rwp - John:10:22-42

rwp@John:10:22 @{And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem} (\egeneto de ta enkainia en tois Ierosolumois\). But Westcott and Hort read \tote\ (then) instead of \de\ (and) on the authority of B L W 33 and some versions. This is probably correct: "At that time came the feast of dedication in Jerusalem." \Tote\ does not mean that the preceding events followed immediately after the incidents in strkjv@10:1-21|. Bernard brings chapter 9 up to this date (possibly also chapter 8) and rearranges chapter 10 in a purely arbitrary way. There is no real reason for this arrangement. Clearly there is a considerable lapse between the events in strkjv@10:22-39| and strkjv@10:1-21|, possibly nearly three months (from just after tabernacles strkjv@7:37| to dedication strkjv@10:22|). The Pharisees greet his return with the same desire to catch him. This feast of dedication, celebrated for eight days about the middle of our December, was instituted by Judas Maccabeus B.C. 164 in commemoration of the cleansing of the temple from the defilements of pagan worship by Antiochus Epiphanes (1Macc. strkjv@4:59). The word \enkainia\ (\en\, \kainos\, new) occurs here only in the N.T. It was not one of the great feasts and could be observed elsewhere without coming to Jerusalem. Jesus had apparently spent the time between tabernacles and dedication in Judea (Luke:10:1-13:21|). {Winter} (\cheimn\). Old word from \cheima\ (\che\, to pour, rain, or from \chin\, snow). See strkjv@Matthew:24:20|.

rwp@John:10:23 @{Was walking} (\periepatei\). Imperfect active of \peripate\, to walk around, picturesque imperfect. {In Solomon's porch} (\en ti stoi tou Solomnos\). A covered colonnade or portico in which people could walk in all weather. See strkjv@Acts:3:11; strkjv@5:12| for this porch. This particular part of Solomon's temple was left uninjured by the Babylonians and survived apparently till the destruction of the temple by Titus A.D. 70 (Josephus, _Ant_. XX. 9,7). When John wrote, it was, of course, gone.

rwp@John:10:24 @{Came round about him} (\ekuklsan auton\). Aorist active indicative of \kuklo\, old verb from \kuklos\ (cycle, circle). See strkjv@Acts:14:20| for the circle of disciples around Paul when stoned. Evidently the hostile Jews cherished the memory of the stinging rebuke given them by Jesus when here last, particularly the allegory of the Good Shepherd (10:1-19|), in which he drew so sharply their own picture. {How long dost thou hold us in suspense?} (\hes pote tn psuchn hmn aireis;\). Literally, "Until when dost thou lift up our soul?" But what do they mean by this metaphor? \Air\ is common enough to lift up the eyes (John:11:41|), the voice (Luke:17:13|), and in strkjv@Psalms:25:1; strkjv@86:4| (Josephus, _Ant_. III. ii. 3) we have "to lift up the soul." We are left to the context to judge the precise meaning. Clearly the Jews mean to imply doubt and suspense. The next remark makes it clear. {If thou art the Christ} (\ei su ei ho Christos\). Condition of first class assumed to be true for the sake of argument. {Tell us plainly} (\eipon hmin parrsii\). Conclusion with \eipon\ rather than the usual \eipe\ as if first aorist active imperative like \luson\. The point is in "plainly" (\parrsii\), adverb as in strkjv@7:13,26| which see. That is to say "I am the Christ" in so many words. See strkjv@11:14; strkjv@16:29| for the same use of \parrsii\. The demand seemed fair enough on the surface. They had made it before when here at the feast of tabernacles (8:25|). Jesus declined to use the word \Christos\ (Messiah) then as now because of the political bearing of the word in their minds. The populace in Galilee had once tried to make him king in opposition to Pilate (John:6:14f.|). When Jesus does confess on oath before Caiaphas that he is the Christ the Son of God (Mark:14:61f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:63f.|), the Sanhedrin instantly vote him guilty of blasphemy and then bring him to Pilate with the charge of claiming to be king as a rival to Caesar. Jesus knew their minds too well to be caught now.

