Saying they were the spiritual children of God (John 8:41) meant that these Jewish authorities knew the will of God and did the will of God. In other words, they thought and acted in the same manner they believed God would. Otherwise, the relationship between man and God has no meaning, because God didn’t physically beget human children. The Jewish faith isn’t anything like the Greek religion, where gods rape one another, kill one another and show themselves as having the same lusts as mankind. However, although they understood a child of God is one spiritually, Jesus told them their statement that they were children of God couldn’t be true. Had they really been God’s children, they would have loved Jesus, for he had come to them from God as his physical representative. Jesus came willingly to witness to them, because God had sent him (John 8:42). Therefore, how could they be God’s children, if they didn’t believe the very one God had sent to them? Then Jesus asked: “Why don’t you understand my speech?” and immediately he answered his own question, saying: “Because you cannot hear my word!” (John 8:43).
The Greek word for speech is lalia (G2981). The same word is used to identify Peter as a Galilean, because of the way he talked (Matthew 26:73). The Pulpit Commentary tells us that this same Greek word “is used for any manifestation of sound: a voice, the babble of children, the cries and songs of beasts or birds…” If one listens intently one can understand what children want. They may be hungry, want to be held, desire a toy etc. When a beast cries out or a bird chirps out its song, they may be announcing their fear, identifying their territory, courting a hopeful mate, or they may simply be at play etc. So, if the Jewish authorities listened intently to Jesus, rather than seeking to find fault, they would have understood his claim of origin (cp. Matthew 25:73 above) and his purpose.
The Greek word logos (G3056), which is translated word in the text, denotes reasoning power. Beasts and birds don’t communicate with words, so they have no advanced communicative reasoning power, but humans do. Yet, Jesus’ enemies couldn’t understand his speech, because they were of the flesh, and he of the spirit (John 3:6). Jesus reasoned with them, but God wasn’t speaking to them (John 6:44-45) to draw them to Jesus, because they weren’t putting themselves in a place where they would listen to God. Instead of listening to Jesus’ speech (John 8:43), and knowing his origin (cp. John 3:1-2) and believing God sent him with a message (cp. John 3:11-12), they sought for an opportunity to seize him and kill him (John 7:25). How could anyone behaving in such a manner be willing to listen for what God might tell him?
When folks begin with a certain worldview of the spirit world, it is difficult for them to see another worldview of spirits, when spirits are the subject of a discussion. Gentiles came out of the Greek worldview of the spirit world, and mistakenly read that worldview into the Bible, when it mentioned Satan and demons etc. Therefore, since this wasn’t corrected, many folks, even today, seem to believe that, when the Jewish authorities stubbornly rejected Jesus’ claim to his origin, he then resorted to an ad hominem slur, telling them they were of their father the Devil (John 8:44).
Nevertheless, the Bible never once speaks of an evil spirit being called the Devil or Satan. Those words mean slanderer (devil) and enemy (satan). In other words, the words describe the spiritual mood of human persons. For example, when two of David’s friends offered him evil advice, he called them his adversaries (2Samuel 19:22), and the same word translated adversaries is translated Satan in 1Chronicles 21:1 for no apparent reason other than the worldview of the translator.
In the case at hand, Jesus was referring to Adam, he was the father of lies. He lied to Eve about God, and in doing so, he not only murdered her but, in effect, the entire human race. Adam murdered humanity, and the Jewish authorities were murdering the very nation they led, because they refused to listen to the very one God sent to them to save them. Jesus claimed they would rather believe what the slander (the flesh/Adam) said against him than the truth he offered them.
Jesus concluded by saying because he tells them the truth, they don’t believe, and why? Not one of them was able to prove any of the lies (slander) they said about him, because Jesus told the truth and was able to support his claims. His miracles proved God was with him. Only those who are of God are able to hear him (cp. John 6:44-45). Yet, these men, these leaders of the nation, cannot hear him, because they’d rather believe lies (John 8:45-47).
