argument lay behind their later accusation against Jesus in verse-48? There, they accuse him of being a Samaritan and having a demon! Literally: A Samaritan are you[3]. In other words, Jesus’ reverence for God is nothing more than pretense. So, if they claimed to know Jesus’ family in Nazareth (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 7:41), why would they then accuse him of being the son of a Samaritan, unless they questioned his birth (cp. John 9:29).
______________________________________________________
[1] See “Philip Schaff Popular Commentary on the New Testament”
[2] See the “Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges” for notes on John 8:41.
[3] See “Vincent’s Word Studies” on John 8:41
Smoodock's Blog 
2 responses to “We Are Not Born of Fornication!”
Likely they saw the Samaritan Woman as Mary whom Joseph almost divorces for fornication. Jesus’ birth should cause them to wonder. To conceive of such a wonderful event requires Faith not the KNOWLEDGE of Man.
Fatih accounts of Jesus’ birth compel us to embrace the Woman Jesus called Mary as the Cross of Jesus as Simon the Father of Alexander and Rufus does (Mark 15:21).
Bystanders hear Jesus say. “Father into thy hands, I commit my Spirit.” They assume Jesus is the Son of the Father. Rather than the Mother, the Bride who belongs to Christ the Everlasting Father.
Greetings Linda, and thank you for reading and for sharing a comment.
There is no mention of a woman in the text, but as for Mary, the divorce referred to in Matthew concerns an arranged marriage, but the actual wedding ceremony had yet to take place. A ‘divorce’ would have been required, if Joseph no longer wanted to marry Mary. Mary was a Jew, and Jewish commentary about her make her out to be a whore who had Jesus by a Roman Soldier. Nothing in friendly or unfriendly historical accounts make her out to be a Samaritan woman
I’m not certain what you mean here, so I won’t comment.
First of all, your subject matter doesn’t follow what I’ve written in the post above, so these remarks can’t really be considered true ‘comments’ could they? That said, I don’t believe most folks would understand what you mean here. I don’t. So, if you wish **briefly** explain.
If you don’t wish, that’s fine. Your ‘comment’ will stand as offered.