rwp@John:10:25 @{I told you, and you believe not} (\eipon humin kai ou pisteuete\). It was useless to say more. In strkjv@7:14-10:18| Jesus had shown that he was the Son of the Father as he had previously claimed (5:17-47|), but it was all to no purpose save to increase their rage towards him. {These bear witness of me} (\tauta marturei peri emou\). His works confirm his words as he had shown before (5:36|). They believe neither his words nor his works.

rwp@John:10:26 @{Because ye are not of my sheep} (\hoti ek tn probatn mou\). This had been the point in the allegory of the Good Shepherd. In fact, they were the children of the devil in spirit and conduct (8:43|), pious ecclesiastics though they seemed, veritable wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew:7:15|).

rwp@John:10:27 @{My sheep} (\ta probata ta ema\). In contrast with you they are not in doubt and suspense. They know my voice and follow me. Repetition of the idea in strkjv@10:4,14|.

rwp@John:10:28 @{And I give unto them eternal life} (\kag didmi autois zn ainion\). This is the gift of Jesus now to his sheep as stated in strkjv@6:27,40| (cf. strkjv@1John:2:25; strkjv@5:11|). {And they shall never perish} (\kai ou m apolntai\). Emphatic double negative with second aorist middle (intransitive) subjunctive of \apollumi\, to destroy. The sheep may feel secure (3:16; strkjv@6:39; strkjv@17:12; strkjv@18:9|). {And no one shall snatch them out of my hand} (\kai ouch harpasei tis auta ek ts cheiros mou\). Jesus had promised this security in Galilee (6:37,39|). No wolf, no thief, no bandit, no hireling, no demon, not even the devil can pluck the sheep out of my hand. Cf. strkjv@Colossians:3:3| (Your life is hid together with Christ in God).

rwp@John:10:29 @{Which} (\hos\). Who. If \ho\ (which) is correct, we have to take \ho patr\ as nominative absolute or independent, "As for my Father." {Is greater than all} (\pantn meizn estin\). If we read \hos\. But Aleph B L W read \ho\ and A B Theta have \meizon\. The neuter seems to be correct (Westcott and Hort). But is it? If so, the meaning is: "As for my Father, that which he hath given me is greater than all." But the context calls for \hos... meizn\ with \ho patr\ as the subject of \estin\. The greatness of the Father, not of the flock, is the ground of the safety of the flock. Hence the conclusion that "no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."

rwp@John:10:30 @{One} (\hen\). Neuter, not masculine (\heis\). Not one person (cf. \heis\ in strkjv@Galatians:3:28|), but one essence or nature. By the plural \sumus\ (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by \unum\ Arius. Songs:Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John:5:18|). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30|). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (17:11, 21|). Note \hen\ used in strkjv@1Corinthians:3:3| of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in strkjv@17:11,23| of the hoped for unity of Christ's disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ's claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger.

rwp@John:10:31 @{Took up stones again} (\ebastasan palin lithous\). First aorist active indicative of \bastaz\, old verb to pick up, to carry (John:12:6|), to bear (Galatians:6:5|). The \palin\ refers to strkjv@John:8:59| where \ran\ was used. They wanted to kill him also when he made himself equal to God in strkjv@5:18|. Perhaps here \ebastasan\ means "they fetched stones from a distance." {To stone him} (\hina lithassin auton\). Final clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \lithaz\, late verb (Aristotle, Polybius) from \lithos\ (stone, small, strkjv@Matthew:4:6|, or large, strkjv@Matthew:28:2|), in strkjv@John:10:31-33; strkjv@11:8; strkjv@Acts:5:26; strkjv@14:19; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:25; strkjv@Hebrews:11:37|, but not in the Synoptics. It means to pelt with stones, to overwhelm with stones.