Smoodock's Blog 
22 responses to “You Are of Your Father, the Devil!”
Forgive me Eddie…this response to Dave is way over 100 words. Dave, I too have wrestled with Matthew 22:31-32 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what God said to you: ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 40 years ago, at NOON, I a 32 year old homemaker, met a Greek Dr of Philosophy with an honorary degree in theology who was a renowned advisor to the 6th Assembly of the World Council of Churches. The issue then was man vs. woman. Not knowing who he was or what his name was, I said. “I don’t understand all the fuss over the issue of Man and Woman. It’s simple. I am a man. I am a female man. I am a member of the race man. You are a man. You are a male man. You too are a member of the race called man. He grinned. I continued. You –I suspect because you are here at this event–are a humanitarian. You help people. You are a helper, a helpmate of mankind.” His eyes lit up. I continued. “Therefore even though you’re a male, you can be a woman.” His whole body burst into a smile. I quickly added. “You are a male being, and you’re a helpmate of Man. Therefore, if I–a female being–can belong to the race ‘mankind’ surely you, a male being, can belong to the race ‘womankind.’” Because of this meeting, the Greek Teacher (philosopher and theologian) invited me to his table for dinner that evening. At that dinner I met Father Dimitri, a Roman Catholic Priest from the Vatican. He asked me what I thought about those outside the Assembly Gates protesting insisting the Anti-Christ was in attendance. I said they were probably Evangelicals who take the Scripture literally. He then said he took the Scriptures literally. I volleyed back saying how silly it is to think Moses actually heard God’s voice speaking to him from a burning bush. “There are so many more possibilities. A bush can be a person, you know–a sage. Or a bush can line a gun chamber or be a pivot hole. So perhaps Moses saw an exciting loophole in the law, and this loophole let him speak with God in a new and exciting way.” The Roman Father silenced me. He was pleased. Jubilant. Looked right into the Greek Teacher’s eyes and said. “Moses said he heard God speaking to him from a burning bush, and I believe him.” Since the 6th Assembly I have come to realize that one has to listen very closely to the words of the text and read between the lines. I had no idea then that the Greeks saw the Theotokos as a type of Burning Bush. 25 years later, I was a divorcee and in Master’s degree programme and could accept a call to write a paper on the environment at the Orthodox Academy of Crete for Ecothee 08. 6 months later I was widowed. My late husband Gordon Turner died on the 19th day of 09, on St Makarios’ feast day. Two years later, standing in the Garden planted at the Academy in such a way as to honour the tombs of the Nazi soldiers and the tombs of the Cretan partisans who resisted the Nazi invasion, I was not happy to think that it was God’s will that I would remain a widow as I and my new friends and colleagues worked toward the New Heaven and the New Earth dressed as a bride for her husband. In fact in 2012 I met a black man, the son of a Pentecostal preacher, who was a singer, songwriter and entertainer who had grown up in the civil rights era in Amherstburg Ontario, the terminus for the underground railway. Because the Greek’s name (that I met at the 6th Assembly) is Alexander and because he was one of the founders of the Academy and because I have red hair and because the man I met in 2012 who accompanied me to Ecothee 13 was black it became apparent to me that the Greeks looked upon him as the one called Simon the Cyrene who carried the Cross of Jesus and who was the Father of Alexander and his sister with the Rufus (red) coloured hair (Mark 15:21). Now I know what I didn’t know then.The Greeks of Vamos on the Island of Crete today still celebrate the feast of John the Baptist in the tradition of Apollo…who the Greeks believe was born in Alexander and came to life in Alexander’s city (Acts 18:24;28). So I have come to understand that at the Resurrection the dead people are not married. Only the “faithful” penitent are. Those that are just waking up like Simon a.k.a Cephas bar Jonah wait until they are sure their choice is a gift of God and that they are in love (and are ready to be brought together under the Divine canopy as pure as newborn babies (John 3:29; John 21:17) where a New Covenant is read by The Rabboni (the Teacher of Israel) (See Symbols of Judaism, Marc-Alain Ouaknin p.109). Dave feel free to disagree with me. I should have mentioned. The road leading out to the University of British Columbia, Canada where the 6th Assembly was held, winds around a beach called Jericho. The car I drove out to the Assembly was owned by my Mom and Step Dad whose last name was Solly. My first husband’s first name was Steven. And I am newly engaged and ready to be married to the black man who accompanied me to Crete in 2013 and 2019. I am guilty of Eisegesis, interpreting the Scripture in light of God working in and through me and the people and events God has brought into my life. Although I did successfully defend my Master’s thesis: Mary Magdalene:her image and relationship to Jesus as an Exegesis in 2011.