rwp@John:10:32 @{From the Father} (\ek tou patros\). Proceeding out of the Father as in strkjv@6:65; strkjv@16:28| (cf. strkjv@7:17; strkjv@8:42,47|) rather than \para\ as in strkjv@1:14; strkjv@6:46; strkjv@7:29; strkjv@17:7|. {For which of those works} (\dia poion autn ergon\). Literally, "For what kind of work of them" (referring to the "many good works" \polla erga kala\). Noble and beautiful deeds Jesus had done in Jerusalem like healing the impotent man (chapter 5) and the blind man (chapter 9). \Poion\ is a qualitative interrogative pronoun pointing to \kala\ (good). {Do ye stone me} (\lithazete\). Conative present active indicative, "are ye trying to stone me." They had the stones in their hands stretched back to fling at him, a threatening attitude.

rwp@John:10:33 @{For a good work we stone thee not} (\peri kalou ergou ou lithazomen\). "Concerning a good deed we are not stoning thee." Flat denial that the healing of the blind man on the Sabbath had led them to this attempt (8:59|) in spite of the facts. {But for blasphemy} (\alla peri blasphmias\). See strkjv@Acts:26:7| where \peri\ with the genitive is also used with \egkaloumai\ for the charge against Paul. This is the only example in John of the word \blasphmia\ (cf. strkjv@Matthew:12:31|). {And because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God} (\kai hoti su anthrpos n poieis seauton theon\). In strkjv@5:18| they stated the charge more accurately: "He called God his own Father, making himself equal with God." That is, he made himself the Son of God. This he did beyond a doubt. But was it blasphemy? Only if he was not the Son of God. The penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning (Leviticus:24:16; strkjv@1Kings:21:10,13|).

rwp@John:10:34 @{Is it not written?} (\ouk estin gegrammenon;\). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of \graph\ (as in strkjv@2:17|) in place of the usual \gegraptai\. "Does it not stand written?" {In your law} (\en ti nomi humn\). From strkjv@Psalms:82:6|. The term \nomos\ (law) applying here to the entire O.T. as in strkjv@12:34; strkjv@15:25; strkjv@Romans:3:19; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:21|. Aleph D Syr-sin. omit \humn\, but needlessly. We have it already so from Jesus in strkjv@8:17|. They posed as the special custodians of the O.T. {I said} (\hoti eg eipa\). Recitative \hoti\ before a direct quotation like our quotation marks. \Eipa\ is a late second aorist form of indicative with \-a\ instead of \-on\. {Ye are gods} (\theoi este\). Another direct quotation after \eipa\ but without \hoti\. The judges of Israel abused their office and God is represented in strkjv@Psalms:82:6| as calling them "gods" (\theoi\, _elohim_) because they were God's representatives. See the same use of _elohim_ in strkjv@Exodus:21:6; strkjv@22:9,28|. Jesus meets the rabbis on their own ground in a thoroughly Jewish way.

rwp@John:10:35 @{If he called them gods} (\ei ekeinous eipen theous\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. The conclusion (verse 36|) is \humeis legete\; ({Do ye say?}). As Jews (and rabbis) they are shut out from charging Jesus with blasphemy because of this usage in the O.T. It is a complete _ad hominem_ argument. To be sure, it is in strkjv@Psalms:82:6| a lower use of the term \theos\, but Jesus did not call himself "Son of Jahweh," but "\huios theou\" which can mean only "Son of _Elohim_." It must not be argued, as some modern men do, that Jesus thus disclaims his own deity. He does nothing of the kind. He is simply stopping the mouths of the rabbis from the charge of blasphemy and he does it effectually. The sentence is quite involved, but can be cleared up. {To whom the word of God came} (\pros hous ho logos tou theou egeneto\). The relative points to \ekeinous\, before. These judges had no other claim to the term \theoi\ (_elohim_). {And the scripture cannot be broken} (\kai ou dunatai luthnai h graph\). A parenthesis that drives home the pertinency of the appeal, one that the Pharisees had to accept. \Luthnai\ is first aorist passive infinitive of \lu\, to loosen, to break.

rwp@John:10:36 @{Of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world} (\hon ho patr hgiasen kai apesteilen eis ton kosmon\). Another relative clause with the antecedent (\touton\, it would be, object of \legete\) unexpressed. Every word counts heavily here in contrast with the mere judges of strkjv@Psalms:82:6|. {Thou blasphemest} (\hoti blasphmeis\). Recitative \hoti\ again before direct quotation. {Because I said} (\hoti eipon\). Causal use of \hoti\ and regular form \eipon\ (cf. \eipa\ in verse 34|). {I am the Son of God} (\huios tou theou eimi\). Direct quotation again after \eipon\. This Jesus had implied long before as in strkjv@2:16| (my Father) and had said in strkjv@5:18-30| (the Father, the Son), in strkjv@9:35| in some MSS., and virtually in strkjv@10:30|. They will make this charge against Jesus before Pilate (19:7|). Jesus does not use the article here with \huios\, perhaps (Westcott) fixing attention on the character of Son rather than on the person as in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2|. There is no answer to this question with its arguments.

rwp@John:10:37 @{If I do not} (\ei ou poi\). Condition of first class, assumed as true, with negative \ou\, not \ei m\=unless. {Believe me not} (\m pisteuete moi\). Prohibition with \m\ and the present active imperative. Either "cease believing me" or "do not have the habit of believing me." Jesus rests his case on his doing the works of "my Father" (\tou patros mou\), repeating his claims to sonship and deity.

rwp@John:10:38 @{But if I do} (\ei de poi\). Condition again of the first class, assumed as true, but with the opposite results. {Though ye believe not me} (\kan emoi m pisteute\). Condition now of third class, undetermined (but with prospect), "Even if you keep on (present active subjunctive of \pisteuo\) not believing me." {Believe the works} (\tois ergois pisteuete\). These stand irrefutable. The claims, character, words, and works of Jesus challenge the world today as then. {That ye may know and understand} (\hina gnte kai ginskte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the same verb \ginsk\ repeated in different tenses (first \gnte\, the second ingressive aorist active subjunctive, that ye may come to know; then the present active subjunctive, "that ye may keep on knowing"). This is Christ's deepest wish about his enemies who stand with stones in their uplifted hands to fling at him. {That the Father is in me, and I in the Father} (\hoti en emoi ho patr kag en ti patri\). Thus he repeats (verse 30|) sharply his real claim to oneness with the Father as his Son, to actual deity. It was a hopeless wish.

rwp@John:10:39 @{They sought again to seize him} (\eztoun auton palin piazai\). Imperfect active, "They kept on seeking to seize (ingressive aorist active infinitive of \piaz\ for which see strkjv@7:30|) as they had tried repeatedly (7:1,30,44; strkjv@8:20|), but in vain. They gave up the effort to stone him. {Out of their hand} (\ek ts cheiros autn\). Overawed, but still angry, the stones fell to the ground, and Jesus walked out.

rwp@John:10:40 @{Again} (\palin\). Referring to strkjv@1:28| (Bethany beyond Jordan). \Palin\ does not mean that the other visit was a recent one. {At the first} (\to prton\). Adverbial accusative (extent of time). Same idiom in strkjv@12:16; strkjv@19:39|. Here the identical language of strkjv@1:28| is used with the mere addition of \to prton\ (\hopou n Ians baptizn\, "where John was baptizing"). {And there he abode} (\kai emenen ekei\). Imperfect (continued) active of \men\, though some MSS. have the constative aorist active \emeinen\. Probably from here Jesus carried on the first part of the later Perean Ministry (Luke:13:22-16:10|) before the visit to Bethany at the raising of Lazarus (John:11:1-44|).

rwp@John:10:41 @{Many came to him} (\polloi lthon pros auton\). Jesus was busy here and in a more congenial atmosphere than Jerusalem. John wrought no signs the crowds recall, though Jesus did many here (Matthew:19:2|). The crowds still bear the impress of John's witness to Christ as "true" (\alth\). Here was prepared soil for Christ.

rwp@John:10:42 @{Many believed on him there} (\polloi episteusan eis auton ekei\). See strkjv@1:12; strkjv@2:11| for same idiom. Striking witness to the picture of the Messiah drawn by John. When Jesus came they recognized the original. See strkjv@John:1:29-34|. What about our sermons about Jesus if he were to walk down the aisle in visible form according to A.J. Gordon's dream?