Yes, it is 10 times over, but I am less interested in length, as I am in content. If you are preaching, I’m more apt to edit the length. If you are actually explaining yourself and keeping with the context of what you are commenting on, I am more likely to leave what you post unedited.
I don’t see the connection between Matthew 22:31-32 and your meeting with a Greek philosopher.
I find this explanation of the male’s and female’s relationship with mankind intriguing. However, once you call the race ‘womankind’ you destroy your analogy. While I’m intrigued with the beginning of your thoughts, I don’t see the logic as you carry it through to the end.
It seems to me, Linda, the examples you offer are done to be argumentative. In the context of the Bible, bush is a living plant. What you offer are examples, which came into existence much later in our history. God speaking out of a burning bush is silly only because **you** say so.
Actually, it is a type of UNburnt bush. The term comes much later than Moses’ testimony in the Bible. Theotokos is Greek for ‘God’ (Theos) and ‘childbirth’ (tokos) (childbirth). It points to “Mary, the mother of God” But, Mary is not the **mother** of God. God is eternal, and Mary is not. The term, Theotokos is a philosophic term. God spoke from a burning bush, so we could say that God spoke out of Mary’s womb. It is wrong philosophy and a false Greek idea that has no place in truth.
I have no idea how this relates to anything in Dave’s comment or (by way of explanation) to your own comment.
Where are you going with this? What, if anything, does it have to do with the subject at hand or either Dave’s or your comments?
What a jump in the explanation of Matthew 22:31-32!!! Linda, just because you are able to **imagine** a thing, it doesn’t follow that the ‘thing’ you’ve imagined is true. This is eisegesis in its most definitive form. There is nothing in the text at Matthew 22:31-32 that would even faintly suggest or permit such an understanding. Moreover, there is nothing in the text elsewhere–in the entire Bible–that would suggest such an understanding. Why use the Bible at all? This stuff is nothing more than the product of your imagination running amock!
You mention two things that are correct at this point in your comment. First, you are, indeed, guilty of eisegesis. Secondly, God does, indeed, light up the scriptures by working through the events and the people he brings into your life. The scriptures refer to that as the ‘table of the Lord.’ However, once you interpret the events and people the Lord brings into your life in a manner that contradicts the word of God in the scriptures, you are no longer using the ‘table of the Lord’ to explain the word of God. God will never contradict himself. Therefore, if you contradict the word of God, you cannot be speaking for the Lord.
I don’t mean to hurt you or embarrass you, but in my limited understanding of scripture, I cannot find a different way to put this.
Linda, I’m sorry but you lost me about half-way through your dissertation. I will say that I do believe God has a plan for our lives. Experience has taught me that his plans for us are more easily understood as we look back. Trying to predict the future is tantamount to soothsaying.
I’m glad you found a companion and wish you the best. At this point I am going to bow out of this particular thread.
Eddie, again thanks for your studies; as always your analytical approach is refreshing as is your lack of dogma!
Eddie you certainly do not hurt me or embarrass me. On the contrary. Dave and Eddie… I have learned much from you. May the σάλιa of Jesus bring you mátia as wide and as watchful as almonds and May Mistress Mary quite contrary put a smile on your face and bring you Kaliméra and a σάλι to cover and protect you from the Noon day sun and the chill of the evening.